I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?
I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.
Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.
But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.
The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.
I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.
Here are the newer models:
They're nice photos, but not that nice. <g>
There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now), and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.
IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
I have a mirror-less camera too, an Olympus OM-D e-M1. Only ~16 Mpix,
but I'm happy. I was more interested in the size and weight of the
camera, and I'm taking snapshots.
So, the full-frame digitals fall between 35mm and 2-1/4.
I have read about these. Film is (or was) a whole lot cheaper.
Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.
I remember Sinar. Good camera. Never used one, though.
I'd be suspicious of any solution that involved so much stitching of
little images. The eye is very good at detecting deviations from
I've been trying to correct a photo I took of a vertical mill with a
wide angle lens and tool little space, using Dxo Optics with ViewPoint.
It almost works - I can straighten things out, but it still looks odd.
I guess that the amount of correction needed is too extreme.
For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.
Yeah, probably. Somewhere aroud here I have some 2-14 x 2-3/4
Ektachromes I shot two decades ago, and Kodak Pro PhotoCD scans I had
made of them. Pro PhotoCD had, IIRC, 4,000 x 6,000 pixel resolution. I
should pixel-peep them and see how they stack up -- pixels versus
Even with a view camera's swings and tilts, extreme corrections with a
short lens look weird..
It's industrial work that I'm thinking about. Studio advertising
photography is probably what they sell those Leafs for. Maybe. I'm not
in touch with ad photography anymore.
On Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Not for professionals, but I understand slightly insane amateurs are kludgi
ng up large format cameras. They are using scanners in place of the film.
So they have a large ( maybe 8.5 inch by 14 inch ) " film ". And can use
tilts and such to get exactly what they want as a photo.
The disadvantage is of course time. No stop action photos using a scanner
And then there are the astronomers who use software to stack up images to i
ncrease light sensitivity without losing resolution.
On Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Not for professionals, but I understand slightly insane amateurs are
kludging up large format cameras. They are using scanners in place of
the film. So they have a large ( maybe 8.5 inch by 14 inch ) " film
". And can use tilts and such to get exactly what they want as a
The disadvantage is of course time. No stop action photos using a
scanner as film.
And then there are the astronomers who use software to stack up images
to increase light sensitivity without losing resolution.
===========I built an astronomical camera into an instrument that detected very
faint infrared from abnormal conditions using minutes-long exposures.
The software that came with it subtracted out a reference exposure
with the shutter closed to cancel out hot pixels. That application
didn't require gamma correction.
How much worse could it be than a bloody fisheye lens? <g>
Yeah, AFAIK, there is no real "un-FishEye" software for correction,
and normal wide-angle lenses don't really distort. Reshoot with real
lens and merge the 2 photos. Panorama software is quick, simple, and
Sorry, Joe. I missed that the first time around.
Have you ever shot with an 8x10 camera? I've done it once, when I had
my agency and my art director brought in his Calumet 8x10 to shoot a
job for Casio. They wanted some Duratrans transparencies for a trade
show exhibit, printed 24 feet wide.
Anyway, my AD was called out of town and I had to shoot the 'chromes.
The lens was a very wide 360 mm. Even with that, the depth of field
was nightmarishly shallow. To get an acceptable aperture without
running into color shifts from reciprocity effect (the result of long
exposures), I had to use 6, 5 kW incandescent movie scoops. In July,
I hate those cameras. I donb't know how Ansel Adams put up with them,
except that he was shooting b&w, and the reciprocity at least doesn't
screw up your color. If I had to do it again I'd rent the biggest mofo
flash units they make.
Some time back I read about some software in Nasa Tech Briefs that was
used to fix distorted images. It worked very well. So I bet if you
serached the magazine you could find it. I don't remember if it was
developed by NASA or if it was available to the general public for
free. You should check.
You would need a reference model to measure the distortion from, like
an image of a grid.
I attended a lecture by the engineer in charge of correcting the
second order spherical aberration in the Hubble's mirror. They knew
exactly what the problem was and could partly correct images based on
the fact that stars are point sources. The final fixes however were
compensating optics on replacement instruments rather than software.
SLR medium format has, for decades, been primarily a realm for
advertising and weddings. Product photography, fashion, display
advertising, and commercial photography for collateral (brochures and
other printed pieces) are the primary places where they've been used.
For a while, well-off amateurs picked up some of them, but lens prices
were a killer.
Now, as you saw from those prices, digital medium-format has reverted
to those high-buck commercial applications where the fees will pay for
it. I don't know what wedding photographers are using now. But I
talked to a few industrial photographers when I was deciding what to
buy, last year, and they had either moved to, or were moving to, the
high end of the small-format cameras.
Even there, the high-end Zeiss lenses that amateurs pine for are on
the order of $1,000 each. You really have to shop carefully and be
realistic about what you need.
That guy is confused.
commerical photography is done digitally these day. Yeah, some people may
use film every now and then, but that's not how the majority of product
type photos are taken.
Computer operated cameras and platforms that spin the product (product
photography) around and take photos automatically are not science fiction
Real estate photos? somebody with a digital camera.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.