Why 33X44?

Bashir Lunat · May 23, 2019

OK, The "real" MF is 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 56X56. A reduced 49X37 was introduced in some cameras and thats fine.

My point is instead of continuing with that size here we have 33X44 size sensor. How did the sensor desighners arrived at that size? Why not 35X45 ? I think we should invite Uncle Jim to participate.

Karl Huber · May 23, 2019

Bashir Lunat said:
OK, The "real" MF is 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 56X56. A reduced 49X37 was introduced in some cameras and thats fine.

My point is instead of continuing with that size here we have 33X44 size sensor. How did the sensor desighners arrived at that size? Why not 35X45 ? I think we should invite Uncle Jim to participate.

I often wonder about the sensor size too. The Phase One sensor is 53.7 × 40.4 mm which is closer to MF.

Bashir Lunat · May 23, 2019

Karl Huber said:
Bashir Lunat said:

OK, The "real" MF is 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 56X56. A reduced 49X37 was introduced in some cameras and thats fine.

My point is instead of continuing with that size here we have 33X44 size sensor. How did the sensor desighners arrived at that size? Why not 35X45 ? I think we should invite Uncle Jim to participate.

Click to expand...

I often wonder about the sensor size too. The Phase One sensor is 53.7 × 40.4 mm which is closer to MF.

Exactly. Now it is probably too late to make another size as most makers of MF settled on this size and produced systems around it. So I think we have no alternative but to accept it. But why 33X44 ! All I can say is I have no problems with those figures but just wondered. Coud they have made sensor measuring 50X50, 45X45 and so on?

Karl Huber · May 23, 2019

Bashir Lunat said:
Karl Huber said:

Bashir Lunat said:

OK, The "real" MF is 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 56X56. A reduced 49X37 was introduced in some cameras and thats fine.

My point is instead of continuing with that size here we have 33X44 size sensor. How did the sensor desighners arrived at that size? Why not 35X45 ? I think we should invite Uncle Jim to participate.

Click to expand...

I often wonder about the sensor size too. The Phase One sensor is 53.7 × 40.4 mm which is closer to MF.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Now it is probably too late to make another size as most makers of MF settled on this size and produced systems around it. So I think we have no alternative but to accept it. But why 33X44 ! All I can say is I have no problems with those figures but just wondered. Coud they have made sensor measuring 50X50, 45X45 and so on?

If the Fuji had a sensor the same size as the Phase One, I'd be more inclined to consider buying into the system.

Chris Dodkin · May 23, 2019

MF is any film size over 35mm, and smaller than large format

There is no medium format size specifically

So 33x44 is medium format, based on the traditional film way of looking at it.

As was 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc etc etc.

--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF

uMad · May 23, 2019

Bashir Lunat said:
OK, The "real" MF is 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 56X56. A reduced 49X37 was introduced in some cameras and thats fine.

My point is instead of continuing with that size here we have 33X44 size sensor. How did the sensor desighners arrived at that size? Why not 35X45 ? I think we should invite Uncle Jim to participate.

yeah, I think we should do as Fuji says and no longer call it medium format. Let's call it Large Format (as they do) from now on

Why Fujis Large Format sensors are 44x33mm is actually easy to answer. Sony, the chip manufacturers produces this format thus resulting in prices we have now and not trice as much. Cost of sensors doesn't grow in a linear way with growing sensors but seems to be closer to exponentially.

Karl Huber · May 24, 2019

JT26 · May 24, 2019

Probably to keep it 4:3 ratio and any larger and you lose customer base, as everything becomes larger, heavier and impractical to carry around.

Macro guy · May 24, 2019

Bashir Lunat said:
OK, The "real" MF is 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 56X56. A reduced 49X37 was introduced in some cameras and thats fine.

My point is instead of continuing with that size here we have 33X44 size sensor. How did the sensor desighners arrived at that size? Why not 35X45 ? I think we should invite Uncle Jim to participate.

When the MF backs were first produced, large chip wafers were very expensive, so the back manufacturers produced smaller than 6x4.5 backs even though they were using existing 645 cameras. They produced various sizes and it wasn't until Phase P65 that a true 645 (or rather, zero crop) back was produced. The manufacturers then settled on the 645 "Full Frame MF" and the 33x44 "Crop MF". The FF backs were high resolution, while the crop MF backs were limited to 50mp.

The Fuji GFX 100 breaks out of that mold.

Erik Kaffehr · May 24, 2019

Macro guy said:
When the MF backs were first produced, large chip wafers were very expensive, so the back manufacturers produced smaller than 6x4.5 backs even though they were using existing 645 cameras. They produced various sizes and it wasn't until Phase P65 that a true 645 (or rather, zero crop) back was produced. The manufacturers then settled on the 645 "Full Frame MF" and the 33x44 "Crop MF". The FF backs were high resolution, while the crop MF backs were limited to 50mp.

The Fuji GFX 100 breaks out of that mold.

I checked back a bit, the Phase One P20 back was 37x37 at 16MP while the P25 was 37x49. The P30 was 44x33.

I guess that the format choices were made mostly by Kodak and may have depended on how many sensor chips they could put on a wafer.

Best regards

Erik

Erik Kaffehr · May 24, 2019

Hi,

Larger sensors are much more expensive to make. Obviously you can fit fewer large sensors on a wafer than larger ones. Rejection rates also increase with larger sensor.

I would guess that rejection rates are quite low in modern fabs and that would allow for affordable MF sensors.

We could see it a bit with the 54x41 mm sensors being very expensive, while more affordable cameras like Pentax 645D/Z and the Fuji GFX sensors use smaller sensors.

Another factor is that small sensor cameras can be sold in larger numbers, so development costs can be amortized over many more units.

That was also the reason that first digital SLRs were APS-C. Canon started using larger sensors in it's professional cameras, probably because they could justify the sensor costs.

Best regards

Erik

panther fan · May 24, 2019

It is very simple. Sony makes two sizes of MF sensors for all MF manufacturers.

And those are 44x33mm and 55x41mm. Why? Probably because this is the max their fab or litography machines can produce. Each sensor size has seen multiple generations and as a commercial customer you can simply buy them from Sony.

So why did Fuji chose 44x33 and not 55x41? Pretty simple price. Fuji wanted a cheap MF system in the 5-10k range and not pay the 20-30k+ per sensor the larger version costs.

That said those are far from the only Sensor formats available. If you don't buy from Sony you can get many sizes, for example the 30x45mm sensor the Leica S uses.

Ken60 · May 24, 2019

I find this all intriguing, a Canon 6D sensor ( around 24 x 36 ) costs around £1000 sitting in a new shiny camera body , this includes all the testing assembly , packaging shipping etc.

So let's take this sensor and double it, two side by side and make it £2000 , even though there is only one camera to make and assemble, test , one packaging and storage , shipping etc. This makes a 50 x 36 medium format..... way bigger than the Fuji and not £10,000 . Hell even if they cant get them to join, pixel to pixel , stick a bit of stitching software in there and bang ! Medium format.... no need to shift the sensor or any of that sill stuff. Just one simple button press and there you go

I am feeling kind today so lets spoil them and call it 66d3 AND OFFER £4000 !

--
Gear ... what I need to get the job done , after all you don't see mechanics listing their brand of spanner as a qualification .

panther fan · May 24, 2019

Ken60 said:
I find this all intriguing, a Canon 6D sensor ( around 24 x 36 ) costs around £1000 sitting in a new shiny camera body , this includes all the testing assembly , packaging shipping etc.

So let's take this sensor and double it, two side by side and make it £2000 , even though there is only one camera to make and assemble, test , one packaging and storage , shipping etc. This makes a 50 x 36 medium format..... way bigger than the Fuji and not £10,000 . Hell even if they cant get them to join, pixel to pixel , stick a bit of stitching software in there and bang ! Medium format.... no need to shift the sensor or any of that sill stuff. Just one simple button press and there you go

I am feeling kind today so lets spoil them and call it 66d3 AND OFFER £4000 !

Well that is not how any of that works

If you could double the chip size by simply doubling the price smartphone CPUs would be the size of a post-it and supercomputer chips the size of a vinyl record. But they are not.

First. If for example you have an error rate of 100 errors per wafer. And can place 1000 chips on that wafer you will probably get >900 working chips. Or a 90% yield rate.

If you make the chips larger and can only fit 500 on the wafer you will get >400 working chips. Or a yield rate of 80%

If you make the chips even larger and you can only fit 120 on the wafer you will get >20 working chips. Or a yield rate of 16.7%

Or in other words you now have to sell 20 chips for the same money you would have otherwise sold 900 chips for.

And there are other factors limiting die size as well. Everything above 400mm² is a very large die and almost no computer chip ever is bigger than 800mm². The only reason we have image sensors that large at all is because image sensor tech is about a magnitude less precise than current compute chips

Ken60 · May 24, 2019

Just before the turn of the 20th a 1.2mp Kodak digital camera cost £13000 body only. Today a far more capable 35 mp camera costs a fraction of that.

I do wonder about the concept of , if they shoot professionally and make £2000 a day , why the hell should we supply them the tools for a more reasonable price. I do wish somewhere we could find out the REAL cost to the maker of a 6D2 camera and the markups that will be created on its route to us.

There was a part joke in the side by side scenario, but not totally, as the multi core computer chip resolved the wall, so with a little smart dancing the multi chip sensor might arrive ............ Everyone that manufactures has a long story about failure rates, difficulties, technology barriers, but the market seems full of companies rushing in to sell us this low margin slice of impossibility. Now, since the turn of the 21st century there are more manufacturers of high resolution , high spec digital cameras, than ever before. I guess every technology giant in the far east is hell bent on losing money huh ?

Bashir Lunat · May 24, 2019

Thanks Chris, I think 33X44 must be a magical figure to settle on!

Could they have come up with another size and keep the 4:3 ratio?

I have no problems with 33X44 but just curious.

It is probably too late for another size to appear in market as it would mean yet another "system". As Eric mentioned in his reply below P25 and some other cameras like H3D etc had/has 37X49 which was more nearer to traditional 645 format.

Bashir Lunat · May 24, 2019

Thanks uMad.

Bashir Lunat · May 24, 2019

JT26 said:
Probably to keep it 4:3 ratio and any larger and you lose customer base, as everything becomes larger, heavier and impractical to carry around.

Thanks JT,

Could they have come up with another size? Or stuck with what Sony decided as chip size? For example if sensor makers (Sony or any), had produced, say 36X46, would we have seen MF cameras around that chip?

Bashir Lunat · May 24, 2019

Thanks Macro Guy.

Bashir Lunat · May 24, 2019

Thanks Panther fan.

Why 33X44?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Chris Dodkin

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts