Will dSLR kill medium format?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eric Gisin, Oct 2, 2003.

  1. Eric Gisin

    Eric Gisin Guest

    It's widely acknowledged that the 6MP dSLR matches everyday 100 ISO 35mm film.
    Will tomorrows dSLR match 4x6cm medium format?

    4x6cm is 2.8 larger than 24x36mm, so we need 6MP * 2.8 = 17MP. We can a
    predict a 24x36mm sensor with 7.2um pixels, which is 3333x5000 = 17MP.

    If current trends continue, you can expect to see such a camera in the next
    year or two for 5-10K$.
     
    Eric Gisin, Oct 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Eric Gisin

    JackD Guest

    It may, it may not. There are still technical challenges to solve and I
    think that we are still just getting started. Others have posted that they
    believe that the technology is more "mature".

    -Jack
     
    JackD, Oct 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Gisin

    bmoag Guest

    If you believe a 6mp sensor matches 35mm film then I have a bridge in New
    York you may be interested in purchasing . . .
     
    bmoag, Oct 2, 2003
    #3
  4. Eric Gisin

    MarkH Guest

    I doubt that the cameras in a year or 2 will beat MF, but given several
    more years then sure, why not. When you can buy a full frame 24MPix camera
    for under $2k then there will not be many that use film for quality
    reasons.

    But of course today there are still plenty of people that use MF or LF for
    quality reasons and others that use D-SLR for convenience reasons. I for
    one am not too worried about what might or might not happen in the future,
    I’m happy just to take photos in the present.
     
    MarkH, Oct 2, 2003
    #4
  5. Eric Gisin

    Eric Gisin Guest

    So you have a web link proving otherwise? My info comes from several web
    sites.

    | If you believe a 6mp sensor matches 35mm film then I have a bridge in New
    | York you may be interested in purchasing . . .
    |
    |
     
    Eric Gisin, Oct 2, 2003
    #5
  6. Eric Gisin

    Guest Guest

    In the photo retail industry digital has already killed M-F. I have seen a
    steady decline of all M-F camera sales, whether it's 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, or 6x*
    Sales are dead. Local pros here are selling (or trying to sell) off their
    Blad's and other M-F equipment. Weddings and portraits are being shot with
    Nikon D1X or Canon 10D DSLR cameras, that is reality.
     
    Guest, Oct 2, 2003
    #6
  7. Eric Gisin

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Oct 2, 2003
    #7
  8. Maybe some, my lab informs me quite a few Pro photographers have returned
    to Medium format after finding out the downsides to digital weddings.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 2, 2003
    #8
  9. Eric Gisin

    Scott Elliot Guest

    Firstly, you cannot necessarily link the number of pixels with image
    quality. The smaller 24x36mm image has to be magnified more times than a
    4.5x6mm image in order to produce any given size of enlargement. It is more
    difficult to have the same quality per pixel spread over a small area equal
    the quality per pixel spread over a larger area because of the smaller size
    sampled by each pixel. Even if you could get equal quality to the pixels,
    lenses themselves become a limitation. Optics are not perfect so at some
    point the quality of the optics will limit the quality of the enlargement.
    If lens quality, not number of pixels becomes the limiting factor, the
    lenses for the smaller format would have to be significantly better than
    lenses for the larger format to produce equal quality enlargements.

    Secondly there are already digital backs for medium format cameras from
    Contax, Mamiya and Hasselblad. One of these cameras with a digital back on
    it is a DSLR. The cost of these backs is currently very high, but that will
    change. Medium format will have a choice of either dying or adapting. It
    is up to the manufacturers. Kodak is already a leader in this market and
    those products could be the corner stone to the company's long term
    survival.

    Scott Elliot
    http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
     
    Scott Elliot, Oct 2, 2003
    #9
  10. Eric Gisin

    Gavin Cato Guest

    It's on the web? Well it must be true!!!
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 2, 2003
    #10
  11. Websites really don't prove anything, nor do printed brochures etc.
    The proof is in the size image required the output etc. Maybe at 5x7
    8x10 RGB prints, but in high end 4 color press outputing to 16x20
    I think not, I would have to see in real time not someone's press release.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 2, 2003
    #11
  12. Film isn't dead yet...but it's definitely coughing up blood.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Oct 2, 2003
    #12
  13. Eric Gisin

    DaveC Guest

    I was actually wondering about this. what are the downsides?
     
    DaveC, Oct 2, 2003
    #13
  14. Pissed off customers.

    Medium format is a _lot_ better than 6MP digital, and if your customers have
    ever seen high quality MF and LF work, they probably won't be satisfied with
    6MP digital.

    However, I'd think that 6MP dSLR digital could be a lot better for candids
    than either MF or 35mm.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 2, 2003
    #14
  15. Eric Gisin

    Mxsmanic Guest

    No, it's not, but that is a widespread belief within some subgroups of
    photographers.
    I'm getting 80 megapixels from 6x6, and my scanner still isn't getting
    it all.
    You mean like the Hasselblad H1 with a digital back?
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 2, 2003
    #15
  16. Eric Gisin

    Mxsmanic Guest

    How could a web link prove either way?
    So how did those web sites "prove" that DSLRs were better?
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 2, 2003
    #16
  17. Eric Gisin

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Not really. Digitals are selling well because lots of people who want
    them still don't have one. MF cameras are selling poorly because
    everyone who wants one has one, and because used gear is a good buy (MF
    cameras don't become obsolete in six months).

    These do not indicate any general replacement of MF by digital, although
    digital is replacing MF in applications that don't actually require MF
    quality. (Many art directors who reflexively demanded MF because of
    snob appeal now reflexively demand digital because of snob appeal.)
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 2, 2003
    #17
  18. Eric Gisin

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I'm sure that people said the same thing when 35mm came out. Medium
    format is still with us, even if the amateurs and many pros rapidly
    switched to 35mm for applications that didn't require MF quality.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 2, 2003
    #18
  19. Eric Gisin

    germano Guest


    YES.THIS IS HARD TRUE.
     
    germano, Oct 2, 2003
    #19
  20. Eric Gisin

    David Guest

    I have a D60 and have made very nice 16x20 prints. They look as good as
    35mm. I also use a Hasselblad 500 cm and a Fuji GA645 pro. The image quality
    of the MF is far better, than the D60 but as stated before, there is just no
    need for MF in some situations. As for me dslr will not replace my MF it HAS
    replaced my EOS ElanII.
     
    David, Oct 2, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.