4x5Australian
Well-known member
To 'individual creativity and the ability to see things in a new light' I would add persistence and the willingness to overcome logistical roadblocks.
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!
Digital medium format in 2024 – it's not dead!
- Thread starter Paul Spinnler
- Start date
- Status
OK, we're overrun with imagery. Take landscapes or cityscapes for example: everyone can now take remarkably good shots showing scenes that years ago took a labor of love to get them done right.
Maybe there are tiers :
- representational shots - showing the scene "as it is". All those landscapes that are now looking similar to each other. Largely, the "wow factor" for this work has now passed, but as others posting here have shown, sometimes its possible new tech allows showing textures and detail still magical.
- the next step back maybe has some distance from the reality of the scene, have some "attitude", with an agenda as to what is important, how to convey, less reality driven. Hard to convey this, but it has escape velocity, to get away from pure representation with an additional agenda.
- and then there are the abstracts, which have little attention to the reality with yet more of the imagination. For landscape these are taken from nature, so its really a tricky line....
The representational arena is overrun. Hope now (if this outline has any validity) for better definition of the middle group, what it means, and why. A few fine examples - Kenna and Strand first.
and then Ansel, more abstract?
Maybe there are tiers :
- representational shots - showing the scene "as it is". All those landscapes that are now looking similar to each other. Largely, the "wow factor" for this work has now passed, but as others posting here have shown, sometimes its possible new tech allows showing textures and detail still magical.
- the next step back maybe has some distance from the reality of the scene, have some "attitude", with an agenda as to what is important, how to convey, less reality driven. Hard to convey this, but it has escape velocity, to get away from pure representation with an additional agenda.
- and then there are the abstracts, which have little attention to the reality with yet more of the imagination. For landscape these are taken from nature, so its really a tricky line....
The representational arena is overrun. Hope now (if this outline has any validity) for better definition of the middle group, what it means, and why. A few fine examples - Kenna and Strand first.
and then Ansel, more abstract?
Last edited:
Duff photographer
Active member
Medium format (digital backs) will still be around, but I suspect only to fulfil niche areas such as high end commercial photography and high resolution imaging required by certain organisations, while financially comfortable amateurs will want to get the best image quality possible along with having the best built equipment to achieve it, e.g., Alpa, Rodenstock, etc.
If I may add an observation as well as a personal perspective.
When digital MF came out, many pro's picked up a Hasselblad or Mamiya as 35mm digital wasn't up to the requirements of commercial photographers. However, that changed when 35mm digital technology advanced - higher megapixel count, greater dynamic range, greater colour depth, better lenses, etc. As a result, many pro's dumped their MF set-ups for the newer more user friendly Nikons, Canons and what-have-yous. This left just the well-heeled amateurs as well as commercial photographers, with a clientelle whose pockets are deep and want the best quality, to continue with MF. The smaller "sub-MF" format cameras produced by Leica, Fuji, and Hasselblad, whose form and function are very similar to 35mm (but in the case of Leica and Hasselblad, better built), will continue and perhaps even grow in strength in line with technical improvements and continued relative price reductions that now almost compete with high end 35mm.
Personally, I yearned for a digital back for my tech cam set-up which currently doubles as large format. This was largely to replace large format colour film (4x5 specifically) due to its unavailability and expense in large format generally (as well as MF). Unfortunately, the price of digital backs, even second-hand, was and still is too high for me, at least for those newer backs that have user friendly features such as live view (which may or may not be practicable on the day). I calculated that in the long term (for me), it was cheaper (although not as convenient) to go with film, despite its increased cost and limited availibilty. The older, cheaper, backs are an alternative but, for example, Phase One no longer service or repair their early non+P series backs.
Oddly, I see myself doing more film in the future.
Cheers,
Duff.
If I may add an observation as well as a personal perspective.
When digital MF came out, many pro's picked up a Hasselblad or Mamiya as 35mm digital wasn't up to the requirements of commercial photographers. However, that changed when 35mm digital technology advanced - higher megapixel count, greater dynamic range, greater colour depth, better lenses, etc. As a result, many pro's dumped their MF set-ups for the newer more user friendly Nikons, Canons and what-have-yous. This left just the well-heeled amateurs as well as commercial photographers, with a clientelle whose pockets are deep and want the best quality, to continue with MF. The smaller "sub-MF" format cameras produced by Leica, Fuji, and Hasselblad, whose form and function are very similar to 35mm (but in the case of Leica and Hasselblad, better built), will continue and perhaps even grow in strength in line with technical improvements and continued relative price reductions that now almost compete with high end 35mm.
Personally, I yearned for a digital back for my tech cam set-up which currently doubles as large format. This was largely to replace large format colour film (4x5 specifically) due to its unavailability and expense in large format generally (as well as MF). Unfortunately, the price of digital backs, even second-hand, was and still is too high for me, at least for those newer backs that have user friendly features such as live view (which may or may not be practicable on the day). I calculated that in the long term (for me), it was cheaper (although not as convenient) to go with film, despite its increased cost and limited availibilty. The older, cheaper, backs are an alternative but, for example, Phase One no longer service or repair their early non+P series backs.
Oddly, I see myself doing more film in the future.
Cheers,
Duff.
Most pros already had Mamiyas or Hasselblad setups already. When they introduced digital; backs, they were horrendously expensive and quite limiting. Nikon's D800 with 36MP was the breakthrough, quickly followed by Canon. That's when the a lot of pros dumped their MF film gear and adopted digital. Except for table-top and architectural shooters, there was no need for anything more than what a high-res FF DSLR could offer. Besides the wow factor to impress clients (and photographers' egos) there still really isn't any need for a commercial photographer to shoot digital MF except as noted above. Basically, digital MF (although it's really "almost MF") has pretty much replaced large format film in the studio and the field for professional use.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Back on topic: digital MF is not dead and P1 is pushing out a new line of lenses and in all likelihood the XT XL, or maybe its just called "XL" in 2024.
So to pay for P1's new offerings you'll probably need:
On the XT XL: If they make the digital back adapter revolving like the newest Cambo back adapters that would solve the problem that all XT lenses are only tilt in one direction on the XT, namely when the sensor is in horizontal, ie panorama mode.
So who is in for the new XT tilt lenses or even the XT XL body?
The only thing I am afraid of is that we'll again get some weird shift distances as to not cannibalize Cambo's offering (maybe they have an agreement in this regard), ie 18mm shift left and right instead of 20mm or 22.5m or even better 25mm.
That's a shame because the 70 and 90 XT tilt and most likely the new 150 can shift beyond 18mm-20mm although it is not clear in how far these lenses are on the other handl imited by mechanical vignetting due to the XT system design whereby there's never a back extender (as you need to have the electric contacts in the mount tube).
So who would spend 10k on a new XL body with 18mm shift left and right? It does metadata recording for vignetting and distortion correction and lenses don't need an awkward cable dangling around. You get less shift though most likely compared to Cambo's sister offerings.
Or buy the new XT tilt lenses with the new MK II shutter assembly (recognizable via the Phase One engraving on the shutter).
So to pay for P1's new offerings you'll probably need:
- USD 35-38k"ish" for the three new lenses in MK II shutter: 70 XT tilt, 90 XT tilt, 150 XT (cheaper alternative for those who can't do the 138 in X shutter from Cambo)
- USD 8-10k for a re-badged Cambo frame with a back interface with electronic connectors for the XT lenses
On the XT XL: If they make the digital back adapter revolving like the newest Cambo back adapters that would solve the problem that all XT lenses are only tilt in one direction on the XT, namely when the sensor is in horizontal, ie panorama mode.
So who is in for the new XT tilt lenses or even the XT XL body?
The only thing I am afraid of is that we'll again get some weird shift distances as to not cannibalize Cambo's offering (maybe they have an agreement in this regard), ie 18mm shift left and right instead of 20mm or 22.5m or even better 25mm.
That's a shame because the 70 and 90 XT tilt and most likely the new 150 can shift beyond 18mm-20mm although it is not clear in how far these lenses are on the other handl imited by mechanical vignetting due to the XT system design whereby there's never a back extender (as you need to have the electric contacts in the mount tube).
So who would spend 10k on a new XL body with 18mm shift left and right? It does metadata recording for vignetting and distortion correction and lenses don't need an awkward cable dangling around. You get less shift though most likely compared to Cambo's sister offerings.
Or buy the new XT tilt lenses with the new MK II shutter assembly (recognizable via the Phase One engraving on the shutter).
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
It will come it just may take longer. I have stated this many times that Arri took a decade to improve on a great design and on top of being able to price higher (and having a larger customer base, arguably) they also do not have the same constraints regarding size - they can build circuitry around the sensor as they still do and did as the case mustn’t be small.
Phase has become very good at “dual use”, meaning if sth new comes they willl be able to quickly put it through all of their divisions. The groundwork has been done and this is powerful. New sensor lands in drones, repro, satellites and consumer. That's the merit of the PE strategy they have been running for the last years. So I wouldn't discount that there is a tipping point in cost vs. new features or R&D where the calculation works and we will see new products.
Besides consumer photography I can envisage new demand for high end large sensors from the military, ie defense side. We are on the verge of a renaissance of the European Defense sector as Putin is making it clear that he has ambitions beyond the Eastern part of Ukraine by moving his whole country into a war economy. In the last year a few hundred(!) new manufacturing companies were formed and at one point with all the drones coming into the war field and real time precision reconnaissance becoming a topic I do think there is a need for higher res sensors and more dynamic range sensors.
I think this time around it will be more sth emanating from Defense demand trickling into consumer.
I spoke with the manager of the Rodenstock photo optics division 1.5 years ago and he basically said they primarily work for the corporate and Defense worlds right now and not everything that’s being made and is available is published online. They do bespoke designs, e.g. if a military needs a certain optical system for a weapons system they will design it. Defense pays upfront in cash direct or via milestones so there's no market risk like when you design a new lens and they'd ask P1 if they are willing to order 200 lenses. Here they design sth that goes into a few hundred integrated systems, etc.
The market risk is the reason why we don't have a 25mm 90 IC HR next-gen lens. P1 shot it down in a meeting by not willing to commit to preorders high enough for Rodenstock (jointly with Alpa and Cambo). Military just orders 4m worth of optical systems for new weapons without blinking. That's what pays the bills and it is powerful!
There' no PDF you find online about that work. Of course not.
You need better sensors in robotics, drones, advanced military applications (satellites).Advances will trickle down to consumer. During peace periods it was the other way around. Canon will develop a new sensor and then make a night camera with elements of the tech for site surveillance and will incorporate other elements into its sports cameras. Technology always advances.
I think an IQ5 is likely, most likely in 2025 or thereafter. This is why 2024 is the year where you can safely drop five figures on glass and not be worried to miss out on a new back! When exactly does not matter so much at this stage because I think there's now this core of P1 customers who just love digital backs and are still buying IQ4s and these customers will then also be in play for an upgrade to the IQ5 - in 2025, 26, 27.
The fact though that P1 is alive, that they are selling the XC and that there's 4 new products coming next year: 70, 90, 150, XL, is a positive sign and also a signal that there is potentially an IQ5 down the line.
If IQ would be EOL they wouldn't increase the cadence of new product release. Rather, the XC has convinced some people internally and now it looks like new products are coming out and hopefully not too late a new back.
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
About sensor development – the likelihood of new tech trickling down from B2B, defense, is not to be discounted. Look at the specific camera used for the Sphere in Las Vegas. Funded by a billionaire, the economics of the sphere do make sense.
This is a huge sensor:
Would be nice to see a 3x3 inch sensor with 300 megapixels strapped onto 4x5 cameras. The sensor is produced in batches of 12:
Another application for higher res, larger sensors could be next generation of virtual reality and reality capture.
I am thinking of Holodeck type stuff, yes.
As CPU and GPUs become more powerful and data throughpout increases, we might approach a new (intoxicating) level of immersion with ultra high resolution VR headsets based on high res immersive video captured by such large sensors which could drive demand.
The Sphere in Las Vegas already does this on a large scale whereby visitors are transported into different world by being positioned in a huge video sphere which displays video content captured by the 300 megapixel big sky camera. This is real right now and on a smaller scale such venues could proliferate down the line; think about meeting rooms where you can in real time be transported into a different part of the world in a highly immersive video feed captured by a large sensor like big sky’s.
Think the sphere video feed in a future version of Apple's upcoming Reality Pro Headset which is bound to be released in a few weeks. It has 23 megapixels live video capability processed in real-time by a high performance small nanometer custom chip.
Its just that photographers won't drive the evolution, but they could benefit from demand via other areas and being a second line use case. Ie if demand for next gen sensors creates ultra high dynamic range breakthroughs surpassing negative film we might just have a company like Phase One strap it into a box costing 60k selling it to enthusiasts for photographic purposes. Arri already achieved and commercialized color neg DR equivalence; the tech just needs to be shrunk now.
Think also of night vision and military or robotic vision – they need all the sensitivity and DR they can get to interpret the world in real time. A robot in a war zone will greatly benefit having two 200 megapixel high dynamic range "eyes" to identify threats and interpret the surroundings. Once developed, I see no reason why a company like P1 wouldn't just use that for plain old photography.
Its just that we've hit an in-between performance plateau, accompanied by some economic problems like inflation driven by covid, wars, but the journey might continue before you know it! I am sure if you go back in history through camera companie's camera releases you will find phases of a few years with no new products and then all of a sudden a rush of next-gen.
There are just too many exciting applications for high res high DR sensods in other fields that it is unrealistic to me that we won’t see at one point a next digital back.
I just hope at this stage we won't see an escalation Taiwan in the short-term as this would elongate the timeline again for economic recovery and new high end consumer camera spending.
This said, Rodie HR lenses still have resolution reserves and diffraction effects can be mitigated by image processing pipeline. So all good!
2024: new XT lenses and XT XL
2025 and beyond – let's hope for new sensor tech and lack of global economic shocks
Last edited:
The problem with a large sensor (apart of the price) would be a large image circle needed to cover it.
The only lenses able to cover 4x5 or even 3x3 with movements are large format lenses, of which only very few give good enough quality for digital imaging.
I have built a motorised unit to move my back in up to 12 positions on a Sinar 4x5 camera and that gives me 3x4 inches of coverage.
The only lenses I can use on that thingie are super symmars HM or Apo Ronars plus maybe, just maybe, if no movements are to be applied, long digital lenses.
So, with a very large sensor we would need to see new lines of lenses, too.
The cost for such systems would be astronomical and it's usability questionable anyway. I have used my set up maybe a handful of times just to ease my longing for large format and have not figured out a scenario yet for which 2gigapixel images would be needed
50-200 megapixels are much more user friendly and are enough for almost everything.
The only lenses able to cover 4x5 or even 3x3 with movements are large format lenses, of which only very few give good enough quality for digital imaging.
I have built a motorised unit to move my back in up to 12 positions on a Sinar 4x5 camera and that gives me 3x4 inches of coverage.
The only lenses I can use on that thingie are super symmars HM or Apo Ronars plus maybe, just maybe, if no movements are to be applied, long digital lenses.
So, with a very large sensor we would need to see new lines of lenses, too.
The cost for such systems would be astronomical and it's usability questionable anyway. I have used my set up maybe a handful of times just to ease my longing for large format and have not figured out a scenario yet for which 2gigapixel images would be needed
50-200 megapixels are much more user friendly and are enough for almost everything.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
It would not be to have a super sharp image, but to get the DoF and perspective interpretation of longer focal lengths on a larger image area to be reminiscent of the film look.
Even if you don't shoot for LF, you could still do a:
60 * 45mm sensor which is a bit larger than 54 x 40; it would allow you to use all the Rodie glass easily.
The BigSky Sensor could also be transformed into a 6x7cm sensor which would allow you to use nice 6x7 glass as it has been intended, mainly Mamiya 7 II which would resolve nicely or Pentax 6x7. I did some stitch trials with the Pentax adapter on Alpa with the Takumar 105 and shift left right 18mm essentially gives you almost 6x7 and the sharpness was ok; more importantly though, the look was different due to the DoF and perspective while stitched.
I shot a lot of LF glass through my Arca Swiss F metric and a lot of latest gen analogue lenses, above 100mm are not bad at all. I am talking about the Sironar-S line.
Wide angles you can forgot beyond the center sweet spot.
Wouldn't a true 645 sensor be a nice in-between solution. I'd love this size and I guess this would be compatible with most of today's tech cam optics except maybe the Digaron 23-S.
A few more mm would be great. We already had the Leaf at 56mm width ...
Edit: if you take the STC and use the Pentax adapter you can quickly create an effective 76mm x 54mm sensor, which is not too far off from 70x60mm.
The Takumar 105 resolved just fine with a bit of vignetting (that you see less on film of course).
Even if you don't shoot for LF, you could still do a:
60 * 45mm sensor which is a bit larger than 54 x 40; it would allow you to use all the Rodie glass easily.
The BigSky Sensor could also be transformed into a 6x7cm sensor which would allow you to use nice 6x7 glass as it has been intended, mainly Mamiya 7 II which would resolve nicely or Pentax 6x7. I did some stitch trials with the Pentax adapter on Alpa with the Takumar 105 and shift left right 18mm essentially gives you almost 6x7 and the sharpness was ok; more importantly though, the look was different due to the DoF and perspective while stitched.
I shot a lot of LF glass through my Arca Swiss F metric and a lot of latest gen analogue lenses, above 100mm are not bad at all. I am talking about the Sironar-S line.
Wide angles you can forgot beyond the center sweet spot.
Wouldn't a true 645 sensor be a nice in-between solution. I'd love this size and I guess this would be compatible with most of today's tech cam optics except maybe the Digaron 23-S.
A few more mm would be great. We already had the Leaf at 56mm width ...
Edit: if you take the STC and use the Pentax adapter you can quickly create an effective 76mm x 54mm sensor, which is not too far off from 70x60mm.
The Takumar 105 resolved just fine with a bit of vignetting (that you see less on film of course).
Last edited:
At the price these large sensors would have to sell for--remember this is a very limited market, if at all--the ROI is nonexistent for both the photographer and the manufacturer. Digital has pretty much reached its pinnacle for all practical commercial purposes. The best we can hope for is that what is in the field will continue to be supported and manufactured. Most digital backs older than 5 years (maybe not even that old) are potential doorstops today.
Sure, there are those who can afford to indulge themselves with whatever they want--hey there are private Boeing 747 business jets--that kind of spending is beyond most of us.
Sure, there are those who can afford to indulge themselves with whatever they want--hey there are private Boeing 747 business jets--that kind of spending is beyond most of us.
There is no doubt that larger sensor are technically possible, and have been done even in the past (I believe I remember a photographer who has ordered a bespoken large format sensor, priced like a house, 12 megapixel monochrome). But the costs are too high for "normal" photographers, and, as part of my above argumentation, prices will not come down with the present-days lithography, since they are governed (exponentially) by the sensor area.
http://largesense.com/ has been anouncing them forever. http://largesense.com/index.php/products/ls911-mark-2 USD 90000 "expected", for the monochrome version. "Expected" it has been for years.
So I maintain that new manufacturing approaches might be needed, like this one:https://global.canon/en/news/2023/2...5BQkOvk5gJTqAgLR7tGkIwFz_lobBPDME4XqB9llzia3c
edmundphoto888
New member
Hasselblad 907 with 100m CMOS is coming in the next 1 or 2 months.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
I think best scenario could be 60x45mm which would literally be amazing and is in the real of the possible.
Could you please share pictures of this setup? Thank you!
All very true, it's just that their use can be quite clunky & fuzzy. I wonder whether today's smartphone generation will be motivated enough for that.
I also found it more productive to focus on the seeing /visualizing aspect of image generation instead having to focus on an overly complex technical aspects of image taking.
Last edited:
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
To me, a view camera or technical camera is an indispensible aid to seeing/visualizing the photograph.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Steve, do you see the younger generation – ie professional photographers or aspiring fine art artists at the beginning of their career (sub 30y) – interested in tech cams or is it mostly enthusiasts at this stage and the holdouts from the boom years 2005-2015?
I fell for the tech cam stuff in 2009, so I am a holdout, I guess.
2015ish is when SK went out of business, but just before P1 had a final push of new products with the IQ3 Tri, followed by IQ4 / XT in 2018/19 ... I think it peaked back then and went slowly down, with a specially bad sales dent during the pandemic and now its surviving inflation, Fuji et al in the hope of new tech and improving economy ... I suppose.
The upcoming XT products are a silver lining, especially if there's a new XL body as I would think that this then is the definite signal that there's an IQ5 at one point.
Truly curious and truly hope we move past this technological plateau and get some new things to be excited about on the back side.
I fell for the tech cam stuff in 2009, so I am a holdout, I guess.
2015ish is when SK went out of business, but just before P1 had a final push of new products with the IQ3 Tri, followed by IQ4 / XT in 2018/19 ... I think it peaked back then and went slowly down, with a specially bad sales dent during the pandemic and now its surviving inflation, Fuji et al in the hope of new tech and improving economy ... I suppose.
The upcoming XT products are a silver lining, especially if there's a new XL body as I would think that this then is the definite signal that there's an IQ5 at one point.
Truly curious and truly hope we move past this technological plateau and get some new things to be excited about on the back side.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
In general, I find that many photographers today, not just younger generation, more so view the capture process as a fluid process that includes adjustments after the fact, in other words, not a capture of THE moment and/or THE space, but a capture of A moment and/or A space, than photographers did in the past. And I am not applying any judgement to that, but that is the case, and as such, the idea of creating your final frame at the time of capture, which is what view cameras and technical cameras excel at, has less relevancy for many photographers today. But certainly younger photographers have less of a chance to understand view/tech camera benefits, since they are much less commonly used today, hence their exposure to it is not a given. But even so, with their openness to photographic fluidity (or more, their preference for it, and their recognition of it as today's standard) they may not value it anyway.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve Hendrix/CI
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Interesting. Thanks for sharing the perspective.
I guess C1 and PS have become quite good at "salvaging" less than perfect shots after the fact – perspective control, generative expand, AI selection and retouch ...
I do find that the sum of new tools indeed make it easier to process imagery. It started with auto perspective and keystone adjustment tools a few years ago and now goes on into the AI selection and correction trend. I am talking about the AI tools in PS, the AI selection in C1 and plug-ins like retouch4me which make processing to a final result faster than before.
Gone are the days where one needed to fumble with the Alpa distortion correction plugin; P1 just paid the programmers to include the same corrections natively in C1 as a tab and now no one opens the Alpa corrector anymore as it has been basically included for "free" as part of C1's raw development toolset.
Interesting.
I guess C1 and PS have become quite good at "salvaging" less than perfect shots after the fact – perspective control, generative expand, AI selection and retouch ...
I do find that the sum of new tools indeed make it easier to process imagery. It started with auto perspective and keystone adjustment tools a few years ago and now goes on into the AI selection and correction trend. I am talking about the AI tools in PS, the AI selection in C1 and plug-ins like retouch4me which make processing to a final result faster than before.
Gone are the days where one needed to fumble with the Alpa distortion correction plugin; P1 just paid the programmers to include the same corrections natively in C1 as a tab and now no one opens the Alpa corrector anymore as it has been basically included for "free" as part of C1's raw development toolset.
Interesting.
- Status