Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.  (Read 27917 times)

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2015, 08:09:04 pm »

Found this... http://petapixel.com/2015/04/21/more-murmurings-of-a-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-by-nikon/ and that... http://www.slrlounge.com/canon-full-frame-mirrorless-2016-sony-90mm-tops-dxo-charts-daily-roundup/ on web...

It is "just rumors" alright, but I find it impossible for the recent FF mirrorless-mania not to have affected the "big boys"... The advantages (like some discussed here) that these types of cameras provide easy access to photographers are hard to overlook...

Personally, I couldn't live without looking through an OVF, since I believe that the visualization fundamental can't be satisfied by an EVF when the photographer is "active" and hand holds the camera... But for cases where the study of the scene (and hence the visualization of it) is performed by directly viewing at it without the need of looking through a VF and then VF is used only for framing, I think mirrorless is irreplaceable...
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2015, 08:34:43 pm »

I would wish that it would, but since there is no reports on the matter posted from the makers, it makes me very suspicious for the opposite...

Phase One's financials are public record and show revenue and profit increasing year-over-year since 2008.

I asked earlier in this thread about where you are from and whether your friend/dealer's portfolio includes Phase One backs. I'm genuinely curious as, from your reports, things are very different than they are in the US.

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2015, 08:58:26 pm »

Phase One's financials are public record and show revenue and profit increasing year-over-year since 2008.

I asked earlier in this thread about where you are from and whether your friend/dealer's portfolio includes Phase One backs. I'm genuinely curious as, from your reports, things are very different than they are in the US.

Hi Doug, Yair knows where I come from and knows my friend (P.A are the initials) he used to be the Leaf importer and now does deal P1 stuff also (along with other hi end stuff -Hasselblad & Leica group too- he deals) through the importer of the group... Please ask Yair privately on details and names, since I don't want to provide these info in public... Thanks...

As for sales, I didn't ask for financial reports (as these depend on many different factors) but on actual number of new (only) units sold... I think that P1 figures of (new) units that should be the largest among MF market would give us a good idea of the current total volume of MF market and how it is affected (or not) by the smaller format progress... :)
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2015, 09:46:09 pm »

I would wish that it would, but since there is no reports on the matter posted from the makers, it makes me very suspicious for the opposite...  :) Maybe MF DSLRs (Leica 007 & Pentax Z) are doing well at the moment (again an estimation based on the price and own experience out of wedding pros I know that found an opportunity to add digital next to their Contax 645 using the same glass on Leica S 007), but even if they do, wouldn't that share "cut" more out of MFDB + camera combinations? Personally I strongly protest against "closed systems" (a reason why I never used Phamyia or Blad platforms) and additionally, I think that the major maker's decision (P1 of course) to close the system with the XF will seriously damage their sales and the MFDB market in total... but that's a different conversation...

My local pro dealer confirms that the Pentax is selling well in France.

An interesting and maybe related MF datapoint is that there are few "cheap" MF used kits available here from the usual suspects, if you browse the web. In Germany and the uk it is very different, eg. look at procentre.co.uk and fotopartner.de

I do agree with Theodoros that we should be seeing some view camera innovation/hybrids. Maybe when Leica has digested Sinar?
Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2015, 10:19:52 pm »

I would wish for this thread to avoid the "usual" conversations about company interests... it is not the aim of the discussion by no means... This is a conversation purely on how photographers will be able to have access to more tasks and develop their skills as to help photography advance from the (usual) company interest trap (IMO) that has fallen in, during the past recent years... your help will be highly appreciated... thanks!

EDIT: My opinion is that what advances photography is amazing images, not better lenses, nor cameras with higher spec, neither higher resolution!

From this point of view, I have a feeling that images became worst with tech advancement for the later 12 years (which is equipment that trolls laugh about).

This thread, I created because there is evidence of new photographic "tooling" present that can give (again IMO) opportunities to more talents to do things that they wouldn't have access before and also for experienced photographers (or cinematographers) to use in conditions that they couldn't before and how easy one can integrate these tools in his work with a minimum cost... nothing more, nothing less.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 10:33:43 pm by Theodoros »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2015, 11:46:10 pm »

Theo,

There are too many images already. The problem for the art establishment is not finding new artists, it is locking out the many to anoint the few.

Edmund


I would wish for this thread to avoid the "usual" conversations about company interests... it is not the aim of the discussion by no means... This is a conversation purely on how photographers will be able to have access to more tasks and develop their skills as to help photography advance from the (usual) company interest trap (IMO) that has fallen in, during the past recent years... your help will be highly appreciated... thanks!

EDIT: My opinion is that what advances photography is amazing images, not better lenses, nor cameras with higher spec, neither higher resolution!

From this point of view, I have a feeling that images became worst with tech advancement for the later 12 years (which is equipment that trolls laugh about).

This thread, I created because there is evidence of new photographic "tooling" present that can give (again IMO) opportunities to more talents to do things that they wouldn't have access before and also for experienced photographers (or cinematographers) to use in conditions that they couldn't before and how easy one can integrate these tools in his work with a minimum cost... nothing more, nothing less.
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Franzl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2015, 12:46:40 am »



EDIT: My opinion is that what advances photography is amazing images, not better lenses, nor cameras with higher spec, neither higher resolution!

From this point of view, I have a feeling that images became worst with tech advancement for the later 12 years (which is equipment that trolls laugh about).

This thread, I created because there is evidence of new photographic "tooling" present that can give (again IMO) opportunities to more talents to do things that they wouldn't have access before and also for experienced photographers (or cinematographers) to use in conditions that they couldn't before and how easy one can integrate these tools in his work with a minimum cost... nothing more, nothing less.

This is a fact, that there is more and better and more affordable equipment available to a wider audience. But this doesn't say anything about the fact, that the trend is towards bigger sensors in 35mm and  towards DMF too. You cannot deny that before it was cropped sensors and since 2-3 years it is all about FF and now even in mirrorless. Many said the Nikon will kill dem DMF, now they say Canon or Sony, but in my personal view neither is right. It is the other way around. DMF is more affordable than ever. This also counts for tech camera users. Buy a used back and put it onto a Sinar, Linhof, Arca and you wil have a great product and lenses will be cheap for DMF back (compared to phase or hasselblad lenses). People always want to hear you can buy the best for no money, but the canon won't outperform a DMF, neither will the Sony. Will you be able to do proper stuff and better stuff than with a 10 year old 5D, of course. But the best will still be DMF and there is no way around it atm. A DMF system has its place as has a FF35mm with a tech cam, but it won't kill it. I think the niche is so small for the tech/35mm cam market and the tech/DMF market that this won't influence the sales much. I think the biggest sales in DMF is for fashion, landscape, commercial stuff. Wedding slightly coming more important with cheaper solutions. For still life it is neither 35mm for years already or 35mm combined with a bigger tech cam. Now there are more options with smaller tech cams and those will adapt towards these system if they need that. But this won't effect the sales of DMF in bigger quantities.
Logged

Franzl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2015, 12:57:51 am »

And talking about film business. I wanna see what will come out of a Leica S DMF produced video...this is more interesting I think...
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2015, 08:37:25 am »

Theo,

There are too many images already. The problem for the art establishment is not finding new artists, it is locking out the many to anoint the few.

Edmund

I'm sure that many talents, didn't have access to proper equipment up until recently, as to develop their skills... MO refers to all imaging, both photography and motion...
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 08:41:04 am by Theodoros »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2015, 08:48:00 am »

The slow update rate/need of MFD vs 135 I think is better fitting the period 2005-2010 than 2010-2015 and I think it will even out even more in the coming 5 year period.

One reason 135 users update often is because it's cheap to do so and technical development has been fast. You can't compare percentage value drop of a system that cost 1/5th to 1/10th of MFD.

MFD upgrade need hasn't been that strong as well, there hasn't been much technical development, but it seems to gain speed now with CMOS and new bodies, and indeed Pentax as a new player. Now I think I see that MFD users update faster, to keep the distance from the 135 crowd at least. It's easy to see in the second hand market how the prices of MFD backs suddenly drop like a stone when the megapixel count or dynamic range drop below what you get in 135, despite that the backs shoot nice quality still in an absolute sense. Most people want to lead the race.

The 50MP Kodak CCD I use in a Hassy H4D-50 will be near-impossible to sell with any retained value as the market has decided that it's too noisy with today's standards. I knew that though when I bought it and already then I got it at a fraction of the original price because it had lost its sexiness to the majority of users.

Still among pro users I don't think economical factors have been the reason to move to 135. Sure in countries where salaries are lower etc there is such a need, but say in Sweden where I live if your business can't handle the cost of MFD then it surely can't pay your salary either. When people have switched it seems to be mostly about convenience. Why have a clunky MFD system when a 135 does the job?

I've seen the highest end architecture photographers here in Sweden start working with 135 since the D800 days. Workflow speed, convenience and adequate quality was the reasons. Not economy. In the case I'm thinking about the photographer still had a MFD system on the shelf if a client would need it but it didn't see much use.

With my Techno I shoot manually, focus on ground glass, need LCC shots. My Canon with TS-E is much faster to work with. So I understand why some people make that choice.

MFD is becoming more convenient with CMOS now though, but tech segment and CMOS is still a bit messy due to the wide angle compatibility issues. We still have no exif data connection with movements, and electronic shutters to replace the discontinued copals are super-expensive and ill-suited for field use. Schneider has silently left tech lens manufacturing leaving Rodenstock alone, and despite their retrofocus design the CMOS compatibility is not exactly great. So the segment does not look super-healthy to me if we look into the future. But things can change.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 08:51:05 am by torger »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2015, 08:58:19 am »

There is a risk that people just stop shooting view cameras and solve it with perspective correction, new shooting styles, focus stacking etc. Sometimes there's a shift, things get worse in some aspects due to strong improvements in other areas.

One such example is telephony. Mobile phones are much less reliable and in general worse sound quality than fixed phones where. But we got mobile, and that big advantage made us relax the demands on reliability and sound quality.

That is I'm not sure view cameras with as flexible movements we have today will exist at all in the future. With the pancake cameras we've already seen a reduction in movement flexibility.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2015, 09:28:23 am »

This is a fact, that there is more and better and more affordable equipment available to a wider audience. But this doesn't say anything about the fact, that the trend is towards bigger sensors in 35mm and  towards DMF too. You cannot deny that before it was cropped sensors and since 2-3 years it is all about FF and now even in mirrorless. Many said the Nikon will kill dem DMF, now they say Canon or Sony, but in my personal view neither is right. It is the other way around. DMF is more affordable than ever. This also counts for tech camera users. Buy a used back and put it onto a Sinar, Linhof, Arca and you wil have a great product and lenses will be cheap for DMF back (compared to phase or hasselblad lenses). People always want to hear you can buy the best for no money, but the canon won't outperform a DMF, neither will the Sony. Will you be able to do proper stuff and better stuff than with a 10 year old 5D, of course. But the best will still be DMF and there is no way around it atm. A DMF system has its place as has a FF35mm with a tech cam, but it won't kill it. I think the niche is so small for the tech/35mm cam market and the tech/DMF market that this won't influence the sales much. I think the biggest sales in DMF is for fashion, landscape, commercial stuff. Wedding slightly coming more important with cheaper solutions. For still life it is neither 35mm for years already or 35mm combined with a bigger tech cam. Now there are more options with smaller tech cams and those will adapt towards these system if they need that. But this won't effect the sales of DMF in bigger quantities.

But it is still marketing what you are talking about... What you are saying is mostly own preference and as I understand it, it creates a marketing impression based on other photographer choices that are similar to yours...

I have to agree with you that I also prefer MF than FF "look", but MO is also that there isn't any real advancement for IQ among CCD backs and the later welcome feature that I've find interesting, is the FF MFDB size sensors and P1's "exposure +" technology which increases sensitivity by 2 stops... but this was back to 2008... So what I'm saying is that owners of older backs have little reason to upgrade, while at the same time DSLR sensor technology has been advanced at a higher pace, thus causing further convergence... So my estimation is based on the natural conclusion that if convergence is enough so that skills can overcome the difference and the photographer can (using these skills) achieve the result he aims for, then he may as well use the minimum of equipment required for that task... It's natural for this to happen, ...no?

OTOH with motion, things look very promising with larger sensors... but with motion imaging, FF camera size sensors are already big!  The Leica S you mention is a very good example..., it explodes its best motion performance by only using a part of the area of its sensor that is equal to the one of a FF camera... I guess then, one may use the new SL (for the same purpose - motion) that uses that part of the Leica S sensor and is specified even higher for Video. Look at the Sony 33x44 for instance, the sensor is specified to use its full image area for 8K (cinema - 8192 rows needed) motion (I believe that Sony has done that in purpose since they are among the leaders of equipment providers with long tradition) and the MF makers that are using the sensor ignored almost totally this capability...

But you see, the Cinema world is different, there a "closed system" that requires dedicated lenses and software is condemned by definition to death... exactly another reason why I believe that there is a bright feature for FF mirrorless... they offer more "openness" (access to lenses and software) more than any other maker, MFDB or mirrorbox DSLR... 
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2015, 10:06:12 am »

I'm sure that many talents, didn't have access to proper equipment up until recently, as to develop their skills... MO refers to all imaging, both photography and motion...

Theo,
 I agree that there is a lot of interesting stuff that could be done by creating a modern view camera. In fact, if you take something like a Hassy 50C back ($10K) and put it on an existing view camera one can probably preview most of the effects, and create motion with timelapse. Modernising the view camera is a really interesting topic.

 As for the argument that more equipment is necessary to develop talent BWAHAHAHA. Even an equipment freak like myself will laugh himself to the floor over that argument.

Edmund

Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2015, 11:22:18 am »


 As for the argument that more equipment is necessary to develop talent BWAHAHAHA. Even an equipment freak like myself will laugh himself to the floor over that argument.

Edmund
Back on 2007, I sold my P2 and lenses and bought a Fuji GX-680 with 5 lenses and even pocketed the money difference... reason? I needed to invest another 20k on the P2 for new lenses and electronic shutters as to make it compatible to work with an Imcon 528c back in multishot mode... With the Fuji GX-680 which costed a part of the money I earned from selling the P2 gear, I only needed a cable which a kind Hasselblad technician in Denmark has send me for free... OK, the comparison of the mechanical accuracy required with the Fuji as compared to the P2 is totally unfair... but what do I care having in the mean time developed the required experience from using the Sinar for so many years? I hardly spend more time to set up the Fuji than if I was using the Sinar...

Now here is the good one... I later on sold the (fantastic - still in my hurt) 528c which I got for even money than selling my first back (the Emotion 22), for about double the price than it was valued when It came in my possession... because, in the mean time, people realized what the back could do and they are rare in the market... With the money (+a Leica R8 body which I had left from the 90s), I got a CF-39MS and have spend another 1400 Euro to get a Sinarback 54H FW as to retain the 528c's image quality & improve on color calibration process and another 265 euro for the adapter for Contax 645 and the cables needed for both the Sinar & the Contax (I have the Fuji adapted for Contax mount backs)... The biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig surprise came when I tested the Fuji + 54H combination... LV works great with it, its quality is far better than the Imacon 528c and one can even use the Zinar LC shutter on the Fuji & thus have LV that competes with the best LV offered by Cmos sensors out there by any standard... and this is 20years old camera we are talking about and 11 years old back, but with full interface compatibility and all the movements one may need for the sensor size of the back & even a horizontal/vertical rotateable back... Now when I see a flashy 40K worth single shot back & view camera combination, ...there goes the "BWAHAHAHA"... and if one compares the IQ for stills, there goes twice as much "BWAHAHAHA"....  ;D
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2015, 06:45:33 pm »

Now when I see a flashy 40K worth single shot back & view camera combination, ...there goes the "BWAHAHAHA"... and if one compares the IQ for stills, there goes twice as much "BWAHAHAHA"....  ;D

Indeed. And every day I see old tethered H25 and Imacon digibacks going for almost nothing on ebay, which are fantastic for tethered work, even if of course they are nowhere like an MS solution.

I learned photography with ... a Kodak Vest Pocket, and then plate view cameras. I was living in a US-sponsored dictatorship, and that's what I had available. And next to me I have a Super Ikonta loaded with a fresh roll of HP5 - a camera which I could only have dreamed of as a kid which I got for ... free from the local dealer.

Edmund
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 06:52:14 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Rod.Klukas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
    • http://www.rodklukas.com
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2015, 03:04:25 pm »

Mirrorless has had some effect on Tech/MFDB sales.  We at Arca-Swiss have already addressed this movement for some users, by producing our Universalis series of 6x9 cameras.  In this series, you have a body available to mount medium format backs or DSLR/Mirrorless, or even 4x5.
You can purchase the camera in any of the formats and then get a format change kit to jump to one of the other formats.  The 110x110 bayonet R lens board allows the lenses from an R line Technical camera to just be bayoneted onto the Universalis, or any of our 6x9 size cameras.
Our bayonet system for mounting the bellows to the cameras allows use with 32mm or 35mm LF style lenses with movement.  In addition at Photoplus, we announced the new Canon aperture control board, which will allow a user to mount the Canon 24mm and even 17mm TS lenses on the Universalis, for example, and control the aperture.  The Universalis has geared rise/fall and lateral shift movements in the back and MicroOrbix geared tilt, along with dynamic swing, in the front.  The front also has geared rise/fall.
The readout is an LED on the front of the board, with buttons to change the aperture and open the aperture fully to focus, then close to the selected shooting iris. This board with its rear movements, allows the image to be corrected and or composed without compromising the perspective or point of view.  The 24mm Canon, especially , can also be used with some of the MFDB backs, more or less, depending on sensor size. 
Our bellows system also drops mechanical vignetting to an absolute minimum. 
Universalis Camera is very light and up to the precision required of digital image making.
Doug at Digital Transitions, Has more info on it.  Chris sent a pic from the show.
Logged
Rod Klukas
US Representative Arca-Swiss

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2015, 05:14:07 pm »

Mirrorless has had some effect on Tech/MFDB sales.  We at Arca-Swiss have already addressed this movement for some users, by producing our Universalis series of 6x9 cameras.  In this series, you have a body available to mount medium format backs or DSLR/Mirrorless, or even 4x5.
You can purchase the camera in any of the formats and then get a format change kit to jump to one of the other formats.  The 110x110 bayonet R lens board allows the lenses from an R line Technical camera to just be bayoneted onto the Universalis, or any of our 6x9 size cameras.
Our bayonet system for mounting the bellows to the cameras allows use with 32mm or 35mm LF style lenses with movement.  In addition at Photoplus, we announced the new Canon aperture control board, which will allow a user to mount the Canon 24mm and even 17mm TS lenses on the Universalis, for example, and control the aperture.  The Universalis has geared rise/fall and lateral shift movements in the back and MicroOrbix geared tilt, along with dynamic swing, in the front.  The front also has geared rise/fall.
The readout is an LED on the front of the board, with buttons to change the aperture and open the aperture fully to focus, then close to the selected shooting iris. This board with its rear movements, allows the image to be corrected and or composed without compromising the perspective or point of view.  The 24mm Canon, especially , can also be used with some of the MFDB backs, more or less, depending on sensor size. 
Our bellows system also drops mechanical vignetting to an absolute minimum. 
Universalis Camera is very light and up to the precision required of digital image making.
Doug at Digital Transitions, Has more info on it.  Chris sent a pic from the show.

Thanks for confirming my marketing estimation Rod.... The Universallis option looks very promising, but isn't the associated equipment announced on Photokina '14 late? Could you please inform us on when the equipment will be released (especially the focal plane shutter) and on what is the status for MF lenses to be used on the front standard? Also, is there any research in progress for MF lens mounts with electronic aperture control?

I ask this because unless if the focal plane shutter is released, people that use MF backs with multishot ability, won't be able to use them and then, people that use both MF and FF mirrorless cameras need to use their existing series of lenses as to both keep the cost down , as well as (most important) to keep the magnitude of the equipment they use down to a minimum... Let's not forget that there are FF mirrorless with multishot ability expected from the camera makers and the customers  can then use their MF lenses on a mini size view camera, but some MF users of existing MF multishot backs, wouldn't mind cropping some of the image area if they can use their MF lenses...

For example... It would be a real blessing for me if I was able to use my Contax 645 lenses on a Universallis either with a mirrorless, or with a (future) multishot mirrorless, but it would be even better if I could use my Sinarback 54H and Blad CF-39MS back with the same lenses and just crop a bit when framing... That way, I could only carry my Contax 645 in a bag, add a DSLR body with the adapter for my C645 lenses (already have that)  & a Universallis and then avoid the extra bulk and weight to carry the Fuji GX-680 too as with only 3-5 MF lenses of the C645 I wll be able to have lenses for all the DSLR, the Contax, but the Universalis too...
Logged

LasseDPF

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2015, 10:34:53 am »

It would be very interesting to see the future of view cameras. A couple of months ago the Sinar newsletter mentioned a new camera coming soon...
Hopefully they will have an open platform this time. I like the Sinaron lenses, and some things you really can not (easily) do without a tech camera.

The Sinar P3 have had an electronic interface for years. But not even their own electronic shutter use the integrated connectors.
From what I understand the copal shutters are now out of production, so a better electronic shutter that does not need a bunch of cables and extra boxes would be great.. as in a Sony or Canon mount. Or even better, have the Leaf back control everything.. That would make a great reason for an upgrade :)
Logged
Lasse Morkhagen

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2015, 11:46:05 am »

It would be very interesting to see the future of view cameras. A couple of months ago the Sinar newsletter mentioned a new camera coming soon...
Hopefully they will have an open platform this time.

Ι'm aware too about this newsletter... It seems that it will be a "mini" view camera much like the Universallis & Actus size... However, I don't expect it to use an open interface... IMO it will be based on the SL to S lenses interface and will allow for C645 and Hasselblad H lenses to be used on the front standard via the Leica C & H adapters... I would expect the same interface to be applicable to P3 as well, while there should be a new focal plane shutter (without the M frame this time) as to enable multishot operation with the multishot backs... Of course all view cameras are "open platform" up to an extend, but I don't expect Sinar (or Leica) to develop interface compatible with other makers other than via adapters that will make them compatible with Leica interface.
Logged

ynp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
    • http://
View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2015, 12:59:59 pm »

Ι'm aware too about this newsletter... It seems that it will be a "mini" view camera much like the Universallis & Actus size... However, I don't expect it to use an open interface... IMO it will be based on the SL to S lenses interface and will allow for C645 and Hasselblad H lenses to be used on the front standard via the Leica C & H adapters... I would expect the same interface to be applicable to P3 as well, while there should be a new focal plane shutter (without the M frame this time) as to enable multishot operation with the multishot backs... Of course all view cameras are "open platform" up to an extend, but I don't expect Sinar (or Leica) to develop interface compatible with other makers other than via adapters that will make them compatible with Leica interface.
Very interesting prognosis.  I expect a smaller view camera too. Although I do not understand where the new electronic shutter is positioned, if you are right. For now, my CMV and CAB lenses work ok with my Sinar - M shatter but I was approached with the suggestion to send the CAB and CMV lenses and make them future proof with the new Sinar e-shutter. CAB lenses disappeared from the Sinar web site and they are no longer supported, with the demise of the Sinar -M.

I wonder why  would Sinar need to introduce a new focal plane shutter? If you are right and the new shutter/digiback will be the new SL.??




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up