Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: FredBGG on September 14, 2012, 08:53:28 pm
-
Looking at the quality of the D800 and now the D600 I wonder how far we are from a new medium format player.
Just think about it. It would not be difficult for Nikon to make a basic DSLR with a bigger sensor and a few lenses
for much less than the MF companies can. Matching the functionality of the Hasselblad or Phase One camera would be a piece of cake for them
if you look at that they can achieve with precision on smaller cameras with tighter tolerances.
The only different stuff is multi shot, true focus (over rated) and 1/1600th flash sync.
But these could be achieved too. Multi shot could be done much faster.
Nikon would have no problem designing the lenses... they have done MF and Large Format before.
There is always the cost of a larger sensor, but if we look at how inexpensive full frame has become I can see sensors 1.5 or 2 times the surface area
not prohibitive.
Just look at what the D600 is achieving with a $ 2,099 body.
Maybe the camera could debute as a special camera for the Tilt shift lenses.
Mirrorless live view. Make the camera capable of using current lenses all be it with more vignette and corner artifacts, but the look of an 85mm 1.4
spread over a larger sensor would look quite interesting.
One can already look at the Harblei body to get an idea of what this direction could do.
We may actually not be very far from MF being as "democratic" as it was back in the film days.... and less "aristocratic" as it is today.
The best thing would be the adoption by a much wider user base so there would be more development and innovation as we have seen in the smaller formats.
-
Three thoughts: 1. If it were that easy, it would already have been done. 2. The leap beyond 35mm sensor technology is not as simple as scaling the costs linearly, because yields from a sensor wafer become smaller faster as you increase size (wafers are circular in dimension, not rectangular). 3. Every single lens in the Nikon / Canon (two biggest players) lineup is designed / optimized for APS-C or 35mm sized sensors, no larger. Huge investment needed to create an entirely new line of lenses for a niche market.
Not saying it couldn't happen, but there is no indication (to me at least) that this is imminent.
-
Medium format development is glacial compared to DSLR, you only have to look at their implementation of 'live view' to see how far behind they are. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the main players folds or gets absorbed before they get their act together and catch up. Just trundling along and releasing an 'improved' model with a few changes or super high MPixel counts can only attract so many new customers, those who prioritise VFM and usable features tend to look elsewhere.
-
Looking to the future, I think the big gun are more interested in smaller formats and the motion segment than an ever decreasing MF user base.
-
Looking at the quality of the D800 and now the D600 I wonder how far we are from a new medium format player.
Just think about it. It would not be difficult for Nikon to make a basic DSLR with a bigger sensor and a few lenses
for much less than the MF companies can. Matching the functionality of the Hasselblad or Phase One camera would be a piece of cake for them
if you look at that they can achieve with precision on smaller cameras with tighter tolerances.
The only different stuff is multi shot, true focus (over rated) and 1/1600th flash sync.
But these could be achieved too. Multi shot could be done much faster.
Nikon would have no problem designing the lenses... they have done MF and Large Format before.
There is always the cost of a larger sensor, but if we look at how inexpensive full frame has become I can see sensors 1.5 or 2 times the surface area
not prohibitive.
Just look at what the D600 is achieving with a $ 2,099 body.
Maybe the camera could debute as a special camera for the Tilt shift lenses.
Mirrorless live view. Make the camera capable of using current lenses all be it with more vignette and corner artifacts, but the look of an 85mm 1.4
spread over a larger sensor would look quite interesting.
One can already look at the Harblei body to get an idea of what this direction could do.
We may actually not be very far from MF being as "democratic" as it was back in the film days.... and less "aristocratic" as it is today.
The best thing would be the adoption by a much wider user base so there would be more development and innovation as we have seen in the smaller formats.
Well as a Hasselblad and DSLR user I think that this post is just so typical of the antagonism towards Hasselblad or perhaps even to MFD in general. It is not rocket science really. If you make a complicated, professional durable system in small quantities and provide an international marketing and support setup of course it is going to be expensive. If you make 100's of thousands of DSLR's with bits of plastic of course they are going to be cheaper. I, like any other photographers, need and use both systems.
Wishing for a cheap "Rolls Royce" that everyone can buy sure won't make it happen. But used Hasselblad digital cameras, serviced and guaranteed by Hasselblad, are now freely available at around the price of a D4 - what's not to like about that?
-
The other thing is this, why so demeaning about the things (you think) that sets MF apart from 35mm? True Focus you claim to be overrated, I think it is brilliant to be able to have an AF point that I can place anywhere in the composition. 1/1600 or 1/800th sync speed is a big deal to me. The by you so-called brilliant D600 has a sync speed of 1/200 which makes it almost utterly useless when balancing (and playing with) flash with ambient. Multishot is great with stills and still unsurpassed by anything single shot.
Maybe Nikon could be doing these things but sofar they have not and judging from the D600 they seem to have no intention to do so. I can understand why they would not, much more to make in more mainstream equipment for the masses.
I use both 35mm as well as MF. If I can I prefer using MF. I am sure the MF players would love to have a wider user base but I suspect this simply is not going to happen.
Funny thing is that it mostly boils down to price eventually but in that department you can have perfectly functioning 39MP bodies for the price of D4's. Even that area has now been covered.
I don't care what people are saying but my D800 files do not have the same quality as those from my H4D60. The first delivers files that are usable the other files that make me wanna get more.
-
Three thoughts: 1. If it were that easy, it would already have been done. 2. The leap beyond 35mm sensor technology is not as simple as scaling the costs linearly, because yields from a sensor wafer become smaller faster as you increase size (wafers are circular in dimension, not rectangular). 3. Every single lens in the Nikon / Canon (two biggest players) lineup is designed / optimized for APS-C or 35mm sized sensors, no larger. Huge investment needed to create an entirely new line of lenses for a niche market.
Not saying it couldn't happen, but there is no indication (to me at least) that this is imminent.
This whole thing about scaling up sensor sizes and yields etc has changed significantly over the years. Just look at what a FF sensor cost back in the day and compare it to today.
The IQ180 is a stitched sensor.... it might not be to big of a deal to stitch a d600 sensor variation and end up with a 50MP senssor that is far better than what we have today and at a potentially much better cost.
Actually talking to a lens designer the huge investments would not be that huge for Canon or Nikon as they have massive lens making capacity, have no problem making larger lens elements and have more advanced glass formulations due to the necessity of squeezing more resolution into smaller spaces. Zeiss, Schneider and Kyochera would jump into the foray as both Nikon and Canon have always allowed for 3rd party lenses.
Every single lens in the Nikon / Canon
Not true. The majority... yes.
Nikon has already made MF and large format lenses.
-
Maybe Nikon could be doing these things but sofar they have not and judging from the D600 they seem to have no intention to do so. I can understand why they would not, much more to make in more mainstream equipment for the masses.
Well that might be exactly the point.
There was a day when medium format was for the masses and the aesthetic of the photographs of the time had a format driven look
that is not there today.
No one would have thought that a FF camera would be available for $ 2099 that also shoots 5.5 frames per second and has a quality that the D600 has.
With Nikon and Canon in head to head competition and both being giant corporations one of them my want to make the investment to make a MF among other things for the presitge. The camera would both make money directly as well as drive sales through prestige all the way down to their luxury point and shoots.
-
Wishing for a cheap "Rolls Royce" that everyone can buy sure won't make it happen. But used Hasselblad digital cameras, serviced and guaranteed by Hasselblad, are now freely available at around the price of a D4 - what's not to like about that?
Nothing in the camera world comes close to a Rolls Royce. We had one. A Hasselblad does not come close to a Ferrari. We had both and used many.
The Hasselblad IS NOT A LUXURY item in my opinion. It is a very good ... excellent camera, but it is neither as refined as a Rolls or as exciting or stylish as a Ferrari.
It's a fine piece of machinery, but it is a tool. A Rolls Royce or a Ferrari are not tools.
I use many formats and appreciate them all, but because I do not idealize or worship any of them I consider them fine tools and as such am both critical and positive about their functionality.
-
The other thing is this, why so demeaning about the things (you think) that sets MF apart from 35mm? True Focus you claim to be overrated,
You masy see it as demeaning. I call it being realistic and making things more clear.
Lets take a closer look at True Focus.
First of all Hasselblad calls the sensor in it an Absolute Position Lock.
This implies that it Absolutly controls camera position and corrects for movement, yet it only compensated for yaw. Angualar movement of the lens.
While it is a nifty workaround it is pretty much limited in its functionality to wider angle lenses, yet Hasselblad markets it to fashion photographers and portrait photographers
showing shots taken with long focal lengths.
As the camera can only detect rotational movement, care
must be taken when re-composing to make sure there are
no or very little, movement closer or further away from the
subject.
And from later in the article referring to an 80mm lens:
When the camera is tilted for composition, the point of maximum sharpness falls just behind the eyes. However, the DOF
is almost large enough to render the eye sharp making the
difference hard to see. A camera movement closer or further
away from the camera even as small as 1 cm will change the
result and True Focus might not fully correct the focus.
So all you need is very small movement by either the model, the photographer or ball head of the tripod to nullify what true focus can do.
True focus is useless with any tilt shift lens if tilt shift is used.
I think that True Focus and Absolute Position Lock are a bit of an over rated title for the capabilities of True Focus.
Is it better than working wide open with a Phase One DF... hell yes and kudos to Hasselblad for developing it.
When I say it is over rated I am referring to the fact that it cannot match other far less expensive technology available today such as live view focus on a DSLR.
On the D800 and many other cameras you can move the focus box to where you want very quickly and without recomposing the photo. You can move it right into the corner
and even zoom it up for fine focus checking.
[/quote]
-
When I say it is over rated I am referring to the fact that it cannot match other far less expensive technology available today such as live view focus on a DSLR.
On the D800 and many other cameras you can move the focus box to where you want very quickly and without recomposing the photo. You can move it right into the corner
and even zoom it up for fine focus checking.
I can use TF with a model pretty easily and fairly fast where as this would be totally impossible with live view and contrast detection AF as you are describing on a DSLR. Where TF is very welcome for me for portrait work at a moderate pace. Live view would be totally useless and in this case for me overrated which doesn't mean it has no value or is overrated in general.
Naturally when the photographer is moving or the model is moving forward or you are using a tripod with ball head TF is not of much use but when working handheld with large aperture it is great and you will have substantially more images with the focus where you intended it.
I know I have, in the end that is what counts for me. I reckon TF was not much help to you.
-
Nothing in the camera world comes close to a Rolls Royce. We had one. A Hasselblad does not come close to a Ferrari. We had both and used many.
The Hasselblad IS NOT A LUXURY item in my opinion. It is a very good ... excellent camera, but it is neither as refined as a Rolls or as exciting or stylish as a Ferrari.
It's a fine piece of machinery, but it is a tool. A Rolls Royce or a Ferrari are not tools.
I use many formats and appreciate them all, but because I do not idealize or worship any of them I consider them fine tools and as such am both critical and positive about their functionality.
Never said it was. Just pointing out that a DSLR is a mass produced item (say like a Ford) and a Hasselblad is not (like a RR). Totally agree that cameras are just tools and BTW have heard many people say a Ferrari isa nice tool too!
-
The other thing is this, why so demeaning about the things (you think) that sets MF apart from 35mm? True Focus you claim to be overrated, I think it is brilliant to be able to have an AF point that I can place anywhere in the composition. 1/1600 or 1/800th sync speed is a big deal to me. The by you so-called brilliant D600 has a sync speed of 1/200 which makes it almost utterly useless when balancing (and playing with) flash with ambient. Multishot is great with stills and still unsurpassed by anything single shot.
Maybe Nikon could be doing these things but sofar they have not and judging from the D600 they seem to have no intention to do so. I can understand why they would not, much more to make in more mainstream equipment for the masses.
I use both 35mm as well as MF. If I can I prefer using MF. I am sure the MF players would love to have a wider user base but I suspect this simply is not going to happen.
Funny thing is that it mostly boils down to price eventually but in that department you can have perfectly functioning 39MP bodies for the price of D4's. Even that area has now been covered.
I don't care what people are saying but my D800 files do not have the same quality as those from my H4D60. The first delivers files that are usable the other files that make me wanna get more.
Totally agree
-
I can use TF with a model pretty easily and fairly fast where as this would be totally impossible with live view and contrast detection AF as you are describing on a DSLR. Where TF is very welcome for me for portrait work at a moderate pace. Live view would be totally useless and in this case for me overrated which doesn't mean it has no value or is overrated in general.
Naturally when the photographer is moving or the model is moving forward or you are using a tripod with ball head TF is not of much use but when working handheld with large aperture it is great and you will have substantially more images with the focus where you intended it.
I know I have, in the end that is what counts for me. I reckon TF was not much help to you.
"substantially more images with the focus where you intended it to be" You said it all.
I have found that using live view with face recognition with the D800 at a moderate pace... about 1 shot per second or a bit faster gets me almost 100% in focus with the 85mm 1.4 wide open. This is a shallower depth of field than with the hassy 150 3.5.
I have never been able to achieve this accuracy or speed with true focus. It is simply almost impossible with a heavy camera to not move when recomposing, especially if you are leaning, crouching and concentrating on expression, hair, cloths and you want the model to sigh or express emotion with a deep breath, gasp or is simply standing with her feet other than planted two feet apart.
I've been doing this for 30 years and much of it with large format film. I would love to be able to achieve more of this look and be able to do it with the focus hit rate that is
expected today. Wide open with MF would be lovely, but I get better results with D800, both focus and dynamic range.
Nikon facial tracking and live view right off the sensor focusing is really practical and actually quicker than straight AF with the Hasselblad.
Also while it is right off the sensor it is accurate right to the corners. It tracks faces really well too.
There are also new developments that can also detect rotation etc... this will likely make its way to cameras soon allowing you to establish focus on the closest eye automatically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sPh6-J9wOA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sPh6-J9wOA)
-
"substantially more images with the focus where you intended it to be" You said it all.
I have found that using live view with face recognition with the D800 at a moderate pace... about 1 shot per second or a bit faster gets me almost 100% in focus with the 85mm 1.4 wide open. This is a shallower depth of field than with the hassy 150 3.5.
I have never been able to achieve this accuracy or speed with true focus. It is simply almost impossible with a heavy camera to not move when recomposing, especially if you are leaning, crouching and concentrating on expression, hair, cloths and you want the model to sigh
I get a very high percentage which is not far from 100% with TF, the way I use it. Indeed with the 150/3.2 and the 100/2.2. As I said a percentage I am not able to get with the D800 and I find the D800 files are not at the same level as the HB's. Again it seems my way of working benefits more from the Hb and TF than yours, this is fine. To each his own I would say. You and the Nikons seem to be a match made in heaven, I am not there yet at this moment...
-
Hi Fred
I think you somehow answered the question by yourself.
Of course Canon or Nikon could do a "medium format" system with a larger chip.
But they do not need to do it. Canon has already used a 120 Mpix chip on the Wondercam on Worldexpo in 2010 in Shanghai and Paris.
This was a fullformat 35mm CMOS Prototype chip, many people expected to see this on the last Photokina, but Canon decided not to show it.
A Market for a small number(for them MF is probably a boutique product and they count in 6 digit numbers of production units at least)
will not support their costs. That easy.
If they will do a high resolution camera it needs to be optimized for reaching a broader market and keep costs down.
Nikon has already showed how they want to do it. Canon will probably follow very soon. They wil use the same infrastructure as the EOS system.
I´m pretty sure about this.
Regards
Stefan
-
Other than CMOS, Pentax and Leica have already delivered what you asked for. A dslr handling semi-medium format camera that has close to the functionality of a modern 35mm dslr, with excellent lcds, in camera jpeg processing, faster response than the typical medium format camera.
They may be missing cmos and true multi point autofocus, but those cameras are as dslr like as it gets, actually they are dslrs.
They also cover both ends of the spectrum, a 9 grand body (Pentax) and a $28,000 body (leica).
But if you really want what I think you want call fuji, because they dipped their toe in the water a long time ago.
(http://www.dcviews.com/press/images/Fuji-DBP.jpg)
The only problem with this back was Fuji didn't go further with development, which means they didn't make a smaller 680 camera or a larger back, but let's be realistic;
If the market was there cash in hand for a 6x8 digital back or a cmos digital back or a fast 10 fps, 10,000 iso digital back, I don't have any doubt that some manufacturer would not fill that roll.
In fact the market seems to have gone the other way, with less expensive, more megapixels, almost 2 year and gone cameras. Nikon positioned their new 800 as their studio professional camera and Sony, Canon, all have gone 24 something mpx for under $4,000, with less than robust bodies.
Buying a camera, even for professionals, is sometimes like buying a car, a house or a suit. You don't always buy what you need, you buy what you want and most importantly can afford.
If you can afford an expensive niche camera, car, house, suit, then go for it, if you can't you buy something more pedestrian and main stream, but I don't believe with still or motion cameras we're ever going to go larger than 645.
I made a point on this forum years ago that I felt 24x36 was the new medium format, 645 was large format and aps c or 4:3 were the cameras that filled the general population 35mm roll and of course on this side of the forum screamed like it as blasphemy that anything less than almost 645 was even considered medium format, though that's the way the world seems to be going.
Apple has given up on 17" powerbooks, and large desktops and when I travel by plane, instead of everyone viewing a laptop they're looking at an ipad. Electronic devices are getting smaller, some delivering big results, but I don't see anyone going bigger in just about anything from cars to cameras.
Given that, I just don't think it's a one size fits all world. In the typical shoot day we use different formats and I find nothing wrong with that other than we have to carry a lot of camera cases and lens sets, but that's just the way it is today, at least for my work.
Recently the only news that even half way excites me is the new Arri LED fresnels. 750 watts, low draw, daylight balanced for under 3 grand.
http://www.arri.com/l-series/performance.html
IMO
BC
-
Stefan Steib and others have explained well why Nikon and Canon have no commercial motive to enter the relatively tiny "larger than 36x24mm" market segment; it is for one thing far smaller now than it was in the film era, and they took no interest in it even then.
On the other hand, Ricoh-Pentax is bringing some of the economy-of-scale advantages of its mainstream DSLR operations to medium format, most recently with the first stabilized lens for DMF, which goes well with its greater emphasis on hand-held, outdoors usage of DMF, where the better low light performance of CMOS is also most wanted. Whatever small chance there is of anyone making the ecomonies of scale work for a DMF CMOS sensor, they are probably better for Ricoh-Pentax than anyone else.
-
I bought a hassy H3DII 39MP and a 50-110mm just because the girls like "big and large stuff..."... ;D
It was just for make the girls crazy...the hassy sucks...its heavy...just 50-100iso...bad lcd...slow af and frame rate...blaaaaablaaaa
But I don´t know why...everytime i saw the RAW files in my screen i just forget how bad the H3D is and make me smile with so much happyness...
Photography its not allways about resolution and quality, i think if in the future we have a camera phone with te same file quality of the MFD, no one here prefer to use the camera photo in the magic moment to do a great pic...
-
I think that after 3 months using Medium Format, i learn that everything that is more difficult to accomplish some times give you better results and satisfaction.
In the present age of digital 35mm everything its so good, frame rate...AF...isos...that most of people shoot fast and large amount of pics and fix later...for me with the H3D force me to calm down, look at the camera, viewfinder, hand light meter shoot much less.
But in the end that give me more pleasure, a better tecnical skills and much much less computer pos-production tunning and less pics in the same card for the same job compared if worked with my 5D markii
-
A while ago, I posted a thread inquiring about the possibility of a 24/35 manufacturer producing a 24/35 detachable cmos back for technical cameras, so that increased precision and versatility, along with extremely precise and long-term appropriate lenses, could be utilized at a cost not too much higher than that of a 24/35 outfit with a variety of the best t/s lenses. The silence of optimistic response was deafening, but with continuing new developments, this thread would seem a good place to raise the question again, for the benefit of those who would really like to be able to use an affordable cmos equipped tech camera for landscape or architecture. The cost of development and tooling for the 24/35 back might be less prohibitive than that of producing the mf cmos back.
-
Hi Clyde,
I agree. Sounds like you were proposing the same thing I was, when I started this thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68050.0)?
Ray
-
I don't care what people are saying but my D800 files do not have the same quality as those from my H4D60. The first delivers files that are usable the other files that make me wanna get more.
+1
-
A while ago, I posted a thread inquiring about the possibility of a 24/35 manufacturer producing a 24/35 detachable cmos back for technical cameras, so that increased precision and versatility, along with extremely precise and long-term appropriate lenses, could be utilized at a cost not too much higher than that of a 24/35 outfit with a variety of the best t/s lenses. The silence of optimistic response was deafening, but with continuing new developments, this thread would seem a good place to raise the question again, for the benefit of those who would really like to be able to use an affordable cmos equipped tech camera for landscape or architecture. The cost of development and tooling for the 24/35 back might be less prohibitive than that of producing the mf cmos back.
I'd buy one if it were priced right. Put the D800 sensor in a digital back with live-view and I'd pay 5K for it.
-
me too.
-
Would the bare back need to be more expensive than the whole D800? Make that 2K and I'm in.
-
Would the bare back need to be more expensive than the whole D800? Make that 2K and I'm in.
Due to the quantities that it would sell in, I assume so. On the one hand you could drop a lot of parts/functionality from the D800 in a back (AF, matrix metering, flash, etc), but market for such a back would be pretty tiny compared to the D800 so the R&D and fixed prodocution costs would have to be spread over a much smaller allocation of units.
-
It is encouraging to see that my interest in a 24/35 detachable digital cmos back is not unique.Thus we have a reenactment of the old truism about several great minds arriving independently at the same conclusion ;D. It is a good thing that some of us who wield a medium format slr, as well as the technical camera users, would both stand to gain from the availability of this item - thereby generating more demand.
Although much great work has been produced by photographers using a variety of other systems, pancake camera such as an Arca, Alpa, Cambo, or Sinar appear to me to be most ideally suited for landscape or architectural photography, due among other things to their inherent simplicity, durability of precision, and portability convenience. Despite excellence of design and execution, the best 35mm t/s systems seem to be a solution which should not be required, if only the above referred too item were made available to those who are reluctant at this time to invest in the present crop of mf backs. (great as the potential imaging quality therein would be)
I have been thinking a bit about the Arca rm3di, which being mirrorless, would especially benefit from live view, in spite of the fact that the Arca f series already has a very effective and sophisticated focusing system; in never hurts to have available both a belt and suspenders in an emergency. Possibly Arca-Swiss or one of the other pancake manufacturers would be willing to team up with one of the major cmos sensor producers to resolve the issue, as such probably would be more within the niche market company's business model.
-
You know what could be really neat.... a sort of hybrid auto stitching back.
Tale a D800 sensor and put it in a big ass back that could do a relatively high speed series of shots covering various formats.
With two shots... it almost covers 645. A few more shots and you could cover 6x8cm.
Combined with a Fuji gx680 or Mamiya 6x7 you would get massive MP count captures of what these great 6x7 and 6x8 lenses can take.
-
Fred... That is really a great idea which should be added to Nick Devlin's post today entitled "Five technologies we want." To me, the most significant aspect of that tech would be the speed of application. When I am doing landscape, I am often operating so slowly that the snails seem to go flying by, but when making use of quickly changing ambient light, time is very much of the essence. This fact tends to make me take a pessimistic view of the potential efficacy for me of being very adventurous with digital hi-jinks, like stitching, focus stacking, or exposure stacking. If the speed of the automatic stitching were fast enough, considerably more benefit in landscape would follow. Maybe high speed focus and exposure stacking could also be implemented - all at the same time? - or would that be killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
-
Is it not possible to create a Nikon mount for the Arca rm3di or alpa / cambo etc ?
I know they have Cambo X2, arca mline2 etc but those are a bit bulky, but might be better (in price) than going rm3di + iq back.
-
Is it not possible to create a Nikon mount for the Arca rm3di or alpa / cambo etc ?
I know they have Cambo X2, arca mline2 etc but those are a bit bulky, but might be better (in price) than going rm3di + iq back.
The purpose of a tech camera is that it has a very minimal space between the lens mount and the sensor of an attached digital plate.
Canon/Nikon and all other general purpose cameras have a space between their lens mount and the sensor (used in most cases for a shutter/mirror assembly). Putting them on a Arca/Cambo would mean you can't focus at infinity - a pretty important requirement for most photography.
An IQ or Credo on a tech camera is a really great combo - it's not $5k, sorry, but it's a niche market and independent of the technology used it will be more expensive than a general purpose dSLR.