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 ...

Shashin

Well-known member
I don't see Fuji entering the MFD market. The X series cameras seem to define the market Fuji is trying to create. Even their film MF is going from systems to fixed lens rangefinders, although I doubt it is very sustainable, certainly not creating a sustainable market.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
6x6 was developed for a very practical reason--it was for waist-level cameras that were hard to shoot on their side and you would crop to landscape or portrait. While 6x6 has admirers, it really is not a very popular format--the Mamiya 6 was dropped because of the more popular Mamiya 7. There was a square MFD chip, but the 4:3 chip was much more popular. Since most images go to a rectangle, most photographer don't want to waste the image space to what needs to be cropped--easier to crop to a square. Unfortunately, the 6x6 is an evolutionary dead-end.
 

djonesii

Workshop Member
The larger sensor is it!

No matter how you slice it, a bigger sensor gives a different look and feel. Having shot 4X5 film, 645 film, and 35mm film, I know this to be true! If you work hard, you can make images that look similar, but it's less work to make them look really different!

6X7 would be a great sensor size

Make the camera mirror-less, and give me an EVF that is pretty big and bright, then make it removable so that if I choose, I can use my screen like a WLF. when I say removable, not some flimsy little thing, bolt it down when its on, some people will never want a WLF ... It now becomes a matter of clever computer code to get the next latest algorithm in the view finder, not a hardware issue.

At the end of the day, we know that we are not sport shooters, so as long as we have all the big boys in the room, lets have them make a basic box to hold a sensor module ( already been done, thanks Ricoh ) Then make a focus adapter + brains that drives whatever AF lens you choose ( already been done, thanks Sony ) This allows a bunch of legacy lenses to be used, + a whole new batch to be sold to the masses. Keep the flange distance short, then a whole slew of adapters become viable.

With a few bolt on bits, we can configure this hypothetical box just about however we want. RF size, SLR sized and maybe even some tech camera features.

Working together on a standard is about the only way that any economies of scale can be reached ( Thanks Oly/Panasonic )

MF is far from dead if the manufactures can agree on a standard or two that still allows for good differentiation.

My take on it

Dave
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
I think the idea of a second phase body that is RZ-like is brilliant... one that also takes their current 645 lenses so that you have the choice of a "box" camera or an "SLR" form factor (current body), but can re-purpose the 645 lenses on either according to your shooting style or job requirements. I'd look very hard at getting back into MF with a body like an RZ that didn't feel as cumbersome when teamed with digital.

More to the point... the MF companies should really make themselves as different from 35mm as possible at this point. Full frame sensors only, better bodies (and multiple type bodies with same back/lens mount). With the used market so flooded, why not make fewer back choices but with more compelling body choices?

Did I say that I thought an RZ styled 645 body that takes Phase lenses/backs was a brilliant idea?

Seems like a great time for them to differentiate. I bet even a 22mp back with the latest electronics/screens/interface would sell if at a good price. When I come back to an MF body in the future, I won't need 80mp... I just want the look/draw of the lenses and those beautiful colors and details I got from my previous aptus @ 28mp (or 40).
 

FredBGG

Not Available
There are those still very interested in MF even if you aren't Fred.

-Marc
Actually I am very interested in MF, but larger medium format and with medium format/large format functionality I am used to. Tilt shift, various viewfinders, rotating backs and film support (or film body option).

A good 6x7 or larger sensor and I'm game. I would very much like something that gets closer to the look of either the mamiya 67 or Fuji gx680 but shooting digital. That said the Nikon 85mm 1.4 is pretty darn close with the right work in post and under certain conditions.

Keep in mind that I make 70% of my still photography money shooting Medium format. Nearly all my personal projects are either 6x8 MF or larger.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
But it most likely won't be resurrecting the GX680. I see them more likely to make a MFD mirrorless or rangefinder.
I could see Fuji making a mirrorless system with interchangeable tilt shift lenses.

Their current sensor technology scaled up with the addition of phase detection on the sensor.

I can see Fuji achieving this in about half the size of the Fuji GX680.

Another important point is that Fuji has demonstrated that they can achieve a very nice look with a small sensor and their own lens designs. Scaling up what they did with the X-Pro 1 would make for an amazing MF digital camera.
 

6x6

Member
The absolute best thing about this thread is that we have not mentioned pixel, peep, mtf curve, or lines per blah blah once. Not once.

This is a debate about cameras and what photographers need as their tool of choice. I compromise every day with my 645df, but I love it, even if it plays up sometimes. I just want to help the MF players make a better product. They really can't do it without us shouting advice.

Surely a new camera body that allowed legacy backs and existing lenses to still work in some way would be a good idea. I know there are loads of backs on eBay and loads of people who would prefer to use MF if they could afford to.
 

jagsiva

Active member
Why not take something like this:

1. Make it a little less clunky
2. Give it an optional mirrorbox and finders (Waist or Eye) -- modular is key
3. Make liveview usable so it can be used directly off the sensor w/o a VF or mirror box
4. Kick-*** AF (no need fora gazillion point, just 3 or 9 would do)
5. Lens mount adapters (Leica's decision is quite admirable, expecially for such an arrogant company :)...but they sure see the future better than most)



Photo from Phase site
 

avelpavel

New member
The absolute best thing about this thread is that we have not mentioned pixel, peep, mtf curve, or lines per blah blah once. Not once.
It's the most important part of this thread I think together with the "Its all about the lens" topic. I have made this bokeh test with the Phase DF and RZ lenses. I'm using the RZ most of the time, that image is what I'm looking for as a photographer. Why do we need 80mpx when the lens has only 5 blades and ugly bokeh?
View attachment 59454
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The absolute best thing about this thread is that we have not mentioned pixel, peep, mtf curve, or lines per blah blah once. Not once.

This is a debate about cameras and what photographers need as their tool of choice. I compromise every day with my 645df, but I love it, even if it plays up sometimes. I just want to help the MF players make a better product. They really can't do it without us shouting advice.

Surely a new camera body that allowed legacy backs and existing lenses to still work in some way would be a good idea. I know there are loads of backs on eBay and loads of people who would prefer to use MF if they could afford to.
I think this is part of the issue is no one is going to build anything for stuff you can buy on e-bay. Just no money in it for them. First and foremost these MF companies are running a business not a charity case we need to realize that out of the gate. They build any bodies it will be for the most profitable avenue they can take and that will usually mean for there latest and greatest backs and lenses. Im sorry to say folks but I see no love for anything legacy these OEMs are going to build. You won't see a new RZ or a new Fuji in jumbo size with a 6x6 sensor either. They will continue to build bodies that actually may get smaller and more competitive. Don't we really all bitch about the size of these things, sure we love you Fuji and RZ guys but you really are a minority to the OEMS. I think we will still see the 645 format and you will not see mirrors anymore and you won't see shutters at all in these new and upcoming bodies. They will be able to shrink the sizes taking those out, they are dated to film which we no longer need a shutter and certainly mirrors could be history as well ( for all intensive purposes film is dead no one is even going to support it come these new bodies). What you may see is CMOS and live view like a A77 cam for instance. For tech cams you just open the shutter than close for capture (maybe).

Im sorry I just don't see bigger sensors being made as the costs would be higher than what they are producing today. At least thats my take on whats going to happen. Find out probably at Photokinia.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Guy

there may be a chance. if people are really willing to pay for custom made digital cameras and someone will make a more standard large sensor (there are some large CMOS even up to 4x5" but these are BW or sensible for X-Ray or whatever) maybe... maybe.... we will see something like a revivial for large cameras, like using vinyl records, get custom built wooden boats or people wearing Lobbs shoes. But this is a very small market. You are right, the companies which need to make a living from this today will not do it.

We need to get some millionaires explore a new hobby-photography.
But then didn´t all this start with wooden cameras in the 19th century that did cost a fortune and were made only for he rich ? :)

Regards
Stefan
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I think this is part of the issue is no one is going to build anything for stuff you can buy on e-bay. Just no money in it for them. First and foremost these MF companies are running a business not a charity case we need to realize that out of the gate. They build any bodies it will be for the most profitable avenue they can take and that will usually mean for there latest and greatest backs and lenses. Im sorry to say folks but I see no love for anything legacy these OEMs are going to build. You won't see a new RZ or a new Fuji in jumbo size with a 6x6 sensor either. They will continue to build bodies that actually may get smaller and more competitive. Don't we really all bitch about the size of these things, sure we love you Fuji and RZ guys but you really are a minority to the OEMS. I think we will still see the 645 format and you will not see mirrors anymore and you won't see shutters at all in these new and upcoming bodies. They will be able to shrink the sizes taking those out, they are dated to film which we no longer need a shutter and certainly mirrors could be history as well ( for all intensive purposes film is dead no one is even going to support it come these new bodies). What you may see is CMOS and live view like a A77 cam for instance. For tech cams you just open the shutter than close for capture (maybe).

Im sorry I just don't see bigger sensors being made as the costs would be higher than what they are producing today. At least thats my take on whats going to happen. Find out probably at Photokinia.
I partly agree, but sensors are getting larger, aren't they, although slowly? There was nothing the size of an IQ180 ten years ago was it? Add 13.5mm to the shortest side, and we're practically there, at least with regards to a square sensor. The most important reason why it probably won't happen is that nobody makes a modern camera body for square sensors. There's the H-series and the RZ more or less still in production, but I doubt that anybody would have the guts to take the development costs for a sensor made for camera designs that are decades old.

The Hy6 was the final attempt it seems, at least for now. The fact that they couldn't pull that off says something about the size of the digital MF market. To me, that looked like the obvious solution. (Or is it still alive? Sinar still has it on their website, "... the advent of a new era...")
 
I don't understand the point of this thread. I thought we were all moving to D800s. :talk028: (I should mention that is sarcasm)

I think the original post is brilliant and I have to echo something that Marc said about MF being more like MF. I'm in this slightly weird place where I am feeling somewhat nostalgic for film cameras but I just don't have time to deal with film -- even for personal work. Someone made the comment that the issue with MF is that it is trying too hard to be DSLR, and I think that's true, but it is for a reason and it goes both ways.

FredBGG has been thumping his chest about ditching MFD for the D800 because the reality is that MFD is a pain in the butt and is still not really MF (Remember way back when MF started at 6x7, 645 was this kind of in-between format and 6x6 got a free pass?). To a certain degree, I think he has a point. The only cameras I have ever sold that I really miss are the GW and GSW Fujis. The film was big enough to be big, but the camera was small, durable and inexpensive enough that I would do things with it that I don't think I would ever do with digital or with large format film. Current medium format cameras are big, but the sensors don't quite have the same look as large film (6x8, 6x9, 4x5, etc.) and introduce a whole new range of problems. There was a certain intimate feel to an older MF film camera that the new ones miss, but the old cameras are not really practical with digital backs. I think when digital gets to the point that we can have a 6x7 sensor, these discussions will be a lot different. Sure, even small MFD is double the size of DSLR, but it is still a lot closer to DSLR in size that what MF used to be. Imagine what a digital 6x17, or for that matter a digital X-pan would be like. Like I said, I miss film cameras, not necessarily film.

Conversely, DSLR is closing the gap to medium format in all ways -- including the negatives. Cameras like the D800 are capable of near medium format results, but the price, size and weight of those lenses are close to medium format as well. Extracting all the detail from a 36 mp DSLR requires the same effort as it would from a 36 mp MFDB, perhaps even more. The D800 changes the game insofar as it provides a great option both for MFD shooters who used it because of the resolution, but where it wasn't a great fit for them, as well as for photographers who really need DSLRs, but need more resolution than was previously available. I think a lot of the complaining you hear about MFD is from people who use it because they need it, but where it really isn't the best tool for the job. These are the people who are dumping what ever they have now to get a D800. As I have said before, the cost of a D800 system is close enough to a 30 mp Mamiya system that I think a lot of previously DSLR photographers who don't need a fast camera will make the leap to medium format. The weight of a medium format system is a problem for me, but at the same time, the weight of DSLR system makes medium format seem reasonable.

I think for me personally, medium format keeps getting further and further away. I really don't like the look of 35 mm, but the system price and drawbacks of medium format keep it just out of reach for me. As much as I would love to have more than one system, I just don't think that for my needs it is practical right now for so many reasons. This isn't to say that someone else shouldn't use it or that I wouldn't rent one for a specific job.

It seems like APS-C is the new 35 mm, full frame high megapixel (24 mp and up) is the new 645, MFD is the new 6x7 and tech cameras are the new large format. I say this not so much about image quality, but about physical size and workflow.

As Marc and others have noted, price is a real issue with medium format, and is separate from value. I clearly see the value in medium format, but the price is definitely a significant barrier.
 
I partly agree, but sensors are getting larger, aren't they, although slowly? There was nothing the size of an IQ180 ten years ago was it?
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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
I was thinking sensor size, not the number of pixels. The number of pixels are going up, which is fine with me, but I still use 7 and 12 MP cameras and film, so the 200 MP forecast (which I'm sure is realistic) doesn't really bring out the big excitement. Larger sensors on the other hand :p
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The heart of the matter is building big bad *** sensors. The yields on these are not great and it cost a lot of money to build them from the factory floor to start. Let's say even a Iq 180 today at 43k new we even gave it a huge 1/2 price off the sticker this won't happen BTW but that is still 21k. If you want bigger than that well it will be more that's a given for sure in the current technology. The only real way I see a huge cost savings is CMOS as it is cheaper to build those type sensors . Now we kind of have a great sensor now in the D800 and let's say we went to SONY and asked how big can you go. We would still be looking at a lot of money since with size comes even harder to make in production and get good yields from it. Now I agree maybe a chance to get special order sizes which would be nice but plan on giving up you Beamer for it.

As it is today we have to watch the trends since I think these are are the best chances to come out of the factories and we see them across the industry. Some of the trends, mirror less, EVF, big sensors smaller microns, pack more mpx in smaller sensors, live view, no shutters in digital we really don't need them we can turn sensor off through timing methods. Higher ISO cams its scary how people talk about shooting at ISO 64000 and there need for it, I still can't grasp that one. Multi format and size sensors like the D800 full frame and a few other size modes. Btw no shutters no worry about high sync it goes away only restriction is flash duration. ( very cool) not available today but it's doable. It's all about turning sensor on and off so some type of timing device to control it but it's electronic not mechanical . Think about that one.

I just don't know the answers and we all have our wish lists on this and really nothing is right or wrong about it but it will get served to us to make themselves a profit but going backwards maybe just a no go. I guess we need to put ourselves in Hassy, Leaf, Phase and Leicas shoes and think how they would think on what's is best for them to turn a profit.
 

gsking

New member
I think the idea of a second phase body that is RZ-like is brilliant... one that also takes their current 645 lenses so that you have the choice of a "box" camera or an "SLR" form factor (current body), but can re-purpose the 645 lenses on either according to your shooting style or job requirements. I'd look very hard at getting back into MF with a body like an RZ that didn't feel as cumbersome when teamed with digital.

More to the point... the MF companies should really make themselves as different from 35mm as possible at this point. Full frame sensors only, better bodies (and multiple type bodies with same back/lens mount). With the used market so flooded, why not make fewer back choices but with more compelling body choices?

Did I say that I thought an RZ styled 645 body that takes Phase lenses/backs was a brilliant idea?

Seems like a great time for them to differentiate. I bet even a 22mp back with the latest electronics/screens/interface would sell if at a good price. When I come back to an MF body in the future, I won't need 80mp... I just want the look/draw of the lenses and those beautiful colors and details I got from my previous aptus @ 28mp (or 40).
Makes me want to break out my RZ/Valeo 22 again. I forgot what I was missing ;)
 

Pierrard

New member
Great discussion!

From my perspective I would say I take a compromising position between opposing poles here:

Shooting style differentiation amongst camera bodies makes sense for photographers who use one style of photography (eg. portraiture vs landscape vs sports vs studio fashion): optimization for a style will result in a camera body that is easy to use (doesn't get in the way) for the relevant operations. At the same time I understand the position of having equipment that can do a range of styles to suit a photographer (to cut down on costs, space, equipment, etc). At a stretch I even understand the desire to work with cross-over cameras like the Canon 5D II/I which can do stills and video. On the other hand using video cameras for stills is silly to me due to the severely reduced image size (and thus max print size).
Although Will Video Cameras Kill Still Photography? Red Epic Vs Hasselblad | Fstoppers shows an extreme comparison of video vs still camera, small vs large sensor size, little differentiation is seen in a small studio test on 8X10" prints. That being said, larger prints would hold obvious differences, and as is mentioned, the workflow is completely different.

In comparison, I agree that if a photographer wants a certain 'look' (especially from a certain format of camera), then they should use that format. Case in point the DSLR vs MFD (D800 vs ...) arguments.

My personal opinion of choice of camera is that it should do exactly what you want to do with it without getting in the way. As a result, I actually have several cameras 'of choice' depending on the format, and hence, the use. As a landscape camera on a budget, then I would choose the D800E. That being said, my best-case landscape camera would be a P45+ on a Mamiya DF, mostly because I like doing long exposures and the P45+ can do up to an hour, but also due to the 'look' of MF as opposed to 35mm.
I'm also very interested in the 6x12 format on a 4X5" view camera, for the availability of a single-shot panorama of high-definition, and the ease of camera movements.

If we're discussing ever-larger MF sensors, I believe that they will come (possibly even a 6x7cm full-frame), but I agree with Bill Green that we'll likely see 100+ MP sensors on current size (36x48 to 41x54) before a huge increase in sensor size. The market for extremely large digital sensors will be interesting to watch, and when the price comes down significantly, I can see 6x7cm digital becoming common for the professional photographer. Note that as with many other pro cameras they would have fewer megapixels and go for less compacted sensors, for clean and clear images.

Regarding functionality, it does make sense to make options: eg for an optical eye-level or waist-level viewfinder (swivel), or a separate waist-level attachment, if the market is there. The bottom line is that the demand has to be there, so unless these companies are doing awesome market research, we need to step up to them and say directly, "I want X, Y, and Z, and I'm willing to pay for it."

Reverse-compatibility is an awesome feature as well that I seriously hope continues to be available to shooters of all formats.

Anyway, there's my 2¢.
 
... bodies that actually may get smaller and more competitive. Don't we really all bitch about the size of these things...you will not see mirrors anymore and you won't see shutters at all in these new and upcoming bodies ... CMOS and live view like a A77 cam for instance....
Frankly Guy is right (I didn't quote the whole statement it's worth reading). I am playing with the A77 and already tried (and sold) the Nex7. The A77 has an electronically simulated 'front shutter'. That means there is no phyiscal shutter opening. The shutter only closes to end the exposure. That means zero, absolutely zero movement in the system, none, nada, niente. So Sony have three things I want in my MF Camera. Focus peaking, Superior live view with instant focus area magnification when I grab the focus ring and simulated front curtain. If you've not actually picked up an Nex7, there's a button you press it and grab the focus ring. The camera zooms to the focus spot AND gives focus peaking, you release the shutter and done.

There's a 4th technology, I can't say I want it but having played for a day with an A77 and used an XPro 1 quite a bit, it is a very important technology. It's the EVF. I was cynical about EVF's and on the XPro you have a choice, but in reality, especially in critial focusing scenarios, EVF all the way. The one on the A77 is amazing, the only limitation I can see is (perhaps) in panning. It's bright and clear, 100% and has more features than you loose by not have an optical finder. In theory you can also put an EVF anywhere and have more than one. I won't go into all the cool things they can do (other discussion) but don't underestimate how valuable they are especially for applications where critical focus or alignment are necessary.
 
Top