Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on October 02, 2013, 11:01:28 am
-
This morning I see that Amazon has the pentax 645d 40 mp camera selling for $6995.00. This includes camera body and lens. Yes the sensor is only 33x44 but if pentax can sell the complete camera for that price, hasselblad should be able to satisfy the v system owners with a digital back besides the cfv-50 for $17,000.00. There are many of us who own the venerable v system, we love the way it feels when we hold it and the manual focus zeiss lenses that feel like works of art when we use them. Most of us who own the v system are not professionals, we photograph for the pleasure it gives us. If hasselblad made a 31mp back or something similar at an affordable price and I mean affordable to the many not just the rich, many of us who own the v system would snatch them up. Instead of wasting their time making the down right ugly and unnecessary lunar camera, they could have satisfied those of us with the v system and at the same time made sales to help their bottom line. I really like the cfv-16 that I own, but the crop factor really does come into play, and the jump to cfv-50 is just to much in the way of money for many of us to make. Hasselblad, IMO, made a very poor decision in relegating the v system to the dustbin of photographic history. Hasselblad, rethink that decision, give us that own the v system an affordable digital back. If Pentax can do it, so could you and your company will be better off by reversing your poor decision.
-
It doesn't have to be Hasselblad, though.
-
why not get a used P25(+) / Aptus22 / CF22 for the V
I used a P25 on my 503cw for years, nobody ever complained about size, colors ...
And, it's a lot of fun too.
The CFV prices are a bit higher, even used, but this still seems to work, people buy them.
But, of course, you are right, there is no logical reason not to put the cheapest currently available MF Sensor (the 40MP sensor?) in a CFV body and sell it to the large V-System market for 5000€. (well, there's one IMO, Hasselblad should modify the CFV to be able to put it both ways (portrait and landscape) on a 503cw.)
Tom-
-
Hi David,
Rather than starting yet another negative thread on Hasselblad would it not be more effective to start a petition with other Hasselblad V owners.
List their names, the V-system that they own and how much they much they would be willing to spend on a digital back for their V-system.
Try to prove to Hasselblad that there is a demand for this.
Just my thoughts.
Best, Joris.
-
They are not at all interested. They have other problems...
-
JV, I don't want to be negative. I love my v system. To me It Is hasselblad, and your right money talks. Hasselblad v system users would you be interested in a affordable digital back. Also the reason I haven't picked up a used phase one or leaf digital back is because I like the look of the cfv backs that mimic the film holders for hasselblad. A complete system. Unfortunately it looks that is the way I will have to go unless hasselblad reverses itself.
-
Hi,
My guess is that the V-series was a bit to expensive to make and keep alive. Companies need earnings to stay alive.
Regarding backs, there are plenty to choose from, Phase One, Leaf and so on. Unfortunately, neither of those is really cheap, but prices may drop especially on older backs. Sensor surface is expensive, so large sensors will always be expensive.
Best regards
Erik
This morning I see that Amazon has the pentax 645d 40 mp camera selling for $6995.00. This includes camera body and lens. Yes the sensor is only 33x44 but if pentax can sell the complete camera for that price, hasselblad should be able to satisfy the v system owners with a digital back besides the cfv-50 for $17,000.00. There are many of us who own the venerable v system, we love the way it feels when we hold it and the manual focus zeiss lenses that feel like works of art when we use them. Most of us who own the v system are not professionals, we photograph for the pleasure it gives us. If hasselblad made a 31mp back or something similar at an affordable price and I mean affordable to the many not just the rich, many of us who own the v system would snatch them up. Instead of wasting their time making the down right ugly and unnecessary lunar camera, they could have satisfied those of us with the v system and at the same time made sales to help their bottom line. I really like the cfv-16 that I own, but the crop factor really does come into play, and the jump to cfv-50 is just to much in the way of money for many of us to make. Hasselblad, IMO, made a very poor decision in relegating the v system to the dustbin of photographic history. Hasselblad, rethink that decision, give us that own the v system an affordable digital back. If Pentax can do it, so could you and your company will be better off by reversing your poor decision.
-
Hi,
My guess is that the V-series was a bit to expensive to make and keep alive. Companies need earnings to stay alive.
Regarding backs, there are plenty to choose from, Phase One, Leaf and so on. Unfortunately, neither of those is really cheap, but prices may drop especially on older backs. Sensor surface is expensive, so large sensors will always be expensive.
Best regards
Erik
I don't think sensor surface is that expensive anymore.
We are not in the 1980's anymore.
Best regards
Edmund
-
This morning I see that Amazon has the pentax 645d 40 mp camera selling for $6995.00. This includes camera body and lens. Yes the sensor is only 33x44 but if pentax can sell the complete camera for that price, hasselblad should be able to satisfy the v system owners with a digital back besides the cfv-50 for $17,000.00. There are many of us who own the venerable v system, we love the way it feels when we hold it and the manual focus zeiss lenses that feel like works of art when we use them. Most of us who own the v system are not professionals, we photograph for the pleasure it gives us. If hasselblad made a 31mp back or something similar at an affordable price and I mean affordable to the many not just the rich, many of us who own the v system would snatch them up. Instead of wasting their time making the down right ugly and unnecessary lunar camera, they could have satisfied those of us with the v system and at the same time made sales to help their bottom line. I really like the cfv-16 that I own, but the crop factor really does come into play, and the jump to cfv-50 is just to much in the way of money for many of us to make. Hasselblad, IMO, made a very poor decision in relegating the v system to the dustbin of photographic history. Hasselblad, rethink that decision, give us that own the v system an affordable digital back. If Pentax can do it, so could you and your company will be better off by reversing your poor decision.
*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 $6,995 that will work with the v system. It lives on, but not in the new and current marketplace. For the most part, v users already own the cameras and lenses. They don't buy new in high enough numbers - even when the product was still current. Our typical v customer is someone who has the system, and has had the system for years, but wants to now make it a digital system. For these users, there are plenty of options.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Sorry i should have read more deeply on the amazon site. you are correct. my mistake
-
Hi,
Just as an example, normal steppers cannot produce a full frame chip in a single exposure. Making a full frame chip needs one dimensional stitching. Making an MFD chip takes two dimensional stitching. So you need to expose several masks and each needs to be aligned with submicron precision (I guess). Going from 24x36 to 55x44 increases the probablility that bad chips by a factor of 2.8, but you also get only the 35% of the yield from a wafer.
Anders Torger estimates that an MFD chip costs around 3000$, but you need to add electronics and software. CMOS sensors probably use commercial processors and signal processors combined with a few ASICS (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) but MFD may work with FPGA (Field Programmable Grid Array). I would expect economics to be different.
Best regards
Erik
I don't think sensor surface is that expensive anymore.
We are not in the 1980's anymore.
[/quote|
-
The thing with the V is that it is a limited, albeit lovely, digital platform. Alignment problems, no exif, no priority modes, no AF. They are romantic and fun to shoot, but if you struggle to hit focus under 5.6 its a pain in the ass. For professional applications teh H is a much better alternative. Its a great camera, especially the H5 series. Its come a long way from teh H1.
-
The thing with the V is that it is a limited, albeit lovely, digital platform. Alignment problems, no exif, no priority modes, no AF. They are romantic and fun to shoot, but if you struggle to hit focus under 5.6 its a pain in the ass. For professional applications teh H is a much better alternative. Its a great camera, especially the H5 series. Its come a long way from teh H1.
I think it would be quite easy to solve back alignment issues making the back user-adjustable if the back is a new design; as for focus, live view makes it pretty trivial if you have the right sensor, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be some leds on top of the back to indicate correct focus, something that could of course be improved on with a custom finder etc etc. or just clipping a cheap electronic viewfinder or an iphone to the thing.
It's a hack but for all I know it might find some buyers, the old V hassies made really nice images.
Another thing which a lot of people would really like are 4x5 and 8x10 digital quickloads.
Edmund
-
I don't think sensor surface is that expensive anymore.
We are not in the 1980's anymore
You seem to repeat this "big sensors are getting a lot cheaper" as a mantra, even after apparently dropping your former confident prediction that steppers would evolve towards being able to make these larger sensors without the on-wafer stitching now needed to get beyond about 33x26mm. (Aside: Canon has discontinued its one larger format 0.5micron stepper, in favor of a new model fpa_5510iv (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper#Specifications) with far larger 1.5 micron minimum feature size, even more obviously useless for making MF camera sensors. So more than ever, 33x26mm is the maximum field size that sensor makers must work with.)
Do you have any concrete evidence about pricing of bigger sensors, particularly for the larger sizes like 56x42mm and 56x56mm that come up in these "full frame medium format square sensor" discussions? Bear in mind that
1) There tends to be a factor of three increase from the factory door price of a component to its contribution to the retail price; probably more for low volume items that require higher percentage unit price markups to be profitable. So a sensor that sells for $3000 in orders of 1000 probably adds about $9,000 to the price of the back it goes into.
2) The price that can be charged for a very old model with R&D defrayed [like the old 22MP 48x36mm Teledyne-Dalsa-Phillips FTF4052C (http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/sensors/area-scan/FTF4052C/sensor)] is far lower than the price that must be charged for a newly-developed low-volume sensor.
We are not in the 1980's anymore
No, and one thing that has changed is the continuing patterns of cost reduction through size reduction, with ever worse economies of scale for the outliers of huge IC's, like camera sensors bigger than 33x26mm.
-
You seem to repeat this "big sensors are getting a lot cheaper" as a mantra, even after apparently dropping your former confident prediction that steppers would evolve towards being able to make these larger sensors without the on-wafer stitching now needed to get beyond about 33x26mm. (Aside: Canon has discontinued its one larger format 0.5micron stepper, in favor of a new model fpa_5510iv (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper#Specifications) with far larger 1.5 micron minimum feature size, even more obviously useless for making MF camera sensors. So more than ever, 33x26mm is the maximum field size that sensor makers must work with.)
Do you have any concrete evidence about pricing of bigger sensors, particularly for the larger sizes like 56x42mm and 56x56mm that come up in these "full frame medium format square sensor" discussions? Bear in mind that
1) There tends to be a factor of three increase from the factory door price of a component to its contribution to the retail price; probably more for low volume items that require higher percentage unit price markups to be profitable. So a sensor that sells for $3000 in orders of 1000 probably adds about $9,000 to the price of the back it goes into.
2) The price that can be charged for a very old model with R&D defrayed [like the old 22MP 48x36mm Teledyne-Dalsa-Phillips FTF4052C (http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/sensors/area-scan/FTF4052C/sensor)] is far lower than the price that must be charged for a newly-developed low-volume sensor.
No, and one thing that has changed is the continuing patterns of cost reduction through size reduction, with ever worse economies of scale for the outliers of huge IC's, like camera sensors bigger than 33x26mm.
Maybe instead of our exchanging words, someone who is a current industry insider could ask for a quote?
As engineers, when opinions differ we are probably both accustomed to go out and get some hard data points.
Anyway, I know and you know that sooner or later we will get huge chips. Whether it will be in our working lifetimes is a different matter.
I just put some film today into a Box camera, and I learnt photography with a plate camera into which I fitted film adapters.
Edmund
-
I do not think that the cost of the sensor is greater than $ 1,000. In my opinion, it is better to say that the sensor is more expensive than it was a huge R & D costs. It is more acceptable to the buyer. Of course, there are no illusions - the sensor is the most expensive. The rest of the elements of the camera is very cheap. It costs almost nothing. (H system)
-
Maybe instead of our exchanging words, someone who is a current industry insider could ask for a quote?
Anyway, I know and you know that sooner or later we will get huge chips.
I agree that it would be great to get a hard quote for the price of various "larger than 35mm" sensors from companies like Teledyne-Dalsa or TrueSense (formerly part of Kodak).
We already have huge sensors, like custom ones for aerial and satellite photography, telescopes and such, in both CCD and CMOS: the only issue is price, and more specifically the price that would be needed when making a sensor so big that it is usable only with discontinued cameras (like Hasselblad V), view cameras, and struggling low-volume systems like what remains of the Hy6 effort. The fact that MF sensors have plateaued at about the maximum size compatible with 54x42mm ["645"] format, with the last few new sensor models staying at existing sizes while improving in other respects, should be a hint.
I think that you and I both know that, outside of medium format and 35mm format photography, we will probably never see IC chips bigger than 33x26mm, and that those two photographic sectors are a tiny, tiny fraction of the chip market, with very little influence on the direction of chip fabrication technology.
-
I agree that it would be great to get a hard quote for the price of various "larger than 35mm" sensors from companies like Teledyne-Dalsa or TrueSense (formerly part of Kodak).
We already have huge sensors, like custom ones for aerial and satellite photography, telescopes and such, in both CCD and CMOS: the only issue is price, and more specifically the price that would be needed when making a sensor so big that it is usable only with discontinued cameras (like Hasselblad V), view cameras, and struggling low-volume systems like what remains of the Hy6 effort. The fact that MF sensors have plateaued at about the maximum size compatible with 54x42mm ["645"] format, with the last few new sensor models staying at existing sizes while improving in other respects, should be a hint.
I think that you and I both know that, outside of medium format and 35mm format photography, we will probably never see IC chips bigger than 33x26mm, and that those two photographic sectors are a tiny, tiny fraction of the chip market, with very little influence on the direction of chip fabrication technology.
I'm afraid that we both know that what is really driving sensor technology now is the phone cameras.
But a quote on the existing chips would be neat.
BTW, I don't think there is a lot of work in the design of a sensor if you already have the usual stuff -pads, logic etc- then the main part is a very repetitive design I expect, which needs a carefully designed cell and careful simulation and adaptation to the actual process used -but then what would I know. The CFA is more of a specialist job :)
Very similar to RAM design? When I learnt VLSI design, 30 years ago, that was considered a specialist job for a good but very small team.
Edmund
-
I'm afraid that we both know that what is really driving sensor technology now is the phone cameras.
But a quote on the existing chips would be neat.
BTW, I don't think there is a lot of work in the design of a sensor if you already have the usual stuff -pads, logic etc- then the main part is a very repetitive design I expect, which needs a carefully designed cell and careful simulation and adaptation to the actual process used -but then what would I know. The CFA is more of a specialist job :)
Very similar to RAM design? When I learnt VLSI design, 30 years ago, that was considered a specialist job for a good but very small team.
Edmund
Edmund, while your tone (in writing) is often quite aggressive stemming from the fact that maybe you got badly burned by medium format digital (or frustrated/disappointed) you mention a lot of truths along the way. Kind of reminds me a bit of Jim Jannard who really transformed or "changed the game" (one of his favorite phrases) the digital cinema camera market. He pushed pillar companies like Arri and Sony to up their game. Obviously the fact that he sold Oakley for 2 billion dollars before this endeavor helped but still it was his fire and inconformity with the current digital cinema cameras that pushed his team and products to what they are today. He is a photography enthusiast (shoots Canon btw) but focused his energy and money in the digital cinema world. Some use his awesome Red cameras for motion covers and editorials but generally they are not the best for stills. Although Peter Lik used it for his awesome mesa arch panorama.
With a little fire and agility Medium Format Digital could have been MUCH better than it is today and much more widely used. The market was there.
-
Edmund, while your tone (in writing) is often quite aggressive stemming from the fact that maybe you got badly burned by medium format digital (or frustrated/disappointed) you mention a lot of truths along the way. Kind of reminds me a bit of Jim Jannard who really transformed or "changed the game" (one of his favorite phrases) the digital cinema camera market. He pushed pillar companies like Arri and Sony to up their game. Obviously the fact that he sold Oakley for 2 billion dollars before this endeavor helped but still it was his fire and inconformity with the current digital cinema cameras that pushed his team and products to what they are today. He is a photography enthusiast (shoots Canon btw) but focused his energy and money in the digital cinema world. Some use his awesome Red cameras for motion covers and editorials but generally they are not the best for stills. Although Peter Lik used it for his awesome mesa arch panorama.
With a little fire and agility Medium Format Digital could have been MUCH better than it is today and much more widely used. The market was there.
Ken,
What a thoughtful reply!
I'm afraid that my aggressive tone is just what comes naturally :( however I do think that MF shooters have been unlucky in that the lack of funds scuppered any real progress, as only a complete redesign with a new sensor with liveview would really change things. For all I know RED may one day make his planned 645 Monstro camera, thereby solving the problem :)
I don't think it's an accident that all the kids are using their phone cameras, the flexibility of liveview, focus where you point, choice of video or still, instant panoramas etc, is amazing. Liveview essentially allows the software guys to go to work.
Edmund
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
...
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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
-
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
-
The real price of a mass-produced digital back is easy to compute. Take a Leica M, and divide by the price of a 6D. Now you know the "knowledgable dealer" markup, the "luxury branding" markup and the "European production" markup, and of course the "small market" markup. .
Now scale the price of a Phase back in the same way.
Digital backs are the Ferraris of photography and the Nikons and Canons are the Chevvies; it's time someone built a Mercedes.
I'm willing to bet that Pentax will have a $6K MF camera within 3 years if no one else does it.
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
It looks like Nikon might.
-
The real price of a mass-produced digital back is easy to compute. Take a Leica M, and divide by the price of a 6D. Now you know the "knowledgable dealer" markup, the "luxury branding" markup and the "European production" markup, and of course the "small market" markup. .
Now scale the price of a Phase back in the same way.
Digital backs are the Ferraris of photography and the Nikons and Canons are the Chevvies; it's time someone built a Mercedes.
I'm willing to bet that Pentax will have a $6K MF camera within 3 years if no one else does it.
Edmund
I suggest that the "rich dilettante prestige pricing premium" for Leica is far greater than for Phase One/Mamiya/Leaf. More to the point, I doubt that there is any significant prestige premium for the Pentax 645D system, so that system provides a far better way to assess the prestige premium and the current economically viable price floor for DMF: I suggest comparing Pentax 645D pricing to that of alternatives with comparable sensors from Hasselblad or "Team Phase One".
I agree that Pentax seems likely to continue to be the most affordable medium format option. For the record, the 645D price is currently US$7,000 for a body with 44x33mm, 40MP sensor, though that likely reflects the significant "price aging" typical with a three year old model: the original release price of US$10,000 is often a better predictor of the release price for a subsequent model.
-
As you suggested I looked up pricing.
Pentax 40MP was $10K is now $7K@ B&H
Hassy 40MP H5D new model is now $18K @B&H
Although the H5 is very recent, we seem to have a 1.8 multiplier with the original Pentax price. As I believe the H5 is manufactured by Fuji, and the sensors are similar if not identical, I would conclude that Hasselblad could buy Pentax cameras at retail, stick new labels and a precious wood handle on, resell them and still share $8K in profit with their retailers. Oh, wait, that's exactly the model they are trying for with Lunar and Stellar - buy from Sony, add handle, resell, maybe they're not really loony, just applying a business model which has worked for them, and worked for Leica (Panasonic), but which is now more crassly exposed - after all Leica don't bother to put a crafted handle on their Dlux, they just add ... a label.
BTW, I have been surprised, no shocked, to learn that luxury brands buy in most of their products. Who would have thought?
Edmund
I suggest that the "rich dilettante prestige pricing premium" for Leica is far greater than for Phase One/Mamiya/Leaf. More to the point, I doubt that there is any significant prestige premium for the Pentax 645D system, so that system provides a far better way to assess the prestige premium and the current economically viable price floor for DMF: I suggest comparing Pentax 645D pricing to that of alternatives with comparable sensors from Hasselblad or "Team Phase One".
I agree that Pentax seems likely to continue to be the most affordable medium format option. For the record, the 645D price is currently US$7,000 for a body with 44x33mm, 40MP sensor, though that likely reflects the significant "price aging" typical with a three year old model: the original release price of US$10,000 is often a better predictor of the release price for a subsequent model.