Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!

[RLPhoto]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. ;D

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.

and what has that to do with the earlier answers from Jrista or Mikael?

For equivalent focal length, framing, and film, A larger format will always resolve more detail.

 

[jrista]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. ;D

Again you are talking about two things, is it DR we are talking about? Then it is clear that Nikon is the winner. FWC and read noise, nothing else than pure physics.
Is it resolution we are discussing, then you can optimize lenses who are smaller in diameter = 24x36 just like the manufacturers do for smaller sensors than 24x36mm . What's needed is gained contrast and resolution that is in proportion of the loss with the smaller sensor. BUT the 24x36 is light years ahead of a MF sensor and MF lenses has lower contrast and lower resolution per area unit so that is not so big deal as it is to use the same Canon lens on a 24x36 and a APS 18Mp to get the same contrast. signal/noise etc
You must be the one of the most uncomprehending persons here at CR. I suggest that you read and study the subject and try to understand a little before you so consistently pronounce your things

35mm does not have the detail of a larger format. Period. End of story. There is no argument here, it's a fact.

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

 

[RLPhoto]

se answers above , physical conditions, everything is NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.

 

[jrista]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. ;D

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.

But that was not the argument I made. I stated that an 80mp FF and 80mp MFD would fare the same, I never said anything about a 200mp MFD. The same would hold true if you compared a 200mp FF and 200mp MFD...same aperture, same exposure time for same pixels on subject, S/N of each pixel is going to be identical for both sensors. Technically speaking, it does not really matter what the ratio of pixel size is between two sensors, the point is that when you use the same physical aperture and same exposure time while putting the same number of pixels on subject, S/N at the sensor is the same, REGARDLESS of what the FWC of any given pixel might be. That's because it is the lens that determines ratio of light. Increasing ISO just lowers the saturation point, and electronically amplifies the signal...it does not actually change the amount of light reaching the sensor. When each pixel covers the same amount of area on the subject and receive the same amount of light, physical dimensions of either the sensor or the pixels don't matter.

My argument, all things being equal, is that a 35mm sensor CAN INDEED PERFORM THE SAME as a medium format sensor. Read the article I've linked twice now, and you'll understand. (BTW, my argument has little to do with DR, that's another discussion I'd rather not start.)

 

[RLPhoto]

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

 

[jrista]

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

Your changing your argument now, though. Which is fine, and yes, if you stuffed more pixels into the MFD sensor and framed your subjects the same, the MFD would put more pixels on subject, and thus have more detail overall. But that wasn't the original argument...your original argument was that no matter what, MFD is and will always be better. That is not necessarily true. There are a few ways where 35mm can outperform MFD, especially with a sensor like Exmor.

 

[RLPhoto]

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

Your changing your argument now, though. Which is fine, and yes, if you stuffed more pixels into the MFD sensor and framed your subjects the same, the MFD would put more pixels on subject, and thus have more detail overall. But that wasn't the original argument...your original argument was that no matter what, MFD is and will always be better. That is not necessarily true. There are a few ways where 35mm can outperform MFD, especially with a sensor like Exmor.

Thats Right, MF will always be better than 35mm for resolving detail. Even if the MP counts are the same, MF will still be better.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

IE: If you have a 12mp FF sensor, That would be around a 30mp Medium format sensor. Be fair with the pixel density. There is no replacement for displacement. There is no replacement for a larger sensor.

 

[jrista]

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

Your changing your argument now, though. Which is fine, and yes, if you stuffed more pixels into the MFD sensor and framed your subjects the same, the MFD would put more pixels on subject, and thus have more detail overall. But that wasn't the original argument...your original argument was that no matter what, MFD is and will always be better. That is not necessarily true. There are a few ways where 35mm can outperform MFD, especially with a sensor like Exmor.

Thats Right, MF will always be better than 35mm for resolving detail. Even if the MP counts are the same, MF will still be better.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

IE: If you have a 12mp FF sensor, That would be around a 30mp Medium format sensor. Be fair with the pixel density. There is no replacement for displacement. There is no replacement for a larger sensor.

You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame.

A simple example here would be in a reach-limited scenario. If you are physically incapable of getting closer to your subject, and cannot user a longer lens, then a sensor with smaller pixels is the solution. MFD sensors are large, and have large pixels. Increasingly, their pixels are 2x the size of a FF sensor, and even larger than the pixels found in APS-C sensors. That means you can't put as many pixels on subject with the MFD, so either a FF or an APS-C DSLR sensor is going to be better...it'll put more pixels on subject, and assuming you use a lens with a similar entrance pupil, you'll achieve the same S/N. Focal length doesn't even necessarily matter in this scenario....entrance pupil size, exposure time, and # of pixels on subject are all that really matter to normalize S/N across sensors regardless of sensor dimensions or pixel pitch.

So your assertion that MFD is and always will be better is ignoring some of the facts. I'm trying to point out that you CAN get results just as good, if not better, with a physically smaller sensor with physically smaller pixels. The reason for this is Etendue. Roger Clark clearly, mathematically and visually, demonstrates how and why the 7D can and is better in many situations than a 1D IV (APS-H) or 5D II (FF). Just because a sensor is 44x33mm in size doesn't mean it is magically excluded from the facts.

Your contorting your argument to make it sound as though MFD sensors always have more pixels, which is not actually the case. Hassy has a 30mp MFD, which is actually FEWER pixels than the D800's 36.3mp. In just about every scenario, the D800 will outperform the 30mp Hassy MFD, and not necessarily because of the improved DR. Because it is easier to bet pixels on subject, and because there are lenses that exist for DSLR that have immense physical apertures (such as a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4). The best thing Hasselblad has to offer in their H-system is a 300mm f/4.5. Lets even assume you use a H4D-50 (btw, H4D-200ms is still actually a 50mp sensor, it just integrates their "multi-shot" technology...you could achieve the same results with a pano rig or a Tilt/Shift lens and a normal DSLR) with the 300mm f/4.5, and compare it to a D800 with a 300mm f/2.8. The hassy has 6 micron pixels, where as the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. If you shoot the same scene from the same distance, the D800 is going to take the upper hand here every time (even ignoring its better DR). Smaller pixels, larger physical aperture, more light on the sensor, higher S/N for that particular exposure for a greater number of pixels on subject. If you stop the D800 down to f/4.5, it will still win out because it puts more pixels on subject, even though the two exposures will have the same S/N.

I'm not saying medium-format cameras are not awesome cameras. They most certainly are, and when used for the things they were designed to be used for, such as studio photography where there is nothing to limit you from putting as many pixels on subject as possible (fill the frame), they can and will produce stellar IQ. Assuming you use a MFD with more pixels than a comparable DSLR (i.e. you use a 40, 50, 60, or 80 megapixel MFD), and fill the frame, then yes, MFD will also outperform 35mm. On the flip side, you need to acknowledge that there are situations where 35mm FF or even APS-C DSLR's are the FAR better tool for the job, and they can produce better IQ for those kinds of work than a medium-format digital camera could ever hope to aspire to.

 

[RLPhoto]

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

Your changing your argument now, though. Which is fine, and yes, if you stuffed more pixels into the MFD sensor and framed your subjects the same, the MFD would put more pixels on subject, and thus have more detail overall. But that wasn't the original argument...your original argument was that no matter what, MFD is and will always be better. That is not necessarily true. There are a few ways where 35mm can outperform MFD, especially with a sensor like Exmor.

Thats Right, MF will always be better than 35mm for resolving detail. Even if the MP counts are the same, MF will still be better.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

IE: If you have a 12mp FF sensor, That would be around a 30mp Medium format sensor. Be fair with the pixel density. There is no replacement for displacement. There is no replacement for a larger sensor.

You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame.

A simple example here would be in a reach-limited scenario. If you are physically incapable of getting closer to your subject, and cannot user a longer lens, then a sensor with smaller pixels is the solution. MFD sensors are large, and have large pixels. Increasingly, their pixels are 2x the size of a FF sensor, and even larger than the pixels found in APS-C sensors. That means you can't put as many pixels on subject with the MFD, so either a FF or an APS-C DSLR sensor is going to be better...it'll put more pixels on subject, and assuming you use a lens with a similar entrance pupil, you'll achieve the same S/N. Focal length doesn't even necessarily matter in this scenario....entrance pupil size, exposure time, and # of pixels on subject are all that really matter to normalize S/N across sensors regardless of sensor dimensions or pixel pitch.

So your assertion that MFD is and always will be better is ignoring some of the facts. I'm trying to point out that you CAN get results just as good, if not better, with a physically smaller sensor with physically smaller pixels. The reason for this is Etendue. Roger Clark clearly, mathematically and visually, demonstrates how and why the 7D can and is better in many situations than a 1D IV (APS-H) or 5D II (FF). Just because a sensor is 44x33mm in size doesn't mean it is magically excluded from the facts.

Your contorting your argument to make it sound as though MFD sensors always have more pixels, which is not actually the case. Hassy has a 30mp MFD, which is actually FEWER pixels than the D800's 36.3mp. In just about every scenario, the D800 will outperform the 30mp Hassy MFD, and not necessarily because of the improved DR. Because it is easier to bet pixels on subject, and because there are lenses that exist for DSLR that have immense physical apertures (such as a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4). The best thing Hasselblad has to offer in their H-system is a 300mm f/4.5. Lets even assume you use a H4D-50 (btw, H4D-200ms is still actually a 50mp sensor, it just integrates their "multi-shot" technology...you could achieve the same results with a pano rig or a Tilt/Shift lens and a normal DSLR) with the 300mm f/4.5, and compare it to a D800 with a 300mm f/2.8. The hassy has 6 micron pixels, where as the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. If you shoot the same scene from the same distance, the D800 is going to take the upper hand here every time (even ignoring its better DR). Smaller pixels, larger physical aperture, more light on the sensor, higher S/N for that particular exposure for a greater number of pixels on subject. If you stop the D800 down to f/4.5, it will still win out because it puts more pixels on subject, even though the two exposures will have the same S/N.

I'm not saying medium-format cameras are not awesome cameras. They most certainly are, and when used for the things they were designed to be used for, such as studio photography where there is nothing to limit you from putting as many pixels on subject as possible (fill the frame), they can and will produce stellar IQ. Assuming you use a MFD with more pixels than a comparable DSLR (i.e. you use a 40, 50, 60, or 80 megapixel MFD), and fill the frame, then yes, MFD will also outperform 35mm. On the flip side, you need to acknowledge that there are situations where 35mm FF or even APS-C DSLR's are the FAR better tool for the job, and they can produce better IQ for those kinds of work than a medium-format digital camera could ever hope to aspire to.

We're not discussing about limited reach, we're not discussing 35mm's versatility and we're not discussing the impracticality of the MF system, or the extreme im-practicality of a 4x5 view camera.

We are discussing the resolving power of two different formats. 35mm & MF.

You can't say 35mm resolves more that MF. It simply doesn't and never will.

Likewise, You won't see anyone go shoot a motorsports race with a MF camera. It's just not practical. I'm not saying 35mm has its place, It does and thats why Photojournalists aren't using garraflexes anymore. I feel 22MP is more than enough for 35mm. It can make great 24x36 prints. ;D

But when push comes to shove, NO 35mm system will ever resolve more than larger formats MF or LF. Period. End of Story. Its Fact.

 

[jrista]

You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame.

A simple example here would be in a reach-limited scenario. If you are physically incapable of getting closer to your subject, and cannot user a longer lens, then a sensor with smaller pixels is the solution. MFD sensors are large, and have large pixels. Increasingly, their pixels are 2x the size of a FF sensor, and even larger than the pixels found in APS-C sensors. That means you can't put as many pixels on subject with the MFD, so either a FF or an APS-C DSLR sensor is going to be better...it'll put more pixels on subject, and assuming you use a lens with a similar entrance pupil, you'll achieve the same S/N. Focal length doesn't even necessarily matter in this scenario....entrance pupil size, exposure time, and # of pixels on subject are all that really matter to normalize S/N across sensors regardless of sensor dimensions or pixel pitch.

So your assertion that MFD is and always will be better is ignoring some of the facts. I'm trying to point out that you CAN get results just as good, if not better, with a physically smaller sensor with physically smaller pixels. The reason for this is Etendue. Roger Clark clearly, mathematically and visually, demonstrates how and why the 7D can and is better in many situations than a 1D IV (APS-H) or 5D II (FF). Just because a sensor is 44x33mm in size doesn't mean it is magically excluded from the facts.

Your contorting your argument to make it sound as though MFD sensors always have more pixels, which is not actually the case. Hassy has a 30mp MFD, which is actually FEWER pixels than the D800's 36.3mp. In just about every scenario, the D800 will outperform the 30mp Hassy MFD, and not necessarily because of the improved DR. Because it is easier to bet pixels on subject, and because there are lenses that exist for DSLR that have immense physical apertures (such as a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4). The best thing Hasselblad has to offer in their H-system is a 300mm f/4.5. Lets even assume you use a H4D-50 (btw, H4D-200ms is still actually a 50mp sensor, it just integrates their "multi-shot" technology...you could achieve the same results with a pano rig or a Tilt/Shift lens and a normal DSLR) with the 300mm f/4.5, and compare it to a D800 with a 300mm f/2.8. The hassy has 6 micron pixels, where as the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. If you shoot the same scene from the same distance, the D800 is going to take the upper hand here every time (even ignoring its better DR). Smaller pixels, larger physical aperture, more light on the sensor, higher S/N for that particular exposure for a greater number of pixels on subject. If you stop the D800 down to f/4.5, it will still win out because it puts more pixels on subject, even though the two exposures will have the same S/N.

I'm not saying medium-format cameras are not awesome cameras. They most certainly are, and when used for the things they were designed to be used for, such as studio photography where there is nothing to limit you from putting as many pixels on subject as possible (fill the frame), they can and will produce stellar IQ. Assuming you use a MFD with more pixels than a comparable DSLR (i.e. you use a 40, 50, 60, or 80 megapixel MFD), and fill the frame, then yes, MFD will also outperform 35mm. On the flip side, you need to acknowledge that there are situations where 35mm FF or even APS-C DSLR's are the FAR better tool for the job, and they can produce better IQ for those kinds of work than a medium-format digital camera could ever hope to aspire to.

We're not discussing about limited reach, we're not discussing 35mm's versatility and we're not discussing the impracticality of the MF system, or the extreme im-practicality of a 4x5 view camera.

Well, no...my reply to you was in regards to the finality in your argument, the "simply fact" statements. Which is demonstrably NOT true, and I've linked external resources that provide the theory that explains why.

We are discussing the resolving power of two different formats. 35mm & MF.

You can't say 35mm resolves more that MF. It simply doesn't and never will.

That's plain and simply untrue. A D800 sensor, from a spatial resolution standpoint, resolves more than a 40mp, 50mp, or 60mp Hasselblad. All three of those sensors are different dimensions, and all three of them have 6 micron pixels. The D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels. A D3200 has 3.8 micron pixels. From a spatial resolution standpoint, all three of those cameras "out resolve" all of the hasselblad sensors. You might be able to put more pixels on subject with a hassy, but spatially, you aren't resolving more, you are just recording an image of a greater physical area. Different things. For the kinds of scenes you photograph with a MFD, you could just slap a T/S lens on a D800 and in a few seconds a set of six photos that can be stitched together to make a photo around 250-300mp (same exact thing the H4D-200MS does...only with MORE resolution.)

Likewise, You won't see anyone go shoot a motorsports race with a MF camera. It's just not practical. I'm not saying 35mm has its place, It does and thats why Photojournalists aren't using garraflexes anymore. I feel 22MP is more than enough for 35mm. It can make great 24x36 prints. ;D

Your contradicting your own statements here. As I indicated above, FF and APS-C DSLR's can and do "resolve" more detail than a medium format. They are also far better suited to many forms of photography, and in many cases just as capable as a MFD in other types of photography. You absolutest statements about MFD being unbeatable period forever and ever are falling apart here.

But when push comes to shove, NO 35mm system will ever resolve more than larger formats MF or LF. Period. End of Story. Its Fact.

You need to properly qualify that statement with "when MF has more total pixels." You are also assuming that 35mm will never have as many pixels as MDF...that is just an assumption. There are prototypical sensors that pack FAR more pixels into FF and APS-H sensor area, with higher readout rates than any comparable MFD sensor. Technologically speaking, DSLR sensors could make some even more significant leaps (above and beyond what Sony Exmor has done) past anything MFD has so far provided, or might provide in the same timeframe. So stating "Period. End of Story. Its Fact." is also simply an anecdote, an assumption...and therefor not a fact.

 

[RLPhoto]

You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame.

A simple example here would be in a reach-limited scenario. If you are physically incapable of getting closer to your subject, and cannot user a longer lens, then a sensor with smaller pixels is the solution. MFD sensors are large, and have large pixels. Increasingly, their pixels are 2x the size of a FF sensor, and even larger than the pixels found in APS-C sensors. That means you can't put as many pixels on subject with the MFD, so either a FF or an APS-C DSLR sensor is going to be better...it'll put more pixels on subject, and assuming you use a lens with a similar entrance pupil, you'll achieve the same S/N. Focal length doesn't even necessarily matter in this scenario....entrance pupil size, exposure time, and # of pixels on subject are all that really matter to normalize S/N across sensors regardless of sensor dimensions or pixel pitch.

So your assertion that MFD is and always will be better is ignoring some of the facts. I'm trying to point out that you CAN get results just as good, if not better, with a physically smaller sensor with physically smaller pixels. The reason for this is Etendue. Roger Clark clearly, mathematically and visually, demonstrates how and why the 7D can and is better in many situations than a 1D IV (APS-H) or 5D II (FF). Just because a sensor is 44x33mm in size doesn't mean it is magically excluded from the facts.

Your contorting your argument to make it sound as though MFD sensors always have more pixels, which is not actually the case. Hassy has a 30mp MFD, which is actually FEWER pixels than the D800's 36.3mp. In just about every scenario, the D800 will outperform the 30mp Hassy MFD, and not necessarily because of the improved DR. Because it is easier to bet pixels on subject, and because there are lenses that exist for DSLR that have immense physical apertures (such as a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4). The best thing Hasselblad has to offer in their H-system is a 300mm f/4.5. Lets even assume you use a H4D-50 (btw, H4D-200ms is still actually a 50mp sensor, it just integrates their "multi-shot" technology...you could achieve the same results with a pano rig or a Tilt/Shift lens and a normal DSLR) with the 300mm f/4.5, and compare it to a D800 with a 300mm f/2.8. The hassy has 6 micron pixels, where as the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. If you shoot the same scene from the same distance, the D800 is going to take the upper hand here every time (even ignoring its better DR). Smaller pixels, larger physical aperture, more light on the sensor, higher S/N for that particular exposure for a greater number of pixels on subject. If you stop the D800 down to f/4.5, it will still win out because it puts more pixels on subject, even though the two exposures will have the same S/N.

I'm not saying medium-format cameras are not awesome cameras. They most certainly are, and when used for the things they were designed to be used for, such as studio photography where there is nothing to limit you from putting as many pixels on subject as possible (fill the frame), they can and will produce stellar IQ. Assuming you use a MFD with more pixels than a comparable DSLR (i.e. you use a 40, 50, 60, or 80 megapixel MFD), and fill the frame, then yes, MFD will also outperform 35mm. On the flip side, you need to acknowledge that there are situations where 35mm FF or even APS-C DSLR's are the FAR better tool for the job, and they can produce better IQ for those kinds of work than a medium-format digital camera could ever hope to aspire to.

We're not discussing about limited reach, we're not discussing 35mm's versatility and we're not discussing the impracticality of the MF system, or the extreme im-practicality of a 4x5 view camera.

Well, no...my reply to you was in regards to the finality in your argument, the "simply fact" statements. Which is demonstrably NOT true, and I've linked external resources that provide the theory that explains why.

We are discussing the resolving power of two different formats. 35mm & MF.

You can't say 35mm resolves more that MF. It simply doesn't and never will.

That's plain and simply untrue. A D800 sensor, from a spatial resolution standpoint, resolves more than a 40mp, 50mp, or 60mp Hasselblad. All three of those sensors are different dimensions, and all three of them have 6 micron pixels. The D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels. A D3200 has 3.8 micron pixels. From a spatial resolution standpoint, all three of those cameras "out resolve" all of the hasselblad sensors. You might be able to put more pixels on subject with a hassy, but spatially, you aren't resolving more, you are just recording an image of a greater physical area. Different things. For the kinds of scenes you photograph with a MFD, you could just slap a T/S lens on a D800 and in a few seconds a set of six photos that can be stitched together to make a photo around 250-300mp (same exact thing the H4D-200MS does...only with MORE resolution.)

Likewise, You won't see anyone go shoot a motorsports race with a MF camera. It's just not practical. I'm not saying 35mm has its place, It does and thats why Photojournalists aren't using garraflexes anymore. I feel 22MP is more than enough for 35mm. It can make great 24x36 prints. ;D

Your contradicting your own statements here. As I indicated above, FF and APS-C DSLR's can and do "resolve" more detail than a medium format. They are also far better suited to many forms of photography, and in many cases just as capable as a MFD in other types of photography. You absolutest statements about MFD being unbeatable period forever and ever are falling apart here.

But when push comes to shove, NO 35mm system will ever resolve more than larger formats MF or LF. Period. End of Story. Its Fact.

You need to properly qualify that statement with "when MF has more total pixels." You are also assuming that 35mm will never have as many pixels as MDF...that is just an assumption. There are prototypical sensors that pack FAR more pixels into FF and APS-H sensor area, with higher readout rates than any comparable MFD sensor. Technologically speaking, DSLR sensors could make some even more significant leaps (above and beyond what Sony Exmor has done) past anything MFD has so far provided, or might provide in the same timeframe. So stating "Period. End of Story. Its Fact." is also simply an anecdote, an assumption...and therefor not a fact.

A d800 only has 36MP. The Phase One IQ 180 Has 80MP. They're is no competition. When 35mm jumps to 46MP, MF will be in the 120-160MP range. 35mm will never catch MF.

The Phase One has more resolving power, not only because of its MP count but because since the magnification is lower on the lenses, They are sharper. Any imperfections on the higher magnification 35mm lens will be shown more clearly, while I had a Hasselblad 501CM with a beat-up scratched lens that still was sharper than any of my 35mm canon's.

MF will always have more detail and resolve better than 35mm.

Edit: Infact Imagine this. Take a full Size 36MP file from a d800. I take the 80MP Phase One file and downsize it to the d800's 36MP size image. Which File will be sharper, have more detail, and better resolution Eh?

 

[RLPhoto]

se answers above , physical conditions, everything is NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.

sorry but I have. I have done a comparison between Pentax 645 and D800E.
Do you understand that there are two different sensor we are talking about? One old CCD and a new smaller cmos
And even if the larger sensor is larger the QE and DR are far behind a modern 24x36 sensor and the results at base iso are very similar, at higher iso the Pentax is no match for d800

Have you shot phase one before? Because MF still resolves more detail than any 35mm DSLR.

Take the best 35mm DSLR d800 and stack it up against the best MF system, The phase one IQ 180. Its no comparison.

 

[RS2021]

se answers above , physical conditions, everything is NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.

sorry but I have. I have done a comparison between Pentax 645 and D800E.
Do you understand that there are two different sensor we are talking about? One old CCD and a new smaller cmos
And even if the larger sensor is larger the QE and DR are far behind a modern 24x36 sensor and the results at base iso are very similar, at higher iso the Pentax is no match for d800

Have you shot phase one before? Because MF still resolves more detail than any 35mm DSLR.

Take the best 35mm DSLR d800 and stack it up against the best MF system, The phase one IQ 180. Its no comparison.

+1
Totally agree. But there is no point arguing with those who suggest 35mm can even compete with MF... it's wasted effort. They have zero credibility. Just let them live in their delusional world and don't feed their compulsions

 

[RLPhoto]

se answers above , physical conditions, everything is NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.

sorry but I have. I have done a comparison between Pentax 645 and D800E.
Do you understand that there are two different sensor we are talking about? One old CCD and a new smaller cmos
And even if the larger sensor is larger the QE and DR are far behind a modern 24x36 sensor and the results at base iso are very similar, at higher iso the Pentax is no match for d800

Have you shot phase one before? Because MF still resolves more detail than any 35mm DSLR.

Take the best 35mm DSLR d800 and stack it up against the best MF system, The phase one IQ 180. Its no comparison.

+1
Totally agree. But there is no point arguing with those who suggest 35mm can even compete with MF... it's wasted effort. They have zero credibility. Just let them live in their delusional world and don't feed their compulsions

Your completely right Ray.

There shouldn't be an argument, Because this 35mm vs MF argument has been around for decades and still some don't understand that a bigger piece of Film/sensor will always resolve more detail than a smaller format.

MF has its uses, so does 35mm. Its just MF does resolution better.

 

[jrista]

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.


Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

RLPoto you are mixing up things, if the sensor from a MF where equal to 24x36 in design, QE, DR etc then you are right. Bigger is better, but todays MF ccd sensors from Dalsa is years behind, not regarding resolution but efficiency, noise, etc.

Those factors only really affect the lower (darker) fraction of the signal, and only matter if you actually need to lift highlights. In my experience, people who use medium format are far more interested in their larger pixels, which allow a larger FWC than comparable 35mm FF or APS-C sensors (although these days pixel sizes are down as low as 6 microns in MFD...so maybe the pixel size lead is diminishing), along with 16-bit ADC, and thus allow very rich, smooth, and down right legendary highlight preservation and fidelity. I've never heard anyone who uses an MF digital camera complain about shadow fidelity, but I've heard them complain about poor highlight retention in smaller formats.

There is no denying that medium format cameras have a lot of advantages, stricter quality control mechanisms, higher precision and higher quality counterparts (such as image processing chips), and a lot of other features that simply don't exist in the DSLR field (such as interchangeable backs.) But that does not mean that medium format cameras are unbeatable in every respect, or even that they resolve more detail (which is simply false).

There are pros and cons to every option these days, but there is no question that 35mm FF DSLR's are beginning to encroach upon MFD territory. In the case of the D800, and assuming the rumors are true, even more so with Canon's 46.1mp prototypes, are and will pose a serious thread to MFD in terms of IQ. Canon is known for favoring the highlights with their default tone curves, and if they release a 46.1mp sensor with 16-bit ADC and low electronic noise floor, they could definitely give the H4D-50 a run for the money. Especially when paired with Canon's new Mark II series of lenses, which use nano-tech anti-reflection coating, some of the most advanced optical designs and materials in the world, and some of the largest physical apertures in the world.

De-facto statements like "MFD is just plain and simply superior, its' fact, don't argue with me, I am an anecdotal freak but I don't need to use facts" are just plain naive. The real question is...will the advancements being made in the DSLR sector spur a new round of innovation and advancement in sensor technology for medium format digital? Will we see reductions in read noise, further increases into the 100mp and greater territory, higher bit depths, etc? Or will MFD finally lose it's footing, and lose out to the new wave of 30, 40, and 50 megapixel 35mm FF sensors that outperform in every respect?

 

[RLPhoto]

You are answering your self, film is film and sensor are sensors. And old CCD are old CCD, and today there are a big difference between sensors
did you read Lars Kjellberg article
everything is not black or white and you have some trouble to understand that and you have a habit of presenting everything you say as truth without analyzing the situation

35mm, medium-format, or large format?

A large format negative does not have to be enlarged as much as a 35 mm negative, and the results are therefore much sharper. Most photographers would agree on that. However, our test shows that 35 mm can be almost as sharp as large format, if you take the photographs correctly and choose the right film.

By Lars Kjellberg http://www.photodo.com/topic_138.html

The MF Hassy Has much more detail than the 35mm in those crops.

You can see it obviously when looking at the center Circle crop. The 35mm has nasty grain but the MF shot is much cleaner and can resolve the lines farther in than the 35mm can. With a finer-grain stock like velvia 50, It will be even more pronounced.

Either way you slice it, MF still resolves better detail than 35mm.

 

[Northstar]

You are answering your self, film is film and sensor are sensors. And a old CCD are a old CCD, and today there are a big difference between MF sensors and SLR
did you read Lars Kjellberg article
everything is not black or white and you have some trouble to understand that , and you have a habit of presenting everything you say as truth without analyzing the situation

35mm, medium-format, or large format?

A large format negative does not have to be enlarged as much as a 35 mm negative, and the results are therefore much sharper. Most photographers would agree on that. However, our test shows that 35 mm can be almost as sharp as large format, if you take the photographs correctly and choose the right film.

By Lars Kjellberg http://www.photodo.com/topic_138.html

Interesting discussion...the 7 test chart images shown in Lars kjellberg's article clearly show the advantage of medium format over 35, and large format over medium and 35.

 

[cocopop05]

While higher DR is good, and Nikon is clearly better than Canon at this, Canon's DR is still very good. For me noise is a bigger issue for ruining digial photos. I will aways be happy to have more MP in a new sensor as long as the noise is the same or better that current sensors. PC's are also getting more powerful, a HP Z820 can have dual Xeon CPU's with 512GB Quad Channel Ram and can have a high end Quadro and Tesla cards (NVIDIA Maximus) that are
supported by LR4 and CS6. Quadro and Tesla slam GeForce, Radeon and FirePro with Adobe solutions at the moment. The only issue is the cost of such a system.