hasselblad v system

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just want to point out that the Pentax 645 has a sensor size of 44x33 mm. So it has a crop factor of 1.4 vs. the V series. The Distagon 40/4 would come in like 56/4. You need a large sensor if you need wide angles.

Steve makes a lot of good points. I actually acquired a V system recently, that I built around a P45+. As far as I know it works perfectly fine. V system lenses are very cheap now, often in very good shape and seem to work well. I also got the impression that there are good repair facilities, even if I did not have the need of servicing my stuff.

Best regards
Erik

*The Pentax is $6,995, but does not include the lens.

I appreciate your passion for the V system. You are obviously not alone.

However, if the sales numbers for the v system were there, it would be continuing.

In the last 5 years, how many V system users have bought new 503CW bodies and new CF lenses? Not enough, I suspect, despite the current availability of 14 unique digital back models for the V system that range from 22 to 80 megapixels.

There are plenty of options for second hand digital backs - for less than $6,995 that will work with the v system. It lives on, but not in the new and current marketplace. For the most part, v users already own the cameras and lenses. They don't buy new in high enough numbers - even when the product was still current. Our typical v customer is someone who has the system, and has had the system for years, but wants to now make it a digital system. For these users, there are plenty of options.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

[TMARK]

He is a photography enthusiast (shoots Canon btw) but focused his energy and money in the digital cinema world.

He used to shoot an RZ with an Aptus back as well.  He digs Medium Format.

[david distefano]

some of you have talked about possible sensor development in mf digital backs. not being in the field for the development of sensors, is it possible for a sensor to mimic the toe and shoulder of film? in particular the shoulder for the high values. i still think that film does a better job of the subtle value changes in the high values then a digital sensor. i am not saying film or digital is better. i don't want that fight. when i look at my 4x5 or 8x10 transparencies compared to my cfv-16 back or my nikon d800 the high values just seem to have more life with film.

[Ken R]

some of you have talked about possible sensor development in mf digital backs. not being in the field for the development of sensors, is it possible for a sensor to mimic the toe and shoulder of film? in particular the shoulder for the high values. i still think that film does a better job of the subtle value changes in the high values then a digital sensor. i am not saying film or digital is better. i don't want that fight. when i look at my 4x5 or 8x10 transparencies compared to my cfv-16 back or my nikon d800 the high values just seem to have more life with film.

I don't know if this table is accurate but it gives you a general idea of where film's and digital "allocate" their dynamic range.

[Douglas Fairbank]

For the most part, v users already own the cameras and lenses. They don't buy new in high enough numbers - even when the product was still current. Our typical v customer is someone who has the system, and has had the system for years, but wants to now make it a digital system. For these users, there are plenty of options.

I am pleased to tell you that an encouraging number of my customers are new users, often younger people like students. Otherwise I would agree totally with the quote above.

[eronald]

some of you have talked about possible sensor development in mf digital backs. not being in the field for the development of sensors, is it possible for a sensor to mimic the toe and shoulder of film? in particular the shoulder for the high values. i still think that film does a better job of the subtle value changes in the high values then a digital sensor. i am not saying film or digital is better. i don't want that fight. when i look at my 4x5 or 8x10 transparencies compared to my cfv-16 back or my nikon d800 the high values just seem to have more life with film.

Yes, one can get a shoulder by tuning the anti-blooming circuitry on CMOS chips - unfortunately this setting is not at the moment user-accessible AFAIK, although I guess magic lantern might enable it.

Edmund

[Ajoy Roy]

The problem with large sensors is not design, there are various large chips used by Astronomers and Aerospace Industry. It is to do with efficient (low cost) manufacturing. Unless you have a stepper to cover the whole area in one pass there will always be a need for stitching and that lowers the yields considerably. Aerospace and Astronomers can afford to pay millions for their camera, but a normal photographer cannot.

Dalsa does have monstrous sensors - A4 size for X-Rays but they are very large pixels.

[BJL]

...
Dalsa does have monstrous sensors - A4 size for X-Rays but they are very large pixels.

Ajoy, thanks for the summary. And indeed those X-ray panels have pixel spacing like 48 and 96 microns, about the same as the smallest pixels in the LCD panels of current mobile phones, and the 96mm ones at least can be fabricated on the equipment used to make LCD panels, which of course is designed for far larger sizes than IC's. Then again, some X-ray panels are made by butting: making several smaller panels and then joining them edge-to-edge, with defect lines between them that do not matter much in X-ray imaging. (Aside: this is not the same as the on-wafer stitching used to make all photographic sensors 36x24mm and bigger!)

Maybe the best hope for ultra-large format digital photography is fooling some millions of gear-head spec-sheet-worshipping jumbo-phone buyers that they really need 8K video resolution on their phones, and so need 2000PPI screens: that would give 12.5 microns pixel pitch, 20MP in 56x56mm MF, 80MP in 5"x4" and 320MP in 10"x8", probably resolving at or beyond the diffraction limit for the apertures most often used in large format cameras. But even 1000PPI fab. ability for 4K phones would only lead to 5MP in classic square MF.

[eronald]

The problem with large sensors is not design, there are various large chips used by Astronomers and Aerospace Industry. It is to do with efficient (low cost) manufacturing. Unless you have a stepper to cover the whole area in one pass there will always be a need for stitching and that lowers the yields considerably. Aerospace and Astronomers can afford to pay millions for their camera, but a normal photographer cannot.

Dalsa does have monstrous sensors - A4 size for X-Rays but they are very large pixels.

There was an article about some guy who had an 8x10 preview sensor made; cost him something like $100K design included.
Which when you see the prices of MF backs is not that much ...

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My understanding is that he uses it instead of polaroid film...

Best regards
Erik

There was an article about some guy who had an 8x10 preview sensor made; cost him something like $100K design included.
Which when you see the prices of MF backs is not that much ...

Edmund

[DanielStone]

There was an article about some guy who had an 8x10 preview sensor made; cost him something like $100K design included.
Which when you see the prices of MF backs is not that much ...

Edmund

He had (2) backs made, and total price was "about what a mid-sized house would be" give or take...

(2) backs because, well, he needs a spare

He(Mitchell Feinberg) still commits final shots onto film

-Dan

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for info. Here is a link to an article: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/

Best regards
Erik

He had (2) backs made, and total price was "about what a mid-sized house would be" give or take...

(2) backs because, well, he needs a spare

He(Mitchell Feinberg) still commits final shots onto film

-Dan

[eronald]

Hi,

Thanks for info. Here is a link to an article: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/

Best regards
Erik

Now the R&D is done and amortized - so I guess one could make these things for a decent price.
However, he is using it as a polaroid - they may have considerable defects, and not be suitable for "real" photography without some sophisticated software to paper over the defects.

After reading this one feels that the MF guys and others like Alpa haven't got their large sensors because they just don't have enough cash to afford the R&D.

Edmund

[eronald]

hasselnuts !!!!!!!!!!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/96793993/hasselnuts-hasselblad-camera-iphone-digitalback-ki
Here are some of the samples. Not too bad actually - some of the video guys have been using this trick for a while.
One could also imagine a similar 3 printed back that would take a small panasonic or sony, or even a back that mounts on 4x5.

Edmund

[JV]

hasselnuts !!!!!!!!!!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/96793993/hasselnuts-hasselblad-camera-iphone-digitalback-ki
Here are some of the samples. Not too bad actually - some of the video guys have been using this trick for a while.
One could also imagine a similar 3 printed back that would take a small panasonic or sony, or even a back that mounts on 4x5.

Edmund

The same message keeps coming back as well...  From the kickstarted page:

- Demand for an affordable alternative to digital backs -

The sad reality is that only professionals use digital backs due to its cost, starting from at least $3,000-5,000 (for used items) up to $40,000. Those digital backs usually come with very large amounts of pixel. However in reality, that many pixels are not required for the regular usage of digital photography.

[BJL]

Those 10"x8" backs are a mere 10MP for proofs before shooting with film, which means that their huge pixels can be made with the LCD panel fab I was talking about above. In fact they are comparable in resolution to those 10"x8" X-ray recording dvices that Teledyne-Dalsa sells. This does not even vaguely point to economically viable large format sensors with enough resolution to be useful for taking the final "money shots".

But hasn't this red herring been discussed multiple times already in these forums?

P. S. Here are some 5MP, 10"x8" sensors "off the shelf":
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/x-ray/static-flat/helios/
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/x-ray/static-flat/skiagraph/
The latter at least are "tiled", patching together multiple CMOS sensors.

[eronald]

How much rez d'you really need in 8x10?
If you have 600dpi you are already in lowrez DB territory, and those huge pixels let you combine huge DR with decent color filters.

Edmund

Those 10"x8" backs are a mere 10MP for proofs before shooting with film, which means that their huge pixels can be made with the LCD panel fab I was talking about above. In fact they are comparable in resolution to those 10"x8" X-ray recording dvices that Teledyne-Dalsa sells. This does not even vaguely point to economically viable large format sensors with enough resolution to be useful for taking the final "money shots".

But hasn't this red herring been discussed multiple times already in these forums?

P. S. Here are some 5MP, 10"x8" sensors "off the shelf":
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/x-ray/static-flat/helios/
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/x-ray/static-flat/skiagraph/
The latter at least are "tiled", patching together multiple CMOS sensors.

[BJL]

How much rez d'you really need in 8x10?

Well, my hunch is that for photographic situations that only need 10MP resolution, very few will have a reason to use 10"x8".

But that is wandering off the original topic of large sensors for medium format, where than 10MP/10"x8" scales down to less that 1MP in classic square medium format of 56x56m.

My main point is that the technology used to produce those very large sensors (with resolution far, far less than film and far less than good view cameras lenses) is irrelevant to hopes for "full frame square digital medium format".

[eronald]

Well, my hunch is that for photographic situations that only need 10MP resolution, very few will have a reason to use 10"x8".

But that is wandering off the original topic of large sensors for medium format, where than 10MP/10"x8" scales down to less that 1MP in classic square medium format of 56x56m.

My main point is that the technology used to produce those very large sensors (with resolution far, far less than film and far less than good view cameras lenses) is irrelevant to hopes for "full frame square digital medium format".

Make me a big sensor and I'll be happy to use a Polaroid

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess that you can have one or two made for you, cost seems to be like a medium size house.

Best regards
Erik

Make me a big sensor and I'll be happy to use a Polaroid

Edmund