As a P20/Hasselblad V user I would comment that such a high pixel count would strain the system in too many ways: Calibration of back and body, the V body and focussing system would need individual calibration given the age and usage of the majority of bodies. Vibration, shutter shock or whatever is the current term, this limits hand holding to 125th as a practical minimum, topping out at 500th doesn't help. The user base is now I suspect mainly amateur at least in "developed" countries (the 'blad is ubiquitous) if the spend is going to be that high wouldn't most look at a S/H H system? Same user group has limited funds, majority are not Dpi "swopped backs again this week" types. Open platform: Phase One and other backs "suffer" from the lead, that's about it, availability is now so those who want that count can have it, a CFV would be in catch up, it should have been launched at the same time as the H system equivalent, not years later. I'm sure the sales of the CFV 50 will have fed into the decisions, hard as well to "sell" a back for a platform you no longer produce.
Having said all that they may surprise us with the next generation releases, or they could do a CFV lunar edition, or a Ferrari ;D
Hi,Erik, the cost of producing a full frame or near FF square sensor, is not only the 33% more sensor area that is required, but more, much more than that, is the fact that this sensor would be applicable to a very limited volume of camera users, than 6x4.5 users. Nearly all cameras that would be able to serve such a sensor have been discontinued (I believe that only RZII can be ordered, maybe not even this) and most of them (Rolleis excluded) are much worst specified than modern 6x4.5 or even Contax 645… Hence, if such an MFDB would be made, the cost could be outrageous maybe even 10 times the cost of a back aimed for 6x4.5 format, who would make a sensor that maybe would be of interest in 10-20 units annually coming from all makers and who are the MF makers that would make a special back for 6x6 cameras, when all makers only make 6x4.5 cameras to fit their backs on? OTOH, most 6x6 camera owners, prefer the rotation ability of the sensor that their camera is able to do since they don't have to ever use their camera in "portrait" orientation, which means that even among 6X6 users, such a sensor would have limited interest. ::)
I don't agree in part. The CFV sensor is 1.1 crop factor on 645, 36.7 x 49.1 mm. A sensor 1X crop factor would give 60MP ( 50MP * 1.1 * 1.1). So the 60 MP sensor would be no more demanding then the 50 MP sensor, except using more of the image circle of the lens.
Of course, that would be to pay a lot for a 10% linear advantage, but if it is worth it, that is a question for the customer to ask.
As Doug makes a point, there are many alternatives from Phase and Leaf.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, the cost of producing a full frame or near FF square sensor, is not only the 33% more sensor area that is required, but more, much more than that, is the fact that this sensor would be applicable to a very limited volume of camera users, than 6x4.5 users. Nearly all cameras that would be able to serve such a sensor have been discontinued (I believe that only RZII can be ordered, maybe not even this) and most of them (Rolleis excluded) are much worst specified than modern 6x4.5 or even Contax 645… Hence, if such an MFDB would be made, the cost could be outrageous maybe even 10 times the cost of a back aimed for 6x4.5 format, who would make a sensor that maybe would be of interest in 10-20 units annually coming from all makers and who are the MF makers that would make a special back for 6x6 cameras, when all makers only make 6x4.5 cameras to fit their backs on? OTOH, most 6x6 camera owners, prefer the rotation ability of the sensor that their camera is able to do since they don't have to ever use their camera in "portrait" orientation, which means that even among 6X6 users, such a sensor would have limited interest. ::)
As to the OP requirement, there is no CFV-50 in production for a long time now, nor there is a any V system anymore…. More than that, questions like …."is P1 IQ 272 coming?" or "when is Nikon's D300 replacement?" …are better to be applied to the makers via mail ??? There is more luck to find an answer there!
Thanks to all for your input. The H system is very tempting, but gee, aren't they expensive. I have a couple V bodies and an assortment of lenses that I painstakingly built up over time. And I cringe at the price of the new H series lenses.......
Some fellow photos use an L bracket that seem to solve the landscape/portrait orientation problems quite nicely.
Thanks to all for your input. The H system is very tempting, but gee, aren't they expensive. I have a couple V bodies and an assortment of lenses that I painstakingly built up over time. And I cringe at the price of the new H series lenses.......
The first back with a square sensor was a great idea, the idea to put a rectangular sensor in the same back wasn't.
Back manufacturers are dependent on the willingness of CCD manufacturers to produce chips. A quick look at the sites of Dalsa and Kodak/Truesense shows how restricted the choice of chips really is. Basically, the few square sensors that were produced were aimed at the astronomy and technical markets. These don't need huge chips and don't need lots of very small pixels. Something like the venerable KAF-16801/3 with 16 million pixels on a 36mmx36mm chip is all they need.Hi Jerome, I believe that 36mm is far a small size sensor to do some justice on MF lenses… For example a 40mm, would be as wide as a 40mm on a FF DSLR…
Hi Jerome, I believe that 36mm is far a small size sensor to do some justice on MF lenses… For example a 40mm, would be as wide as a 40mm on a FF DSLR…
Sure, but that was the size of the sensor of the CVF-16 nevertheless. And it is the only size which was ever available in a square format digital back.Never the less, IMO, they should have used the wider area version of the same sensor as their basic back (i.e. a 37x49mm CFV-22), I believe that would have helped the V-system to do better marketing wise, I also believe that the discontinuation of the "fat-pixel" 22mp Kodak sensor without it being ever replaced, did a lot of damage to MF demand in general, CF & Imacon interchangeable fit backs, had more demand than CFVs ever had and the 22mp backs where the most popular among CFs and Imacon… Another thing to consider is that 88mp 16x multishot capturing was never replaced, which many think (me among them) provided the best (still) image among all MFDBs by far… much better than any modern high pixel density single-shot back too. Then, there was that "stupid" trade policy they applied, where if one would trade his back, the older back would never return back to the market which shrunk the base of the MF market considerably (especially as they stopped the production of the CF adapters and turned the CFs to CFVs). If MF will not survive, surely Hasselblad's policy with the V system, in combination with the "close" of the H system, has undeniably a lot to do with their (wrong) choices, practically I believe they followed a policy that not only affected the whole MF market negatively, but they also acted against their own benefit.
I tend to agree with you. For some time, Torger has been making a similar point: that the back makers ought to go for more volume in sales and a more modest price point, so as to build up sales and increase market penetration. Of course, none of us are in the "inside" of this problem: its rather a remarkable accomplishment to be a back maker, with high price points, and still be in business today. Looking back at Rollei and Hassy's ventures into digital products in the 1990s is a lesson in how easy it is to get this all wrong. I believe the failed efforts then (due to evolution in technology, not a lack of enthusiasm) underlies the deep conservatism in the industry today. At that time, The leading lights of the MF industry basically did everything they could and still got clobbered.Well… it's obvious isn't it? MF had considerably more market volume during the film days and while SLR market retained its customers and even expanded with digital, the huge base of MF market, that the MFDB makers could support with both new equipment and even re-selling to them backs that they take as part exchange, they instead followed a "keep prices as high as possible" policy, which excluded the vast majority of MF users, from becoming possible customers in the future… How stupid of them! Instead of improving prices by increasing production, prices where kept high by both lower production and having a premium included that would allow for the value of the possible part exchange, that was to be thrown away! Not to add that the customers that would buy new without part exchanging anything, they were practically paying for the premium that is included in the price for the part exchange! …Then, there was so little support for those hundreds of thousands of Bronica users or of RBs or even of Rolleis, that practically was forcing the vast majority of these camera users to never enter digital… Leaf and P1 policy to offer only constant fit (no user interchangeable adapter) also damaged the possible MF market.
That back makers today can still sell their product for 5-10X the price of an almost-as-good solution (DSLR, now getting closer to the quality levels if seen in the broader picture) to a small and limited group of users with a working business model work is surprising. Perhaps they have a good sense of what they are doing, or maybe they are walking dinosaurs. Its not clear. But glad they are doing it!
with the high costs of limited volume, and a modest user base.
That back makers today can still sell their product for 5-10X the price of an almost-as-good solution (DSLR, now getting closer to the quality levels if seen in the broader picture) to a small and limited group of users with a working business model work is surprising. Perhaps they have a good sense of what they are doing, or maybe they are walking dinosaurs. Its not clear. But glad they are doing it!
That's from the consumer side. One wonders if the same viewpoint holds from the producer's side. They are likely struggling with the high costs of limited volume, complex engineering requirements, and a modest user base. The model of high-priced, low volume specialty items is not unique to the photo industry, but we're used to seeing it in mechanical photo gear, where the premium was more modest (say 2-4X). It seems that in electronics, the premium is much higher. I wonder if one can compare this to other industries (automobiles for example) and see some of the same issues.That's what I'm saying… they are now trapped in their own mistakes. If the start was different (with "start" I mainly refer to the 2004-2005 period where the first self contained large image area backs first appeared), things would be different by now… OTOH, I don't think that photographic industry can be related with cars… you see everybody needs a car and thus a "special" car can be recognised as a "status symbol" from all population, while MF photography is only relevant to those that do "specialised work", an expensive MF product may not be recognisable even from some DSLR users… and more… the result (the image) is more depended to the creators ability (and creativity) than the tool he uses… See…, now we've spotted an extra point of concern for makers, where some of their products are targeting to customers that use them as status symbols among photographers rather than "tools".
I tend to agree with you. For some time, Torger has been making a similar point: that the back makers ought to go for more volume in sales and a more modest price point, so as to build up sales and increase market penetration. Of course, none of us are in the "inside" of this problem: its rather a remarkable accomplishment to be a back maker, with high price points, and still be in business today. Looking back at Rollei and Hassy's ventures into digital products in the 1990s is a lesson in how easy it is to get this all wrong. I believe the failed efforts then (due to evolution in technology, not a lack of enthusiasm) underlies the deep conservatism in the industry today. At that time, The leading lights of the MF industry basically did everything they could and still got clobbered.
That back makers today can still sell their product for 5-10X the price of an almost-as-good solution (DSLR, now getting closer to the quality levels if seen in the broader picture) to a small and limited group of users with a working business model work is surprising. Perhaps they have a good sense of what they are doing, or maybe they are walking dinosaurs. Its not clear. But glad they are doing it!
There is a point here… DMF market is supposed to be at about 4-5000 units per year. Aren't the different sensors that are available too many for such a small market?
While some of my clients are amateurs the majority are successful professionals mostly using Phase backs. There are clear indications that many photographers of various ages are rediscovering film photography even if they have digital backs.
I would guess that the V system today is mostly used by amateurs and some artists (like Anton Corbijn, which still shoot film), while the typical professional would use the H system or other auto focus system.
They are used in other applications: radiography or astronomy for example. And the size of the DMF is not that clear. That figure can be traced down to a single interview from a Leica representative and how they made it good with their S camera in the "traditional photo" market. Obviously, Leica had an interest to define that "traditional" market as small, but DMF are used in less "traditional" markets as well. For example, it seems that aerial photography is a big enough market for Hasselblad and Phase One to have a line of cameras devoted to that particular application. How do you think the pictures in google maps are taken?Surely that extra market you state Jerome, doesn't use all those types of sensors… I would imagine that since the application is "standard" there would be one maybe two sensors only that are used in that market. My opinion is that in what is used in cameras, size of sensor is more important to customers than resolution. I think that a line of 3 sensors, say a 36x48 28mp one, a 53x40.5 40mp one and an equal size 80mp one, would cover all possible customers… The way things are now, there is no lower resolution FF sensor (I think that would be of much demand), the FF sensors are too near in resolution and the mid-resolution (33-50mp) area is overcrowded! Surely the other applications you state, wouldn't be affected by fewer offerings. Additionally, there could be only two FF sensor designs (say 40mp and 80mp as stated above) and the basic sensor could be a cropped version of the 40mp one.
While some of my clients are amateurs the majority are successful professionals mostly using Phase backs. There are clear indications that many photographers of various ages are rediscovering film photography even if they have digital backs.To my knowledge Douglas, (please correct me if I am wrong) most of the pros are stuck with older 22/33/39mp backs and only few have invested in new high resolution ones. It's mostly amateurs that are buying hi-end backs.
This is a very interesting thread and I have no idea what direction MF will take from here. ???
That's what I'm saying… they are now trapped in their own mistakes.
Bonsoir Edmund,
where in Paris do I have to go/phone/mail to find a crew for the afternoon? Merci.
Best,
Johannes
Yes the CF system is discontinued, but... we all may be in for a big Hasselblad surprise in the near future.
That tie up with Sony that everyone scoffs at? Hmmm - do you think there is more to it that a couple of rebadged cameras? If a Sony CMOS MF sensor were to be released, with great high ISO and Sony engineered image pipeline, Hasselblad could be back in the game in a huge way.
Yes the CF system is discontinued, but... we all may be in for a big Hasselblad surprise in the near future.
That tie up with Sony that everyone scoffs at? Hmmm - do you think there is more to it that a couple of rebadged cameras? If a Sony CMOS MF sensor were to be released, with great high ISO and Sony engineered image pipeline, Hasselblad could be back in the game in a huge way.
And if Sony made the sensors for cheap, then Hassy could put Phase out of business :)
This is actually not impossible, because Sony could run other chips on the same wafers.
Edmund
But then again P1 could be collaborating with Canon and that could explain why Canon hasn't released anything exciting in 5 years. Sony is much bigger than Canon.
Canon has been busy releasing new video cameras. Medium format is probably not much of a moneymaker business for either Sony or Canon. I don't know how the deal went through with Hasselblad and Sony but I doubt that it was Sony that approached Hasselblad :).I doubt if the deal with Sony ever reached the head of the sales department of Sony... ::) maybe it was some clerk that signed for …some dousines of sensors annually! :o What is the life expectancy of the "lunar"? :D Jokes apart, the sales are expected to be ….Stellar! :P
Canon has been busy releasing new video cameras. Medium format is probably not much of a moneymaker business for either Sony or Canon. I don't know how the deal went through with Hasselblad and Sony but I doubt that it was Sony that approached Hasselblad :).
I don't know how the deal went through with Hasselblad and Sony but I doubt that it was Sony that approached Hasselblad :).
Canon-PhaseOne-RolleiHy6. Or Canon-RolleiHy6. Or Canon-PhaseOne. I'd be selling my soul!