What I want from a d-RF

[Sparrow]

Two years ago I came to the conclusion that to preserve it’s RF nature in use, what I needed was a camera with a manual interface (focus and exposure), a full frame 135 sensor to keep the FOV and to allow for 12x18” prints at 400dpi some 30-35mp of file size.

I still hold that view. Am I being unreasonable? Am I misunderstanding the maths? Can 10 or 12mp really be as good as a 40mp scan from a negative?

Opinions please

 

[RML]

Unreasonable perhaps only if you think it will be a camera many can afford. FF cameras are already expensive, and FF chips are very hard to produce. Sticking a FF chip in a rf camera that already is more expensive to build, won't make the camera very affordable for most. I also think FF is over-rated and won't become standard in the near or middle term future.

 

[pvdhaar]

I'd settle for a sub $1000/€1000 price and a proper distribution channel, and I'll take the rest as it comes.

FOV factor of 1.5 is fine with me, 6MP is fine with me, and wether there's and advance lever or motor, I don't care.. same holds for automatic or manual frameline selection, it's all moot to me..

Just give me something I can justify money wise!

 

[Toby]

Why 400 dpi? The human eye can't discern that much detail, more like 250 dpi

 

[Sparrow]

At first when the rd1 came out I thought it was just what I wanted, then I read the spec did the maths and realised it wasn’t, put away my chequebook and decided to hang-on for the “real deal” at some point.
I’m starting to think it may never happen, my dad always thought 135 was too much of a compromise, and I look like being the same with digital.

 

[Sparrow]

Why 400 dpi? The human eye can't discern that much detail, more like 250 dpi

My lab works at 402
And I’ve tested it on the kids, they can pick 400 out from 300dpi of the same file

 

[jorisbens]

I think a black and white 10MP 1.5 cropfactor sensor in a rangefinder body with a fixed 35mm f1 (to continue to be able to have a very small DOF and have a 50mm equivalent) lens and a good viewfinder would be perfect for me. I would even settle for the same configuration with a colour sensor. And not to expensive.

In fact, we all want the same thing; better products, and lower prices (preferably free)

 

[rogue_designer]

As to whether or not a 10 or 12 MP sensor can match a 40mb scan from a 35mm negative - it depends. But at the print size you are dealing with, yes - I think it can. The true resolution of the scan is higher, but that is limited by the grain of the negative, the quality of the scanner, and expertise of the person controlling it. And of course, the digital output imposes a very real limitation as well.

I do think that some of your criteria will be met within the next 2-3 years. Your Dad was right tho - 135 was too much of a compromise. 😉

 

[dazedgonebye]

I think there are not enough of us here to interest Canon in making a 16mp ff rf camera. How much would it cost if we could?

I'm not saying that would be the end all...but with off the shelf technology...someone could put it together tomorrow and there would be a market.

 

[Will]

I'd settle for a sub $1000/€1000 price and a proper distribution channel, and I'll take the rest as it comes.

FOV factor of 1.5 is fine with me, 6MP is fine with me, and wether there's and advance lever or motor, I don't care.. same holds for automatic or manual frameline selection, it's all moot to me..

Just give me something I can justify money wise!

Count me in.

 

[telenous]

Stewart, I agree with your 'want' list. The FF format would be desirable to me mostly because it would still allow the use of a fast wide angle (the 35 f1.4). It appears that it is not feasible or economical - in which case I could make do with the 1.33 factor. As for manual controls, this is the one thing I like every camera I use to have. For that matter, I do not understand why on earth Nikon or Pentax or someone else have not produced as yet a manual DSLR. Even that would be interesting. Perhaps the lovers of manual cameras are really very few to justify it.

 

[Sparrow]

As to whether or not a 10 or 12 MP sensor can match a 40mb scan from a 35mm negative - it depends. But at the print size you are dealing with, yes - I think it can. The true resolution of the scan is higher, but that is limited by the grain of the negative, the quality of the scanner, and expertise of the person controlling it. And of course, the digital output imposes a very real limitation as well.

I do think that some of your criteria will be met within the next 2-3 years. Your Dad was right tho - 135 was too much of a compromise. 😉

Even a 5400dpi scan of a c41 neg?

 

[rogue_designer]

Even a 5400dpi scan of a c41 neg?

for your stated print size. yes - even if the scanner is up to snuff, the operator knows what he is doing, the c41 is a slow film properly exposed, etc.

But there are so many variables - it's hard to give an unqualified answer. But if you are not printing larger than 12x18 - I wouldn't worry about it overly much.

Now a 30x40 gallery print is another matter - but there I don't think any 35mm neg would do it anyway.

I guess short answer is, if your criteria are as strict as you make them out to be, you're looking at the wrong formats anyway.

 

[Sparrow]

You see this is one of the many things I don’t understand, the 10mp needs up-sizing by a factor of four I don’t see how it can have the same information, I’m not disputing the fact I just want to know how it works.

 

[rogue_designer]

You see this is one of the many things I don’t understand, the 10mp needs up-sizing by a factor of four I don’t see how it can have the same information, I’m not disputing the fact I just want to know how it works.

Not a factor of four - more like a factor of 2. A 12 mp image, for instance, is 7x10" at 400 dpi natively. (3000px x 4000px) - and is a 30+mb file.

And since you don't have grain with digital (at low iso - very low noise) it is not at all an issue to go up by a factor of 2 or 3 with very little apparent loss of resolution.

I realize resolution cannot be created - but again, at your print size, that difference will not be visible. Especially as compared to a similarly sized scan.

Believe me, I am no advocate for Digital. I'm just suggesting that at the print size you are working, the actual results belie what the math might indicate.

 

[J. Borger]

There are professional digital printers out there claiming they get 30*40 gallery prints from the 10MP M8 that are comparable to professional scanned 4*5 film, something scanned 35mm never will accomplish.
The reason the M8 performs so well for this is because it needs no capture sharpening AT ALL ... (because of the lack of AA filter etc)
Therefore these files can be upsized big time without artifacts of any kind ..... only sharpening needed it some for print (last stage after upsizing).
I am no scanning expert .. but as far as i know capture sharpening has to be applied to any sacn from film.
Above that there is less noise in a digital captured picture ....

(PS. All of this has of course nothing to do with liking or prefering film to digital for other possible and valid reasons.......)

 

[Trius]

A lot of discussion about what we want in a digital RF includes, fairly consistently, the "are there enough RF photographers to support the market for such a camera" question. Also fairly consistently the views on this seem to be slightly to decidedly negative, with some exceptions of course.

I for one think it might be helpful to simply think in terms of photography and photographers, not RF photography and photography. Photographers, whether amateur or pro, are a very practical and adaptable lot. The market responds to new ideas and implementations. Just look at the growth of RFF. I cannot believe that this is anything more than people discovering or rediscovering a tool, a mode of photography that meets a need.

Also look at the very invention of 35mm photography. "Too much compromise" in such a small format many felt. And yet the very invention of the Leica provided the foundation for an entirely new sector.

So I believe in the "if you build it they will come" school of product development. What I have learned about marketing is that most marketing people generally miss major trends if they are left to actually think up a new product. It is usually the inventors, the technically creative types who succeed at a breakthrough product. It is the true amateurs, i.e. the lovers of a craft, who have the vision and fortitude to create the future.

So given the current technical hurdles with a digital RF, (which seems to be tied to the flange to film distance) I think we are only in the very initial stage of product development and definition. I applaud both Epson and Leica for their efforts. I really think someone else will come along and contribute to the effort, perhaps with the "breakthrough" product that will carve out a new market segment. I have no clue as to whether any of the "big boys", (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) will be a player, though conventional wisdom would say not. Whoever else might play is open to lots of guessing, and I for one think a big surprise would be fun.

Why I think there IS a potential market is that outside of sports and a few other specialized uses, most people use a fairly narrow set of focal lengths. These focal lengths (moderate wide angle to short telephoto) are the sweet spot of RF photography. All it takes is for one person, one small team to dream and design.

 

[Sparrow]

There are professional digital printers out there claiming they get 30*40 gallery prints from the 10MP M8 that are comparable to professional scanned 4*5 film, something scanned 35mm never will accomplish.
The reason the M8 performs so well for this is because it needs no capture sharpening AT ALL ... (because of the lack of AA filter etc)
Therefore these files can be upsized big time without artifacts of any kind ..... only sharpening needed it some for print (last stage after upsizing).

__________________
I simply do not believe that, not doubting your word, but the claim itself, at that size I could count the pixels if the file was printed accurately

 

[v3cron]

As to whether or not a 10 or 12 MP sensor can match a 40mb scan from a 35mm negative - it depends. But at the print size you are dealing with, yes - I think it can. The true resolution of the scan is higher, but that is limited by the grain of the negative, the quality of the scanner, and expertise of the person controlling it. And of course, the digital output imposes a very real limitation as well.

I do think that some of your criteria will be met within the next 2-3 years. Your Dad was right tho - 135 was too much of a compromise. 😉

digital capture sidesteps the limitations of grain and generation loss, but those limitations may not necessarily be a bad thing. i personally think that digital capture is very cold and harsh. it's a matter of taste.

 

[J. Borger]

__________________
I simply do not believe that, not doubting your word, but the claim itself, at that size I could count the pixels if the file was printed accurately

The claim was from a guy making exhibition prints for famous photographers (Friedlander, Frank, Leibovitz,.. just to name a few.)

Another printer Jack Flesher (who has quite some experience working as a large format landscape photographer himself) jumped in with this .......

(I hope he does not mind me quoting him if he visits here)

"I'm relatively new here, but also print large, digitally, and from a a variety of file sources.

Let me first say, the M8 file is the *best* native digital file I have ever seen, period. Next, I'll agree the M8 file approaches scanned 4x5 in quality -- to the point the advantages of the 4x5 scan are academic with respect to a final print. And yes, I know that is a big statement.

One thing David did not mention in his scanned 4x5 to M8 file-to-print comment is the unique combination of smoothness and detail you get from scanned 4x5 but usually do not get from a direct digital file when it is printed large (unless you work the heck out of it in post). For whatever reason, the M8 file carries that characteristic of smoothness along with remarkable detail"


I can not validate this because i do not print large myself, and if i did i would not have the credentials references or knowledge these 2 have.
As far as a i know they have no personal affection with the M8 either .... Flesher shoots a Canon 1Ds II and sold his M8, not for the "issues", but because for his work he prefers SLR's .........