# The use of 40mp? (Pentax 645D)



## Timoris (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I find 40mp just ludicrous. What is the need of it? Certainly I can entertain the notion of the Gigapixel project, but 40? It seems either too little for grand detailed landscapes or too much for say, Studio, marketing, or any other field I am currently thinking of.

Please, someone tell me what the use of 40mp is. I can't see how 18 or 20mp can not be enough.

Lozeau - Pentax 645D (Body Only)


----------



## Derrel (Mar 15, 2011)

Ah....I remember well the very first time I saw a Big Gulp cup of soda pop. My father brought it to my grandparents' house one Sunday. My brother and I were spending the summer there at my grandparents' farm. I recall my grndfather's word's to my dad: "Good Lord, Richard, why in the Hell would anybody ever want that much sody-pop in one cup? "

Moving a few years forward through time, I recall asking a friend what he was going to do with his then king of the hill new computer and its MASSIVE, 1-gigabyte hard drive! A whole GIGABYTE of storage!!!

And now, here we are with a medium format camera offering 40 megapixel resolution at around $11,000...how will we EVER make use of those 40 MP?


----------



## Timoris (Mar 15, 2011)

Ah. Sooo, to have more. 

Because we choose to have 100mp in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too?

In short, because we can? I do admit, it would be easier for the artist if he does not have to stitch together several images to create a big one.

P.S. I'm new here, so I don't know if you usually reply in this style, but that was hilarious.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 15, 2011)

how can you ever have too much?


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 15, 2011)

Only 40 MP?....ha.

H4D-60


----------



## PASM (Mar 15, 2011)

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... 

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten? 

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly. 

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? 

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? 

Marty DiBergi: I don't know. 

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? 

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven. 

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder. 

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder? 

Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 15, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7IZZXQ89Oc


----------



## GeneralBenson (Mar 15, 2011)

Because I've seen 30"x40" prints from the 645D that you can press your nose up again and are still razor sharp. That's why. 

The medium format world has almost always chiefly resided in the professional landscape and fashion/high end advertising worlds. Whether your goal is to print 40x60 landscape prints, or print 8 foot tall posters for the Victoria's Secret front window, 40mp is just barely beginning to scratch the surface of 'enough'. 

Hassy and P1 have the market in the high-end/studio/fashion world, but the 645D was only ever meant to be a field ready, MF camera for landscape and outdoor/adventurous uses. It's suprisingly compact, lightweight, has dreamy ergonomics, and I believe is the only weathersealed MF in existence. And I would love to get my hands on one. 

It's the nature of product evolution. When some things come out you think, 'How could anyone ever need that?'. Then, once you have one and get used to it you think, 'How did I ever live without this?'.


----------



## KmH (Mar 15, 2011)

Timoris said:


> I'm sorry, but I find 40mp just ludicrous. What is the need of it? Certainly I can entertain the notion of the Gigapixel project, but 40? It seems either too little for grand detailed landscapes or too much for say, Studio, marketing, or any other field I am currently thinking of.
> 
> Please, someone tell me what the use of 40mp is. I can't see how 18 or 20mp can not be enough.
> 
> Lozeau - Pentax 645D (Body Only)


It's not just the 40 MP. It's also about the size of the image sensor, 44 mm x 33 mm (much larger than the 24 mm x 36 mm of the 135 format), and pixel pitch (5.95 µm). The Nikon D3x (135 format) at 24 MP has a nearly identical pixel pitch of 5.9 µm. 

Medium format is more relevant to commercial photography than to retail photography


----------



## usayit (Mar 15, 2011)

This is a good read... and no.. not just posting because the Leica M9 was included "For fun"   

2010 Mini Medium Format Shoot-out

I'm a big Pentax fan from years ago and the 645D is both an object of desire and hatred (more business and marketing snafu on Pentax part).  When it finally became reality I seriously considered it... but chose not to.  My personal conclusion:  90% of everything I intend to shoot wouldn't matter much if done on MF or full frame digital.  The 10% remaining wasn't enough to accept the larger/heavier packaging.   For those who shoot and print large, of course the 40mp sensor will probably come to a different conclusion.

I'm still believe Pentax missed their chance...  back in '06 or '07.   Anyways... their price point is still nice.

PS> Its probably just me placing my expectations too high (partly due to the fact that I had waited for the 645D for so long - I still have my 645 system on the shelf) but the samples I have seen from the 645D didn't cause me to say "ooOoooo... AAAhhhhh".


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 15, 2011)

"_640K_ ought to be enough for anybody"
..................................................---Bill Gates


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 15, 2011)

if we assume it has 3:2 ratio like a 16 megapixel.  40 is not that much bigger really.  You pretty much have 1.5X  more pixels on the long end.  It is not that ridiculous.


----------



## usayit (Mar 15, 2011)

data growth and the resources consumed by applications over the years dont translate well into objects for human consumption.  A human doesnt consume a 160gb of music in a single session...  They listen to a few meg at a time while the rest is stored.  Much like a photo in print... a human will have difficulty seeing the difference between 10mp and 40mp in a 4x6 print.  Of course there are applications out there... especially within commercial photography but blind application of technology isnt always appropriate.

oh.. The 640k quote has been publically denied by Bill Gates numerous times...  If he did say it, then he didnt forsee that "anybody" might not need 640k but applications and stored data might.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 15, 2011)

I remember someone once saying that in the professional world of touchups having an incredibly resolution makes the images easier to work with. Removing a hair is easier if it's a strand rather than a pixelated blur that results from aliasing, as is removing blemishes while retaining detail. ... Or so I've heard.

As someone who loves big landscapes I can tell you that there's nothing quite as jawdropping as a large incredibly sharp print on the wall. My favorite image is the one hanging over my bed. Just shy of 80mpx, measuring about 50" across and 24" high it releases people's oooohs and ahhhhhs when they see it. Mind you at this point it also cost me $70 for the printing and $200 for the framing, but what's a few $ in the pursuit of perfection right?   One can never have too many megapixels providing you are capable of resolving the detail with the lens, and it doesn't (within reason) impact performance in other areas such as noise.


----------



## skieur (Mar 15, 2011)

Timoris said:


> I'm sorry, but I find 40mp just ludicrous. What is the need of it? Certainly I can entertain the notion of the Gigapixel project, but 40? It seems either too little for grand detailed landscapes or too much for say, Studio, marketing, or any other field I am currently thinking of.
> 
> Please, someone tell me what the use of 40mp is. I can't see how 18 or 20mp can not be enough.
> 
> Lozeau - Pentax 645D (Body Only)


 
Reminds me of one of my bosses, one day, who said that he did not understand why anyone would require a computer with greater power than the Commodore 64, with 64K of memory less than hnadheld calculators.  

Those that are successful stay at the front of technological change. Those that get behind, get buried by change and if they are in business, they go bankrupt.

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Mar 15, 2011)

Garbz said:


> I remember someone once saying that in the professional world of touchups having an incredibly resolution makes the images easier to work with. Removing a hair is easier if it's a strand rather than a pixelated blur that results from aliasing, as is removing blemishes while retaining detail. ... Or so I've heard.
> 
> As someone who loves big landscapes I can tell you that there's nothing quite as jawdropping as a large incredibly sharp print on the wall. My favorite image is the one hanging over my bed. Just shy of 80mpx, measuring about 50" across and 24" high it releases people's oooohs and ahhhhhs when they see it. Mind you at this point it also cost me $70 for the printing and $200 for the framing, but what's a few $ in the pursuit of perfection right?   One can never have too many megapixels providing you are capable of resolving the detail with the lens, and it doesn't (within reason) impact performance in other areas such as noise.



Agreed. As someone who's done a significant amount of retouching (though I'm not exactly hot ****), I can definitely attest to the utility of increased detail. I scan my medium format film at 3000dpi and it's not uncommon for me to approach 100% magnification when doing fine retouching.


----------



## CCericola (Mar 15, 2011)

If I could afford a medium format digital I would buy it in a heartbeat. I love MF. Hell, even school portraits I shot in 2001 and 2002 were on 100 Foot rolls of 120 film. Class photos were shot using a 645. 40 isn't that much more. I took a class with Joseph Simone and his wife. They shoot MF digital and mostly all they shoot is portraits


----------



## altitude604 (Mar 15, 2011)

if you could afford it, why wouldn't you?


----------



## mjhoward (Mar 15, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> Only 40 MP?....ha.
> 
> H4D-60


 
Only 60 MP?....ha..
IQ180 digital back - full frame sensor and sensor plus technology

:razz:


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 15, 2011)

When I get into some serious pano stitching, I can end up with 75-125mp images.


----------



## skieur (Mar 25, 2011)

CCericola said:


> If I could afford a medium format digital I would buy it in a heartbeat. I love MF. Hell, even school portraits I shot in 2001 and 2002 were on 100 Foot rolls of 120 film. Class photos were shot using a 645. 40 isn't that much more. I took a class with Joseph Simone and his wife. They shoot MF digital and mostly all they shoot is portraits



Try renting one.  They may not be as expensive to rent as you think.  It depends on where you are location-wise and how much photography and film work goes on in your city.  Red One, Red Epic, or the Leica S2 are often available for rent in some places in Canada.  In the US, they would be cheaper.

skieur


----------



## Rocan (Apr 3, 2011)

big prints. thats why.

soon enough we will have a 35mm equivalent sensor size that can cram in enough detail as a large format negative. and then what do you know; we suddenly have no use for the large format cameras of yesteryear. whats the use of it? for you, maybe nothing. But the reason its being made, is because there IS a market for it.


----------

