I guess we are going to see more MF CMOS introductions…

[eronald]

You think Sony would make their own MFDB to put on other manufacturers' cameras?

At this point anyone can buy a devkit from any manufacturer.
A CMOS chip can probably survive with no shutter or viewinder, can focus with liveview
I see no engineering difficulty in making a back that fits on to Alpa, or even a complete box with a lens mount on front.

Edmund

[gerald.d]

At this point anyone can buy a devkit from any manufacturer.
A CMOS chip can probably survive with no shutter or viewinder, can focus with liveview
I see no engineering difficulty in making a back that fits on to Alpa, or even a complete box with a lens mount on front.

Edmund

I agree with all of that.

But it doesn't answer why Sony would do it.

Kind regards,

Gerald

[hjulenissen]

The three different images obviously cover very different FOV (Field Of View), but the test is intended to demonstrate the potential benefit of small pixels.

I see. My point was that it is not image downscaling that makes small sensel cameras (potentially) better, it is the smaller sensels.

Downscaling an image is the equivalent of doing a lowpass filter (blurring), then dropping every n-th pixel (aliasing). That is not something you want to do for increasing image quality, that is something you want to do to fit to some fixed pixel grid (such as a printer or display).

-h

[synn]

When I encounter Moire, I move my camera position a bit.
Way easier than doing all that math in my head.

[torger]

If it it's quite easy to make a basic digital back thanks to devkits, which it might be, I find it sort of surprising that 1) DHW does not make a 56x56 Hy6 back, 2) Alpa/Arca/Cambo/Linhof does not make a tech cam digital back to go with their own cameras.

If I were them, I'd be quite concerned with that often considerably more than 50% of a photographer's camera budget goes into Phase One's digital backs, and that possibly with wider margins than the camera makers get, and Phase One is worryingly focused on their own camera system as solver of all photographic problems.

[eronald]

If it it's quite easy to make a basic digital back thanks to devkits, which it might be, I find it sort of surprising that 1) DHW does not make a 56x56 Hy6 back, 2) Alpa/Arca/Cambo/Linhof does not make a tech cam digital back to go with their own cameras.

If I were them, I'd be quite concerned with that often considerably more than 50% of a photographer's camera budget goes into Phase One's digital backs, and that possibly with wider margins than the camera makers get, and Phase One is worryingly focused on their own camera system as solver of all photographic problems.

I think cameras new cameras will come from young digital natives who minimise the physical design via 3d printing.

Edmund

[torger]

I think new cameras will come from young digital natives who minimise the physical design via 3d printing.

Yes, that might be the case, 3D printing is a bit futuristic though as precision is one of its weaknesses, but that a small kickstarter type of company could make a digital back might not be impossible. It seems like there needs to be some new player to get some disruptive thinking into the market place. Maybe not medium format in general (I see Pentax as an exception), but digital backs is thoroughly locked in the professional space, there is only one mindset concerning business model which all run by: sell low volumes with very high margins to a narrow professional space. While manufactures have noticed an increase in amateur users they still don't get it -- that there's (in comparison) a huge market waiting for them if they can succeed in a more volume-oriented business model.

[eronald]

Yes, that might be the case, 3D printing is a bit futuristic though as precision is one of its weaknesses, but that a small kickstarter type of company could make a digital back might not be impossible. It seems like there needs to be some new player to get some disruptive thinking into the market place. Maybe not medium format in general (I see Pentax as an exception), but digital backs is thoroughly locked in the professional space, there is only one mindset concerning business model which all run by: sell low volumes with very high margins to a narrow professional space. While manufactures have noticed an increase in amateur users they still don't get it -- that there's (in comparison) a huge market waiting for them if they can succeed in a more volume-oriented business model.

They're not dumb, they get it. And they understand what Nikon and Canon are seeing, a progressive disappearance of the middle class of customers in the mature markets, compounded by the disappearance of the dealers that sold to them. And an accompanying increase in "money is just numbers" customers with a very high disposable income.

You can see how effective the luxury branding approach is in the electronics field. Apple is still selling the iPad 2 in Europe at $500 and up; parts costs for that 3 year old model are now probably around $40 and it is competing with $100 tablets and doing very well.

Edmund

[hjulenissen]

...While manufactures have noticed an increase in amateur users they still don't get it -- that there's (in comparison) a huge market waiting for them if they can succeed in a more volume-oriented business model.

How many Canon 60Ds are sold compared to Canon 6D? How much would a Canon "0.6D" (MF) sell?

It seems to me that the big players have gotten FF covered by good performance, ergonomically pleasing models at moderate prices. If you want to compete with them on their turf you need lots of money and time. If you want to survive doing something different (going below their radar), then MF might be the solution. But I am not sure that making MF "more similar to the D800" (if that is what you are suggesting) with sensor size as the sole distinguishing factor is enough to secure the volumes that is needed for such a product.

Sure, someone like Sony might do an A9 MF just for the heck of it, for tech PR or whatever. But they have people, funds, patents, tech, and existing product ranges to harvest software and components from.

It will be interesting to see what the expected Pentax 645DII will do, and what it will cost.

-h

[torger]

The MF segment is so small, that even if it would increase ten-fold it would still be tiny, so I think it may not follow the exact same logic as higher volume markets. It's a niche market and will stay that way. But as a niche market I don't think it needs to stay as static as it is today.

The "forgotten" customer segment I'm thinking about is the 40-60 year-old amateur that would buy a motorcycle or a small sailing boat or other fairly expensive unnecessary item for a hobby you love and spend a lot of time with. Not necessarily overly rich, just middle class people that has saved up some money over the years and want to do something fun with them. Photography has a solid place as such a hobby, and then it's generally not studio photography but things like birding (135 space for sure), travel and landscape. Landscape is huge among amateurs.

When it comes to landscape tech cameras has a very appealing advantage from that it offers a totally different experience from shooting 135. It has a similar appeal as shooting 4x5" large format (which some still do), you can frame with movements just like Ansel Adams, but you don't need to carry as heavy gear or mess with film. And there exists quite economical solutions too, a Silvestri tech cam with Schneider Digitar lenses can be had new to a reasonable price; but then you need to smack a back to it which costs a lot more than the rest of the system, or you need to buy some "entry level" back which still cost a little more than the rest and leaves you with a poorly balanced system with stitching on the wide side and/or possibly the requirement to get much more expensive retrofocus lenses.

This segment has a pretty large growth potential if backs would be less expensive and more focused to work with these systems. But it's the tech camera makers that could have interest in that, rather than players like Phase One. I suspect that tech camera is kind of stuck in their thinking too though, they're doing okay to well by selling in small numbers and are not hungry enough to want to grow their business.

The trend in tech cameras seem to be to make them more similar to an overgrown mirrorless A7r-like camera, both concerning lenses and camera design.This is to some extent a result of digital back development that follow the needs of the MF SLRs rather than tech cam systems. I think this will reduce the appeal to this amateur segment, then it just becomes a luxury product not a different shooting experience. I'll probably leave MF myself when/if the view camera finally dies, on the other hand it could get a new revival with the appropriate CMOS sensors and backs.

Pentax is just a big DSLR, and I think that works because the price difference is not too large, ie it's bigger and better and priced in a reasonable way. But it appeals to a different set of users than a tech cam does.

[eronald]

I agree with what you say. Unfortunately, the way the economy is going, middle class amateurs won't be able to afford english aquarel paints, let alone MF backs. I believe that the guys who make drawing  *pencils* are going to see an uptick, just like Mc Donald's gourmet restaurants.

Edmund

The MF segment is so small, that even if it would increase ten-fold it would still be tiny, so I think it may not follow the exact same logic as higher volume markets. It's a niche market and will stay that way. But as a niche market I don't think it needs to stay as static as it is today.

The "forgotten" customer segment I'm thinking about is the 40-60 year-old amateur that would buy a motorcycle or a small sailing boat or other fairly expensive unnecessary item for a hobby you love and spend a lot of time with. Not necessarily overly rich, just middle class people that has saved up some money over the years and want to do something fun with them. Photography has a solid place as such a hobby, and then it's generally not studio photography but things like birding (135 space for sure), travel and landscape. Landscape is huge among amateurs.

When it comes to landscape tech cameras has a very appealing advantage from that it offers a totally different experience from shooting 135. It has a similar appeal as shooting 4x5" large format (which some still do), you can frame with movements just like Ansel Adams, but you don't need to carry as heavy gear or mess with film. And there exists quite economical solutions too, a Silvestri tech cam with Schneider Digitar lenses can be had new to a reasonable price; but then you need to smack a back to it which costs a lot more than the rest of the system, or you need to buy some "entry level" back which still cost a little more than the rest and leaves you with a poorly balanced system with stitching on the wide side and/or possibly the requirement to get much more expensive retrofocus lenses.

This segment has a pretty large growth potential if backs would be less expensive and more focused to work with these systems. But it's the tech camera makers that could have interest in that, rather than players like Phase One. I suspect that tech camera is kind of stuck in their thinking too though, they're doing okay to well by selling in small numbers and are not hungry enough to want to grow their business.

The trend in tech cameras seem to be to make them more similar to an overgrown mirrorless A7r-like camera, both concerning lenses and camera design.This is to some extent a result of digital back development that follow the needs of the MF SLRs rather than tech cam systems. I think this will reduce the appeal to this amateur segment, then it just becomes a luxury product not a different shooting experience. I'll probably leave MF myself when/if the view camera finally dies, on the other hand it could get a new revival with the appropriate CMOS sensors and backs.

Pentax is just a big DSLR, and I think that works because the price difference is not too large, ie it's bigger and better and priced in a reasonable way. But it appeals to a different set of users than a tech cam does.

[RichDesmond]

The MF segment is so small, that even if it would increase ten-fold it would still be tiny, so I think it may not follow the exact same logic as higher volume markets. It's a niche market and will stay that way. But as a niche market I don't think it needs to stay as static as it is today.

The "forgotten" customer segment I'm thinking about is the 40-60 year-old amateur that would buy a motorcycle or a small sailing boat or other fairly expensive unnecessary item for a hobby you love and spend a lot of time with. Not necessarily overly rich, just middle class people that has saved up some money over the years and want to do something fun with them. Photography has a solid place as such a hobby, and then it's generally not studio photography but things like birding (135 space for sure), travel and landscape. Landscape is huge among amateurs.

When it comes to landscape tech cameras has a very appealing advantage from that it offers a totally different experience from shooting 135. It has a similar appeal as shooting 4x5" large format (which some still do), you can frame with movements just like Ansel Adams, but you don't need to carry as heavy gear or mess with film. And there exists quite economical solutions too, a Silvestri tech cam with Schneider Digitar lenses can be had new to a reasonable price; but then you need to smack a back to it which costs a lot more than the rest of the system, or you need to buy some "entry level" back which still cost a little more than the rest and leaves you with a poorly balanced system with stitching on the wide side and/or possibly the requirement to get much more expensive retrofocus lenses.

This segment has a pretty large growth potential if backs would be less expensive and more focused to work with these systems. But it's the tech camera makers that could have interest in that, rather than players like Phase One. I suspect that tech camera is kind of stuck in their thinking too though, they're doing okay to well by selling in small numbers and are not hungry enough to want to grow their business.

The trend in tech cameras seem to be to make them more similar to an overgrown mirrorless A7r-like camera, both concerning lenses and camera design.This is to some extent a result of digital back development that follow the needs of the MF SLRs rather than tech cam systems. I think this will reduce the appeal to this amateur segment, then it just becomes a luxury product not a different shooting experience. I'll probably leave MF myself when/if the view camera finally dies, on the other hand it could get a new revival with the appropriate CMOS sensors and backs.

Pentax is just a big DSLR, and I think that works because the price difference is not too large, ie it's bigger and better and priced in a reasonable way. But it appeals to a different set of users than a tech cam does.

You have described me pretty exactly. Engineer, 56, garage full of bikes, used to roadrace. Spent 10k+ a year on racing for a few years running. Hiking and photography are the other two things I really like doing. Going to retire in 4-6 years.
Not made of money by any means, but I can afford a tech camera/MFDB combo if it's important enough to me. I'm thinking that setup would be fun to use, and that the pacing and thought process required would make me a better photographer. NOT under any illusions that the bigger sensor or increase in pixel count is going to magically make my photos better.
You hit the nail on the head with the "different experience from shooting 135" comment. That's what's important to me. How many guys like me are out there?? Dunno, but I doubt I'm alone. Enough though to make it a market worth pursuing?? That's the big question.

[BJL]

... I see no engineering difficulty in making a back that fits on to Alpa, or even a complete box with a lens mount on front.

On one hand the new Sony sensor is available to all takers (according to the Phase One video interview at this site), so I suppose there is room for new companies to go into the business of making digital backs for technical cameras and such.

On the other hand:
- Phase One and Sinar already serve this market, with Phase One backs usable on Alpa bodies for example.
- Dalsa and Kodak have also for a long time offered "medium format" CCD sensors to all takers, and yet if anything the number of companies buying such sensors to make DMF back has diminished, with Leaf absorbed by Phase One and Kodak abandoning its DMF back products years before it sold its sensor division.

So I do not see big companies with large revenues in more mainstream photographic equipment like Sony, Canon, or Nikon taking an interest in the far smaller niche sector of digital backs. Digital backs are too obscure and unfamiliar to most of the photographic market to be attractive even as loss-making halo products.

Complete systems like the Pentax 645D have more visibility and more potential as halo products that management will support even if not profitable enough on their own to justify the investment.  And I do expect (or at least hope for) Pentax to deliver a "645D Mk II" this year, using this 44x33mm CMOS sensor.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Another factor is marketing channels, I think. Phase One has a chain of dealers and that kind of resource takes time and effort to build.

Pentax is a special case, they had an existing base, the Pentax 645 being one of the dominant MF cameras, especially in Japan. So they could sell their bodies to customers already having the lenses. Also, Penatx is a Sony sensor customer already, so they probably have good access to Sony Technology which can reduce their need of design effort.

But, I would bet that we see Leica coming out with a CMOS based "S", pretty soon.

Best regards
Erik

On one hand the new Sony sensor is available to all takers (according to the Phase One video interview at this site), so I suppose there is room for new companies to go into the business of making digital backs for technical cameras and such.

On the other hand:
- Phase One and Sinar already serve this market, with Phase One backs usable on Alpa bodies for example.
- Dalsa and Kodak have also for a long time offered "medium format" CCD sensors to all takers, and yet if anything the number of companies buying such sensors to make DMF back has diminished, with Leaf absorbed by Phase One and Kodak abandoning its DMF back products years before it sold its sensor division.

So I do not see big companies with large revenues in more mainstream photographic equipment like Sony, Canon, or Nikon taking an interest in the far smaller niche sector of digital backs. Digital backs are too obscure and unfamiliar to most of the photographic market to be attractive even as loss-making halo products.

Complete systems like the Pentax 645D have more visibility and more potential as halo products that management will support even if not profitable enough on their own to justify the investment.  And I do expect (or at least hope for) Pentax to deliver a "645D Mk II" this year, using this 44x33mm CMOS sensor.

[BJL]

If it it's quite easy to make a basic digital back thanks to devkits, which it might be, I find it sort of surprising that 1) DHW does not make a 56x56 Hy6 back ...

That would require a 56x56mm sensor, not just building the circuits around existing sensors, and for reasons I will not restate because they have already been debated numerous times in these forums, I severely doubt that there will ever be an economic case for any company to design and make such a sensor in a form suitable of photography.

... 2) Alpa/Arca/Cambo/Linhof does not make a tech cam digital back to go with their own cameras.

Good point; these companies have been good candidates for making their own backs using sensors long available from Dalsa or Kodak sensors, so the fact that none has done so is telling.

[torger]

If we look at tethered-only products there have been really tiny manufacturers of them. Scanning back solutions is well-known, but I'm quite sure I've seen reproduction tethered-only CCD-based digital backs made by really small players, didn't manage to find an example in a quick googling though. I think most/all of them are history by now. I have some memory of that arca-swiss had their own tethered digital back once... not sure if I remember correctly though.

Going from a tethered-only bulky "hack" (ie expand the devkit slightly) to a compact field-usable self-contained back is a massive step though.

[BJL]

But, I would bet that we see Leica coming out with a CMOS based "S", pretty soon.

I overlooked Leica; maybe so, with a sensor from either from CMOSIS or Sony.  The 44x33mm format requires almost the same image circle as Leica'a 45x30mm, so should work with Leica's existing "S" lenses, but would Leica abandon the 3:2 shape that it pioneered?!

[Theodoros]

I overlooked Leica; maybe so, with a sensor from either from CMOSIS or Sony.  The 44x33mm format requires almost the same image circle as Leica'a 45x30mm, so should work with Leica's existing "S" lenses, but would Leica abandon the 3:2 shape that it pioneered?!

I don't think they will… but anyway, it shouldn't be difficult to offer a 30x45mm version of it…. Let's not forget that Leica's current sensor is oriented from a currently available MF sensor of other dimensions.

[torger]

That would require a 56x56mm sensor, not just building the circuits around existing sensors, and for reasons I will not restate because they have already been debated numerous times in these forums, I severely doubt that there will ever be an economic case for any company to design and make such a sensor in a form suitable of photography.

Yes, I'm pretty clueless what it takes to make a custom size of an existing technology. I do know that Dalsa have made custom sizes much larger than 56x56mm, but I don't know what the cost overhead is, it may be massive. Possibly the size could worsen noise characteristics too? Or otherwise break suitability as a photographic sensor. I guess chip manufacturing process could evolve so it at some point becomes more feasible to make custom sizes than it has been so far.

[Doug Peterson]

Another factor is marketing channels, I think. Phase One has a chain of dealers and that kind of resource takes time and effort to build.

Pentax is a special case, they had an existing base, the Pentax 645 being one of the dominant MF cameras, especially in Japan. So they could sell their bodies to customers already having the lenses. Also, Penatx is a Sony sensor customer already, so they probably have good access to Sony Technology which can reduce their need of design effort.

Dealers also lower support and marketing costs at the manufacturer's end. Someone has to be paid to provide support; whether they sit at a desk with a Dealer logo above it or a Manufacturer logo above it is fairly irrelevant. This is especially true when you're looking to provide support on a variety of inter-related products which are not manufactured by the same company. A dealer can help you with your H4X, your P1 back, your profoto lights, your pocketwizard sync, your eizo monitor, and your capture one software - each manufacturer typically only supports their own part of the chain.

Also I'd like to think Value Added Dealers increase net sales, and greater volume means less R+D cost has to be born by each unit sold. They do this by providing expertise, the ability to demo the unit, the inventory of accessories (especially 3rd party items like tech cameras), the support they provide if/when there are issues (even if the issue isn't with the gear), and by providing rentals/replacement/loaner etc. There are countries where a particular brand is very dominant, largely because the dealer in that country is especially good/liked, even if that brand is not as popular in the broader world market.