Why larger than 645 with a digital back?

<p>Just curious about this. If the digital backs don't cover 6x7 (and 6x6?), wouldn't one be better off with a 645 camera? Not looking at getting one myself. I just thought about it. </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

Thinking about it; why even bother with a rollfim

SLR body at all? The only advantage is the supply

of legacy lenses.

I think the overgrown 35mm design Leica S2 had

better potential. But nowadays, a purpose designed large sensor mirrorless camera would make much more sense. In not being limited by an overlong register for one thing. And tethered remote viewing makes the resolution of a digital viewfinder a moot point.

Anyone for u5/4?

<p>That field is a big mess.<br>

DMF is basically limping behind; mostly still in the stage of DSLRs made for an <em>existing</em> 35mm system with crop sensors. So most contemporary MF DSLRs are crop sensored 645 system cameras. - Exception: bigger than FF Leica SL built from scratch just for digital.<br>

645 cameras have drawbacks: They are handling wise close to 35mm bodies. Not everybody, myself included, likes those. I'm freaking tall. When I shoot average people with my 6x6 TLRs and chimney finder, I get my taking lens on their eye level without an urge to kneel or crouch. - Further on it is way more convenient to hold cameras that way than up to your eye, when they are a bit heavy. So if there was anything on the market, I'd try to get an elderly back and adapter for Mamiya C33(0). Hasselblad and Mamiya SLR users are catered with such. I am not aware of any conveniently usable 645 <em>portrait</em> WLF camera.<br>

Since you don't need to move a digital sensor like film, I see no technical obstacle to make it rotating, or 2 way attachable to prepare an existing 6x6 WLF camera for either landscape or portrait orientation. <br>

If we look at view cameras; there is no benefit in further miniaturizing them. You buy your bag bellows and gear driven precision movements. If they are precise enough you can combine a FF sensor with a matching lens. Only bigger view cameras (made for 5x7" film) won't allow the tiny movements demanded by 35mm sensors conveniently enough. <br>

Since those cameras are highly modular it is nice to have a chance to use them as hybrids, lets say with a tethered back in the studio and with film in the field. - As soon as we toss in the losses of a hybrid workflow = absence of affordable scanners' resolution, working with the bigger 6x7 format becomes very appealing. <br>

For the lovers of compact Fuji and Hasselblad announced bigger than FF / 645crop MILCs.<br>

I suppose the psychology of camera shopping is easiest understood as being strange & semi rational. <br>

I see a trend to sink serious money into old questionable investments, once the hat is on the other side of some fence.<br>

Also keep in mind that a lot of medium format systems are rudimentary in 35mm people's eyes. - You could run a studio with a single portrait lens on an DZ / RB. What are product shooters really using? - I'm doing my job with 50mm on APS H & C and a 100mm on APS C and barely ever dream of something slightly wide. <br>

A small MF back on a 6x7 SLR can work out for a lot of jobs, as long as there is a way to increase the VF magnification sufficiently. And where that SLR fails there is the option to use the same back on a view camera. <br>

I suppose we'll have to wait till somebody offers computer interfaced view camera controls to see 6x6 & 6x7(+6x8) camera systems retire. - No clue how long we'll have to wait for them but I expect them to happen someday since the current trend towards ultra fast lenses does kind of demand them, to get 2 faces or both eyes into focus. So the open question is: When will phase detection technology be ready to tilt sensors around, while lenses are focusing too. IBIS mechanics sacrificable for perspective control sensor shifting are already here. OTOH: fast AF doesn't seem integrated into any MF (or every FF) system yet. <br>

I rambled about all stages of digital technology at once, since even the first ones aren't dirt cheap yet and not all current ones developed like the smaller cameras since MF shooters probably bring enough light to not need high ISO performance etc. </p>

<p>Well, one minor (depending on your definition of minor) advantage is the same that some folks played up when using full-frame lenses on crop sensors with DSLRs--you were using the central portion of the lens's field of coverage, so you were theoretically getting the best resolution, even out to the corners, that the lens could produce. </p>

<p>I know that mounting even an ancient Sinarback 54M digital back (22 megapixels, approximately 36x48mm in physical size) on an RZ67 delivered pretty stunning quality--and it you could take advantage of the rotating back. (I currently use the same back on a Hasselblad 553ELX--it's easy to switch the back from landscape to portrait orientation, which may not be possible on a 6x4.5 camera.)</p>

<p>If you want to see what you can get out of this combination (the lens was the Mamiya Sekor Z 180mm W-N), you could check out <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg">this portrait</a>. </p>

<p>Why indeed using a digital back on a 6x7 camera, except to extending the working life of an older camera? Most digital backs have a 4:5 aspect ratio, smaller than (hence compatible) with a 6x4.5 or 6x6 camera. If you have tried using a 6x6 camera on its side, even with a 90 deg prism, the handling of a 645 camera is obviously superior.</p>

<p>Demand is low for MFD in general, so there is little economic advantage producing a "full frame" sensor for medium format. Other than the inconvenience of a 1.5 or so cropping factor, and the limited range of lenses for wide-angle (or tele) use, the results are not lacking. You get over twice the image area of a FF small format camera, which can be used for for a combination of more resolution or more light-gathering power. You also get 16 bit image depth.</p>

<p>6x7 is not exactly leading the charge for MF. With limited development, could you even find a lens to take advantage of a high resolution digital back that size? As it is, my Hasselblad lenses are on a par with the resolution of a 16 MP back. Newer 645 lenses might take up some slack, but for a 50 MP back or more, you need a technical camera to match the sensor. And yes, there are several view camera bodies designed specifically for 36x48 mm digital backs.</p>

<p>For me, the ideal MFD camera would be the new Hasselblad X1. It eschews using a mirror, and is nearly as compact as a mirrorless FF camera. It is expensive, but far less, even with lenses, than the Hasselblad H line of DSLRs. The body costs the same as a CFV50 back (same resolution).</p>

<p>If you want to read more about MF digital in practice, visit or subscribe to www.Luminous-Landscape.com. They are largely unhampered by film-nostalgia.</p>

Sorry, but I'm sick of hearing this "twice the area"

argument. It didn't wash for film, and it doesn't

wash for digital.

Any parameter by which image quality can be

objectively measured is linear. Resolution, noise, MTF..... all are single dimensional parameters. The fact that rectangular area is the multiple of its boundary dimensions is just an unavoidable mathematical consequence.

So, yes, you can arguably say that MF might be between 1.3 and 1.5 times "better" than a 24x36mm sensor. But comparing area is just a complete and misleading red herring.

<blockquote>

<p>If the digital backs don't cover 6x7 (and 6x6?), wouldn't one be better off with a 645 camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In general, you are exactly right. I use a 645 camera with a digital back. Based on the diagonal measurement, it has a 1.3x crop sensor relative to full frame 645 film. The same sensor on a 6x6 camera would be a 1.5x crop. As Edward above would attest, that does limit your widest wideangle possibilities.</p>

<p>But there are other factors, which can make using a bigger format camera worthwhile for some digital back users. It might be a higher speed flash synch, a particular lens or lenses, a rotating back, a particular viewfinder, a particular user handling experience, or something else...</p>

<p>In my case, I did not think "I want to get a digital back...so I should get a 645 camera". I was already substantially invested in and partial to the Mamiya 645 platform (my "particular" reason mainly being the large and fast lens range), so that decision was already made for me. I am fortunate that it turns out that this was also the best platform for digital back use. </p>

<p>Errrr, Joe, if you <em>don't</em> think that a piece of film that had double the area of a 35mm frame wasn't going (assuming good technique and quality lenses for the format) to produce a much better image than the same scene photographed on a smaller piece of film, you really don't know much about film photography. I don't think I really need to bother to offer any arguments on that front.</p>

<p>The reason that a sensor with double the area *might* produce a better image than a smaller sensor is two-fold: firstly, even if the megapixel count between a medium format back and a DSLR sensor are equal, the photosites on the larger sensor will probably consequently be themselves larger, and theoretically have greater light-gathering capacity--leading to less noise in the final product. And as time has gone on, you can simply cram a lot more megapixels into a larger sensor, it's just that basic.</p>

<p>I can assure you that my decade-old 22 megapixel Sinarback, quite elderly in digital terms, can produce images that I frequently find not just as good as, but even superior to those produced by my D810, good as it is. I do have to work a bit harder to get out the quality that is there: unlike with my DSLR, the back isn't doing a lot of in-camera software tampering--or cooperating with the RAW developer--to make me <em>believe</em> it's capturing a better image. </p>

<p>Take any current digital medium format back, put it up against a D810 or a 5D Mk3, and once you start enlarging the images enough, or start examining subtle gradations of color carefully enough, you'll find the larger medium format sensor wins handily at equivalent ISOs, just as medium format film blitzed 35mm. Under the conditions amateurs (and even most pros) use their images, no, you don't need the larger sensor. But there is a difference, and if you <em>need</em> that difference (and can afford the cost of a modern digital back), you'll appreciate it.</p>

<p>I can assure you that my decade-old 22 megapixel Sinarback, quite elderly in digital terms, can produce images that I frequently find not just as good as, but even superior to those produced by my D810.......

I have a Q or two on this. I seek information as to going to larger digital format And your words here that one older model of a digital back can still give the required quality.

If possible refer me to some equipment that I can look to from your experience.

I have worked with nikons d2h / d2x / d3/ d500 /

but seek as to what you say here - I hesitate to put any more money it to this techno junk.....

I have no view and have not worked with medium digital format.

Thank you.

If it's megapixels you desire for medium format, it would seem that the logical step is to use more than one sensor of smaller size to gain the linear dimensions you want.

Right now, telescopes gain huge resolution by using segmented mirrors to get sufficient light transmission for astronomical purposes. No reason to believe a back couldn't be built to "seam" 4 sensors together as one.

Now, the write speed, file size, and other obstacles need to be overcome, the least of which is the cost. But, as an exercise in optical resolution...

"No reason to believe a back couldn't be built to "seam" 4 sensors together as one."

- Except that silicon devices can't simply be butted together. Each 'chip' is physically snapped or sawn off from a larger circular wafer. What you're suggesting would require that each sensor had photosites right up to two edges of the chip, with almost zero space for interconnects down those sides, and with perfectly straight and perpendicular micro-machined edges. That's not how these things work!

I'll also repeat the point I made above: That any objective parameter you care to mention relating to image quality is purely single dimensional. Magnification, resolution, granularity, whatever. So you need 4 similar sensors just to double the resolution.

Stitching with a single sensor is more effective and a whole lot cheaper! Or using a shift lens to effectively digitise a larger image circle.

Physically stitching two sensors together was done for the hellishly expensive larger "full frame 645" CCD backs. The seam can indeed be problematic, and is one reason buying an older used MF back from anywhere other than a well-connected dealer can be dicey. It isn't uncommon for the backs to need factory re-programming or adjustment after some years to electronically hide the seam, and in some cases it can never be flawlessly hidden. This is also why the earliest CMOS backs were the smaller 33x44 size: making larger CMOS is difficult and very very expensive (the recent push to move more MF systems at reasonable prices forced Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad X1D, and Fuji GX to settle on 33x44 as their default size).

It isn't yet clear how Sony pulled off their due-any-minute 55x41 "full frame" CMOS sensor. It would seem to require stitching to achieve that size, which might be a first for CMOS. It is true that the "need case" for large MF sensors is not what it was ten years ago: smaller high-density formats like the Nikon D850 and Sony A7RIII can manage almost any requirement today. But you still do have an obsessive subgroup of landscape pros whose signature style is stupendously high resolution using the largest single sensor they can find (some don't enjoy the multi-shot stitching workflow). Apparently there are enough such pros for Sony to bother making this 150MP sensor, which will easily cost $40K once Phase puts it in a back.

Sadly, what the overwhelming majority of medium format amateurs want is something they will never get: an affordable digital back of moderate resolution that would cover the actual size of the old film gates in classic 6x6 and 6x7 cameras. Quite a lot of us simply enjoy shooting the Hasselblad 500cm or Mamiya RZ67, but they are hobbled by current crop sensor backs. Hasselblad is essentially a square oriented system: rigging it with a prism and grip for faux-645 defeats its purpose. And a crop back on the RZ67 is just pathetic altogether: the entire point of the big bulky Mamiya is its huge viewfinder (if you're gonna mask it down 50% and crop all your focal lengths out of whack, why bother). A nice 22 or 40 MP sensor in true 6x6 and 6x7 would make a lot of people very happy (and keep vintage cameras/lenses shooting forever), but it ain't gonna happen. To mfr them would require either a huge increase in wafer standards, or stitching together multiple sensors. Both options are far too expensive, and demand too small, for it to be economically viable.

The measure of a digital camera is the quality of the images it can produce, not the size nor the number of pixels. To anyone not waking from a Rip van Winkle nap, over the last decade digital has won the race and film is relegated to the status of vinyl records and video tape. There are larger sensors used for orbital surveillance. the cost and true specifications of these devices are probably staggering. In a world where high resolution, sub-645 sensors can cost over $20K, you have to ask, "What's it worth to me?" Once 35 mm cameras reached 12 MP, film died for me, and I never looked back. Having owned a 16 MP back for my Hasselblad (39x39 mm), It exceeded the performance of MF film to the point I never again traced those steps. Sure, I could make 8000x8000 film scans, but those were mostly empty resolution.

In a world where high-perfuming video lensed, many exceeding $100K due to hand designed and built quality, are in common use, the price barrier may not be absolute. I recall seeing a news release about a custom 8x10 digital camera in this exalted price range, but I never got past the headline. There are affordable scanning backs for large format, which are okay for stationary objects. Photographers in the mid 19th century often clamped their subjects in iron frames when shooting portraits.

The cry for 6x7 (or larger) digital cameras carry a suppressed demand that they be "affordable," whatever that means. How has that worked for health care (when you need it NOW).

The cry for 6x7 (or larger) digital cameras carry a suppressed demand that they be "affordable," whatever that means.

It means "affordable" in the context of the older depreciated cameras we'd like to use them on. In an era when a complete body/wlf/lens Hasselblad 500cm or Mamiya RZ67 outfit runs under $1000 used, the typical $30K asking price for new digital backs with anywhere close to 645 coverage is absurd for most amateurs to contemplate.

In such discussions, it is wise to make a distinction between different use cases. For most commercial work, yes: current smaller formats are more than up to the job. Those who need the subtle distinctions of larger sensors with their different lens effects and software integration will lease, rent or buy the latest greatest Phase or Hassy. Ditto the well-heeled or compulsive non-pro who needs such performance (or deludes themselves that they do).

Those of us "crying" for an affordable true 6x6 or 6x7 back are approaching it more from an emotional (yet practical) angle. It isn't a case of deluding ourselves that we "need" some fantastical, intangible advantage of a large format sensor: we simply like the handling, operation and lenses of the classic MF systems. We want to be able to use them digitally, with reasonable quality, on the level of the old 16 or 22MP backs which were more than sufficient resolution for these systems. BUT: since we aren't commercial studio photographers, the compromise of second-hand crop sensor backs doesn't work for us. We don't need a digital back to speed workflow for demanding clients at the expense of usability: we want a digital back that allows using these MF systems as they were originally intended, with lens coverage and viewfinder advantages unaltered. If there was any conceivable way to make and sell something like a Phase P25+ in true 6x6 and 6x7 for $5000, we'd be ecstatic.

But of course it won't happen. A pity, because the satisfaction of using these classic MF cameras is a unique experience that could theoretically continue indefinitely with a proper digital update (imagine the fun of a digitized Rolleiflex 2.8C).

I bought a Hasselblad CFV16 (v1) at the reduced price of about $8000, and attached it to a 35 year old 500cm costing a fraction as much. While not cheap, it was affordable, costing about as much as 400 rolls of film and processing. Between 2007 and 2015 I took over 10,000 images with it, the equivalent of over 800 rolls of film. I got my money's worth. The advent of the Sony A7Rii, 42 MP and outstanding lenses, put that great camera out to pasture.

I have a Rolleiflex 3.5E2, and having closely examined film taken with that camera, doubt it would stand up to even a 16 MP back.

Are you sure that you would have shot 10000 images on film in the meantime ? Me too, when I am playing tourist I use digital (and small sensors actually) and I snap hundreds of pictures. But when I do "photgraphy", I shoot film (very more sparingly) and MF mostly.

Since I had (first) a 6Mpix digital, (a Kodak DX7630) and (after) a 18Mpix (Sony) that I find not being sharper (but more convenient because stabilized), I am satisfied with my A4 and A3 prints, because for me "sharpness" is not a critical issue. And my pictures (also analog) that I like most are sometimes not at all sharp.

Polka

Back to the original question . . .

Yes, 645 is an excellent format, so it would make sense to buy that format, or smaller MF, if you want to shoot digital. There are a few MF mirrorless systems available that are much more compact than most MF systems that are smaller than 645. Those make sense if you only want to shoot digital.

Are you sure that you would have shot 10000 images on film in the meantime ? Me too, when I am playing tourist I use digital (and small sensors actually) and I snap hundreds of pictures. But when I do "photgraphy", I shoot film (very more sparingly) and MF mostly.

Probably not, the cost in time alone (processing and subsequent scanning) would have been prohibitive. However with digital I am free to experiment, including panoramas and bracketed exposures. I can try different lenses, different perspectives on a given subject at very little incremental cost.

Then there's the issue of cost avoidance. Without the digital option, my MF gear would have gathered dust. With the demise of the last minilab in my area, there would be no relief in sight.

The point I was making is that there is no law of nature which says modernization of a legacy camera should be proportional to the retail value of that camera. The value is in the use and satisfaction you get from it.

<p>That field is a big mess.<br>

DMF is basically limping behind; mostly still in the stage of DSLRs made for an <em>existing</em> 35mm system with crop sensors. So most contemporary MF DSLRs are crop sensored 645 system cameras. - Exception: bigger than FF Leica SL built from scratch just for digital.<br>

645 cameras have drawbacks: They are handling wise close to 35mm bodies. Not everybody, myself included, likes those. I'm freaking tall. When I shoot average people with my 6x6 TLRs and chimney finder, I get my taking lens on their eye level without an urge to kneel or crouch. - Further on it is way more convenient to hold cameras that way than up to your eye, when they are a bit heavy. So if there was anything on the market, I'd try to get an elderly back and adapter for Mamiya C33(0). Hasselblad and Mamiya SLR users are catered with such. I am not aware of any conveniently usable 645 <em>portrait</em> WLF camera.<br>

Since you don't need to move a digital sensor like film, I see no technical obstacle to make it rotating, or 2 way attachable to prepare an existing 6x6 WLF camera for either landscape or portrait orientation. <br>

If we look at view cameras; there is no benefit in further miniaturizing them. You buy your bag bellows and gear driven precision movements. If they are precise enough you can combine a FF sensor with a matching lens. Only bigger view cameras (made for 5x7" film) won't allow the tiny movements demanded by 35mm sensors conveniently enough. <br>

Since those cameras are highly modular it is nice to have a chance to use them as hybrids, lets say with a tethered back in the studio and with film in the field. - As soon as we toss in the losses of a hybrid workflow = absence of affordable scanners' resolution, working with the bigger 6x7 format becomes very appealing. <br>

For the lovers of compact Fuji and Hasselblad announced bigger than FF / 645crop MILCs.<br>

I suppose the psychology of camera shopping is easiest understood as being strange & semi rational. <br>

I see a trend to sink serious money into old questionable investments, once the hat is on the other side of some fence.<br>

Also keep in mind that a lot of medium format systems are rudimentary in 35mm people's eyes. - You could run a studio with a single portrait lens on an DZ / RB. What are product shooters really using? - I'm doing my job with 50mm on APS H & C and a 100mm on APS C and barely ever dream of something slightly wide. <br>

A small MF back on a 6x7 SLR can work out for a lot of jobs, as long as there is a way to increase the VF magnification sufficiently. And where that SLR fails there is the option to use the same back on a view camera. <br>

I suppose we'll have to wait till somebody offers computer interfaced view camera controls to see 6x6 & 6x7(+6x8) camera systems retire. - No clue how long we'll have to wait for them but I expect them to happen someday since the current trend towards ultra fast lenses does kind of demand them, to get 2 faces or both eyes into focus. So the open question is: When will phase detection technology be ready to tilt sensors around, while lenses are focusing too. IBIS mechanics sacrificable for perspective control sensor shifting are already here. OTOH: fast AF doesn't seem integrated into any MF (or every FF) system yet. <br>

I rambled about all stages of digital technology at once, since even the first ones aren't dirt cheap yet and not all current ones developed like the smaller cameras since MF shooters probably bring enough light to not need high ISO performance etc. </p>

It looks as if Fuji has solved your portrait chimney finder problem. But with a tilt screen, and not with a rotating back. Now if they would only launch some leaf shutter lenses . . .

And the front view. The releases look to be well positioned.

It looks as if Fuji has solved your portrait chimney finder problem. But with a tilt screen, and not with a rotating back.

I think they are offering an even more awesome swiveling hinge for their EVF too?

I'm not yet in the market for their system. I don't have the money and, looking at their smaller stuff, it seems just a question of time that they 'll release something with IBIS.

I think they are offering an even more awesome swiveling hinge for their EVF too?

I'm not yet in the market for their system. I don't have the money and, looking at their smaller stuff, it seems just a question of time that they 'll release something with IBIS.

Yes, MF digital prices are a bit more than I can justify as a hobby. But who knows? Maybe the Fuji will become a favorite of wedding photographers (need leaf shutter lenses, though), and perhaps prices will eventually drop a bit. Until then, I'll keep shooting my Mamiya 7II, and I'll print in a darkroom.

It isn't yet clear how Sony pulled off their due-any-minute 55x41 "full frame" CMOS sensor. It would seem to require stitching to achieve that size, which might be a first for CMOS. ... Apparently there are enough such pros for Sony to bother making this 150MP sensor, which will easily cost $40K once Phase puts it in a back.

Sony has had a 55x41 (more exactly, 53.7 x 40.4) "full frame" CMOS sensor for a couple of years already (backs using it were introduced in 2016), but in 100 MP not 150 MP. Phase One and Hasselblad both use it.