4 ms·

> You buy a DSLR because it has a large sensor that can capture lots of light and detail. 35 mm imaging is traditionally referred to as "small format" film.

by rodgerd 10y ago

> You buy a DSLR because it has a large sensor that can capture lots of light and detail. 35 mm imaging is traditionally referred to as "small format" film. You typically buy an SLR (or DSLR) because you're making a bunch of compromises to image quality because of price or convenience or similar factors. If you weren't, you'd be using a digital medium format, or large format film and a specialised scanner. This is another option on that scale. The DSLR is hardly the pinnacle of photography, except perhaps for high-speed action.

contingencies 10y ago
Digital medium format is basically dead; the Canon 5DS (51MP) killed it. Why would you pay ten times the money to get the same resolution but also have to shell out ten times the expense for every lens, with ~no resale value, rental, repair or second hand market, and higher weight and bulk to boot? You arguably get slightly higher dynamic range, but bracketing solves that in 90% of cases.
- astrostl 10y ago
  Hasselblad and Fuji both have new digital medium format systems coming out, and it's probably been the biggest news in cameras for 2016.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    That may be true but if ~nobody buys them (which is basically guaranteed unless a major price drop occurs - which is unlikely as their entire raison d'être is "high resolution", which requires expensive hardware), then who cares?
    - astrostl 10y ago
      Now that the Sony A7 series has "democratized" full-format mirrorless, ILC camera folks are buying it in droves. And because of things like lower noise, shallower depth of field, and increased dynamic range. Not megapixels, which is especially evident with the 12MP high-sensitivity A7S line. Just a few years ago, the same comments about MF could have been made about FF. Even if it stays a high-end niche, rather than getting cheaper and broader like FF recently has, major and new endeavors in the space highlight the extent to which the format is the opposite of dead.
      - contingencies 10y ago
        Fair points, but because the sole traditional purpose of MF/LF is higher resolution and prosumer/35mm FF resolutions are now far above requirements for any normal output, I still feel it is 'dead' as a market.
        astrostl 10y ago
        Totally agree that huge prints are the historical reason for MF and higher. These days a high-resolution LCD is the most common medium of display, and most people with serious gear can't help but pixel-peep their images at 100%. I think that, shallow depth of field, and lower noise are the biggest drivers for bigger sensors at this point.
        contingencies 10y ago
        I'm not sure about the DOF argument; however I would say that any advantage offered by larger formats is largely countered by the significantly broader and cheaper lens selection on 35mm FF. Noise may increase based upon sensor density, however it is pretty much irrelevant in sensor selection given that mass market stuff is so much more advanced in high sensitivities (through hardware and software). My personal impression is that unless you plan to shoot >3600ISO shots with medium format (which nobody does: probably it's not even offered on those sensors), you are going to get superior quality for 1/10th of the price (or less) with the prosumer 35mm/FF stuff (not to mention the other benefits such as lens selection). Noise that is significant at standard output formats (HD, screen resolutions, normal sized prints) really only kicks in at super high ISOs (easily ISO1000+). This wasn't the case a few years back, but certainly is now. Pixel peeping is almost completely pointless for standard output formats, regardless of consumer enthusiasm. With currently offered resolutions, it's frequently pointless even with heavy cropping.
- astrostl 10y ago
  And to add just a bit: - "resolution," as measured in megapixels, ain't the thing - the "I can bracket to get similar results" argument for full-frame over medium format could just as well be used for APS-C over full-frame, MFT over APS-C, 1" over MFT, etc. Meanwhile, everything from FF on down has a huge user base, which prefers their unique set of cost/size/performance tradeoffs.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    Your comment is confused. Bracketing increases dynamic range (ie. "range encompassing the darkest non-black shade to brightest non-white shade recordable by the sensor") not resolution. Current era DSLRs are already far higher resolution than required for most outputs (even large format printing)... there is really little utility in seeking higher resolutions than modern prosumer limits (~50MP) at this stage.
    - astrostl 10y ago
      Formatting broke, but they were two discrete points. First point: "resolution," as measured in megapixels, ain't the thing.

by rodgerd 10y ago

contingencies 10y ago

Digital medium format is basically dead; the Canon 5DS (51MP) killed it. Why would you pay ten times the money to get the same resolution but also have to shell out ten times the expense for every lens, with ~no resale value, rental, repair or second hand market, and higher weight and bulk to boot? You arguably get slightly higher dynamic range, but bracketing solves that in 90% of cases.

astrostl 10y ago
Hasselblad and Fuji both have new digital medium format systems coming out, and it's probably been the biggest news in cameras for 2016.
- contingencies 10y ago
  That may be true but if ~nobody buys them (which is basically guaranteed unless a major price drop occurs - which is unlikely as their entire raison d'être is "high resolution", which requires expensive hardware), then who cares?
  - astrostl 10y ago
    Now that the Sony A7 series has "democratized" full-format mirrorless, ILC camera folks are buying it in droves. And because of things like lower noise, shallower depth of field, and increased dynamic range. Not megapixels, which is especially evident with the 12MP high-sensitivity A7S line. Just a few years ago, the same comments about MF could have been made about FF. Even if it stays a high-end niche, rather than getting cheaper and broader like FF recently has, major and new endeavors in the space highlight the extent to which the format is the opposite of dead.
    - contingencies 10y ago
      Fair points, but because the sole traditional purpose of MF/LF is higher resolution and prosumer/35mm FF resolutions are now far above requirements for any normal output, I still feel it is 'dead' as a market.
      - astrostl 10y ago
        Totally agree that huge prints are the historical reason for MF and higher. These days a high-resolution LCD is the most common medium of display, and most people with serious gear can't help but pixel-peep their images at 100%. I think that, shallow depth of field, and lower noise are the biggest drivers for bigger sensors at this point.
        contingencies 10y ago
        I'm not sure about the DOF argument; however I would say that any advantage offered by larger formats is largely countered by the significantly broader and cheaper lens selection on 35mm FF. Noise may increase based upon sensor density, however it is pretty much irrelevant in sensor selection given that mass market stuff is so much more advanced in high sensitivities (through hardware and software). My personal impression is that unless you plan to shoot >3600ISO shots with medium format (which nobody does: probably it's not even offered on those sensors), you are going to get superior quality for 1/10th of the price (or less) with the prosumer 35mm/FF stuff (not to mention the other benefits such as lens selection). Noise that is significant at standard output formats (HD, screen resolutions, normal sized prints) really only kicks in at super high ISOs (easily ISO1000+). This wasn't the case a few years back, but certainly is now. Pixel peeping is almost completely pointless for standard output formats, regardless of consumer enthusiasm. With currently offered resolutions, it's frequently pointless even with heavy cropping.
astrostl 10y ago
And to add just a bit: - "resolution," as measured in megapixels, ain't the thing - the "I can bracket to get similar results" argument for full-frame over medium format could just as well be used for APS-C over full-frame, MFT over APS-C, 1" over MFT, etc. Meanwhile, everything from FF on down has a huge user base, which prefers their unique set of cost/size/performance tradeoffs.
- contingencies 10y ago
  Your comment is confused. Bracketing increases dynamic range (ie. "range encompassing the darkest non-black shade to brightest non-white shade recordable by the sensor") not resolution. Current era DSLRs are already far higher resolution than required for most outputs (even large format printing)... there is really little utility in seeking higher resolutions than modern prosumer limits (~50MP) at this stage.
  - astrostl 10y ago
    Formatting broke, but they were two discrete points. First point: "resolution," as measured in megapixels, ain't the thing.