Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Where does medium format start? At 25X37mm?  (Read 2447 times)
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1006


WWW
« on: November 22, 2009, 01:45:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I know, I know. It's easy to say MF because of the almost 1.5X the sensor area. But would happen if some manufacturer comes with a new camera system with a sensor, let's say 27X38? Would that be MF too?
It used to be no less than 41.5X56mm. 30X40mm is way smaller.
Just food for thought.
Eduardo
Logged
gdwhalen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2009, 02:07:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: uaiomex
I know, I know. It's easy to say MF because of the almost 1.5X the sensor area. But would happen if some manufacturer comes with a new camera system with a sensor, let's say 27X38? Would that be MF too?
It used to be no less than 41.5X56mm. 30X40mm is way smaller.
Just food for thought.
Eduardo


I believe, and I could be wrong about this, but when Leica first came out with the S2 they called it "middle" format.  ie between medium and 35mm.  I think that has been lost in the wash, so to speak, and now most people refer to the S2 as medium format.  I agree with you however.  35mm, medium format, and large format (to a lesser extent as 4 x 5, 5 x 7, 8 x 10, etc) were all considered "large" format, but were based on pretty firm dimensions.  I guess sensors have changed the "name" of the game.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2009, 02:30:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Didn't the early "medium format digital backs" from Phase One and others actually have 24x36mm sensors?

Logged

jotloob
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2009, 02:38:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: uaiomex
I know, I know. It's easy to say MF because of the almost 1.5X the sensor area. But would happen if some manufacturer comes with a new camera system with a sensor, let's say 27X38? Would that be MF too?
It used to be no less than 41.5X56mm. 30X40mm is way smaller.
Just food for thought.
Eduardo


Eduard

Yes , I know of your dream of a 5,6x5,6 sensor . Oh how much I would like a sensor of that size too .
It was my dream too , but I have given up that dream ! ! !
Which camera maker should want a sensor of that size ? ? ?

HASSELBLAD for shure not , because it would not fit their H-SYSTEM .
And . . . . . .  who else is on the market , who could drive for a sensor of that size ? ? ?
For what other camera system would it make sense ? ? ?
Looking at the sales figures of MF digital backs , you must say and finally admit , there will not be a bigger square sensor .
Even if you want it , and me as well , I believe it will not happen .

So what I do , speeking in MF and LF terms , I have discovered my 6x9 and 6x12 cameras again
and shoot on film (KODAK EKTAR 100) a great film .
I don't like scanning , but still it is a good alternative .

Best regards

Jürgen
Logged

Jürgen
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2009, 04:43:09 PM »
ReplyReply

As mentioned, early MFDBs were 24x36mm sensors, and were still called MF. Perhaps more realistically, the CFV and CFV-II, as well as the P20/P20+ and some other backs use 36x36mm sensors, and I have never heard anyone questioning their being MF. They certainly deliver results more like MF than like 35mm. The P30/P30+/H3DII-31 have 33x44mm sensors, and the Leica S2 has 30x45mm sensors. I have heard some people questioning the S2 being MF, but given these other sensors, some smaller, some nearly the same size, I think that argument is just silly.

In terms of what is currently on the market, I would say that 36x36mm is a good starting point for MF.
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2009, 07:36:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Heh.... nomenclature.  When people used to ask what I shoot, I'd say "Large Format".... now I say "View Camera"
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1006


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2009, 09:12:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd say too that digital MF starts at any sensor size as long it is used with a medium format camera. The question about the S2 is that it is a complete new system from scratch. My question was what would we call it, if another new complete system shows up with a bigger sensor than 24X36 but smaller that the S2's?
I remember Leica said it was a new "mittel" format. Middle format is ok. Only problem is that in spanish middle is said with 2 words. "En medio" Not elegant.  
Long sunday anyway.
Eduardo

Quote from: carstenw
As mentioned, early MFDBs were 24x36mm sensors, and were still called MF. Perhaps more realistically, the CFV and CFV-II, as well as the P20/P20+ and some other backs use 36x36mm sensors, and I have never heard anyone questioning their being MF. They certainly deliver results more like MF than like 35mm. The P30/P30+/H3DII-31 have 33x44mm sensors, and the Leica S2 has 30x45mm sensors. I have heard some people questioning the S2 being MF, but given these other sensors, some smaller, some nearly the same size, I think that argument is just silly.

In terms of what is currently on the market, I would say that 36x36mm is a good starting point for MF.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1006


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2009, 09:21:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hallo Jürgen,
Well, its true and like most dreams, unreachable ($$$$$).
But I swear to all gods That I would be perfectly happy with a CFV39 with a sensor mounted on a built-in turntable.
I'm sure that if the Hy6 returns, sooner or later we would see a 6X6 sensor.
Take care
Eduardo
PS What scanner are you using?

Quote from: jotloob
Eduard

Yes , I know of your dream of a 5,6x5,6 sensor . Oh how much I would like a sensor of that size too .
It was my dream too , but I have given up that dream ! ! !
Which camera maker should want a sensor of that size ? ? ?

HASSELBLAD for shure not , because it would not fit their H-SYSTEM .
And . . . . . .  who else is on the market , who could drive for a sensor of that size ? ? ?
For what other camera system would it make sense ? ? ?
Looking at the sales figures of MF digital backs , you must say and finally admit , there will not be a bigger square sensor .
Even if you want it , and me as well , I believe it will not happen .

So what I do , speeking in MF and LF terms , I have discovered my 6x9 and 6x12 cameras again
and shoot on film (KODAK EKTAR 100) a great film .
I don't like scanning , but still it is a good alternative .

Best regards

Jürgen
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 09:24:16 PM by uaiomex » Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2009, 03:47:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jotloob
Eduard

Yes , I know of your dream of a 5,6x5,6 sensor .!
Which camera maker should want a sensor of that size ? ? ?

For what other camera system would it make sense ? ? ?

Jürgen
Sinar P3
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Wim van Velzen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2009, 05:13:38 AM »
ReplyReply

The question of where MF starts is not only about sensor size, but also about the price of the equipment. And that makes the S2 certainly a MF camera!

 
Logged

I don't have a signature.
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2009, 04:00:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: uaiomex
But I swear to all gods That I would be perfectly happy with a CFV39 with a sensor mounted on a built-in turntable.

Workflow: take one shot, turn, take another shot, blend the two, turn up the vignetting control until no one can see that the corners are missing, voila, large square shots
Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1006


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2009, 08:13:14 PM »
ReplyReply

 I thought about that before when thinking about a rotating sensor in a stationary back (fixed, like the CFV39)
If Leaf can do it, Hasselblad can do it too.  
Thing is, the CFV39 steals the whole idea. A MF camera that you don't have to turn with a waist level finder in unison with a square format (or a rectangular revolving one).
It is an abomination that the same company that perfected the idea, came with a digital back that severes the whole concept.
Strange days indeed.
Eduardo

Quote from: carstenw
Workflow: take one shot, turn, take another shot, blend the two, turn up the vignetting control until no one can see that the corners are missing, voila, large square shots
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 08:14:55 PM by uaiomex » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad