My last assignments in low light were awful challenges even with my 20D at 1600 and 3200... I wish I had the new 50D!

No, no, Michel - go for that Hasselblad - it's less Euros than Dollars.

Which reminds me...... you're much more knowledgeable about DPI, PPI, MegaPixels and resolution........ what's your opinion of a 60MegaPixel camera, like Hasselblad's next one? Even ignoring the price - can anybody make use of all those extra pixels?

My last assignments in low light were awful challenges even with my 20D at 1600 and 3200... I wish I had the new 50D!

No, no, Michel - go for that Hasselblad - it's less Euros than Dollars.

Which reminds me...... you're much more knowledgeable about DPI, PPI, MegaPixels and resolution........ what's your opinion of a 60MegaPixel camera, like Hasselblad's next one? Even ignoring the price - can anybody make use of all those extra pixels?

Good one, Geoff! The wise man in me is more than happy with what he can afford... but I can also dream. My main answer lies in my printing sizes. I'd love to have big size enlargements, but my home is too small to be transformed into an art gallery. I don't care for photo contests either... My subjects are people, travel and experimentation. The best shots are printed in A4. For events, I make books or A4 size collages and galleries for the web. Could I make use of the vast improvements in technology? I started with a 6x6cm twin lens reflex and the results were very gratifying. Have a look at Doisneau's masterpieces. Then I had several 35mm cameras with lots of (low cost) primes. Life was good until I had to stop black and white and darkroom. Then came the digital age and now life is good. For most of my shots, my G6 would be good enough and I am very happy with my 20D. Back to Hasselblad: a magnificent tool for professional studio work. You must have first class lenses, tripods to get the most out of it. For my personal use, I absolutely don't want even a full frame digital. Like many, until recently, I thought the race for megapixels was futile. The truth is that more megapixels PLUS improved sensors will give you more details WITHOUT more noise. Noise is mainly dependent on the sensor size. Another thing to consider is that with APS-C the current lenses can still give you more detail. So, yes to the 50D, Nikon 700 or the kind of high sensitivity and high megapixels count. By the way, my problems with low light mostly came from the fact the lighting was not only low... but really bad. If what you see is not beautiful, why expect your camera to make it good?

Well, even if we went right up to 400dpi on a print, the 50 Mp Hasselblad would make 52cm x 39cm print - lower print resolution would give huge prints, but they would only be seen from a distance - nobody is going to be looking at it with a magnifying glass - so much is wasted.

I recently attended a photographic exhibition by a local photographer who uses a 20" x 12" (about 50cm x 30cm) view camera - all mahogany and brass. He prints the 'contact' size. Very sharp, of course, but the picture has to be seen from about five feet (1.6m) away - so most of the resolution' is made worthless. He also ends up with a rather dull, flat and lifeless print, (of what I think is a full, flat and lifeless image) but that's another matter. His website is at http://www.prestonschiedel.com/ - to be fair, the actual images have a little more contrast - he really ought to put a little more into the jpeg versions.

I recently attended a photographic exhibition by a local photographer who uses a 20" x 12" (about 50cm x 30cm) view camera - all mahogany and brass. He prints the 'contact' size. Very sharp, of course, but the picture has to be seen from about five feet (1.6m) away - so most of the resolution' is made worthless.

I wonder if we're confusing things a little bit here when it comes to the extreme pixel capabilities of the Hasselblad. A 12x20 print is made to be seen from a distance and not close up. And if you made the same sized print from a Hassie and also from one of the cameras that most of us use, we'd easily see the difference between the two. I don't think that all that resolution is wasted. Pixel resolution from the camera and print resolution are two different animals, and in my opinion (as flawed as it can be sometimes) the more pixels you have to work with, the better print that can be achieved at any given size, large or small. And the more pixels you have to work with, larger prints of high quality can be made. Its also one of the reasons the dpi ink laying capabilities of printers keeps going up, to try and achieve higher quality even on the 4x6's printed by the majority of people that print at home.

Picture quality is not just in the number of pixels, but in the quality of the sensor and the electronics that go along with it. Its one of the reasons why a 12 Mp Nikon can still compete with a 21 Mp Canon. The various camera formats exist for different reasons, and have their places. And millions of quite acceptable (and exceptional) quality photos are taken on lesser cameras than a Hasselblad. Not that I'm going to run out and buy one any time soon. I doubt I'll ever drive a Ferrari either, but it would be nice to. I'll continue working with what I have and can afford and practice at getting the most out of the tools available to me. And drool over the results that a truly skilled photographer can achieve, no matter what camera he/she happens to be using at the time.

That's my 2¢ worth......

Gene said

That's my 2¢ worth......

Thanks, Gene, that was worth more than 2¢ and definitely refocuses (heh heh) the conversation. As usual, you make good cents.

Steve

Howdy:
I just finished listening to a Lens Work podcast and the subject was what we are talking about. He stated that he tested a Sonny SLR vs Hasselblad an concluded that there was no quality diferece to the eye on print size to 11x14. I would like to see that but unable to do the test myself I have to take his word for it. Now, on the film days I was able to see the difference between my 35mm Nikons and my 2-1/4" Rollei at 8x10 size print using the same film and processed together in the same developing tank.

Now I can see the diference between my G9 and my D80 on 20x30 prints, my D300 produces much better transition between shades of grays than both of them in other words the "S" surve is better on the D-300. May be is mental, I don't know.

I have a friend the have a 44' printer and a Mamiya with Digital Back and his prints at 20x30 are smooooother than mine. He don't print anything small but I will ask him if he see a diference at 8x10 size between formats.

Good points, DonDiego........ what are the relative Megapixels of the G9 and the D80 and D300?

And when you say "no quality difference to the eye on print size to 11x14", does that imply that, beyond that size, the quality of the Sony drops off? - and it would be interesting to hear which Sony model.

And your friend's printer.... that's 44 inches wide? Wow!! My printer is 17 inches wide and I love it - great for photo club competitions - but I'm generally very happy with the print quality from my 10Mp camera. Happy enough to use the 16" on the height of the picture, making something close to "SuperA3".

Geof, the D-80 is 10MP and the D-300 and G-9 are 12MP. Yes, beyond that size you do see a diference specially when you go beyond 2ox24.

Now I have to tell you that I recently took some of my D-80 printed on my Epson 7800 at 24x36 size to a museum collective art show and people asked me if I did them with digitazed 4x5 negs. I just let them in suspense,LOL. One of the important factors to consider is color management (good profiles) and sharpness of the image. The Sony model was a 10MP. When I printed on my dark room i never made an image larger than 11x14 that is why I got a 24" printer so that I can print 2- 11x14 side by side. The problem is with the ability to make larger prints of excellent quality the temptation is always there.

Now I have been looking at the new Canon D5 Mark 2 for $2,600 at 21MP and I'am contemplating selling every camera I have to get me that camera with 3 lenses and a flash. I know that my prints will sing with those MP and and full frame.

OK, I'm going to jump in and show my ignorance
But, not knowing what I am talking about has never prevented me from "expounding" ... often at length

Way, way, way back in my "film days" I decided that negative size is king. I owned a camera that used 120 roll film and progressed to a 35mm camera; I had the opportunity to borrow a 4x5 camera for a weekend.

Without getting into a discussion of how good or bad a photographer I was at the time, let's just say that there was no question that I got the absolutely best quality prints out of the biggest negatives!

Here's my ignorance kicking in ... I have to believe that if I have a choice between using:
Canon G10 - sensor size = 7.6 x 5.7 mm
my Nikon D80 - sensor size = 23.6 x 15.8 mm
Nikon D700 - sensor size = 36 x 23.9 mm
or the Hasselbald H3DII-50 - sensor size 36 x 48 mm

.....well, of course the Hassie (with a sensor made by Kodak - don't knock Kodak you snobs) is better. Why? Is it because the Hassie is 50mp? (woo hoo). No, my simplistic reasoning says the Hassie is better because it's negative is bigger. You don't have to enlarge the Hasselblad image as much to make a print (of whaterve size) as you do the others.

If you do the math and calculate the area of my D80 sensor and relate that to 10.2Mp and then calculate the area of the Hassie sensor and relate that to 50MP ... wow, the numbers are about the same (27,355 pixels per sq mm vs. 28,935 for the Hassie). So, then you jump to the conclusion -- 50Mp isn't a big deal, it has to be that much because the sensor is bigger; the 50Mp Hassie is no better than my 10Mp Nikon.

Ah -- my sensor is (I think) CCD and the Hassie is (I think) CMOS. But, my attitude is -- Who Cares?
Big negatives are good!
Smaller negatives are not as good!

Rusty

Methinks your logic is pretty much spot on, Rusty!