What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

H2F better than any VSYSTEM combination

Hi Robert,

> > I would agree that all other things being equal, the larger the > > photosite the better (lower noise, etc). However, it is still > > (unfortunately) difficult to spend 2-3-4X as much for MF as opposed > > to the DX/full frame cameras (Canon, Nikon). The MF may give a > > better image, but I doubt it is 2-3-4X "bettter".

Oh, well...I'm an engineer. I just design them. What it costs, does not concern me ;-)

All joking aside, I completely agree. It makes little to no sense for a person who is not rather well off to buy into MF digital. The exception is of course for professional use, where it makes economic sense with respect to ROI.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin Franklin (Afranklin) wrote on October 21:

' 2007 - 5:21 pm,The bottom line is, larger sensors elements, in general, have higher image fidelity. There is really no way that this can or will change, given an apples to apples comparison.

Austin'
Click to expand...

That is exactly what happens with film.
No amount of electronic wizardry is going to beat a larger sensor.
 
Austin,

You are approaching the "pixel" from the hardware end. You 'shouldn't'.
It's just a coloured dot that together with other such dots makes a picture.

And the result of the hardware trajectory is that image made up of coloured dots, that together with [etc.]

So it is indeed quite legitimate to talk about pixels when talking about capture systems.
But you're right, not when talking about the sensor. But there's more (more important stuff too), beyond the hardware...
wink.gif
 
H2F better than any V combination:

Let me know in 60 years if you think so. I hope I'll be here!

Enjoy film while it is still here. I hope it is in 60 years

Regards:

Gilbert
 
Hi Q.G.,

> You are appraoching the "pixel" from the hardware end. You shouldn't.

Far more. I'm aproaching it also from a graphics terminology standpoint.

Pixel means "picture element", and one photosite on an RGB sensor does not produce one picture element, it produces 1/4 (for R & B) or 1/2 (for G) of a picture element in the case of RGB.

> So it is indeed quite legitimate to talk about pixels when talking > about capture systems.

Of course. But I clearly wasn't talking about the capture systems.

> But you're right...

Of course ;-)

> ...not when talking about the sensor.

Which is why I said what I said. I was clearly and specifically talking about the sensor (by direct reference) in my posts, not the entire system.

Regards,

Austin
 
Well no, Austin, i ("of course"
wink.gif
) think you're not right.

The assertion was that as long as you have X-number of (mega)pixels in an image, it wouldn't matter how that X (mega)pixel image was created.

You're right that it does indeed matter.
But not that the use of the word pixel was incorrect. It wasn't.

It wasn't used (as it rarely is) to describe sensor locations, or any other thingy in the realm of hardware. Just to expres the size of the image.
 
Save a miracle in modern medicine, in 60 years I'll be worm fodder.

Use what you have now. Make pictures. Enjoy already. Who cares about 60 years ago, or 60 years from now?

On the megapixel discussion: "A digital image does not care...only the megapixels count".

Hmmm, on Pluto maybe. No, it would still be incorrect, even on Pluto.

So, using that logic of yours Robert ... a 10 meg Canon Elf produces images the equal to a Canon 1DMKIII ... or Leica M8 ... or Nikon D200 ... right?
 
> Now ....now....I am assuming that we are not comparing apples to > oranges....perhaps granny smith to red delicious....but NOT apples > to oranges.....

>So, using that logic of yours Robert ... a 10 meg Canon Elf produces >images the equal to a Canon 1DMKIII ... or Leica M8 ... or Nikon D200 >.. right?
 
Marc,

I care about sixty years ago because we are a product of history.
Without yesterday there would not be today.
 
Sorry Paul.
I meant no harm.
Maybe it is me only, but I had issues from day one with my 500CM and later on with a few CF optics. Coming first from 4 Nikon bodies and 10 pieces of glass, none gave any trouble in 10 years. Then after a while, I learned that my Hasselblad has to go to the repair/seervice as you do with an exotic car. I had friends with Bronicas and Mamiyas wihch never had these problems. (but now, their systems look battered, mine doesn't)
Currently I have a friend with a Pentax 67 system. Trouble free for 15 years, no clads whatsoever.
Issues wit the Hassie still continue, but I learned to live with it. I cherised my Hassie system, too bad these days it rarely sees sunlight. I love the mechanical operation of this system (sounds, logic, etc.) and the results. Going digital is a no return voyage, at least for the commercial photog.
Best
Eduardo

............



Eduardo,

That hurts badly!
The V series are trouble free when properly serviced.
The V series is one of the most reliable camera systems ever produced.
Like any mechanical instrument it needs to be serviced from time to time.

I have a 500C from 1958 in my collection that must have done over 500.000 exposures and is still going strong.
The same goes for CZ lenses.
They beat the new Fuji line for the H cameras by many miles.
Ever had an H series lens serviced or repaired?
For what that amounts to you can buy a nice CF lens now.

Gr.

Paul
 
Hi Q.G.,

> Well no, Austin, i ("of course" ) think you're not right.

Well, in this case, if you don't think I'm right, then you're simply wrong. Simple as that.

> The assertion was that as long as you have X-number of (mega)pixels in > an image, it wouldn't matter how that X (mega)pixel image was created.

No, that's your "assumption", not anyone elses. I said not one word about the image, nor did the original poster, only about the sensor. What you're trying to do is twist (or you are confused about) what was actually said (which is cearly documented) to try to claim I was somehow wrong. And, I simply was not. Even you agreed to that in your comment:

"But you're right, not when talking about the sensor."

And...that is what I, and the original post I was replying to, was talking about. What I was talking about was specifically the sensor, and you've agreed that when talking about the sensor what I was was right.

> You're right that it does indeed matter. > But not that the use of the word pixel was incorrect. It wasn't.

Well, yes it was. The sensor cells (photosites) are NOT pixels. That's a simple fact. Anyone who knows squat about digital imaging knows that.

> It wasn't used (as it rarely is) to describe sensor locations, or any > other thingy in the realm of hardware. Just to expres the size of the > image.

Well, if that's what you believe then there is your problem. You didn't read what was written. Even the person to whom I initially commented on this to (Robert) said:

"> You are of course, correct. But I you the term "pixel" in a very > loose manner. It is easier for everyone to relate to thanks to the > mass marketing of all the camera manufacturers."

Here was his original statement:

"Once you are "digital" it matters very little whether you are shooting 35mm or MF equivalent ( unlike when you are shooting film and are going to enlarge). A digital image does not care...only the megapixels count."

And he is clearly talking about the physical number of photosites on the sensors, and I clearly replied specifically and only discussing physical photosites.

You're just being a ninny. If you can't follow the conversation, and you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, or just have this need to correct people when there is no warrant, get a dog, or find a bar.

Regards,

Austin
 
There you go again, Austin...

"A digital image does not care...only the megapixels count ."

See?

The assertion was that hardware does not matter. Hardware was dismissed as not important, because (!) only the number of pixels (e.g. 16 MP, produced either by a DX sensor or a 'full frame' MF sensor) matters.

You (correctly) did not agree.
But you should have stuck to the hardware related bit when disagreeing.
The use of the word megapixel was absolutely correct.

Your interpretation, that is is about the hardware, turns the statement into a "X does not matter, because only X counts" bit of silliness.
I know you like to think people are that silly that they say nonsensical things like that. But, though sometimes they even do, they generally don't. And they did not in this case either.
You're just creating your own windmlills to battle.
wink.gif
 
Hi Q.G.,

> There you go again, Austin... > > "A digital image does not care...only the megapixels count ." > > See?

You're SO predictable! You see shiny objects and can't resist ;-)

It's two separate statements. 1) "A digital image does not care..." which is not relevant to my reply, and I did not address it. And 2) "only the megapixels count." Which is what I clearly addressed.

> The assertion was that hardware does not matter. Hardware was > dismissed as not important, because (!) only the number of pixels > (e.g. 16 MP, produced either by a DX sensor or a 'full frame' MF > sensor) matters.

The assertion is the opposite. "Megapixels" come from...THE SENSOR! The sensor IS hardware. The hardware was what WAS being discussed. The sensor is what is different between 35mm and MF. Once you get the image data (no matter what it is) off the sensor and digitized, everything past that is the same.

> You (correctly) did not agree.

OK, so what is the problem if you say I "correctly did not agree"?

> But you should have stuck to the hardware related bit when > disagreeing.

Er, I did. My reply was %100 sticking to the hardware, since that is specifically what I was addressing.

> The use of the word megapixel was absolutely correct.

Not when relating it to the sensor. It's a marketing term. Sensors are NOT megapixels if they are RGB/Bayer pattern sensors. It's misused. That's a fact. If you don't agree, well, you can not agree...but you'd be wrong.

> Your interpretation, that is is about the hardware, turns the > statement into a "X does not matter, because only X counts" bit of > silliness.

You're being incoherent here.

> I know you like to think people are that silly that they say > nonsensical things like that.

It's a fact that there are a lot of misused and misunderstood terms and misunderstandings when it comes to digital imaging. Pixels and resolution are two of the things that top the list. As does calling a scanner DPI and a printer PPI.

> You're just creating your own windmlills to battle.

I know that comforts you to believe that, but it's you who created any "windmills" here to battle. The original poster understood my reply, I clearly understood his comment, and we were both in agreement. Conversation was all done...well...then came Q.G. up to your old games of trying to find things I say to try to correct. And, in typicaly fashion, if you can't find anything wrong (which is typically the case), well, you'll just twist things up, so you can have something to correct. It's really sad.

Regards,

Austin
 
Jürgen,

Little harm can come of it!
There is about 5000 miles between these two so little chance either one of them gets a slap in the face unless of course you feel obliged to visit one of the contenders.

With a little slip from one of them this time it is still about matters concerning photography.
Let us pray it stays that way.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top