EVFs and digital backs

[Paul Spinnler]

I think the new Hassy back will reinvigorate tech cams a bit, especially open systems like Alpa, Arca, Cambo.

On the firmware side there could be done a lot, true, even without AF digarons. You could as you mention have the back intelligently zoom to 100% when manual focusing which would make it easy to work manually.

There's still no alternative to Rodies and SK late-gen lenses in terms of sharpness and especially image circle so IMHO I will stick to the tech cam approach.

I also hope that the IQ5 will again plunk down technological superiority, especially on the dynamic range front the big housing and financial wiggle room with high end components should make it possible to establish again a delta with the lower part of the high-end.

A true 18 stop 200 megapixel back would be absolutely amazing.

Every time I shoot film I am still astonished how well it retains highlights and how "whole" the image looks tonality-wise, so I am excited to see what's coming ... I think most likely 2025. Next year it ist just a new XL body, maybe tilt variants of the 70 and 90 and that's it.

 

[ThdeDude]

... the new Hassy back will reinvigorate tech cams ...

Certainly looking forward to seeing the reviews.

Since modeled on the X2D 100C and the CFV II 50C we already fairly know what to expect. Many say that HB's menu system is intuitive and minimalistic. But unfortunately, Phocus Mobile 2 app apparently has issues.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Since modeled on the X2D 100C and the CFV II 50C we already fairly know what to expect. Many say that HB's menu system is intuitive and minimalistic.

The point is that there are three reasons why tech cams are under fire, IMHO, sorted by severance:

1) Price of digital back
2) Price of lenses
3) Workflow

Theory is that if 1) is 10kish for 100 megapixels and modern HW (I/O, internal storage, etc.) 2) might be more palatable as you can buy used or just mount on AU and 3) leading to some people accepting slower workflows for the enjoyment of the tech cam process and results (Rodie glass clarity + ability to stitch).

You can buy a used Rodie for 5k a used tech cam for 3-5k and a hassy back for 10k meaning entry ticket is 20k or even less for a state of the art system; maybe 16k if you find a cheap lens and body.

That's not too bad and might give the whole tech cam space a boost.

 

[akaru]

There’s a huge esoteric store of knowledge to overcome as well (for which this forum is a great source). And in this economy, $20k is asking a lot.

Yet I hope that if things lighten up it could add a spark. I hear the 2025 thing a lot, but with no news from Sony that seems like a stretch even. I think for a lot of people 100mp is nominal hard stop for excellence. So what would Sony bring to the table that would have makers take part? Maybe Fuji buyers would go for 150mp and faster readout, or maybe Fuji sells enough that they have to work with any new sensor. But others do not. It may take a 200mp 44x33 / 300mp 54x40 to seal the deal.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Agree, it is esoteric at this stage. When I started with tech cams end of 2000s it was still mainstream, now it is more specialist and niche and maybe too niche to start, even.

This said, nothing beats the quality and feel of an Alpa with a SK / Rodie HR lenses for me to this day and the Fuji hasn't and won't change that in my case.

What about such improvements:

1) More dynamic range – it is still not neg. film. 1 more stop or a tad more would be amazing. It is the key feature of Arri's systems
2) Faster I/O, especially state of the art wifi for live streaming of live view and data transfer; new connectivity relating to other stuff like control - e.g. bluetooth release
3) Resolution and faster readout
4) New colour science
5) Video (you could mount LF cinema glass)
6) Faster in camera processing
7) Significantly improved battery efficiency
8) A new EVF accessory which can attach to the back

 

[cunim]

I kept my IQ180 for many years (great back) before feeling the IQ4 offered enough to justify an upgrade - and it wasn't the increase to 150 MP that was the deciding factor. It was the usability. Do we want a 200 MP back?

Yes, the increased resolution would have a theoretical impact. The modulation transfer of an optical system is the product of the MT functions of the components. That means optical system resolution is not limited by any one component and higher resolution in the back will always yield better overall resolution in the back/lens system. However, there are other limiting factors. One of those is focus precision. In fact, to gain any real benefit from a 200 MP back you would probably need a spectacular EVF. You may also need lenses with finer focus throws, heavy tripods, better sensor package mounting, etc. because that circle of confusion is really tiny! Can a 200 MP sensor be useful in a system that is not radically better overall?

Then there is readout. Faster the readout, higher the noise. An extra 50 MP is a relatively small increase in pixel count, but even small increases in readout SNR are a big deal so a 200 MP sensor would probably read out more slowly. Is that acceptable?

I am sure you can think of lots of other issues. Seems to me that we are already at the point that sensors have outstripped other aspects of our digital backs, and P1/Hassy would do better concentrating on usability factors (like the EVF) than on megapixels. The IQ4 150 is already like a family sedan with a huge engine stuffed into it. An even bigger engine is not going to get you there any faster. You need to improve what is around the engine first.

Of course, the back manufacturers could get creative and alter the platform,. I dream of a large sensor package with fatter pixels, higher resolution and a resurrection of (recalculated) large format lenses. Just a dream.

 

[akaru]

I just want 6x6.

I don't flat stitch a whole lot but I invest in large IC lenses partially in the hope that a larger sensor would some day appear. (It won't .)

300mp would be a huge jump that to me would kill any desire to do LF again, but I agree that it's "more pixels, more problems". It's already beyond annoying with the IQ4, it's to the point that I can comfortably blame it on imperfect focus at times because it's so slow to update live view (an evf would help this if the bottleneck is in the built-in display and not the readout). Would faster electronics be enough to justify a likely $35k upgrade price for an IQ5? Not for many. If a CFV100c comes out and has a trigger release and an evf and a fast display, I would use it in place of the IQ4 in many instances just for usability, I must admit.

Agreed on finer focus throws as well. My R camera can do it, and the Cambo helical I had on a newer 180HR could probably handle it, as would the 138. I wonder if the helicals on my Helvetars could be somehow "tightened"?

 

[buildbot]

I just want 6x6.

I don't flat stitch a whole lot but I invest in large IC lenses partially in the hope that a larger sensor would some day appear. (It won't .)

They have and do still exist, just the price is 6-7 figures a chip. For example: https://optics.org/news/13/7/28

I wonder how many of the Fairchild 60mm x 60mm CCDs exist still... I feel like the time is right for the retro photography movement to move onto CCDs as the new fad! What could one do with modern ADC techniques and image processing...

Would have lots of downsides though, no live view or anything...

 

[ThdeDude]

I just want 6x6.

Make it 6x7 - better aspect ratio for printing, and it's easy enough to crop 6x7 to 6x6.

With the exception of the 23mm all current Digarons cover 6x7. (Interesting for those who use or consider using medium format roll film)

 

[akaru]

Cambo has in-body rotation (a bit clunky but solid on the 1600; more sophisticated but less robust on the XT). Arca Swiss has the most elegant solution, the Rotamount. Alpa has nothing in this department as something like the Rotamount requires additional space that would take away from their tilt spacer.

The solution: no rotation / square images

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Cambo has in-body rotation (a bit clunky but solid on the 1600; more sophisticated but less robust on the XT). Arca Swiss has the most elegant solution, the Rotamount. Alpa has nothing in this department as something like the Rotamount requires additional space that would take away from their tilt spacer.

The solution: no rotation / square images

Alpa by choice has no rotation. There's no reason one could not have a rotaing back adapter. But Seitz decided against for technical reasons. I am not convinced though, but this is what they have been saying on this for many years.

 

[ThdeDude]

The solution: no rotation / square images

Yes, that's the advantage of the a square format: No need for reversible or rotatable backs. (For HB's 907X/CFV a square sensor would definitely work better than the current non-square sensor.)

With reversible backs there is always the danger of dropping the whole thing when taking off or putting back the back, and with rotatable backs (where available) there is added weight and complexity.

The best solution would be an oversized round sensor, where one could select the desired aspect ratio within the lens cone coverage.

 

[buildbot]

The best solution would be an oversized round sensor, where one could select the desired aspect ratio within the lens cone coverage.

This would be nice but kinda tricky from a silicon perspective. I think all wafer cutting is basically rectangular only. Even if it was not you waste the square around your circular image sensor, which you pay for, so you might as well make a square/rectangular sensor.

 

[akaru]

Fine, fine. I'll settle for 6x7!

 

[dchew]

Alpa has nothing in this department as something like the Rotamount requires additional space that would take away from their tilt spacer.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can rotate the digital back on my Alpa 90, 180 or 270 degrees; same with my 6x7 film back; same with any lens.

Dave

 

[akaru]

I'm not sure what you mean. I can rotate the digital back on my Alpa 90, 180 or 270 degrees; same with my 6x7 film back; same with any lens.

Dave

I meant without removing the back, sorry for the lack of clarity. Something like the Rotamount would require depth, so if they made a similar solution, you'd lose tilt on SB17 lenses.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

ACDB-991 - Cambo

They could also develop a rotating back adapter which is flat like Cambo. But this potentially would require a new camera body if they can't fit the mechanics in the dimensions of the current back adapter or if the rotating mechanism is incompatible with other Alpa bodies.

Unfortunately I think we'll have to stick with the take out put back approach, but on the other hand I must say the Alpa has very tight latches which give me a lot of confidence. I shoot mostly in landscape mode, so it is not such an issue, but ofc would be nice to have.

I love the rotamount, but I must say the fact that Arca has only one securing clip stress me out sometimes.

 

[ThdeDude]

This would be nice but kinda tricky from a silicon perspective. I think all wafer cutting is basically rectangular only. Even if it was not you waste the square around your circular image sensor, which you pay for, so you might as well make a square/rectangular sensor.

Agree, but since we were taking about 6x7 sized sensors anyway.

Oversized sensor is something we probably will see first in smartphones, for example, like in Sony's Xperia Pro-I. Here it makes perfect sense: would not increase thickness of smartphone yet increase user comfort since could choose aspect ratio and orientation together with better image quality (since cropped within cone coverage and not within sensor area).

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Literally the best thing P1 could do besides increased DR and resolution is to work on an EVF solution for the IQ5 gen. It would have following advantages:

1) New types of X bodies based on non-AF digarons which allow for more dynamic shooting – how amazing would it be to have fast live view, good firmware with face detect and focus to 100% zoom like in the Leica SL line of camera – focusing an M lens on an SL is a dream
2) Optionality down the road for mirrorless AF lenses, although unclear if the budget would be made available to develop an AF successor to the XF

Still, EVF combined with X system would be truly groundbreaking for the category as it would elevate the shooting experience and diversify the use cases. You could use it classically on a tech cam with shift or more run and gun style in a compact body.

Alas, I think it will be adream!