Cost of 44x33 Sony "MF" sensor?

[synn]

Ah. A physicist
Cost is relative too

Edmund

So is relevance to what I was saying, but don't let that stop you.

[EricWHiss]

Maybe there ought to be a 'weight class' for the MF cameras?  Or instead of the wrestling analogy how about displacement like in race cars?   I care less about mega pixels than I do  sensor size or physical area - so that's my metric.       The Sony CMOS sensor rates in at 1452mm^2.   FF DSLR's are only 840mm^2.   I'd be tempted to arbitrarily draw the MF limit at 1500mm^2 just to get some people all wound up.  But moving forward...   The new CMOS chip sort of seems close to MF on first take, but a full frame Hass V or Rolleiflex Hy6 at 56mm x 56mm would be more than double the area of the 44x33mm Sony…  3136mm^2 vs 1452mm^2.  

     The difference in sensor area between the FF 35mm sensors and the Sony CMOS is nearly exactly the same between the Sony CMOS and the big CCD sensors.     840 FF DLSR > 1452 Sony > 2173 Credo 60,80     so from the area point of view the Sony CMOS is exactly a 'tweener.

[eronald]

So is relevance to what I was saying, but don't let that stop you.

Could it? I have the attention span of a fly and Alzie hovering over my shoulder.

Anyway, I chatted to Mitch Feinberg re. his digital 8x10. I feel this size will be coming back in about 10-15 years or so.
I really like the way old - eg. pre WWI- imagery looks. Before Oskar Barnack came round and minfied everything.

Edmund

PS. Eric - nice maths, I fully agree.

[uaiomex]

Actually my conclusions were shily stated after your conclusions and in a way I was accepting yours but you always seem to be right on the edge of being unpolite. I was expecting a friendly discussion but I just got whacked (relative).  Have a nice life. Eduardo.                                                      

I am talking in terms of relativity. Not mathematics.
Feel free to reach your own conclusions.

[bcooter]

I don't think the cost or for that matter what Leaf, Phase or Blad are going to do with a Sony cmos sensor.

Those plans are pretty much announced and or done.

The question is what's Sony doing?     Probably something different, probably niche, probably strange.  I would think a fixed lens camera like a mini mamiya rangefinder but with Sony who knows because they seem to like to make a lot of different stuff, throw it up and see what stays airborne.

Leica I doubt will use it.   They could have done what everyone else on the planet did and buy a sony sensor, but they went with a different company for cmos, probably will again for their S series, but who knows.  Personally I think they should hold still, but that's just me.

I'd love to see Leica make a real movie camera.    They have the lenses and they sweat the details so well, it probably would be good, but maybe that's not a market they see enough room to play in and movie cameras are kind of clunky modular things that don't fit the Leica design ethos.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

I don't think the cost or for that matter what Leaf, Phase or Blad are going to do with a Sony cmos sensor.

Those plans are pretty much announced and or done.

The question is what's Sony doing?     Probably something different, probably niche, probably strange.  I would think a fixed lens camera like a mini mamiya rangefinder but with Sony who knows because they seem to like to make a lot of different stuff, throw it up and see what stays airborne.

Leica I doubt will use it.   They could have done what everyone else on the planet did and buy a sony sensor, but they went with a different company for cmos, probably will again for their S series, but who knows.  Personally I think they should hold still, but that's just me.

I'd love to see Leica make a real movie camera.    They have the lenses and they sweat the details so well, it probably would be good, but maybe that's not a market they see enough room to play in and movie cameras are kind of clunky modular things that don't fit the Leica design ethos.

IMO

BC

Well, at least we can hope for some novelty and entertainment from Sony. I really don't know why we want our cameras to be "novel", but it is true that most of what has been coming out in digital is basically horseless carriages, and it would be time for someone to invent the sports car

Edmund

[Some Guy]

Since the OP's link today shows a bunch of Leica stuff, maybe it's for a new Leica S3 since the S2 with its 30x45mm 37 MP sensor came out in 2008 and is about time for an upgrade in their life-cycle.  They need to keep the Leica collectors happy with something new to buy and let sit in their jewelry box to appreciate in value in 70 years.

Kodak made their S2 CCD sensor and we all know where Kodak went.  Maybe Leica decided Sony was the better one to make a new sensor?  Sony could begin production with Leica's income, then later use the sensor for something they make.  Ala, Sony making a 36MP sensor for Nikon, then using it for their own model.

SG

[Chairman Bill]

Sony should buy up the rights to the Contax brand, then employ former Contax designers & engineers & make a new Contax 645.

Maybe just me, but I struggle to take the Sony name seriously when on a camera

[mtomalty]

If Sony does bring a 'medium format' camera to market my money is on them
producing a fixed lens 'compact' medium format camera along the lines of
their 35mm RX1/RX1r camera
I'd personally like to see a digital camera/lens modelled after the Mamiya 6 or 7
but can't see that happening

Mark
www.marktomalty.com

[Geoff_C]

Mark, you may get your wish afterall.  Have a look at the Sony rumors website.  The latest rumor is that the Sony "MF" camera will be similar to a Mamiya 7.

[eronald]

Mark, you may get your wish afterall.  Have a look at the Sony rumors website.  The latest rumor is that the Sony "MF" camera will be similar to a Mamiya 7.

Actually 6x9 folding rangefinders eg. Plaubel Makina or Fuji had a big amateur following in Japan, so this product makes sense with sales guaranteed for the domestic market.

Edmund

[BobShaw]

Medium format is a width (60mm) , just like 35mm is a width of the film in the camera.

In practice a medium format image was 56mm wide because there was an unusable area of 4mm and 35mm image was 24mm wide because it had a big unusable area with sprockets on both sides.
The length of the image was completely up to what camera you had.

A 617 camera image was 56mm wide (6) by 170mm long (17). A 645 camera image was 56mm wide (6) but only about 43mm long (45).

So we have full frame 35mm digital camera that are 36mm long and 24mm wide and "cropped" cameras that are a lot less (actually only 40% the size).

In the same way we have MF digital cameras but somehow we don't see many, perhaps any at 56mm wide. It is a loose term.

Moral of the story - read the specs.

[eronald]

Moral of the story - read the specs.

I guess most of us are so old we remember large format, and need specs to read

Edmund

[hjulenissen]

Medium format is a width (60mm) , just like 35mm is a width of the film in the camera.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
I think that the "crop" terminology is quite reasonable. Use 24x36mm as a reference (as that is what most people use as a reference today) and compare diagonals. My Canon DSLR is 1.6x crop, my Sony RX100M2 is 2.7x crop, and my cellphone is 5.6x crop. "MF" cameras would then be e.g. 0.5x crop.

For sensor of very unusual aspect ratio, it might make sense to compare area instead of diagonal?

-h

[peterottaway]

Well Sony could choose not to compete initially with its customer base by producing a RX style camera. This would enable them to get into the market without running into competition that has up to 10 years start on them in software/hardware integration.

Even if they were able to double the market over a couple of years this would reduce costs for the whole format.

[Ken R]

Maybe there ought to be a 'weight class' for the MF cameras?  Or instead of the wrestling analogy how about displacement like in race cars?   I care less about mega pixels than I do  sensor size or physical area - so that's my metric.       The Sony CMOS sensor rates in at 1452mm^2.   FF DSLR's are only 840mm^2.   I'd be tempted to arbitrarily draw the MF limit at 1500mm^2 just to get some people all wound up.  But moving forward...   The new CMOS chip sort of seems close to MF on first take, but a full frame Hass V or Rolleiflex Hy6 at 56mm x 56mm would be more than double the area of the 44x33mm Sony…  3136mm^2 vs 1452mm^2.  

     The difference in sensor area between the FF 35mm sensors and the Sony CMOS is nearly exactly the same between the Sony CMOS and the big CCD sensors.     840 FF DLSR > 1452 Sony > 2173 Credo 60,80     so from the area point of view the Sony CMOS is exactly a 'tweener.

I agree. That is what it feels like in use. I had the 645D (44x33mm sensor) and now I have the IQ160 (40.4x53.9) and the IQ just has the look of a larger format (well, because it is). With the 645D the difference compared to 35mm full frame was perceivable of course but it was not that much. With the IQ160 it just feels quite significant. I mean, I would prefer the size of 6x7 for shooting people but for general use the 40x54mm sensor feels right. I love it and am very happy with the IQ160. Really like the Dalsa sensor. I am enjoying the 4:3 aspect ratio too. I hope Phase makes a CMOS back with a similar size sensor in the future. I mean that might not happen but it would be nice. If not there is always the IQ180/280 also. The Phase IQ chassis is so good that I don't mind using it for the next 10 years.

Regarding the new sony 44x33mm sensor it is interesting that the product releases using it are somewhat following a path from the most expensive to the most affordable if everything happens according to rumors. The IQ250 was first ($35k) then the H5D-50C ($28k), then the Pentax 645D II ($10k?) and then maybe a Sony MF Camera (at $7k??).

[BJL]

Medium format is a width (60mm), just like 35mm is a width of the film in the camera.

In practice a medium format image was 56mm wide because there was an unusable area of 4mm and 35mm image was 24mm wide because it had a big unusable area with sprockets on both sides.
The length of the image was completely up to what camera you had.

One complication of that comparison of film dimensions is that the 56mm is used as the long dimension of the frame in most medium format film cameras (56x42mm for "645" and 56x56 with "6x6") whereas 24mm is the short dimension of standard 35mm format frame, 36x24mm.

In Europe, it is common to refer to that last format as "36x24mm", and I am sure that photographers who can handle exposure information involving several numbers (shutter speed, aperture ratio and ISO speed) could handle two numbers in describing a format.  And we did it with 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 5"x4", 10"x8", and often still do with print sizes.

On the other hand, with most cameras using formats in a small range of shapes from 4:3 to 3:2 (an 11% difference), the single measure of diagonal in mm should be good enough for most practical purposes.

Some examples:
16mm for the 13.2x8.8mm of 1" format sensors
22mm for the 17.3x13mm of recent 4/3" sensors
22.5mm for the 18x13.5mm of the "official 4/3" video sensor format
27-28mm for the various "APS-C" digital formats, ranging from about 22.5x15mm to 24x16mm
30mm for the 25.1x16.7mm of the APS-C film format
42mm for the 36x24mm of "35mm" still camera format
55mm for 44x33mm
67mm for 53.7x40.4mm, the current largest sensor for "digital medium format"
70mm for 56x42mm, the full "645" film format

[RichDesmond]

...On the other hand, with most cameras using formats in a small range of shapes from 4:3 to 3:2 (an 11% difference), the single measure of diagonal in mm should be good enough for most practical purposes...

Very logical, but I don't think you'll get very many people to switch, even if your method made life easier and simpler.
After all, I imagine you're still using a QWERTY keyboard. 

[eronald]

Most consumers are logical, and have switched to a single number: MegaPixels.

I guess you could could also have a megapixel equivalent for a certain SNR or something. That would take both chip surface, QE and other factors into account.

Edmund

Very logical, but I don't think you'll get very many people to switch, even if your method made life easier and simpler.
After all, I imagine you're still using a QWERTY keyboard. 

[Justinr]

Most consumers are logical, and have switched to a single number: MegaPixels.

I guess you could could also have a megapixel equivalent for a certain SNR or something. That would take both chip surface, QE and other factors into account.

Edmund

They are not that logical for there is some confusion still between mega pixels and million pixels. A 16 megapixel camera would be pretty crap in reality.