Don't you think the price of medium format digital cameras

If you don't like it don't buy it retard.

>>2923607
Are you actually asking this question seriously? Do you actually not understand the difference between size and quality of pixels?

>>2923610
You do realize that the quality of a pixel is irrelevant when we're talking in terms of megapixels, right?

>>2923612

why would you start a such a bad troll thread? are you retarded?

>>2923612
The quality of each individual shitpost on /p/ is irrelevant when we're talking in terms of gigashitposting.

>>2923607

Price per megapixel. A new low for /p/

>>2923607

read about cameras before you shitpost on /p/

>>2923610
Not op, but it kinda bugs me when people go "muh amazing MF quality!" when that sensor is 1.3x crop from the smallest MF film available, and built with the exact same tech and almost the same pixel size as D810's sensor.

>>2923607
Honestly it's because so little make medium format sensors that they can inflate the profit margin as much as they want
Free market capitalism I guess

>>2923607
Also OP don't listen to these people saying shit about sensor quality, every sensor now is on par with exmor, except for canons.
Which funnily enough, this Pentax sensor is produced by Sony so it probably is an exmor.
What I think would be really cool is a medium format sensor that's only like 16mp, something with huge fucking pixels for amazing low light performance

>>2923607
I bought mine back when it came out for $8,500, no regrets.

>>2923799
It's still some ~80% bigger than small format. It also has more DR and less noise than the D810, which I guess comes from the larger pixels.

>>2923831
I would honestly be content with a 40MP sensor as a compromise between detail and noise, as the 645Z already looks great at ISO12,800. Or if there's ever going to be a full-frame 645 sensor in a Pentax, I'd like it to stay at around 50~60MP, the current 100MP chip is way overkill and actually performs worse than this one does.

>>2923849
>some ~80% bigger than small format

The gains aren't that big even though 80% sounds serious. The relative difference in sensor size between 645Z and FF is roughly the same as between FF and APS-H. Or between APS-C and Four Thirds, but I don't see anyone getting super excited about switching from a lolympus to a NEX. It's just another incremental increase in size, but one that happens to have a cool label attached to it.

>>2923849
>the current 100MP chip is way overkill and actually performs worse than this one does

Isn't the full-645 one still a CCD? They don't scale well with size beyond a certain point.

Each megapixel is more expensive because each megapixel performs much better, resolving more detail than a 5D megapixel and with WAY more dynamic range.

>>2924176
The 645Z one is cmos

>>2924177
Lrn2read. I meant the non-crop 100 MP sensor.

File: 0cb.png (771KB, 499x792px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 499x792px

>>2923615

>>2924176
>>2924180
Sony recently made a full-frame 645 100MP CMOS sensor that's currently only offered by Phase One in the IQ3100, before that the largest one was the 80MP CCD sensor used in various digital backs.
Phase wasn't sure about whether or not to release it due to numerous issues, and it still has bugs being worked out, which is probably why we haven't seen other companies adopt it yet.
As of now both Pentax cameras are limited to the 33x44mm format, and given that the new 28-45mm is actually optimized for this size, it's likely that Pentax will optimize future bodies and lenses for this format as Leica did with the S.

File: sensorwafer.jpg (232KB, 1028x468px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1028x468px

>>2923826
No. This is the reason. Producing image sensors is very expensive and large sensors are more likely to have defects. Camera makers make way more money producing 80 1-inch sensors (and putting them into cameras ofc) while having an output of, lets say 70 working sensors (10 with defects) than producing a wafer with 15 FF sensors and only having 9 of them fully working.
When it comes to MF, the whole good/bad sensor thing becomes even worse. Companies do not want to risk such a high chance of failing during the process of manufactoring MF sensors so customers will alwayws have to pay for the 'broken' sensors as well when buying a new NF camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016-09-13T23:07:24+02:00
Flash	No Flash Function
Image Width	1028
Image Height	468

>>2923849
>every sensor now is on par with exmor, except for canons.

Sony Exmor sensors range from low 13ev to nearly 15ev of DR. Most are in the 13ev range though. Canon's latest sensors are also in the 13ev range.

>>2924207
Except they don't make medium format sensors in one piece.

It's several sensors "welded" together.
So yield isn't a big issue.

What is difficult is calibrating the segments to form a seamless image.

File: 808.jpg (100KB, 1000x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1000x720px

>>2923607
>Nikon's lower end cameras, it's a steal
Bitch please, don't you know about the OG king of cheap megapixels?

>>2924280
> they don't make medium format sensors in one piece
It's not year 1999 anymore, dude.

this is the most mouth foaming dumb thread I've ever seen

>>2923607
Simply because the cost of adding every other pixel is higher than the cost of the previous pixel. It's the same concept as making lenses: you try going from 1.8 to 1.4, and all is well, but try going from 1.4 to 1.2… the price will not scale up in a linear fashion.

>>2924302
You're fucking stupid. In 1999 the sensor would be one piece. Combining sensor segments seamlessly is the cutting edge of sensor technology currently.

>>2923831
>every sensor now is on par with exmor
>produced by Sony so it probably is an exmor

woah

>>2924914
Heck, in '99 the sensor would be a scanning back, because chips that big flat out didn't exist yet. The first "medium format" sensors were like 36x36mm, had a resolution of around 16mp, and shot between ISO100~400.

The 33x44mm Sony sensor is the cutting edge of a silicon layering technique that allows them to make the it in one piece, anything bigger pretty much has to be tiled. The margins are so tight that the active sensor area is barely smaller than the physical size.

Nope, I think it's quite fair.

>>2923607
the price of silicon is higher because of the big surface area it needs.
bigger means lower yield and this is pass down to consumers.

>>2923607

but the 645z is the most practical of the digital MF cameras

>>2925218
why shoot mf when all the lens are f2.8?
just get a sony with f1.4

>>2925244
f/2.8 has lower DoF on the bigger sensor and lower noise compensates for ISO; it's more like f/1.8 on small format. But you can't really compare the "look" of the two systems just through numbers.

Bokeh whoring is also less of a thing on medium format, if you paid such a premium for extra detail, chances are you'll want to shoot in a way that makes use of it.

>>2923849
I've used both the 50 and 100mp sensors. Not sure what you're talking about by saying worse performance.
>>2924196
Hasselblad have a 100mp camera too, same sensor.

>>2924207
>sesnor

Any chance Fuji MF will be less than 5k?.... damn i want to get mf

>>2926513
No.

I guess you'll be able to get one without a lens.
I think the bigger question should be to ask why you want to get MF and if you can justify it.

Digital MF isn't just a new level of gearfaggotry, it's a thing you don't really buy unless you get a return on investment.

Out of curiosity, what are the applications of digital MF cameras? I mean what justifies such a large purchase? I was under the impression that much landscape photography was still the domain of LF film cameras.

>>2926548
When you want to print huge and where detail is key.

>>2926548
Since smaller sensors stopped sucking at dynamic range, MF is basically for anything that requires more resolution (both in pickles and lenses) than FF can offer. Or when you're in a gig so expensive that the price difference between a 5D and a H5D is trivial, e.g. you're a Mercedes-AMG press photographer.

>much landscape photography was still the domain of LF film
If you're doing it for the art, yes.
If you need quick guaranteed results, you use digital MF or, if you really want insane detail, a small format camera with a tele lens on a stitching rig plus an assload of time.

>>2926548
>what justifies such a large purchase?

Not much, that's the point.
You can also ask what justifies the purchase of a Ferrari.

Maybe it's a boost of confidence for some photographers.

>>2926562
>stitching rig plus an assload of time

You can shoot hand held and stitch everything automatically.

>>2926569
>guaranteed results

Handheld is finicky if you're aiming for gigapixel resolution. You make one mistake with lack of frame overlap, shake the camera, or bump the focus ring and the whole stitch is fucked.

>>2923607
However the sensor is larger so you get larger pixels and thus better light intake than a 40mp 35mm sensor.

>>2923607
>I don't understand how economics work

What if the new Pentax 645Z II will have the same 50MP sensor but with pixel shift? Would you buy it?

File: 1352619405146.jpg (147KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x960px

>>2927221
>645 pixel shift

fuji's MF announcement would be btfo. ultimate landscape camera, might rival 4x5

>>2927221
so a H5D-200MS for less monies?
sounds alright

>>2927232
As far as I understand, Fuji's camera is going to be one third of the size.

>>2923607
The price of the 645z is absolutely absurd. They're absurdly cheap.

>>2925594
>>why shoot mf when all the lens are f2.8?
>>just get a sony with f1.4
>f/2.8 has lower DoF on the bigger sensor

Nope. 80mm @ f/2.8 on 645 film has more DoF than 50mm @ f/1.4 on 35mm, and the Pentax MFD system has a 1.28x crop factor (vs. 645 film).

>and lower noise compensates for ISO;

The 645z is only slightly better at high ISO than the A7R II.

>But you can't really compare the "look" of the two systems just through numbers.

There's not a "MF look." When you match FoV and DoF (note I did not say focal length and aperture) there's hardly any difference between formats in good light. Larger sensors naturally collect more light, and large pixels can have greater full well capacity (more DR). Problem is the best sensor tech appears in FF and APS-C sizes first, so those formats have had equal or better ISO and DR for years.

The format that truly stands out is large format view cameras thanks to the movements available.

>>2927571
>There's not a "MF look.
ok then m80
i'll just leave this here.
taken at f/11, btw
>>2924899

>>2923607
Ayy, I leave 4chinks for a week and this thread happens, kill me.

>>2927221
Pixel shift no, but a definite yes if it had in-body IS. I know two of the lenses have IS already, but I'd really like to have all my legacy glass be stabilized as well. The body is certainly large enough to support such a system.

50MP is also enough for me to print 40x60" from a single file and have pristine image quality, so I'm not aware of the niche that desires more, but image stacking for the purpose of obtaining a true RGB image is indeed a good cause.

And also a yes on sensor size, I would much rather see Pentax optimize the system around 33x44 than try and stuff an FF sensor in, when they already have a god-tier 28-45mm that'll only work on this format. If they make a killer standard and long zoom using the same design principles, this would be a system to be reckoned with. There are several aspects where they can easily shrink the camera size as well; it's as thick as if it had a film back attached currently.

>>2927241
>As far as I understand, Fuji's camera is going to be one third of the size.
Isn't the rumor that it's going to be a DSLR? The Hasselblad H1D is already 1/3rd the thickness of the 645Z, but if it's going to be an SLR, then that's big mirror you're dealing with. The Leica S is highly optimized in this regard and they even picked the 30x45mm format to keep the mirror short, so it wouldn't be smaller than it is.

>>2927571
>There's not a "MF look." When you match FoV and DoF (note I did not say focal length and aperture) there's hardly any difference between formats in good light.
In practice, photographers rarely go out of their way to match FoV and DoF, I tend to shoot MF differently than I would small format.
What I have found is that even at relatively similar DoF levels, MF actually gives the greater impression of depth, due to the smoother roll-off between what's in-focus and what isn't.

>>2927628
>Isn't the rumor that it's going to be a DSLR?

I heard that it's gonna be "DSLR shaped", i.e. something like X-T1. I highly doubt Fuji is going to make a new reflex system from scratch, especially when the sensor allows decent live view performance.

>>2925039
>Heck, in '99 the sensor would be a scanning back

Ken Rockwell detected

File: Format.jpg (30KB, 631x399px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 631x399px

20% premium for a 645Z vs Canon 5D in terms of what's the important difference - sensor area.

This is more than explained by manufacturing complexity.

Also: Why u4/3 is stupid.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Bart Zoni
Image-Specific Properties:

6x9 digital MF when???

>>2929611
How can so much autism fit in such a small chart?

File: autism.jpg (80KB, 1306x792px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1306x792px

>>2929633
My chart has a lower autism density than the thread as a whole.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Bart Zoni
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2929651
You are a fucking genius, Anon!

>>2929651
how did you measure the autism units of the thread and your graph?

>>2929724
> how did you measure the autism units of the thread and your graph?

It must have been a challenge, as your comment just overloaded my semi-professional autisometer.

>>2929651
Did you include this chart on your autism count ? Other you must re do your work.

>>2929762
It would be recursive and diverge into infinity. The chance to save this thread is infinitesimal.

File: Switch_IQ3-45degree-2.jpg (98KB, 1140x805px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1140x805px

Make way for the king, faggots.

>>2929787
So sad this costs more than I could raise selling a kidney.

>>2929787
Only the king in some technical aspects. It's big even compared to the 645Z, and unwieldy hand-held unless you're using flash, I had trouble getting a sharp image unless shooting at 3x focal length for shutter speed, which made me realize this wasn't the system for me.

Additionally, someone compared the image quality of the Phase + 80mp back and new 35mm on it to the Z with the 28-45mm, and it was a coin toss as to which looked better. You hit severe diminishing returns at the high end.

>>2929882
Please tell more of your experiences!

>>2929778
>>2929762
Fuck. Now I need to make another chart.