> I spoke with Schneider LF technical people, and it was their opinion that at 22 megapixels, one could use traditional LF lenses and not expect to gain that much by "upgrading" to the Digitar type lenses. (I'm thinking in particular of the Mamiya 22mp digital back.) They emphasized that a lot could be accomplished, size-wise and otherwise with a back like that. Above 22p, they recomended more sophisticated lenses.
IMO, this is excellent advise, and a VERY valid point. But it must be a MF sensor, not smaller 35mm as mentioned. However, keep in mind, that LF lenses will never deliver the resolution that the Digitar lenses will.... so you will still have gains with digitar lenses...specially if the subject has very little depth, in which case you will have big gains, as the Digitars are optimized in the 5.6 - 8 range, vs. LF lenses in the f16+ range (dependent on fl). These details can make a big difference, if your type work allows it... Of course the real value of the MF back on a view camera lens, is the ability to stitch... now, you have the best of both worlds, assuming the subject is cooperative.
> I've not found any Canon lenses to get me excited either.
IMO, the value of DSLR is FAST lenses. Try the 200mm f2.0 if you want to have some fun. You can produce images not possible with LF. However, if DOF is your gig, LF is still the cats meow.... and large DOF is the death sentence to DSLR...it will never be optimized for such. Instead, its sweet spot is ultra fast lenses which are diffraction limited.... only the best lenses today will make these highly dense sensors produce amazing imagery.
For some, it becomes cost effective to buy some really expensive digital set up, such as the 60MP MF back with digitar lenses....but you have to shooot a lotttt of film for this to be true. This is the beauty of LF IMO.... for a few dollars, you can match the output of a $80k digital set up....
> I use an 8x10 camera and when I drum scan the image I have a 568 megapixel file.
I don't mean to start a war.... and another poster above has already touched on this..... but a 568 MP scanned file is very deceiving to many readers. Your statement gives the illusion, you would need a 568 MP digital camera to match the image quality of your 8x10 scanned film.... I am sure this was not your intent, and there is a lot of variables to consider, so I won't comment on your unique application, but to put things in perspective for others..... I offer the following....using 1/R, If we consider diffraction limited lenses, at 100 lp/mm MTF for high resolving B&W film, at these f stops, the max. resolution of 8x10 film is...
f32 - 204 MP
f45 - 125 MP
f64 - 72 MP
And in the rare situation, where you can infinity focus at f22 - 468 MP
Of course, with 8x10 color film the numbers are significantly less...using 60 lp/mm MTF of the film...
f32 - 139 MP
f45 - 92 MP
f64 - 54 MP
f22 - 204 MP
For those interested..... 4x5 color film at 60 lp/mm
f16 - 58 MP
f22 - 44 MP
f32 - 30 MP
f45 - 20 MP
These MP values represent the IQ of the film, NOT the file size. Often, to squeeze every last drop of resolution from film, the scanner must over-scan to grab all the resolution, creating file sizes that are enormous...... this is normal in all forms of reproduction work... and can be classified as "inefficiency" when going to a 2nd generation image. This value can vary from 1.3x to 3x based on the quality of the scanner.
Anyway, the point is here, the "devil is in the details" when comparing digital vs. film.... there is no cut n dry comparisons.... unfortunately...
As for the theme of initial post.... IMO, the MP wars are hitting brick walls.... next it will be lens wars to gain the benefit of those smaller pixels. A perfect example is the 50d... unless I use a near diffraction limited f2 lens (shot wide open) on it (which only one or two even exist, certainly not the 85 1.2) .... I don't gain much final rez over the previous 8MP or 10MP sensors. This is a perfect example of how most MP's are becoming marketing MP's vs. useful MP's. This makes perfect sense, and it demonstrates that the only sensible move from here, is to enlarge the sensor size, then it can accommodate smaller apt. settings, to gain more final rez AND allow smaller apt. settings. This was the move Leica recently made....I wonder if Canon and Nikon might some day end up in this camp, with a new line-up of lenses of course....
As others have pointed out....the next big break in digital, is MF sized sensors in the 40 - 60MP size that are reasonably priced. It sure is a mystery if that will ever happen...but if it does, it will be lethal hit to film.
Bookmarks