Roy
Well-known member
They may be DSLRs but If you need medium format then the Bigger Hassy H is the way to go ...Good point. The baby Hassys are the ones going up against the Fuji, the big ones are $25,000.
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
They may be DSLRs but If you need medium format then the Bigger Hassy H is the way to go ...Good point. The baby Hassys are the ones going up against the Fuji, the big ones are $25,000.
I've used the Fuji extensively but you are right, the large Hassablad and Phase One files are the most spectacular I've seen.They may be DSLRs but If you need medium format then the Bigger Hassy H is the way to go ...
And true 16bit is noticably betterI've used the Fuji extensively but you are right, the large Hassablad and Phase One files are the most spectacular I've seen.
My PC computer handles 100-200mp images well...Ok, 100mp camera, what about the computer to process all the pictures, and how about printers?
How much storage space do you require?My PC computer handles 100-200mp images well...
You wont see much difference ...How much storage space do you require?
What about printing, can you notice a difference between 50mp & 100mp print?
I shoot product/commercial.Which application would require 100mp?/medium format?
How much storage space do you require?
What about printing, can you notice a difference between 50mp & 100mp print?
Thank you for the detailed explanation to my and others' questions.FILE SIZES -- I shoot the X2D-100C in 16 bit. The files come from the camera as 3FR RAW (ave file size 211MB), which are converted to fff RAW (ave file size 147MB) when imported using Hasselblad Phocus 3.7.1. "Normally" I make basic tone and colour adjustments in Phocus and then export the files I want to work on at 16-bit TIFF files using the Hasselblad RGB* Source Colour Space (ave file size 513MB). These are all Full image size resolutions.
I owned/used the X1D-ii 50C before I received the X2D-100C -- this is a 50MP sensor and the average file sizes were: 3FR 108MB, fff 82MB, and 16-bit TIFF 272MB
Comparing these file sizes to the 45.7MP 14-bit RAW file from a Nikon Z9 - one sees 14-bit Lossless RAW NEF 52.6MB and full sized 16-bit TIF 220-273MB (I save in the highest quality from PS/LRC - these could quite well be 16-bit rather than 14-bit after processing)
On average a 14-bit RAW file would be ~60-70% of a 16-bit fff RAW file size.
A 100MP 14-bit sensor could reasonably be expected to deliver file sizes 2.2x those from the Z9 lossless RAW. So 116mb Lossless RAW.
The "obvious" other point is I take far far fewer shots with the X2D than my Z9 -- and this is because I use each camera for different use cases -- Z9 - action/wildlife and shooting fast; X2D-100C - portraits/landscape and other stationary/slower moving stuff that does not require fast AF.
PRINTING -- the basic difference is the maximum size of print one can achieve at 300 ppi (not dpi) from a 100MP and a 50MP sensor AND then the quality of the printer and paper then makes the difference. Roughly a 100MP allows an image to be printed with 2x the area of a 50MP image. AND since the image file is larger one can crop in further before there is loss of resolution.
I like to use an XPAN crop 65:24 (2.70:1.00) for many of my landscapes -- a 3:2 FX sensor leave less pixels cropped away than when cropping in on a SMF (4:3) sensor - yes one is only cropping away dead space but the difference is marginal on the long edge ... (crop down to 55% vs 45% on the short edge)
PROCESSING AND STORAGE - YES - one needs a lot of storage space. But nowhere near as much as when one shoots videos. AND YES a full-spec'd Apple Mac Studio Ultra has NO issues with these very large files -- I have processed many 50-100 image focus stacks taken with the X2D-100C and not had an issue. The good news for me is that my 16" MBP (Intel based) also has not issues -- yes it is slower, but it has no issues with these files. Sure one needs to carry external large SSD/HHD for storage/back-up.
VIDEO with 100MP sensor -- is pointless as a planned option There are far far better tools than a camera with a 100MP sensor to choose when planning to shoot videos. I am one of those who hope that Hasselblad are able to avoid adding video to the X2D, via firmware updates. When I plan to shoot vids these days I prefer the Z9 over all my other tools - I can pair it with a field recorder and timesync source or just add a good quality shotgun mic to secure very useable audio. The X2D has no such audio capabilities on board or audio-input port and these would need to be addressed if anyone wanted to use the X2D for a vid shoot. YES - I know the GFS-100s have video capabilities, but I have not seen any commercial output shot using this body. AS I say there are far far better options available at a fraction of the cost. Sure having on board video allows opportunistic vids to be taken -- but for the focal length typically used with these camera a smartphone can do as good a job.
The problem with digital bill boards is that the image changes to fast and some at night are to bright. Can't remember the last image on a digital bill board but the old fashioned bill board down the street from me never changes and I remember that one, it's for Power Ball and the other side is for Mega. I would think the printed bill boards would require the higher resolution.Interesting for me learning about those specialized tools.
Those art directors have an appetite…
The big bill boards are all going digital, so resolution could be lower, no?
So you’re suggesting the Z10 might be a bigger sensor and ZtoZ adapter for a whole new line up of Z lenses..One agency I work with insists on Medium Format and it's for the dynamic range, not the resolution. The subject is product (cowboy hats) and the photos are used for print (catalogs, magazine ads, and posters). I ship over an SSD full of RAWs and they do all the editing. My point is, at the commercial high-end of things it's rarely if ever the resolution anymore, but rather other desirable aspects of the files. This is true in cinema too, btw. The movement is towards larger sensors but not necessarily higher resolution. The sensor perennially dominating the Oscars is a 15mp FF sensor.
What's a Z10?So you’re suggesting the Z10 might be a bigger sensor and ZtoZ adapter for a whole new line up of Z lenses..
10 years ago i was told 36 to 60 mp will be the FF normal entry level sensor size so get prepared for it, well it took just a little longer than expected and we now have seen 36 to 60 mp sensors in 35mm FF be the norm.An interesting comment by Thom Hogan in his article about the quality of Z lenses S line going forward: "I can’t say for sure about that, because as far as you know I don’t have a 100mp camera."
I have an Epson V700 that will do up to 8x10. I've scanned pretty much everything from 35mm to 8x10 chrome and negs on it. It does a decent job, you have to go beyond the defaults to get the most out of it. Does it match a Tango drum scanner? No, but a lot less expensive! Scanning is an art unto itself and I'm sure I could improve under a master.All of this talk about 100+MP cameras has me thinking about looking into film scanners for 4x5 sheet film and getting my field camera back out of the trunk.
Does anyone here know of any film scanners that can handle and get the most out of 4x5 sheet film?
I consider the Negatives at least as important than the digital scans.I used the ScanScience kit for fluid mounting with the Epson 750 for a while. It worked well and the fluid had the added advantage of suppressing scratches and fine cracks in the emulsion. The smelll and reading the Prooduct Safety Data Sheet were finally too much even for my well-ventilated darkroom and I moved on. I own a Mamiya Press camera with a few fikm holders and lenses and trot it out ocaisionally. The shop I have develop the resulting film provides scans and only returns the actual negatives if yoju specifically request them.