the "new" medium format?

[dickgrafixstop]

anyone care to speculate on the impact of the 50meg sensor on the medium format market?
The new 5Ds/5Dsr are both less than half of the list for a pentax 645d, a fifth of Leica S and less than a tenth
of some Hasselblad/Leaf/Mamiya offerings. Combined with the wider variety of lens options,
portability and other considerations, do you think this will create a price drop for the "big fellows" or
new announcements of perhaps 75-90 meg image sensors?

 

[Lawliet]

you think this will create a price drop for the "big fellows" or
new announcements of perhaps 75-90 meg image sensors?

The impact has been made by the D800, with some shifts in the refurb options (and the associated trade-in offers). Somewhat more resolution& as yet to be determinated per pixel quality won't change much. Not to mention the phantom LS lenses.
But raw numbers aside, there are a few deffierences in UI/usability between an IQ2x0 and the new 5D's that on their own can make the back worthwhile, thats if you're working and time is actually money.

 

[Sporgon]

Medium format isn't about a resolution advantage anymore. Indeed, in the days of film when medium format really did kick 35mm arse in quality it was beginning to ebb in favour of the latest emulsion produced by 35mm, and much faster flash syncs on 35 mm than 35mm had previously.

Medium format is now more about ownership, or finding an edge in 'look' ( if you can see it) or making an impression. It's ace card really is the greater magnification, larger capture, less enlargement in post, yet these attributes are at their greatest when shooting small detail a long way from the camera, landscape for instance, yet in this situation you can stitch FF or APS and get the same effect. When shooting close subject, portraiture for instance, where it's not really practical to stitch, the ace card doesn't have anything like the same impact. In fact if I was shooting mainly portraiture, in good light, I'd be quite happy with APS because the subject is close, and I never liked ultra shallow dof portraits anyway.

I hope Pentax keep pushing forward with their 645 system, if for no other reason than to keep everyone else on their toes.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think that it will tale away some of the advantages of MF, but the larger photosites and larger sensor size yield IQ benefits just like FF over APS-C. The cost goes up a lot with MF, lenses in particular.

 

[RLPhoto]

I chose MF for the sync speed, ability to use LF cameras, the larger sensor will eventually have even more MP and More DR with every generation, and the process itself is slower.

 

[K]

The 50MP, depending on how many of those pixels actually translates to better IQ, will open new areas for 35mm. It bridges the gap between 35mm and Medium Format. For jobs where a medium format is overkill, but a DSLR was a compromise or insufficient - the 50MP Canon will be the choice.

Now, to those who think this is a competitor to medium format - there IS a reason why Hasselblad can run up to $45,000. The people who say there's no difference do not know what they are talking about. I suggest they compare images side by side - and it will be clear as can be the true high end, medium format cameras are superior for IQ. No debate.

This is more of a new frontier for 35mm digital. It comes down to purpose. If someone has a need for that kind of resolution, and the IQ that the 5DS produces is good enough for that purpose where other DSLRs are not good for the purpose - then it is a good choice.

It comes down to how much detail do you want in a print and what size is the print.

It's print size and viewing distance. The closer the viewing distance, the more dpi you need. The idea is to get to a point where at the minimum viewing distance, a person cannot distinguish or see the printed dots. The 5DS will allow for larger prints than before. I'm leaving out advertisements like billboards or giant banners that hang from buildings because no one is standing a few feet away from them.

 

[DominoDude]

I think you can have as many pixels as you want on a FF sensor, and that number would still not make any MF shooter consider it as a threat.
MF, to me, is about light gathering ability and tonality. When I look at shots taken with any serious MF camera I'm always floored by the smoothness and how clean the images look. That's a quality not related to the quantity of pixels.