Previous news story    Next news story

Phase One announces IQ250 50MP CMOS medium format back

By dpreview staff on Jan 24, 2014 at 13:06 GMT

Phase One has announced the 'world's first CMOS-based digital camera back' - the 50MP IQ250. It uses a 44x33mm sensor, which is 68% larger in area than 35mm full frame, and equates to a 1.3x crop of the standard 645 format. Until now medium format backs have invariably used CCD sensors, and the adoption of CMOS promises much improved image quality when shooting at high ISOs in particular.

The IQ250 promises the widest ISO range of any medium format camera system (100-6400), together with up to 14 stops of dynamic range and 14 bit colour depth. It also sports a high-resolution 1.15MP 3.2" touchscreen for live view, playback and changing settings, and has built-in Wi-Fi for connection to an iPad or iPhone. It's available now, with prices starting at €24,990 / $34,990. 

Phase One's announcement comes hot on the heels of Hasselblad's statement earlier this week that it will also be making a 50MP CMOS-based model, to be called the H5D-50c. The two presumably share the same sensor, which apparently is made by Sony.


Press release:

Phase One Introduces First CMOS-based Medium Format Camera
Opens New Frontiers for Photographers

COPENHAGEN, January 24, 2014 -- Phase One today introduced the world’s first CMOS-based medium format digital camera back. The new 50-megapixel IQ250 brings unprecedented image capture flexibility to the IQ2 family of wireless-enabled high-end camera systems. Whether photo sessions are held in the studio or on a mountainside, the IQ250 lets photographers capture stunning imagery in available light -- virtually anywhere and any time.

With a sensor size of 44x33mm, the IQ250 offers 68 percent more image-capture real estate than any full-frame 35mm DSLR camera and the widest usable ISO range of any medium format camera system. Its phenomenal dynamic range of 14 f-stops enables photographers to capture the most demanding scenes in one shot, while retaining details in highlights and shadows.

Flexibility in Action

The IQ250 is designed for capture versatility; it has an ISO range from 100 to 6400, delivering world class image quality at any ISO speed. And its range of exposure time is extreme -- from 1/10000s to one hour. Fluid and responsive Live View is another key feature of the IQ250. Live View on the IQ250 offers great composition and focus assistance -- whether it is used directly on the digital back, connected via USB3 to Capture One on the computer, or displayed wirelessly on iPads or iPhones running Capture Pilot.

Award-winning Australian wedding photographer Dan O'Day has found the IQ250’s abundant dynamic range to be a game changer. He said, “I shoot the majority of my work on location, and I prefer to shoot only using available light. With the IQ250, I can shoot portraits of couples any time of day, under just about any conditions Mother Nature offers me, and still retain all the details. Couples rely on me to capture one of the happiest moments in their life, and they expect the outcome to be perfect. With the IQ250 I can deliver on this expectation with greater confidence, quality and detail than ever before." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rX9lRqgRg

"My photography work spans several genres, so flexibility is extremely important to me, said California-based wedding and portrait photographer, Justine Ungaro. “The IQ250 has been absolutely life changing in allowing me to capture gorgeously clean and crisp medium format images on all of my shoots. This new back has transformed my existing Phase One 645DF+ camera body and wonderful range of Schneider Kreuznach leaf shutter lenses into a workhorse kit which is quickly pushing my other camera gear to the background. Along with Capture One for image processing, I'm so pleased with the truly superior image quality with a dynamic range that is simply incredible.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EO1IkjT7Lc

“We are very proud to introduce the Phase One IQ250 which carries on the tradition of Phase One high-quality medium format gear,” said Henrik O. Håkonsson, CEO & President, Phase One. “The wider ISO range in this new CMOS-based system, for example, illustrates our desire to continue pushing the envelope for our customers, to help them succeed in all of their unique imaging challenges.”

Pricing and Availability

The Phase One IQ250 system is available now and may be ordered through Phase One
photography partners worldwide: www.phaseone.com/partners For a complete list of all the Phase
One IQ250 digital back features, including supported camera bodies, please see http://www.phaseone.com/iq2

Prices start at 24990 EUR / 34990 USD. The Phase One IQ250 comes with Capture One software
for optimal raw image processing and image editing. Attractive camera system upgrade offers are
available for all existing Phase One photographers. For a demo of this product, please sign up
here: www.phaseone.com/demo

Phase One IQ250 Specifications

Sensor  CMOS 
Lens Factor  1.3x 
Resolution  50 MP 
Active Pixels  8280 x 6208 px 
Sensor size effective  44 x 33 mm 
Pixel size  5.3 x 5.3 micron 
Image ratio  4:3 
Dynamic Range  14 f-stops 
RAW file compression  IIQ large: 50MB
IIQ small: 33MB 
ISO  100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 
Ports  Firewire, USB2/USB3 
Wireless 
  • 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz
  • Up to 8m ad-hoc, 30m with router
  • WPA/WPEA2 or EAP, optional 4-digit PIN code
  • Supports iPhone, iPad and iPod touch 
LCD Screen 
  • 3.2"
  • 1.15MP touchscreen
  • 170° viewing angle 
Operating conditions 
  • 0° C - 40° C
  • 15 - 80% humidity (non-condensing)
IQ back mounts 
  • Phase One 645DF+
  • Mamiya 645 FF+
  • Hasselblad H1 and H2
  • Hasselblad 555ELD, 553ELX, 503CW and 501CM
  • Via adapter: Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID
  • Mamiya RB67
  • Contax 645 AF

Comments

Total comments: 197
12
FrankS009
By FrankS009 (3 months ago)

Sony is becoming a force, with their own cameras including mirrorless full frame, part ownership in Olympus m4/3rds (and sensors in OLympus cameras), and now sensors in Phase One and Hasselblad.

F.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (3 months ago)

niche sensor for a niche demand, albeit with more Mp
but strictly shooting in good light (ISO 6400 cap is telltale, not really meant for true low light), it may only be scaled-up current tech (not really new), but scaled up for MF needs not too different from now, albeit a bit better for action than before. (e.g. current SONY tech)

if any mfr is going to do true low-light MF, its 44x33 mm will more come in at closer to 30-32 Mp, and offer both stills/cine-video, with clean ISOs at 25600 to 51200, or thereabouts. (scaled up current Canon tech, but it remains to be seen if they are interested in MF, since it is so much smaller a niche than even Cinematography is, and as a priority, still long way off)

so far, no mfr has seriously addressed true low light shooting for either 24 Mp or 40, never mind 50.

I doubt Canon would venture into it unless it also has MF Lenses made, too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

from another point of view, it has to go high resolution for smaller pixels are better and smaller microlenses are better.

I know a lot of people who still use film in medium and large format cameras and what they really want is lower equivalent ISO (ISO multipled by square lens factor).

for this one, ISO = 100 and factor = 0.77 we get equiv. ISO of 60. so the value of the this camera (sensor size) is the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 60.

sensor format is more for adequate light performance.
should look at lens aperture for low light performance.

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

ISO 6400 is a huge improvement over preexisting CCD medium format sensors, which start to show noise at anything other than base ISO. Anything higher than that is really accomplished by heavy handed noise reduction anyway. Since few people will try to capture sports using a medium format camera, low light capability is not crucial.

We don't know if Canon or Nikon will get into medium format, but we know Pentax is already in it. It will be interesting to see whether they will switch over to the new sensor. Pentax 645D sales have tanked recently after a strong start so may be they won't be introducing a new model.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (3 months ago)

Smaller sensor is actually better for movie. Less panning effect, faster readout etc. Soon all movie cameras will be using BSI sensor for better low light capabilities. So I think the MP count is fine for a medium format sensor, some even think it's too small.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

the merit to go smaller sensors is cost saving.
there is little if any other things we can get.

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (3 months ago)

I actually like this idea but would need to see the output from this sensor, how 16-bit CMOS compares to 16-bit CCD. My back goes to 800 but I really use it at 50/100 ;)

0 upvotes
Everhardt Strauss
By Everhardt Strauss (2 months ago)

Hi Sdaniella, extended ISO range doesn't equate to clean high ISO, currently none of the high end FF's come near the 6400 range and deliver clean images - they all max out at +-3200, check out their DXO marks.

0 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (3 months ago)

Not to undermine the innovative step however this looks not unlike having to pay 10 times more for a resolution increase of about 50% or 10 times more for a FF sensor than the cost of the APS-C; all based on the same CMOS technology.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it depends on sensor's share in the overall cost. if it's 10% in one camera, a ten-fold increase in price will only result twice higher final price.

1 upvote
Sergey Kostrov
By Sergey Kostrov (3 months ago)

>>...10 times more for a resolution increase...

It does Not increase resolution at all.

This is because Phase One's 50MP pixel size is 5.3 micron and, for example if compared to latest FF ILC Sony's Alpha 7R, its pixel size is 4.88 micron.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it increases with resolution in the term of capital cost and that's one of reasons Canon moves slowly towards high resolution while they are the best in the industry to go high resolution with high quality lenses made decades ago.

cost increases with area exponentially and this is a prohibitory factor for large sensors that we don't really need.

1 upvote
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

There is a bit of price gouging involved. Canon was the only game in town when it had a full frame, and it priced the camera at a astronomical $8K. Now they are down to $2K and less because of competition. Hasselblad and Phase One have little competition, so even though the new sensor is cheaper than the CCD sensors they have been using, they don't have to drop their prices.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

what was the price of the original 5D in 2005? 3K?
(it was about 300K JP at the end of 2005)

0 upvotes
Sergey Kostrov
By Sergey Kostrov (3 months ago)

>>There is a bit of price gouging involved.
>>Canon was the only game in town when it had
>>a full frame, and it priced the camera at a
>>astronomical $8K. Now they are down to $2K...

My estimate shows that IQ250 50MP CMOS medium format back is overpriced at least in 2.5 times.

0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

I wonder if Canon and/or Nikon will shake up the market by making its own medium format CMOS sensors, cameras and lenses.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

format itself doesn't mean much.
the performance is decided by lens-camera combination.
then one will see medium format is a good niche.

0 upvotes
DaveE1
By DaveE1 (3 months ago)

You missed one. Sony. Isn't the sensor in this new Phase One manufactured by Sony? Same with the new Hasselblad.

We can expect a couple more manufacturers to launch cameras around this sensor in the near future.

I love Phase One gear and its stunning image quality, but their prices are unfortunately intended to keep their product elite. Expect to see more realistic pricing over the next few years, as even top photographers have better choice at this end of the market.

0 upvotes
Almeida
By Almeida (3 months ago)

Phase One and Hasselblad will get exclusive access to this sensor for one year. Meanwhile later this year Canon will announce their MF system, that has being rumoured for a while.

0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

if that is the case, then Sony is not going to enter the medium format market before that 1 year expires. Sony wants to sell sensors, not just cameras. That means, as it has shown with its full frame cameras, it will keep its camera prices high to avoid competition with Nikon, which uses full frame sensors. To avoid competing with Phase One, Sony would have to price its MF cameras similar to Phase One and Hasselblad. Although Sony can get Zeiss to make lenses for its cameras, it will not sell too many cameras at that price. The only hope therefore is for Canon to enter the MF market if one wants more competition and lower prices.

1 upvote
BJL
By BJL (3 months ago)

Almeida:
(1) Phase One management has said that the Sony sensor is available to all; no exclusivity. So I hope for a Pentax 645DII using it soon.

(2) One big barrier for Canon, Nikon or Sony offering a full system in a format larger than 35mm is developing a range of high quality lenses for what is always going to be a low volume market with vastly loess total revenues and profits than the 35mm and APS-C format DSLR markets. I doubt they see sufficient return on investment there, compared to investing in their 35mm and APS-C format systems.

After all, Canon and Nikon never bothered with MF film cameras (nor did Minolta or Konica or Olympus or ...), and that was a far larger and more profitable market than digital MF. (DMF has higher unit prices and profits, but only about one tenth the sales volume of MF film cameras, and about one hundredth the unit sales of 35mm format DSLRs.)

0 upvotes
Everhardt Strauss
By Everhardt Strauss (2 months ago)

I think Canon was making waves in the MF landscape - dont know what happened with that.

0 upvotes
Abaregi
By Abaregi (3 months ago)

Looking forward to see the ooc jpegs...

0 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (3 months ago)

I do not think Phase One and hasselblad is going to sell many CMOS to make Sony happy. I expect a Sony medium format mirrorless coming out soon. It will look and feel like a A7r.

0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

Not at the price they are asking. A mirrorless medium format camera makes even more sense than mirrorless APS-C or full frame, since the mirror is a big course of vibration and noise, and it makes the camera so much more bulky.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

the real problem is the lenses, not the sensor format.

Sony don't have good lenses for Alpha SLR, and they don't have good lenses for E-mount, APS-C or 35mm format, how should anyone expect they have good ones for yet another mount?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

Sony's partner is Carl Zeiss. Lenses are not the issue. Zeiss has been making medium format lenses for decades for Hasselblad.

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (3 months ago)

yep, but the ones made for V series from Hasselblad were made in Germany in Zeiss factory, the ones for Sony as far as I understand it are 'designed' by Zeiss but not made by Zeiss factory, also notice how character of those lenses doesn't really look like the Zeiss from old days.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

Zeiss means higher price, the only value of the brand.

0 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (3 months ago)

We had accepted less lens selection for medium format, 35mm f2.8, 75mmf2, 150mm f2.8. Mamiya 6 size lenses r already nice. A speed booster from hasselblad V to 44x33 would be nice.from 56x56 to 44x33 is still about 2X it also cut down the room between the big lenses and the small camera. hopefully somebody would make the leaf shutter works too.

0 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (3 months ago)

About the price of this medium format camera, it should be inexpensive, or would be very profitable for sony, since all the r&d already paid for with A7r for the camera, and sensor r&d paid for by hasselblad and PhaseOne. Don't forget the reason we buy in A7/A7r is not because of their lenses, it is because of the lenses we already have. We like to have autofocus, but I am happy to see my old lenses on it without AF. More so for my medium format lenses. Medium lenses r so cheap these days, I expect this to drive up the price of medium format lenses.

0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

There were rumors that Sony would enter the medium format market, so the new Sony CMOS sensor comes as no surprise. CMOS sensors make more sense for medium format because they are much cheaper than CCD sensors to make. Since the CMOS sensors are also more modern designs, they can beat the existing CCD sensors in noise levels at high ISO, a persistent issue for medium format CCD sensors currently in use. It remains to be seen whether the savings in manufacturing cost will be passed along to consumers. No doubt Hasselblad and Phase One are moving to CMOS because of lower cost and lower noise.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (3 months ago)

A lot of commenters seem to be missing the point : this is the first medium-format CMOS sensor commercially available, and we should simply be discussing what that concept brings, rather than film-vs-35mm-vs-D800-vs-ETC.
You will now be able to use your medium-format kit at decent high-ISO, fast frame rates and ... soon ... live-view leading to better integration with LCD/EVF, focusing techniques and even video.
Bring it on! It will get cheaper and more featured too. It's another option while the CCD tech should continue alongside.

7 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

Agreed. Though I think there won't be a high frame rate with these chips. You might get 2-2.5fps. The Exmors read out slow, which is why they look good. And black frame subtraction is both mandatory and automatic at all shutter speeds.

0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (3 months ago)

The exmores read out slow...my a77 shoots a 12fps, I wouldn't call that slow. Since the camera uses compressed raw, I would be surprised if it isn't using bionz x processor.

2 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (3 months ago)

> we should simply be discussing what that concept brings...

... and what it takes away. Namely, the "CCD magic". Whether that provides real benefits or not, people will inevitably start to compare CMOS-based backs to certain DSLRs [more]; CCD has been an important differentiator IMHO.

0 upvotes
Geoff Brown
By Geoff Brown (3 months ago)

Well at their price quoted I will not be buying one!

0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (3 months ago)

The camera makers choose not to pass along the savings to the consumer. That is understandable because there is a dearth of competition. Large size CMOS sensors are much easier and therefore cheaper to make the CCD sensors because it is easier to stitch the multiple exposures of the circuitry together using CMOS.

0 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (3 months ago)

Very nice. However, why does their photo show a 16x9 aspect image on the live view when the sensor is 4x3 aspect?

2 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (3 months ago)

Looks like the marketing people must have messed that up with simulated display :)

0 upvotes
Bervilat
By Bervilat (3 months ago)

So, this will be actually worse for base iso landscape photography?

0 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (3 months ago)

Depends.. DR is better, and the QE is probably quite a bit better too, but the higher base ISO means that SNR 18% probably won't be better at base ISO than it was with the CCD sensor.

1 upvote
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

The Exmor is nearly optimal for read noise at base ISO.

0 upvotes
rjsanyal
By rjsanyal (3 months ago)

I don't believe so. If FWC per unit area is not any lower than the best MF sensors now, one will only see benefits.

For landscape photography, signal is usually not limited, since you can expose pixels to your heart's content with the use of long shutter speeds/tripods. That means you can maximize SNR by exposing the sensor as much as is possible without blowing highlights. This will minimize relative shot noise contributions & increase SNR.

Furthermore, the low read noise of EXMOR means your shadows will be largely shot noise limited.

One cannot simply look at the numeric value of base ISO to draw conclusions about base ISO image quality (also: consider that ISO definitions vary). One must essentially analyze the maximum SNR obtainable since, again, with landscape photography one can easily maximize/optimize exposure. You can estimate this by measuring FWC & read noise, since shot & read noise are the major 'enemies' of SNR. Quantization noise contributions will likely be minimal.

2 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (3 months ago)

So.. the appeal is so one can print bigger right? They must be out there, but who orders eg. 36" portraits of themselves from their wedding day? I can't imagine having to live with a huge portrait that includes myself hanging in my living room, looking at this day after day..

Otherwise this 50mp Sony sensor is about equiv in density to 30mp on a FF dSLR which puts it right about where the industry is.

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

It isn't all about printing big. There is a range of high-frequency detail that is retained during downsampling over another camera with fewer pixels. Details such as hair, skin, foliage, etc, are better revealed even in a web-sized image.

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

Not to mention the incredibly shallow depth of field so beloved of the 35x24mm fan bois when looking down their noses at "lesser" sensors.

Yup I'm gonna flog this dead horse.

0 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (2 months ago)

Yes, but in wedding photography (ie. the genre that this PR bit is focused on), and now with both of you saying its not about printing big.. for small prints then, how important is the minute details found in eyelashes? DOF appearance is directly affected by print size; the smaller the print the greater the apparent depth of field.

0 upvotes
Black Box
By Black Box (3 months ago)

I wonder how they judge wedding photography for those awards? The widest smiling gold-digger? The most drunk guest? Seriously, I just don't see how a photographer can improve, say, an unfortunate dress or a mother-in-law who just had too many margaritas. Sounds like "the cleverest kindergartener".

2 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (3 months ago)

I am only wondering why it is not full frame at this time of the year.

0 upvotes
Deicide
By Deicide (3 months ago)

Sony at the Heart of Phase One and Hasselblad.

0 upvotes
monokul
By monokul (3 months ago)

Hi there light lovers :)
I was searching the web but couldn't find anything about Mamiya FF model. Am I missing something or there is a typo in the section with the compatible cameras?
Have nice weekend!

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (3 months ago)

I'd rather burn money on a Zeiss Otus and a D800e.

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (3 months ago)

I'd rather burn money on 5 Zeiss Otuses and 5 D800e's

4 upvotes
Juraj Lacko
By Juraj Lacko (3 months ago)

I would rather burn money on rx1 and a sports car

8 upvotes
Stephen_C
By Stephen_C (3 months ago)

You have your priorities straight on the sports car option.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (3 months ago)

he-he ... how about burning money, period? Money, according to some, the base source of all troubles.
:))

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (3 months ago)

Right. Use a credit card instead. Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (3 months ago)

You can shoot a lot of film for that price, with a larger dynamic range.

Does DPReview do reviews on this equipment?

0 upvotes
gdfthr73
By gdfthr73 (3 months ago)

The name of this site is "Digital Photography Review" so do not expect film or film cameras to be reviewed here.

2 upvotes
Silvarum
By Silvarum (3 months ago)

Larger dynamic range, right. Your sources are like 5 years old.
Film can only dream about 14 DR stops.

6 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (3 months ago)

The entire debate of film vs digital is ridiculous and, as they say say, "purely academic"; it's a matter of quantization. As a middle aged commercial photographer I have a fondness in my heart for the silver processes for everything form Kodachrome to Portriga Rapid - but those days are gone. Film and paper will carry on as a fine art medium just as charcoal pencils and artist's oils are still sold and used. If you yearn for that film look, there are some plug in's sold by DxO and others that look quite realistic. Comparisons are meaningless at this point.( I sleep with a box of 4X5 Tri-X under my pillow - OK)?

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

Is the video 60p?

0 upvotes
budi0251
By budi0251 (3 months ago)

Does it support 4K or 2K video? Progressive or interlaced? fps?

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

No video. The readout isn't nearly fast enough for video.

0 upvotes
Kaelis
By Kaelis (3 months ago)

PhaseOne... I'm still waiting for a Full Frame you know, don't take the same road as Pentax please, I'm tired of waiting for bigger sensors !

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Mike Griffin
By Mike Griffin (3 months ago)

Nice portraiture on your website

0 upvotes
gdfthr73
By gdfthr73 (3 months ago)

I agree, I would love to see a low res sensor that matches a true Medium Format frame. These medium format backs increase in resolution every year but fail to provide the look and feel of true medium format images

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> a low res sensor

if the pixel pitch is about the same as mobile cameras, it'll match the coarse grains of low quality color negative.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (3 months ago)

Indeed, say a 4000x4000 pixel sensor in the classic 6x6 format. 16 megapixels with likely excellent high iso performance. That would be cool.

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

The cost of making this chip is a function of the size, not the number of pixels.

1 upvote
technotic
By technotic (3 months ago)

50mp MF not good enough for yab. Nikon FF is for some reason.

0 upvotes
SimonTSM
By SimonTSM (2 months ago)

It is the area size of the silicon wafer that is expensive. You can only get 4-5 per wafer, an the yield is low.

0 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (3 months ago)

IQ180 has a wider ISO range than IQ250 (35-3200 vs 100-6400).

3 upvotes
Aeturnum
By Aeturnum (3 months ago)

35-3200 is ~6.5 stops of latitude. 100-6400 is 6 stops.

1 upvote
Jeremy Park
By Jeremy Park (3 months ago)

geeze how long did it take Phase and Hasselblad to work out CMOS sensors are better for flexibility of shooting ( something most non-studio based photographers need ).... now, if they could only work out that they are way over charging for it.

0 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (3 months ago)

Cost was the main reason. The technique is already a couple of years there for Sony to produce huge (mid form) CMOS sensors, but it was just too expensive.

Nikon and also Sony itself is rumored to deliver a mid format camera the coming years.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

JP
I'm sure the P1 and Hassie engineers were aware of the benefits and trade offs.

Since you're apparently unaware growing big silicon wafers with sufficiently few defects is harder than small.
That's why we started with point n shoot digital cameras, moved to APS-C, 35x24mm, MF.
One day we'll even have large (consumer affordable) format cameras.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (3 months ago)

Nor did Phase one work on it, nor did Hassie. The sensor is the 2x24 mpix clone of the sensor Sony uses in the A7 and D800. It has exactly 48 and a few squeezed megapixels and is exactly the double in size, made by Sony.

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

It's not exactly double in size. It's 33x44. Double would be 36x48.

0 upvotes
Jeremy Park
By Jeremy Park (3 months ago)

yes - point taken, however if there was demand ( which I feel there would have been), it could have bought down costs previously. I guess the risks in a new manufacturing process were not considered beneficial until now. Now other players are entering their MF territory.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

I think Sony are actually making these pretty economically. It remains to see whether the camera makers are going to charge a premium (P1/Hasselblad), or compete on price (perhaps Pentax). If a big Japanese camera maker gets into the game, it could disrupt this traditionally boutique market significantly.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

Demand by itself does not bring down cost.

Lots of people would love to fly from either side of the Atlantic to Australia or Asia at say mach 6 or 7 or more.
However the tech does not exist yet.

Similarly the tech to create CMOS wafers of sufficient quality AND size simply did not exist before.

People could demand it all they liked but until the required engineering break throughs were made demand has no effect on price, other than to inflate it - more people competing for a given amount of product.

Back to the air travel analogy - concorde seats were expensive BECAUSE so many people wanted them. There were a finite number of concordes and an increasing demand for them (as the population grew). Demand by itself does not decrease price.

0 upvotes
completelyrandomstuff
By completelyrandomstuff (3 months ago)

This will definitely be in Pentax 645D II, it's the same size and is made by sony, already used in Pentax cameras.This will be a tough sell for Hassleblad or Phase one, if 645D II comes at a 10k price point like their last one...

6 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (3 months ago)

Next year Sony will announce a pocket-sized medium format Alpha camera with a single 4lb lens.

9 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (3 months ago)

Looking forward to its silver award

11 upvotes
PamlicoKid
By PamlicoKid (3 months ago)

…and people will complain.

3 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

ƒ/11 minimum aperture too I bet!! ;-)

0 upvotes
Marjan
By Marjan (3 months ago)

CMOS sensor is expensive to develop but once when is in the production the cost per unit is less than CCD sensor. I guess that finally we will see a price drop in the market of medium format camera as time past and maybe in a few years (or a decade), we, mortal people will have opportunity to buy one.

5 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

Medium format cameras are like astronomical CCD cameras; the price never seems to have fallen over the years like consumer camera prices have.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

But the market for astronomical CCD cameras is relatively small.
If the forums are to be believed shallow DOF and increased surface area for light gathering are the holy grail - that's what all the 35x24mm shooters claim.
That's why APS-C and *spit* M43 are unacceptable.
Therefore we should expect the CMOS MF to shunt 35x24mm aside just as soon as they are cheap enough.

1 upvote
completelyrandomstuff
By completelyrandomstuff (3 months ago)

The market for astronomically priced CMOS cameras is alive and well though!

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (3 months ago)

The combination of AF performance, high ISO performance, fast aperture lens selection, portability, and affordability are what will likely coninue to keep medium format a tiny portion of the pro digital camera market. Just like smaller formats frequently lose to full frame in most of the areas listed above (aside from portability and sometimes affordability) so does medium format though the gap is even wider. Medium format simply hasn't had the development money spent on it that full frame has. Stopped down base ISO performance is the only area in which it has an advantage.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (3 months ago)

Make that cameras in mirrorless, with smaller body, 48 mpix sensor and a price range of 3000$ for the body, and it sells. The disadvantage of medium format digital is size of material and size of the files. 80 - 250 mb for one shot, so calculate the octocore processor, the 256 gb ram and the 4 x 3 terrabyte disks into your budget right away. Here, all is about size only, starting by the price of the material.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

@joejack
No argument re pro use for action type shooting.
I was referring to the bigger (meaning exactly 35x24mm) sensor is better crowd.
The beauty of their arguments is they are right.

Bigger sensors do give you a depth of field that is shallow in a given FL and better, lower noise, low light shots due to large pixels.

So by that logic they will be abandoning D800s and 5DIIIs in droves in favour of the superior large pixel 44x33mm, now that is an option with similar sensor tech.

To do otherwise would be to admit there declarations of canonical law were.. flawed and there might be other factors than pixel/sensor size and shallow DOF worth considering in camera selection.

From there is is not far from the slippery path of APS-C or even - work of the devil - M43 sensors!!!!!

Interestingly most of the points (with the most standout exception being AF tracking) you list as cons for MF compared to 35mm are also cons for 35mm when compared to smaller formats.

0 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (3 months ago)

I wonder if the day will come that someone will dare make a sensor in a digital medium format camera that is actually several smaller sensors put together rather than one big one. Surely with clever processing, easily available in this day and age, it should be possible to equalise any small differences between the sensors in the output, just like there is processing going on behind the lines to correct CA and distortion in several cameras. If that could make an affordable medium format camera, I'm sure there would be many potential takers.

3x3 APSc sensors would make a nice size of roughly 60x45

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (3 months ago)

You don't get it. The size of the sensor is important.

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (3 months ago)

I believe there was a capture back marketing by Sinar about 15 or so years ago based on similar (multiple sensor) technology. They offered (I think) a single, four and sixteen exposure option for greatest detail and dynamic range. I remember the system was priced comparably with that of a Mercedes S class sedan at the time. I welcome any corrections.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (3 months ago)

Fotodiox RhinoCam Mimics a Medium Format Digital Camera Using A Sony NEX Camera
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/03/fotodiox-rhinocam-mimics-medium-format-digital-camera-using-sony-nex-camera

1 upvote
Artistico
By Artistico (3 months ago)

@howardroark. Yes, size is important. That is also part of my point. But size isn't just one sensor but also potentially multiple sensors together. The Gaia satellite has 106 sensors in an array - effectively a 1 gigapixel camera. But would it have been better had it had been just one big sensor? If you can explain to me why multiple sensors won't work, I'm happy to listen. Otherwise, "You don't get it" really is a good example of bad rhetoric.
@jaygeephoto. Well 15 years ago, even the simplest digital cameras were rather expensive.
@Joe Ogiba. I believe I have seen on eBay the same thing for Canon and Nikon and probably other lens fits too that turns it into a large format camera. Quite a simple thing, really. If you have plenty of time and your subject isn't going anywhere, it can be pretty useful, I guess.

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (3 months ago)

size matters, in a satellite this is not important, a 106 sensor array will not fit in a case around your neck. But, some day I could imagine a 3 ccd system for photography. Foveon split in 3 separate sensors, the absolute top.

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (3 months ago)

I guess Rome has fallen (again):
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/24/phase-one-announces-iq250-50mp-cmos-medium-format-back?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_0

Either that, or the three little ships Didn't sail off the edge of the earth:
http://www.phaseone.com/en/FooterMenu/Press-releases.aspx

Will there be an option to attach it to a folding Fuji 645?

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (3 months ago)

Terrific to see some serious competition for Micro Four-Thirds!

23 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (3 months ago)

Mirrorless windbags of the MFT system won't see it that way.

0 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (3 months ago)

You sound like someone with a very small ....... camera.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

I think all the "FF" shooters will be abandoning their D4,s D800s, 1X, and 5DIIIs in droves - imagine the pixel size and shallow DOF available with CMOS MF.
No reason to stick with tiny 35x24mm anymore!!
Imagine a DOF approaching the short side of 7 microns!!

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (3 months ago)

Nah, m43 is better even than MF.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (3 months ago)

the strange thing is that the depth of the mirror chamber, making the distance to the sensor and the lens larger, reduce the DOF effect. As a young man, I used medium format to get rid of the shallow DOF and get all in depth sharpness, what was a clue with 24x36. That is why I stick to smaller sensors today, the type of shots i usually do need in depth sharpness.

0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (3 months ago)

I noticed that they are using Sony file compression in this camera; I wonder if the forums will be as upset with this development as with the A7.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (3 months ago)

the sensor is Sony's A7 24 mpix x 2.

0 upvotes
Danlo
By Danlo (3 months ago)

What? They gotta be joking?! Why even introduce 33×44 SMALL sensored digital back now?? Who cares if its CMOS if its not at least 6x4.5 or better 6x6?

6 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (3 months ago)

That costs USD100k? It's about cost. Cheaper tech is not viable yet. Maybe they should make mirrorless medium format so we can fit in medium format speedbooster.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (3 months ago)

"The two presumably share the same sensor, which apparently is made by Sony."

http://vimeo.com/84772899

It's confirmed by Phase One they're using a Sony sensor and they have knowledge Sony is selling the same sensor to several manufacturers.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (3 months ago)

DPR at its best.

3 upvotes
silentstorm
By silentstorm (3 months ago)

I've just checked, the Hasselblad H3D-22 & 39 used 36x48 sensors 16bit colour depth. The H3D-31 used 33x44, same size as this new cmos, but 16bit also.

Same goes for the Phase One IQ280

I'll need to sell a kidney & a spleen & a big toe, to get this one LOL!!!

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
joechan32
By joechan32 (3 months ago)

Only US$35K? What a steal....I'll take three!

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (3 months ago)

None of these were actual 16-bit sensors. They just produced 16-bit files (like every other DSLR) and marketers conveniently let people think they were producing actual 16-bit output. You need something to sell backs at $35k+.

This new Sony sensor, though, is likely to put out a real 15-bits for the first time in medium format. It will earn the top spot at DxO for now.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Qamaro
By Qamaro (3 months ago)

Not sure where that 16-bit info is correct in the case of Phase's documentation and even reviewers show for instance on the IQ180 / IQ280 that "...the back captures a full 16-Bit RGB image (16-Bit OptiColor+) and creates a 480MB 16-Bit TIFF". 16-Bit OptiColor+ is actually a feature on the IQ260 as well.

Not in anyway disagreeing with your information just providing some other info that is out there. Whether this is worth 35K+ to someone is a personal choice.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (3 months ago)

The manufacturer states 14 f-stops which equates to 14 bit DR at optimum ISO. Increase the ISO and the low order bits become swamped by noise, reducing the DR. 16 bit word length is used for convenience and to simplify the processing.

0 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (3 months ago)

Let's be patient until we see a comparison against the D800E. (How much we can pay over $3.000 just for some 25% more linear resolution?)

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (3 months ago)

Oh dear...

12 upvotes
PatMann
By PatMann (3 months ago)

Yes, I'm waiting for Full Medium Format too. These puny sensors are like DX vs Full Frame when compared to 6x6.

6 upvotes
Gaëtan Lehmann
By Gaëtan Lehmann (3 months ago)

Touchscreen?
Pro don't care about touchscreen! (according to the dpr forums)
This must be a toy camera ;-)

9 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (3 months ago)

MF is different animal, touchscreen will be more benefit.

Which cant be said about small 44x33. But I guess Sony cant do bigger right now.. Well, they will in time. :)

1 upvote
silentstorm
By silentstorm (3 months ago)

Yes they can. It boils down to cost & profit margin. With big sensors, the yield is lower, thus more costly.

I remember reading about cost of manufacturing FF sensors was US$200 & APS-c sensors US$45, that was 2003. Many co. have since switched to CMOS mainly becos' of cost.

0 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (3 months ago)

Shouldn't a 33x44 sensor then be something in the neighbourhood of $700? And a true 60x60 around $4,000? One would think it should be possible to make the medium format cameras a bit cheaper than they sell them for now.

0 upvotes
completelyrandomstuff
By completelyrandomstuff (3 months ago)

It's not that easy. There are some production bottlenecks in fabricating larger chips. First there are imperfections, so there is relation to the area. Then there is a reticle size and manufacturing the proper mask. Making a sensor as large as a 6x4.5 will require building a specific machine for that purpose.

Here's a breakdown of costs in fabrication of electronics: camars.kaist.ac.kr/~jwcho/course/cs510/lecture/lec_02_Cost.ppt

0 upvotes
Marcin S
By Marcin S (3 months ago)

I could not find 60x60 sensor, but here you are ~54x40 http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/sensors/area-scan/ftf9168c/ . But I don't know how many it cost.

0 upvotes
Petroglyph
By Petroglyph (3 months ago)

Looks like Sony is standardizing on the 0.69 crop of the Pentax 645D type sensor. Look for a new 645DII in the future with a Sony CMOS sensor? If it drops the price into normal people range MF might get back in the wedding market. The 645D was always built to the truly rugged stds of Pentax bodies the K3 is rated -10 to 45C and I've used a K5 down to -25C with no ill effects and up to 48C also no problems.

2 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (3 months ago)

who is?

the crop factor has been used by digital backs for eons now.

0 upvotes
Petroglyph
By Petroglyph (3 months ago)

Sony is - this is CMOS. Original Kodak digital MF was .5 crop much less than eons ago. That one was more like 6X45 as they say. The 44X33 is a good compromise though if it results in more cost effective products.

0 upvotes
nidri
By nidri (3 months ago)

The actual sensor size is 44x33mm. Same size as that of the Pentax 645D. So. How long before Pentax (sorry, Ricoh) announces a 645D II featuring this new CMOS sensor?

1 upvote
Svein Eriksen
By Svein Eriksen (3 months ago)

Pretty close to Leica S format too

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (3 months ago)

I think Sony are gunning for the most universal size they can, so they can sell to as many MF OEMs as possible. This sensor wasn't developed for one camera nor one manufacturer.

0 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (3 months ago)

Which is as close to Medium Format as APS is to 35mm format. The cameras may look the same, but the sensor is a far cry from what I'd consider medium format. Call me back when they put a 6x6 or 6x7 sensor in an OTS digital back.

0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (3 months ago)

Still small format compared to 6x6cm film, or even 645

3 upvotes
68craigdale
By 68craigdale (3 months ago)

If you use one of these backs for your living you do so because you know it is way better than any FF. Period, as they say in the US of A.

2 upvotes
ZhanMInG12
By ZhanMInG12 (3 months ago)

Actually, no.

The 645D and H3D are no better in many regards compared to, say, a D800E. You get slightly more resolution and marginal color depth advantages at base iso, but once you go over 400 the D800E floors every CCD back on the market. Not to mention that the 645D files actually look dirtier compared to the D800E, because of the CCD's shadow noise.

I expect this back to change the situation, but I know quite a few photographers working with "budget" 645 systems that switched to 135 in the past year or two.

1 upvote
LarryK
By LarryK (3 months ago)

I get MF stuff in all the time, and when I composite it with D800 stuff nobody can tell the difference.

Coming from an Large Format film background, I'm all for quality, but paying for something you can't see is silly.

0 upvotes
123Mike
By 123Mike (3 months ago)

When the price drops to $1,250 I'm buying !

3 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (3 months ago)

Both Hasselblad and PhaseOne will probably ensure a picture quality that they consider acceptable = 6400iso.
You can after that underexpose RAW 1,2,3 stops =and photograph in the "iso" you want, 12800 , 25600 etc etc

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Elaka Farmor
By Elaka Farmor (3 months ago)

If it had 4K 120fps I would sell my apartment and buy two :-D

3 upvotes
silentstorm
By silentstorm (3 months ago)

It's not a still cam that can do video but still.... if it can do video, I'll sell my apartment for 8K 120fps :D (4K is "only" 10~12MP)

1 upvote
Wally626
By Wally626 (3 months ago)

Interview with Phase one management on Luminous Landscape, states the sensor will output at 30 Hz, but they are not doing video. Potentially another maker, Sony is selling the sensor to anyone, will make an 8K 24fps video camera from it.

0 upvotes
marcio_napoli
By marcio_napoli (3 months ago)

I was wondering here... it's a Sony sensor, so there's no doubt they had the latest sensor design available on their hands, right ?

But if the ISO range is still a bit short (max. 6400), can we presume they didn't go further for 2 reasons?

A)
Image quality. It's still a DMF camera. Don't throw in ISO 1 billion just for the sake of showing off.

ISO 6400 must be of high quality. No need for show off ISOs (like 200k... I'm looking at you, D4 and 1DX)

B)
A sensor this size generates too much heat, stopping them from going further, even with a CMOS design.

Thoughts?

I mean, it's a Sony sensor... something must explain why "only" ISO 6400.

2 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (3 months ago)

A.

4 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

The ISO range is perfectly normal. Other cameras top off at 6400 as well and extend their range with digital amplication.. on Nikons these are called H1, H2, etc.. to differentiate the ISOs from the real analog amp

0 upvotes
AstroStan
By AstroStan (3 months ago)

Very high ISO settings in most cameras are not "real" but are simply multiplications of the captured signal. An increase of true CMOS gain results in less absolute noise (read noise as measured in electrons). But actual CMOS gain tops off somewhere between 1600 (e.g. Canon 40d) and 6400 (in the case of the latest and best sensors). All "ISO" above that are primarily an artificial multiplication of the signal, which does not decrease absolute noise nor increase actual signal. Of course there are many DSP functions that are applied to artificially high ISO (e.g. non-linear scaling and color balance) , so it is useful but it does not increase true sensitivity (though clever DSP can sometimes make it seem so).

So the 6400 limit may simply be an honest setting. The user can shoot raw and then goose up to an artificial ISO as desired.

2 upvotes
Smeggypants
By Smeggypants (3 months ago)

whether it's analogue amplification or digital amplification it's STILL amplification

0 upvotes
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (3 months ago)

Looks like both Hasselblad and Phase One new backs use the same 50MP CMOS sensor made by Sony!

0 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (3 months ago)

Its made by Sony and it's probably the same sensor in Hasselblad 50Mp

http://www.digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq250-11-things-to-know

1 upvote
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (3 months ago)

ccd is twhy a medium format is unbeleiveble even compared to any ff camera at base iso...im sure the mformata will lose this magic and resemble a d800 with just more pixel.
stupid move

2 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (3 months ago)

MF looks like MF because it's MF, nothing to do with CCD or CMOS, FILM MF also looks like MF after all.

1 upvote
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (3 months ago)

dont have a clue what u talk about...my pentax k10d used a 109 million ccd sensor...all considered i like the images she produced much more than any cmos sensor i have used. ccd is much better it creates a natural images,m the cmos images are flat even those of d800. flat as hell, plastic.

1 upvote
ZhanMInG12
By ZhanMInG12 (3 months ago)

CCDs respond in a more non-linear pattern compared to CMOS sensors. This does not mean that they are better.

I've worked with a number of bodies, CCDs such as the M9 and 645D have NO ADVANTAGE over bodies such as the M type 240 and D800 in terms of dynamic range or color depth. The very best CCD DMFs have more depth simply by virtue of their huge pixels.

If you want to push your files around at all, a CMOS camera is the way to go.

1 upvote
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (3 months ago)

It's not 1976 anymore, Jonny ;)

4 upvotes
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (3 months ago)

in my opinion the rendering of ccd is better, and i'm not talking of pushing dynamic or color depth..simply when i look at d800 images i see a k5 image blow up, with my 645d am always blown out like i am with good foveon images. the same come from other pentax 645d user i know who own also the d800.
it's a natural image, the raw are perfect no need to pp to produce excellent images in most of the light, superb reproduction of secular highlight also for studio work.
cmos in all the camera i have used and k5 has more dr than 645d very similar to d800, seems to flatten all the images.

1 upvote
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (3 months ago)

i suggest many here to rent a 645d with good glass, take their tripod and shoot some long exposure...the smoothness of the sky even at very long exposure is something to be seen. but i think many here never shoot or manage to work with mf files.
personally i wait for samples but in my opinion mf is not high iso, for high iso i will use any dslr with fast lens, i don't need noisy raw file of 100 more mb. and i think the same think many phase one users.

0 upvotes
gingerbaker
By gingerbaker (3 months ago)

So, how much of a drawback would it be to hold a Nikon D800 in portrait orientation and take two or three overlapping shots for a panorama, which would easily equal or exceed this $34,000 back at least as far as resolution?

A $30,000 premium for avoiding a second click in the field and three clicks of a mouse seems to me a more obscene bargain than a Hasselblad Luna.

Do you think anyone could tell the difference in the files in a blinded comparison?

0 upvotes
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (3 months ago)

i use a pentax 645d and the resolution is the last of the problems...the image is simply much beautiful, and there are friends who use both and know which produce the bes files. i agree at 34000 dollar is a no game to buy.,..a pentax 645d that sell at 6999 dollar.

3 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

Pentax's $7000 645 produces better images than the D800, never mind this $35k device.

4 upvotes
marcio_napoli
By marcio_napoli (3 months ago)

Gingerbaker, it's not only about resolution.

I have a 22mp digital back (gorgeous foveon like files), and a D3X.

Both about equal in resolution, but I can tell in a blind test, which camera produced each file.

In fact, I can spot them very easily.

DMF really has a look of its own.

The size of the sensor, the CCD rendering, the differences in CFA, and schneider krauznach glass, makes it very easy to set them apart.

But I guess one thing... with this CMOS move, DMF and 35mm will now be much, much closer in general "look".

I don't think that's exactly good news...

1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (3 months ago)

@marcio_napoli
How can you tell in a blind test if you cannot see the picture?

8 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (3 months ago)

At Peiasdf:
gingerbaker referred to telling the difference in the files in a blinded comparison rather than in the pictures

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
MikeFairbanks
By MikeFairbanks (3 months ago)

Blind test simply means (in the case of photography) that the viewer is blind to the information. In other words, he or she views an identical image at the same size (say, an 8x10 glossy printed on the same printer) from two different devices (or combination of devices).

The two 8x10 prints are given to the viewer, and the viewer knows only that different equipment was used for each photo. The viewer decides which one is better or is asked to guess which one was made by which device.

information is revealed after the viewer makes a judgement or decision.

It's like Pepsi or Coke. You hide the cans but the taster can still see two cups of soda. He or she tastes them and decides which one is better OR tries to guess which one is Coke or Pepsi.

Then they find out if they are correct.

0 upvotes
MikeFairbanks
By MikeFairbanks (3 months ago)

oops

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Black Box
By Black Box (3 months ago)

Working conditions 0° C - 40° C at 15 - 80% humidity. So November wedding in Oslo or July wedding in Dubai is out of the question. And so is any work in the Carribeans or Hawaii where a lot of weddings happen.

1 upvote
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (3 months ago)

Roughly the same working conditions as the world’s toughest 35 mm SLRs:

Canon EOS-1D X:
• 0–45°C
• less than 85% humidity

Nikon D4:
• 0–40°C
• less than 85% humidity

Just because the ambient temperature is −10°C doesn’t mean the camera is at that temperature. And even if it was, chances are it would still work okay.

Temperatures in Hawaii and the Caribbean (and almost everywhere else) never really reach 40°C, though high humidity may occasionally be a problem. But these cameras would probably work just fine in high humidity as long as it isn’t condensing.

8 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (3 months ago)

I've used my old D90 in -20 degree celsius and it works like a charm
I bet this thing can do it too..

2 upvotes
Black Box
By Black Box (3 months ago)

As far as I know they use graphite lubrication on moving parts. And my experience with cameras all the way down to -62C says that they stop working properly way above that extreme.

But that actually wasn't my point. In fact, what I seriously doubt is that this Phase One thing will outshoot the abovementioned D4 in ANY situation. Maybe "on the pixel level" there will be some difference the geeks will claim is decisive. But for regular punters who just want nice wedding photos it'll be lost. So why pay a 15k premium for something nobody will appreciate.

1 upvote
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (3 months ago)

Interesting they used a wedding photographer to talk about this back. Wondering if that is a market they hope to compete in. Back in the day MF ruled weddings. Today the current cost for entry in MF just priced them out of it. I guess the extended ISO is good and all but its not really the tool I would reach for in a situation where there is limited light. It never has been going back to film. So other then a technical achievement I am left scratching my head why.

3 upvotes
Juandante
By Juandante (3 months ago)

The next format Sony is going to take down. A10 in MF ?

1 upvote
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (3 months ago)

What format is taking down by Sony? Don't get me wrong, they make nice camera's. But they didn't take anything down.

3 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (3 months ago)

Well I think they sell more A7's and A7R's in a day than Leica has sold M240's since launch.... The only other FF sans-mirror ILC.

1 upvote
rrccad
By rrccad (3 months ago)

which is still probably a drop in the bucket compared to FF sensors based cameras as a whole .. sony hasn't managed to "take down" any format.

1 upvote
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (3 months ago)

Why should they take down anything? They sell all the sensors to everyone.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 197
12