Author Topic: Cameras: Coming Full Circle  (Read 35936 times)

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2614
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #120 on: September 30, 2016, 05:33:54 »
No mirror means more flexibility for the lens designers. 
On my mirrorless Fujifilm, they were able to create reasonably priced, good-performing prime lenses with much less distortion than almost any current DSLR optics, possibly including the Otuses.  Distortion usually doesn't matter much for nature subjects, but matters a lot when photographing the human-built landscape.  I expect that the newly available space between lens and sensor opens new possibilities for the Hasselblad designers as well.
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA

Les Olson

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 502
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #121 on: September 30, 2016, 10:23:30 »
This makes no sense at all...

I'm out of this discussion, now.

Heating of chips has been a problem for a long time and there are no secrets about dealing with it.  How come the metal body of the X1D is adequate to control heat, when the metal bodies of all the other Hasselblad backs with the same sensor were not? 

The reason is that the problem is not dissipating the heat to the environment, which is what the aluminium case of the X1D does, but getting the heat off the sensor to where it can dissipate to the environment.  Suggesting diamond was not a joke: diamond has much greater heat conductivity than either copper or aluminium and diamond-copper and diamond silver compounds are used as substrates for chips where a lot of heat is generated and chips need to be closely packed.  These compounds were developed for use in space, where dissipating heat is no problem at all, because the issue is getting heat off the chip. 

The fact that the roadblock is getting heat off the sensor is why sensor size matters so much. 

Temperature-related noise is the wolf that eats the sun of large sensor image quality if sensor heating is not really well controlled.  Maybe Hasselblad has got it right this time, but to find out we will have to wait until someone who is not being paid by Hasselblad looks carefully for noise.  However, (a) Hasselblad have a track record of getting it wrong, in the H3D - so much for heritage - and (b) they have put a temperature cut-off in the X1D to stop the internals frying, so they clearly do not believe that the body is 100% reliable as a heat sink. 

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 6490
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #122 on: September 30, 2016, 10:44:55 »
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.

Moderation remarks:

Please keep the comments on a suitable technical level, so in this case mentioning wool is way out of line with the context of the other posts.

When mentioning diamond, it would have been beneficial if you had made the reference to diamond composites.

Thank you  :)
Erik Lund

Les Olson

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 502
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #123 on: September 30, 2016, 12:17:26 »

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.

There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to use larger formats.  The point is not to confuse wanting to do it with having photographic reasons to do it. 

For example, shallower depth of field is often given as a photographic reason to move to medium format - but the X1D's 90mm f/3.2 portrait lens does not offer shallower depth of field or a larger entry pupil than an 85mm f/1.4 on FX. 

Wanting 50MP instead of 36MP to print larger than 24 x 18 without compromising print resolution or stitching images is a photographic reason to move to medium format (though not for long).  But there is a difference between a photographer who was printing larger than 24 x 18 last year by making do and printing 36MP at 260 dpi instead of 300 dpi or by stitching images, and a photographer who has never printed larger than 13 x 19 and been perfectly happy. 

In the same way, Ming Thein may be right about the colour and tonal subtlety of the 44 x 33mm sensor, but it had exactly the same colour and tonal subtlety last year, so a photographer who did not want that sensor last year because she was happy with the colour and tonal subtlety of her images has no reason to want it this year.  Sure, if she was unhappy with the colour and tonal subtlety of her images last year and did want the bigger sensor but could not afford it, a cheaper incarnation is welcome, but the point remains that no one who did not want the bigger sensor last year has reason to want it now.  (And there are people who had never seen a good print from a large format camera until recently, so last year they didn't know what greater tonal subtlety looks like and that is why they didn't want the larger sensor last year, and now they do know so they want the bigger sensor - but I think we can neglect that possibility in this forum).   

Sure, people can change the kind of photography they do, and that is different.  To do underwater photography you need an underwater camera.  But there are no kinds of photography a medium format camera can do that a 35mm camera cannot do.  The reverse is true, because of the superior AF of 35mm cameras, and in the case of the X1D the very limited lens choice. 







Les Olson

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 502
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #124 on: September 30, 2016, 12:41:39 »
Moderation remarks:

Please keep the comments on a suitable technical level, so in this case mentioning wool is way out of line with the context of the other posts.

When mentioning diamond, it would have been beneficial if you had made the reference to diamond composites.

Thank you  :)

I apologise.  I meant no offence, but if any was taken I am sorry. 

Almass

  • Guest
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #125 on: September 30, 2016, 14:22:50 »
There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to use larger formats.  The point is not to confuse wanting to do it with having photographic reasons to do it.......

.......


I agree.

Maybe we should go back to the original objective of using sheet film.

The reason sheet film was dropped is the lack of flexibility for shooting commercial images (for Advtg). Moving on to medium format allowed to scan on drum scans and process on Quantel platforms Paintbox - Harry - Henry....etc.
Full frame replica of 135 could not have the same resolution for masking and other manipulation and Medium was king........until mid to end 90's where Photoshop changed the equation.

I get rather restless when people talk about medium being better than full frame in 2016....etc.

I am ready to bet any amount of money that whomever will not be capable to tell whether a particular image is from a medium or FF high res camera.

Even Art at printed at 300dpi cannot tell the difference. Come on. An image goes to so many processes before being printed and displayed and for crying out loud, I hope no one is gonna say that printing above A1 needs the highest resolution.
Yeah right....... Shoot with a camera scan or digital camera. Color correct/crop....etc and send the file to an Agfa processor to produce the films.......use the films to produce a Cromalin....rinse an repeat and send to a GTO or Indigo digital or whatever.......Medium format vs full frame......my (insert expletive of choice)

......and I don't give a monkey on pay as you talk Ming Thein or whomever else......they would know jack about color even if it hits them in the face.

Color???? Tell me about color. I was a color consultant for a Soho studio Grading suite using Grass Valley and DaVinci (before DaVinci changed ownership).

All what medium format does today is compensate for the inadequacy of photographers post processing shortcomings and alleged pay as you talk reviewers.....There!

Medium format vs Full Frame......tell me about it and I will tell you what is an Arclight.

simsurace

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 835
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #126 on: September 30, 2016, 19:17:02 »
but the point remains that no one who did not want the bigger sensor last year has reason to want it now.
You make the strong assumptions that peoples preferences and priorities are constant over time. People may get married this year and get divorced the year after, so I think that assumption is not warranted.
Simone Carlo Surace
suracephoto.com

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2614
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #127 on: September 30, 2016, 21:07:10 »
I look forward to Michael's reporting on his experiences with the new system. 
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA

Les Olson

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 502
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #128 on: October 01, 2016, 17:23:28 »
You make the strong assumptions that peoples preferences and priorities are constant over time. People may get married this year and get divorced the year after, so I think that assumption is not warranted.

If an adult says "Last year I was totally committed to being with this person for the rest of my life, but I have changed my values and preferences and now the relationship just doesn't work", the natural response is to wonder what they mean by the term "values and preferences".  It is simply a marker of adult maturity that values and preferences are stable and do not undergo road-to-Damascus transformations.  That is why we regard people who make major decisions on the spur of the moment as foolish and why we distrust politicians who abruptly change their allegiance.  Unstable values and preferences are fine when people are just starting to learn about something, but when people are mature instability of values and preferences is a sign that they were reached for inadequate or superficial reasons.   

Of course, preferences in trivial matters - dress, eg - can change.  There is nothing wrong with treating trivial matters as if they were trivial.  There is a spectrum of values and preferences from the trivial to the core, and photographic values and preferences can lie anywhere on the spectrum - for some people closer to whether you like wearing a tie and for others closer to whether you value honesty.  But photography is no different to political opinion or food or music: the more you have thought about it the more stable your values and preferences will be.   

And of course constant change in subject and style can be an over-riding value - as it was for Picasso, eg.  But constant change in core values cannot, at least not without self-contradiction.   

bjornthun

  • Guest
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #129 on: October 01, 2016, 19:18:14 »
Political opinions, outlook on life, religious beliefs should hold much deeper significance than the choice of camera gear or brand, and thus not be compared to the mere choice of things like cameras and lenses.

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2783
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #130 on: October 01, 2016, 22:39:22 »
I get rather restless when people talk about medium being better than full frame in 2016....etc.

I am ready to bet any amount of money that whomever will not be capable to tell whether a particular image is from a medium or FF high res camera.

There are differences in the image, background, foreground rendering that can't be duplicated by one formats v. another. I'm wondering and asking if the Hassleblad X1D's 44x33mm format is sufficiently different to be worth the change. That's why I ask about true medium format of at least 54x?? (nominal 6x4.5cm) format. From my own experience the difference between DX (24x16mm) and FX (36x24mm) is considerable.

The form factor of the camera is an other issue. If hiking with the camera the X1D might be perfect for Michael. That could be very important. True confession: I've been playing devils advocate to provoke thought.

I wonder about the lenses available. I firmly believe that FF, 36x24mm has the greatest array of options in terms of glass available. Since DX (nominal 24x16mm) usually can use FX glass it easily comes in second. If the lenses available for the X1D are sufficient for Michael it may be a good option. I do wonder if the X1D is a silver bullet however in this case. Silver bullets can be fun.

Don't under estimate the importance of liking a camera. If one likes their camera they are likely to use if more and produce better results with it. Camera A may not produce better or distinguishable results on a technical level than camera B but if one likes A better than B then camera A is the camera for them.

Dave
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch!

Michael Erlewine

  • Close-Up Photographer
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2051
  • Close-Up with APO
    • Spirit Grooves
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #131 on: October 02, 2016, 11:13:53 »
This new Hasselblad X1D seems to have struck an emotional note with folks. For me the reason is clear and that is that if I carefully consider the limitations of adding more pixels to the fixed-size FF-sensors format, it is crystal clear that the FF-sized sensor stuffed with still more pixels cannot compete with the larger MF sensors. I can agree that for many folks, it won't yet matter, but as the case is.... it is my own work I am considering here, not just the general publics.

I feel I need to go BEYOND the limitations of the FF-sized sensor. And that means something the size of MF, plain and simple. The limitations of the FF sensor are obvious, and not something that eventually can be remedied. Ultimately some of us will be using MF-sized sensors and loving it.

If the Medium Format cameras were priced the same as the FF cameras, we would not be having this discussion. Many of us would just be having MF cameras. It is not that I am leaving FF cameras to go to meet the MF cameras; they are coming down in price (eventually) to meet me.

Clinging to various reasons why we should not check out MF cameras (price, heat, not enough lenses, etc.) will not make the new breed of MF cameras go away. They are coming and the X1D tells me that they are already here for some of us. I am going to meet this trend by paying the rather high price that this new camera requires of me, not because I want to spend money (I had to raise it), but because I believe the MF sized sensors (even the smaller one in the X1D) will give me a degree of freedom I could use.

And once and for all: I continue to use my Nikon D810 every day and will do so for my close-up and macro work, if only because I have the best lenses for that work. I don’t “trash” Nikon by criticizing the FF sensor and it is totally fair to wonder why Nikon is not leading the industry when it comes to a high-end mirrorless camera or a successor for the D810. I will use the X1D for traveling with a smaller kit and shooting landscape and portraits.

And yes, the X1D may be a dud, but it also may be liberating. Let’s just see.
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com, Daily Blog at https://www.facebook.com/MichaelErlewine. main site: SpiritGrooves.net, https://www.youtube.com/user/merlewine, Founder: MacroStop.com, All-Music Guide, All-Movie Guide, Classic Posters.com, Matrix Software, DharmaGrooves.com

Les Olson

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 502
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #132 on: October 02, 2016, 11:53:38 »
Political opinions, outlook on life, religious beliefs should hold much deeper significance than the choice of camera gear or brand, and thus not be compared to the mere choice of things like cameras and lenses.

OK, but you cannot erect a sharp divide between important things, where it is appropriate to think about values and preferences, and other things where it is not.  Leaving aside the fact that some people regard photography as considerably more important than politics, even the least important aspects of life do involve values and preferences.  When, eg, buying bananas do you consider the carbon footprint, and when buying running shoes do you ask about Nike's labour practices in Indonesia, and when looking for a new tripod head do you take Really Right Stuff's attitude to civil rights for gay people into consideration?  I am not expressing an opinion on what the answer should be, but saying that buying bananas or running shoes or a ballhead does not involve a value choice is, obviously, itself a value choice.  Value choices are most in need of questioning precisely when people cannot see that they are value choices: hegemony is when values are so ingrained that they are taken to be obviously true, or mere "common sense".

You seem to assume that "values and preferences" means ethical values and preferences.  But there is no reason for that assumption.  For example, suppose you agree with Henri Cartier-Bresson that the point of photography is capturing "the decisive moment": you will value flexibility and speed of response - and like him, you will prefer a 35mm camera.  Suppose, on the other hand, that you agree with Ansel Adams that the point of photographs is to reveal the pristine beauty of wild landscape: you will not value flexibility or speed of response, and you will prefer large formats and very small apertures. 

simsurace

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 835
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #133 on: October 02, 2016, 13:46:31 »
The point I wanted to make is that the assumption that preferences do not change is not warranted in general. Thus there is nothing irrational about making different decisions at different points in time if either preferences or other boundary conditions have changed, or based on new information that is gathered along the way. On the contrary, that sort of adaptation is perfectly sensible and has a solid basis in statistics and decision theory.

If you say "a photographer who did not want that sensor last year because she was happy with the colour and tonal subtlety of her images has no reason to want it this year" you are assuming that the photographer did not change or learn new information between last year and now, which is not warranted IMO.
Simone Carlo Surace
suracephoto.com

bjornthun

  • Guest
Re: Cameras: Coming Full Circle
« Reply #134 on: October 02, 2016, 14:15:31 »
OK, but you cannot erect a sharp divide between important things, where it is appropriate to think about values and preferences, and other things where it is not.  Leaving aside the fact that some people regard photography as considerably more important than politics, even the least important aspects of life do involve values and preferences.  When, eg, buying bananas do you consider the carbon footprint, and when buying running shoes do you ask about Nike's labour practices in Indonesia, and when looking for a new tripod head do you take Really Right Stuff's attitude to civil rights for gay people into consideration?  I am not expressing an opinion on what the answer should be, but saying that buying bananas or running shoes or a ballhead does not involve a value choice is, obviously, itself a value choice.  Value choices are most in need of questioning precisely when people cannot see that they are value choices: hegemony is when values are so ingrained that they are taken to be obviously true, or mere "common sense".
Nikon still seems to have problems facing up to history: http://petapixel.com/2015/12/26/photographer-wins-suit-against-nikon-over-comfort-women-exhibition/
Quote
You seem to assume that "values and preferences" means ethical values and preferences.  But there is no reason for that assumption.  For example, suppose you agree with Henri Cartier-Bresson that the point of photography is capturing "the decisive moment": you will value flexibility and speed of response - and like him, you will prefer a 35mm camera.  Suppose, on the other hand, that you agree with Ansel Adams that the point of photographs is to reveal the pristine beauty of wild landscape: you will not value flexibility or speed of response, and you will prefer large formats and very small apertures.
Your assumptions are not warranted, since each will decide what gear is suited for which task. I.e. some use M43 for landscapes.