Cameras: Coming Full Circle

[bjornthun]

I have no experience with MF sensors myself, but I have an nalogous experience to the one Ming Thein describes. I had a 24mp APS-C senor (Sony A6000) and I (still have) the full frame 24mp A7 mkII. Though both are 24mp, the bigger sensor wins clearly due to the colours, tonality and gradation. I tried Zeiss lenses on both cameras on several occasions. I only shoot full frame today. What Ming Thein writes about 33x44mm MF compared to "full frame" Nikon 36mp and Canon 50mp makes perfect sense to me.

[Les Olson]

There is no reason why a heatspreader shaped like the body of an X1D would not be efficient. If you consider the shapes of heatspreaders in custom built PCs, it's clear thatvthe heatspreader inside a digital back on a DSLR will be quite small, compared to an X1D aluminum body. The heatspreader inside a digital back may have fins but they would still be small andcwithout a fan. In short the X1Dvaluminum body seems to be a smart solution. Btw. a copper body would lead heat even better...

What was the body of the Hasselblad digital backs that used this sensor and needed a heat sink made of?  Wool? 

Actually, the best material would be diamond.  And I would bet money Hasselblad would have a red hot go at selling it.

[Les Olson]

I have no experience with MF sensors myself, but I have an nalogous experience to the one Ming Thein describes. I had a 24mp APS-C senor (Sony A6000) and I (still have) the full frame 24mp A7 mkII. Though both are 24mp, the bigger sensor wins clearly due to the colours, tonality and gradation. I tried Zeiss lenses on both cameras on several occasions. I only shoot full frame today. What Ming Thein writes about 33x44mm MF compared to "full frame" Nikon 36mp and Canon 50mp makes perfect sense to me.

No one is suggesting that bigger sensors do not have advantages - although it is a very dubious proposition that the impact of a bigger sensor is, for most subjects, large compared to, eg, superior auto-focus - of a D500 compared to a D610, eg).  But there is no reason - outside Hasselblad's advertising - to confine the comparison to 44 x 33mm vs 36 x 24mm.  If 44 x 33mm is meaningfully better than 36 x 24mm then 54 x 40mm is meaningfully better than 44 x 33mm. 

Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then.  No one needs them now who did not need them last year. 

[Michael Erlewine]

Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then.  No one needs them now who did not need them last year.

I don't understand the logic. I can understand that YOU don't need them now, but to say that "no one" needs them defies logic. I, for one, am finding that I do need them, and did not feel I needed them last year, unless you mean that anything to come in the future we automatically need.

What is happening here, at least in my photo world, is that I am outgrowing (for my work) the 35mm DSLR and looking into something larger, like MF and LF cameras. And they are reaching down into mirrorless territory and becoming more affordable. For me, this is a big change.

[bjornthun]

No one is suggesting that bigger sensors do not have advantages - although it is a very dubious proposition that the impact of a bigger sensor is, for most subjects, large compared to, eg, superior auto-focus - of a D500 compared to a D610, eg).  But there is no reason - outside Hasselblad's advertising - to confine the comparison to 44 x 33mm vs 36 x 24mm.  If 44 x 33mm is meaningfully better than 36 x 24mm then 54 x 40mm is meaningfully better than 44 x 33mm. 

Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then.  No one needs them now who did not need them last year.

AF precision hasn't been an issue for me. It's only DSLRs that you will need to focus calibrate...

The price point has moved considerably downwards...

[bjornthun]

What was the body of the Hasselblad digital backs that used this sensor and needed a heat sink made of?  Wool? 

Actually, the best material would be diamond.  And I would bet money Hasselblad would have a red hot go at selling it.

This makes no sense at all...

I'm out of this discussion, now.

[armando_m]

....
MF and LF cameras. And they are reaching down into mirrorless territory and becoming more affordable. For me, this is a big change.

In my opinion, that is a big step , similar to what happened when m43 started coming out, but now with a large sensor, smallish body, no mirror

Hopefully the ergonomics is good , being Fuji , it probably is, at least better than the Sony's with their APS-C and FF initial offerings

[simsurace]

I am not that technical, so I appreciate those here who are pointing out the difference between a larger FF sensor and a MF sensor/lens of the same size. I did not fully understand that before, so this thread has been very helpful. Whether it is the Hasselblad X1d or the new Fuju MF camera is not as important as the difference outlined above.

The important distinction is really between two notions: pixel density on one hand and and physical size of the whole sensor (assuming you don't crop the image) on the other. You can also express everything in terms of pixels per square cm vs total number of pixels. I prefer to think about total physical area first (with its implications on signal-to-noise ratio) and number of pixels second (impacting spatial resolution). Some people like to speak of "large pixels", but I ask whether large pixels are worth anything if you only have a very small number of them? So there are different perspectives on the importance of these things. But we shall not confuse the two notions or we will run in circles.

[Michael Erlewine]

The important distinction is really between two notions: pixel density on one hand and and physical size of the whole sensor (assuming you don't crop the image) on the other. You can also express everything in terms of pixels per square cm vs total number of pixels. I prefer to think about total physical area first (with its implications on signal-to-noise ratio) and number of pixels second (impacting spatial resolution). Some people like to speak of "large pixels", but I ask whether large pixels are worth anything if you only have a very small number of them? So there are different perspectives on the importance of these things. But we shall not confuse the two notions or we will run in circles.

What I would like to know is what is the difference between a FF DSLR 50 Mpx sensor with Nikon-sized lenses and the Sony MF 50 Mpx sensor with MF-sized lenses?

[David H. Hartman]

No one is suggesting that bigger sensors do not have advantages - although it is a very dubious proposition that the impact of a bigger sensor is, for most subjects, large compared to, eg, superior auto-focus - of a D500 compared to a D610, eg).  But there is no reason - outside Hasselblad's advertising - to confine the comparison to 44 x 33mm vs 36 x 24mm.  If 44 x 33mm is meaningfully better than 36 x 24mm then 54 x 40mm is meaningfully better than 44 x 33mm. 

Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then.  No one needs them now who did not need them last year.

I don't have the money to buy the new Hasselblade but if I did my question is, is 44x33 a big enough step up in format dimensions to be worth a second system? I would think 54x40 is if one has a true need for a medium format camera.

36x24mm will always have more available lenses compared to other formats although 24x16mm can use many of these lenses and has a few of its own. 24x16mm however is a step down in format dimension and it's below the sweet spot for in dimension for much of my photography.

If money were no option I like a 24x16mm, 36x24, 6x4.5cm and 6x9cm technical view camera. The truth is I need time for my photograph more than anything else.

Anyway is the 44x33mm format enough of a step up from 36x24mm to be worth building a separate system. I don't think so, at least not for me. Perhaps for someone else.

Dave

[Erik Lund]

Are you asking about the lenses or the sensor here?

Not a whole lot of difference regarding lenses I think,,, You all ready have lenses that cover the larger sensor,,, It's far more the difference in pixel density and the physical difference in the actual pixel size, well size - that will make the difference between the two results.

I think speculating about some 50 MP sensor for DSLR should more be like wishing for a 100 MP sensor in 44x33 to get the high resolution

My honest guess is that sharpness from the 50 MP 33x44 will be very similar to the 36-42 MP 24x36 we have now if the lenses perform similar in IQ - But the rendering, graduations, thin DOF will be much nicer.

Another rumor; It takes 7-8 seconds for the Hasselblad to warm up,,,

[Almass]

What I would like to know is what is the difference between a FF DSLR 50 Mpx sensor with Nikon-sized lenses and the Sony MF 50 Mpx sensor with MF-sized lenses?

The difference is in the processing of images.

[Michael Erlewine]

The difference is in the processing of images.

What Ming Thein meant in his quote below (#105) had nothing really to do with lenses, since the Zeiss Otus could do fine on the X1D if that camera had a global shutter, was that what Thein he values in the Sony 50 Mpx sensor on the Hasselblad cameras has to do with the photosite well-size and as Eick Lund said "rendering, graduations, thin DOF will be much nicer."  Is this assumption correct?

[Akira]

Otus is designed for the FX format and won't cover the full sensor area of X1D.  You could extract, say, a square format that perfectly contacts internally in its image circle and its sides are longer than 24mm.  But the image quality could be similar to what FX low-res sensor like the 24MP one, not 36MP one in D810.

[simsurace]

What I would like to know is what is the difference between a FF DSLR 50 Mpx sensor with Nikon-sized lenses and the Sony MF 50 Mpx sensor with MF-sized lenses?

I cannot speak to the actual differences because I haven't studied that particular sensor and the Nikon sensor does not even exist. But I can give some general thoughts and expectations I would have.
Since the Sony sensor is 44x33mm you have about 68% bigger physical area to work with than on the FX sensor. This is a smaller step than going from a DX to an FX sensor, which is about a 125% increase in physical area. So I don't expect a dramatic difference in noise properties, like what you experience when going from micro 4/3 to FX for example.
Since the number of pixels is roughly the same, whether the resolution of the image changes depends a lot on the lenses, but as a rule of thumb it is a bit easier to design lenses for bigger sensors, especially without the constraints of a mirror box. So I would expect a higher level, but only testing can show whether the actual lenses live up to these expectations.

We discussed implications of changing sensor formats at length in http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html, and those discussions map to the comparison between FX and bigger formats in the same way that they do for FX vs. smaller formats.

The degree to which these considerations are important to your photography you have to answer yourself. Obviously a lot of things drive the choice of a camera system and the sensor characteristics are only a very small part of that choice for most photographers.