Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Are backs with rectangular sensors rotatable or reversible
- Thread starter rogerxnz
- Start date
One can only hope Gilbert. Other than a new view camera purchase to use the H3D/39 back on, and getting the HC-28/4 lens, my professional investment in digital capture is complete ... in future only upgrade paths will be followed on current gear in hand.
So, in essence I'm at an advanced amateur level concerning the V system and any further digital applications.
Let's speculate shall we?
To offer a 645 CFV digital solution with the current design (that matches the V body) seems improbable. It would only allow a landscape orientation unless a 90 degree finder and a grip were employed so you could shoot in Portrait mode. A rotating back seems quite improbable given the way the CFV digital back is triggered. But you never know, maybe the back itself would have a rotating portion ... but that would be even more expensive and improbable for our manual wonders. Perhaps Victor Hasselblad's unending adaptability has hit a wall here.
It seems our only hope would be a larger square sensor. There are two dynamic applications for a larger Square sensor: The future of the Hy6 (hopefully successful), and on view cameras to make more possible use of the LF lens coverage. IMO, both these possibilities are well off into the future based on the cost/low demand this would generate. I honestly believe that if it comes to be it'll be the Hy6 platform that'll make it happen ... it is one clear way the other back makers can compete with Hasselblad ... which is becoming the mini-juggernaught of MF in the manner of Canon. The Hy6 consortium could trump Hasselblad with a 6X6 digital camera and 6X6 backs that could be employed on a view-camera. An ironic twist of history given the predominance of Hasselblad in square format photography : -)
So, in essence I'm at an advanced amateur level concerning the V system and any further digital applications.
Let's speculate shall we?
To offer a 645 CFV digital solution with the current design (that matches the V body) seems improbable. It would only allow a landscape orientation unless a 90 degree finder and a grip were employed so you could shoot in Portrait mode. A rotating back seems quite improbable given the way the CFV digital back is triggered. But you never know, maybe the back itself would have a rotating portion ... but that would be even more expensive and improbable for our manual wonders. Perhaps Victor Hasselblad's unending adaptability has hit a wall here.
It seems our only hope would be a larger square sensor. There are two dynamic applications for a larger Square sensor: The future of the Hy6 (hopefully successful), and on view cameras to make more possible use of the LF lens coverage. IMO, both these possibilities are well off into the future based on the cost/low demand this would generate. I honestly believe that if it comes to be it'll be the Hy6 platform that'll make it happen ... it is one clear way the other back makers can compete with Hasselblad ... which is becoming the mini-juggernaught of MF in the manner of Canon. The Hy6 consortium could trump Hasselblad with a 6X6 digital camera and 6X6 backs that could be employed on a view-camera. An ironic twist of history given the predominance of Hasselblad in square format photography : -)
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Gilbert
* There will be an abundance of 645/s to choose from *
That is why I could never understand the development of the H-SYSTEM , if not marketing reasons . As I said in an earlier thread , any 4.5x6 if landscape or portrait mode is contained in a 6x6 square . No need to rotate the camera or the adapter .
So the dream will be a sensor of 5,6x5,6 , which I think will stay a dream , but a sensor of 4,8x4,8 sounds much more realistic . I don't know if that sensor could be produced economically with the present waver sizes and nowbody knows if Christian Poulsen would like it . But such a sensor could be used for V-SYSTEM backs as well as for H-SYSTEM backs .
This again might not be wanted by marketing people .
* There will be an abundance of 645/s to choose from *
That is why I could never understand the development of the H-SYSTEM , if not marketing reasons . As I said in an earlier thread , any 4.5x6 if landscape or portrait mode is contained in a 6x6 square . No need to rotate the camera or the adapter .
So the dream will be a sensor of 5,6x5,6 , which I think will stay a dream , but a sensor of 4,8x4,8 sounds much more realistic . I don't know if that sensor could be produced economically with the present waver sizes and nowbody knows if Christian Poulsen would like it . But such a sensor could be used for V-SYSTEM backs as well as for H-SYSTEM backs .
This again might not be wanted by marketing people .
Jürgen,
The H1 came to be because at the time all-singing-all-dancing 645 MF cameras were enjoying success in the market.
The Powers-That-Were, venture capitalists, decided all work on digital products should be scrapped (because there was no money in digital...), and this 'potential moneymaker' should be build. And quick too, thank you very much.
And so it happened.
So the H-System was not meant to be a platform for digital backs. Quite the contrary.
As we know, these investors have left Hasselblad, and the now owner, Shriro, recognized the importance of digital photography. So they layed hands on Imacon, and turned the H-System into a vehicle for Imacon backs.
Poulsen once said the H-cameras were still too big. So i guess he doesn't think full-frame, or even 6x6 sensors will be here soon, if at all.
I don't think that, as far as MF is concerned, today's market is something marketing people can get their way with. I'm sure they have to dance to whatever tune the market is piping. Not the other way round.
The H1 came to be because at the time all-singing-all-dancing 645 MF cameras were enjoying success in the market.
The Powers-That-Were, venture capitalists, decided all work on digital products should be scrapped (because there was no money in digital...), and this 'potential moneymaker' should be build. And quick too, thank you very much.
And so it happened.
So the H-System was not meant to be a platform for digital backs. Quite the contrary.
As we know, these investors have left Hasselblad, and the now owner, Shriro, recognized the importance of digital photography. So they layed hands on Imacon, and turned the H-System into a vehicle for Imacon backs.
Poulsen once said the H-cameras were still too big. So i guess he doesn't think full-frame, or even 6x6 sensors will be here soon, if at all.
I don't think that, as far as MF is concerned, today's market is something marketing people can get their way with. I'm sure they have to dance to whatever tune the market is piping. Not the other way round.
"But such a sensor could be used for V-SYSTEM backs as well as for H-SYSTEM backs" .
They'd have to redesign the H camera for 48 both ways ... but all 645 cameras are easy to shoot in Landscape or Portrait orientation, so why bother?
HOWEVER, a 48X48 square CFV back would get my attention in a New York heart beat. If it could be done with the current production, it could be possible.
Let's see, the specs would be a 1.7X increase in sensor size over the current CFV ... and if the pixels were kept the same size @ 9 microns, that in turn would translate into about a 28 meg back producing a 170 meg., 16 bit tiff file.
If the current 36.7 X 36.7 sensor creates a CFV lens factor is 1.5X ... the lens factor for a 48 X 48 would then be 1.16X right?
So, a SWC would be a 44mm field of view, a 40mm would be a 47mm, and a 50mm would be a 58mm.
Hmmm.
They'd have to redesign the H camera for 48 both ways ... but all 645 cameras are easy to shoot in Landscape or Portrait orientation, so why bother?
HOWEVER, a 48X48 square CFV back would get my attention in a New York heart beat. If it could be done with the current production, it could be possible.
Let's see, the specs would be a 1.7X increase in sensor size over the current CFV ... and if the pixels were kept the same size @ 9 microns, that in turn would translate into about a 28 meg back producing a 170 meg., 16 bit tiff file.
If the current 36.7 X 36.7 sensor creates a CFV lens factor is 1.5X ... the lens factor for a 48 X 48 would then be 1.16X right?
So, a SWC would be a 44mm field of view, a 40mm would be a 47mm, and a 50mm would be a 58mm.
Hmmm.
NOT! Especially if one is using a WLF, which is preferred by many. My biggest 'beef' with non-square backs is they have to be removed to be rotated thus increasing the chance for dropping the back. Could be a disaster.
Just my $.02
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Marc
Yes , you are right . A 48x48 sensor would probably not work on the H-SYSTEM . Sorry , I was just in my V-SYSTEM square dreams .
I love that format very much , because it gives me so much freedom , when composing an image .
But a sensor 48x48 would be the absolute ultimate . Why 48 ? 48 , 49 seems to be a practicable size in production .
Jurgen
Yes , you are right . A 48x48 sensor would probably not work on the H-SYSTEM . Sorry , I was just in my V-SYSTEM square dreams .
I love that format very much , because it gives me so much freedom , when composing an image .
But a sensor 48x48 would be the absolute ultimate . Why 48 ? 48 , 49 seems to be a practicable size in production .
Jurgen
tapasmaiti
New Member
I love my P20 and I got it for the equivalent of a 1DS II so I felt I could justify it as an amateur given my base of Hasselblad equipment.
Whilst I would like a bigger sensor and for Phase One to copy the triggering capability of the CFV its a reasonable compromise.
The quality the P20 is such that I would accept a 28mm CF lens for it, wide enough for me. If they cannot give us a bigger sensor surely a wider lens from Zeiss or Hasselblad isn't too much to ask, afterall Rodenstock make one.
I would rather see Zeiss do this than market silver version of existing lenses. My dealers tell me that they sell more backs in V fit than the other makes put together so there must be demand.
Whilst I would like a bigger sensor and for Phase One to copy the triggering capability of the CFV its a reasonable compromise.
The quality the P20 is such that I would accept a 28mm CF lens for it, wide enough for me. If they cannot give us a bigger sensor surely a wider lens from Zeiss or Hasselblad isn't too much to ask, afterall Rodenstock make one.
I would rather see Zeiss do this than market silver version of existing lenses. My dealers tell me that they sell more backs in V fit than the other makes put together so there must be demand.
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Q.G.
I have ordered a RODENSTOCK APO-SIRONAR DIGITAL 35mm on a 15mm recessed lensbord to be used with my ARCASWISS 6x9 and the CFV back attached . That lens is a real wide angle design , and could never be used on a V-SYSTEM camera . The lens allows a shift of 31mm in either direction for the 37x37 sensor , but on my camera I can only shift about 21mm for this lens . (this is due to the construction of my 6x9) But I think , thats still enough .
I will report how much "wide angle" i will get with that lens and the CFV back .
I will compare : 905SWC BIOGON 38mm , APO GRANDAGON 45mm and the above mentioned lens .
I have ordered a RODENSTOCK APO-SIRONAR DIGITAL 35mm on a 15mm recessed lensbord to be used with my ARCASWISS 6x9 and the CFV back attached . That lens is a real wide angle design , and could never be used on a V-SYSTEM camera . The lens allows a shift of 31mm in either direction for the 37x37 sensor , but on my camera I can only shift about 21mm for this lens . (this is due to the construction of my 6x9) But I think , thats still enough .
I will report how much "wide angle" i will get with that lens and the CFV back .
I will compare : 905SWC BIOGON 38mm , APO GRANDAGON 45mm and the above mentioned lens .