Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on March 26, 2014, 12:07:28 am
-
Team,
Lloyd chamber published this intriguing piece this morning: http://www.diglloyd.com/
He writes that the cost of the Sony 44x33 sensor should be around 2000~2,500~3,500 US$.
My personal belief is that is probably only half that, especially if we are talking about actual cost that Sony camera would have to pay to Sony Semi-Conductor, and not the external price to other companies.
Any educated guesses about how much it would cost for me to buy 10,000 of those sensors from Sony?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Any educated guesses about how much it would cost for me to buy 10,000 of those sensors from Sony?
Cheers,
Bernard
If the figures are correct then it would be $35M ;)
But jokes aside, a mirrorless, interchangeable lens, leaf-shuttered camera with a Sony 50MP CMOS sensor has just been announced...
Phase One iXU 150 (http://industrial.phaseone.com/iXU_camera_system.aspx)
BR
Yair
-
Nope...but if you had a check to place the order, I'll be you could get a really good deal...
-
Well, I don't want to guess, as I would like to purchase some of these for the open source back project :)
Just got another query today from somebody who would also like to do a cheaper back.
I would be very very surprised if Dalsa, Truesense and CMOSIS do not quickly announce their own larger CMOS sensors.
Edmund
Team,
Lloyd chamber published this intriguing piece this morning: http://www.diglloyd.com/
He writes that the cost of the Sony 44x33 sensor should be around 2000~2,500~3,500 US$.
My personal belief is that is probably only half that, especially if we are talking about actual cost that Sony camera would have to pay to Sony Semi-Conductor, and not the external price to other companies.
Any educated guesses about how much it would cost for me to buy 10,000 of those sensors from Sony?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
According to sony rumour sites they are bringing out their own camera based around the 50mp chip. While it's just a rumour they do have a partnership with zeiss who have experience with lenses for such a system so it's perfectly feasible that they have something in development. What shape or form that takes is just guesswork.
-
According to sony rumour sites they are bringing out their own camera based around the 50mp chip. While it's just a rumour they do have a partnership with zeiss who have experience with lenses for such a system so it's perfectly feasible that they have something in development. What shape or form that takes is just guesswork.
Judging by their other camera products, they seem able and willing to try out different camera concepts at a fast pace.
An "A9" mirrorless with the MF CMOS at an aggressive price point (scavenging what they could from the A7) would sure be interesting. Not sure that their MF sensor customers would like such a move though.
-h
-
According to sony rumour sites they are bringing out their own camera based around the 50mp chip. While it's just a rumour they do have a partnership with zeiss who have experience with lenses for such a system so it's perfectly feasible that they have something in development. What shape or form that takes is just guesswork.
At this point do you call it medium format?
What I mean is medium format really came from 6x6, 6x7, 645 film cameras that were retro fitted with digital sensors that almost . . . then finally filled the frame.
Now with the cmos sensor they're going smaller again, so if someone comes out with a complete new camera, maybe even mirrorless, then is it medium format or is it just a larger digital camera?
I don't really see the Leica S2 as a "medium format" camera. If so then to me it's just a modern version of a Pentax 6x7, kind of a big 35mm camera.
Anyway.
I also read that same rumor and Sony said they're camera wouldn't compete with the standard medium format customers. I don't know what that means, other than they might go mirroless, or maybe they just go so low in price that it doesn't compete on a price point.
Regardless, I'll bet that Phase camera Yair linked to is referred to it's users as just "a camera". Can you see guys that are assembling a spy drone to say, hey Harold, don't give the the dslr, give me the Phase One Medium Format Digital Capture Camera?
IMO
BC
-
MF is a state of mind not a 6x6 box.
;D
-
If the figures are correct then it would be $35M ;)
But jokes aside, a mirrorless, interchangeable lens, leaf-shuttered camera with a Sony 50MP CMOS sensor has just been announced...
Phase One iXU 150 (http://industrial.phaseone.com/iXU_camera_system.aspx)
BR
Yair
I wonder when you'll be releasing your version of a 50mp sensor based Credo MFDB Yair… I suspect it shouldn't be long…
-
Hi,
I would guess Sony may have a 44x33 recording module, usable with different mounts. A short flange distance would make it possible. It would be possible to adapt to different lens systems, pretty much like A7/A7r but larger bayonet. EVF and HDMI output, possibly 4K.
Best regards
Erik
-
At this point do you call it medium format?
What I mean is medium format really came from 6x6, 6x7, 645 film cameras that were retro fitted with digital sensors that almost . . . then finally filled the frame.
Now with the cmos sensor they're going smaller again, so if someone comes out with a complete new camera, maybe even mirrorless, then is it medium format or is it just a larger digital camera?
I don't really see the Leica S2 as a "medium format" camera. If so then to me it's just a modern version of a Pentax 6x7, kind of a big 35mm camera.
Anyway.
I also read that same rumor and Sony said they're camera wouldn't compete with the standard medium format customers. I don't know what that means, other than they might go mirroless, or maybe they just go so low in price that it doesn't compete on a price point.
Regardless, I'll bet that Phase camera Yair linked to is referred to it's users as just "a camera". Can you see guys that are assembling a spy drone to say, hey Harold, don't give the the dslr, give me the Phase One Medium Format Digital Capture Camera?
IMO
BC
+1
-
At this point do you call it medium format?
I don't know. Does it matter what it is called?
I am guessing that for those people who bought the D800(e) or the A7r for landscape photography, wanting the highest (system) spatial resolution possible with a single shot on a budget and with constraints on weight, having 50MP in a cheap-ish, small-ish package with good CDAF/focus peaking, that offered new lens options might be tempting.
Could/would Sony sell an MF A9 for $5000, if it offered the same platform as the A7 except sensor and lens mount?
-h
-
Barring sensor size, if Sony chooses to make a consumer-oriented high ISO monster without leaf shutter lenses and fast tethering capability, it's likely going to create competition more for high-res DSLRs and the future Pentax, rather than anything from Phase or Hasselblad.
-
Barring sensor size, if Sony chooses to make a consumer-oriented high ISO monster without leaf shutter lenses and fast tethering capability, it's likely going to create competition more for high-res DSLRs and the future Pentax, rather than anything from Phase or Hasselblad.
Future Pentax?
Pentax have been playing along for years now about FF, I for one got tired of waiting and switched to Nikon, so am I to regret my impatience?
-
At this point do you call it medium format?
What I mean is medium format really came from 6x6, 6x7, 645 film cameras that were retro fitted with digital sensors that almost . . . then finally filled the frame.
Now with the cmos sensor they're going smaller again ...
Not really: the 44x33mm format is already used in multiple current CCD cameras; indeed it is the format used by the greatest number of DMF systems (all except Leica, whose 45x30mm format is no bigger). The pay-off for Sony is immediately being able to sell it to three makers: Phase One, Hasselblad and Pentax. So all I see is a plan of starting with the "MF" option that promises the highest sales volume and revenues and probably also the lowest R&D costs, before upscaling even further.
But I agree that the name "medium format" is dubious: all sizes from 36x24mm up are way above medium in the digital still camera world, with 54x42mm probably locked in as the largest single-shot sensor format we will see, so these sensors would better be called "large digital formats".
P. S. I note that Phase One already offers multiple cameras with no optical viewfinder: its technical cameras like the iXR models for document/art reproduction and the iXA (and now iXU) models for aerial photography. These are dependent on tethere operation, and so are likely to benefit greatly from the vastly superior live view capabilities of modern CMOS active pixel sensors (called "APS" in the trade, just to confuse us). With the dependence of "artistic" medium format cameras on sensors developments driven by other "technical" camera uses like this, this is one more reason why I expect such sensors to take-over from CCDs in "medium format" over the next one or two model generations. Fortunately, those uses like big formats for as much image detail as possible, so I expect them to drive CMOS formats towards full 645 frame coverage.
-
I guess the term MF has the meaning of "larger image area than 135" these days… I don't know if the term LF is of sense anymore…
-
In the film days, 6x6/ 6x7 was "Medium format" because there was 4x5 and 8x10 above it.
In digital, full frame MF sensors are the large format now since there's nothing bigger. In that perspective, 44x33 is definitely "Medium format".
-
If 44x33 being 68% bigger than 24x36 is medium format, then 54x42 being 56% bigger than 44x33 is large format? Furthermore, a true real film 645 was 56x42.5. So, a true digital 645 sensor would be 64% bigger than 44x33. Eduardo
-
I am talking in terms of relativity. Not mathematics.
Feel free to reach your own conclusions.
-
I am talking in terms of relativity. Not mathematics.
Ah. A physicist :)
Cost is relative too :)
Edmund
-
Ah. A physicist :)
Cost is relative too :)
Edmund
So is relevance to what I was saying, but don't let that stop you.
-
Maybe there ought to be a 'weight class' for the MF cameras? Or instead of the wrestling analogy how about displacement like in race cars? I care less about mega pixels than I do sensor size or physical area - so that's my metric. The Sony CMOS sensor rates in at 1452mm^2. FF DSLR's are only 840mm^2. I'd be tempted to arbitrarily draw the MF limit at 1500mm^2 just to get some people all wound up. But moving forward... The new CMOS chip sort of seems close to MF on first take, but a full frame Hass V or Rolleiflex Hy6 at 56mm x 56mm would be more than double the area of the 44x33mm Sony… 3136mm^2 vs 1452mm^2.
The difference in sensor area between the FF 35mm sensors and the Sony CMOS is nearly exactly the same between the Sony CMOS and the big CCD sensors. 840 FF DLSR > 1452 Sony > 2173 Credo 60,80 so from the area point of view the Sony CMOS is exactly a 'tweener.
-
So is relevance to what I was saying, but don't let that stop you.
Could it? I have the attention span of a fly and Alzie hovering over my shoulder.
Anyway, I chatted to Mitch Feinberg re. his digital 8x10. I feel this size will be coming back in about 10-15 years or so.
I really like the way old - eg. pre WWI- imagery looks. Before Oskar Barnack came round and minfied everything.
Edmund
PS. Eric - nice maths, I fully agree.
-
Actually my conclusions were shily stated after your conclusions and in a way I was accepting yours but you always seem to be right on the edge of being unpolite. I was expecting a friendly discussion but I just got whacked (relative). Have a nice life. Eduardo.
I am talking in terms of relativity. Not mathematics.
Feel free to reach your own conclusions.
-
I don't think the cost or for that matter what Leaf, Phase or Blad are going to do with a Sony cmos sensor.
Those plans are pretty much announced and or done.
The question is what's Sony doing? Probably something different, probably niche, probably strange. I would think a fixed lens camera like a mini mamiya rangefinder but with Sony who knows because they seem to like to make a lot of different stuff, throw it up and see what stays airborne.
Leica I doubt will use it. They could have done what everyone else on the planet did and buy a sony sensor, but they went with a different company for cmos, probably will again for their S series, but who knows. Personally I think they should hold still, but that's just me.
I'd love to see Leica make a real movie camera. They have the lenses and they sweat the details so well, it probably would be good, but maybe that's not a market they see enough room to play in and movie cameras are kind of clunky modular things that don't fit the Leica design ethos.
IMO
BC
-
I don't think the cost or for that matter what Leaf, Phase or Blad are going to do with a Sony cmos sensor.
Those plans are pretty much announced and or done.
The question is what's Sony doing? Probably something different, probably niche, probably strange. I would think a fixed lens camera like a mini mamiya rangefinder but with Sony who knows because they seem to like to make a lot of different stuff, throw it up and see what stays airborne.
Leica I doubt will use it. They could have done what everyone else on the planet did and buy a sony sensor, but they went with a different company for cmos, probably will again for their S series, but who knows. Personally I think they should hold still, but that's just me.
I'd love to see Leica make a real movie camera. They have the lenses and they sweat the details so well, it probably would be good, but maybe that's not a market they see enough room to play in and movie cameras are kind of clunky modular things that don't fit the Leica design ethos.
IMO
BC
Well, at least we can hope for some novelty and entertainment from Sony. I really don't know why we want our cameras to be "novel", but it is true that most of what has been coming out in digital is basically horseless carriages, and it would be time for someone to invent the sports car :)
Edmund
-
Since the OP's link today shows a bunch of Leica stuff, maybe it's for a new Leica S3 since the S2 with its 30x45mm 37 MP sensor came out in 2008 and is about time for an upgrade in their life-cycle. They need to keep the Leica collectors happy with something new to buy and let sit in their jewelry box to appreciate in value in 70 years.
Kodak made their S2 CCD sensor and we all know where Kodak went. Maybe Leica decided Sony was the better one to make a new sensor? Sony could begin production with Leica's income, then later use the sensor for something they make. Ala, Sony making a 36MP sensor for Nikon, then using it for their own model.
SG
-
Sony should buy up the rights to the Contax brand, then employ former Contax designers & engineers & make a new Contax 645.
Maybe just me, but I struggle to take the Sony name seriously when on a camera
-
If Sony does bring a 'medium format' camera to market my money is on them
producing a fixed lens 'compact' medium format camera along the lines of
their 35mm RX1/RX1r camera
I'd personally like to see a digital camera/lens modelled after the Mamiya 6 or 7
but can't see that happening
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
Mark, you may get your wish afterall. Have a look at the Sony rumors website. The latest rumor is that the Sony "MF" camera will be similar to a Mamiya 7.
-
Mark, you may get your wish afterall. Have a look at the Sony rumors website. The latest rumor is that the Sony "MF" camera will be similar to a Mamiya 7.
Actually 6x9 folding rangefinders eg. Plaubel Makina or Fuji had a big amateur following in Japan, so this product makes sense with sales guaranteed for the domestic market.
Edmund
-
Medium format is a width (60mm) , just like 35mm is a width of the film in the camera.
In practice a medium format image was 56mm wide because there was an unusable area of 4mm and 35mm image was 24mm wide because it had a big unusable area with sprockets on both sides.
The length of the image was completely up to what camera you had.
A 617 camera image was 56mm wide (6) by 170mm long (17). A 645 camera image was 56mm wide (6) but only about 43mm long (45).
So we have full frame 35mm digital camera that are 36mm long and 24mm wide and "cropped" cameras that are a lot less (actually only 40% the size).
In the same way we have MF digital cameras but somehow we don't see many, perhaps any at 56mm wide. It is a loose term.
Moral of the story - read the specs.
-
Moral of the story - read the specs.
I guess most of us are so old we remember large format, and need specs to read :)
Edmund
-
Medium format is a width (60mm) , just like 35mm is a width of the film in the camera.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
I think that the "crop" terminology is quite reasonable. Use 24x36mm as a reference (as that is what most people use as a reference today) and compare diagonals. My Canon DSLR is 1.6x crop, my Sony RX100M2 is 2.7x crop, and my cellphone is 5.6x crop. "MF" cameras would then be e.g. 0.5x crop.
For sensor of very unusual aspect ratio, it might make sense to compare area instead of diagonal?
-h
-
Well Sony could choose not to compete initially with its customer base by producing a RX style camera. This would enable them to get into the market without running into competition that has up to 10 years start on them in software/hardware integration.
Even if they were able to double the market over a couple of years this would reduce costs for the whole format.
-
Maybe there ought to be a 'weight class' for the MF cameras? Or instead of the wrestling analogy how about displacement like in race cars? I care less about mega pixels than I do sensor size or physical area - so that's my metric. The Sony CMOS sensor rates in at 1452mm^2. FF DSLR's are only 840mm^2. I'd be tempted to arbitrarily draw the MF limit at 1500mm^2 just to get some people all wound up. But moving forward... The new CMOS chip sort of seems close to MF on first take, but a full frame Hass V or Rolleiflex Hy6 at 56mm x 56mm would be more than double the area of the 44x33mm Sony… 3136mm^2 vs 1452mm^2.
The difference in sensor area between the FF 35mm sensors and the Sony CMOS is nearly exactly the same between the Sony CMOS and the big CCD sensors. 840 FF DLSR > 1452 Sony > 2173 Credo 60,80 so from the area point of view the Sony CMOS is exactly a 'tweener.
I agree. That is what it feels like in use. I had the 645D (44x33mm sensor) and now I have the IQ160 (40.4x53.9) and the IQ just has the look of a larger format (well, because it is). With the 645D the difference compared to 35mm full frame was perceivable of course but it was not that much. With the IQ160 it just feels quite significant. I mean, I would prefer the size of 6x7 for shooting people but for general use the 40x54mm sensor feels right. I love it and am very happy with the IQ160. Really like the Dalsa sensor. I am enjoying the 4:3 aspect ratio too. I hope Phase makes a CMOS back with a similar size sensor in the future. I mean that might not happen :( but it would be nice. If not there is always the IQ180/280 :D also. The Phase IQ chassis is so good that I don't mind using it for the next 10 years. :D
Regarding the new sony 44x33mm sensor it is interesting that the product releases using it are somewhat following a path from the most expensive to the most affordable if everything happens according to rumors. The IQ250 was first ($35k) then the H5D-50C ($28k), then the Pentax 645D II ($10k?) and then maybe a Sony MF Camera (at $7k??).
-
Medium format is a width (60mm), just like 35mm is a width of the film in the camera.
In practice a medium format image was 56mm wide because there was an unusable area of 4mm and 35mm image was 24mm wide because it had a big unusable area with sprockets on both sides.
The length of the image was completely up to what camera you had.
One complication of that comparison of film dimensions is that the 56mm is used as the long dimension of the frame in most medium format film cameras (56x42mm for "645" and 56x56 with "6x6") whereas 24mm is the short dimension of standard 35mm format frame, 36x24mm.
In Europe, it is common to refer to that last format as "36x24mm", and I am sure that photographers who can handle exposure information involving several numbers (shutter speed, aperture ratio and ISO speed) could handle two numbers in describing a format. And we did it with 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 5"x4", 10"x8", and often still do with print sizes.
On the other hand, with most cameras using formats in a small range of shapes from 4:3 to 3:2 (an 11% difference), the single measure of diagonal in mm should be good enough for most practical purposes.
Some examples:
16mm for the 13.2x8.8mm of 1" format sensors
22mm for the 17.3x13mm of recent 4/3" sensors
22.5mm for the 18x13.5mm of the "official 4/3" video sensor format
27-28mm for the various "APS-C" digital formats, ranging from about 22.5x15mm to 24x16mm
30mm for the 25.1x16.7mm of the APS-C film format
42mm for the 36x24mm of "35mm" still camera format
55mm for 44x33mm
67mm for 53.7x40.4mm, the current largest sensor for "digital medium format"
70mm for 56x42mm, the full "645" film format
-
...On the other hand, with most cameras using formats in a small range of shapes from 4:3 to 3:2 (an 11% difference), the single measure of diagonal in mm should be good enough for most practical purposes...
Very logical, but I don't think you'll get very many people to switch, even if your method made life easier and simpler.
After all, I imagine you're still using a QWERTY keyboard. :)
-
Most consumers are logical, and have switched to a single number: MegaPixels.
I guess you could could also have a megapixel equivalent for a certain SNR or something. That would take both chip surface, QE and other factors into account.
Edmund
Very logical, but I don't think you'll get very many people to switch, even if your method made life easier and simpler.
After all, I imagine you're still using a QWERTY keyboard. :)
-
Most consumers are logical, and have switched to a single number: MegaPixels.
I guess you could could also have a megapixel equivalent for a certain SNR or something. That would take both chip surface, QE and other factors into account.
Edmund
They are not that logical for there is some confusion still between mega pixels and million pixels. A 16 megapixel camera would be pretty crap in reality.
-
They are not that logical for there is some confusion still between mega pixels and million pixels. A 16 megapixel camera would be pretty crap in reality.
I disagree: with a decent CFA and mounted on a scanning tripod it might make a really good 16 band teleradiometer :)
Edmund
PS Wine of the night was Côte Rôtie.
-
Hi BC,
the CEO of the Management Board of Leica Camera AG is Alfred Schopf. Before he was at ARRI, see, http://www.corporate.leica-camera.com/investor_relations/board/
"... From 2001 until 2004 Mr. Schopf, as head of management and CEO, respectively, directed the business of ARRI, Munich, a company leading the world market in motion picture cameras..."
Best,
Johannes
Humm That explains Leicas new Summilux-C and Summicron-C lines of cinema lenses.