Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ondebanks on June 18, 2012, 05:57:08 am
-
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
-
I don't think it would sell much.
I don't think that CMOS is very critical for MF either. What does it provide? High ISO, good live view and video, and a little bit better DR. For the typical MF studio photographer (which I guess make up the largest part of the MF market) none of this is necessary.
As a tech camera user I surely would love live view, but I don't think tech camera users is a very large part of the total MF market (am I right?).
Lower prices on existing backs is my number one request...
-
for product / still life, on a view camera:
this might be GOLD!
-
What does it provide? High ISO, good live view and video, and a little bit better DR.
that's the holy grail right there. i would buy one tomorrow.
actually it would have to be 2 sony sensors joined in a 36x48 72mp configuration.
-
for product / still life, on a view camera:
this might be GOLD!
Adapters to put DSLR bodies on view cameras already exist though.
-
Adapters to put DSLR bodies on view cameras already exist though.
yes, and mainly because of the mirror box (of DSLR bodies), they're pretty much useless. (i.e. when applying bigger shift, as an actual product shooter do more often than not).
also, focusing a (let's say) 55mm on a MFDB is tricky, but with a viewcamera/DSLR adapter is virtually impossible.
-
I think everything will come up to price. Under 4k, I think. imo
Eduardo
-
My guess is that the toppings of current DSLR sensors (micro-lenses, IR filters,...) are finely tuned for the expected position of the lenses and resulting incoming light angles.
I would expect complex color issues to show up if they were used in a different context without adjustments.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess color cast would be an issue too. If we look at the current MFDBs it seems that smaller pixels leads to more problems concerning wide angle color cast. It also depends on how the pixel is designed, if I would guess I think CMOS pixels would have more troubles with color cast than CCD, due to the smaller area used for light pickup, but I'm not sure.
It might be that current tech camera wide angle lens designs would be impossible with a CMOS sensor.
I would prefer if medium format would try to have moderately higher resolution than 135 format and larger pixels at the same time. Going for small pixels seems to kill the possibility of non-retrofocus / weak retrofocus lens designs which I think may be the "secret" of the good tech camera wide angle performance.
Unfortunately I don't think MFDB makers care that much about supporting tech cameras, the money is in SLR type of cameras. We'll see what happens.
-
what's stopping someone from clubbing together an array of 35mm or APSC sensors in a 4x5 or 8x10 grid to take advantage of large format lenses and stitching?
-
what's stopping someone from clubbing together an array of 35mm or APSC sensors in a 4x5 or 8x10 grid to take advantage of large format lenses and stitching?
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.
-
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.
The sensor size is one of the main benefits of medium format, imo, so your suggestion makes little sense. The lenses are big, expensive and heavy because they create large image circles which would be wasted here. The maximum apertures are not so fast because they don't need to be on a large sensor, but they wouldn't be so well matched to a 35mm sensor. Compared to a 35mm DSLR you would be giving away a lot of usability and features, just for an extra stop of sync speed. I don't see this working at all, sorry.
-
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
I doubt it. With digital backs, ISO setting, white balance, and focus check is what really needed.
Pingang
Shanghai
-
Nice to see all the responses and viewpoints so far.
The sensor size is one of the main benefits of medium format, imo, so your suggestion makes little sense. The lenses are big, expensive and heavy because they create large image circles which would be wasted here. The maximum apertures are not so fast because they don't need to be on a large sensor, but they wouldn't be so well matched to a 35mm sensor. Compared to a 35mm DSLR you would be giving away a lot of usability and features, just for an extra stop of sync speed. I don't see this working at all, sorry.
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.
Ray
-
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.
Ray
i have to agree with that statement, poor noise performance at mid-high iso, no usable live view, limited lens choice and cost. all minus points for MFD. sensor size is the only plus point for me.
-
i have to agree with that statement, poor noise performance at mid-high iso, no usable live view, limited lens choice and cost. all minus points for MFD. sensor size is the only plus point for me.
+1.
-
Hasselblad had the OP proposed back years ago. The original CFV back is the thing. At this stage of time, I think it is possible to create an "economical" 36X36 CMOS sensor. Though it sounds super good to me to get into DMF for cheap and use my beloved 500CM, it may not be popular with present owners that can afford the luxury of the bigger sensors. However, the proposal is a fine idea.
Eduardo
-
Hasselblad had the OP proposed back years ago. The original CFV back is the thing. At this stage of time, I think it is possible to create an "economical" 36X36 CMOS sensor. Though it sounds super good to me to get into DMF for cheap and use my beloved 500CM, it may not be popular with present owners that can afford the luxury of the bigger sensors. However, the proposal is a fine idea.
Eduardo
Eduardo, I'm glad you agree with the proposal.
But there never was a 35mm-format CFV back, and there never was a DSLR-originated CMOS sensor in any MF back. So when you say, "Hasselblad had the OP proposed back years ago. The original CFV back is the thing.", do you just mean that since this was a highly cropped back, at 36X36 mm, it had a resemblence to my idea? That may be the case, but there the similarity ends. I'm talking about a whole different type of sensor, with whole different types of purposes.
Ray
-
Is this the solution ?
PdF
-
Right. There never was a 24X36 CFV but the heavily cropped 36X36 sensor designed especially for the V system is nothing more than a compromise between the square medium format camera camera and 35 implemented into the digital era. The sensors evolved and the 36X36 yield to the bigger sensors. I like your proposal of using a modern 24X36 cmos sensor for high ISO photography and Live View among other amenities, amen of the inexpensive cost. The 36mp Sony sensor would be great inside a CFV (for an example), but I'd like to go further and I would ask Sony (if I was Hasselblad) to cut a square 36X out of those wafers used for the Nikon D800. The advantages of a square sensor are several in my opinion. Few months ago, TOP blog published an article I wrote on behalf of square sensors. Please read it and let me know what you think. My idea was thought on existing full-frame systems but your proposal is for existing MF systems. If we combine your idea and mine, it sounds like Mozart to me!
Eduardo
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/squares.html
Eduardo, I'm glad you agree with the proposal.
But there never was a 35mm-format CFV back, and there never was a DSLR-originated CMOS sensor in any MF back. So when you say, "Hasselblad had the OP proposed back years ago. The original CFV back is the thing.", do you just mean that since this was a highly cropped back, at 36X36 mm, it had a resemblence to my idea? That may be the case, but there the similarity ends. I'm talking about a whole different type of sensor, with whole different types of purposes.
Ray
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2012/06/20/Forget-megapixels-meet-a-gigapixel-camera/UPI-18561340223562/?dailybrief)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-50-gigapixel-camera-five-times-better-than-2020-human-vision) in the LuLa thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68174.0) 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 :o)
- 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 :D.
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 (http://www.disp.duke.edu/projects/AWARE/index.ptml)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 ;D.
Ray
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.