Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

[FredBGG]

I'm going to put on my geek hat for a minute, but before I do let me point out that there are far more qualified people to answer that question. Without going into too much detail, putting more photosites on a small chip is a relatively minor R&D and production expense. By and large, it scales with Moore's Law providing that things like test and measurement are able to keep up. Going to a physically larger sensor requires larger dies, larger wafers, new machines, new technologies and possibly new factories.

What this means in plain language is you will probably see a 200 mp DSLR before you see an 80 mp 6x7, though the latter is fun to think about. As Guy pointed out, large sensors really aren't in the cards until there is a major shift in manufacturing technology away from silicon wafers.

Current silicone waffers are big enough. Dalsa already makes x-ray chips that are made of 10x8cm chips and they can be butted up to each other. They already make a 30x24cm panel.

All that would be required is for Fuji to make it's current sensor twice as big and then assemble 4 of them together. It would not be all that expensive.

How about something like 4 D700 sensors. Could be done under $10,000

Nikon is rumored to be coming out with a 24MP FF camera that costs under $ 2,000.

There are now many sensor manufacurers.. the sensor is not the problem.
The problem is two things

Can an MF manufacturer engineer the camera body or in Mamiya's case refresh the RZ sufficiently.

The other problem is that the MF business model is still based on how it started. How much they can gouge the photographer because he is saving on film.

 

[wentbackward]

...Cameras like the D800 are capable of near medium format results...I really don't like the look of 35 mm...

Perhaps poorly chosen wording? I'd say small format cameras are capable of near MF resolution (at the moment).

On a bright sunny day with everything in focus, a P&S is EASILY capable of matching any DSLR, printed from 10x8 up to A3 and an iPhone is capable of matching anything at all if the image goes on flickr, facebook or perhaps in a travel book. It's when you want MORE!

I think we need to ask some questions.
- What is MORE and what are you prepared to sacrifice for it?
- What specifically helps you achieve it, be it a waist level finder or zero distortion APO wide angle lens
- What are the unique characteristics of this format that set it apart
- The lower DoF is obvious, but how does the field curvature (or lack thereof) of certain lenses affect an image?
- What are the best portrait lenses (LETS HAVE A LENS PORTRAIT SHOOTOUT)
- How are details are smoothed as DoF falls off.
- How far from the camera can a subject be and still pop it from the background. Should those mountains really be in focus or not, because with MF you can choose but SF cannot?
- How about Joe Cornish or Julian Calverly or Nick Brandt or Mitchell Feinberg or Drew Gardners surreal imagery (just to pick a few guys who don't do small format). What do they do, how does the format they use affect their work, what do you think about them?

 

[torger]

I guess you've seen this? There exist large sensors, and this company is prepared to make a photographic camera out of it if someone is willing to pay. Their sensor is 95x95mm:

[Video] With Your Help We Can Make The Largest Digital Camera Ever | Fstoppers

The fact that large sensors is made for scientific applications will keep it possible for large sensor digital cameras for those that can pay.

I guess you also know about Mitchell Feinberg's custom made 8x10" (!) digital backs?

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/08/meet-six-figure-8x10-custom-made-digital-back

the cost was said to be "low six figures".

 

[Douglas Fairbank]

[
Waist level viewfinder.
Bring back the god damn waist level viewfinder (removing this was a crazy idea, a classic example of making a medium format camera behave like a 35mm one). Stop doing this! Maybe even enhance it with auto exposure & focus. The waist level finder allows for a different perspective; the photographer / subject dynamic changes considerably and it allows for a more compact setup for hand held use. A photographer with a MF camera held to their eye is considerably more threatening than one looking down at a waist level finder. Plus the company makes money on the sales of waist level finders!

Returning to a part of the original post about a feature that was a defining part of MF. What happened to the WLF and why did photographers fall out of love with? I agree with the points in the original post but some things don't add up. You can get a WLF for a Hasselblad H camera but when was the last time you saw one. It cant be about the metering as so many people use their H cameras in Manual anyway. Maybe we are all too happy to use the camera the way the designer thought it should be used
In terms of popularity the 45 degree prism for the Hasselblad V was the most commonly used after the WLF, they are nice to use, but, on paper it makes no sense.

 

[6x6]

Firstly Phase One has access to 3 different modern camera designs that it can use to build a new one from. This could keep the costs down somewhat. There is the Leaf AFi, 645DF and Industrial camera designs. Having read the thread and all the great comments, maybe the EVF CMOS is the way that Phase One should go. In a way the stars are aligning that way:

- The Industrial camera is a pretty good start in the EVF direction
- The LS lenses have a Leaf Shutter
- CMOS production costs are lower
- Phase One has a lot of R&D in remote capture and display of images (Capture Pilot, tethered shooting with C1)

In fact if you take the Phase One industrial camera image jagsiva posted, it is not too difficult to squint and see a finder that could attach to the top for waist level EVF.

EVF might also answer many of my original issues like mirror noise, waist level finders, differentiated design from 35mm etc. I would only ask that they designed it to allow for a big sensor.

 

[6x6]

I also wanted to point out that this thread has been view more than 1,000 times in less than 24 hours. We might not all agree exactly, which is a good thing, but it does indicate that there is plenty of pent up frustration out there for MF to start moving in a direction that differentiates it from 35mm.

 

[Stefan Steib]

The funktion of the waistlevel finder was to change the angle of the photographers eye to the camera, so he could look from top down to the (mostly) handheld camera.

This exists today in a much better form and it is called tilting display. If you are keen using it on your eye - get a Zacuto Finder on that -or - get an Zacuto EVF and put it to the eye and use the camera - anywhere - where you want it. Brighter, with better usability and best comfort.......

I agree the folding WLF was somehow cheap and uncomplicated, but hmmm this is really something you will not miss if you really need to work with this if you got something better !

Regards
Stefan

 

[6x6]

The funktion of the waistlevel finder was to change the angle of the photographers eye to the camera, so he could look from top down to the (mostly) handheld camera.

I agree with you. When I talk about a waist level viewfinder I was not referring to bringing back the original MF design, rather allow me to compose by looking down rather than bringing the camera up to my eye. From a portrait perspective it is really threatening and harder to have a rapport with the subject when your eye is pressed up against the current Phase One design. So EVF, tilt screen, in fact whatever allows for me to look down and compose.

 

[torger]

I think there can be a market for "luxury nostalgic digital backs", say a 6x7 digital back that goes right on a RZ camera, also a 6x6 sensor for old hasselblad would work. It would be similar to what Leica is doing with the rangefinder cameras.

The trick would be to have a low enough development and manufacturing cost so it does not become too insanely expensive and that you can do a small number of them and still make some sort of profit. It would be CCD (quite easy to make large) without modern bells and whistles. Probably no more than 40 megapixels or so to not stress out the old lenses and focusing systems. A pretty small company could probably make such a product.

How large was Betterlight that did the large format scanning backs? I'd guess that making this type of 6x7 digital back would be a similar effort.

Just need some venture capital... . Somehow I see it more likely that a new small startup company would do this kind of product than that the established players would. Phase One etc is probably more interested in getting a 44x33mm CMOS sensor than going really large CCD...

 

[6x6]

I think there can be a market for "luxury nostalgic digital backs", say a 6x7 digital back that goes right on a RZ camera, also a 6x6 sensor for old hasselblad would work. It would be similar to what Leica is doing with the rangefinder cameras.

I'm afraid I don't understand this direction from the discussion. Why would it need to luxury or nostalgic?

It's my belief (and I maybe misguided) that there is a pent up frustration amongst portrait / fashion / (some) documentary photographers who want to use a MF camera for their work. The current offering from Phase One does not offer the kind of functionality that suits portrait work, so the peers I know are sitting with 35mm. Its not something they really want to use, but they are because there is no viable alternative.

 

[dick]

What happened to the WLF and why did photographers fall out of love with? .. You can get a WLF for a Hasselblad H camera but when was the last time you saw one. It cant be about the metering as so many people use their H cameras in Manual anyway.

Most photographers walk upright on two legs, and when they "see a picture" they put their camera to their eyes and press the button - they do not usually ask themselves if a different view point or height would give a better picture.

Hasselblad have put many of the camera's functions in the viewfinder - so the camera does not work well without it.

Still more functions are in the mirror box, including the GPS attachment point... but the latest software does give you the option of more info on the digiback rather than the viewfinder display.

The Hasselblad V sys was a versatile camera and you could use the Flexbody with most lenses including the Macro 120, and you could buy an "extension tube" shutter... why do they not make their shutter available in an extension tube and as a tech-cam electronic shutter?

...but I think, apart from the digiback clip-on battery, the H4D-60 is now a full-implemented working camera?

¿Will they support the Sinar eShutter?

 

[fotografz]

Returning to a part of the original post about a feature that was a defining part of MF. What happened to the WLF and why did photographers fall out of love with? I agree with the points in the original post but some things don't add up. You can get a WLF for a Hasselblad H camera but when was the last time you saw one. It cant be about the metering as so many people use their H cameras in Manual anyway. Maybe we are all too happy to use the camera the way the designer thought it should be used
In terms of popularity the 45 degree prism for the Hasselblad V was the most commonly used after the WLF, they are nice to use, but, on paper it makes no sense.

Yesterday, when I used it for a low angle shot, rather than laying on the freaking ground ... and the week prior when the camera was on a camera stand pointed straight down and up almost to the ceiling of my studio.

Ever notice the difference in images shot with classic Rollie TLRs and the ubiquitous Hassey Vs verses eye level perspective? Yes, the photographer can squat down or bend over with a 90º eye level finder, but most usually don't ... and their back probably thanks them for that

They fell out of favor when 645s became the digital platform because they don't work in Portrait orientation. However, when doing portraits with a 60 or 80 meg back, a vertical crop is a no brainer. Heck, once 35mm DSLRs got to 20 meg, a lot of wedding and portrait shooters never turned the camera on its side ... including Dennis Reggie.

If Hasselblad made a folding WLF with a pop-up mag for the H camera, I'd jump on it ... among other things, the camera would be so much easier to travel with. In short, it just adds diversity and differentiation with very little added expense.

The Hasselblad V cameras were incredibly diverse MF cameras, with all sorts of do-dads to accomplish various tasks ... same with the RZ system with its vast array of different lenses ... sometime two or three different lenses of the same focal length.

-Marc

 

[torger]

I'm afraid I don't understand this direction from the discussion. Why would it need to luxury or nostalgic?

Luxury was probably not the right word, "exclusive" is better. I don't think it can be a mass product.

Nostalgic because I think there actually is a bit of nostalgia in this, simple cameras, more focus on look than sharpness etc. Therefore I think it could be possible to sell a 6x7 sensor only 40 megapixels, no LCD on the back (keep down development cost) and intended to go on the existing analog systems. A drop in replacement for a film magazine, no bells and whistles.

I think this type of product could be possible.

For the large volume MF market I think DSLR-like performance and handling with more resolution is what will sell to the typical professional. Sure one could drop the existing 645 systems and develop a new 6x7 system complete with lenses and all but I don't find that less likely then some small company doing a special low volume product aimed at those that still shoot 6x7 film to get the look.

I use a digital view camera. I use movements and tilts in almost every picture I shoot and I find it almost unthinkable to be without these possibilities. Still there are today many many landscape photographers much better than me that don't use movements in any of their shots. I must accept that my interest in view camera is a special interest, nostalgic if you wish, which today is not embraced broadly. I think it is the same with the desire of 6x7 MF, one must accept that it is a special interest and would only sell in small volumes.

 

[6x6]

Yesterday, when I used it for a low angle shot, rather than laying on the freaking ground ... and the week prior when the camera was on a camera stand pointed straight down and up almost to the ceiling of my studio.

You lucky ****!

I can't tell you how often I am on one knee with my eye desperately trying to get near the viewfinder. I end up looking through the viewfinder at 90 deg just to see the framing. If only I could just look down at the camera. If only. These are not nice to have features, they are vital features. Well to me anyway, I understand it doesn't matter to many.

 

[6x6]

For the large volume MF market I think DSLR-like performance and handling with more resolution is what will sell to the typical professional. Sure one could drop the existing 645 systems and develop a new 6x7 system complete with lenses and all but I don't find that less likely then some small company doing a special low volume product aimed at those that still shoot 6x7 film to get the look.

I see your point about exclusive, especially if a new range of lenses would be required to support it. Another product in a fairly small market place.

I guess I was hoping that Phase could come up with a camera that utilised their current LS / legacy lenses, but had the features that many photogs wanted. Maybe it is because of the 6x7 sensor idea? What about 6x6? Would anything be easier to design if we started from a 6x6 sensor design.

If i close my eyes and dream for a moment ...

I would have a camera where in the studio it could be tethered, with a viewfinder (or WLF) and hand grip. Then I take the camera outside where I can take off the handgrip and put on the WLF, allowing me to simply carry around a Hassy 500 type black box. Unobtrusive, simple and what great fun to use! This dreaming is not a million miles from reality.

 

[fotografz]

I'm afraid I don't understand this direction from the discussion. Why would it need to luxury or nostalgic?

It's my belief (and I maybe misguided) that there is a pent up frustration amongst portrait / fashion / (some) documentary photographers who want to use a MF camera for their work. The current offering from Phase One does not offer the kind of functionality that suits portrait work, so the peers I know are sitting with 35mm. Its not something they really want to use, but they are because there is no viable alternative.

This is a somewhat narrow view and perhaps due to the Phase One orientation of this forum and a bit of a slant toward Landscape photography. Folks here need to get out more often ...

Those who use the Hasselblad camera see it differently ... lots of functionality for portrait, fashion and even documentary work. This is the very reason I selected the system, and have continued using it in that manner for 7 years now. Each year it has gotten better at those tasks. Rather than line list all the features that make this work, just look at recent work ... including fashion/beauty, editorial, wedding/social, portrait, etc.

Masters 2012

Or very established shooters including a dye-in-the-wool Nikon shooter who also has used a H for documentary work ... Steve McCurry

User Showcase

Just expanding the world a little bit ... after all, it's about the work, not just the mechanics.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

I see your point about exclusive, especially if a new range of lenses would be required to support it. Another product in a fairly small market place.

I guess I was hoping that Phase could come up with a camera that utilised their current LS / legacy lenses, but had the features that many photogs wanted. Maybe it is because of the 6x7 sensor idea? What about 6x6? Would anything be easier to design if we started from a 6x6 sensor design.

If i close my eyes and dream for a moment ...

I would have a camera where in the studio it could be tethered, with a viewfinder (or WLF) and hand grip. Then I take the camera outside where I can take off the handgrip and put on the WLF, allowing me to simply carry around a Hassy 500 type black box. Unobtrusive, simple and what great fun to use! This dreaming is not a million miles from reality.

It is already a reality.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is why do you need a 6X6 sensor to accomplish what you want?

If you take a Hassey 503CW with the CW grip and mount a Leaf R back with rotating sensor on it ... you basically have the camera you are asking for. Remove the CW winder, slap on the WLF, and off you go with the take-with little black box you want.

Before my eyes became so crappy and AF became a necessity for the work I do, this was a real possibility that I considered before selling my entire V system. The Leaf backs with Dalsa sensors produce the type of file quality that is incredibly compatible with the Zeiss V lenses.

-Marc

(Hey Yair, do I get a commission for this sale? :ROTFL

 

[6x6]

Haha. I'm sure the commission is on its way ... well if I decided this was the route to go ...

I seriously looked at this, but half of my work requires AF / AE. So it just doesn't work for me. BUT if all the backs used the same universal mount, wow. Sales would increase for all the MF companies. I for one would go from simply a 645DF and P40+ setup to including a Hassy 500 with a couple of lenses.

Unfortunately the MF companies have shot themselves in the foot, long term, because no one is going to buy 2 backs simply because they require different mounts. However if there was a universal mount (like the adaptors Alpa make) that would be amazing. Now that solution would go some way to answering my questions.

(In reality I understand why this is not possible in many ways because back and camera need to communicate directly)

 

[JorisV]

It is already a reality.
If you take a Hassey 503CW with the CW grip and mount a Leaf R back with rotating sensor on it ...

Take the Hy6 with the Leaf Aptus-II 12R...
and you already come very close to all what was discussed above, including the autofocus lenses

 

[6x6]

Take the Hy6 with the Leaf Aptus-II 12R...
and you already come very close to all what was discussed above, including the autofocus lenses

Yes. Forgive my ignorance, but this is a system that is no longer produced is it not?

I need the support and knowledge that the system will be maintained and enhanced going forward by a reputable MF company. This is why I opted for Phase One in the first place (I could have gone for Hassy / Pentax too).