Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ronno on September 20, 2007, 01:57:51 pm
-
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16918/leaf-afi/ (http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16918/leaf-afi/)
-
Wow looking very cool.
Will look into testdriving one when I get the chance.
-
Wow looking very cool.
Will look into testdriving one when I get the chance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is that the Hy6 under Leaf brand with Leaf back? Any info on pricing?
-
Is that the Hy6 under Leaf brand with Leaf back?
Yes, same camera.
-
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16918/leaf-afi/ (http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16918/leaf-afi/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know it is not out yet but if anyone knows:
so if you want to shoot vertical do you spin whichever digi back your using like an RZ film back? if so, is it easily done or is it a hassle?
-
I know it is not out yet but if anyone knows:
so if you want to shoot vertical do you spin whichever digi back your using like an RZ film back? if so, is it easily done or is it a hassle?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At the moment you have to remove the back to change the orientation. A revolving back is in the works I was told by the Leaf rep who was visiting Australia with a prototype body a few weeks ago. Due to ship sometime in October was the information.
-
At the moment you have to remove the back to change the orientation. A revolving back is in the works I was told by the Leaf rep who was visiting Australia with a prototype body a few weeks ago. Due to ship sometime in October was the information.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Looks like there is room in product numbering scheme for a Leaf AFi 8. That would be a (square) 44mp back. Which would get my attention.
-
Looks like there is room in product numbering scheme for a Leaf AFi 8. That would be a (square) 44mp back. Which would get my attention.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would only require a change of the back. The camera already supports it.
-
That would only require a change of the back. The camera already supports it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Am I the only one who wishes manufacturers name their digital backs according to their resolution?
- Why can't it be AFi-22, AFi-28, and AFi-33?
- Why can't it be P39 instead of P45, and P18 instead of P21?
Yeesh...
-
Am I the only one who wishes manufacturers name their digital backs according to their resolution?
- Why can't it be AFi-22, AFi-28, and AFi-33?
- Why can't it be P39 instead of P45, and P18 instead of P21?
Yeesh...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140854\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're not alone!
I'd add that the Leaf A75 is probably the most misleading number out there... coming from the A22 where the figure used to mean something.
Now, the new Leaf numbers are actually better IMHO since they don't even pretend to relate to resolution anymore.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looks like a closed system to me. Why isn't anybody raising hackles?
-
Looks like a closed system to me. Why isn't anybody raising hackles?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well it will work with HY6 bits and sinar backs too (hopefully)
And old rollei lenses
TH of sinar has hinted that phase is welcome to make a back for it too
----
Ths body is still well short of lenses; the 35 is known to be in development
If the 35 is released but only works the the 'Aptus85' and/or 'SinarEmotion95'* for some reason then there will be noise - loud noise
S
(*yes I made them up)
-
Looks like a closed system to me. Why isn't anybody raising hackles?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
must be the plentiful number of lenses available plus the fact that those lenses are interchangeable with the Sinar Hy6 system.
plus the fact that the Leaf back is much sexier than the imacon/hasselblad system
heh heh
-
well Sam, if you want to put it this way, that I welcomed ....
- What I said precisely: it is up tp any back manufacturer to first decide, then possibly mynufacture an adapter for a given camera, never the other way round.
- the 35mm is well on the track and shouldn't take that long to be available after the Hy6 release. Plans are still begin of 2007.
Best regards,
Thierry
TH of sinar has hinted that phase is welcome to make a back for it too
----
Ths body is still well short of lenses; the 35 is known to be in development
If the 35 is released but only works the the 'Aptus85' and/or 'SinarEmotion95'* for some reason then there will be noise - loud noise
S
(*yes I made them up)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
well Sam, if you want to put it this way, that I welcomed ....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
TH can you clarify
1) Bits from the HY6 /AFI are interchangable
2) Sinar backs will work on AFI
3) Leaf backs will work on HY6
4) Future lenses will 'work'* with current backs
5) Phase can just do it or they need to pay a license to someone
SMM
*accepted they may 'work' better with future backs
-
Sam,
1. bits? If you mean accessories, yes, that is planed so
2. yes, it is planed so
3. yes, it is planed so as well
4. future lenses will work the same with all supported Sinarbacks
5. you can "force" nobody to pay a license to make a mechanical adapter, without the electronical communication between back and camera.
Best regards,
Thierry
TH can you clarify
1) Bits from the HY6 /AFI are interchangable
2) Sinar backs will work on AFI
3) Leaf backs will work on HY6
4) Future lenses will 'work'* with current backs
5) Phase can just do it or they need to pay a license to someone
SMM
*accepted they may 'work' better with future backs
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
5. you can "force" nobody to pay a license to make a mechanical adapter, without the electronical communication between back and camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I read this as:
Yes, but if Phase does not want to use a sync-cable, they have to fork out for licencing fees on the communications protocol.
As Phase has a sleeping architecture, they are in need of the communications protocol, if not, every phase back owner will need to "wake up the back" before they can shoot...
Basically Phase will have to pay a licencing fee, if they want to come onboard. Unless they are barred from licencing the software/firmware protocol... then its not going to happen at all, and when/if the H2 goes out of production, Phase owners are stuck with RZ's and LF cameras for fast flash sync (and probably some other camera i don't remember right now.)
Strange that Kodak, who owns leaf, and who sell a lot of sensors inside Phase bodies, are not shuffeling some wheight around in this matter, it could mean long term sensor sales will slope if everyting plays out for the worst. (And it is really stupid, the way the industry is going with less and less compatibility... i like my toolkit to turn every nut that exists, utopia of course )
-axel
-
I kinda agree with you here.
It also does sound like there is an option to license the communication protocols. It is only normal to pay for other peoples technology. The big question is how much and what will you get in return?
-
Basically Phase will have to pay a licencing fee, if they want to come onboard. Unless they are barred from licencing the software/firmware protocol... then its not going to happen at all, and when/if the H2 goes out of production, Phase owners are stuck with RZ's and LF cameras for fast flash sync (and probably some other camera i don't remember right now.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who said that those licenses were for sales?
My understanding was that Sinar and Leaf had agreed to keep PhaseOne out of this platform altogether without any possibility for PhaseOne to join.
I'd love to be wrong, since it is totally obvious to me that Sinar is shooting oneself in the foot, legs and arms by not opening up their platform more.
We are just one year away from the next generation of MFDB sensors, and nothing says that the Dalsa sensors currently used by Sinar and Leaf will still be competitive compared to the next generation sensors from Kodak used by PhaseOne and Hassy. Buying into the Hy6 platform might very well mean lock oneself out of the next winning sensors.
Regards,
Bernard
-
?
We are just one year away from the next generation of MFDB sensors, and nothing says that the Dalsa sensors currently used by Sinar and Leaf will still be competitive compared to the next generation sensors from Kodak used by PhaseOne and Hassy. Buying into the Hy6 platform might very well mean lock oneself out of the next winning sensors.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sinar uses Dalsa AND Kodak sensors for different lines of product. 54m and 54h are Kodak.
Yevgeny
-
Sinar uses Dalsa AND Kodak sensors for different lines of product. 54m and 54h are Kodak.
Yevgeny
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a matter of fact Kodak and Sinar jointly developed the chip that was used in 54H and later in the H25 and Imacon 132 backs. Sinar had an exclusive 1 year option on that chip in the very beginning.
Sinar has evaluated all the chips and they have designed backs around what they have felt are the best chip for the back. The 23 back was a Phillips (became Dalsa), the 44 was a Kodak chip, the 43 back was a dalsa, the 54H and 54M backs are Kodak, and now the Emotion 54, Emotion 75 and Evolution 75 are all Dalsa. The current backs being all dalsa probably more reflects the jenoptik influence since I believe all of their backs have always been dalsa.
However I do remember being told that both the 33mp dalsa and 39 mp Kodak were heavily tested before they made their choice.
-
So it is: thanks Mat, for the clarifications about sensors.
Nobody will be locked out by investing in the Hy6, should new (winning) sensors be out.
Thierry
As a matter of fact Kodak and Sinar jointly developed the chip that was used in 54H and later in the H25 and Imacon 132 backs. Sinar had an exclusive 1 year option on that chip in the very beginning.
Sinar has evaluated all the chips and they have designed backs around what they have felt are the best chip for the back. The 23 back was a Phillips (became Dalsa), the 44 was a Kodak chip, the 43 back was a dalsa, the 54H and 54M backs are Kodak, and now the Emotion 54, Emotion 75 and Evolution 75 are all Dalsa. The current backs being all dalsa probably more reflects the jenoptik influence since I believe all of their backs have always been dalsa.
However I do remember being told that both the 33mp dalsa and 39 mp Kodak were heavily tested before they made their choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
So it is: thanks Mat, for the clarifications about sensors.
Nobody will be locked out by investing in the Hy6, should new (winning) sensors be out.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
and i hardly doubt that kodak will become in the next generation "the" better sensor.
as it seems to me dalsa is still with the current generation the better sensor at lower isos,
only hi-iso performance of the kodaks is better,- but stil far away from canon and probably of the new nikons.
-
and nothing says that the Dalsa sensors currently used by Sinar and Leaf will still be competitive compared to the next generation sensors from Kodak used by PhaseOne and Hassy. Buying into the Hy6 platform might very well mean lock oneself out of the next winning sensors.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
equally...
and nothing says that the Kodak sensors currently used by PhaseOne and Hassy will still be competitive compared to the next generation sensors from Dalsa used by Sinar and Leaf. Buying into the Hassy platform might very well mean lock oneself out of the next winning sensors.
-
Who said that those licenses were for sales?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I certainly did'nt, if you read the next bit of my sentence...
Unless they are barred from licencing the software/firmware protocol... then its not going to happen at all, ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'd add that the Leaf A75 is probably the most misleading number out there... coming from the A22 where the figure used to mean something.
Bernard,
my guess:
A54 = more or less 5000x4000Pix = 22MPix
A65 = more or less 6000x5000Pix = 28MPix
A75 = more or less 7000x5000Pix = 33MPix
not mathematicaly correct, but it gives you the idea...
-
Certainly, that's how they were named, but which photographer thinks that way, who here even knows what 4000, 5000, 6000, and 7000 pixels translates into?
my guess:
A54 = more or less 5000x4000Pix = 22MPix
A65 = more or less 6000x5000Pix = 28MPix
A75 = more or less 7000x5000Pix = 33MPix
not mathematicaly correct, but it gives you the idea...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Of course, it's an interesting question exactly what "testing" and "design" means these days, in Switzerland and in Japan.
When Japan's Canon "design" a camera around a CMOS sensor, they actually spec a custom CMOS process, design and make a stepper (with thir own optics) for a "fullframe" sensor, lay out a line which can run their process, and then fab the chips they designed on the production line they designed and built using their own production equipment, partly. Oh, and they also design some image processing (Digic) chips but those aren't necessarily run off on the same line, but maybe another process line which they also made. And by the way, they also make the camera body but this includes some purchased sub-assemblies. If the whole camera doesn't work well, then you can bet that the appropriate department in the process above will be told to improve its components !
In contrast, the back companies are hostage to their suppliers, regarding chip specs, and even the quality of the delivered chips.
Edmund
As a matter of fact Kodak and Sinar jointly developed the chip that was used in 54H and later in the H25 and Imacon 132 backs. Sinar had an exclusive 1 year option on that chip in the very beginning.
Sinar has evaluated all the chips and they have designed backs around what they have felt are the best chip for the back. The 23 back was a Phillips (became Dalsa), the 44 was a Kodak chip, the 43 back was a dalsa, the 54H and 54M backs are Kodak, and now the Emotion 54, Emotion 75 and Evolution 75 are all Dalsa. The current backs being all dalsa probably more reflects the jenoptik influence since I believe all of their backs have always been dalsa.
However I do remember being told that both the 33mp dalsa and 39 mp Kodak were heavily tested before they made their choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Certainly, that's how they were named, but which photographer thinks that way, who here even knows what 4000, 5000, 6000, and 7000 pixels translates into?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You probably meant those as rhetorical questions, but hey.
I won't say that working knowledge of photometrics and photogrammetry never hurt anyone, but I'm still fine.
As for the translations, at the physical sensor level:
(pixel count) * (pixel size) = (frame dimension)
(frame dimension) / (pixel count) = (pixel size)
Yes, I'm conflating pixel and photosite. Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.
-H.
-
Deleted
-
equally...
and nothing says that the Kodak sensors currently used by PhaseOne and Hassy will still be competitive compared to the next generation sensors from Dalsa used by Sinar and Leaf. Buying into the Hassy platform might very well mean lock oneself out of the next winning sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are absolutely correct. Mamiya is the only platform today that is proven to be open.
All the rest is theoretical marketing talk.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As Thierry already pointed out only Phase can decide to make an adapter for the Hy6.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry was very careful in his wording, he only mentioned mechanial adapter and never discussed in details the electronical aspects of the deal... that are obviously the important ones.
But if Phase would like to make full use of the electronic couplings of the Hy6 (WB sensor for example) they will have to take a license from Jenoptik. Jenoptik has the exclusive right to decide who is to have access to the firmware and who isn't, when it comes to digital backs. That is why the maker of the camera, F&H, will offer the Hy6 as a film-camera only (which can take digital backs from both Leaf and Sinar).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let me ask again, does this really depend on Phaseone willingness to pay a license?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let me ask again, does this really depend on Phaseone willingness to pay a license?
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
2 days... no answer... my personnal conclusion is that Phaseone would not be able to join the Hy6 wagon even if they were willing to pay a reasonnably prices licence fee.
I would of course love to be proven wrong with a clear statement from Thierry on this but I don't think we will get such a statement.
My personnal view on this situation is that Sinar is trying to protect their backs the same way Hasselblad is by preventing a serious competitor from being able to offer their backs on the Hy6 platform.
That is of course their prerogative, but it will prevent me from considering the Hy6 platform the same way I am not considering the Hassy platform.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
2 days... no answer... my personnal conclusion is that Phaseone would not be able to join the Hy6 wagon even if they were willing to pay a reasonnably prices licence fee.
I would of course love to be proven wrong with a clear statement from Thierry on this but I don't think we will get such a statement.
My personnal view on this situation is that Sinar is trying to protect their backs the same way Hasselblad is by preventing a serious competitor from being able to offer their backs on the Hy6 platform.
That is of course their prerogative, but it will prevent me from considering the Hy6 platform the same way I am not considering the Hassy platform.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
According to Sinars new(?) website they are an "open interface for user-friendly back adaptations", I iamgine user-friendly translates to those that have paid a license fee Interesting to note, that the Hy6 advertises the rotatable back, yet the leaf AfI will not be able to rotate on the same camera?!?! How open of a platform is it really?
-
According to Sinars new(?) website they are an "open interface for user-friendly back adaptations", I iamgine user-friendly translates to those that have paid a license fee Interesting to note, that the Hy6 advertises the rotatable back, yet the leaf AfI will not be able to rotate on the same camera?!?! How open of a platform is it really?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe that the adapter which attaches the digital back to the camera, and is NOT PART OF THE CAMERA is the part which will allow rotation, in the case of Sinar. Leaf could obviously do the same with their own adapter if they so choose.
2 days... no answer... my personnal conclusion is that Phaseone would not be able to join the Hy6 wagon even if they were willing to pay a reasonnably prices licence fee.
I think you are jumping to conclusions. It is up to P1 to approach Sinar about this. Can anyone confirm that P1 is even interested and approached Sinar? And if so, what was the response? I didn't think so
Even if Sinar is being protectionist, this is still a more open platform than Hasselblad. The new camera and lenses work with old bodies and old backs. There is nothing like the 28mm Hassy lens fiasco. Furthermore, you will always be able to buy/rent backs from two companies to work with this system. more choice is a good thing, right?
-
I think you are jumping to conclusions. It is up to P1 to approach Sinar about this. Can anyone confirm that P1 is even interested and approached Sinar? And if so, what was the response? I didn't think so
Even if Sinar is being protectionist, this is still a more open platform than Hasselblad. The new camera and lenses work with old bodies and old backs. There is nothing like the 28mm Hassy lens fiasco. Furthermore, you will always be able to buy/rent backs from two companies to work with this system. more choice is a good thing, right?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, I'd really love to be proven wrong. I have nothing against Sinar and would consider the platform at a certain point of time if I were convinced that it has enough potential and openess.
All it would take is a clear statement publicly explaining what it would take for Phaseone of any other vendor to be able to integrate their backs with the Hy6 platform. The very fact that such clear communication is missing is fishy to start with. We all know how marketing tries to bend realities and turn shortcomings into features.
The Hy6 is indeed probably more open that the H3D, and people with an existing set of lenses will for sure benefit from the platform, but it is far from enough to convince newcomers who have other options like Mamiya that is fully open, cheaper and has also a very credible lens line up (better on the wide end).
Regards,
Bernard
-
The Hy6 is indeed probably more open that the H3D, and people with an existing set of lenses will for sure benefit from the platform, but it is far from enough to convince newcomers who have other options like Mamiya that is fully open, cheaper and has also a very credible lens line up (better on the wide end).
Well you make a good point about the price of Mamiya and the 28mm lens, but the system has no waist level finder option, and the flash sync is only 1/125. This won't matter to some people but for others it could be a deal breaker. There is more of a difference between these systems than mere price.
I'd be concerned about Mamiya being able to keep up, after the extremely slow delivery of new products over the past few years. Again, if you can find all you need from the used market then that may not be a concern.
-
Even if Sinar is being protectionist, this is still a more open platform than Hasselblad. The new camera and lenses work with old bodies and old backs. There is nothing like the 28mm Hassy lens fiasco. Furthermore, you will always be able to buy/rent backs from two companies to work with this system. more choice is a good thing, right?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've always been curious as to why I've never seen a discussion regarding "open" or "closed" digital backs. If you own a Leaf or Phase One back for Hasselblad "V" or "H" or Contax or Rollei etc. and you'd really love to use your back with a 28mm lens on an SLR body–why not buy the Mamiya 28mm lens and body (an "open system"), take off the digital back camera mount, mount a Mamiya 645 plate and switch back and forth with your existing system? It isn't the most convenient solution, but it's easily done by removing four screws and attaching a different camera mount. The back is part of an "open" system is it not?... or is it only cameras that are "open" or "closed"?
Of course, I'm trying to stir a little thoughtful debate as I realize that you (the user) can't switch Leaf or Phase from one 6x6 or 645 system to another by interchangeable camera adapters. Other digital backs will let you do that. More choice is a good thing, right?
So the question is... are some digital backs part of a "closed system" by limiting what cameras you can use them with, while other backs are "open systems" that let you switch camera makes and models as you desire? Just wondering if only cameras are considered "open or closed".
Please wait while I get my fire-retardant suit. It could get warm in here.
-
Dear Bernard,
as written by foto_z, it is not up to Sinar to state anything about Phase's possibility/willingness or readiness to jump onto the Hy6 wagon. It is Phase which has to clarify this question, if somebody.
I say it again, for the 3rd or 4th time on this forum: it has ALWAYS been the back manufacturer's prerogative to look for an adaption of his back to a certain camera platform, NEVER the other way round, and therefore to INFORM the market accordingly.
So I wont make any statement on this which could prove me wrong in the future.
Please understand this and do not take all as things which need to be hidden from the users. There is nothing fishy here, or if, then be honest and admit that it's fishy from both sides.
I have been here for quite some time, trying to give as reliable information as possible. It is difficult enough, with situations changing sometimes and proving yourself wrong a few weeks after having made an "official" statement. Don't ask for me to make claims which are not my or Sinar's specific prerogative.
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
You know, I'd really love to be proven wrong. I have nothing against Sinar and would consider the platform at a certain point of time if I were convinced that it has enough potential and openess.
All it would take is a clear statement publicly explaining what it would take for Phaseone of any other vendor to be able to integrate their backs with the Hy6 platform. The very fact that such clear communication is missing is fishy to start with. We all know how marketing tries to bend realities and turn shortcomings into features.
The Hy6 is indeed probably more open that the H3D, and people with an existing set of lenses will for sure benefit from the platform, but it is far from enough to convince newcomers who have other options like Mamiya that is fully open, cheaper and has also a very credible lens line up (better on the wide end).
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
"User-Friendly": easy to operate, understand or deal with = our definition (and most dictionaries).
Why trying to distort words or intentions?
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
According to Sinars new(?) website they are an "open interface for user-friendly back adaptations", I iamgine user-friendly translates to those that have paid a license fee [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thanks EPd!
Basically right.
Best regards,
Thierry
Bernard,
Despite the fact that you quote from my statement it seems you didn't really read it. I tried to explain the situation with Jenoptik, but you still seem to think that Sinar and Leaf are locking out any others. They have nothing to say about this (theoretically). It is up to Jenoptik to sell licenses and it is up to Phase to ask if they could join the party. So far there is no information available to me that Phase has shown any interest in joining the platform. Nor is there any information known to me that Jenoptik would be willing to make a deal with Phase. Those who do know probably keep their mouth shut wisely. Obviously nor Thierry or Yair are the ones to comment on this either.
Please re-read my statement and digest it slowly: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=140984 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19705&view=findpost&p=140984)
EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I've always been curious as to why I've never seen a discussion regarding "open" or "closed" digital backs. If you own a Leaf or Phase One back for Hasselblad "V" or "H" or Contax or Rollei etc. and you'd really love to use your back with a 28mm lens on an SLR body–why not buy the Mamiya 28mm lens and body (an "open system"), take off the digital back camera mount, mount a Mamiya 645 plate and switch back and forth with your existing system? It isn't the most convenient solution, but it's easily done by removing four screws and attaching a different camera mount. The back is part of an "open" system is it not?... or is it only cameras that are "open" or "closed"?
Of course, I'm trying to stir a little thoughtful debate as I realize that you (the user) can't switch Leaf or Phase from one 6x6 or 645 system to another by interchangeable camera adapters. Other digital backs will let you do that. More choice is a good thing, right?
So the question is... are some digital backs part of a "closed system" by limiting what cameras you can use them with, while other backs are "open systems" that let you switch camera makes and models as you desire? Just wondering if only cameras are considered "open or closed".
Please wait while I get my fire-retardant suit. It could get warm in here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi TT,
No need for a fire retardant suit.
Personally, I cannot see that the Hy6/Sinar combo and the Leaf/AFi combo are any less closed than the H3D.
Economically you will be better off buying the respective packages from each company. Who would buy a Hy6 body from Sinar and then try and buy a Leaf Afi back seperately???? Nobody!!
I don't even think Leaf offer the AFi back as a seperate item? Prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.
Maybe in theory you could swap between the two platforms but economically this is always going to be prohibitive.
So in my opinion both systems are no more 'open' than an H3D. Looking at the latest integrated deveopments from Hasselblad then I only look forward to more development in this line rather than worry about if I need to change platform. Again the economic loss of changing all my lenses over would not bear thinking about!! Eh!!
Jo S.x
PS Can I borrow your flame suit now?
-
Good point and good question.
Thierry
I've always been curious as to why I've never seen a discussion regarding "open" or "closed" digital backs. If you own a Leaf or Phase One back for Hasselblad "V" or "H" or Contax or Rollei etc. and you'd really love to use your back with a 28mm lens on an SLR body–why not buy the Mamiya 28mm lens and body (an "open system"), take off the digital back camera mount, mount a Mamiya 645 plate and switch back and forth with your existing system? It isn't the most convenient solution, but it's easily done by removing four screws and attaching a different camera mount. The back is part of an "open" system is it not?... or is it only cameras that are "open" or "closed"?
Of course, I'm trying to stir a little thoughtful debate as I realize that you (the user) can't switch Leaf or Phase from one 6x6 or 645 system to another by interchangeable camera adapters. Other digital backs will let you do that. More choice is a good thing, right?
So the question is... are some digital backs part of a "closed system" by limiting what cameras you can use them with, while other backs are "open systems" that let you switch camera makes and models as you desire? Just wondering if only cameras are considered "open or closed".
Please wait while I get my fire-retardant suit. It could get warm in here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Before the question comes to me, here the answer:
Sinar offers the Hy6 separately, without back, and offers any back separately and without the need to buy a Hy6.
Best regards,
Thierry
I don't even think Leaf offer the AFi back as a seperate item? Prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.
Jo S.x
PS Can I borrow your flame suit now?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Good point and good question.
Thierry
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=142101\")
Thierry,
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
To add fuel to the fire and clarify for those that are not aware of the differnces:
Sinar "open system" backs allow you to interchange the camera mount anytime you wish through a simple adapter plate system. This permits the back you buy to fit on nearly any camera body you wish at any time you choose and switch back and forth whenever you like. [a href=\"http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1780-50-1901.html]Link to Sinar Camera Adapters[/url]
Also Hasselblad/Imacon Ixpress and Hasselblad CF series backs permit the same thing... Link to Ixpress/CF Camera Adapters (http://www.hasselblad.se/media/890fe86e-d85c-4295-9aa4-9705acfcbb12-CF_UK.pdf)
Both brands also offer combination multi-shot/single-shot backs, making them "open" to even more options for the user.
On the other hand, "closed" digital backs (Leaf and Phase One) limit you to one 6x6 or 645 camera system. No "open" consumer-friendly options.
-
On the other hand, "closed" digital backs (Leaf and Phase One) limit you to one 6x6 or 645 camera system. No "open" consumer-friendly options.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, this is what attracted me to Sinar backs after assuming for years that I'd get a Phase One back when the time came. It took the worry out of choosing the wrong camera platform and therefore digital back mount, and also gives me the opportunity to add a Mamiya 645AFD plus 28mm lens to my kit if I so choose. I would just need to buy the Mamiya adapter plate, and I would be able to swap the back in just a few minutes.
-
Can anyone tell me what the widest lens will be for the AfI or Hy6? I love to shoot very wide angle and so far there is nothing wider, medium-format wise, then the Hassy 28mm, the Mamiya converts to a 31 when used with a DB.
-
Indeed, this is what attracted me to Sinar backs after assuming for years that I'd get a Phase One back when the time came. It took the worry out of choosing the wrong camera platform and therefore digital back mount, and also gives me the opportunity to add a Mamiya 645AFD plus 28mm lens to my kit if I so choose. I would just need to buy the Mamiya adapter plate, and I would be able to swap the back in just a few minutes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just noticed from your signature that you have a Rollei 6008AF and Sinar eMotion22. A great combination and very versatile.
The most open of both worlds–an open camera system and an "open" digital back!
Enjoy!
-
Can anyone tell me what the widest lens will be for the AfI or Hy6? I love to shoot very wide angle and so far there is nothing wider, medium-format wise, then the Hassy 28mm, the Mamiya converts to a 31 when used with a DB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you considered something like a 6x9 camera with 24mm and 28mm lenses, with tilt and shift as an added bonus?
What do you mean by the Mamiya converts to a 31mm? A 28mm is a 28mm regardless of sensor/film size.
-
What do you mean by the Mamiya converts to a 31mm? A 28mm is a 28mm regardless of sensor/film size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but there is a crop factor due to the sensor being smaller than film, you'll notice on Mamiyas website they have different angles of view for the lens when it's used with film vs. being used with a DB.
-
Can anyone tell me what the widest lens will be for the AfI or Hy6? I love to shoot very wide angle and so far there is nothing wider, medium-format wise, then the Hassy 28mm, the Mamiya converts to a 31 when used with a DB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
a 28mm is a 28mm. The H3D with 28mm or Mamiya with 28mm have the same field of view with the same size sensor.
The focal length remains the same, but you will have a slightly wider field of view with film.
-
a 28mm is a 28mm. The H3D with 28mm or Mamiya with 28mm have the same field of view with the same size sensor.
The focal length remains the same, but you will have a slightly wider field of view with film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly
-
the shortest lens available on the Hy6 will be a 35mm
FYI: a 28mm lens (as well as any other focal length), is and remains a 28mm for the 135 format, for the 6x4.5 format, for the 6x6, etc, .... as well as for a 48.0 x 36.0 mm sensor (33 MPx) or any other sensor size. The focal length DOES NEVER change, the effect achieved with the lens DOES.
Best regards,
Thierry
Can anyone tell me what the widest lens will be for the AfI or Hy6? I love to shoot very wide angle and so far there is nothing wider, medium-format wise, then the Hassy 28mm, the Mamiya converts to a 31 when used with a DB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yes, but there is a crop factor due to the sensor being smaller than film, you'll notice on Mamiyas website they have different angles of view for the lens when it's used with film vs. being used with a DB.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=142115\")
A brief explanation... [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml]Link to Focal Length/Crop Factor[/url]
-
the shortest lens available on the Hy6 will be a 35mm
FYI: a 28mm lens (as well as any other focal length), is and remains a 28mm for the 135 format, for the 6x4.5 format, for the 6x6, etc, .... as well as for a 48.0 x 36.0 mm sensor (33 MPx) or any other sensor size. The focal length DOES NEVER change, the effect achieved with the lens DOES.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's exactly what I'm talking about, the mamiya 28 will not give me as wide angle a view on a DB as the Hassy 28mm.
-
That's exactly what I'm talking about, the mamiya 28 will not give me as wide angle a view on a DB as the Hassy 28mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please read the above posts again. I don't think you've quite grasped the relationship between focal length, sensor size and FOV.
The Mamiya and Hasselblad 28mm lenses will give the very same FOV when used with the same sensor size.
-
wrong! a Hasselbld 28mm will give you EXACTLY the same "crop" as the Mamiya 28mm, as well as ANY other 28mm on a given film- or sensor format.
Best regards,
Thierry
That's exactly what I'm talking about, the mamiya 28 will not give me as wide angle a view on a DB as the Hassy 28mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Please read the above posts again. I don't think you've quite grasped the relationship between focal length, sensor size and FOV.
The Mamiya and Hasselblad 28mm lenses will give the very same FOV when used with the same sensor size.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=142122\")
Goto Mamiyas website, I'll make it easy and give you the link here - [a href=\"http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2284&id3=2285]http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2284&id3=2285[/url] - now scroll down and read the specs, notice how they change from film to Digital.
Any lens you use on any camera where the actual sensor size is smaller than the actual film size gives you a crop factor and makes the lens appear longer then it is. It's like a Canon 1Ds MarkIII which has a full frame chip vs a 1D MarkIII which has a smaller chip and has a 1.3x Lens focal length conversion factor. All of the Hasselblad HC lenses will also have this conversion factor when used with a DB, it happens to be 1.1x when used with a 22 or 39mp sensor. The 28 is an HCD lens and is a true 28mm for digital coverage.
-
Is this a joke? That site refers to FOV, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT focal length.
Now let's return this thread to the topic of Hy6/AFi cameras....please!
-
that's where you don't understand and are mislead (by some marketing BS?):
If one calls this full-frame or whatever, a 28mm is a 28mm, period. In other words, the Hasselblad 28mm will produce the exactly SAME image when used on a 33MPx Hasselblad back, or a 33 MPx Leaf back, or a 33 Mpx Sinar back.
Best regards,
Thierry
The 28 is an HCD lens and is a true 28mm for digital coverage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Is this a joke? That site refers to FOV, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT focal length.
Now let's return this thread to the topic of Hy6/AFi cameras....please!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thats exactly what I'm talking about! I want to take the widest angle picture possible.
And to return to the thread, I apprciate Thierry actually answering the original question.
-
sorry, if I have to ask: what was the original question of this tread?! it actually started with a link and with no question.
And it seems that I have answered all and any request here.
Please correct me if wrong.
Best regards,
Thierry
And to return to the thread, I apprciate Thierry actually answering the original question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Goto Mamiyas website, I'll make it easy and give you the link here - http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2284&id3=2285 (http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2284&id3=2285) - now scroll down and read the specs, notice how they change from film to Digital.
Any lens you use on any camera where the actual sensor size is smaller than the actual film size gives you a crop factor and makes the lens appear longer then it is. It's like a Canon 1Ds MarkIII which has a full frame chip vs a 1D MarkIII which has a smaller chip and has a 1.3x Lens focal length conversion factor. All of the Hasselblad HC lenses will also have this conversion factor when used with a DB, it happens to be 1.1x when used with a 22 or 39mp sensor. The 28 is an HCD lens and is a true 28mm for digital coverage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A 28mm lens has a fixed field of view for any given film/sensor format. Period.
Because sensor and film sizes vary, the terms "equivalent" focal length or "crop factor" are used to help give a rough idea of the change in view DUE TO THE CHANGE IN FILM OR SENSOR SIZE. The focal length, however is the focal length AND NEVER CHANGES.
The image circle a lens projects can vary, however, WITHOUT CHANGING THE FOCAL LENGTH. The Hasselblad 28mm has a smaller image circle matched to the sensor size in an effort to improve resolution.
-
Interesting analogy!
Thierry
It's like calling a fart an "interesting flavour".
EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Greg,
In order to conceal the shortcoming of this lens Hasselblad calls it "full frame". EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What shortcoming are you refering to? "Digital" view camera lenses have much smaller image circles than "film" view camera lenses. This is not to "conceal" a "digital" view camera lens "shortcoming". The purpose is to allow the lens design to concentrate the resolving power in a smaller area in order to increase resolution. This is an over simplification, but optical design is a rather complex subject for discussion in depth on a message board.
Any input Thierry?
-
No special input from me on this particular lens, although I know a good friend of mine using it and happy with the result itself (after correction). I cannot comment on "if it effectively resolves more or better" due to this particular construction. This has to be proven.
Lens design is complicated enough to start a discussion in depth here, right. Not only is the design itself relevant, but as well the assembling of each lens: when one knows that from one same lens type to the other they are (sometimes huge) differences in rendition and in overall quality, then better not startind this discussion!
I would however (and this is only my opinion) question the correction of aberrations by software means (again, only my opinion). This has certainly also its limitations, if not disadvantages.
Best regards,
Thierry
What shortcoming are you refering to? "Digital" view camera lenses have much smaller image circles than "film" view camera lenses. This is not to "conceal" a "digital" view camera lens "shortcoming". The purpose is to allow the lens design to concentrate the resolving power in a smaller area in order to increase resolution. This is an over simplification, but optical design is a rather complex subject for discussion in depth on a message board.
Any input Thierry?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
No special input from me on this particular lens, although I know a good friend of mine using it and happy with the result itself (after correction). I cannot comment on "if it effectively resolves more or better" due to this particular construction. This has to be proven.
Lens design is complicated enough to start a discussion in depth here, right. Not only is the design itself relevant, but as well the assembling of each lens: when one knows that from one same lens type to the other they are (sometimes huge) differences in rendition and in overall quality, then better not startind this discussion!
I would however (and this is only my opinion) question the correction of aberrations by software means (again, only my opinion). This has certainly also its limitations, if not disadvantages.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for your feedback. Optical design requires consideration of a long series of trade-offs in design to acheive the desired end result. Time will tell if incorporating software correction into the actual lens design yields tangible benefits in actual application.
Regarding my (over simplified) notion as to why Sinar (and Rodenstock and Schneider) digital view lenses have much smaller image circles than their film counterparts–is the purpose basically to permit higher resolution than is practical with large film image circles?
Some cynic might wonder if digital view lens makers are charging a higher price for less coverage to conceal a devious plot to fool consumers into paying more for less!
-
What shortcoming are you refering to? "Digital" view camera lenses have much smaller image circles than "film" view camera lenses. This is not to "conceal" a "digital" view camera lens "shortcoming". The purpose is to allow the lens design to concentrate the resolving power in a smaller area in order to increase resolution. This is an over simplification, but optical design is a rather complex subject for discussion in depth on a message board.
Any input Thierry?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My guess is they constrained the imagine circle to cover the chip only. If it was used say with a film back and full 6x4.5 film you would more than likely start to see fall off as you get to the edges of the image circle.
If you take an extremely wide angle view camera lens, as you get to the edges of the image circle you will gradually see a fall off. Hence the need for graduated center filters for these lenses.
My guess is Hasselblad took a lens to the point they needed and no further. What could be worse than someone complaining about a crappy lens on 6x4.5 film that it was never designed for?
-
You're welcome!
I would like to detail a bit the reasons and causes (of the need or not) of lens resolution.
Speaking about film: basically yes, LF vs. MF lenses do have bigger image circles (thus a bigger lens angle) BUT need less resolution due to the film size used (which "compensates" for this "lack" of resolution), same for MF vs. SF lenses. But this is (IMO) not chosen by the lens manufacturers: it is simply much more difficult, if not impossible to get the same resolution on the whole coverage of such a LF lens (and if possible, at which price?).
Further, LF lenses DO NEED to have much larger image circles as the film size used (4x5", 5x7" or 8x10") to enable doing the movements like shifts, tilts and swings. This is quite different than a given MF lens (or SF lens) which is used on a MF fixed body (or SF fixed body) and without movement possibilities. So there is a kind of compromise made here: less resolution at the edge BUT possibilties of shifts/tilts/swings with a 4x5" film.
It is basically a fact that any good SF lens and any good MF lens will "out-power" a LF (film) lens: they simply don't have the necessary coverage (lens angle) for LF.
If one considers now "LF" digital (understand "LF" here as "view camera"): since the sensors currently used are "much" smaller than almost any given MF film format (6x12; 6x9; 6x6, with the exception of 645), it needs basically less image circle on these "LF" digital lenses, first to cover and then even to allow significant and sufficient movements of the sensor within the image circle. That's basically why the "LF" digital lenses have such a smaller image circle. One does simply not need it to be bigger since it simply needs to cover much less surface. But also important is, that it needs much less shift/tilt/swing possibilities on a smaller capture medium: a Scheimpflug angle of e.g. 5°-10° on a 4x5" format would need about 1°-2° for the same sharpness plane on a digital sensor (for the same image crop).
If one considers now MF digital (without shift, tilt or swing possibilities), then it becomes obviously more logical (for a lens manuacturer) to concentrate the efforts on "narrowing" the lens angle to the specific used sensor size. This is what it is all about with the 28mm Hasselblad. To which extend it has effectively increased the resolving power of this lens by designing it this way, is something I cannot answer (if there is an increased resolution, which has to be proven), for not having been able to compare it with another "traditional" 28mm designed for MF film and then used on such a digital sensor. And to which extend this has an effective and visual effect on the resulting prints, with the current sensors, this is also something which I am unable to say. I personnaly doubt it has. But then again, it is only my personal opinion and "guess": don't put me at the point of your gun.
For me it seems at the moment more important and relevant to have a 35mm lens available for the Hy6, which has certainly (obviously!) a longer focal length then a 28mm BUT, which covers the 6x6 format. That is certainly an advantage for possibly coming larger sensors AND for the use with film. Should a larger sensor come out in the near (or not so near) future, then obviously this very same 35mm will show its full importance and advantage over the 28mm which will be impossible to use on this larger format.
I can however understand the relevance and importance for some users of having a 28mm available now.
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
Thanks for your feedback. Optical design requires consideration of a long series of trade-offs in design to acheive the desired end result. Time will tell if incorporating software correction into the actual lens design yields tangible benefits in actual application.
Regarding my (over simplified) notion as to why Sinar (and Rodenstock and Schneider) digital view lenses have much smaller image circles than their film counterparts–is the purpose basically to permit higher resolution than is practical with large film image circles?
Some cynic might wonder if digital view lens makers are charging a higher price for less coverage to conceal a devious plot to fool consumers into paying more for less!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142137\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You're welcome!
But then again, it is only my personal opinion and "guess": don't put me at the point of your gun.
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your posts and replies are always thoughtful, honest, respectful and informative. Thanks for the thorough response.
-
Trying to be always honest and respectful is sometimes difficult, but IMO the biggest "asset" one can have.
This topic seems to come to its end (?), so it permits me to catch my flight in time: 11 hours in a plane are much tougher than being here on LL, believe me!
Best regards,
Thierry
Your posts and replies are always thoughtful, honest, respectful and informative. Thanks for the thorough response.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Any update regarding the 6*6 film back for the Hy6? Is it in production yet?
Thanks
Nik
BUT, which covers the 6x6 format. That is certainly an advantage for possibly coming larger sensors AND for the use with film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I wonder if one of the CF owners here (likely the only back that can be mounted on both platforms) can test the two mentioned 28mm lenses side by side with the same back and tell us what the differences are, in terms of resolution, sharpness, usable aperture range, falloff, distortion etc. (the latter being corrected by software or not).
Yair
-
Sorry,
I would love to do so however the CF cannot be used with the 28mm Hasselblad. I think you know that Yair
-
I've always been curious as to why I've never seen a discussion regarding "open" or "closed" digital backs. If you own a Leaf or Phase One back for Hasselblad "V" or "H" or Contax or Rollei etc. and you'd really love to use your back with a 28mm lens on an SLR body–why not buy the Mamiya 28mm lens and body (an "open system"), take off the digital back camera mount, mount a Mamiya 645 plate and switch back and forth with your existing system? It isn't the most convenient solution, but it's easily done by removing four screws and attaching a different camera mount. The back is part of an "open" system is it not?... or is it only cameras that are "open" or "closed"?
Of course, I'm trying to stir a little thoughtful debate as I realize that you (the user) can't switch Leaf or Phase from one 6x6 or 645 system to another by interchangeable camera adapters. Other digital backs will let you do that. More choice is a good thing, right?
So the question is... are some digital backs part of a "closed system" by limiting what cameras you can use them with, while other backs are "open systems" that let you switch camera makes and models as you desire? Just wondering if only cameras are considered "open or closed".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The best would be for everybody to sit around a table and define a comon interface, both mechanical and electronic that all bodies and backs would share.
As far as changing easily camera adapters on the back, sure that would be a most welcome feature if it can be done while ensuring the required level of tolerances.
It is true that camera and lenses end up looking cheap compared to the back and that there might be some people switching the whole system while keeping the back to be able to use a specific lens (like the Mamiya 28mm that I happen to own).
Regards,
Bernard
-
Sorry,
I would love to do so however the CF cannot be used with the 28mm Hasselblad. I think you know that Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So the next closest thing would be a P45/AFDII and the H3DII-39 I guess, as they both use the exact same sensor size so the debate about FOV, focus, coverage etc. can also be settled?
Yair
-
This feature/possiblity exists with Sinarbacks since the begining, easily and quickly (2 minutes for newcomers and 1 minute for others).
Best regards,
Thierry
As far as changing easily camera adapters on the back, sure that would be a most welcome feature if it can be done while ensuring the required level of tolerances.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Bernard,
as written by foto_z, it is not up to Sinar to state anything about Phase's possibility/willingness or readiness to jump onto the Hy6 wagon. It is Phase which has to clarify this question, if somebody.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear Thierry,
Thanks for your kind answer. I hope that you didn't get me wrong. This isn't against you, I have always been a fan of yours on this forum.
I am not denying that Phase has certainly its share of reponsibilities in the current situation, but although it is definitely for the backs to adapt to the body, you'll have to agree with me that body makers can make it next to impossible to play with them if they so decide.
Today, an objective viewer like me cannot help looking at the situation and think that Sinar is preventing Phase from joining. Indeed, why would phase not want to join and add more potential buyers of their products? Phase supports basically every existing MF platform including the deceased Contax, why would they not want to support Hy6 is they could?
So if your policy is indeed to let them join the wagon providing some conditions are met, it might be better from a PR standpoint to clarify the conditions in general terms. That would at least help convince me about the openess of the platform.
Enough said.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Dear Bernard,
Sure, I did not take it personnaly.
I understand your concern(s). I hope this shall be clarified in the near future.
BTW: coming to Tokyo next October 08th.
Best regards,
Thierry
Dear Thierry,
Thanks for your kind answer. I hope that you didn't get me wrong. This isn't against you, I have always been a fan of yours on this forum.
I am not denying that Phase has certainly its share of reponsibilities in the current situation, but although it is definitely for the backs to adapt to the body, you'll have to agree with me that body makers can make it next to impossible to play with them if they so decide.
Today, an objective viewer like me cannot help looking at the situation and think that Sinar is preventing Phase from joining. Indeed, why would phase not want to join and add more potential buyers of their products? Phase supports basically every existing MF platform including the deceased Contax, why would they not want to support Hy6 is they could?
So if your policy is indeed to let them join the wagon providing some conditions are met, it might be better from a PR standpoint to clarify the conditions in general terms. That would at least help convince me about the openess of the platform.
Enough said.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142168\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
So the next closest thing would be a P45/AFDII and the H3DII-39 I guess, as they both use the exact same sensor size so the debate about FOV, focus, coverage etc. can also be settled?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The next closest thing would be a CF-39/AFDII and a H3D-39 (the "mark II" has a different IR filter, while the CF-39 and H3D-39 have the same chip/IR filter.)
Doing this and processing both files in flexcolor or via DNG in ACR would produce a very similar result file wise and should reveal the lens differences nicely...
-axel
-
The next closest thing would be a CF-39/AFDII and a H3D-39 (the "mark II" has a different IR filter, while the CF-39 and H3D-39 have the same chip/IR filter.)
Doing this and processing both files in flexcolor or via DNG in ACR would produce a very similar result file wise and should reveal the lens differences nicely...
-axel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes you're right. I suggested Phase since I don't know anyone who uses a CF on an AFD/II...
Yair
-
Bernard,
Despite the fact that you quote from my statement it seems you didn't really read it. I tried to explain the situation with Jenoptik, but you still seem to think that Sinar and Leaf are locking out any others. They have nothing to say about this (theoretically). It is up to Jenoptik to sell licenses and it is up to Phase to ask if they could join the party. So far there is no information available to me that Phase has shown any interest in joining the platform. Nor is there any information known to me that Jenoptik would be willing to make a deal with Phase. Those who do know probably keep their mouth shut wisely. Obviously nor Thierry or Yair are the ones to comment on this either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epd,
Well... I hear what you are saying. My comments were not accurate.
Sinar might have nothing to do with this, Phase could be the bad guys, Jenoptik might be totally independant from Sinar, or be extremely close to them... I don't know and am in fact not really interested in knowing.
The end result is the same. We have a promising platform that is not supported by a key MFDB manufacturer... and that pretty much makes it a no go before even starting to consider it more in details.
Either way, I am not really shopping for a new high end solution at the moment, but I hope that the situation will have evolved for the better in one year from now or so.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To try and make things clearer; being involved in the Hy6/AFi project required a serious commitment from the partners on several levels: finance, R&D, marketing, future business development etc. and only two manufacturers were interested in doing so (and had the vision and resources for it).
Yair
-
To try and make things clearer; being involved in the Hy6/AFi project required a serious commitment from the partners on several levels: finance, R&D, marketing, future business development etc. and only two manufacturers were interested in doing so (and had the vision and resources for it).
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's indeed a lot more clear Yair. Thanks.
Regards,
Bernard
-
That's indeed a lot more clear Yair. Thanks.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I jumped in thisforum towards the end and dont have the patience to read back on my iPhone but I was told by my phase dealer that phase will have a back for the rolleiflex hy6.
-
Epd,
Well... I hear what you are saying. My comments were not accurate.
Sinar might have nothing to do with this, Phase could be the bad guys, Jenoptik might be totally independant from Sinar, or be extremely close to them... I don't know and am in fact not really interested in knowing.
The end result is the same. We have a promising platform that is not supported by a key MFDB manufacturer... and that pretty much makes it a no go before even starting to consider it more in details.
Either way, I am not really shopping for a new high end solution at the moment, but I hope that the situation will have evolved for the better in one year from now or so.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
Thru many contacts in the industry, including back manufacturers, camera manufacturers, Dealer Manufactures, and Sales Reps (Factory, Independent), and others close to the industry. This is the situation I can best describe ....
There have definitely been talks between Back Manufacturers and Jenoptik. My information tells me that Phase has been involved in conversations at various times and had been close enough that it was almost announced at Photokina. Plain and simple ..... the deal has just not gotten done yet.
Obviously from both sides it comes down to money. Jenoptik wants Y ..... PHase wants to pay X. Until that gets worked out there is no deal until the market dictates one needs more than the other. The understanding right now is both are willing to wait for delivery and to see what the market decides. Jenoptik thinks the interest and demand will validate their point ......Phase thinks Jenoptik will need to make concessions for them.
It's smart business for both companies. They both are quality companies and believe their visions of how it will work out are correct. It will play out and eventually get done ....and all will be happy.
-
Sorry Nik, for my late reply. I had to get information from our product manager.
Following the answer to your question:
The development of the 6x6 filmholder is in process. The first prototypes are expected for coming December. If everything goes right, production is planed to start begin of 2008, with availability expected by the begin of the 2nd quarter.
One other information: this 6x6 filmholder is adapted to the Sinar Hy6 design. Further, it will have the possibilities to shoot either on 6x6 OR on 4.5x6.
I hope this answers.
Best regards,
Thierry
Any update regarding the 6*6 film back for the Hy6? Is it in production yet?
Thanks
Nik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Bernard,
There is nothing new in this:
Excatly the same has been said already a few times, by Yair and by myself and on this forum, when the Hy6 discussions started, a few months ago, in different treads.
Best regards,
Thierry
That's indeed a lot more clear Yair. Thanks.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
No problem Thierry, that's better news than expected! Lastly, I am assuming it will have an adjustable pressure plate for 120/220?
-Nik
Further, it will have the possibilities to shoot either on 6x6 OR on 4.5x6.
I hope this answers.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
This is asking too much, Nik: I don't know yet and have just "transcripted" the information I've got.
I assume too!
I shall keep updated.
Best regards,
Thierry
No problem Thierry, that's better news than expected! Lastly, I am assuming it will have an adjustable pressure plate for 120/220?
-Nik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]