either the same or similar to other 50mp backs or a huge price jump justified by live view that is usable like a canon and low noise 400asa and above
While it is interesting, this doesn't look like a value proposition at all. I'd be extremely surprised if they price it significantly cheaper than the CCD models.
I'm also very curious about how the color rendition debates will unfold, H5D-50 vs H5D-50c :)
My guess is that it will be 14-bit, which means you are going to have a trade off.
Sony's 14 bit CMOS sensor already have more dynamic range than Dalsa's "16 bit". Noise is noise. What can make up a color rendition quality difference is the bayer color filters, some design them to perform better at high ISO while sacrificing some color performance at base ISO (Nikon seems to do that), while MF sensors generally have a design for best color rendition at base ISO.
I find it highly likely that the MF CMOS sensor Hasselblad is going to use will have a bayer CFA designed for best color at base ISO, even if it sacrifices a little bit of high ISO performance, so I would not be too worried about color rendition. But we'll see.
(I don't think auto focus will be better. My guess is that it's the exact same camera with as little changes as possible just to get the CMOS sensor in there. About the difference between CFV-39 and CFV-50, ie nothing except the sensor.)
Another question to be asked is will the auto focus be better? I think one of the advantages with shooting DSLRs handheld for fast on-the-fly work is the auto focus systems. If this is addressed, I can see it being very successful. If not, most of who look at this will probably be photographers who light everything perfectly anyway and prefer shooting at base.
Great news. I was told a while ago to expect a real cracker.
It'll be interesting to see if Phase also have a CMOS solution.
It seems to me that the CMOS sensor won't change that much for current professional users, which always use these systems with professional lighting etc and would shoot base ISO anyway.
I am pretty sure AF speed is not tied to CCD or CMOS.if it is CDAF it is tied to how fast you readout sensels off a particular area vs how noisy that will get in the process + whether your lenses have proper motors to drive the focusing group of optical elements in response to CDAF commands (going back to readout)...
if it is CDAF it is tied to how fast you readout sensels off a particular area vs how noisy that will get in the process + whether your lenses have proper motors to drive the focusing group of optical elements in response to CDAF commands (going back to readout)...
But this is encouraging, it shows that MF is still alive. I expect we'll see the same sensor in other cameras, first in Phase backs, Pentax 645D series, and Leica.
Edmund
Why ? Why you expect that Sony will sell it to Phase and others???
Would all those who said that Hasselblad were finished and had abandoned MF when they launched the Lunar and Stellar please put their hands up?
Thanks very much.
Nick-T
what proffessional experience are you basing that on? being able to take less lighting power on location and shoot at 400 with clean MFD files (or even a true 200) would make a big difference to how i work.
Those less wholeheartedly in favor of Hassy are allowed to just put up a single finger :)
Edmund
Would all those who said that Hasselblad were finished and had abandoned MF when they launched the Lunar and Stellar please put their hands up?
Those less wholeheartedly in favor of Hassy are allowed to just put up a single finger :)
Edmund
Why ? Why you expect that Sony will sell it to Phase and others???
Here's the thing
The profits from the Lunar and stellar type cameras will allow Hasselblad to invest in medium format. Only around 10% of Hasselblad people are working on Lunar type products, one can only speculate on what the others are doing :)
Your response has the virtue of candor.
Why wouldn't you?They have partnership with Hasselblad...
If everybody could use this sensor, what is special in hasselblad new camera? Probably P1 will make much much better job with hardware and software 8)
They have partnership with Hasselblad...
If everybody could use this sensor, what is special in hasselblad new camera? Probably P1 will make much much better job with hardware and software 8)
They have partnership with Hasselblad...There is no way that a low production huge CMOS sensor will ever be exclusive to one MF maker… How many cameras are expected to be made from Hasselblad on an annual base? I suspect that the maker (of the sensor -Sony?) wouldn't bother to proceed for Hasselblad alone, I bet that they have the contracts signed already… Also, I suspect that the back will be considerably cheaper… may even be that the sensor will be of 44x33 size, the 36mp sensor of Sony does match for 33x44mm, 50mp pixel size.
If everybody could use this sensor, what is special in hasselblad new camera? Probably P1 will make much much better job with hardware and software 8)
There is no way that a low production huge CMOS sensor will ever be exclusive to one MF maker… How many cameras are expected to be made from Hasselblad on an annual base? I suspect that the maker (of the sensor -Sony?) wouldn't bother to proceed for Hasselblad alone, I bet that they have the contracts signed already… Also, I suspect that the back will be considerably cheaper… may even be that the sensor will be of 44x33 size, the 36mp sensor of Sony does much for 33x44mm, 50mp pixel size.
Hi,Put it this way, if they felt secure with CMOS, they would have discontinue CCD so that they differentiate from competition… Since they introduce CMOS in parallel to CCDs, 1.They are trying to gain the "first to do…" title, 2. They most probably will use that for entry level… Believe me they'll be happy if they can add a few customers among "expensive" weddings photographers… they really need them, they may also succeed this time… I have a feeling that studio pros will turn their back to this. But again, we are all speculating here… so am I.
It is very much possible for a company to buy a design from another company. That was the case with Leica buying their CMOS design from CMOSIS. Or it could be that Hasselblad made the design with help of Sony or another company.
Small numbers can be lucrative if the price is high enough.
As a side note, Phase One says that they switched from Kodak to DALSA as DALSA were willing to let them be involved with the sensor design, and Kodak was not. They are no using DALSA sensors but the sensor they use have Phase One intellectual property.
Best regards
Erik
Also, I suspect that the back will be considerably cheaper… may even be that the sensor will be of 44x33 size, the 36mp sensor of Sony does match for 33x44mm, 50mp pixel size.
… I have a feeling that studio pros will turn their back to this.
Does sound quite likely considering the pixel count, if it is exactly 50. The current 49 x 37 is a kodak only size, I find it unlikely that it would be copied exactly. I think the 44x33 size is a bit boring though, just too much crop, I hope the sensor is a little larger.Would Sony design an ultra low production sensor from scratch? Can't say for sure, but I doubt it…
be interesting to see what it comes out £$€'s wise.
either the same or similar to other 50mp backs or a huge price jump justified by live view that is usable like a canon and low noise 400asa and above•
•please dont tell me about sensor+ or current MFD live-view tech, it sucks.
I'm a studio pro and am very excited about this new camera. Note that Hasselblad have said they will be offering a multi-shot version, hardly targeted at the wedding market..It does make sense though… they have cameras for the studio as they are, why offer another? I don't see any other reason for one to choose a "LL-king" MF camera than (expensive) weddings… It's good advert for Hasselblad too…. MS is also offered as alternative to single shot with CCDs (I use such an MFDB), being able to provide it doesn't make the sensor better or worst, it just adds MS (which is mechanical). Notice that if the sensor is of 33x44 size, the pixel size matches the one of the D800e (have one of these too)… hardly enough colour accuracy to compete with my MFDB in studio conditions.
Here's the thingThe …..profits? :o from lunar and stellar? ??? ….are you sure? :D
The profits from the Lunar and stellar type cameras will allow Hasselblad to invest in medium format. Only around 10% of Hasselblad people are working on Lunar type products, one can only speculate on what the others are doing :)
Here's the thing
The profits from the Lunar and stellar type cameras will allow Hasselblad to invest in medium format. Only around 10% of Hasselblad people are working on Lunar type products, one can only speculate on what the others are doing :)
Put it this way, if they felt secure with CMOS, they would have discontinue CCD so that they differentiate from competition… Since they introduce CMOS in parallel to CCDs, 1.They are trying to gain the "first to do…" title, 2. They most probably will use that for entry level… Believe me they'll be happy if they can add a few customers among "expensive" weddings photographers… they really need them, they may also succeed this time… I have a feeling that studio pros will turn their back to this. But again, we are all speculating here… so am I.
if the implementation of cmos technology into MF equipment doesn,t mean the possibility of substantially lower prices, i don't find this announcement exciting. Furthermore, I would still keep MF in my list of endangered species.I agree with you Eduardo…, MF users (especially studio pros) find a quality in CCDs that Cmos DSLRs lack… Unless if Cmos will be cheaper, they won't trust it. If they want DSLr performance, they may as well buy a DSLR… If this sensor turns out to be D800E's one resized to 44x33, it will certainly mean that this would be entry-level.
But, lets not forget that it was cmos technology that helped slr type cameras to become a true household comodity. Perhaps cmos tecnology will help MF gear be again the studio gear by excellence and every studio on earth will have at least one MF camera in the arsenal. Like it used to be.
And we will live happily ever after.
:D
Eduardo
I agree with you Eduardo…, MF users (especially studio pros) find a quality in CCDs that Cmos DSLRs lack… Unless if Cmos will be cheaper, they won't trust it. If they want DSLr performance, they may as well buy a DSLR… If this sensor turns out to be D800E's one resized to 44x33, it will certainly mean that this would be entry-level.
lets not forget that it was cmos technology that helped slr type cameras to become a true household comodity.you are wrong - there were cheap (down to $500 in ~2006) entry level dSLRs on CCD sensors (like 6mp from Sony, 10mp from Sony)...
MF users (especially studio pros) find a quality in CCDs that Cmos DSLRs lackyes, one certain PhD even found how many stops of DR advantage ? somebody remind me plz.
yes, one certain PhD even found how many stops of DR advantage ? somebody remind me plz.
yes, one certain PhD even found how many stops of DR advantage ? somebody remind me plz.
I think PhaseOne has hinted that even when (not if) they come out with a back with a CMOS sensor they will keep the CCD product line. I mean, their 60 and 80mp are superb so why won't they? It is not like all of the sudden their current CCD sensor backs will stop working when their CMOS offering comes out. ;D
I don't think that was meindeed, you are not the only PhD around !
indeed, you are not the only PhD around !
http://photorumors.com/2014/01/21/phaseone-iq250-coming-soon-with-a-new-50mp-cmos-sensor/
"I'm with Nick. How many people started doing a Jim Morrison Karaoke "this is the end", when the lunar came out, or when live view of medium format wasn't equal to a dslr, or, Nikon made a inexpensive dslr."
£10 says you own a pair of leather trousers and know the words to "this is the end"
What confuses me is that they stay at 50MP, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it may be that they intend it as a low end system for low light shooting. Hopefully it won't have crop factor.
What confuses me is that they stay at 50MP, it doesn't make a lot of sense to meif it is Sony they probably just "scaled" tried 24mp schematic to more area... get the same steppers that create their 24 mp FF sensors to expose more area in even more steps on wafer... just a clueless guess.
http://photorumors.com/2014/01/21/phaseone-iq250-coming-soon-with-a-new-50mp-cmos-sensor/Great that phase are doing this too, all good for mfdb.
but CMOS cameras could be the start of making a camera that's attractive for the average photographerthere is always
I think one can now reasonably expect an announcement of the H5D-40C, as higher-ISO replacement for the H5D-40, as the H5D40 has been the microlensed Hi-ISO camera in the Hassy range.1.Wouldn't a 44x33 Cmos sensor cost the same despite its Mp count as long as the size is the same?
The H5D-40C might be even faster by being microlensed, even if the H5D-50C is not.
My (unconfirmed) info is that the new H5D-50C sensor is 36.7 x 49.1mm.
I expect a trickle of sensor announcements between now and Photokina, as Sony, Truesense, and Sony jockey for position. There will probably also be good deals on the current models as Hassy, Phase, Leica/Sinar and Pentax raise cash to commission production runs of their chosen sensors.
It will be interesting to see whether the CCD sensors are deprecated in new model ranges, or will coexist - at some point the MF guys should run out of the energy needed to tune every possible sensor/camera/lens combo, and should concentrate on just a few models.
Edmund
there is alwaysPentax 645 can't be considered to behave as a larger area DSLR… it behaves more like "traditional MF" IQ wise (better colour, more contrasty curve, DR tuned for dark areas than HL "protection" etc), it's not a matter of pricing, it's a matter of "image character".PentaxRicoh for masses
My guesses so far of the new Hasselblad camera:It's not far from my guess (neither your other posts are), only that I think pricing will be below H5D-40, I believe that Cmos in MF will be used with a "dual role" in mind… 1. To be more "user friendly for DSLR users, 2. To add prestige (by being priced lower) to the CCD designs.
- Sensor from Sony, similar technology as D800 / A7R but with other color filters
- 44x33 sensor size, because 50 megapixels and previous Sony sensors would match well with that
- Slightly cheaper than H5D-50, due to the smaller sensor size and attempt to go to a slightly wider market
- No live view in the back, only in tethered mode, indicated in the press release, probably to save development time
- Worse color cast than any current CCD, ie not very useful for wide angle tech cams, as this is typical for CMOS sensors
- CFA array designed for best color at base ISO, and thus better color than a D800 but a little bit worse high ISO
- Color just as good as current CCDs, but still not exactly the same so there will be a matter of taste which one is better
- ISO6400 max ISO, which still provides okay quality, ie there will be no "forensic/surveillance" ultra high ISO mode as DSLRs often have
Further more, MF makers do need some extra sales to secure survival and price is an important factor in achieving that.I don't think it works like that. I guess that investors:
Increasing sales through price reduction, without decreasing the manufacture costs may or may not be the right path. As an engineer, I would assume that the most important (and difficult) goal is to increase the margin per product sold (reduce cost and/or increase selling-price) vs the total number of units sold. Selling a few units at very high margins is ok. Selling a load of units at lower margins can also be ok.
you are wrong - there were cheap (down to $500 in ~2006) entry level dSLRs on CCD sensors (like 6mp from Sony, 10mp from Sony)...
Compared to any consumer camera the current MF products are so narrow in their use case that they only attract pro users which work in these narrow use cases. (An exception is landscape photography amateurs on tech cameras, which I think MF companies should focus on more, but that does not seem to happen.)+1…. Additionally, no one ever mentioned "price reduction" as a policy, introduction of cheaper product is different. Besides, a cheaper product increases margins for the higher ones, since in MF there is body, electronics and accessories compatibility and the base of customers is widened for these accessories and lenses.
This has created a dealer-centric sales model, low in bandwidth and high in overhead. What is needed for mass market is a product that works similar to any other camera out there and does not require a trained salesperson to teach you to see the advantages. A product that can be sold in a webshop and does not require much pre sales training or post sales support. Maybe maybe the CMOS sensor can be the start of a move towards that.
I shouldn't have mentioned Lunar in this thread as it will now get derailed by all the usual comments.
I'm sure you have better sources within Hasselblad than I have so I'm going to dis-engage from any further Lunar Stellar discussions here.
What the hell! Why cant they make a full frame 50 MP CCD with the long exposure capabilities of the IQ260?
Be a lot easier with lens cast.
Pentax 645 can't be considered to behave as a larger area DSLR… it behaves more like "traditional MF" IQ wise (better colour, more contrasty curve, DR tuned for dark areas than HL "protection" etc), it's not a matter of pricing, it's a matter of "image character".it is not about the image that camera makes, it is about its handling and Pentax handles more like dSLR @ consumer level pricing
I've got the feeling that technical cameras just isn't a priority in the business strategy meetings :-\. Phase One is about their 645DF+, Hasseblad is about their H camera. Like there's 100 units MF SLRs sold for each tech camera. I don't know what the actual numbers are, but my guess is that both Hasselblad and Phase One should care more about tech cameras if they had a proper look at the interest. However then they only get to sell a back, rather than both back and camera plus lenses, I guess there's significant money in that too. So they rather want you to shoot landscapes/interiors/architecture with an H camera than an Alpa/Cambo/Arca/Linhof/Sinar.Well said, now with Sinar back in the business of both tech/view cameras and MFDBs (under Leica's financial strength) and with the "S" being a direct competitor of the DF&H alike as complete DSLRs, it looks like they'll have to look back to basics and support independent MFDBs like they did when Imacon was around… By the way, the existence of Leica S is one more reason why I believe that H-Cmos is going to be priced competitively.
The plot thickens:Now we know that the sensor is not dedicated to Hasselblad… I wonder when the CREDO 50mp Cmos will be announced. Next thing (more important) we'll soon find out, is sensor size… It looks like (my fault in counting) D800/A7R 36mp sensor adds up to more than 60mp if grown to 44x33 size, so I guess it will either be the 24mp of D600/A7 grown to (about) 37x49 (as Eronald said) or …a new sensor dedicated to MF?
http://photorumors.com/2014/01/21/phaseone-iq250-coming-soon-with-a-new-50mp-cmos-sensor/
5. 50MP vs 60MP not that great a gap IMO especially if you get Live view on the already excellent Phase One IQ LCD screen
But 44x33mm vs 54x41mm is, especially if you have interest in wide angle photography. My guess is that this first MF CMOS sensor both from Hassy and Phase One will not be fullframe (ie 44x33 rather than 54x41). Hopefully the IQ250 press release will give us a little bit more details than the one from Hasselblad.
I would bet the Hassy one is 37x49
I would bet the Hassy one is 37x49Edmund, P1 just announced their 50mp back using the same Sony sensor… I guess is wrong to think that the sensor has to be exactly equal to H5D-50's CCD size, since it's not dedicated to Hasselblad. It may be (since maths using Sony's 24mp sensor comes close), but P1 don't use Kodak's 50mp sensor… It may even be a dedicated to MF new one after all at any size. I just find it hard to believe that Sony would use wafers to match exactly Kodak's unique and "strange" dimensions (which is what I have in my MFDB).
Anyway, the first batch of CMOS cameras will have all the spring novelty and all the spring bugs ...
Edmund
Why sell cheap when there are early adopters whose desires and egos crave the most expensive luxuries?
I hope you're right and I'm wrong. 49x37 is however a size that was only used by Kodak, seems odd that they'd match up the same. On the other hand maybe they've had enough control over sensor design so they could replicate the size, 49x37 is well-represented in the Hassy line so sure if they could maybe they would.It surely is difficult to predict sensor size, if the sensor is based on an existing one, the only alternative is the 24mp one (the 36mp one comes up to 61mp for 33x44 size - my mistake) for dimensions as Eronald says… The only other alternative is a completely new sensor which can (of course) be any size... Never the less, sensor size (and product pricing) is important to judge Cmos positioning in the MF market… Lets not forget that P1 is introducing the product in their 2xx line (thinking in Eronald's terms but looking from P1 POV), the other sensors in that line are FF only… Puzzling.
For Phase One it would be less logical with this size though, they've removed the size from their product range, they're all about 44x33 for "entry level" and 54x41 for high end. But maybe the IQ250 will actually have a different sensor.
(I'm a big fan of the 49x37/48x36mm size; from a tech cam perspective I prefer it over the 54x41mm size as I think it's a perfect balance for the common 90mm image circle size, 50megapixels/6um pixels is also pretty much perfect balance, which today is only represented by Hassy backs and Sinar's tethered-only)
They could sell "cheap" to 1) signal that CCD is still the king in terms of image quality and 2) to open up for a new wider market which was not possible to reach without high ISO performance (which they now get), eg event/wedding photography. Having a more flexible product technically makes it possible for a different business model.My thoughts too (once more), but maybe we are thinking on past knowledge… There is no guaranty that if a bigger sensor is used, it will have to be an expensive (with respect to current CCD) back …it may well be that Sony can price things better at larger sizes. Never the less, since P1 has entered the back in their P2xx series, it will be their basic product in the line by name! Lets not forget that Leaf's version, will be considerably better priced than P2xx series by definition.
It depends a bit if they want to attract new customers which don't own MF today, or if they want to sell yet another back to existing MF users.
If they want to go this way though I'm quite sure the sensor will be of "entry level" size, ie 44x33mm or similar. Can't wait to see the full specs of this :)
Edmund, P1 just announced their 50mp back using the same Sony sensor… I guess is wrong to think that the sensor has to be exactly equal to H5D-50's CCD size, since it's not dedicated to Hasselblad. It may be (since maths using Sony's 24mp sensor comes close), but P1 don't use Kodak's 50mp sensor… It may even be a dedicated to MF new one after all at any size. I just find it hard to believe that Sony would use wafers to match exactly Kodak's unique and "strange" dimensions (which is what I have in my MFDB).
I don't know who has got a sensor from who. My impression is there may be several designs floating around and some of us got info on some, other on others.Both web posts (for H and P1) claim a Sony sensor of 50mp Edmund…
Edmund
Both web posts (for H and P1) claim a Sony sensor of 50mp Edmund…
Quite a few posters on this forum are industry insiders ...:D Yeah… I've been accused to be one, a Leica guy! ??? It's interesting to see Leica's reaction to P1 and Hassy by the way!
The interesting question is Phase One's new camera. It's easy to announce a new back, all it takes is to say you will be able to buy a sensor, but for people to believe in the announcement of a new body you need to show prototypes etc ...
Edmund
:D Yeah… I've been accused to be one, a Leica guy! ??? It's interesting to see Leica's reaction to P1 and Hassy by the way!
What is Leica's reaction?How the f@@k should I know? :P
Edmund
How the f@@k should I know? :P
I heard Leica will also be adopting the (one of?) new sensor.
Probably at this point the whole MF industry will move to CMOS; I just hope they get the CFAs right.
I heard Leica will also be adopting the (one of?) new sensor.The only thing that I've posted on the matter Edmund, is that it makes sense for Leica/Sinar to "bridge" the gap between the two systems, by introducing an interchangeable back body (or use a platform of the past like C645 or Rollei which is fully compatible to the S via lens adapter) and re-introducing E-motion series of backs… Now, if these backs will be Cmos or CCD or a combination of both and since Sinar already has a series of (tethered only) studio backs that are all able to also do multishot, is a different matter that beats my knowledge, ….but, it would make perfect sense to use some (or only) Cmos sensors on them since they already have hi-end CCDs with good LV and MS capability for studio use. ;)
Probably at this point the whole MF industry will move to CMOS; I just hope they get the CFAs right.
Edmund
……….if that boosts dynamic range further (it's already low in the 35mm case).It's low, but its "friendly" to the extend were many think that 35mm Cmos has more usable DR than MF CCD… where in fact its no where near!
Cheers,
Bart
Fuji X Pro 1 blown up to MF.
Just dreaming ...
Can someone please explain me what the hype is about cmos and high isos? I've tried an old H3D-31 in parallel with a D800 at isos 100 to 1600 and the difference was tiny. I mean iso 1600 was less than ideal on the H3D, but not much worse than on the D800.
Obviously, backs without micro lenses see their sensitivity divided by 2, but that is a direct function of the micro lenses, not of cmos or ccd.
It's low, but its "friendly" to the extend were many think that 35mm Cmos has more usable DR than MF CCD… where in fact its no where near!My mental model of sensor DR is that of an (essentially) linear photon counter that clips at some point, adds some noise at another point, and then introduce signal-dependant noise (shot-noise). I try to set my exposure parameters and interpret my histogram accordingly.
People usually think of DR with sensor's ability to "save" the HL from blowing when ETTR… they don't consider if saving the HLs leads to a dull or low-contrast unreasonable presentation, while the "right" approach should be, "protect" HLs with exposure as much as one wants and dig into the deep shadows while keeping contrast and picture drama at the same time…. From that POV, CCDs are even more "sensitive" than they claim in their ISO specification.
Maybe your D800 is broken.No, Mr. Marot's D800 isn't broken… in fact micro lenses absence, makes more "high iso damage" than Jerome says… If one considers P30+ and P45+ and compensates for the size difference, it's nearly 2 stops.
Regards,
TM
Wait, back the the Lunar for a sec… Is there anyone here that bought one? Or rephrased - anyone here that will admit they bought one? I would have thought they didn't sell well at all. I'm happy to read that the brain behind that move has been replaced.
+1:D LOL… I met a Leica fanatic once (pretty rich fellow) that bought the Panasonic alternative instead of the V-lux he was claiming he would buy next to his "M" system… I asked him: "why did you buy this instead?", he said… "when you are in vacations with a Leica, all thieves are watching your moves"… Wise move from Hassy, …wise indeed, they'll sell lots! ??? :P
I agree in 100%
There is a persistent myth about cost differences between CCDs and CMOS sensors. The fact is that CMOS sensors of "SLR size" and larger have never been less expensive than CCDs, and in fact during the transition, CCDs stayed around longest in the lower-priced DSLR models while the more expensive, better performing models changed to CMOS sensors. CMOS wins on performance, not price, particularly lower read noise and thus better high ISO performance.
This myth probably started from the case of very low-cost "camera-on-a-chip" devices for mobile phones and such, which reduced costs by combining a (very small) CMOS sensor and the related processing circuits on a single CMOS chip. But those cost savings are irrelevant once the sensor gets up to SLR or MF sizes.
Also, this lower noise advantage of CMOS sensors over CCDs is not just about different CFAs or microlenses: many DSLRs used to have CCDs from Sony (and Kodak for early Olympus DLSRs) with micro-lenses and with similar CFA designs as the CMOS sensors that displaced them, and the CMOS sensors won clearly on low-light performance. If Sony and Nikon could have made their (micro-lensed) CCDs match Canon's CMOS sensors at high ISO simply by changing the CFA designs, they would have -- instead, Sony had to develop its Expeed CMOS sensors to compete more effectively against Canon's CMOS.
Finally, a wild guess: what we are about to see revealed is one or more cameras using a Sony CMOS sensor in a near 645 size like 54x40mm and so with pixel pitch slightly larger than 6 microns -- because the target for these is those MF users who want features like better low-light performance, good DR and more usable Live View, and minimal cropping of their prime lenses relative to 645 film, and for whom 50MP is more than enough. Look for DR to be hyped in the marketing!
Maybe your D800 is broken.
Also, this lower noise advantage of CMOS sensors over CCDs is not just about different CFAs or microlenses: many DSLRs used to have CCDs from Sony (and Kodak for early Olympus DLSRs) with micro-lenses and with similar CFA designs as the CMOS sensors that displaced them, and the CMOS sensors won clearly on low-light performance.
Price is directly related to chip size.Indeed: for SLR sizes and up, size is the dominant factor in the unit cost of sensors, not CCD vs CMOS, which is why I would not expect the addition of CMOS options to have much short-term effect on prices. Optimistically, it could help to bring prices down a bit in the longer term, if it expands the range of "use cases" for MF and so increases the pool of potential customers, and if the makers see more opportunity to increase profits by shifting a bit in the direct of "lower price, higher sales volume".
Not really, no. If I remember what the experienced astronomers measured at the time, Canon sensors at the time (e.g. in the EOS 20D) had lower noise in the readout circuitry. The reason is that the readout happens directly on the sensor with cmos, so it is easier to design a path better protected from outside noise. But this is certainly possible if one is willing to invest enough money in protecting the external readout circuits. MF manufacturers certainly had the money to do that.
Actually, what you wrote above has good points, this last I regretfully feel is not correct. Getting a signal off a chip at high readout frequencies costs power, which means strong amplification, which means introducing noise as well as all the assymetries and banding effects inherent in multiple readouts through dis-assorted discrete components - if you can convert on-chip you should win something.
Maybe you have never seen how poor the D800 is before noise reduction or how good the H3D-31 is after noise reduction?
It is actually difficult to see the raw data of modern cameras without noise reduction: adobe camera raw (all adobe products) or apple camera raw (all apple products, including the preview function of os x and most non adobe software running on apple) include noise reduction even if you don't want it. It is automatic and very good at hiding the noise of the base sensor. If you want to see how poor the noise floor really is, you have to use free software based on dcraw ands even then the raw data itself is not 100% clean. Have you done that?
OTOH, images from old cameras posted on web sites devoted to reviews never gets updated with more recent processing. Images from an H3D taken in 2007 looked horrible in 2007. But if I use Phocus on that old camera today, I use a recent version of Phocus and that gives good results.
Does it mean there have been no progresses? No, but the progresses have mainly been in software and progresses as to the sensor noise level have been much smaller than most people believe. Which is not surprising: CCDs used in 2007 already achieved about 80% quantum efficiency (Kodak data sheets, not dxo mumbo-jumbo). There is not that much to be gained or we would start to split photons and that is not possible.
So, I am sorry, but I fail to share the excitement about cmos versus ccds, simply because ccds are not so bad that major progress is possible (remember that the same ccds are still used in professional astronomy, where noise levels really matter). cmos may allow us to select iso 25000 on our next MF back, as it does on recent 24x36 cameras, but the results would be as bad as it is on 24x36 cameras and I don't feel that this is a market for MF. Especially when one does not want micro-lenses, which is a net light loss of a full stop and one one consider that the average MF lens is 2 to 3 stops slower than what is available for 24x36 cameras. What would be the point?
Obviously, cmos should also allow the implementation of a decent live view function and that will be useful to many. It may even allow video and I am sure that filmmakers will be tempted by the elusive "MF look". But high isos? Not in an acceptable quality.
Canon sensors at the time (e.g. in the EOS 20D) had lower noise in the readout circuitry. The reason is that the readout happens directly on the sensor with cmos, so it is easier to design a path better protected from outside noise.That is a fair explanation of the inherent noise advantage of active pixel CMOS sensors over CCD's; and I emphasize the full name including "active pixel", because that is a fundamental difference from CCD's.
But this is certainly possible if one is willing to invest enough money in protecting the external readout circuits. MF manufacturers certainly had the money to do that.No it is not possible with a CCD. A fundamental feature of a CCD sensor is that it is a passive device, in which the charge produced at each photosite by the photo-electric effect is transferred in thousands of hops from one photosite to the next: first hopping down to the sensor's edge, and then along the sensor's edge to one corner. Only at the corners can any amplification or charge-to-voltage conversion be done. This limit to can be overcome in only one way: by changing to an active approach with earlier amplification --- and that is exact the design change that lead to active pixel CMOS sensors and differentiates them from CCDs.
As for the much-vaunted Liveview...
It is a trade-off. On chip conversion can only have so much space, power and complexity. Getting the analog signals out of the chip indeed adds its share of problems but, given enough care (that is: $$$ for the design…) it can be quite good indeed. There must be a reason why the big telescopes which costs immense sums of money still use CCDs.
There has been a camera with a cmos sensor and an external converter, BTW: the Nikon D3x. It uses the same sensor than the Sony A900 but rumour is that Nikon replaced the converters by external ones (and uses 14 bits instead of 12).
Hi,
The D3X uses the same converters as the Sony Alpha 900, my understanding is the Nikon D3X has longer integration times in 14 bit mode which also yield 2 FPS. Both are Wilkinson types, where integration time determines precision. Having 6000 ADC working in parallell gives long integration times. So Nikon uses longer integration times for higher precision readout, yielding a slower frame rate.
Best regards
Erik
I don't care about any of this shit. Quantum efficiancy blah blah fucking blah. Where the rubber meets the road is what is important. If I could have had a back that produced a clean 1600 - 2000iso in 2008, when we started in motion and I lit everything with ARRI Fresnel's and HMIs, I would have kept using the backs. At the time the only option was the P65+ using sensor plus. The fuck if I was going to spend $40k for a 15mpx file for a still image, which in terms of ad production work, is an after thought. I had already sold my P30+ (same chip as the H31?) to spend copious amounts of money on Red stuff, which actually returned the investment quickly, even in the depths of the recession.
And no, I'm not excited about CMOS. I think it will be different. If it does make a clean file at 1600 - 2000iso, it re-opens the door to MF for many professional ad shooters. I think that's great.
It is a trade-off. On chip conversion can only have so much space, power and complexity. Getting the analog signals out of the chip indeed adds its share of problems but, given enough care (that is: $$$ for the design…) it can be quite good indeed. There must be a reason why the big telescopes which costs immense sums of money still use CCDs.
There has been a camera with a cmos sensor and an external converter, BTW: the Nikon D3x. It uses the same sensor than the Sony A900 but rumour is that Nikon replaced the converters by external ones (and uses 14 bits instead of 12).
I don't care about any of this shit. …..blah blah fucking blah. ….The fuck if I was going to spend $40k….;D :D LOL…. ??? :P
or you can switch the camera into crop mode and get a huge frame rate. The problem with the D3x is that the CFA is not as good as it could be.
Edmund
1) Kodak/TrueSense and Teledyne-Dalsa have been working on improving their CCDs for a very long time and still have far higher read noise than CMOS sensors, so I doubt it is easy as you think.
2) Active pixel CMOS sensors are coming to astronomy now: Canon has make some, and Teledyne-Dalsa now makes very large and custom-sized CMOS sensors for such uses. Meanwhile, the CCDs used in telescopes do not have inherently lower noise or inherently higher DR; quite the contrary. Telescope sensors reduce dark noise by active cooling, and achieve very high per pixel DR by having huge photo-sites; both equally possible with CMOS sensors. The persistence of CCDs in astronomy is probably for the same reasons as in MF and medical imaging: the initial cost of changing to CMOS is a great barrier for lower volume products, and the simpler full frame transfer CCD design has lower overheads when designing and putting a new model into production, and so are more cost effective to make in small quantities. The recent rise of lower-volume active pixel CMOS sensors (like the CMOSIS one of the Leica M 240 and now this one for Hasselblad) suggests to me that the cost barriers are coming down, and if so, CMOS will soon spread into many of the areas where CCDs survive for now.
3) The active pixel CMOS sensor in the D3X still uses on-sensor change gain as described in my previous post, and this is a major factor in the low noise advantage of active pixel CMOS sensors. if it does anything off-boardm it is only ADC (which Canon still does off-board with its CMOS sensors.) Anyway, AFAIK that "off-board ADC in the D3X" is only a rumor; another explanation is that the D3X simply adds the option of a lower ADC ramping speed in its column-parallel ADCs to get its 14-bit output at a lower frame rate.
1) Kodak/TrueSense and Teledyne-Dalsa have been working on improving their CCDs for a very long time and still have far higher read noise than CMOS sensors, so I doubt it is easy as you think.
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-CF044323_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-_DSC3262_vsmall.jpg) |
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/Histograms/P45+_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/Histograms/SLT99_vsmall.jpg) |
I never said it is easy, on the contrary I said it increases the price considerably.
Possibly, but if there were so much to be gained, it would have been made earlier. I think I did not express what I meant clearly enough: there certainly are possible theoretical gains in having the converters as near to the sensels as possible and cmos sensors try to capitalise on these gains. It is just that these gains are not as large as people fantasise about. Here people talk about MF backs being only good at base iso 50 or 100 and hope for "clean iso 1600", a four stop increase. On dpreview people write about new cameras being as good at iso 6400 as old ones were at 800, a three stop increase. I think that this is wishful thinking.
My estimate between the 2007 ccd H3D-31 and the 2012 D800 is, considering the smaller pixels, that we had maybe a one stop increase. It is remarkable and certainly better than nothing, but not groundbreaking.
Yep, Erik suggested so much. That would be a very clever trick indeed, but would only provide real gains if the ramp is accurate enough.
I never said it is easy, on the contrary I said it increases the price considerably.Given the evidence that two companies making sensors for customers (like the military and satellite makers) for whom sensor cost is not much of a barrier, I doubt that increased cost is the reason why CCD's silt such at read noise command to CMOS sensors. Do you care to comment on the fundamental technical advantages of active pixel CMOS sensor design such as early amplification that active pixel CMOS sensor designs offer?
Possibly, but if there were so much to be gained, it would have been made earlier.If there is not much to be gained, why is it being done now? Note that CMOS sensors are not cheaper, so that myth is not a reason. I have offered one likely reason for why it was not done till recently: inertia (they already had CCD expertise) and the higher cost barriers for CMOS than for CCD in lower volume products.
Yep, Erik suggested so much. That would be a very clever trick indeed, but would only provide real gains if the ramp is accurate enough.Ramping the voltage at a lower speed is not a "very clever trick", it is just a standard feature of this type of ADC: there is a trade-off between operating speed and accuracy. Note that subsequent models of Sony's sensors also give 14-bit with their on-board column parallel ADCs.
Actually, I think they had back-illuminated thingies as a solution for their custom designs.I have never heard of back-illumination used in anything other than small sensors, 2/3" and smaller, probably because the needed thinning of the substrate makes the sensors more fragile, and this problem increases with chip size. Do you have any references on back-illumination being used in larger sensors?
Edmund
I have never heard of back-illumination used in anything other than small sensors, 2/3" and smaller, probably because the needed thinning of the substrate to makes the sensors more fragile, and this problem increases with size. Do you have any references on back-illumination being used in larger sensors?
I know it was used in some of the Mars probe sensors, and those cannot afford to be over fragile, but maybe they were small.
Edmund
I know it was used in some of the Mars probe sensors, and those cannot afford to be over fragile, but maybe they were small.The Mars rover sensors are indeed fairly small, and also rather old tech due to the long lead time for these projects. It is the Kodak KAI-2020, 15mm diagonal CCD (video needed, so interline rather than full frame type CCD):
Note that subsequent models of Sony's sensors also give 14-bit with their on-board column parallel ADCs.
once sensor is manufactured is can be attached to a more solid substrate behind ... so that fragility matters during manufacturing/assembly - not during when assembled component worksThat "behind" is the side that the light comes from in a back-illuminated design, the side away from the wiring on the "front" of the chip. So I am not sure about adding a new transparent substrate.
Sony uses 14 bits on single shot and 12 bits in continous modes.Thanks Erik: that seems to confirm the fast-slow voltage ramp speed idea at least for more recent cameras, if not for the D3X.
That "behind" is the side that the light comes from in a back-illuminated design, the side away from the wiring on the "front" of the chip. So I am not sure about adding a new transparent substrate.
;D :D LOL…. ??? :P
The quantum efficiency shit means, in a nutshell, that you will not get a clean file at 3200 iso. Or that you may get a clean file, but with the smearing effects of noise reduction.
And your average max lens aperture will still be f/3.5-f/4.0. MF lenses are slow.
Sorry, I'm sick and cranky, had some wisdom teeth out. I stand by the sentiment but maybe not the profanity.
I don't care about any of this shit. Quantum efficiancy blah blah f____ blah. Where the rubber meets the road is what is important. If I could have had a back that produced a clean 1600 - 2000iso in 2008, when we started in motion and I lit everything with ARRI Fresnel's and HMIs, I would have kept using the backs. At the time the only option was the P65+ using sensor plus. The f__k if I was going to spend $40k for a 15mpx file for a still image, which in terms of ad production work, is an after thought. I had already sold my P30+ (same chip as the H31?) to spend copious amounts of money on Red stuff, which actually returned the investment quickly, even in the depths of the recession.
And no, I'm not excited about CMOS. I think it will be different. If it does make a clean file at 1600 - 2000iso, it re-opens the door to MF for many professional ad shooters. I think that's great.
I agree with you on most points. For video I can use medium format for most of the still work as my p30 will go to 800. The issue with me and medium format on a motion project isn't the file quality, it's the time involved we have available to shoot the stills. That's why I bought an S2.
I will be quite happy when I rid myself of most 35mm dslrs as I find them boring and old tech and not old tech in a good way.
But your right, all this white paper crap means nothing, because nobody has used the camera yet and conjecture and real world are miles apart.
The question I would ask (though I know the answer) is the people that will complain about the new medium format cameras will be from people that wouldn't buy them anyway, so who cares? I doubt seriously if the medium format companies do. Don't waste time with people that won't hire you, only go to the ones that will.
I would think that good photographers would jump up and down happy for more options, not bitch like little girls that caught their boyfriend kissing their best friend.
I think that people that bitch about medium format are basically just pissed that the prices of medium format costs what it does. There the same as RED haters in the cinema world. Either they want cameras to be a million dollars that everybody has to rent, or cost less than a cheap dinner.
To me that's the worse part, because I know the people that make, sell and service these larger than 35mm still cameras and they offer professional, honest service, not Amazon click, guess and save 4 dollars sales models.
Because they offer this service they need to be compensated, and being compensated is not a dirty word.
In your comment about the RED's mine paid for themselves 10 times over in the first year. Some was the image quality, some the usability and some was the seriousness of the service our studios provide.
I decided if I was going to go into motion I wasn't going to f__k around and I didn't buy 1 I bought 3. The two R1's dropped in price like a rock a year after i owned them and that didn't matter a whit to me, because they still work and (gasp) they present a professional production and shoot a beautiful file.
IMO
BC
why transparent ? substrate is in its usual place (the side which is not meant to be illuminated by light)With back-illuminaton the chip is in the opposite orientation, so the substrate would be between the incoming light and the photo-sites.
J,
Climb down from your pulpit already, and show us guys in the choir the S2 images!
Edmund
Sure.
Send a layout, I'll respond with an estimate.
How's that?
BC
Yea, Like T, I'm not in a very good mood either. Just spent 23.5 hours in a hospital room with a good friend that passed. He virtually worked himself to death providing for his family and his business.
Never heard him once complain so I guess I should be nicer.
Yea, Like T, I'm not in a very good mood either. Just spent 23.5 hours in a hospital room with a good friend that passed. He virtually worked himself to death providing for his family and his business.
... a good friend that passed. He virtually worked himself to death providing for his family and his business.
Just spent 23.5 hours in a hospital room with a good friend that passed. He virtually worked himself to death providing for his family and his business.
With back-illuminaton the chip is in the opposite orientation, so the substrate would be between the incoming light and the photo-sites.
With normal ("frontside illuminated") sensors, the light comes in on the side of the sensor where the circuitry is deposited, referred to as the front, and behind this there is a relatively thick, opaque substrate of silicon. As a result, the circuitry of the sensor can block some of the incoming light, and micro-lenses are used so partially overcome that problem.
With backside illuminated sensors, the light instead come in from the "back", so that the circuitry on the front of the chip is now on the side away from the incoming light, and so does not block any of the light. To do this, the "back" has to be made transparent, and so is thinned after the basic chip has been made.
To quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-illuminated_sensor
"A back-illuminated sensor ... orients the wiring behind the photocathode layer by flipping the silicon wafer during manufacturing and then thinning its reverse side so that light can strike the photocathode layer without passing through the wiring layer. ... Thinning also makes the silicon wafer more fragile."
There are some illustrations at http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/exmor_r_01.html
look, probably I simply used the wrong word in English... with FSI or BSI sensor - one side is towards the lens mount (that side bears CFA/microlenses and that side is later covered with all the AA/IR/UV cut stuff), by substrate I (wrongly) meant the ceramic/plastic piece that covers the other side of the sensor (sensor is "mounted" on it / inside it when sensor assembly is made), that serves to guard the sensor itself, bears external wiring, sensor is germetically insulated inside it with glass glued to it, covering the sensor) ... not the silicone that originally cut from wafer and on which the sensor itself is formed... what is the proper word for that ? something like ceramic packaging probably ? that one provides mechanical safety for sensor itself inside it.
IQ250 sample images...
https://www.google.com/search?q=IQ250+site%3Aphaseone.com
Better link -
http://gallery.phaseone.com/#/Action-sports/Tim-Kemple/Tim-Kemple_1_gallery.jpg
note that the camera is listed as the 645DF+, so perhaps nothing new on that front coming just yet.
High ISO isn't important for tech cams so they can stick with CCD
Probably early days to talk about it, but the color rendition does look different to the older phase backs.
2 24mp sensors side by side make 48x36, add a little marketing magic and you have 50mp. I can't see them releasing a 44x33 after it took years to use the full frame size.It may be a new sensor after all with mind of alternative sizes to be made… Lets wait and see, in a few days we'll know, certainly sensor size along with price can tell a lot for market positioning, if price is low it should lead to a conclusion that the target is to "bridge" DSLRs with respect to CCD MF… if the price is near CCD backs, it should suggest that they consider the Cmos backs as competitive/alternative solutions to the current CCD backs.
IQ250 sample images...
https://www.google.com/search?q=IQ250+site%3Aphaseone.com
Better link -
http://gallery.phaseone.com/#/Action-sports/Tim-Kemple/Tim-Kemple_1_gallery.jpg
note that the camera is listed as the 645DF+, so perhaps nothing new on that front coming just yet.
Hi Sandeep,If the "color difference" is only due to different choices in CFA, how much of that difference can be compensated through the color correction that is applied in both cases?
Indeed, we'll have to wait and see what they actually do with their choices of Bayer CFA filters. Remember that many say the Leaf backs render skin color much better than other MF backs, yet both are based on CDDs. That shows that it is not the sensor (which just collects photons), but the other choices that make a difference.
Cheers,
Bart
If the "color difference" is only due to different choices in CFA, how much of that difference can be compensated through the color correction that is applied in both cases?
If you use something like the xrite colorchecker passport on a MF CCD camera and a FF CMOS camera, and process them similary in rawtherapee or Lightroom, how different are the colors?
-h
If the "color difference" is only due to different choices in CFA, how much of that difference can be compensated through the color correction that is applied in both cases?
If you use something like the xrite colorchecker passport on a MF CCD camera and a FF CMOS camera, and process them similary in rawtherapee or Lightroom, how different are the colors?
Ha, picture appears gone. Did someone get their botty spanked?
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+ColourRendition/Colours/20131224-CF044440_P45Flash_colors_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+ColourRendition/Colours/20131225-_DSC3297_131225_colors_vsmall.jpg) |
If you use something like the xrite colorchecker passport on a MF CCD camera and a FF CMOS camera, and process them similary in rawtherapee or Lightroom, how different are the colors?
-h
Hi,At a quick glance, the color charts does not immediately appear to favour one of the cameras?
An answer to your question may be this:
But other posters may come up with other answers.
My full article is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition
Everything else being equal? The same assumptions in reconstruction of the photon counts will result in the same output. There will be differences in e.g. noise though, so there will be small differences, with CMOS behaving better in e.g. the read-noise and higher ISOs, and lower thermal noise (dark current).With two different CFA responses, the output will generally not be equal. What I am requesting (and what Erik seems to have done) is a real-world test where one tries to remove the big unknown of MF raw developer color choices, and rather see what the developed raw files look like respectively when both attempt to color correct against some agreed upon reference.
At a quick glance, the color charts does not immediately appear to favour one of the cameras?
-h
Given the evidence that two companies making sensors for customers (like the military and satellite makers) for whom sensor cost is not much of a barrier, I doubt that increased cost is the reason why CCD's silt such at read noise command to CMOS sensors. Do you care to comment on the fundamental technical advantages of active pixel CMOS sensor design such as early amplification that active pixel CMOS sensor designs offer?
If the "color difference" is only due to different choices in CFA, how much of that difference can be compensated through the color correction that is applied in both cases?
If you use something like the xrite colorchecker passport on a MF CCD camera and a FF CMOS camera, and process them similary in rawtherapee or Lightroom, how different are the colors?
-h
If the CFA is bad, non- orthogonal you lose color precision, and cannot recover it in post.I think that your reply is over-simplified. It should be easy to specify a filterbank that is orthogonal while still being colorimetric bonkers. I'd expect that any filterbank response that can mimic the desired response through a "well-behaved"*) 3x3 color correction matrix would be a good starting point.
I think that your reply is over-simplified. It should be easy to specify a filterbank that is orthogonal while still being colorimetric bonkers. I'd expect that any filterbank response that can mimic the desired response through a "well-behaved"*) 3x3 color correction matrix would be a good starting point.
The spectral dimension seems to be highly similar to the spatial dimension in this respect. You might say "if you choose a small aperture, you loose spatial details and cannot recover it in post". Except good sharpening/deconvolution can actually bring back details as long as they are still sufficiently large compared to the noise floor (and the PSF can be estimated).
So the question really is (perhaps)
* "how far from the (colorimetric) ideal spectral sensitivity is the color filter array"
* what does the colorimetric ideal color correction matrix look like
* at what ISO/signal levels can this matrix be applied before the output starts to appear "noisy"
It is my impression that Sony (and the MF guys) tends to prioritize accurate color, while Canon and Nikon prioritize luminance sensitivity.
-h
*)An identity matrix being good, but other forms that does not have large off-diagonal terms might also do.
I don't understand what you want me to comment especially in the context of the present discussion.Microlenses are a disease for use with technical or view cameras Jerome… this is a major aspect why most MFDB sensors are designed with out them… if they retain micro lenses on Cmos sensors, they won't be recommended for use on such cameras…. Their use will be restricted to what DSLRs do only difference being the sensor area.
All I am saying is that the new cmos backs will not have massively improved high iso compared to the present ccd backs. An educated guess is that the new technology gains about one stop sensitivity at the same sensor noise level. It is better than nothing, but it is not earth shattering.
We have people here complaining that iso 200 is the most they will use on their 50 mpix back (without micro-lenses) before the quality is degraded too much for their needs -> they will be able to use iso 400. Not more. We also have people who feel iso 800 is the max, they will use iso 1600, etc... The increase in noise level is going to be roughly one stop.
It is not much, especially when one considers that MF lenses are 2 to 3 stops slower than 24x36 primes.
Microlenses are a disease for use with technical or view cameras Jerome… this is a major aspect why most MFDB sensors are designed with out them… if they retain micro lenses on Cmos sensors, they won't be recommended for use on such cameras…. Their use will be restricted to what DSLRs do only difference being the sensor area.
Microlenses are a disease for use with technical or view cameras Jerome…
http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx
I know, but both Phase One and Hasselblad have backs with microlenses available and we don't know wether the cmos backs will have them or not.True, but (as you said) they don't recommend them for use on such cameras… Anyway, if Cmos sensors won't have micro lenses, their high Iso performance will be affected by (about) a couple of stops… in such case they will have considerable difference than current DSLR sensors, another thing to consider is what the base Iso will be… if it will be of 50 Iso, then High Iso will be affected negatively by another stop… If both are applied (i.e. no microlences & 50 Iso), then 6400 (or maybe 5000) of FF DSlrs, will look like 800 Iso on that (hypothetical) MFDB… that's not much different to current (modern) CCD sensors… is it?
Hi,P65+ doesn't have any micro lenses on Erik, it would thus surprise me if P260 has any… I don't know about the 80mp sensor, but I guess it's the same with it… Traditionally, Dalsa avoided micro lenses, it was Kodak that had such versions of their sensors and those where mostly of 33x44 size.
Both IQ 280 and IQ 260 have micro lenses according to DALSA spec sheets, as far I know.
Best regards
Erik
I don't know whether trichromatic colorimetry based on a "standard observer" is such a good idea, after all people around the world have different eye colors and shoesizes, and one certainly shouldn't take it as the ground truth of perception. The original experiments on which colorimetry is based are very old.Judging by the success of color reproducing products, one might dare to say that color reproduction is "good enough" for most people and most applications, just like stereo reproduction is "good enough" for most music applications. I believe that the experiments have been repeated and extended in later years. One might assume that if they were proven significantly wrong, that the standards would have been updated. The science is not typically carried out using side-by-sides of photographs of typical photographic content viewed at typical photography size/distance.
P65+ doesn't have any micro lenses on Erik, it would thus surprise me if P260 has any… I don't know about the 80mp sensor, but I guess it's the same with it… Traditionally, Dalsa avoided micro lenses, it was Kodak that had such versions of their sensors and those where mostly of 33x44 size.
Kids, let's not get too technical!
Erik, sometimes I wonder why you purchased the P45+ in the first place and why don't you sell it already. The A99 seems to be the perfect camera for you (The D800E and the A7R should also)
The Hasselblad and the IQ250 most likely won't have a "full frame" sensor from the looks of things. Smart money says the 50MP CMOS sensor is going to be 1.1x (36.8x49.1) or 1.3x crop (33x44 approx.), not an issue at all for most people though. Also being CMOS the sensor probably won't play well with wide angle tech camera lenses. Just like the A7R does not deal well at all with Leica M wide angle glass. (Rodenstock HR lenses should be ok, can't wait for tests!)
Also, one big question mark is the price point. A lot of folks here want the new Hasselblad (and IQ250) to be priced at Pentax 645D levels or close. Seriously doubt that is going to be the case although that would do WONDERS to increase the customer base of digital medium format.
Oh, and one more thing. The IQ250 will most likely be the better implementation of the 50mp CMOS sensor given PhaseOnes history of making the best of the sensors available and their trajectory of building very very solid backs with outstanding functionality (class leading for sure)
True, but (as you said) they don't recommend them for use on such cameras… Anyway, if Cmos sensors won't have micro lenses, their high Iso performance will be affected by (about) a couple of stops… in such case they will have considerable difference than current DSLR sensors, another thing to consider is what the base Iso will be… if it will be of 50 Iso, then High Iso will be affected negatively by another stop… If both are applied (i.e. no microlences & 50 Iso), then 6400 (or maybe 5000) of FF DSlrs, will look like 800 Iso on that (hypothetical) MFDB… that's not much different to current (modern) CCD sensors… is it?
I dream of one of these (http://www.alpa.ch/products/cameras/camera-bodies/alpa-12-tc.html) complete with digital back and user friendly live view and no need for the finder.
A no nonsense, pocket-sized, user-friendly, travel, tech cam.
"High ISO is not important for a Tech camera"
High iso is can be very important for a tech camera. If you are an outdoor shooter and working with wind. Many times I have shoot combinations to stop the movement of my subjects, trees, flowers, as I don't prefer blur.
Actually the Tech camera may make this more an issue if anything since many of the lenses available are best used in the F8 to F11 range. In low light, (cloudy, or grey winter day) it can be very hard to get 1/60 to say 1/125th of a sec at base ISO of 50 or even 100. You need to stay in the same aperture range of F8 to F11, you have a CF on the lens which takes yet another 2 to 2/5 stops of light. So having a useable high iso of say 400 or 800 would be a real plus for me.
You can just as easily get into the need for a ISO on a good day, with sunlight but still windy. Many times on stream treks I will have great light, but 15mph to 20mph gusts. Here again I am going to shoot a bracket for the water (slow) but try to stop the tree branches. ISO 50 or 100 again won't get you to the shutter speed you need even pulling off the ND or CLPL I might have. You need to be at 1/125 at least to stop the motion clean and this again needs around ISO 400 minimum. ISO 400 on a current high MP Phase back can be tricky, even with the IQ260 in my experience. Plus you get back to the issue of "is it really iso 400 or 800" due to the fact it's a CCD instead of CMOS.
Sensor plus does a great job here i in creating a noise free file, but the overall loss in resolution is not something I want.
Paul Caldwell
I hope you're right and I'm wrong. 49x37 is however a size that was only used by Kodak, seems odd that they'd match up the same.
Erik, I'm sure the advent of CMOS MFD backs brings our dream a step nearer.
What people fail to see is that iso 6400 or even 3200 on current FF DSLRs is pretty bad, when judged with the eyes of a MF shooter. I really have problems to resolve the gap between people who say that "iso 400 on their MF is already too noisy to be usable" and "iso 30 billions is possible on a cmos dslr".What you state is correct from your POV and most… There are photographers though, that sometimes creating some (or more) grain is intentional… I do that a lot (as you've probably seen from my page which I sign with in OPF), sharpness or noiseless is not always the path to good photography, there are other aspects that matter more… You still are right however, "clean" has different meanings for users of different equipment, it all depends on where one sets his "standards" and with what reference he does so… Another thing to consider is what I call "noise quality" which has to do with possible "mimic of film behaviour" or with "artefacts" presented in the image… A third thing is of course how much detail is retained with noise development (something that many ignore) and thus how much information loss there is in the image…
What you state is correct from your POV and most… There are photographers though, that sometimes creating some (or more) grain is intentional… I do that a lot (as you've probably seen from my page which I sign with in OPF), sharpness or noiseless is not always the path to good photography, there are other aspects that matter more…
Waiting with great interest to see the particulars on the new CMOS sensor. A difference in readout strategies would spell a difference in expected results.
If this is an Exmor sensor (column-parallel, on-chip slow readout), then I'd expect thermal noise to be an issue at handheld shutter speeds and high gain settings, especially after the use of live view. Full readout is relatively slow despite parallelism, and frame rate likely to top out at 2.5 fps. But engineering dynamic range at base ISO would likely exceed 15 stops by DxO metrics.
If this resembles the D4 sensor (on-chip fast readout, multiplexed column readouts, 24 channels), then there would be some limit on dynamic range at base ISO, but that limit would not be severe. You have the benefit of on-chip readout, but the noise issues surrounding fast readout. Thermal noise, however, would be very low. (13.5-14 stops DR)
If this resembles the D3/D700/D3s sensor (fast readout, off-chip high quality A-D, 12 channels), similar to the earlier Canon sensors, then dynamic range is severely limited at base ISO. Optimal read noise levels come around ISO1600. The A-D is high quality, but low-level signals need to be routed off the chip and quickly. Thermal noise would be extremely low. (13 stops of DR)
P65+ doesn't have any micro lenses on Erik, it would thus surprise me if P260 has any… I don't know about the 80mp sensor, but I guess it's the same with it… Traditionally, Dalsa avoided micro lenses, it was Kodak that had such versions of their sensors and those where mostly of 33x44 size.
Phase One says 15 stops of DR in their announcement and either 2 or 2.5 frames/s.
If this is Sony, selling the same sensor to PhaseOne and Hasselblad, they might make a dime off it. In that case, I wonder if any of the big Japanese players are going to enter this market. I wonder if Pentax will bite on this for the next generation 645D. This might be a chip you can get for $1000-1500 in quantity after a while..
From the graphs in the spec sheets at that link, Dalsa's approach completely eliminates the problem of "micro-lens vignetting": poor sensitivity to light striking the sensor at a highly off-perpendicular angle.does that graph really shows that it "completely eliminates" ?
P. P. S. What "Phase One announcement"? All I have seen is a leak of the name IQ250 and the pixel count 8280 x 6208 plus rumors of other specs, at http://photorumors.com/2014/01/21/phaseone-iq250-coming-soon-with-a-new-50mp-cmos-sensor/
No solid evidence there even of it being CMOS.
According to the rumors themselves, we'll only have to wait until tomorrow for an official announcement...or none.
In favor of this rumor is the idea that anyone willing to put up enough capital to design and manufacture a medium format CMOS sensor ought to have a number of clients signed up for it. Surely (in this rosy scenario) if Hasselblad has signed up for a CMOS run, there must be others. I can't imagine Hasselblad selling any more than 3-4,000 of these things in the first year, and that's a stretch, especially with a CCD version of the same camera also in the catalog.
Why do you assume a run? If it is Sony, then they can probably make one of these on a wafer chock full of other smaller junk.
The sensor is the same.
Pentax had a 645D2 with precisely a 50 Mp CMOS sensor scheduled to launch in March 2013. Whether the sensor wasn't ready because of its complexity or the earthquake/tsunami play a part in its delay I have no idea. All I know is that under Ricoh rule the decision was made that this camera will go back to the design board for some major overhaul. Since in late 2013 Pentax switched from Prime 2 to Prime 3 as image processor, introduced new AF and new metering modules and much faster write speeds on SDXC cards probably the result will be worth the wait.
For sure it will be available in this year and judging by the Ricoh policy to not overcharge a lot we can expect a price of maximum 1M Yen.
We don't know today how well the CMOS sensor would perform on view cameras though.
Yep, considering that Pentax managed to get cleaner high ISO than anybody else with the current 645Dwith Sony sensors both Nikon and Pentax (Ricoh) had a good experience before... but Pentax used to start an easily detectable (see DxO graphs) NR (you can't switch that off, no) after something like ISO1600 (with APS-C sensors)
Finally, a wild guess: what we are about to see revealed is one or more cameras using a Sony CMOS sensor in a near 645 size like 54x40mm and so with pixel pitch slightly larger than 6 microns -- because the target for these is those MF users who want features like better low-light performance, good DR and more usable Live View, and minimal cropping of their prime lenses relative to 645 film, and for whom 50MP is more than enough. Look for DR to be hyped in the marketing!So my punditry is about as bad as all those professional tech analysts who have predicted the failure of every new Apple product in the last few years!
does that graph really shows that it "completely eliminates" ?Compared to the graphs for Kodak/Truesense sensors without micro-lenses like the KAF-50100 (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/full-frame-ccd/64-KAF-50100) , the micro-lensed Dalsa has equally low rate of falloff with angle as far as I can see: down 20% from maximum at 30 degrees off-perpendicular, for example.
Yep, considering that Pentax managed to get cleaner high ISO than anybody else with the current 645D, we can expect them to do well with the II as well.
The only questions is when it will be announced and whether they'll stick to an integrated body alone or would add a standalone back too.
We don't know today how well the CMOS sensor would perform on view cameras though.
Cheers,
Bernard
...........................
5) there is no grip to protect so the camera could be of any size without worrying about compatibility
therefore I expect a much smaller 645D2 camera than the current model and with a larger pentaprism.
Regards,
Radu
You always have interesting insights into Pentax Radu. Can you explain #5 in your post please? No grip to protect?may be he was talking about mount (camera/back mount) ?
"Never" is not a word I don't use often but I think the chances that Pentax will make a digital back ever are close to 0%.I agree, and propose one more argument for your list: with Pentax's 645 system, the cost of a 645D is dominated by the cost of what would go into the digital back, as opposed to the part that would go into separate "front" (body), so the cost savings in being able to upgrade just a Pentax digital back rather than buying a complete new Pentax 645D camera would be modest, and would for most customers be outweighed by the advantages and the integrated design.
Now we know… this is a "basic" MF product, to attract DSLR users to MF…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvEEB7GYbY0
The video mentions "14 stops of dynamic range at all ISO settings."
I noticed this is something that Arri also says about the Alexa. You always get 14 stops.
That's a weird way of speaking.
I understand that the sensor takes in 14 stops (or so) regardless of what the gain setting is. So the question is what would they do with that dynamic range during the gain and A-D steps?
You always have interesting insights into Pentax Radu. Can you explain #5 in your post please? No grip to protect?
Tom
It is a marketing truth, know in common speak as BS.
Hi,I've yet to see in pictures the 1.5 stops DR difference in favour of Nikon than Canon that DXO finds… and that's although I'm using Nikons for FF….
It is a marketing truth, know in common speak as BS.
Best regards
Erik
After years of touting their 12 bit sensors as "16 bit" we finally get an almost-16 bit sensor. For a moment, I thought "facts" were converging on reality. We need new lies?…for sure! …remember "De Lorean"? …it became "back to the future".
I've yet to see in pictures the 1.5 stops DR difference in favour of Nikon than Canon that DXO finds… and that's although I'm using Nikons for FF….
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-CF044323_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-_DSC3262_vsmall.jpg) |
I've yet to see in pictures the 1.5 stops DR difference in favour of Nikon than Canon that DXO finds… and that's although I'm using Nikons for FF….
Lift the shadows at base ISO and you'll see it. You can lift the shadows on the D800 6 stops without pattern noise or read noise becoming intrusive. You cannot do this on the 6D/5DII/5DIII.I have a D800 (it's an "E" actually… and I didn't say "I can't find any difference… I said I've yet to see the 1.5 stops of difference...
The video mentions "14 stops of dynamic range at all ISO settings."
What I meant is that there is no separate (battery) grip as an accessory sbut never say never, may be Pentax will make a battery grip for 645DmkII ?
Yes, I've also noticed that, and it will be debunked before long. The 14-stops are likely (although TBD) for native sensitivity, which may be ISO 100, but it will drop as ISO gain is boosted or the image is underexposed. Just plain physics, currently there is no way around it.
Cheers,
Bart
I think it can work if you don't manipulate the raw file. Shooting 6400 ISO corresponds to -6 EV exposure. It will give very noisy shadows but 6 stops of extra protection in the highlights.
The H3D2-50 works like that. It does not have an amplifier it its CCD, so it actually takes all pictures at ISO50 and manipulates the data numerically. I can insure you that ISO 400 is not what you want to use on that camera.
Since you like dxomark, you can check what they measured about that particular camera. It is in their database.
The question still remains though… "why would one spend that much money on an MF system that its only advantage will be higher Iso performance... Obviously, when buying an MF system, one should concentrate on near base Iso performance ...1) The advantage will almost certainly not be only in low light/high ISO performance; the Sony Exmor CMOS sensor should also have an advantage at base ISO speed through lower dark noise levels and thus somewhat greater dynamic range. Phase One (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series/IQ2-Specifications.aspx) reports a 14 stops DR for the IQ250, vs 13 for the IQ260 and IQ280, and this 14 stops fits with third party measurements of other Sony Exmor sensors of similar pixel size. (This is an inherent and well-evidenced advantage of CMOS sensors, and in particular Sony's Exmor sensors, over CCD.) By the way, I recommend ignoring the 16-bit spec.: 16-bit conversion of a 13 stop signal simply adds "three bits of marketing noise", as has been explained many times.
1) The advantage will almost certainly not be only in low light/high ISO performance; the Sony Exmor CMOS sensor should also have an advantage at base ISO speed through lower dark noise levels and thus somewhat greater dynamic range. Phase One (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series/IQ2-Specifications.aspx) reports a 14 stops DR for the IQ250, vs 13 for the IQ260 and IQ280, and this 14 stops fits with third party measurements of other Sony Exmor sensors of similar pixel size. (This is an inherent and well-evidenced advantage of CMOS sensors, and in particular Sony's Exmor sensors, over CCD.) By the way, I recommend ignoring the 16-bit spec.: 16-bit conversion of a 13 stop signal simply adds "three bits of marketing noise", as has been explained many times.
2) Some people will appreciate convenient 24fps Live View for careful manual focusing.
3) Some people like the ability to use medium format lenses rather than the ones available for 35mm format.
4) Compared to options like Sony's 36MP 36x24mm Exmor sensors: even in situations where 36MP is enough, 51MP downsized to match the resolution and detail given by a 36MP sensor gains in "per pixel" SNR and DR, and thus in fineness of tonal gradations, shadow noise, etc. For image shapes like 4:3 and 5:4, the image comes from almost twice the area on a 44x33mm sensor compared to using a 36x24mm sensor (90% more to be pedantic), and with the same core sensor technology, this is likely to deliver a visible difference in some situations.
Optimistically, I can see 44x33mm as simply a good place to start with CMOS sensors in formats larger than 35mm, because compared to even larger formats, this has lower development and manufacturing costs, more potential customers given Pentax's choice of 44x33mm format for its 645D, all allowing lower initial retail prices. Let us see how well it sells, and if Sony/Phase One/Hasselblad respond with further models closer to full 645 format.
Some Dentists, Physicians, etc take better images than some so called professionals. They are also intelligent enough not to purchase blingged up equipment that has no function. The reference is getting a bit tired.