A modest proposal: a 35mm CMOS sensor in a DB.

[FredBGG]

Way better to go the other way round.

Several manufactures are dabbling with leaf shutters in 35mm dslr lenses.

Another nail in the MFD coffin.

[Fine_Art]

I don't think there is any current technology to put sensors so close together that there are no gaps between them. If there was it would be a much cheaper way to make large sensors. Arrays of sensors are used in for example astronomy, but then there are gaps between them.

Its done. I saw the writeup this morning (I'll have to find the webpage) it was ~96 compact camera sensors put together in this thing that looked like a WWII rotary aircraft engine. The wires looked like the heat fins. It was a single shot 50 gigapixel camera that stitched it all with custom software.

[Fine_Art]

Ok, here is another site with it.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2012/06/20/Forget-megapixels-meet-a-gigapixel-camera/UPI-18561340223562/?dailybrief

[uaiomex]

Another great idea that is overdue. I bet it's going to happen. The D800E is the first example of this way of thinking.

Eduardo

Way better to go the other way round.

Several manufactures are dabbling with leaf shutters in 35mm dslr lenses.

Another nail in the MFD coffin.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Its done. I saw the writeup this morning (I'll have to find the webpage) it was ~96 compact camera sensors put together in this thing that looked like a WWII rotary aircraft engine. The wires looked like the heat fins. It was a single shot 50 gigapixel camera that stitched it all with custom software.

I saw it too! I guess they answered the question. I always though a 100 simple APS-C sensors cannot cost more than $100 each, and another $100 for a lens - that's $20,000 for the system - one could theoretically market and sell a gigapixel camera for $100,000. If the military becomes a client, then we're in business.

[Pingang]

while I do not think that would make sesne but can certainly do so, but doing so is more or less like using a common FF DLSR to mount the medium format lenses to the same effect, especially camera like D800E is quite similar to MFD without the AA filter. I personally would rather using a lens with larger image circle for a smaller sensor so technically more shifting ranges - if scuh adapter will allow. But I will probably not doing that becasue in general the DLSR lenses are as good as the medium format lenses, and often better because such lens size is easier to manufacture, and with more frequent generation upgrade - because of sales volume.  Medium format lenses can be very good, but within time catch up by lens of smaller camera system.
To me medium format system is about controlling the camera to get the job done, while DSLR, the photographer tend to rely on the ability of the camera, it may not be true to many, but there is a different mind set using medium format because of much larger size and also you can shoot 4fps, so between each frame, there is more quality time.

Pingang

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I presume that it is possible to use any mirrorless camera in that way. There are no full frame (24x36) mirrorless cameras right now, but I would expect that some will show up pretty soon. Why, because it makes a lot of sense, there are a lot of old lenses around in addition to MF, so would anyone make an EVIL body with full frame sensor I guess it would generate a lot of sales.

Best regards
Erik

Obviously, a CMOS medium format back would be a game changer. But we keep hearing that the tech/costs of developing a MF sized CMOS sensor are too great.

So here's an idea, which I am just going to throw out there for discussion: how about a digital back with an existing CMOS 35mm full frame sensor? Say the 24MP Sony sensor (D3X/A900). Sure it's smaller than medium format, but think of what it opens up, on say a Hasselblad H4D or a Hy6 or an RZ67 - a really high performance sensor on a body with leaf shutter lenses and interchangeable finders.

Remember, we used be able to do this with our Mamiya 645s and Bronica ETRS's: 35mm backs for those "special emulsions" not available in 120/220.
And that was when 35mm format was 2.7x smaller in area than 645 film; now 35mm full frame is only 1.7x smaller than a P30+, H4D-40, or Aptus 8.

So think of a CMOS 35mm sensor as a "special emulsion" for high ISOs, long exposures, and faster frame-rates.

I can see less merit in the idea for the Mamiya/Phase 645 users - fixed prism, focal plane shutter - we can already use our lenses on a FF DSLR anyway.
But maybe it would suit someone who is heavily invested in the new LS lenses and the DF body.

Ray

[hjulenissen]

There are no full frame (24x36) mirrorless cameras right now, but I would expect that some will show up pretty soon.

Does not the Leica fit with that description?

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Absolutely, I forgot. But it is a rangefinder, without live view. The term mirrorless is nowdays sometimes used to describe interchangeable lens cameras without reflex viewing mirror and live based composition and focusing.

Best regards
Erik

Does not the Leica fit with that description?

-h

[ondebanks]

Way better to go the other way round.

Several manufactures are dabbling with leaf shutters in 35mm dslr lenses.

That's great. Are they also dabbling with interchangeable viewfinders, and large-area film backs? See, it's not just one thing...

Ray

[BJL]

it was ~96 compact camera sensors put together ... It was a single shot 50 gigapixel camera that stitched it all with custom software.

Actually, that camera is at best about one giga-pixel and in practice far less: the 50GP that gets mentioned in the head-lines and lead paragraphs is a claim made about a potential future camera using the same idea.

Firstly, even if the 98 cameras are each about 10MP, the total is only about 1000MP or 1GP.
Secondly, looking at the fuzziness of the crops and seeing what fraction the total image they correspond to, the resolution is well under what you could get with 100MP, let alone 1GP or 50GP.

Conlusion: something is limiting resulution to far less than what the sensors are capable of. My guess is that the main limit is the optics, since this approach uses a single lens, rather that stitching images from multiple lenses.


Still, as far as the topic of this thread goes, it might be possible to used multiple smaller, less expensive lenses plus some clever optics and image processing to produce very high quality images if you put a very good medium format or view camera lens up front. Meanwhile, I think that the best that it going to happen as far as 35mm backs for MF is the combination of a 35mm format body and a lens mount adaptor. And as fas as the bigger, better VF image of MF bodies: AFAIK, that VF image size advantage is reversed when you crop down to the part of the VF image corresponding to the 36x24mm frame, because the VF magnification at equal focal length is smaller for MF cameras than for 35mm format cameras.

[ondebanks]

I don't think there is any current technology to put sensors so close together that there are no gaps between them. If there was it would be a much cheaper way to make large sensors. Arrays of sensors are used in for example astronomy, but then there are gaps between them.

Its done. I saw the writeup this morning (I'll have to find the webpage) it was ~96 compact camera sensors put together in this thing that looked like a WWII rotary aircraft engine. The wires looked like the heat fins. It was a single shot 50 gigapixel camera that stitched it all with custom software.

Well...no. It [butting sensors together without gaps] is not done, at all! That is not how the "50 gigapixel" device works to achieve a gap-less mosaic.

Read the article linked to by Tim yesterday in the LuLa thread here carefully. The giveaway is in this statement: "We arrange for some overlap, so we don’t miss anything.”

Even if you could butt the sensors so perfectly together that you completely eliminate any gaps, they would each give you distinct, non-overlapping images.

To get overlapping images on different sensors - in the same snapshot exposure - requires that either:
* the very same photons are intercepted and recorded by two or more sensors positioned in the same focal plane (in other words, we enter the realm of magic, wizards and dragons  )
- or
* the sensors are not spatially coincident at all, but rather, different photons from different sub-beams within the entrance pupil are diverted to them.

Occam's razor favours the second explanation  .

You can indeed produce multiple or overlapping images of the same thing simultaneously, if you separately image different sub-pupils of the pupil plane - this is what a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor does, for example. A beam-splitter is an alternative way to do it, but that's not the technology used here.

What the Duke/Arizona gigapixel folks do, is they let the image pass through focus, past what we would normally term the focal plane (here, it's a curved surface, rather than plane), and then re-image it as it fans out. This gives them the spatial clearance to space their re-imaging optics and sensors far apart, even though some of the light that different "micro-cameras" are sampling originated from the same point in the field of view.

Also - it appears that this design will only work with a single, fixed focal length objective lens. Their "Gigagon lens" reminds me of something like an old Hologon design lens, but it has with a strongly curved primary focal surface. I can't see that being interchangeable with anything else - they admit as much themselves: "FOV is also strictly a matter of adding more cameras, with no change in the objective lens or micro-optic design". It's a marvellous design, but there won't be a selection of bayonet-mount interchangeable lenses for it .

Ray

[FredBGG]

You know what would be really nice would be a shift back using a D800 sensor the can be moved around so as to take
a 4 shot stitch with a Fuji GX680 or Mamiya RZ67.

You could also use it centered for single crop 36 MP shots.

[FredBGG]

That's great. Are they also dabbling with interchangeable viewfinders, and large-area film backs? See, it's not just one thing...

Ray

MF viewfinder are horrible to use with small crop sensors.

[BJL]

If the military becomes a client, then we're in business.

The military is already more than a client: the project is sponsored by DARPA (the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, who gave us the core technology of the ARPAnet). But I doubt they have much interest in making it cheap, or smaller than fits in a plane or satellite.

[Graham Mitchell]

Graham, you're always a rational guy so I am quite surprised at your response - of all MF users, Hy6 owners would stand to gain virtually the most from this idea. Have you never used a DSLR and thought "damn, I'd love if this thing had an optional WLF/chimney finder!" (I miss the Nikon F series with their interchangeable finders...terrible shame that the Nikon D series never had them!) But your Hy6 has them. And you cannot use your fabulous Rollei lenses on any other smaller format camera, because no other camera can operate the electronic aperture mechanisms (the leaf shutter could be left open on a DSLR). This idea would allow your lenses (retaining their fast synch) to do "double duty" with high ISO, live view, unlimited long exposures...heck even video recording could be part of the back's abilities.

So to me, what you're really saying is not that "sensor size is one of the main benefits of medium format", but that in your view it is the only benefit of medium format. Take away the sensor size advantage, and there's nothing else about the cameras and lenses that make them special to you? As I said, I find that view really surprising.

Hello Ray, that's not what I'm saying at all. There is more to MF than sensor size, but to me it's one of the main drawcards. It's not just the sensor size itself, but the large image in the viewfinder which makes it a pleasure to use. That large viewfinder image would not be available with a small sensor.

And my 'fabulous' lenses like the 110mm f2 would no longer be fabulous on a small sensor. The FOV would be far too narrow, and the shallow DOF would be lost at f2. My widest lens is the 40mm which is not wide at all on a 35mm sensor.

I don't use live view on my Canon either, so no I don't miss it when using the Hy6.

I would never dream of shooting video with a Hy6 either. The optics would be complete overkill for 1080p, the ergonomics are all wrong, there's no on-board sound, the aperture is not continuously variable, there are no fast zooms, etc. And I'd rather not risk a $40K camera to do a job which a $2K camera can do just as well or better.

The high ISO capability is appealing, but given the other issues of your suggestion I'd rather use a separate DSLR which would work a lot better in many ways.