Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Steve Hendrix on November 26, 2013, 09:52:48 am
-
If you recall, this almost happened several years back, when Leica agreed to purchase Sinar from Jenoptik, but never completed the acquisition.
https://captureintegration.com/leica-camera-ag-takes-over-sinar-photography/
This also sheds some more light on the recent Sinar software and hardware development for the Leica S.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83407.0
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Makes sense.
Good luck to Sinar and Leica after taking this step.
Two awesome companies producing incredibly good products.
-
Makes sense.
Good luck to Sinar and Leica after taking this step.
Two awesome companies producing incredibly good products.
I sort of remember Sinar Norma as being a very delicate piece of stuff - not the sort of girl to handle in any hurry; as for Miss Leica, she never let you see the whole picture.
It's better to put on your ears and just play some Chuck.
Rob C
-
Good luck😊
I hope this means we will finally see a stable and modern software for the Sinarbacks.
The best studio-backs on the market have the worst software. I hope some Leica-money will
solve this.
-
Are Sinarbacks independent from Phase or Leaf etc?
-
Yeah, this is big news for sure. Should be interesting to see where this leads.
We broke this story this morning: Leica Camera AG Gobbles Up Sinar (http://lavidaleica.com/content/leica-camera-ag-gobbles-sinar)
-
Are Sinarbacks independent from Phase or Leaf etc?
How do you mean, Phil?
They would be independent in nearly every way - different hardware, different software, different ownership.
They do share (1) CCD sensor, the 33MP Dalsa sensor used in the multi-shot capable eVolution 75-H (also used in Leaf 33MP solutions as a single shot capture device).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
This is very good news. I still remember the day Sinar is the leader of Digitalback.
Hope they will get back on track very soon.
-
They do share (1) CCD sensor...
Yes, I ment CCD chip; if it were differnt...
So the other models use unique sensors made for Sinar and differ from those that Leaf, Phase or Pentax Hass, etc Db's use?
Or is it more like how Sinaron lenses are, that are "cherry picked" Rod or other lenses and rebadged?
(Although, I'm sure there are SInar spec specifics lenses)
-
Who makes Sinar's lenses for them? Schneider?
Nik
-
At one time I thought it was Rodenstock, may have changed?
-
I wonder if this means we'll see more backs from Sinar? Revival of the M?
-
I wonder what Leica see in Sinar for a profitable future? Leica can not meet demand for Leica products.
Is the 35mm style handholdable market place too fast and too crowded and too cheap for future expansion?
Just curious as what Sinar can bring to Leica or Leica too Sinar, is there anything the two can integrate the products with, or will they be two separate entities?
I hope it works out well for both, because it will mean it works out well for photographers in the future, assuming there will be photographers in the future:-)
-
Up to date, non-tethering backs for the Hy6 would be nice.
-
Hi,
Sinar could use Leica's technology for backs.
Best regards
Erik
I wonder what Leica see in Sinar for a profitable future? Leica can not meet demand for Leica products.
Is the 35mm style handholdable market place too fast and too crowded and too cheap for future expansion?
Just curious as what Sinar can bring to Leica or Leica too Sinar, is there anything the two can integrate the products with, or will they be two separate entities?
I hope it works out well for both, because it will mean it works out well for photographers in the future, assuming there will be photographers in the future:-)
-
<<I wonder if this means we'll see more backs from Sinar? Revival of the M?>>
Sinar is now specialized in multi-shot backs, without any portable solutions. But all cameras are now adapted to external backs (PhaseOne, Leaf, Hasselblad, ...).
Do not forget that the beautiful "m" was based on Zeiss optics. Not really compatible with the Leitz world...
PdF
-
Hi,
Sinar could use Leica's technology for backs.
Best regards
Erik
I think they need more than that out of the deal, it would be hard to make meaningful inroads against Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad.
Do Leica get a stake in Broncolor now as well?
-
I wonder if this means we'll see more backs from Sinar? Revival of the M?
Imagine a new M body to the fantastic Zeiss af lenses?😊😊
Henrik
-
Imagine a new M body to the fantastic Zeiss af lenses?😊😊
Henrik
Leica are not in this to progress the M as is, they don't need to buy Sinar for that. I don't see anything in the Leica catalogue that ties in with Sinar products, it would need to be something new for that to happen. A system with precision movements you can bolt a S and M onto (don't search "movements, bolt s&m" it might not be anything to do with cameras:-)), is about the only direct linkup I can see. I doubt that would be enough of a reason to buy the company either.
-
I had a vision in a dream last night that this was the result of a bet made between CEOs during a golf game in Dubai. The Sinar CEO lost and got purchased.
Other possible explanations:
- Sinar was about to undergo a hostile takeover by a Chinese bicycle manufacturer,
- An Accenture consultant freshly graduated from Imperial Collegue, son of a famous Goldman trader, issued a 534 pages report proving without the shadow of a doubt that this was the best tax evasion strategy which enabled his father to sell his Sinar shares at a +30% premium, a key condition to kick off the build of his new 52m yacht,
Or...
Leica realized that they had to enter the separate back market but didn't want to do it without offering a matching view cameras built by the highest standards and decided that Sinar was the right partner to deliver such a platform?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hopefully they buy a decent software company as well...
-
Traditionally Sinar has utilized Rodenstock lenses, probably due to the design and the fact that Sinar is a company that has a legacy and current environment for movement-based cameras. Or it could be that there's an advantage for them in their relationship with Rodenstock to be more exclusive toward that lens supplier. Don't know for sure, but the lenses are usually Rodenstock sourced.
There are only (2) current CCD's that Sinar uses, the Dalsa 33MP (75H) that I alluded to earlier (shared with some Leaf products, like the Aptus-II 7) and the Dalsa 48MP, available in 1 shot/4 shot version (86H), and 1 shot/4 shot/16 shot version (eXact), exclusively used by Sinar currently.
Sinar is now (I believe) financially independent of Broncolor. There may be some remaining legacy relational activity. In many regions, Broncolor has replaced the Sinar camera side of distribution with Hasselblad.
What I see is the trend continuing toward either technology acquisition or cooperative sharing by companies that have impressive technology, but for whom the marketplace has presented challenges. As such, cooperation that produces technology/revenue sharing is a supportive endeavor to enable these companies to continue to extend and push the envelope on their respective technical capabilities, which are impressive, but often do not result in mainstream products.
Phase One acquires Leaf, they gain access to all Leaf product users, they gain access to Leaf proprietary technical know how and experience (6MP CMOS Sensor in 2002), advanced live view from CCD and CMOS, CCD internal rotation (Volare, AFi), etc. While teh investment into Mamiya was an obviously needed move to obtain a camera platform to drive, they also smartly leveraged a long term relationship with Schneider optics.
Hasselblad and Sony engage in cooperation (there have been controversial early results, but I feel strongly these are not conclusions and there is much going on behind the scenes technically between these two companies that may not come to bear for a while).
Sinar brings to Leica a software platform, movement-based camera technology, advanced de-mosaicing technology, a substantial legacy of color knowledge, including the recently announced CTM solution, which followed years of development, and high end machining prowess.
https://captureintegration.com/sinar-ctm-the-most-accurate-digital-color-for-studio-photography/
Sinar actually has been making the right moves in recent years - opening their camera platform (P3 small format view camera, Artec and Lantec Tech Cameras) to 3rd party digital backs, and focusing most of their efforts on high end studio reproduction (museums, any critical reproduction or archival market). They have strong niche technology.
So - they have a lot to offer Leica, I think. And, especially from our standpoint, I am encouraged by the reinforcement that Leica can offer Sinar in terms of logistics and facilities. As a dealer for both Leica and Sinar, it helps strengthen the synergy for us with both those manufacturers, which can only bring positive benefits to end users.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I think you're right about the areas Leica gaining from Sinar. It merges their strengths.
Maybe the two can merge some sensor applications/usage from CMOSIS, ST and Dalsa to make some leaps.
(I wish it was Foveon in the mix of getting a major push to further dev, but that's another thread.)
I do wonder(and dream) what the future brings in the product that these two would first come up with as a team. I remember the Sinar capture software was VERY robust, but its been years since I played around with it. Kodak had a nice piece of software for tether also, not so technologically fine tuned, but the layout and forkflow was so fast and logically laid out, much more flexible and streamlined than C1 or others I have used. Well Cheers to these guys.
These long load times with huge files from the HDD sure do give me an excuse to read/write on these great posts....Ok, back to editing pix!
-
Let me bring my alcohol-hazed spongiform perspective to bear on this:
Phase got access to Leaf's customers, and disposed of the Hy6 which was a technically superior camera and therefore a long-term threat. A classic business school case: company with an aging product and better cash flow buries rival with newer technology bankrupted by dev costs. Oh and by the way, maybe the fact that Leaf used to be related to Kodak explains why it withered away ...
Frankly, I think the customers want to see a better camera with real liveview and reasonable prices; they are now so many "models" it's a wonder any one sells more than one unit a year - H4D new old stock is still floating around, then there is H5D40, H5D50, H5D60, the various MS models, the CFV50, the zombified Leaf Aptus series again with various sensors, the Mamiya labeled solutions, the Phase backs with various imagers and screens (IQ or not IQ), and yes two or three Sinar backs, and I almost forgot one Pentax and one Leica camera. And then the MF guys tell me that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A NEW (CMOS) SENSOR FABRICATED BECAUSE THE VOLUMES ARE NOT THERE. What a joke. I'll buy the 40 MP Apple watch camera with autostitching 360 degree panoramas, thank you very much ...
Edmund
Phase One acquires Leaf, they gain access to all Leaf product users, they gain access to Leaf proprietary technical know how and experience (6MP CMOS Sensor in 2002), advanced live view from CCD and CMOS, CCD internal rotation (Volare, AFi), etc. While teh investment into Mamiya was an obviously needed move to obtain a camera platform to drive, they also smartly leveraged a long term relationship with Schneider optics.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I wonder if there will be a MF system, Hy6 style with Digibacks, using Leica S glass.
-
Let me bring my alcohol-hazed spongiform perspective to bear on this:
Phase got access to Leaf's customers, and disposed of the Hy6 which was a technically superior camera and therefore a long-term threat. A classic business school case: company with an aging product and better cash flow buries rival with newer technology bankrupted by dev costs. Oh and by the way, maybe the fact that Leaf used to be related to Kodak explains why it withered away ...
Edmund
I don't agree with the simplified and inaccurate premise of your "Classic Business Case".
The Hy6 is not disposed of. In fact, I am pleasantly surprised that Leaf continued to produce digital back solutions for the platform. Since Phase never made a back end solution for Hy6, the only decision they made was not to invest effort and funding toward that platform. In light of their investment into Mamiya, which means that factory floor needs to be in high production, or losses start piling up, that sounds like a smart business decision to me. Nice to know some manufacturers in our industry are capable of making these. Whether the Hy6 is a superior platform isn't relevant, given the circumstances.
In fact, there are so many important details in this case - that are public knowledge - and that are not public knowledge. I believe there was consideration by Phase after the fact with regard to the Hy6 platform/situation. And if the financials made sense, this may have happened. But they didn't - inevitably, Phase One would have been in a weaker position if they went the route of Hy6 instead of Mamiya. Maybe a stronger camera, but having the best product today doesn't guarantee survival or prosperity. A chance to produce great digital backs today and a better camera tomorrow was the better bet in this case, IMO.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Up to date, non-tethering backs for the Hy6 would be nice.
+1
-
As far as I know there is nothing now preventing Phase backs on the Hy6 platform, so probably if enough people ask for it they would do it.
I like Phase backs and the Leaf backs and have used both over the years, but I have to say the AFi solution by Leaf with the rotating sensor and articulating screen is just brilliant! I would love to see the AFi updated.
The one thing the Sinar brings to the table from my vantage is the multishot backs - as I am a real fan of m/s backs, but these don't fit into the digitization workflow very well.
-
Ever since the present owner, whose name escapes me, has taken over Leica, the company has played to the high quality of its original mission and market niche, and brought some very innovative and successful products, in their market segment. It is clear that Leica continues to enrich the photography world even though their products appeal to a limited to a segment of the market.
I would expect some sort of innovation coming out of the Sinar acquisition. I think the guy in charge is interested in making a better camera, or better solution to a particular photography task.
The guy has succeeded beyond what everyone thought possible. A seemingly moribund Leica before he took over, continues to be relevant. Who knew?
Happy Thanksgiving,
Mitchell
-
Ever since the present owner, whose name escapes me, has taken over Leica, the company has played to the high quality of its original mission and market niche, and brought some very innovative and successful products, in their market segment. It is clear that Leica continues to enrich the photography world even though their products appeal to a limited to a segment of the market.
I would expect some sort of innovation coming out of the Sinar acquisition. I think the guy in charge is interested in making a better camera, or better solution to a particular photography task.
The guy has succeeded beyond what everyone thought possible. A seemingly moribund Leica before he took over, continues to be relevant. Who knew?
Happy Thanksgiving,
Mitchell
+1
Played his initially mediocre cards beautifully.
Edmund
-
+1, but only with a comprehensive software application that tethers well and is as good (at least) or better than C1. No small feat.
This whole thread reminds me of the initial Hy6 thread years ago, so much promise & excitement, so much less delivered in reality.
Assuming a new MF camera is coming from this acquisition, I hope one of the main design goals is communication between lens, camera body, back and software (Hassy H style), not like the initial Hy6.
The potential is there with these 2 companies and i'm very interested to see what they deliver.
I wonder if there will be a MF system, Hy6 style with Digibacks, using Leica S glass.
-
Hi,
Some facts:
- Leica has it's own CMOS sensor, designed by CMOSIS for Leica
- The M (240) is a stitched sensor
- Leica has the S-series using a Kodak (AKA TrueSense) sensor
Here comes speculation:
May be that next Leica S comes with an upscaled CMOS sensor based on the M (240) design? May be that Leica wants to adopt it to Sinar?
Best regards
Erik
-
May be that next Leica S comes with an upscaled CMOS sensor based on the M (240) design?
Be careful what you wish for.
Personally I think medium format has a place, but it's time they stopped talking about megapixels because that ship has sailed. I know high pixel numbers sell the unknowing, but to me the advantage of medium format is the ccd sensor and the ability to really work a file deep.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30_sports.jpg)
I will repeat this, I believe with all my soul that a ccd file is superior to a cmos file given proper exposure and crafted light. I think it's superior in video and stills and I'd take an m9 or m8 over a Leica 240 in a heartbeat, I believe the 40mpx Hasselblad shoots an amazing file for skintones and nothing shoots a prettier look that my old p30+ and m8 with profoto flash.
(http://russellrutherford.com/hair_face.jpg)(http://www.russellrutherford.com/red_lingerie.jpg)
I dunno, maybe it doesn't matter anymore.
i only buy print magazines when I fly and I've flown a lot lately. Today just bought a the GQ with George Clooney on the cover and Dec. Vogue with Kate Moss.
I don't believe technical quality is as important as the art, but both those cover images honestly look like they were shot with cell phones and tried to oversharpen with focus. I'll admit you can't take a bad photo of Kate Moss, so that's a given and I guess George Clooney on white sells, but regardless of creative brief, lighting or the on camera talent, both images are shameful in technique.
So to me, the thing that medium format needs to do is show great imagery and get their cameras , backs and lenses in the hands of people that are working at the sharp end and show the results, without the fanbodyism.
I own some older phase backs and still use them, I have personal mixed reviews of the companies marketing . . . but . . .
I don't understand why Phase and all medium format take so much heat.
Honestly,Phase makes the strongest piece of digital equipment I've ever owned and my backs which have been in every condition imaginable have never gone in for repair.
With the software improvements they are more viable today than they were when I bought them.
I can't say that about any piece of equipment in the digital world of photo equipment.
I also know some of the "rumors" of why Phase didn't make a back for the HY6 and it came down to smart business. The Mamiya deal was affordable, the HY6 was more risk, required more initial money and by the time it became more of an option, the commercial world went into crash mode, so the working professional had to change how they worked and be careful on what they bought.
Tell me which direction you would go?
Here's what gets me about this whole conversation. When the Hy6 was introduced it wasn't clean sheet, still based on the Rollei 6008 and didn't have a wide autofocus lens, had some issues with prisms digital back designs and of all the people that keep saying it's the best camera ever, I'd love to see the metrics of who bought, who didn't.
Leica, I love the look of their cameras, would love to have a reason to buy a S series, but it didn't tether when announced it also has a limited lens set and the lenses are stratospheric in costs.
Also Leica has been involved with so many third party people nobody can keep up. The back for the R9 had imacon software, the M8 was aligned with Phase one, the S series, I dunno I think it comes with a copy of lightroom now I guess Sinar software.
But back to the HY6, Leaf still makes a back for it, the software is c-1 which is pretty much the tethering gold standard so what keeps anyone from buying into it today?
In regards to cmos, I guess it's coming in medium format, but unless I see something better than the cmos in the m240 or for that matter any cmos camera, I'll wait.
P.S. (sorry for the disjointed post but I've been on a plane for a lot of hours).
IMO
BC
-
I wonder if there will be a MF system, Hy6 style with Digibacks, using Leica S glass.
Pretty unlikely this will happen. Leica has been pretty clear the S system won't have larger sensors and the S glass doesn't have coverage to go to a bigger sensor.
-
Hi,
It is not about wishing, it is speculations. Facts are:
1) Leica developed it's own CMOS sensor
2) Leica has an MFD camera with a fixed back on a rigid body
3) Leica probably sees the S-series as a long time effort
4) Leica buys the most renowned maker of studio cameras
So what do you make of these facts? What makes sense? That are the questions I am asking.
Best regards
Erik
Be careful what you wish for.
-
I will repeat this, I believe with all my soul that a ccd file is superior to a cmos file given proper exposure and crafted light.
I'm with you on the CCD v CMOS. It's hard to explain with science and DR tests, but it's there in front of my eyes. It might be just the color filter choice and the optimization of most CMOS sensors for high ISO work, but….
But back to the HY6, Leaf still makes a back for it, the software is c-1 which is pretty much the tethering gold standard so what keeps anyone from buying into it today?
Thank you for writing that ;) I don't think it's price because the Hy6 Mod2 with MFDB isn't really different in price than the other platforms with leaf shutter lenses.
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that CMOS with live view makes a lot of sense on technical cameras and studio cameras.
I don't think Leica prices are astronomic by MFD standards, BTW. Astronomic yes, but not at MFD standards. The Leica S can also use Hasselblad lenses.
Best regards
Erik
In regards to cmos, I guess it's coming in medium format, but unless I see something better than the cmos in the m240 or for that matter any cmos camera, I'll wait.
P.S. (sorry for the disjointed post but I've been on a plane for a lot of hours).
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that CMOS with live view makes a lot of sense on technical cameras and studio cameras.
I don't think Leica prices are astronomic by MFD standards, BTW. Astronomic yes, but not at MFD standards. The Leica S can also use Hasselblad lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Leica prices are ok, not great but ok. Lens prices for still cameras are insane and they're good, but not that good.
In regards to cmos, ok, they'll do it, they'll all probably do it, which is fine with me because I'll just buy the ccd version at a better price.
But live view for studio work. I hear this all the time, can see some of the benefit, but how hard is it to take a shot, look at it on the computer, make an adjustment and take another shot.
That's almost as fast as most cameras live view anyway.
But what do I know, I don't shoot still life.
I still hold to my belief that ccd has a more unique look than cmos as long as you have a little bit of light.
(http://russellrutherford.com/wonderland_editorial/pictures/wonderland_editorial0011.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
What I see as a potential threat for a company like Leica, is advancing technology like the Foveon type sensor.
Sigma have shown what this style can do.
I believe both Nikon and Canon have a patent or two for this kind of thinking. If they can produce a camera body with only a half decent iso range, that handles and has speed, I believe it would clean up in the studio and possible the Landscape market.
I'm not sure where Leica could get that kind of technology from.
Maybe Leica see that too and are covering there options with Sinar, MS backs and a history second to none for camera systems with movements Sinar is a good name to own. There are few players in the "camera with movements market" .
I just wonder if long term Leica think competing in the hand holdable small format camera market is going to be a struggle they can't win. Sure now they are on a crest of a wave, but 10 years from now?
I even wonder how anyone will be able just to produce a product that only takes pictures. We stand a good chance of the mass market point and shoots and top end DSLR's being reduced to a fixed lens sophisticated phone come web connecting device.
Not as far fetched as it might sound. When I think I use to clip films to holders in the dark to dip them in a tank, before drying, loading into an enlarger, printing, then driving them around to the client. The idea of shooting to a tiny card, uploading to a computer and sending the image through the phone was beyond sci-fi thinking. Having a computer was beyond rational thought then.
Now something specialised like a Sinar could still have a place............maybe.
-
Hi BC,
I tought you use live view on the Panasonic and even feel that EVF is great?
Regard a technical camera, you have three options:
A sliding back
Removing the back, focusing on a matte screen and remounting the back
Use an external viewfinder and a laser distance meter for focusing
Don't you think LV makes life easier?
Best regard
Erik
Leica prices are ok, not great but ok. Lens prices for still cameras are insane and they're good, but not that good.
In regards to cmos, ok, they'll do it, they'll all probably do it, which is fine with me because I'll just buy the ccd version at a better price.
But live view for studio work. I hear this all the time, can see some of the benefit, but how hard is it to take a shot, look at it on the computer, make an adjustment and take another shot.
That's almost as fast as most cameras live view anyway.
But what do I know, I don't shoot still life.
I still hold to my belief that ccd has a more unique look than cmos as long as you have a little bit of light.
(http://russellrutherford.com/wonderland_editorial/pictures/wonderland_editorial0011.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Hi BC,
I tought you use live view on the Panasonic and even feel that EVF is great?
snip
Don't you think LV makes life easier?
Best regard
Erik
Uh, the live view I've used on the mirrorless cameras is the evf, but don't have much choice.
Probably LV would make a technical camera easier, though it's funny, the same people that love optical viewfinders and hate evf, also want live view.
Don't get it, other than I think everyone is a traditionalist unless the old ways don't work, then they love new technology.
I probably am the same, as I thought I'd never use an evf, then used the RED's bomb, got use to it, then the Panasonic gh3's got use to it, then . . .
But why you can't get an electronic view from ccd sensors?
CCD video cameras in analog and digital had it forever.
It's interesting though that my leica m8 and the olympus em-5 have virtually the same level of detail. It's almost impossible to say one is much if any better than the other, except in the depth of the file.
The m8 file is much more interesting. I can make a cmos file look good, make it have depth, but it never is as deep as a ccd file in my work.
In the same subject when I recently tested a d800 I liked the camera, wasn't that wild about the color, though can work it, but found that any lens that wasn't the newer models with nano coating didn't hold up as well as my old Contax and p30+. With the new lenses it was a dead match in detail, except I don't like the character of the newer Nikon lenses, but that's all down to personal taste.
What I find interesting is my contax and p30+ are 7 or 8 years old and it took dslrs that long to get to the same level of detail, though I still don't think the file has the same depth.
IMO
BC
-
Hi BC,
That has to do with type of CCD used. I got the impression that motion cameras and small sensor cameras use line transfer CCDs, for each line of sensor pixels there is line for buffer cells, so only half of the sensor area is used for making the image and the other half to transfer the image. The other issue may be heat build up.
CMOS is much more flexible, as you can access any pixel by raw and column.
The third factor is that many sensors use massively parallell converters, a 24 MP Sony sensor has about 6000 ADCs, so each ADC handles just 4000 pixels, allowing long conversion times. If you have a 24 MP CCD-sensor with say 6 external ADCs, each of those would need to handle 4 million pixels. So a raw conversion on a a Sony sensor is 1000 times longer than on said 24MP sensor with 6 ADCs.
Regarding EVF contra OVF, I don't know. I have both. Sony Alpha 900 has OVF, Hasselblad 555 ELD has OVF, Sony Alpha 99 has EVF. EVF make focusing on static objects easy. Sony Alpha VF image is large and bright but not easy to focus. Had a few iterations with the Hasselblad viewfinders, the PM5 I have works best for me. I have also a Pentax 67, that viewfinder reminds me of a black hole.
I do think that future belongs to EVF. It is just a simple and logical solution which happen to come at a low price. In the long run it will win.
Best regards
Erik
Uh, the live view I've used on the mirrorless cameras is the evf, but don't have much choice.
But why you can't get an electronic view from ccd sensors?
-
Hi BC,
From where I stand, I guess that it is more about the colour filters (CGA) on the sensor than about silicon. Both older Phase One backs at Leica m8/M9/ME are using Kodak Sensor with Kodak CGAs. Later generation Phase One backs use Dalsa designs, with Dalsa CGAs. Doug Peterson says most consumers prefer Dalsa color rendition to Kodak color rendition.
I am a landscape shooter. Personally I can see little difference between my P45+ and my Sony Alpha 99. The P45+ almost always wins on detail, but I cannot really say which is which on print or screen.
Best regards
Erik
Uh, the live view I've used on the mirrorless cameras is the evf, but don't have much choice.
hat my leica m8 and the olympus em-5 have virtually the same level of detail. It's almost impossible to say one is much if any better than the other, except in the depth of the file.
The m8 file is much more interesting. I can make a cmos file look good, make it have depth, but it never is as deep as a ccd file in my work.
In the same subject when I recently tested a d800 I liked the camera, wasn't that wild about the color, though can work it, but found that any lens that wasn't the newer models with nano coating didn't hold up as well as my old Contax and p30+. With the new lenses it was a dead match in detail, except I don't like the character of the newer Nikon lenses, but that's all down to personal taste.
What I find interesting is my contax and p30+ are 7 or 8 years old and it took dslrs that long to get to the same level of detail, though I still don't think the file has the same depth.
IMO
BC
-
Hi BC,
From where I stand, I guess that it is more about the colour filters (CGA) on the sensor than about silicon. Both older Phase One backs at Leica m8/M9/ME are using Kodak Sensor with Kodak CGAs. Later generation Phase One backs use Dalsa designs, with Dalsa CGAs. Doug Peterson says most consumers prefer Dalsa color rendition to Kodak color rendition.
I am a landscape shooter. Personally I can see little difference between my P45+ and my Sony Alpha 99. The P45+ almost always wins on detail, but I cannot really say which is which on print or screen.
Best regards
Erik
Erik also one has to think about system resolution. You use the P45+ back on a Hasselblad CF camera and lenses which is not the ideal setup for landscape. You should try that back with a tech camera and schneider or rodenstock lenses made for digital. It is a significant difference. I have downloaded several of the P45+ raw files from your setup that you have posted and they have a softness at 100% that tells me that the back is capable of more. The file size is there obviously but the resolution is lacking a bit.
Regarding the Kodak vs Dalsa I have used medium format digital cameras with both and I personally prefer the Dalsa but either can be manipulated quite a bit in post. The Dalsa file handles the highlights better though and are easier to recover, both have excellent DR but the Dalsa might have .5 or 1 stop better DR.
I played with some Leica S files and honestly did not find them that much different than the 645D files besides the better performance of the leica glass.
-
Ken,
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I don't see me testing my P45+ on a tech camera. Getting into Hassy and P45+ was a significant stretch on my economy.
My latest comment was more related to color than detail. I am pretty much aware that modern lenses are better than the Zeiss lenses. But I find that prints are much more forgiving for lack of sharpness than actual pixels view.
I got a couple of images from Marc McCalmont that illustrate the difference in sharpness between his IQ180 with Rodenstock HR (left) and his Nikon D800E (right), really impressive:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg (full size)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Erik also one has to think about system resolution. You use the P45+ back on a Hasselblad CF camera and lenses which is not the ideal setup for landscape. You should try that back with a tech camera and schneider or rodenstock lenses made for digital. It is a significant difference. I have downloaded several of the P45+ raw files from your setup that you have posted and they have a softness at 100% that tells me that the back is capable of more. The file size is there obviously but the resolution is lacking a bit.
Regarding the Kodak vs Dalsa I have used medium format digital cameras with both and I personally prefer the Dalsa but either can be manipulated quite a bit in post. The Dalsa
-
Ken,
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I don't see me testing my P45+ on a tech camera. Getting into Hassy and P45+ was a significant stretch on my economy.
My latest comment was more related to color than detail. I am pretty much aware that modern lenses are better than the Zeiss lenses. But I find that prints are much more forgiving for lack of sharpness than actual pixels view.
I got a couple of images from Marc McCalmont that illustrate the difference in sharpness between his IQ180 with Rodenstock HR (left) and his Nikon D800E (right), really impressive:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg (full size)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Yeah, that is a nice comparison, you can see a huge difference and it is a macro shot where the smaller format D800 would have an edge due to much larger depth of field. On a distant landscape at longer distances and/or infinity the difference should be even greater.
I played with the Leica S and a few lenses and the system is superb but the sensor itself is no better than the one in the Nikon or the 645D. The lenses are better so the system resolution is a touch higher but not a huge difference. The Leica S would be awesome with a 50-60 mp sensor with a touch more DR. It is a great body looking for a sensor.
-
The file is upsized to meet the IQ180, so it falling apart is expected. How about the P45 vs D800E (39vs36mp is closer) using same Rod HR lens?
Thant would make more sense, no? Otherwise this says that if you upsize a file, you will lose in comparison?
-
The file is upsized to meet the IQ180, so it falling apart is expected. How about the P45 vs D800E (39vs36mp is closer) using same Rod HR lens?
Thant would make more sense, no? Otherwise this says that if you upsize a file, you will lose in comparison?
I agree that a like to like MP comparison would be more appropriate -and in the context here useful.
Edmund
-
I've done a bunch of tests between d800E and AFi-ii 12. Where the D800E fails is in the color information, but it does hold up well with luminosity detail. For flowers and things like that, you'll see a lot flatter image with D800E. But as has been pointed out in other recent threads, there are a lot of reasons to choose a camera besides the sensor, or a chart or test or theoretical conjecture.
-
Hi,
The reason you buy a high res back is that it is a high res back. The pair of images illustrate what you get for your 50 k$US (or so), this is also the difference you would see if you printed very large and looked close side by side.
The samples I show orignate from Marc McCalmont, and he used the best lens he could find for his Nikon D800E a Leica lens in a Leitax mount.
I was really responding to "Ken R", who in general seems to be of the opinion that low end MFDBs don't make a lot of sense as they are evenly matched with Nikon D800/D800E and probably the Sony A7r at a much lower price. Ken also says that my Hasselblad V & P45+ images don't make the P45+ justice as the old Zeiss lenses are not really good enough. That has also been stated by Doug Peterson, who also indicated that although the Zeiss lenses are nice the more modern designs from Phase One are significantly sharper, and I have little doubt that is the case.
Best regards
Erik
The file is upsized to meet the IQ180, so it falling apart is expected. How about the P45 vs D800E (39vs36mp is closer) using same Rod HR lens?
Thant would make more sense, no? Otherwise this says that if you upsize a file, you will lose in comparison?
-
I think placing the D800 on rails for use with the same lens and a good uprez will be much closer...I think. The grain in that file doesn't coincide with the info I have in mind.
But as you note, lenses can make all the difference, and sharpest Leica he found, not sure which it is on the Leitax mount, hope Ken gets some use out of.
-
Doug Peterson, who also indicated that although the Zeiss lenses are nice the more modern designs from Phase One are significantly sharper, and I have little doubt that is the case.
I don't care that much about micro detail, but I'll take Doug up on any bet how the Zeiss Contax lenses compare to any Phase One lens.
BC
-
I don't care that much about micro detail, but I'll take Doug up on any bet how the Zeiss Contax lenses compare to any Phase One lens.
Zeiss Contax lenses were all very good.
But as long as I get to pick the lenses I'll take the bet.
Phase 150D or Schneider 110LS shot near wide open on a high res back (e.g. 60mp) will show a difference compared to the Contax equivalents. Other lenses like the 35D are less likely to show such an improvement.
Mind you this difference may be entirely unimportant to many styles of image making and for many output purposes. For instance the 150D really excels at corner sharpness wide open, but in a portrait or fashion shot the corners may not have any content which you want to render sharply.
-
Hell of a photo Cooter!
Maybe Leica has too much money and Sinar doesn´t have enough... how did that happen?
-
Hi,
Something that should be kept in mind is that absolute focus is seldom achieved, and it is only possible over a single plane. So, most part of most picture will be a bit out of focus. Rendition of out of focus areas is thus very important.
I am mostly a 'landscape' shooter. Landscape is a wide field but in many cases landscape shooting involves distant areas often involving tiny detail, like tree tops, that are very unforgiving.
I have five of the Sonnar lenses, 40/4, 50/4, 50/2.8, 120/4 and 150/4. Of the five I would say that the 150/4 is clearly the best one with the 40/4 being tricky.
Best regards
Erik
Zeiss Contax lenses were all very good.
But as long as I get to pick the lenses I'll take the bet.
Phase 150D or Schneider 110LS shot near wide open on a high res back (e.g. 60mp) will show a difference compared to the Contax equivalents. Other lenses like the 35D are less likely to show such an improvement.
Mind you this difference may be entirely unimportant to many styles of image making and for many output purposes. For instance the 150D really excels at corner sharpness wide open, but in a portrait or fashion shot the corners may not have any content which you want to render sharply.
-
Zeiss Contax lenses were all very good.
But as long as I get to pick the lenses I'll take the bet.
Phase 150D or Schneider 110LS shot near wide open on a high res back (e.g. 60mp) will show a difference compared to the Contax equivalents. Other lenses like the 35D are less likely to show such an improvement.
Mind you this difference may be entirely unimportant to many styles of image making and for many output purposes. For instance the 150D really excels at corner sharpness wide open, but in a portrait or fashion shot the corners may not have any content which you want to render sharply.
OK,
I've now reduced myself to the level of a pixel staring crazy. If I start shooting brick walls of fences, someone call the guys with white jackets and sleepy time hypos.
Anyway, these are real world samples, shot late at night. with a Contax and a Ziess 140mm lens on a p30+
A 7 year old back, a 9 year old camera and lens that was designed 15 years ago which was designed for film, not digital before anyone dreamed of a 30mpx back.
Phase had no imput to contax, contax obviously has no input to anyone anymore, my backs and cameras have never been mated, shimmed, examined or designed solely for each other.
Without editorial comment here are the results.
They were shot handheld, 1/90th of a second, with profoto acutes also handheld.
They were shot fast, probably 30 to 40 frames and on to the next.
For processing the sliders have been moved to add slight softness, not to present sharpening or over-sharpening.
Reduced full frame Full body Length Image
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30+_hair_now_small_white.jpg)
100% screen shot (open image in new window for detail)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30_hair_now_white_100%25.jpg)
Reduced full frame head and shoulders horizontal, more softness added with then noise sliders
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30+2_blue_hair_now_small.jpg)
100% screen shot (open image in new window for detail)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30+2_blue_hair_now_100%25.jpg)
Anymore sharpness than this and we're not talking about a photograph, we're talking about a science project.
My point is not negative towards phase, because obviously equipment this old and this viable is a testament to Contax, Zeiss and Phase.
My point is after so many years , lens sharpness hasn't improved, camera usability hasn't improved, if anything it's less useable with stationary prisms.
I haven't shot a df+ or a new iQ series back, except fooling around in a camera store and though they are newer, nothing compels me to ebay what I use today and go to something else.
In fact the only medium format I would add at this point would be a Leica S2 because it works well with my contax lenses, used sells for 10 grand and though the tethering on the S2 is limited, for non tethering work it would be worth 10 grand for the form factor and lcd and honestly what else would I gain with another system?
_______________
But here's the bet.
I'll pick the studio and talent. My producer/stylist and partner will cast and wardrobe we'll bring in top level hair and makeup because if we're going to shoot a photograph, might as well produce something worth showing.
Then as a bonus we'll go on location, take some small tungsten and shoot the same comparisons in low light, using the tungsten for keys and accents.
You can use my contax for an hour then your DF and tell me honestly at the end of the session which camera you find more enjoyable.
In post processing you tell me what sensor works better under these conditions.
The bet, My p30+ against your IQ back. Well let's make it the cash value because on the very small chance I'd lose I'd wouldn't want to give up my p30+.
Sound good?
BC
-
Hi BC,
I will not argue, I have a great respect for your view and your photography, but there is an another vision.
My vision is that a lens should reproduce the subject as faithfully as possible, that is for me the definition of an ideal lens. The lens should neither add nor subtract.
I can see that smoothness is important for the kind of shooting you do, but many of us don't earn our living by shooting stylished ladies and gentlemen for living. Personally I am mostly shooting landscape as a pastime (earning my income in reactor physics). Some people shoot architecture or food. Needs are different.
Best regards
Erik
[quoute]
Anymore sharpness than this and we're not talking about a photograph, we're talking about a science project.
[/quoute]
-
Nice. Looks like provia with an 81a
;)
-
I can see that smoothness is important for the kind of shooting you do, but many of us don't earn our living by shooting stylished ladies and gentlemen for living. Personally I am mostly shooting landscape as a pastime (earning my income in reactor physics). Some people shoot architecture or food. Needs are different.
Best regards
Erik
I agree that everyone not only has different expectations and sees different things.
The only point I was trying to make is compared to the contax zeiss the phase (non leaf shutter lenses) are 4 times the price and I'd love to see even equal the performance.
The Phase 80mm is a 2.8 the Contax Zeiss f2.0, which makes a big difference.
The Phase 150 is $3,490 the Contax under a thousand.
Then there is the ergonomics. It takes any photographer about 10 seconds to get use to a Contax with f stops on the lens and a shutter dial. You can swap finders from prism to waist level and the contax is smooth and substantial.
After 15 years you expect a leap forward and it's not just the Phase mamiya, dslrs have gone the same route of dials and menus to replace analog functions.
Shoot a contax 80mm close up hand held at 1.30th of a second and you'll know what I mean.
It's the same thing with those little m43 cameras I use for video and stills. Take the olympus em-5 and use an olympus lens. It's sharp (over sharp for me) medium fast though not crazy fast though autofocuses immediatley and is easy to use.
Though put a lecia or Voigt manual lens on it with a f stop ring and the camera transforms into analog, shoots like analog, looks like film. Sometimes I think we're answering questions that nobody is asking.
IMO
BC
P.S. Once again this isn't a dig a any company and obviously contax is gone, gone, though the camera still live on.
What I'm saying is unless there is a real leap, something you can't do without or have to have to make a certain image, there is no reason to change.
If I needed leaf shutters, I'd look at the DF, well maybe, but I don't need any sync above 250 and can overpower the sun easily with a contax and 2400 watts.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/sanya_richards_contax.jpg)
-
Hi,
The reason I choose the Hasselblad V for my P45+ were the Zeiss lenses. Not because they are good but because they are affordable and pretty good. I started with a Sonnar 150/4, which was a very good lens. It cost me something like 400$, one fifth of the zooms I use on my Sony's but it matches the Sony zooms in performance, on a DSLR. I felt that if could fit an MF equipment inside a budget of 100kSEK (about 150 k$USD) it would be OK, so the low price of used Zeiss lenses was a major attraction.
My experience of the Zeiss lenses is mixed. Knowing them takes some testing and also learning from mistakes.
I like shooting with the stuff, it's not fast but a nice experience.
Rationally, I feel the Sony is the better equipment. There is one area where Hasselblad/Zeiss/P45+ wins at that is resolution.
DR? Sony wins!
Bokeh? Sony wins!
Sharpness? P45+ wins!
Color? Don't know1 If you like yellowish greens P45+ wins, if you like subtle colours Sony wins.
Why I like to work with the 555 ELD/P45+? I don't know! Perhaps it is because it is well made without being perfect.
I normally walk with the Hasselblad 555ELD and five lenses plus a Sony Alpha 99 and two big zooms. Add to that an RRS Versa 3 tripod and an Arca Swiss 4D head. If I need to cut wave, there is no discussion the Sony comes with me and that is the Hassy that stays home! Why? Because the Sony can handle everything!
Best regards
Erik
I agree that everyone not only has different expectations and sees different things.
The only point I was trying to make is compared to the contax zeiss the phase (non leaf shutter lenses) are 4 times the price and I'd love to see even equal the performance.
The Phase 80mm is a 2.8 the Contax Zeiss f2.0, which makes a big difference.
The Phase 150 is $3,490 the Contax under a thousand.
Then there is the ergonomics. It takes any photographer about 10 seconds to get use to a Contax with f stops on the lens and a shutter dial. You can swap finders from prism to waist level and the contax is smooth and substantial.
After 15 years you expect a leap forward and it's not just the Phase mamiya, dslrs have gone the same route of dials and menus to replace analog functions.
Shoot a contax 80mm close up hand held at 1.30th of a second and you'll know what I mean.
It's the same thing with those little m43 cameras I use for video and stills. Take the olympus em-5 and use an olympus lens. It's sharp (over sharp for me) medium fast though not crazy fast though autofocuses immediatley and is easy to use.
Though put a lecia or Voigt manual lens on it with a f stop ring and the camera transforms into analog, shoots like analog, looks like film. Sometimes I think we're answering questions that nobody is asking.
IMO
BC