The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica: innovations on BW and MF CMOS chips

David Schneider

New member
Whatever makes the "look". The samples posted gave me a thrill that is not because the images are exceptionally good, also lenses very different and NON-Fuji lenses in the mix, so it has something to do with the way how the data is captured / processed. I doubt I can get my 5D2 to do something similar.

I would not argue about the "look", just saying it ...... . for those who see/feel the same.
I see the "look" with my Hasselblad H3d2-39, but not with 5dMK2.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Did you even read the first post?????



Pentax was part of the discussion from the get go....

And while your at it knocking Fuji you might want to keep in mind that they are in part your competitor being the manufacturer and co designer of the Hasselblad....
So they do know a thing or two about medium format.

Fuji's Super CCD 22 MP sensor was discontinued when they made their arrangements with Hasselblad.
I think that there's only so much that you can actually learn and consider as facts by following rumour websites...
Perhaps you can check again with your reliable sources, but AFAIK Truesense Imaging is still producing the 6 micron CCD sensors (H4D40, H4D50, Leica S2 & Pentax 645D along with a few other customers)
Yaya you can keep your sarcasm to yourself.

I have never stated that Truesense is not making 6 micron CCD sensors.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Also Fuji were/are involved in making the HC lenses (designed by Hasselblad) and NOT the body and the digital backs.
Hasselblad has never been very upfront about the H system. You seem to go along with the missinformation.

There all sorts of made in Japan lables on Hasselblad cameras.
The lenses are Fuji design and manufacturing.
When I was shooting in Milan many years ago a Fuji gentleman knowing that I used the Fuji gx680 brought a 645 prototype to my studio that looked very much like the Fuji gx645 when it came out.







From the Hasselblad website:
"In 1998 the result of one such partnership allowed Hasselblad, along with Fuji Photo Film, to once again revolutionize the camera industry with the introduction of the new Hasselblad XPan camera. This unique system was developed and produced by Hasselblad in close co-operation with Fuji."
Developed and produced by Hasselblad? Strange that it looks nothing like a hasselblad... not even the slightest hint of Hasselblad styling, but looked just like a scaled down Fuji 670 680 or 690. Even looks remarkably like the Fuji x-pro 1


base plate of an xpan.... says made in Japan.

It was a re lable of this


The original Fuji


The "Fujiblad" xpan
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, I went back and read my post again and it wasn't clear to even me what I was meaning! :eek:

By minute IQ differences I mean between the P65 and IQ180/Credo80. The reference to the D800 is what large IQ steps the CMOS world is taking for such little outlay compared to the £9K (guesstimate) upgrade cost of a new back with very little IQ differences.

As you say, your H4D/60 fits all your current needs so what would it take for you to upgrade again considering CCD technology seems to be near or at its peak in the latest generation of backs?
Reasonable questions for sure. I'm not sure what it would take to leverage me on to an MFD upgrade path. I've mildly considered the Hasselblad H4D/200 because I've never seen any IQ like it .... most realistic images ever. Due to how I use these cameras, live-view is of less interest since my live view is a 30" screen ;) I've worked with Multi-Shot cameras before and love the whole process and final results.

My mobile applications tend to not need that sort of performance. 24 meg or my S2 are plenty for that work. I'd opt for a 18 meg Canon 1DX for 35mm DSLR work for speed and higher ISO ... but I'm moving away from that type work lately.

I tend to follow what Teledyne Dalsa publishes on this sensor subject, as they produce both CCD and CMOS solutions and consider themselves a "neutral supplier". Of interest is the information that outlines the differences, and touts the CCD's uniformity due to inherent unencumbered design verses the on chip capabilities of CMOS, which probably accounts for more functional aspects of CMOS. I'm not an engineer, so what it all means in reality is probably debateable.

CCD vs. CMOS

Professional Still Photography

DALSA CCD Technology

So, I,m not so sure CCD has reached its peak. Dalsa states that even currently, they can produce CCD capabilities to 100+ megapixels ... but to quote Dalsa: "Of course, image quality depends on more than just pixel count".

-Marc
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I would be interested to know to what degree the 16 bit files of the CCD sensors becomes the "look" of current MFD files Vs the 14 bit files of current CMOS sensors?

The second natural question to ask is why doesn't CMOS have 16 bit files?

The third question is, if CCD sensors had 14 bit files would that allow them to run live view similar to CMOS on the grounds that they would have to some relative sense less processing to do, so faster refresh rates = better live view.

mal
There is no 16-bit camera. Having a 16-bit A/D converter does not mean there is 16-bits of information. It is great marketing though. Essentially, we live in a 14-bit world.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I don't know why anyone is surprised by the contribution Fuji made by building cameras for Hasseblad. It is about as a well kept secret like Minolta made Leica cameras and optics and Seitz manufactures Alpa cameras.
 

malmac

Member
Shashin

Well I took the 16 bit ploy hook line and sinker.

Thanks for letting me know - all I need to do now is work out how to cough up that hook stuck in my throat.


Mal
 

fotografz

Well-known member
There is no 16-bit camera. Having a 16-bit A/D converter does not mean there is 16-bits of information. It is great marketing though. Essentially, we live in a 14-bit world.
Really? Then why does sensor maker Dalsa offer the choice?

From their website:

"-Applications requiring ultra-high resolution and high bit depth (12, 14, 16)
-Medium format professional photography
-Aerial photogrammetry
-Radiography
-Industrial inspection"


I'd like to understand this better. Yet, if the resulting image from the camera is 16 bit color depth, do we care how it was achieved?

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I don't know why anyone is surprised by the contribution Fuji made by building cameras for Hasseblad. It is about as a well kept secret like Minolta made Leica cameras and optics and Seitz manufactures Alpa cameras.
Well, I for one would be very surprised since it is no secret that Hasselblad H cameras are made in Sweden and the digital backs are made in Denmark. Both clearly marked on the camera and the back. The lenses are Hasselblad designs then finalized and assembled in Japan ... which is also clearly marked on each lens.

From the horses mouth so to speak ...

"The H-System is largely designed and manufactured by Hasselblad, with Fuji's involvement being limited to finalizing Hasselblad's lens designs and producing the glass for the lenses and viewfinders. Fuji was allowed under the agreement to sell the H camera under their name in Japan only."

-Marc
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
1. As I understand 16bit TIFFs only hold 15 bit color info. One bit is reserved.

2. "if the resulting image from the camera is 16 bit color depth"

You easily can a 12-bit info into 16-bit (just some bits are random)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Yet, if the resulting image from the camera is 16 bit color depth, do we care how it was achieved?

-Marc
So my Pentax 645D is a 16-bit camera because I open my RAW files in Photoshop as 16-bit. Are you sure you don't care how it is achieved?

I work with scientific cameras that "make" 16-bit files right out of the camera. My dealers are also honest enough to tell me I am not really getting 16-bits of data. Yes, you can make a camera that will generate a 16-bit RAW file. But if the last two bits don't have any information, do you have a 16-bit file? If you buy a Pint of bitter and the bar tender just puts 12oz in the pint glass, did you get your pint?

14-bits of information is really a lot. 4.4 trillion possible different colors at each pixel is nothing to sneeze at.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Well, I for one would be very surprised since it is no secret that Hasselblad H cameras are made in Sweden and the digital backs are made in Denmark. Both clearly marked on the camera and the back. The lenses are Hasselblad designs then finalized and assembled in Japan ... which is also clearly marked on each lens.

From the horses mouth so to speak ...

"The H-System is largely designed and manufactured by Hasselblad, with Fuji's involvement being limited to finalizing Hasselblad's lens designs and producing the glass for the lenses and viewfinders. Fuji was allowed under the agreement to sell the H camera under their name in Japan only."

-Marc
From Hasselblad. I wonder what "largely designed and manufactured" means? I wonder why Hasselblad would let Fuji sell "their" cameras under the Fuji brand if they were really doing all the work. The Japanese are as fanatical about European photographic equipment as anyone else in the world, maybe more so. There is no benefit for Hasselblad to brand their cameras as Fuji. (In fact, the X-Pan was "imported" into Japan so the customers could get the Hasselblad name on it--call it the Red Dot syndrome. Even the "Rollei" branded CV Voightlander rangefinder was sold in Japan.) I am sure over time the manufacturing moves around, but to brand Fuji as an insignificant partner is a bit much.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Well, if you have to know, it should come as no surprise that Fuji invented photography. :ROTFL: And if they wanted to, just on a whim, they would release their super-duper dual CCD-CMOS sensor hybrid with 24-bit depth and live view... Nah, nevermind. Fuji would rather concentrate on world domination and taking over the world. Yeah, that's the ticket.... :D

Oh wait, none of this Fuji dribble has anything to do with a new purported sensor from Leica.... :facesmack: :rolleyes:
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Well, if you have to know, it should come as no surprise that Fuji invented photography.
What is this? The camera industry has a long history of cooperation--Nikon has made lenses for Mamiya, does that reflect badly on either company. Both Hasselblad and Fuji are excellent companies. They both make excellent products. Why is giving Fuji the credit they deserve get turned into a statement about worship? Naturally, none of the partners in these collaborations reveals the nature of the collaboration, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure them out.

BTW, if the Japanese did invent photography, then you would have to give Konica that title, as they are the oldest Japanese photographic manufacturer. BTW, Konica is also known for making excellent cameras.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Amazing what one can find on the internet...

While Chinese philosopher Mo Ii and Greek mathematicians Aristotle and Euclid described a pinhole camera the first permanent photograph was an image in 1820 by French inventor Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.

The first digital camera was invented in 1975 by Kodak and Steve Sasson. However the first digital image was made in 1957 by Russell Kirsch when he made a 176x176 pixel digital image by scanning a photograph of his 3-month old son.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
What is this? ....
It's the most sarcastic statement of the day. :p (I hope you didn't miss the humor)

With many products being a so technologically advanced sum of parts, it should come as no surprise that a finished product has the fingerprints of many companies... (no sarcasm here) ;)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
So my Pentax 645D is a 16-bit camera because I open my RAW files in Photoshop as 16-bit. Are you sure you don't care how it is achieved?

I work with scientific cameras that "make" 16-bit files right out of the camera. My dealers are also honest enough to tell me I am not really getting 16-bits of data. Yes, you can make a camera that will generate a 16-bit RAW file. But if the last two bits don't have any information, do you have a 16-bit file? If you buy a Pint of bitter and the bar tender just puts 12oz in the pint glass, did you get your pint?

14-bits of information is really a lot. 4.4 trillion possible different colors at each pixel is nothing to sneeze at.
I was referencing in context ... We were talking about sensors and in-camera ... not software.

So if they say a camera is 14 bit, is it actually 12, and 12 is actually 10?

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
From Hasselblad. I wonder what "largely designed and manufactured" means? I wonder why Hasselblad would let Fuji sell "their" cameras under the Fuji brand if they were really doing all the work. The Japanese are as fanatical about European photographic equipment as anyone else in the world, maybe more so. There is no benefit for Hasselblad to brand their cameras as Fuji. (In fact, the X-Pan was "imported" into Japan so the customers could get the Hasselblad name on it--call it the Red Dot syndrome. Even the "Rollei" branded CV Voightlander rangefinder was sold in Japan.) I am sure over time the manufacturing moves around, but to brand Fuji as an insignificant partner is a bit much.
Sorry, I'm not privy to Hasselblad's business arrangements with their suppliers, or what Fuji may have paid Hasselblad for the right to sell the Fuji H body in Japan ... if anything. Nor can I find the Fuji "H" camera on Fuji's current global website. Do they even market that camera in Japan anymore?

All I know is that saying the Hasselblad H cameras are made by Fuji in Japan is incorrect.

They are "Made in Sweden", same as the V cameras. What "Made In" means these days may be the actual question :)

Components for any number of cameras can be made in many different places ... it is a global economy after-all. I take "Made In" to mean majority design control (even with contributors outside of Sweden), final assembly, and quality control.

Not that it would make any difference IMO. The Contax 645 was the breakthrough MF system of its time, and everything was made in Japan ... including the lenses at the Carl Zeiss Institute in Japan. And, the much loved XPan was all Fuji ... how many of us would care where it was made, if that XPan were now available in a digital version? I wouldn't.

All the best,

-Marc
 
Top