Slashdot Mirror

While pixel count matters we have probably already crossed into the realm where lenses are going to be more important for picture quality than pixel count unless you have a Hasselblad with a full frame digital back. Most people understand megapixels and for a long time a higher count meant you would get better pictures but as soon as you mention diffraction limits you have lost them. This was something that I was taught about years ago in high school in the photography class using Pentax K1000s and ISO100 black and white film with the general rule that for crisp pictures don't stop the lens down beyond f/8. There are exceptions like you really want a very high depth of focus or you are doing a very long exposure but you understood why you were doing those things.

The GP is also right in that now days camera chassis are fairly disposable unless you are looking at the very high end ones. I still have my Pentax Spotmatic F with close to a full complement of good lenses (looking for an M42 screw mount 17mm fisheye and 400-500mm range telephoto at reasonable prices) and as long as the camera shop near me exists I will keep on using it. My wife however is on her 4th digital camera in 10 years as they just don't last even though my SpotmaticF has been exposed to substantially harsher conditions while I have owned it for almost the last 20 years.

The article did not explain if this would be incorporated into a camera anytime soon. Also I wonder how it compares to the Hasselblad digital backs and cameras. http://www.hasselbladusa.com/

A low end DSLR can beat 35mm film today. high end dslr's utterly kicks the crud out of 35mm in resolution.

The getting old Canon 5d Mark II is 21.5 megapixels which is 1.5 megapixels greater than the absolute best 35mm film+best camera+best lens can do. Honestly 90% of all 35mm film shots are less than 12megapixel in resolution due to low end glass and cameras as well as being processed less than perfect. And that's just the mid level stuff from Canon. high end digitals that reach the 60 megapixel mark utterly destroy 35mm film even when used with the best of everything.

That just goes to show how much you know, Canon's highest res pro camera is the 21.1 MP EOS-1Ds Mark III. Even Nikon's D3x only has a 24.5 MP sensor. If you want bigger ones you have to step up to medium format cameras such as Hasselblad or Mamiya.

Meanwhile in pro photographer Ken Rockwell's article Why We Love Film he writes:

"You want dynamic range? I got your dynamic range right here in this little canister. It's called film; a write-once, read-many (WORM) medium."

"I made this shot on a Contax G2 with a 21mm Zeiss lens at f/8 on Fuji Velvia 50, which was processed and scanned at the same time at NCPS. The dynamic range is so great that the hellacious sunbursts you see are just what's naturally coming off the diaphragm blade at f/8, as if 1,000 suns were shining in the lens in the two-minute exposure."

"Not only that, but the film I shot in a Canon EOS Rebel G film camera, worth about $20 today, was sharper as scanned at NCPS than the file I made with the same lens on a Canon 5D, which is sharper still than anything on earth from Nikon digital."

"How about that? A $20 camera with a $5 roll of film and $20 to process and scan the entire roll is sharper than a $5,000 camera. (The Contax cost more, but still loads less than anything in full-frame digital.)"

Falcon

Say I'm out in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness I could upload some photos

If you can get a signal out there, then you're a fortunate person.

There maybe places wireless is available but for the most part I doubt wireless access is available without a satellite phone, which is slow and expensive. This is why I support expanding mobile broadband, whatever it be.

Also bear in mind that your upload speed may be orders of magnitude slower than your downstream speed, so you might be better off waiting until you get back home.

Notice I said "mobile broadband", when you're out in the field for weeks waiting may not be an option. While relatively large storage devices are available for digital cameras, that "large" is relative to most cameras. The DSLR cameras I'd like to get have 21 megapixel full-frame sensors. I'd also like to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645 or 6x4.5mm, camera with a film and digital back. Hasselblad has digital backs 39 MP (5412 x 7212 pixels) and above in size. With 16 bit colour depths, that's a file size of 50MB and 117MB for raw and TIFF respectively.

Now using cable even transmitting files that big can take a while.

Falcon

I doubt it, but it would be cool if the pics were of a high enough resolution that you could see the Hasselblads left on the surface.

NASA are prolific Hasselblad users.

A digital medium-format camera today will be better than a medium-format camera from the 60s (although expensive medium format cameras have always been stunningly good in terms of optics and resolution)

The DSLR claim might be debatable, given that some modern full-frame DSLRs have incredibly high resolutions.

but not for the pros. When you move into the the medium format cameras you have things like this hasselblad which will give you 50 mega pixels. Their previous medium format digital camera had 36 mega pixels. Now granted these are ~$30,000 cameras new. Also keep in mind that these are also used for larger format prints rather than the 8"x10" picture that a regular consumer would produce. Also Hasselblad cameras have Ziess lenses which are about as good as you can get which is probably where the biggest improvements will be in cameras.

H3DII-50 isn't out yet, only the H3DII-39 at this point. IIRC it was announced around the same time as the Kodak sensor, which I think the Hassy uses.

Actually I just looked it up - http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/50-promotion.aspx - the 50 is not available until October 2008 and DOES use the new Kodak sensor, the promotion is that if you buy a 39 before September 30, you get a discount on a lens and an opportunity to upgrade to the 50 for the difference in list price.

It's a medium format sensor; the silicon imaging area is twice as big as a single 35mm film slide. Currently there's only a handful of cameras that has a "full frame" sensor for 35mm.

So, no, it will NEVER be used in a consumer-level camera. This is for people who shoot billboard ads.

This is the camera that sensor's going into:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx

$1k per Megapixel is about right for a Hasselblad - the H3DII-39 is about $35k. And that's just the body only. Lenses start at 3k. Zeiss makes'em. Aside from Zeiss's optical reputation, these lenses are special because the clockwork mechanism and the shutter are integrated into the lens.

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/2DFB31CE532E5E32C125711B0038D874

Unlike a DSLR which has to expose the image sensor a slit at a time at higher shutter speeds, this means that the entire frame can be exposed simultaneously, down to 1/8000 sec.

In other words... not your typical point and shoot or Digital Rebel XSi :-)

Bing! Right on the heels of Hasselblad announcing their new H3DII-50 camera (to be released in October) which presumably uses this sensor. Hasselblad has also announced a future 645 format sensor (roughly 56mm x 45mm), more details to be revealed at Photokina 2008 (major bi-annual worldwide photography trade show) later this year.

Kodak will have the last laugh.

AAD (Analog Analog Digital), ADD (Analog Digital Digital), DDD (Digital Digital Digital), DDA (Digital Digital Analog)

The sad thing is you can't find Infrared film anymore (other than 35mm, and that may be in danger also) , because "everyone" is going digital.
It's a double edged sword for me, as I'm snapping up all these Hasselblads:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system.aspx

- that everyone is discarding, $22,000. systems, tossed like yesterday's salad.
(But, please don't listen to me - they ARE worthless, those lenses too, TRASH, I tell you! You need the latest:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/522927-REG/Hasselblad_70380530_H3DII_39_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

There are experiments with holographic data storage systems:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/443/ashley.html

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/443/ashle20.jpg

-as long term storage.

A generation of family / baby pictures will go down the tubes because no one thought about it.

We shoot products on digital (no loss) - but, that's it, the rest, 220 Velvia, 35mm slides and a cool dark place, - yeah, and I LIKE it like that.

In a word: yes.

Yeah, maybe he should just strap three of these together and post-process in Photoshop.

Well, post-processing actually only works on the image you have in front of you. Given that the scanner exposes individual lines in the image over time (e.g. it - "scans") to generate the end image, you would actually need a movie to be able to generate the same effect with post-processing. A movie with very high-quality frames, and an unbelievably high frame rate (effectively you would want a frame for each line, so depending on the scan speed up to perhaps a few thousand frames a second - and then you would throw out the entire frame except the single line you wanted.) The scanner idea is starting to sound better to me.

On a more general note, this whole attitude is endemic now. Sure you can correct stuff later, but it is generally better in photography to try to get the best image you can at the moment you are taking it; you've then have got a lot more to work with! The phrase "polishing a turd" comes to mind...

Ok, it was a bit of a generalization. From what I understand, most consumer/prosumer cameras are in a certain range of sensor sizes. Like you said, price is the main force "wanting" to make the sensors small. But you also have sensitivity and noise issues wanting to make the sensors large. Different models and makers have different priorities and acceptable performances. At one end there's crappy little sensors for little "toy" cameras. At the other end is large sensors for professional cameras. In the middle are a range of consumer and "prosumer" cameras that probably make up most of the market.

If you want huge, the Hasselblad H1D has a 22MP 36.7x49mm sensor. I can't imagine the yield from fabricating such a large chip to be very good. Big $$$