Reading mode: Light Dark

Why 33X44?

Go to last post
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 !
Click to expand...
Hi,

That would need stitching two sensors. Now, that is done all the time, essentially all non Canon full frame sensors are stitched. It may be that Canon has a stepper that allows exposing a full frame sensor in a single step, but if so, it is limited to pretty coarse design rules.

But, the Canon 6D is a bad example. It is lacking significantly in DR which is often regarded as one of the strengths of medium format.

This is also about the yield. In older times, a significant number of the chips were thrown away due to imperfections. Making the chip larger means a lower yield. That is not a big problem is yield is high, but a significant problem if yield is low.

Another factor is amortization. Development costs need to be amortized over sensor sales. If sensors are sold in small numbers the development cost per sensor chip will be high.

Say that Canon has 40% market share and Hasselblad has 0.2% market share. That would mean that development costs would be need to be shared over 800 times more cameras than for Hasselblad.

Now, Hasselblad is not alone as they camp with Phase One, Pentax and Fujifilm. But even fujifilm is a small actor and they probably sell many times more APS-C cameras than GFX systems. But, Fuji selling the GFX in volume will benefit all vendors in MFD.

You are probably right, Canon could make a large CMOS sensor for sure. But, I don't think Canon cares about medium format. It is not their business model.

Best regards

Erik
 
Hi,

I guess that there are historical factors involved.
  • Preference for an aspect ratio around 1.3
  • Steep increase of production costs with sensor size, probably related to yield (*).
  • Number of sensor chips you could fit on the wafer sized used
i would guess that 33x44, 37x49, 54x41 mm were just good design choices near the desired aspect ratio.

The sensor diagonal sets the limitation for the lens design. Ideally, a lens would be designed for handling the sensor diagonal.

Affordable cameras needed affordable sensors. Lens designs were probably intended for the smaller sensors.

Just as an example, Fujifilm has chosen 33x44 mm sensor size. They obviously design their lenses for that sensor size. They can put a lot of effort into that lens design.

Of course, they could design the lenses for a larger image circle, but that would make the lenses larger, more expensive and worse performers on small sensor.

So, it makes a lot of sense to choose a format and stuck to it.

Now, Pentax and Fuji choose that route and so did Hasselblad with the X1D.

Phase One and Hasselblad H-series took another route offering two different sensor sizes with lenses not really being optimal for either.

Just as an example. The ideal is that lens projects an image with 33x44 mm size on a 33x44 mm sensor. All light that is not reaching the sensor will bounce around and lower contrast.

So, you want really a fixed sensor size and design lenses and baffling so they cover that sensor area well enough.

Best regards

Erik
 
Already mentioned, but it because of rejection rate.

It goes up substantially as you add surface area.

The most efficient way would be circles. But for some reason that never caught on.
 
Chris Dodkin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was never taught that.

MF was specifically 120/220 roll film, 6 on one side and the other length defined the individual aspect ratio.

Now that H and Fuji manufacture lenses to size for their 44x33 offerings it is surely a native format but since I still shoot with gear traditionally and historically identified as MF something that is significantly smaller than six on the long side just is what it is. 44x33.



79634cbf44bd4dcb8fa32323f259be9e.jpg



--
dw
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
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
Click to expand...
This whole wafer argument at least with regard to costs, a very common defense of the 1Ds III on the Canon forum at the time, was shattered in 2007 when Canon introduced its 1Ds III for $8000 and two months later, released the 5D II with the same sensor for $3000. The number of sensors coming off a wafer will have some impact but not in the drastic way some think it will.

--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
As far as I can track back, the 33x44 sensor appeared in Phase One IQ250 released in Jan 2014 before its adoption in cameras such as the 645z, HD50c, GFX 50s, X1D. Sony probably consulted with multiple manufacturers to arrive at this configuration the details of which we will never know.
 
Rick Knepper said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
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
Click to expand...
This whole wafer argument at least with regard to costs, a very common defense of the 1Ds III on the Canon forum at the time, was shattered in 2007 when Canon introduced its 1Ds III for $8000 and two months later, released the 5D II with the same sensor for $3000.
Click to expand...
Hi Rick,

I never was a reader of the Canon forums. Just to say, the 5DII was introduced at Photokina 2008, not in October 2007.

The question of why 33x44 mm was chosen for the small medium format probably goes back to old Kodak sensors that were coming out around 2003. My guess is that Kodak tried to find sensor sizes that were optimal for the wafer sizes they used at that time.

It could be that they could fit say four 37x49 sensors and four 33x44 mm sensors on that 5" wafer. Yes, I am making up that numbers. Or you could make five 37x49.

Now assume that you can sell 37x49 sensors for 4000 each and 33x44 sensors for 3000 each.

So selling five 37x49 sensors yields 25000$ on a wafer, while making four of each yields 32000$. Back in that time, Phase One cameras were selling at 25-35 k$US and the sensor made up a significant part of the cost.

Now, pricing always relates to what customers will pay. But a company can never sell products below manufacturing costs in the long run.

Getting back to the 1DsIII, those were professional camera selling to photographers willing to pay the price. Today's Canon 1DXII still sells at 5500$US, while the 5DIV is yours for 2800$US. The 'professional' features may be worth twice the price.

I would guess that there are plenty of people who are willing to pay say 6-10k$US for a Leica, Fuji GFX100s, Canon 1DXII or Nikon D5. As far as I can recall the Pentax 645D was also introduced at around 8k$US.

Best regards

Erik
 
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?
Click to expand...
Hi,

It really goes back to 1998, but let's just look at the Phase One Pxx+ backs from around 2007:

The P-series backs essentially had 37x37, 33x44 or 37x49 sensors, all made by Kodak. The P65 sensor was 54x40 mm, but that was made by DALSA. The reason Phase One switched from Kodak to DALSA was that with DALSA they could cooperate in sensor development.
The P-series backs essentially had 37x37, 33x44 or 37x49 sensors, all made by Kodak. The P65 sensor was 54x40 mm, but that was made by DALSA. The reason Phase One switched from Kodak to DALSA was that with DALSA they could cooperate in sensor development.

I would think that the reasons for using two different sensor sizes were manufacturing, but also that it was convenient for Phase One to offer different options at different sizes.

I would object a bit to MF being 56x56 mm. My Pentax 67 was like 55x69, but no one would argue that the Contax 645 was not a medium format camera.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Last edited:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Rick Knepper said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
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
Click to expand...
This whole wafer argument at least with regard to costs, a very common defense of the 1Ds III on the Canon forum at the time, was shattered in 2007 when Canon introduced its 1Ds III for $8000 and two months later, released the 5D II with the same sensor for $3000.
Click to expand...
Hi Rick,

I never was a reader of the Canon forums. Just to say, the 5DII was introduced at Photokina 2008, not in October 2007.
Click to expand...
This time line does not detract from my point. The argument then as you are making now is that larger sensors are "much more expensive to make". I agree that there would be a higher cost although I do not believe it can be described as "much more expensive" relatively and contributing thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars to the price of a finished camera.

Another case in point. The Phase One IQ250 back (no camera attached) was released in Jan 2014 for $35000 and the Pentax 645z released in April 2014 for $8500.

Erik Kaffehr said:
The question of why 33x44 mm was chosen for the small medium format probably goes back to old Kodak sensors that were coming out around 2003. My guess is that Kodak tried to find sensor sizes that were optimal for the wafer sizes they used at that time.

It could be that they could fit say four 37x49 sensors and four 33x44 mm sensors on that 5" wafer. Yes, I am making up that numbers. Or you could make five 37x49.

Now assume that you can sell 37x49 sensors for 4000 each and 33x44 sensors for 3000 each.

So selling five 37x49 sensors yields 25000$ on a wafer, while making four of each yields 32000$. Back in that time, Phase One cameras were selling at 25-35 k$US and the sensor made up a significant part of the cost.

Now, pricing always relates to what customers will pay. But a company can never sell products below manufacturing costs in the long run.

Getting back to the 1DsIII, those were professional camera selling to photographers willing to pay the price. Today's Canon 1DXII still sells at 5500$US, while the 5DIV is yours for 2800$US. The 'professional' features may be worth twice the price.

I would guess that there are plenty of people who are willing to pay say 6-10k$US for a Leica, Fuji GFX100s, Canon 1DXII or Nikon D5. As far as I can recall the Pentax 645D was also introduced at around 8k$US.

Best regards

Erik
Click to expand...
I reject this speculation.
 
Chris Dodkin said:
MF is any film size over 35mm, and smaller than large format
Click to expand...
The designation "medium format" used to be reserved for cameras using 120 or 220 roll film. Since all dimensions of the GFX sensors are clearly smaller than 6cm, it does not really make sense to call it "medium format". But sense is not a very relevant aspect in marketing. And Fuji is not the only photo company abusing terminology.
 
Trendy names for tools are rather dependant, like any trade jargon, on where you are from.

I am sure that as this all seems to have originated in celluloid cut down for movie cameras, that Large format might have meant 70mm, as this was the largest movie format I know of. The same 70mm cut into short paper backed rolls, would be for a medium format stills camera. When I shot 5"-4" for magazine features and 6cm -7cm for backup and extras, I would have thought of 35mm as my small format and used for not much more than headshots and travelogue.

I think if folk put away their chants and discussed the merits of a tool on the basis of the output it generated, we might find the sort of discussion that is worthy of pursuing.
 
Ken60 said:
… cameras, that Large format might have meant 70mm,
Click to expand...
"Large format" was reserved for sheet film. 35mm and medium format were both roll film.

Today, film is virtually gone (although there is a film renaissance going on at the moment, but hey, there are also still people riding horses...). So the categories "medium", "large" and "35mm" are obsolete. What remains is the simple truth that the larger the format of the sensor, the higher the resulting image quality.

It will be interesting to see how the whole format issue will evolve. Will we see "small" (=cropped 35mm), "full" (35mm), "medium" (Fuji GFX) and "larger" (anything larger than GFX). Or will the industry converge to new format standards? For general photography purposes, I think it is more exciting what is going on in the "small" formats - powerful cameras in mobile phones etc. Innovation in anything larger than 35mm has been and is still rather slow. Mainly because the market for such cameras is relatively small.

Personally, I think Fuji's approach of positioning their system on the smaller (X system) and larger (GFX) is the right thing to do.
 
andste said:
Ken60 said:
… cameras, that Large format might have meant 70mm,
Click to expand...
"Large format" was reserved for sheet film. 35mm and medium format were both roll film.
Click to expand...
andste you need to re read my post in the sense that it was written, I more than know the formats for stills I OWN and use all of them and have done so for 35 years!

My comment was that our stills formats originally came from movie film , 35mm via Leica rangefinders. So, as I said the largest format for MOVIES, the originator of film cuts, was 70mm. 70mm is the basis for 120 roll film and called medium format- yet in the original MOVIE format this was the LARGEST, or large format.

SO, all names are relative, and of little meaning- the only thing that matters is what the output looks like ! Let the real discussions begin.
 
Ken60 said:
andste said:
Ken60 said:
… cameras, that Large format might have meant 70mm,
Click to expand...
"Large format" was reserved for sheet film. 35mm and medium format were both roll film.
Click to expand...
andste you need to re read my post in the sense that it was written, I more than know the formats for stills I OWN and use all of them and have done so for 35 years!

My comment was that our stills formats originally came from movie film , 35mm via Leica rangefinders. So, as I said the largest format for MOVIES, the originator of film cuts, was 70mm. 70mm is the basis for 120 roll film and called medium format- yet in the original MOVIE format this was the LARGEST, or large format.

SO, all names are relative, and of little meaning- the only thing that matters is what the output looks like ! Let the real discussions begin.
Click to expand...
Sheet film did not come from movie film. Only the film on rolls does. Movie film maybe comes from sheet film 😂 ...but I actually don't know the history of movie film, to be honest.

"Real" photographers looked down on "cheap" roll film cameras like for example Leica...
 
Last edited:
andste if your miss quoting me to annoy me your doing a great job, seriously learn to read. All film is, was, coated in very large sheets and cut down to formats as required.

Interestingly Kodak originally , so they could have 100% control over the gelatine used in their films, kept their own cattle ! So you could say it was an organic material that began with feeding animals .
 
Ken60 said:
andste if your miss quoting me to annoy me your doing a great job, seriously learn to read. All film is, was, coated in very large sheets and cut down to formats as required.
Click to expand...
So I quote then...

"My comment was that our stills formats originally came from movie film"

This is factually wrong: large format cameras used ans continue to use sheet film which far exceeded the dimensions of movie film. Since sheet film is a "still format", it cannot be that sheet film was derived from cutting movie film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Reply to jerseyinHK (from the closed thread)
Replies
1
Views
175
SrMi
SrMi
JimKasson
Noise, Dynamic Range, Cropping, and Print Size
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
JimKasson
JimKasson
JimKasson
How much bigger is 33x44mm MF than FF?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
323
Doppler9000
D
J
Medium Format - Ultra High ISO + Denoise + Reduce Image Size?
Replies
3
Views
121
SilverEagle1962
S
I
  • Question Question
Forced into Fuji, requesting guidance
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
486
MJ_Photo38
MJ_Photo38

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top