[Brightcolours]

Oh btw, somebody is coming up with a 5x5 digital back.
 
That's inches, not cm.
 
http://www.largesense.com/products/4x5-l...back-ls55/

Nice.
 
But.... "Diffraction is not much of a worry with big pixels" .... Someone should explain to them that with similar DOF settings diffraction will be similar.

Low resolution (6.7 mp) and BW only (no CFA (colour coming later..)))... Also not that nice. Large format was interesting for its resolution. This low res. makes little sense. And no AA-filter. yikes.

[obican]

Nice.

 

But.... "Diffraction is not much of a worry with big pixels" .... Someone should explain to them that with similar DOF settings diffraction will be similar.


Low resolution (6.7 mp) and BW only (no CFA (colour coming later..)))... Also not that nice. Large format was interesting for its resolution. This low res. makes little sense. And no AA-filter. yikes.

 

As the guy (Mitchell Feinberg) who had the 8x10 built to order, those backs are usually only for quick scanning. They are meant to take place of Polaroids. Then you put a real medium behind the glass to take the image .

 

It'll be interesting for video too. 

[toni-a]

You imagine how much best quality film you could do with 48000$

IMHO any low resolution system even if extremely innovative is doomed.

Check lytro they had amazing concept camera but low output resolution killed it.

Don't expect from someone who dropped full frame to APS-C to be interested in large format

[stoppingdown]

24MP on APS-C are fine for me. I think I only have one (two?) lens(es) that might outresolve that, so no advantage of having much resolution. Perhaps 36MP with those lenses might occasionally help with cropping, but it doesn't happen frequently.

 

24MP make for excellent A3 prints, which are my theoretical print target.

 

On the other side, more megapixels means need for a more powerful computer and more archival space. Or slower processing times. 

 

I some magic could be done, I'd second JoJu for grouping 4 pixels and have excellent performance at higher ISOs, and maybe putting the Bayer filter off for b&w.

[Rover]

I'd love to see a lens designed to cover this. Probably turret-mounted.

And somebody already had a 8x10 digital back built to order.

 



 

With a mindblowing 10 MP.

[JJ_SO]

If you have good anti-gravitation generators and long enough extension cables to the local power station, you don't need the turret.

 

[goran h]

On APS-C I think 16-20 MP would be a good compromise with good enough resolution, decent high ISO performance and reasonable RAW processing time.  

[obican]

I'd love to see a lens designed to cover this. Probably turret-mounted.

 

You'd be surprised. 8x10 lenses are not big at all.

 

[davidmanze]

It does pay. The sharpening method used in the tests skews things a little, but look at the high numbers achieved in the center. You do get more resolution with higher MP sensors, and in worst case you do not get less. 

 

Question is, do you need the higher resolution? And do you want to bother with the big file sizes and longer processing times?

 It pays or we pay??

 

     I'm happy now with just 24 Mps (D750) and 21Mps D500....however I still want that better long end!

 

 

  But everybody has the right to their view.............certainly!

[toni-a]

Every time I read Obican posts and passion about large format cameras, I feel like getting a large format film camera and starting with large format photography...