Anyone see this? Is it real?

Looks like the latest of their CFV backs. They have been around quite a while. I shot V-based digital backs as long as about ten years ago or so.
 
I have been drooling over this for last 36 hours. My 903SWC would look great with this attached. Now just have to get the Wife's approval.
 
sebastel said:
here you can get some of my points: ............................




a bit more serious: i was only stating a fact.
so?
Click to expand...

All right, I was running out and needed a few.

Just that in our brave, new digital world there is very little that actually mimics the sizes from the film age except the titles. It almost seems anti-climactic that the newest, "medium format" digital really...isn't quite medium format. (Had so many extra points I could afford to throw in a few extra here.) :)
 
Well, 44x33 IS almost twice the size of classic 35mm, so it does qualify as medium format, but certainly on the lower end of what us MF film folk think of as MF. Back in the 70s when I got my M645, I remember thinking it wasn't that big. I was lusting after a 6x7 at the time.

ps, I wish I was in the income bracket that could think of 15 grand as affordable!
 
The Hasselblad V users, if anything, are still waiting for a sensor of 56x56mm size. Megapixels are not so relevant. This sensor is smaller than 645.
 
at the risk of sounding a bit dense, is there any reason why making a 6x6 digital back that only resolved like 20-25mpx would be as insanely expensive?

i don't know of too many situations where anyone really legitimately needs more than the 36mpx or so that FF sensors are now putting out... i acknowledge that the reason bigger sensors are more expensive is because the failure rate for the wafer out of which the sensor is cut is proportionally higher.

if cost were no issue, i'd rather have a fairly low-res sensor that maintained the right angle of view than a bazillion megapixels jammed into something larger than a FF digital sensor put in a significantly less capable body (the medium format bodies are literally pathetic when it comes to how robust/flexible the pro bodies are from Canikon).
 
:angel:
Spicy said:
at the risk of sounding a bit dense, is there any reason why making a 6x6 digital back that only resolved like 20-25mpx would be as insanely expensive?

i don't know of too many situations where anyone really legitimately needs more than the 36mpx or so that FF sensors are now putting out... i acknowledge that the reason bigger sensors are more expensive is because the failure rate for the wafer out of which the sensor is cut is proportionally higher.

if cost were no issue, i'd rather have a fairly low-res sensor that maintained the right angle of view than a bazillion megapixels jammed into something larger than a FF digital sensor put in a significantly less capable body (the medium format bodies are literally pathetic when it comes to how robust/flexible the pro bodies are from Canikon).
Click to expand...
Lack of demand = high unit prices.

What on earth does "legitimately needs" mean in this context?

Cheers,

R.
 
Spicy said:
at the risk of sounding a bit dense, is there any reason why making a 6x6 digital back that only resolved like 20-25mpx would be as insanely expensive?

The probability of a defect increases *exponentially* with surface area in semiconductor manufacturing. The yield of usable devices per wafer goes down exponentially and so larger chips are prohibitively more expensive.

-N.
Click to expand...
 
right, i stated i was aware of that. i'm talking about is there any conceivable reason that, were a company to want to, they could make a sensor of similar physical size but significantly lower pixelcount (ex: instead of 50mpx, manufacturing a 20mpx sensor of exactly the same physical size).

Roger Hicks said:
What on earth does "legitimately needs" mean in this context?
Click to expand...

"legitimately needs" means legitimately needs. not "wealthy and just buying the most expensive equipment because one can," not "i was taking pictures with my iPhone and i heard that megapixels = more beautiful pictures," not "i want to take pictures of birds with my super-wide-angle and crop a bazillion times until i find the bird that i want."

if you're printing billboards, alright, but even that isn't a legitimate need, as once people account for viewing distance, pixelcount becomes considerably less of an issue. i'm talking about a situation where something otherwise would not be possible or would be unacceptably poor quality -- nothing is coming to mind, which is why i'm posing the question to the board at large. the only semi-acceptable reason that i can see is if you're doing astro-photography, but how many people (amateurs, i'm not talking about scientific applications) are doing that with MF backs strapped onto telescopes in their backyards?
 
The problem with making a 56x56mm back is that there are no cameras to use it - save for the likes of the long discontinued Hasselblad V system. The closest they came was the CFV16/CFV16 II backs - which are square, but somewhat smaller. With the CFV39, CFV50 and this new CFV50c they went with a 645 ratio, as that's what most other MF (digital) cameras use. Cheaper to acquire sensors...
 
Maybe I'm wrong but the only thing that looks different about this back compared to the one they've been making is a CMOS sensor in place of the CCD sensor they've been using.

Not much of a game changer in my opinion.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom