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!

Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

S

ssanacore

Guest
This is key. It really is. If I was an executive at Phase One and I looked at internet forums full of customers talking about Dx0 and sensor resolution - I would damn well make sure my sensors had the highest resolution and achieved top marks in the Dx0 scores. In effect we are the creators of current medium format cameras.

If internet forums were full of people talking about lenses, waist level finders, larger sized sensors and the like - the fictitious Phase executives would listen and these cameras would change.
Let's hope so. I also never understood why Leica, Hasse and Phase thought auto focus was so important? That may be their biggest mistake in their planning. Leica killing the R line was a real mistake in my book.
 

T.Karma

New member
I believe it belongs to the "blessings" of digital technology that it always needs to be more than what it currently is. Get used to it. It doesnt matter which format you use - the only difference is that MF is slower in recycle time. You may not change your MFDB as often as a DSLR, but you will continue to change, because not your need determines your need, it is the competition that determines what you need.

With film it was very peaceful by comparison: Just buy that newly released film and ready you were.
 

torger

Active member
As a tech cam user I'm pretty much focused on resolution and lenses that support it with shift. With the current lens lineup from Schneider and Rodenstock I think the fairly small 36x48mm format is quite nice, I'm not sure if a larger sensor would help that. Difficult to make large sharp lenses too. It would be cool with a 4x5" sensor with 100 megapixels, but probably the same kind of resolution can be extracted from a smaller system.

I think it is a bit sad that newer sensors actually work less good with tech cameras (lens color cast) than older ones, but I think it is due to a conflicting goal with making them good for MF SLR.

It may be the case as the original poster says that the way forward for medium format is to concentrate on making a new RZ type of system for professional portrait photographers, make it all about lens look for portraits and then it will be more about sensor size than resolution. This will require technology that allow such large sensor sizes without astronomical cost.

For me personally I hope for continued good support for technical cameras though. Long exposure, reduced lens color cast and live view would be quite attractive features (there's so much possible to improve with ground glass though so I don't think Live View is absolutely necessary). 36x48mm 50 megapixels is a quite suitable size with today's lenses.
 

torger

Active member
Actually when reading the posts again it seems like many want to shoot 6x7 film but not having to mess around with the film development. Not sure it is a great idea.

Digital is far less forgiving than film concerning focusing and lens aberrations. I think it would be hard to sell a system with rather poor pixel-peep lens performance (which it probably will have when optimizing for "look") and manual focus that many would think is "impossible to nail" after pixel-peeping the results.

Maybe it is better to actually shoot on film and scan?
 

6x6

Member
I, for one, do not wish to go back to film. The advantages of digital are simply too great to go back. However that is simply my perspective. I recognise there is a growing place for it amongst my peers.

I think it would be hard to sell a system with rather poor pixel-peep lens performance (which it probably will have when optimizing for "look") and manual focus that many would think is "impossible to nail" after pixel-peeping the results.
This is not really what I was getting at from a lens perspective. I would not want a lens that tried too hard for a "look". That would only suit a select few people. Rather I would hope that the lens companies made a choice when they designed a lens. So for example an 80mm optimised for sharpness, or one optimised for wide apertures. Leica successfully markets several flavours of the same focal length. e.g. 50mm summilux, summicron and summarit. I personally liked the summicron over the others even though the summilux was the more expensive lens. However they all give a slightly different look.

I have also been looking around for the image circles of the Phase One LS lens range. I cannot find them. However I would expect they covered the 6x6 range. Admittedly with less range for movements.

Lastly if we could vary the capture area that was used on the sensor, wouldn't this answer the technical lens (with movement) issues? Lenses with smaller image circles could simply use a smaller capture area. Also wouldn't this then allow some extreme movements for creative application? I maybe too simplistic here, but I do not often use movements in my work.
 

yaya

Active member
Lastly if we could vary the capture area that was used on the sensor, wouldn't this answer the technical lens (with movement) issues? Lenses with smaller image circles could simply use a smaller capture area. Also wouldn't this then allow some extreme movements for creative application? I maybe too simplistic here, but I do not often use movements in my work.
This already exists to a degree with our SensorFlex technology on the bigger backs. We even make a multi-crop focusing screen for the DF (54x41 80MP, 48x36 60MP and 41x41 60MP)

BTW shifting a large sensor and then cropping yields the same results as shifting a smaller sensor, providing that you apply the same amount of shift...

Regarding lens image circles: 645 lenses are designed with a certain focal flange distance. Typically this will be for a 645 body, so using it on a bigger sensor means moving it farther from the sensor and by that loosing infinity focus.
Some 645 lenses have an image circle that is actually smaller than 645 so to cover a larger sensor will require new optical and mechanical designs...

Larger image circle, in general = larger lens, a larger shutter etc. and this can affect the max shutter speed, weight of the lens and then weight and size of the body that supports it...

Leica were able to create different lens looks on 35mm (with high price tags) but not on the 45x30 format of the S2

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to dismiss the great points that you bring up here, I'm just sharing some of the challenges involved with designing a new camera system

Then there is the financial side and what sort of price tags will the market be able to to bear
 

torger

Active member
Ok I understand, good points.

More on the technical camera perspective (well, my perspective on technical cameras). I'm (almost) starting to think that resolution has already gone too far.

IQ180 delivers so high resolution that people are starting to focus stack at f/8 to avoid the angst you get when you see fuzzy pixels at 100%.

Rodenstock has dropped traditional symmetrical large format designs to do highly corrected retrofocus designs to support those high resolution backs. Some so large and heavy that the copal shutters are at risk of breaking.

I'm no optical expert, but it seems to me that there is a resolution sweet-spot where you can use (fairly) traditional symmetrical large format designs still deliver excellent corner-to-corner performance with shift, and work with traditional view camera techniques (tilting, using quite small apertures) without getting too much pixel-peep angst. My guess is that this is around 50 megapixels 50x40mm. If you need higher resolution - stitch for those special occasions.

But megapixels sell. I see many get the IQ180 for their tech cams, although I'd say IQ160 is better suited for the task.
 

6x6

Member
Regarding lens image circles: 645 lenses are designed with a certain focal flange distance. Typically this will be for a 645 body, so using it on a bigger sensor means moving it farther from the sensor and by that loosing infinity focus.
Some 645 lenses have an image circle that is actually smaller than 645 so to cover a larger sensor will require new optical and mechanical designs...

Larger image circle, in general = larger lens, a larger shutter etc. and this can affect the max shutter speed, weight of the lens and then weight and size of the body that supports it...
Thanks for your post Yair. Do you happen to know what the image circles of the LS lenses are? Are they tied to the IQ180 sensor size, without any possibility of handling a larger sensor? If so ... ouch. I guess there is no business opportunity for Phase One in this case because people would be pretty angry if they had to buy new lenses too. I was kind of hoping there was some lateral movement in the image circles of LS lenses that would allow Phase designers to come up with a larger sensor.
 
I think this is a really tricky thread. It is useful however. But if they do make a 6x7 camera we will see threads like D900 vs IQ645-100 vs IQ67-120 in the future… I shoot people. Would I want a 6x7 sensor? Yes. Would I want a 645 sensor? Yes. Not a fan of 35mm however. What I think Phase/Mamiya should do next: Drop the crop sensors altogether. Give us a 40MP fullframe. I think the DF type camera body is fine, but they should have a different type body more resembling the Hy6/RZ, which will mount the same back, have it rotate, and keep the lenses. That way you can choose which you prefer, and if you want both, its still one system. On 6x7 all they need to do is update the RZ body with things such as a metered WLF and some basic autofocus would be nice. They already have some of the finest lenses ever made. I prefer their look to the 645 glass. No idea if any of the above is possible, but its worth thinking about
 

6x6

Member
Phase One is my current setup and so if, for example, they released a camera with:

- A Bigger Sensor
- 40MP (Ideally 60MP)
- Rotating Back
- Waist Level Viewfinder
- Live Focus Checking
- A Quieter Mirror
- Ability to crop the viewfinder for different ratios
- Ability to use the LS lenses

I would pay $25,000 for it. Yes I am mad saying that, but I would.

For portraits it would be fantastic and the waist level viewfinder would allow me to carry it around and use it handheld.

I know I am dreaming, but I am having a terrible post production day - this helps me through it!
 

6x6

Member
But if they do make a 6x7 camera we will see threads like D900 vs IQ645-100 vs IQ67-120 in the future… I shoot people.
Me too! I guess I would like the MF companies to start going out on a limb and start differentiating themselves from the 35mm people. Competing on resolution is a strategy destined to fail.

If a 6x7 camera is too far a stretch, 6x6 would be a compromise ...

Also don't Phase One, through their acquisition of Leaf own some rights to the Leaf AFi camera design. That camera at least meets most of what I am after from a portrait perspective.
 

torger

Active member
As far as I understand, Yair could confirm, the challenge with sensor is that it is complicated to make it large -- costs increases exponentially.

Making a 54x41mm 40 megapixel sensor would be more expensive than a 60 megapixel 44x33mm sensor. Manufacturing cost is saved by using smaller sensor area, not reducing megapixels. What would a digital back with a 6x7 (56x70mm) sensor cost with today's technology? I don't know but my guess would be something like $70,000 regardless of number of megapixels. The very high manufacturing costs are what concerns me most, in my most pessimistic scenario the whole digital MF market disappears because it becomes financially impossible to make sensors large enough to get sufficient distance from high resolution 24x36mm.

(Personally I'm actually quite amused with MF vs DSLR comparisons. Competition is good. And now with all the D800 interest we actually are beginning to see what the real differences between the formats are)
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
For me, that focus mask in the finder, or live focus checking would be absolutely perfect. I agree with the OP's post completely. Add the rotating back (6 x 7) and I'd be in heaven with a single normal lens. +1 waist level finder, too.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I am sorry, but trying to frame an arguments as something rational based on purely subjective criteria does not really work for me. Especially when you don't really present the world as it is. There were/are many MF cameras that were not waist level--SLRs, rangefinders, viewfinders, and view cameras. I am all for different camera types having used Mamiya 6s, Horseman SW612, Widelux F8, Wista technical cameras, TLRs, and a host of stuff, but they need to be economically viable. Many waist-level cameras had a prism to make them eye level. Perhaps no one really wants waist level cameras anymore than when film was around.

Thank you, but I don't want more than 40MP.

As far as the options go, you simply don't need to use them. You can setup any modern camera to work just like a Pentax Spotmatic. I also like the idea of customizing my cameras--engineers don't always get the way I like. I can also make so one camera can work like another. Of course, you don't believe the camera should be simple as you also listed requirements for options you want. I certainly don't want a camera needlessly limited to fit some parternaistic idea that "real" photographers don't need this or that. BTW, most of the cameras I have used during my career have been completely manual and I can use them as easily as any automated one so my objection has nothing about not having the skill to use a simple camera, just against an irrational argument for simplification. Besides, an innovation a engineer might have may be useful for my. Camera design is a creative pursuit and I would not want that to stop because someone does not like a button or a menus option they don't use.

Costs have nothing to do with standardization. The M9P is not cheaper than the M9. The M9M is expensive as well. The cameras are basically identical, yet price does not move.

BTW, my Pentax 645D mirror is quiet. Why not buy a 645D? The option is out there, but you need to take it.

What I would like to see is neither here nor there. Manufacturers don't care nor can run a business that way. That is the reality. However, I do like the manufacturers that do take a chance and try to push the envelope. But they will not do it for me.

And how does the saying go? A good craftsman always blames his tools?
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I, for one, do not wish to go back to film. The advantages of digital are simply too great to go back. However that is simply my perspective. I recognise there is a growing place for it amongst my peers.
Well said!
 

FredBGG

Not Available
I think that the only chance of seeing a new MF system that has all or most of the things brought up in this thread is if Fuji decides to make it.

They have the camera to base it on.. the Fuji GX680.
They have the lens designs with tilt and shift from 50mm to 500mm
THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN SENSORS
They make film, so have a vested interest is still supporting film.

Fuji also has another big reason why it could be a good idea to make the RollsRoyce of cameras even if it were not directly very profitable. It would give the brand prestige that would help sell the many many other cameras they make.

Also I just don't see Mamiya or Hasselblad having the R&D and new product development capacity. Both have not made anything radically new for over 10 years.

One thing is coming up with a new camera system.. it's a whole other thing to develop the product.

Fuji has been coming out with new cameras all the time, so it has a nice large RD staff in full swing.

Also Fuji is a giant company compared to Hasselblad or Phase
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Leica were able to create different lens looks on 35mm (with high price tags) but not on the 45x30 format of the S2
I'm sure that Leica designed the S2 lenses exactly as they wanted them to be. Why make a scaled up M9 look camera????

The S2 was designed to be a hyper sharp camera and the lenses were designed that way for the S2.

As a very smart company they came up with a very handy solution to give S2 users a second option for lenses. They came up with the Hasselblad H lens adapter. The Hasselblad H lenses (Fuji) give the S2 a full range of lenses with a distinct look compared to the Leica S2 lenses.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
They have the camera to base it on.. the Fuji GX680.
Actually, they don't have a camera. The GX680 is out of production. Putting back into production would be very expensive even if they had the engineers that would know how to do it--and that is really important. I would imagine the GX680 engineers are retired by now.

However, Fuji is a company that comes out with surprising products. They would be crazy enough to go into MFD and possibly a MFD/MFF hybrid. But it most likely won't be resurrecting the GX680. I see them more likely to make a MFD mirrorless or rangefinder.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Here we go again ... "The sky is falling, the sky is falling". This thread was supposed to give that mantra a rest ... if even for just a brief moment. There are those still very interested in MF even if you aren't Fred.

Yair, when you say bigger sensor means redoing everything, did you mean bigger than 6X6? While I know some existing 645 lenses won't cover a whole 6X6 frame, that's true for 645 now ... the HCD lenses for example ... but we still use them with a bit of a crop. There aren't that many of those crop frame type optics compared to the lenses that will cover 6X6.

So my vote is for a 6X6 camera that takes all the lenses we already invested in ... and allows full use of some terrific older 6X6 lenses from Zeiss and Rollei.

Heck, Hasselblad could do a 60 meg 6X6 CFV Back, dust off the 203FE with added focus confirmation, and I'd be happy. Maybe my favorite camera system of all time.

-Marc
 
Top