super cameras

[kirby1923]

    http://www.gigapixel.com/mobile/?id=79995 

30K X 70K pixels, 2100 mega pixels.

Kinda amazing! and scary!

[fotoguzzi]

Amazing!

[rdbandkab]

That's some crazy detail!   

[Dilliw]

What's bad is even in 2011 most of those kids can be seen staring at a smartphone.  In 2015 it's the kids plus the adults, children and even seniors.  In a couple of years it will be the dogs too.   I make sure I never look at mine!

[Guzzistajohn]

What's bad is even in 2011 most of those kids can be seen staring at a smartphone.  In 2015 it's the kids plus the adults, children and even seniors.  In a couple of years it will be the dogs too.   I make sure I never look at mine!

I noticed that too, many dildos gawking @ a hand held gadget while the world goes by. Will we ever wake up?

[Guzzistajohn]

Amazing detail, big brother is watching

[nick949]

I think I'd rather be having my tea break in a vat of boiling excrement, being prodded by demons , than be in that crowd!  Cool photo though.

Nick

[rodekyll]

I was expecting some sort of super camera.  This is an example of photoshop, not optics.

[Penderic]

Who farted? 

[LowRyter]

pretty common now at sporting events.  I saw myself in a photo of the entire Stadium at the OU-Tenn game last year.  something like 85,000 people.

[ITSec]

Pixels don't matter - lens quality does. I have seen SO many high-res cameras with low-grade lenses...

I still use my Zeiss optics from the 70s and 80s.

[Yukonica]

I raised your piddly 2100 megapixels of urban blight.
To a 3.8 Billion  Pixel tour of Mount Everest's blight.
... don't do this on dial-up unless you've recently hit several very big Bingo Jackpots...  Patience is a virtue.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167621313/a-billion-pixel-tour-of-mount-everest

[Yukonica]

Pixels don't matter - lens quality does. I have seen SO many high-res cameras with low-grade lenses...

I still use my Zeiss optics from the 70s and 80s.

That is such a hard call. A crappy lens from any era is still crappy: new or old. Zeiss has never made 'crappy' as part of their heritage.
However: stick your 1980's glass in front of a modern sensor then compare it to a similar contemporary Zeiss lens. Your old stuff starts to show some 'flaws'. It will still be far better than any Nikon or Canon kit lens but not on the same plane as current product from the same manufacturer.
(All you need is the willingness, and need, to pay the piper for the benefits of modern glass).
I really can't point to any single legacy lens that out performs it's modern counterpart. If you can: I'll start looking for an adapter.

[rodekyll]

I've done that.  I can shoot my Nikon D7000 through my speed graphic 2x3 and 4x5, and Eastman 8x10 bodies.  So I can strap on about any lens you've got, rack it out to its focal length and get full tilt drop and swing at whatever the sweet spot seems to be.  I can go from about 45mm to 1040 in vintage barrel and shutter lenses, and I've spent a lot of hours playing with them.

That being said, my opinion is that modern coatings and materials are better than vintage stuff as far as digital sensors are concerned -- but it's by design, not flaws.  Modern lenses 'resolve' more lines per inch than the old large format stuff - (that's why we needed large format -- so less enlargement was needed), so they're sharper and have better detail on enlargement while having smaller and more inexpensively produced elements.  They've been given modern materials and 'coatings' that better focus different color wavelengths on an rgb sensor array, which is for this purpose, flat -- all wavelengths need to focus at the same distance.  Vintage lenses were coated to focus color on film, which is layered -- each wavelength focuses on a different layer -- a different distance. 

So vintage lenses give color aberrations and soft focus on digital sensors.  To an extent, the same problems occur with 'modern' 35mm film lenses v digital lenses for the same format.  Just because the lens fits the mount doesn't mean it will work well with the sensor.

I could go on and on . . . but your basic fruitfone can do better than a digital camera through an early Zeiss lens (we're leaving the early zeiss lens with its intended film out of it).  They just weren't made to work together.  Digital macro with the old bellows lenses is a lot of fun though.   



edge of a Kennedy half dollar, 280mm macro

[AGRO!]

Who farted? 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a43kowi2ncI

[Yukonica]

Rodekyl, Thank you for the fine detail regarding lens construction. I didn't know the physics. I figured the biggest difference was due to improved coatings and possibly improved purity of the glass during the pour.
I'm with you on the 'bellows are fun' point.
This image is a macro of the pixels on my iMac. Used a 100mm on a flea-bay bellows from Shanghai.

[charlie b]

I have been at the opposite end due to work related needs.  Lower pixel count and either high speed or very low dark current.

And no, I can't afford to own any of them.  Besides we get a new tech camera out about every two years to replace the ones in the systems now.

[rocker59]

Pixels don't matter - lens quality does. I have seen SO many high-res cameras with low-grade lenses...

While lens quality definitely matters, you're wrong about pixels not mattering.

More pixels mean more resolution and more image detail.

100 pixels beats 1 pixel, right?  So, just carry that on out.

A 3MP camera of fifteen years ago is not as good as a 26MP camera of today, is it?  No matter the glass.

Yes, spend money on good glass, but don't for a minute think pixels and software don't matter...

[ITSec]

Obviously, my comment was a bit of verbal hyperbole intended to get the conversation going 

Pixels don't matter UNTIL you have a great lens - then they do. However, a good piece of glass (or really great plastic, I'm not above using modern materials) designed for the purpose can make the most of a high-res sensor. My current daily shooter is a micro 4/3 Olympus with a variety of lenses, basic to upscale; I do use a couple of adapters to allow me to use my old glass on it, including a nifty one with an adjustable angle shift that lets me mimic using an offset bellows for things like architecture or some macro work. The challenge is the difference in field of view between the 35mm and m4/3 formats means my old lenses have the effect of twice their focal length - I need to use a 28mm lens to get the perspective of a 55mm lens.

I do think we have gotten into a pixel war where the manufacturers are using pixel count as a marketing tool (I have 26MP - you've only got 20!), since it's easy to get a consumer to use it as a comparison point - even though two products may have equally cheap lenses and take equally poor pictures.

I still can't find a lens of any kind that surpasses the sharpness and edge to edge, corner to corner quality of my 85mm Zeiss Planar T* f1.4, no matter the format.

[johnr]

Soooo, which camera manufacturer does in fact make the best lenses today?

[drums4money]

That's crazy.  I never knew that kind of photography existed.  Thanks for the link.

I cruzed around and stumbled across this one:
The world's largest panoramic photo- 365 gigapixels from 70,000 individual pics.  You can zoom in to see the sticker on the window of the gondola on the cable.

https://iso.500px.com/this-365-gigapixel-monster-is-the-worlds-largest-panorama/

[rodekyll]

Soooo, which camera manufacturer does in fact make the best lenses today?

In OEM, my opinion is Nikon and Canon are doing the best.  But any comparison needs to be made on the basis of what you're trying to do.  For example, the best image stabilizing technology doesn't make for the best lens if you're shooting in a studio off a tripod, and the fastest glass isn't as important if you shoot with a flash.  So ymmv.

[Yukonica]

In OEM, my opinion is Nikon and Canon are doing the best.  But any comparison needs to be made on the basis of what you're trying to do.  For example, the best image stabilizing technology doesn't make for the best lens if you're shooting in a studio off a tripod, and the fastest glass isn't as important if you shoot with a flash.  So ymmv.

http://wildguzzi.com/forum/Smileys/default/1.gif
Sigma is also coming out with good glass in some very specific focal ranges.
Lens choice by application. Who'd have thought of it? 
I bought my V7 because I needed a gravel hauler that was good on gas. The panniers only hold 60 liters but it's pennies to run to the quarry.
One of my favourite questions is 'what's the best lens for my camera?'. Answer: one that you will carry with you all the time.

[jdgretz]

Soooo, which camera manufacturer does in fact make the best lenses today?

I suspect that Zeiss is still the best, but as always, what you are shooting will determine which lens is best for that application.

Good to see another Large Format user here.  I'm having a lot of fun going back to film in addition to digital.  The one on the left (Cambo w/210 or 255 lens) is what I'm shooting mostly these days when I'm not on the motorcycle, followed by a Hasselblad 500C that was my father's camera.



jdg

[rodekyll]

I have sinar, zeiss, etc lenses for the big cameras that (for film) were superior to anything available in 35mm.  But the question was "what camera mfgr makes the best lens . . . " 

I've also got a lot of sigma and tokina lenses.  They've got some choices that are good quality for the price.

Love the Cambo!  I got into medium format with hassys as a photog assistant.  I moved into the baby speed graphic when I had to start buying my own equipment.  Clunkier but more versatile.

[HDGoose]

I was reading license plates in the 80's from satellite.

Today, the costs to do so now allow most hobbyist to obtain that 80's software...

[jdgretz]

I have sinar, zeiss, etc lenses for the big cameras that (for film) were superior to anything available in 35mm.  But the question was "what camera mfgr makes the best lens . . . " 

I've also got a lot of sigma and tokina lenses.  They've got some choices that are good quality for the price.

Love the Cambo!  I got into medium format with hassys as a photog assistant.  I moved into the baby speed graphic when I had to start buying my own equipment.  Clunkier but more versatile.

Yeah, the Cambo is fun, but heavy to take anyplace - especially with the big tripod.  I also have a couple of Graflex that are definitely easier to lug around, but you obviously don't get the swing, tilt, and shift of the back.  But still fun.

jdg

[rodekyll]

I built my trike big enough to tote the 8x10 and tripod along.  Fitting the tripod was a design spec.

My graflex bellows bodies have some tilt and drop/rise on the front standard but not on the back.  You don't see back movements too much in field cameras.

[jdgretz]

I built my trike big enough to tote the 8x10 and tripod along.  Fitting the tripod was a design spec.

My graflex bellows bodies have some tilt and drop/rise on the front standard but not on the back.  You don't see back movements too much in field cameras.

Cool idea on the trike.  I'm afraid I'd probably have to go the side car route first.

Back movement is not a big deal until it is, then nothing else will make due.  I tell you, it has certainly spoiled me for architectural photography and keeping perspective under control.  Fortunately that's not normally an issue when I'm on the bike.

I never thought a Hasselblad would get to the price where I felt comfortable carrying one on the bike, but with the 500 series, it's no longer out of the question.  I just wish I would have purchased some additional lenses when they were less expensive than they are now.

Also, I'm looking for a wide angle lens for the Cambo that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.  If you hear of one...

jdg