Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on July 25, 2010, 07:35:09 am
-
Within 10 years or so, we'll have HUGE cheap sensors (say $2000) while glass prices are remaining stable.
At some point the current trend to expensive high-resolving glass on 35mm cameras will reverse, and it'll be cheaper again to make low-resolving lenses stuck on large sensors.
Edmund
-
I don't know if MFDB market is expanding or shrinking (probably dealers will say that it's expanding while shooters will say that it's shriking), either way the tendency is too insignificant to change current MFDB state- and this wont allow MFDB prices to drop dramatically. Oh and yeah, I hope I'm wrong
-
I don't know if MFDB market is expanding or shrinking (probably dealers will say that it's expanding while shooters will say that it's shriking), either way the tendency is too insignificant to change current MFDB state- and this wont allow MFDB prices to drop dramatically. Oh and yeah, I hope I'm wrong
MF market share is fairly static, but the component that is sensor price for area is sinking. At some point it will be more cost-effective to slap a cheap lens on a large sensor than an expensive lens on a small sensor. Especially since one can make a camera for landscape use with no shutter and just a focus helicoid, liveview does the rest. In a way, the Alpa and Arca are timeless.
Edmund
-
At some point it will be more cost-effective to slap a cheap lens on a large sensor than an expensive lens on a small sensor.
That is a point often not understood, the larger the sensor the less high end optics needed. Of course Lecia can always make a work of art for some that want it. I am waiting for MFD to come down in price or go out of business... either way I am not hurting for it.
-
Within 10 years or so, we'll have HUGE cheap sensors (say $2000) while glass prices are remaining stable.
At some point the current trend to expensive high-resolving glass on 35mm cameras will reverse, and it'll be cheaper again to make low-resolving lenses stuck on large sensors.
Edmund
You could very well be correct. Technology is always advancing and becoming cheaper, sometimes a major breakthrough can change the picture drastically. Hopefully a 4x5 sensor will eventually be viable, a lot of view cameras will get dusted off if that happens. LF lenses, even brand new, are a lot cheaper on average than the new digital wonders.
-
If I understand you, we will be able to do digital LF photography soon very cheap?
mmm...it sounds that something's wrong somewhere.
-
So - you want to say the Leica M system is going to be 10 times as cheap and 10 times as big in the future ?
-
Hear! Hear! Edmund the Prophet.
Now they cost about a million bucks a piece when perfect...
-
within 3 years or so there will be many more posts
predicting what will be in 10 years or so ...
-
Now they cost about a million bucks a piece when perfect...
MF sensors are stiched... so does it cost $1m to stich 8 times more pieces to get 4x5 ? as you do not need to have the same density of pixels as pieces for 60mp+ MF sensors require it should cost a lot less...
-
MF sensors are stiched...
Really?
-
Really?
If we need big sensors with a fairly low pixel pitch maybe they'll get made like LCDs?
Edmund
-
If we need big sensors with a fairly low pixel pitch maybe they'll get made like LCDs?
Edmund
I was told of an effort by an unnamed group to try to apply TFT display manufacturing technology/techniques to building very large format photographic imaging sensors, e.g., even 8x10; 4x5 and 6x7 would have been easy. However, to this date, I have only seen this manufacturing technique being applied to X-Ray machine digital sensors, if I am not mistaken.
See for example, this PDF. (http://sharp-world.com/corporate/info/rd/tj3/pdf/6.pdf)
Based on my own-not-so-technical understanding of this PDF, it means that really, a 6x7 full frame TFT-based area imaging sensor for the Mamiya RZ67 should be possible using this method. Would it be cheaper than a CCD? I have no idea...
Jason
-
how about this
$25,000 for a HAT !
http://www.brentblack.com/pages/best_02.html (http://www.brentblack.com/pages/best_02.html)
is it because the hat of worth 25k ? or is there because there are people who WANT to spend
25k hence they have to create a hat for those people ?
replace hat with photography and discuss
-
how about this
$25,000 for a HAT !
http://www.brentblack.com/pages/best_02.html (http://www.brentblack.com/pages/best_02.html)
is it because the hat of worth 25k ? or is there because there are people who WANT to spend
25k hence they have to create a hat for those people ?
replace hat with photography and discuss
Perfectly correct IMO.
But that's the way things are for ages. Even a cheap Canon 5D sold 2000euros body.
If they sell the body for 2000euros in shops, how much do you thing the camera cost really out of factory? I make my bet that arround 400euros if not less.
Don't think that Canon is giving his customer a gift bargain. if they do it it is because this camera costs them almost nothing.
Even if they find a cheap system for big sensors, their margen only will increase. Why will they do that at a low price when people is ready to pay the price they fix?
-
and then instead of having computers in our house, we will live inside the computers that deal with these image files... don't sign me up anytime soon.
-
Within 10 years or so, we'll have HUGE cheap sensors (say $2000) <snip>
Edmund
I wish it were true, but I doubt it. In digital electronics, expensive becomes cheap only when two factors converge: Moore's Law AND a mass marketplace. If demand develops for massive sensors in some other, large volume selling sector, then there is a chance that we MFD photographers will benefit from piggybacking on that development. What that sector would be, who knows? Medicine, military, TV & cinema production, scientific imaging...probably none of these is really large enough to be sufficiently "mass market" on its own, even if they would want huge sensors. And the other problem is that Moore's Law doesn't really work the way we would want it: it's primarily not about making physically larger devices, but rather about making devices which are smaller, cheaper, more potent per unit area or volume (or a mix of these properties). The trend for giant LCD/LED TVs is one of the few examples which runs counter to this.
An area which I am involved in, astronomical CCD imaging, is a good comparison and analogy for MFD. High-end, well-off amateurs started using very tiny cooled CCDs around 1990. They had maybe 128x128 pixels (don't laugh!), were 2x2 mm or so in area, and were ferociously expensive. In the 20 years since, astro sensors have got bigger and better thanks to Moore, but the real step-changes in price-performance occured whenever the astro-cam manufacturers got a new sensor from Kodak or Sony which was already being produced in huge volumes for consumer cameras. So now, for example, you have the thermoelectrically cooled, 25mm x 18mm, full-spectrum sensitive Orion StarShoot Pro Deep Space Color CCD Camera for only $1200:
http://www.telescope.com/control/astrophot...olor-ccd-camera (http://www.telescope.com/control/astrophotography/astrophotography-cameras/orion-starshoot-pro-deep-space-color-ccd-camera)
Why such great value for a niche product? Because it is built around a mass-produced Sony DSLR chip, that's why. And so it is with MFD: like astro-imaging, we need another sector/market/industry trend to be the white knight riding to our rescue, creating that mass demand for huge sensors, lowering the unit price of the core component of our special niche imaging devices. If we want to engage in crystal ball gazing, that's what our focus should be on.
-
How large are the sensors used in spy satellites?
Jerry
-
35 million dollars is not exactly cheap ...
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/st_darkenergy_camera/ (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/st_darkenergy_camera/)
-
Within 10 years or so, we'll have HUGE cheap sensors (say $2000) while glass prices are remaining stable.
You have made this sort of prediction many times before, so starting a new thread now suggests that you have new information. Please share it with us.
All I know is that every new stepper and scanner since late 2001 has had maximum field size of 26x33mm or less, and the only larger format option, the 50x50mm Canon FPA-5500iX is limited to 0.5 micron minimum feature size, so the stitching cost factor is still with us except for photosites larger than any recent MF sensors. And for LF with any pixel size.
Reference:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconducto..._5500ix_stepper (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5500ix_stepper)
-
See for example, this PDF. (http://sharp-world.com/corporate/info/rd/tj3/pdf/6.pdf)
The pixel size mentioned is 150 microns, with the targets being gear for large X-rays like chest X-rays. LCD fab. gear is at far coarser size scales than the IC fab. gear needed for MF or LF sensors; for example 3.5 micron minimum feature size in Nikon's LCD steppers:
http://www.nikon.com/products/precision/lineup/fx/index.htm (http://www.nikon.com/products/precision/lineup/fx/index.htm)
-
The pixel size mentioned is 150 microns, with the targets being gear for large X-rays like chest X-rays. LCD fab. gear is at far coarser size scales than the IC fab. gear needed for MF or LF sensors; for example 3.5 micron minimum feature size in Nikon's LCD steppers:
http://www.nikon.com/products/precision/lineup/fx/index.htm (http://www.nikon.com/products/precision/lineup/fx/index.htm)
If it can be done now, wait 10 years and the pixel density in every fab process, LCD included will have gone up by a factor of 10.
Edmund
-
If it can be done now, wait 10 years and the pixel density in every fab process, LCD included will have gone up by a factor of 10.
Why would LCD's even need pixels that small? Somewhere not much beyond 300ppi becomes pointless due to the limits of our eyes, and even a very extreme 1000ppi is 25 microns, far too large for a MF sensor: it would give under 4MP in full 645 format.
I take it that you are simply guessing optimistically in this thread, given the lack of arguments or evidence to support your predictions.
P. S. one design limitation is angular resolution of fab. devices, related to lower limits on numerical aperture. That sets an upper limit on pixel counts, with larger format devices like LCD fab's having larger minimum feature size.
-
Really?
read Dalsa techies : http://66.11.147.102/public/corp/pdfs/pape...9_Large_CCD.pdf (http://66.11.147.102/public/corp/pdfs/papers/DALSA_SPIE_EI2009_Large_CCD.pdf)
I can see the words "stitch", "stitching" used there... and that was 2009
-
how about this
$25,000 for a HAT !
http://www.brentblack.com/pages/best_02.html (http://www.brentblack.com/pages/best_02.html)
is it because the hat of worth 25k ? or is there because there are people who WANT to spend
25k hence they have to create a hat for those people ?
replace hat with photography and discuss
Dammit! I'm going to Panama in November - and now I have to buy a hat.
Off to sell the Harley...
Never mind, appears panama hats are made in Ecuador, so my Harley is safe.
-
Within 10 years or so, we'll have HUGE cheap sensors (say $2000) while glass prices are remaining stable.
At some point the current trend to expensive high-resolving glass on 35mm cameras will reverse, and it'll be cheaper again to make low-resolving lenses stuck on large sensors.
Edmund
Edmund,
I think you might have a fascination with old MF and LF lenses which may now be bought for a bargain because they are obsolete. Lenses one owns, as a total for a particular format, generally tend to be the most expensive component of any camera system.
A relatively affordable, very large sensor with a big pixel pitch, say 12 or 18 microns, could certainly be used with old, cheap lenses to produce (potentially) impressive results, perhaps on a par with a P65+ used with a modern Digitar.
However, the question that springs to mind is why would anyone want to saddle himself with such heavy, cumbersome and inflexible equipment? Even though a DB may fit a number of different camera bodies, each with their own set of lenses, and can therefore be described as having a certain degree of flexibility, it seems to me that none of the camera bodies on which the DB may be attached at any one time is a flexible piece of equipment, compared with 35mm. The flexibility of the DB system resides in the existence of a truck load of equipment which you certainly wouldn't want to take with you on a flight to China, or any other place outside of the studio.
The other issue which contributes to the inflexibility of the very large sensor is its DoF limitations, which I'm surprised no-one's mentioned so far. If we go back to Michael's eye-opening comparison between the Canon G10 and the P45+ at A3+ print size, we see that the shallower DoF in the P45+ print gave the game away. The G10 was used at F3.5; the P45+ at F11. In order to equalize DoF, the P45+ should have been used at F22.
Comparing prints of equal DoF with the G10 at F3.5, the P65+ would need to be used at F24; a 6x7cm DB at F34, and a 4"x5" sensor at F60. It's true you don't need modern, sharp lenses at these F stops, but you're also unlikely to get impressively detailed and sharp results, so what's the point?
Another issue, which also relates to DoF, is the fact that system resolution is dependent upon both lens MFT and sensor pixel pitch. However poor the lens, one can always improve resolution using a sensor with a finer pixel pitch (more pixels) up to a point.
This fact is demonstrated at Photozone where they have tested the same model of lens with both the 8mp Canon 20D and the 15mp 50D. A lens which seems mediocre on the 20D suddenly appears quite impressive on the 50D.
My own tests have demonstrated that a 15mp 50D at F11 has about the same resolution at the plane of focus as a 10mp 40D at F8, using the same lens. However, the DoF of the 50D image is noticeably greater.
The only advantage of the ultra-large, big-pixel sensor you propose, outside of the opportunity to 'mop up' a truck load of obsolete, low resolution lenses, is the dynamic range potential which the larger sensor always has. However, a potential is just that, a 'potential'. Reality depends on a whole lot of other technological innovation. Witness the superior DR of the D3X compared with the P65+.
-
According to Thom Hogan, Sony is about to stop producing full frame sensors because there's not enough profit to be made from them. If that rumor is true, it would seem to make the probability of larger cheaper sensors a good deal less likely.
-
According to Thom Hogan, Sony is about to stop producing full frame sensors because there's not enough profit to be made from them. If that rumor is true, it would seem to make the probability of larger cheaper sensors a good deal less likely.
I don't think Sony need to bake the FF sensors to make FF cameras, which they certainly won't stop doing.
Sony are at present OEM suppliers of sensors to much of the compact sector, and a low volume item such as a fullframe sensor of which 20 000 or so get made but where each item is fairly valuable may not fit into their production philosophy.
As for really large sensors, I don't think we'll have them on consumer products within a year or two years, I think it's more like 10, when it'll be easy to run them off a random production line. And they won't be competitive in density with the other ones - I think they'll be based on some other process like the LCD process.
Edmund
-
I don't think Sony need to bake the FF sensors to make FF cameras, which they certainly won't stop doing.
Where would Sony get the sensors once the current 24MP model is out-performed by future Canon and Nikon sensors? (That could be a year or two yet.) I doubt that Canon and Nikon will supply Sony with sensors.
Nikon has been striving towards independence from Sony for its high end sensors, so maybe Nikon has now told Sony that it will not buy future Sony 35mm format sensors, using its own designs instead for successors of the D3X. Sony's A900 and A850 sales do not seem to have been good enough to give an economic justification for Sony to design sensors only for its own 35mm format DSLRs.
-
Witness the superior DR of the D3X compared with the P65+.
Have I missed something recently???
Ray you have a scoop, a dispaches that you could sell to the NYT !
A premiere.
An exclusive.
I might be living in a bubble.
I'm doing a call here right now: Please, Michael Reichmann, Guy Mancuso, Chris Barrett, and all of you unaware guys who have ruined yourself with that P65, there is a premiere today and you should feel completly happy and liberated to sell right now your Phase and join the Nikon DR paradise.
Above the D3x there is nothing else on the universe. It is the ultimate step to image quality. The ultimate gear for the ultimate photography master.
You, snob guys with your P45 65...come back to earth and get the best DR ever reached so far, and there is just one name, one brand, one system that will deliver the highest, the better, the whao and that name with no doubt is Nikon.
Oh N-I-K-O-N. How great you are to bring to our mortal insignificant bodies all your infinite wisdom in photographic gadgets, oups, sorry, in engineering peice of art.
After, more the sensors are big less the lens quality matters, the D3x now beats the P65 DR.
This forum is getting each time more exciting and knowledgable
-
According to Thom Hogan, Sony is about to stop producing full frame sensors because there's not enough profit to be made from them. If that rumor is true, it would seem to make the probability of larger cheaper sensors a good deal less likely.
It is not the sensor that is the real problem, it is the complete package. Sony does not offer LiveView for crying out loud. If absolute sensor tech was the goal then we would all own MFD, but many of us don't because we like the workflow from 35mm.
-
Have I missed something recently???
Ray you have a scoop, a dispaches that you could sell to the NYT !
A premiere.
An exclusive.
I might be living in a bubble.
Now Fred! Don't get too excited! I mention the fact that the D3x has greater DR than the P65+ in this context merely to illustrate the point that a larger sensor does not always equate to a greater DR.
If Edmund's dream of an affordable 4"x5" sensor ever materializes within the next 10 years, it'll probably have a disappointing DR compared with smaller but higher-tech sensors.
-
Now Fred! Don't get too excited! I mention the fact that the D3x has greater DR than the P65+ in this context merely to illustrate the point that a larger sensor does not always equate to a greater DR.
If Edmund's dream of an affordable 4"x5" sensor ever materializes within the next 10 years, it'll probably have a disappointing DR compared with smaller but higher-tech sensors.
I think we're going to have 13x18 cm sensors and larger, in due course. And nice wooden cameras for architecture and studio work
Edmund
-
We will have foldable pocket cameras with 13x18" sensors which fit in a matchbox !
-
Edmund,
...
A relatively affordable, very large sensor with a big pixel pitch, say 12 or 18 microns, could certainly be used with old, cheap lenses to produce (potentially) impressive results, perhaps on a par with a P65+ used with a modern Digitar.
You can achieve that with an old 4 by 5 (or MF), an epson v750 and that old single use sensor called film
Mike
-
well, it is true that some people are working on an open source camera and sensors.
I'm thinking of a GREAT apportation: Lu-La has many real scientific members.
Instead of fighting in the forum with endless technical topics and sending us those obscur graphics and equations that only you understand,
Why don't you join your forces and work on an open source 50MP digital camera back?
I'm talking seriously.
-
You can achieve that with an old 4 by 5 (or MF), an epson v750 and that old single use sensor called film
Mike
You probably can. But wouldn't that be going backwards? Haven't we progressed beyond the terribly time-consuming, messy, cumbersome and expensive processes of chemical film?
It may be an interesting exercise to compare a smaller format digital sensor with a larger film format, just to get a sense of how far we've progressed. But film technology is definitely on the way out. Many types of film are no longer available, and the development of 'dedicated film' scanner technology seems to have almost ceased.
Before I bought my first DSLR, the humble 6mp Canon D60, I used to scan MF negatives from my second-hand Mamiya RB67 and Fuji GW690III, using a Nikon 8000 ED. I was a bit obsessed with resolution you see.
For a short while after buying the D60 (which cost me as much as the Nikon 8000 ED scanner at the time), I continued shooting with the MF gear. But not for long. The sheer convenience of the digital format won the day, despite the clear resolution disadvantage of the D60 compared with scanned MF film.
-
well, it is true that some people are working on an open source camera and sensors.
I'm thinking of a GREAT apportation: Lu-La has many real scientific members.
Instead of fighting in the forum with endless technical topics and sending us those obscur graphics and equations that only you understand,
Why don't you join your forces and work on an open source 50MP digital camera back?
I'm talking seriously.
See more here (http://www.saikatbiswas.com/blog/2010/07/18/could-holga-d-succeed-as-an-open-source-camera_/)
-
You probably can. But wouldn't that be going backwards? Haven't we progressed beyond the terribly time-consuming, messy, cumbersome and expensive processes of chemical film?
It may be an interesting exercise to compare a smaller format digital sensor with a larger film format, just to get a sense of how far we've progressed. But film technology is definitely on the way out. Many types of film are no longer available, and the development of 'dedicated film' scanner technology seems to have almost ceased.
Before I bought my first DSLR, the humble 6mp Canon D60, I used to scan MF negatives from my second-hand Mamiya RB67 and Fuji GW690III, using a Nikon 8000 ED. I was a bit obsessed with resolution you see.
For a short while after buying the D60 (which cost me as much as the Nikon 8000 ED scanner at the time), I continued shooting with the MF gear. But not for long. The sheer convenience of the digital format won the day, despite the clear resolution disadvantage of the D60 compared with scanned MF film.
I think you're likely right that film tech is on the way out in the medium to longer term, though it continues as a significant niche for stills photographers and more mainstream in cinema. However, there are reasons that film makes sense for some people - where convenience is not more important than resolution for example:)
As for cost, well MF or LF is cheaper than equivalent digital if you only shoot low volume and don't have tight deadlines. On the other hand time is important to many of us in any case. I still shoot some 35mm film, but that's as much because I don't have an M9 and like rf's as because it's film - sooner or later the time cost will lead to me buying an M9 or hopefully forthcoming equivalent. I shoot a lower volume of MF monochrome because I like it and that is unlikely to change in the forseeable future.
I agree that an obsession with resolution is about as healthy as an obsession with noise, MTFs, 'image quality' and probably doesn't contribute much to the pictures. Having said that, I think sometimes people need to justify why they like a particular approach and so look for objective reasons that actually have little to do with the reality.
Do you still shoot with the D60? I still have prints from a panasonic FZ20 that I like and some are hanging on other people's walls too.
Mike
-
Do you still shoot with the D60? I still have prints from a panasonic FZ20 that I like and some are hanging on other people's walls too.
Mike
I also still have prints from the D60 hanging on my wall, and some that are probably still hanging on other people's walls. However, after upgrading to the 20D I had no reason to use the D60 again, apart from shooting a few shots for purposes of comparison, to determine if the D60 had any advantage in any respect at all, compared with the 20D. The resolution increase of the 20D from 6mp to 8mp was of little consequence, but I remember being amazed that a 20D image at ISO 1600 was actually better quality, better color saturation and at least as detailed, as a D60 shot of the same scene at ISO 400. That significantly better high-ISO performance of the 20D was the main attraction for me. I found the camera to be a much more flexible tool than the D60. I could suddenly use my 100-400 IS zoom in circumstances where I just wouldn't bother with the D60.
I place a high premium on the usefulness and flexibility of my camera systems, which is why I'm not particularly enthusiastic about large format digital. If some manufacturer were to produce a very affordable 40mp, 6cm x 7cm sensor that fitted my RB67, I probably wouldn't be terribly excited because I can't see myself lugging around all that heavy equipment. However, if I were to do most of my photography in a studio, that would be a different matter.
-
...
I place a high premium on the usefulness and flexibility of my camera systems, which is why I'm not particularly enthusiastic about large format digital. If some manufacturer were to produce a very affordable 40mp, 6cm x 7cm sensor that fitted my RB67, I probably wouldn't be terribly excited because I can't see myself lugging around all that heavy equipment. However, if I were to do most of my photography in a studio, that would be a different matter.
There we are in agreement - I use a mamiya 7 for medium format, which is considerably more portable and handholdable than an RB or RZ. My primary concern with any gear change now seems to be about whether I'll want to carry it and hence use it...
Mike
-
well, it is true that some people are working on an open source camera and sensors.
I'm thinking of a GREAT apportation: Lu-La has many real scientific members.
Instead of fighting in the forum with endless technical topics and sending us those obscur graphics and equations that only you understand,
Why don't you join your forces and work on an open source 50MP digital camera back?
I'm talking seriously.
i kind of like this idea. i trained in VLSI design - 25 years ago
But i think an Lcd mod will only yield a vga back
Edmund
-
I place a high premium on the usefulness and flexibility of my camera systems, which is why I'm not particularly enthusiastic about large format digital. If some manufacturer were to produce a very affordable 40mp, 6cm x 7cm sensor that fitted my RB67, I probably wouldn't be terribly excited because I can't see myself lugging around all that heavy equipment. However, if I were to do most of my photography in a studio, that would be a different matter.
This is so where I am at now. I am getting such great imagery from my 35mm system right now I just don't care about improvements that MFD offers because of the workflow that goes with it.
-
There we are in agreement - I use a mamiya 7 for medium format, which is considerably more portable and handholdable than an RB or RZ. My primary concern with any gear change now seems to be about whether I'll want to carry it and hence use it...
Mike
Mike, you are not alone.
Ever since hanging up the saddle - or finding I'd misplaced it somewhere - I have ben through the same sort of diminishing enthusiam for carting stuff around that might be best left at home.
I found the D200 rather more weighty than I was happy to take walkies and then the D700 even worse. I suspect that therein lies the appeal of the M6 -style machine. The problem is that when you sally forth to shoot commercially, your mind is on the job; when you summon up the courage (enthusiasm?) to take a camera out for 'fun' you face different personal pressures, not least of which is motivation/discomfort triangulation with its apex at the 'maybe' aspect of any pay-off for all the effort.
And the more time passes, the worse the struggle. Perhaps that's why photography forums make such fine alternative exercise.
Rob C
-
Mike, you are not alone.
Ever since hanging up the saddle - or finding I'd misplaced it somewhere - I have ben through the same sort of diminishing enthusiam for carting stuff around that might be best left at home.
And the more time passes, the worse the struggle. Perhaps that's why photography forums make such fine alternative exercise.
Rob C
This man is funny - he oughta have been a writer
Edmund
-
A nice thought, it would be nice to have a camera I can use my 12inch Kodak Portrait lens on, other than my 5x7 of course.
Not sure I will be alive to see it happen.
Kevin.
-
See more here (http://www.saikatbiswas.com/blog/2010/07/18/could-holga-d-succeed-as-an-open-source-camera_/)
They're talking excitedly about putting FF-35mm and even 22MP MF sensors in a Holga and selling it for $300. Oh dear.
I'm so tempted to point out the bleedin' obvious flaw...Open Source is great for software and firmware but sensor hardware actually needs to be paid for. But it would be a shame to prick their bubble of naiivety. Their little hearts would burst with grief.
-
I'm so tempted to point out the bleedin' obvious flaw...Open Source is great for software and firmware but sensor hardware actually needs to be paid for.
Yes indeed: just like the fact that all that wonderful open source Linux software needs to run on proprietary processors, and for the average home user only reduces the total cost of a working computer by 10% to 20% (The open source cost benefit is far greater for heavy duty users like my parallel computing colleagues, who get gouged far more on proprietary software licensing).
A major issue, often glossed over, is the issue the cost of larger than mainstream sensors, and in particular the large R&D costs that must be spread over a relatively small sales volume (compared to say the 10,000/month stated by Nikon for the for the D3, or the 70,000/month of the Nikon D300, and far more for various less expensive DSLRs). The scary bit is that MF sensors would probably have to cost a lot more than they currently do if Kodak and Dalsa had to defray all the related R&D costs over just sales for MF cameras and backs, instead of also selling the same core technology in a far larger number of sensors for medical, engineering, scientific and military customers.
-
The scary bit is that MF sensors would probably have to cost a lot more than they currently do if Kodak and Dalsa had to defray all the related R&D costs over just sales for MF cameras and backs, instead of also selling the same core technology in a far larger number of sensors for medical, engineering, scientific and military customers.
Don't forget that many, many digital backs and cameras are being sold and used in medical, engineering, scientific, military and other industrial applications, which not only benefits the MF manufacturers but also the sensor manufacturers...
Naturally, these customers do not come on photographic forums:-)
Yair
-
Don't forget that many, many digital backs and cameras are being sold and used in medical, engineering, scientific, military and other industrial applications, which not only benefits the MF manufacturers but also the sensor manufacturers...
I guess those a benefiting by price paid, not by quantity ordered... Pentax claims 500 units of 645D a month, I somehow doubt that "medical, engineering, scientific, military and other industrial applications" come anywhere close numberwise...
-
I guess those a benefiting by price paid, not by quantity ordered... Pentax claims 500 units of 645D a month, I somehow doubt that "medical, engineering, scientific, military and other industrial applications" come anywhere close numberwise...
I don't know if 500 is a real number or not but if it is then that's great as it means 500 40MP Kodak sensors ordered/ delivered every month!