Time for a new DSLR sensor??

Sue and I help to run ADAPS (Atherton & District Amateur Photographic Society) and full details of our location and programme can be found at www.adaps.org.uk

The reference to viewing distance refers to prints. We view a 6" x 4" print relatively close, but to get the same effect on an A3 we should move the print further away.

To understand why, imagine a 15mm ultra-wide angle shot (in 35mm terms) and view it at say 3" distance. Looks like an ultra-wide. Now view the A3 print from a similar distance, and suddenly the perspective will look normal, no longer showing the same wide angle "distortion".

Try it and see, it's quite amazing. And the reason is that lenses do not change perspective, only viewpoint does. The viewing distance of the print, related to its size, is equally relevant. This is why Rolleiflex portraits seem to loom out at you, it's because of a relatively wide angle lens being used and a relatively long viewing distance.

The reason I need a change from my 67 is because digital is undeniably quicker and less problematic and in the past the only drawback has been quality.
However after experimenting with the top Canon (Eos 1Ds MII) I regretfully admit the quality is slightly better than my 67. Likewise with a phase back on a H1 (even at 6x45) is far superior to 67 film and is on par with 5x4. large format betterlight or phase systems even beats 5x4 neg and positive film.
So the top end digital market is not only better quality than film, its running costs are cheaper and most importantly its quick. I am just eager for pentax to step up a gear with its sensors.

I am considering the 645 digital however as much as I love Pentax I couldn’t face buying another set of medium format lenses

Try borrowing one of the new Mamiyas at 22mp. That might do the job.

I though Phase One was up to 32 megapixels. The Canon has a lot of pixels, but they are small. Wait for the digital 645 or get a Mamaiya and a back. Larger sensors mean each photosite is larger, so the dynamic range and quality can be better.

I find that six megapixels is plenty. Just a few years ago they were using six megapixel backs to make posters the size of the side of a building.

I think there's a point where your technique, attention to detail, and choice of lighting are more important than how much electronic junk you have in your hand!

You've totally changed your tune since your first post when you complained that Pentax DSLR cameras weren't as sharp as the competition.

Now you say they don't compare with MF cameras, and of course they don't. They're not meant to.

If you had been tuned into Earth news during the past twelve months you would have heard of the Pentax 645D. It might possibly be sharp enough for the .0001% of photographers who place sharpness above all other qualities in a photograph.

You are reminiscent of those hi-fi buffs of old who claimed that they could hear the difference between two different sorts of speaker cable. Meanwhile, the rest of us were listening to the music.

If you want to complain that Pentax isn't producing a DMF camera to rival a Gandolfi, then feel free. But don't mix that up with a general and inaccurate whinge about Pentax 6MP cameras being less sharp than the direct competition. They're not. At least, they're not to people who know what they're doing.

G

Funnily enough I do actually have a valve amplifier in Hi-fi and only use records because they sound loads better.
And yes I have experimented with loads of brands of speaker cables because they do make a difference!

I was in Jessops in New Oxford Street (the biggest Jessops) and in their whole digital department there was not one Pentax camera.
Anything Ive needed I have had to order in specifically, which takes 3 weeks or more.
On that note it is hard to see how Pentax's business strategy is paying off.

The reason I mentioned high end sensors used on the Phase one is the point that it barely needs any sharpening in PS or in camera as the sensor is that good. My argument is the more sharpening an image needs the worse the sensor is within the camera.

Funnily enough, only today I was reading an old interview with Ross Walker, son of Peter, the founder of Quad.

He said he didn't try to cater to audiophiles because they weren't interested in perfection, they wanted something better. (Or words to that effect).

Like you, I tend to like an aspect of photography (in my case the techno/mechanical part) as much as the finished product. I don't in any way criticise you for your approach to photography, but I do take exception to your original remarks about Pentax DSLRs. Within their limits of pixel size and cost, they are excellent performers, and arguably better than the direct competition.

It's a shame they don't have a full-frame D6x7, but economic reality means that it's not going to happen, in the foreseeable future at least.

George

[quote="Ofutter"]Funnily enough I do actually have a valve amplifier in Hi-fi and only use records because they sound loads better.
And yes I have experimented with loads of brands of speaker cables because they do make a difference!

So do hearing aids.

Quad is an interesting choice to discuss, as it has parallels with old discussions on the relative merits of German as opposed to Japanese lenses.

The Quad part is that if you look at the paper specifications for their equipment, such as distortion levels, etc., then they do not look very good compared with the latest Japanese stufff. But they sound better....One of the reasons being that it's as important to have the right sorts of ditortion controlled well, and other types the ear will be happy with, so the overall figure is not the all embracing answer.

In lenses, the old argument is resolution and sharpness (Nikon, Canon) as opposed to pictorilal quality and subtelty (Leica, Zeiss). You will notice I have left Pentax out of that as i think Pentax lenses can and do show some of both qualities, depending on the lens.

These days we talk of "bokeh" (wherever did that one come from?) but this is really pictorial quality, so maybe things are changing yet again.

So my lens resolves only 88lpmm and yours manages 96lpmm? Maybe it doesn't matter as much as we think.

And though I have been inspired by George's quote, given above, please don't think this post was directed at him, it was just a general musing as I sit here waiting for the onslaught of New Year!