Why doesn't medium format have high ISOs?

[studio311]

My eyes tell me Medium format digital kills 35mm digital in terms of IQ. I simply can't understand how someone could dispute this.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

My eyes tell me Medium format digital kills 35mm digital in terms of IQ. I simply can't understand how someone could dispute this.

It's easy. I'm a human being , with two pretty good human eyes, artistic training, and a functional brain. I've shot MF and 35mm digital, side by side , processed both well, and printed them at the same size, and my eyes tell me that the difference is trivial and that the MF kills nothing at all.

I simply can't understand how someone could come here, after 2 weeks and 7 posts on dpReview, with an anonymous name, make proclamations about what kills what, and expect anyone to take him seriously.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Deleted-pending]

some guys really think that paying 40k in digital medium format gear will make them look more pro. It's a bit like the macintosh euphory : pay more, be white = be rich & wealthy & show it. I have nothing against the brand itself, just the way it is promoted or the way some comunities make some global agreement which becomes a common society "rule".

The only difference in medium format besides the higher MP (which is in the way of beeing crossed by FF cameras) is the depth of field effect & crop factor. The 1st can be easily imitated with 1.4 FF lenses (very few medium format lenses are 1.4, they usually start at 2.8 which is comparable to 1.4 FF). I would love to see some cheap DX-FX rangefinders coming out using squared 24x24mm 21MP sensors with regular FX mount. Just because I love the squared format.

Finally, yes, more money is invested in DX & FX sensor technology. Evolution goes faster & high dynamic range sensors will soon come out on the market.

Henri Cartier bresson live in an era whre large format was considered as noble photography & medium format users as family snappers. He broke the rules using some very high quality top sharp leica lenses & fast thin grained film & sticked to that.

He proved by his talent & gear that shooting art shots with light & smaller gear (&film) was totally possible.

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

to everyone except Billx08 for continuing with this OT detour. If the thread was going fast and interesting, I wouldn't, and I guess if they really though this dialogue was blocking up an interesting thread, the mods would delete it, so until they do, I hope you'll forgive me for continuing to defend myself against the stream of abuse.

Anyway, to Mr X,
...[snip most of the diatribe because it's just repeating stuff that has already been rebutted.]

Go back through this thread and your hijacking of it towards your paranoid agenda

 The place where the hijacking of this thread started was here and it is nearly indistinguishable in tone and topic from the way Croc and Shull used to hijack threads into oblivion :

Well, we get another lecture in sensor theology here.

Simply science and engineering, not theology.

By that reasoning, with read noise at, say 1/8^=2^-3 electron, we only need 32=2^5 electrons to achieve 8 stops DR! emoticon - wink

I think you've just discovered that little thing about noise being scale dependent. Talking about noise on the basis of a single observation makes no sense. Over a number of observations, the DR is indeed 8 stops. And since the shot noise SNR of the whites will be only 5.7, it'll be nicely dithered so it'll look smoothly gradated.

Well, noise in a single pixel (one observation) means nothing, so you'll have to define the range of observation over which the noise is observed

 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35814241

That's a strange place to label as the point of hijack. For a start, it's completely on-topic - the subject of the thread is 'Why doesn't medium format have high ISOs?' and the discussion of read noise is completely germane to that. For a second, that subthread started two posts higher, here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35795909
so if you want to accuse anyone of hijacking the thread it should be criticall.
Of course the real culprit is you. You made one attempt to hijack here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35797419
When it was clear I wasn't playing, you tried again here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35815734
and here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35821490

As to what's your hijack agenda? Well I've had to dig a bit through your'posting history to find th root of it. Seems you were pretty much exposed as talking nonsense by Crocodile Gena in this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=35477131

your contention was that it's high ISO settings that cause 'ISO noise', Joe's (correctly) that it is low exposure. You respond with insults and the tone is set
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=35480944

and in the end Joe wins the argument hands down (mainly because what he says is the truth). I note here you're wrongly identifying Joe with 'Shull Bitter'. somthing you've been doing for months
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=34675541
(Post dated March 1st) -BTW interesting thread that, must do it again sometime.

So, it's rather plain that the hikacker is you, and you're obsessively scratching an itch that's been bothering you for months.

And the real thing causing your itch is that Joe showed you up as not having the knowledge that you purport to. Just get over it, we all make mistakes sometimes. Trying to get back for months at the person who exposed your mistake just makes you seem self-obsessed and mad. This is how it should be done:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35816170
Someone corrects someone (tersely but not rudely);
The person corrected demonstrates that they were right;
The erroneous corrector acknowledges gracefully.

That makes it last three posts, rather than however many it is now, going back over months.

On another matter and your bogus outrage at my choice of nick. There is an interesting thing emerging from the previously quoted thread. Joe made this strange comment ' I like the horse pic in your galleries. What are your other hobbies aside from photography?'. The pic he was referring to was this (warning to the easily offended, it's a horse's *****)*
http://g2.img-dpreview.com/37550E0B0CC641B2A37DB5FE5FCC9CAC.jpg
under the name of 'The Big One'.
at that time in your gallery, now in the gallery of one 'Alvin Chipmunk'
What was that about bad taste?
And that about hiding behind anonymous nicks?

Now, if you don't mind, I'm sure everyone has had quite enough of your hypocrisy, so if you've nothing useful to contribute to this thread, why not just STɈU?

* and if you want to take that as evidence that Joe and I am the same person, he emailed me at the time, because he was both amazed at your hypocrisy and pretty pleased with himself for what he thought was a clever riposte. The trouble with ripostes like that is they just cause sores that go on itching for months.

 

[Billx08]

. . .

* and if you want to take that as evidence that Joe and I am the same person, he emailed me at the time, because he was both amazed at your hypocrisy and pretty pleased with himself for what he thought was a clever riposte. The trouble with ripostes like that is they just cause sores that go on itching for months.

Yet another foolish assumption, that I'd ever remotely consider that you and Joseph (he chafes when people call him Joe unless he likes them) are the same person. He can also be abrasive but he's much more knowledgeable than you, on so many different topics that it should be enough to make the head of your sock spin. But thanks for proving my point that he'd hardly appear to be a fair, unbiased, impartial arbitrator. Even if he strained mightily to be one, recusal would now be overwhelmingly called for. I'm sure that he'll forgive you for your inadvertent, unthinking slip.

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

in this case, wrong Joe.

 

[Billx08]

in this case, wrong Joe.

That's ok. Say hello to Sybil.