Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Kodak MF sensor 40MP, 44x33mm, microlenses  (Read 9946 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« on: December 08, 2009, 02:18:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Kodak has finally released a second, 20% smaller sensor using the new 6 micron TRUESENSE photosite design:
the KAF-40000 which is 44x33mm, 40MP and with micro-lenses and so fairly good Quantum Efficiency of about 40%:
http://www.kodak.com:80/global/plugins/acr...ductSummary.pdf

Compare this to the KAF-51000 of the H3DII-50 (H4D-50) which is 49x37mm, 50MP but has no micro-lenses and so of only about 20% QE:
http://www.kodak.com:80/global/plugins/acr...ductSummary.pdf

The QE difference means a one-stop advantage in maximum usable ISO speed, and is as with the sensor for the Leica S2.


I am guessing that this will be used in the Pentax 645D, whose manual cover page has just leaked, dated November 24, so it seems to be coming soon: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=33819657

(But honestly, I am more interested that the Olympus E-P2 has arrived, a month ahead of schedule: the GF-1/E-P2 concept of DSLR-sized sensor in a compact "jacket-pocketable" body, usable with or without the removable EVF, is my favorite new camera concept of 2009.)
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 02:20:06 PM by BJL » Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2009, 03:22:41 PM »
ReplyReply

After observing MF development over past few years (last decade?) it's like chasing it's own tail. In this particular case, in what way is it beneficial? You get a one-stop advantage, BUT.... for a bigger crop factor. Wait, crop factor? For how long did we have to use that term? And all these developments seem to bend to 'trade-off' status rather then 'revolution' (which can be observed in flourishing DSLR market) or even 'evolution' status . Trade-offs, trade-offs, trade-offs.. It shouldn't be that way.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2009, 07:08:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Kodak has finally released a second, 20% smaller sensor using the new 6 micron TRUESENSE photosite design:
the KAF-40000 which is 44x33mm, 40MP and with micro-lenses and so fairly good Quantum Efficiency of about 40%:
http://www.kodak.com:80/global/plugins/acr...ductSummary.pdf

Is it going to allow in back live view?

Not even remotely interested if it doesn't.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
JerryReed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 278


jerry@jerryreed.net


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2009, 08:57:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Is it going to allow in back live view?

Not even remotely interested if it doesn't.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard,

Are you using LV in landscape work?  If so, can you please shed some light on your process please?

Jerry
Logged

Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2009, 09:08:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JerryReed
Bernard,

Are you using LV in landscape work?  If so, can you please shed some light on your process please?

Jerry

Why not ? There is no better way than to focus than with live view. It would be great to have if one has to work more towards wide open. Or even better on a LF camera.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2009, 10:43:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JerryReed
Bernard,

Are you using LV in landscape work?  If so, can you please shed some light on your process please?
When coupled with a high-quality LCD display, live-view is by far the best way to achieve critical focus.
Logged

Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 371


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2009, 11:08:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
When coupled with a high-quality LCD display, live-view is by far the best way to achieve critical focus.
In fact, it's a MUCH better way to focus a D3x or other high-resolution camera than autofocus. For landscape use (probably also products and other things that hold still), the combination of focus accuracy and accurate control of focal point are invaluable. Does any MF back yet offer a high-res screen like the ones on most recent DSLRs?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2009, 11:54:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Wells
Does any MF back yet offer a high-res screen like the ones on most recent DSLRs?
It hardly matters for now, given the very poor grade of Live View possible so long as DMF uses FF type CCD's like the one atop this thread (far lower refresh rates than CMOS or SuperCCD or interline CCD can offer, and the need for tethering for Live view in all MFDB's AFAIK.)

On the other hand, LCD resolution is perhaps not so critical given the ability to zoom for focus checking to "100%" and beyond.

I have read a rumor that Hasselblad is talking to Fujifilm about its SuperCCD sensors; remember that Fujifilm had a MFDB with such a sensor, but the project died out.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 01:31:01 PM by BJL » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2009, 01:12:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
I have read a rumor that Hasselblad is talking to Fujifilm about its SuperCCD sensors; remembe that Fujifilm had a MFDB with such a sensor, but the project died out.

This would be great news if Fuji gets it right  and from my experience they can and they can't.

The Fuji S2 had amazing film like color and even though it was a small 6mp file it was deep and you could move it around like a film scan.  Great color with the S-2, but the S-3 was less than great color, actually less than great anything.

The only issue with this is it will still be ccd based and though not an engineer I wonder if it will allow for real in camera live view, detailed previews etc, because that's where medium format needs to go if it's going to continue for anyone that doesn't shoot static objects with a tripod, because even by the most ardent supporters of medium format, it seems the genre is moving towards the world of tripods to extract the best of the systems.

I would think that they want a broader market.

BC
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2009, 01:43:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
The only issue with this is it will still be ccd based and though not an engineer I wonder if it will allow for real in camera live view, detailed previews etc. ...
Certainly: video output and Live View are fine with SuperCCD and interline CCD, as shown by the many digicams offering fully functional live view from those sensor types; it is only the Full Frame type of CCD that is "Live View  challenged".
Quote from: bcooter
... because that's where medium format needs to go if it's going to continue for anyone that doesn't shoot static objects with a tripod ...
That is the way I see it, which is why the rumor about the new Hasselblad management exploring alternative sensor technologies like SuperCCD is at least a glimmer of hope.

And Bernard will probably add that if the subject is sufficiently stationary, stitching from high end 35mm format gear has a brighter future .. for one thing, stitching is effectively using a larger format. So maybe the current MF rut leads only to

extremely detailed images of very well lit subjects that are moving too fast to stitch but not too fast for an antiquated single-point AF system to keep up.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2009, 03:20:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
And Bernard will probably add that if the subject is sufficiently stationary, stitching from high end 35mm format gear has a brighter future .. for one thing, stitching is effectively using a larger format. So maybe the current MF rut leads only to
Stitching is no panacea though. There are plenty of situations where a single shot is preferable, even if that single shot takes careful setup.

I agree with the rest, though. I would never consider buying a DMF back until it has a good in-camera live=view implementation.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2009, 04:20:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JerryReed
Bernard,

Are you using LV in landscape work?  If so, can you please shed some light on your process please?

Not sure what there is to explain really:

- compose,
- focus perfectly with live view,
- shoot

Just to give you one example, 90% of my images are shot with a Zeiss 100mm f2.0. It takes about 0.3mm of focus ring rotation from infinity hard stop to get a subject 1km away in perfect focus. It is totally impossible to see any difference in the finder nor to distinguish otherwise the difference between 0.2 and 0.4 mm rotation from infinity by feel.

Live view is simply the only option to focus perfectly sensor with a pixel pitch as small as that of the D3x.

If CCD are really unable technologywise to deliver in back live view, then backs will soon deliver less real world detail than top end DSLR with live view.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2009, 07:09:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Live view is simply the only option to focus perfectly sensor with a pixel pitch as small as that of the D3x.

If CCD are really unable technologywise to deliver in back live view, then backs will soon deliver less real world detail than top end DSLR with live view.
Agreed. Nikon has shown what is possible with CMOS in the D3x, and improvements will continue. The DR and tonality advantages of full-frame CCD are rapidly disappearing, meanwhile the inability to support live-view (as well as the poor low-light performance) are becoming huge liabilities. I predict it will be a big win for whichever MF vendor has the balls to ditch FF-CCD first.
Logged

georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2009, 02:47:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Such a sensor doesn't necessarily finds its way to the photography market, just like Dalsa has a 48MP-CCD with microlenses nobody uses.

Liveview, it seems to be a power-related problem, I wonder how long the batteries would last if the would allow (it's a firmware thing) live-view without tethering.

"Agreed. Nikon has shown what is possible with CMOS in the D3x, and improvements will continue. The DR and tonality advantages of full-frame CCD are rapidly disappearing, meanwhile the inability to support live-view (as well as the poor low-light performance) are becoming huge liabilities. I predict it will be a big win for whichever MF vendor has the balls to ditch FF-CCD first."

But right now, such a MFDB would compromise IQ as the 6m-CCDs are still superior and we still haven't seen what their capable of regaring the combination with microlenses unless Leica releases their final firmware. As a M-user, I would love CCD-liveview. I'm sure they will switch to CMOS within the next years but I hope that they order proprietary (from Cypress, Dalsa...) solutions instead of just buying a sensor from Sony - we need diversity, not one technology with the very same pros/cons in the whole market.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 02:51:14 AM by georgl » Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2009, 04:33:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
Such a sensor doesn't necessarily finds its way to the photography market, just like Dalsa has a 48MP-CCD with microlenses nobody uses.

Liveview, it seems to be a power-related problem, I wonder how long the batteries would last if the would allow (it's a firmware thing) live-view without tethering.

"Agreed. Nikon has shown what is possible with CMOS in the D3x, and improvements will continue. The DR and tonality advantages of full-frame CCD are rapidly disappearing, meanwhile the inability to support live-view (as well as the poor low-light performance) are becoming huge liabilities. I predict it will be a big win for whichever MF vendor has the balls to ditch FF-CCD first."

But right now, such a MFDB would compromise IQ as the 6m-CCDs are still superior and we still haven't seen what their capable of regaring the combination with microlenses unless Leica releases their final firmware. As a M-user, I would love CCD-liveview. I'm sure they will switch to CMOS within the next years but I hope that they order proprietary (from Cypress, Dalsa...) solutions instead of just buying a sensor from Sony - we need diversity, not one technology with the very same pros/cons in the whole market.


Well I think current top end DSLRs are really good. Main reason people think they are not as good is, because most of the stuff one sees from these cameras is shot handheld with bad settings. Now take the next step and remove the AA Filter and one would get the same sharpness as MFDBs. I said it 100 times and will say it again, I will buy a back right away, if they can offer d3x quality, LV, good ISO 1600 and around 40-60Mp. I wouldn't care which company it is. Oh and yes I would drop 30k on such a back.
Logged

Kolor-Pikker
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2013, 07:52:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Three words: Medium Format CMOS

CMOS has gotten fairly cheap now, to the point where you can get a camera like the D800 for $3000, and that's a whole, working camera. How much is the sensor in that equation? Even if they took the exact same wafer and sliced it into larger chunks, how much more expensive would the resulting yields be? "More expensive" than $3000 still isn't that much.

There are strong signs of Phase One teaming up with Canon, so I don't see why Hasselblad, Leica or Pentax can't do the same with Sony.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad