Am I the only person looking at the sensor dimensions and thinking "they get away with calling THAT medium format these days?... and people pay what?!"
Really, I'd just assumed "dMF" was worthwhile and comparable to MF (120/220). Are these figures for real?
This shouldn't be called anything more than a FF+, it isn't even 2" wide. Not good enough.
While I don't think I'd ever want an 8x10, a digital 4x3" sounds just about right. Though they should probably design the lenses for a 5x4" sensor and then just use the largest sensors available (kind of like ten years ago).
Leica uses a similar sized sensor in the S system and they call it "Pro Format",It's not a replacement for a Phase/Hasselblad FF sensor.
The rules of sensor size and resolving power are different between digital and film!FF digital like the D800e can out resolve 645 film,and on landscape magazine ran a great test that compares formats,the IQ180 can easily match 5x4 film .. see this article.. http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
Oh, I'm actually thinking Physics here... I can show people photographs of my MF negs on my iPod screen and say "that's about actual size of the negatives, I've just inverted the colours" - and it's true, for anyone wondering what the standard SMALLEST MF frame's size is... That's 4.5 x 6cm, though 6 x 6 is the square standard, and 6 x 9cm or 6 x ~12cm for mechanical/panoramic negs... anything smaller than my 4.5 x 6cm sounds kinda' silly and unnecessary to me when we've got 35mm films and equivalent sensors knocking about, relatively for peanuts.
I'm by no means a clueless amateur, I'd just assumed digital Medium Format was a real luxury that was currently financially out of my reach - I've shot (still do for wildlife) APSc, moved to full frame and personal preference has me shooting sharp, fast primes... I appreciate the physics and look at APSc/FF as crops/expansions of the same projected image, DoF and all (hence my thread on the possibility of low MP, low light
APSc sensor shooters that all went a bit silly) ...
So I'm genuinely shocked that in my ignorance I believed there was a proper step up in sensor real estate to be lusted after, alas, er... this.
Also, "proper" MF lenses are relatively massive for SLR models' flange distance - and as such, primes are around f/2.8 max, if they don't push much beyond this for these tiny crops it really seems to me they're just playing with people's fad-lusting and I'm much happier saving a few dozen grand and shooting 35mm at ~f/1.4 and slapping some 120 in the back of my Bronica for kicks!
dMF, eh? I'll put that in the pile of not-for-mes with m43...
Though if I get rich quick, I might give that "cheap" Pentax a go
So no, I wasn't even stepping into IQ territory, just mere "Composition Quality", how naive of me
Bonus thoughts: asides from mass-production set-up costs, what would reeeally be the financial and practical restrictions of seamlessly sticking 2x 6D sensors worth of pixels next to eachother to create a 36 x 48cm or similar sensor? Yeah, I went there...