50 1.0 re-release??!!?

MMX wrote in post #10170567
I´ve tried the new H4D a few weeks ago and it´s not as big as I expected. Moreover when I buy something expensive, I want it to be big because it looks more professional and it draws attention of people

hal-lee wrote in post #10170978
I think the Ferrari analogy works for Leica; relatively expensive, well made, and beautiful, but certainly not top of the line.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10174997
I'm so confused with all of this car analogy stuff. What would the 20 X 24 Ebony view camera be?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10175050
Nah,
to classy for that. All hand made so maybe a Rolls or a Bentley?

Poe wrote in post #10177223
I was thinking something a little more antiquated....Ford Model T?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10177235
Nah, there are still some killer landscape guys using large format. Think if the IQ from those contact sheets.

Poe wrote in post #10177317
If you're only judging based on IQ. I judge a camera on more than just it's IQ.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10174997
I'm so confused with all of this car analogy stuff. What would the 20 X 24 Ebony view camera be?

waving_odd wrote in post #10169456
AA filter is not the only solution to fix the Moiré effect. I have no positive or negative feeling against Canon or Nikon using it over the sensor. They must have their very own AA algorithms to do down-sampling on the very fine (if not ultra fine as in the case of Leica glass) optical image source produced by their fine glasses.

But the fact is that AA filter simply cuts resolution across the entire image (as opposed to just the edges of fine pattern that produce Moiré). Leica glass' resolution is simply too good to be cut in any way. That's why they apply AA-like algorithm by the DSP chip. Again I have no positive or negative feeling against it.

When Canon goes to 30+ or 40+ mega pixels one day, they might take out the AA filter (or at least a much less aggressive AA algorithm). Many MF digital backs do not have AA filter but many pros are using them to shoot fine fabric and architectural patterns. I am sure they care about Moiré.

They are just the way they are. They are just different strategies for similar problem.

So it's an overstatement to say camera w/o AA filter will produce images "of color artifacts, jaggy lines and moire."

First, for the same reason that MFDB have poor low light performance, low dynamic range for their size, poor sensitivity, slow frame rate, and a host of other deficiencies compared to 35mm DSLRs: low sales volume. They can't afford to setup a lab to grow and polish Litium Niobate crystal of the size, grade, and purity needed at the sales volumes they can support.

Furthermore, the cost scales exponentially with area because even the tiniest defect will show up on the image, thanks to being so close to the sensor. Even though MFDB is only three times more area than 35mm, the cost can be an order of magnitude (or more) higher. More importantly, Canon/Nikon ship millions of units a year, compared to less than 6,000/year for all MFDB combined, so economies of scale is a huge factor.

MFDB have some great advantages, but unfortunately not enough to stem of death of Medium Format manufacturers (from over a dozen down to just 4 now). They can't afford to do their own sensor design, so they have to buy off-the-shelf parts from Kodak and Dalsa, which have far lower performance (per area) than DSLRS and don't come with AA filters.

The higher the resolution, the more likely that motion blur, depth of field, lens aberrations, diffraction, and other factors will prevent fine detail (and aliasing). MFDB are often used with thin DOF, where the aliasing only occurs on the plane of critical focus, such as the eyes and not the hair. They're also often used at very deep DOF, where diffraction reduces the aliasing.

Furthermore, with higher resolution, the less likely that aliasing will contaminate low spatial frequencies (only the higher ones). This means that the aliasing may not be visible in normal sized prints (e.g. magazine spread) even if it is in large ones (40x30).

There is also momentum. Some people have been practicing unsafe imaging (with no protective anti-alias filter) for so long that they have contracted a nasty STD: Sharpness Transfixion Disease. It caused them to be transfixed with sharpness above all else, even if the image is riddled with artifacts. Of course, what they see as "sharpness" and "3D", uninfected people see as jaggies, stair-stepping, sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, bands, patterns, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, false detail, and of course moiré. MFDB manufacturers can't rip the aliasing artifacts away from these STD-infected customers too suddenly, or they will experience extreme withdrawals.