Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What future products would you WANT to see from MF(or other system) companies?  (Read 7038 times)
sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2013, 02:34:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Phase outright owns Leaf.
However, I believe it only owns a controlling share in Mamiya, and that Mamiya is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Phase, but there is another share owner as well.

A ZD-Leaf combo would be great for Leaf and Mamiya, but would take too much attention off Phase.
I think Phase keeps Leaf on a short leash, and allows them to make only so much splash.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 02:38:46 PM by sbernthal » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1051


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2013, 02:42:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know who owns who and have no inside info, but I always assumed Leaf had a big part to play with Mamiya and always was associated closely with them.

I think when Phase bought into Mamiya they kind of found that out and had to buy into Leaf ,  but hey that's just a guess.

The thing is I don't think Phase sees much point in offering a bargain brand digital camera.  They've situated themselves in the rarified air part of the imaging world and from the rumors I've heard, they probably make more money off of government contracts than consumers.

But if they did make a 7 grand 645 camera like the ZD what would that get them and their dealers?   There is obviously little margin in 7 grand vs. 20 or 30, or 40 and the trade in on a all in one camera is probably low.  Also at that point your kind of competing with Nikon and I don't think Phase can get to Nikon prices and make money.

To me if they are going to hang in the stratsophere that's fine, but their next camera and lens sets should look the part.  Look at a cooke Panchro lens and look at a Phase One lens.  They cooke may be overpriced at 8 grand, but at least it looks special where most medium format lenses, at least the modern ones look just like any other still lens.

Same with the DF+.  It's not a bad camera, but for the money I'd be spending I want it to look different and purposeful, not like a stretched out Canon.

Though all of that being said, I know from use that Phase backs are damn good.  Mine have lasted forever and it's actually their fault (Phase) that I haven't bought another one, because mine keep working so well.

But if anyone wants an entry level larger than 35mm digital camera for 7k, the Pentax is on the shelf ready to go.

In regards to Phase owning Leaf, I'm sure they position them just slightly below the phase line up but high enough to not bite into their business.

I personally liked the new Leaf interface better than the Phase, except the Leaf didn't have that sensor plus thing and Phase did, so  . . .

Honestly though, people keep saying it's not how a camera looks it's how it works and I agree, except when your dropping large coin on a piece of equipment, actually spending E class money it should look like E class quality and be apparent to everyone.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 02:47:54 PM by bcooter » Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2013, 02:57:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I would like to see a DB (modular, of course) with sensor micro adjustment ... adjustable by the user.
This way we could fine adjust the sensor registration. The mechanism should also provide headroom so that we can set sensor tilt/swing (say 2 degrees 4 way while still maintaing registration). Make the adjustments storable and provide enough custom presets (at least 8 ).

The sensor should also provide LiveView, of course. I do own the GH2 and GH3 and have also seen the EVF of the Sony A99. However... personally, I still prefer an OVF (or a groundglas). The technical benefits of an EVF are very clear... however, even when looking through the finder of the GH3 "the world" looks so ugly that I have a hard time to consider anything worth capturing. It looks sooo digital...

 
Logged
sonarthug
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #43 on: September 04, 2013, 11:10:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I am using Sinar CaptureFlow Studio 1.2.1 with a new Sinar eXact back. I have been using Sinar for about six years full time. Sinar CaptureFlow Studio was to have been re-done by Basiccolor. What they did was rehash the forgettable Sinar Exposure. But what bugs the hell out of me the most is the lack of documentation on CaptureFlow Studio. No help menu. None. No paperwork. No hard copy of the manual on the disk. After searching hard behind the scenes I found an html folder buried but hidden. Guess what? It was for Sinar Exposure 7.0 that has been discontinued three plus years ago. Sinar CaptureFlow Studio 1.2.1 is quite different that Sinar CaptureShop. Saving settings is completely different. Its a different beast that doesn't seem to keep settings from one day to the next.
So what I want is a manual even if its online. I prefer some tutorials too! Give me some youtube videos. Something that can help with a new back and software that cost over $30000! Can that be too much to ask?

Thanks,
Joe
Sinar CaptureFlow Studio 1.2.1
Sinar eXact
Mac Pro 2x3.06 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
96 GB 1333 MHz DDR3

Mac OS X 10.8.4

Sinar P3
CMV Shutter
Logged
sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


« Reply #44 on: September 04, 2013, 11:16:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I think when Phase bought into Mamiya they kind of found that out and had to buy into Leaf ,  but hey that's just a guess.

Phase bought Leaf first, to eliminate competition and enhance segment coverage.
Then they bought a controlling share of Mamiya, also to eliminate competition (ZD) and to make sure Mamiya popular 645 system continued to be best suited for Phase/Leaf backs.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2013, 08:39:45 PM »
ReplyReply

- A CMOS-based medium format back. Think D800 sensor, blown up to MF size (a full 56x42mm size, not the 54x41mm nearly-645 format currently used). This would give you much better live view, high-ISO and long exposure capabilities.

- An inbuilt electronic level. Spirit levels just don't cut it - they always seem to be off by a bit!

- A panoramic MF back - maybe 24x72mm, or essentially two full-frame sensors side-by-side. Stitching a panorama isn't always an option.

- Some wider lenses. If Canon can make a TS-E 17L that can cover a full-frame sensor and still have room for shift (e.g. using the Hartblei H-cam), there's no reason Rodenstock or someone else couldn't make a 16mm or 17mm lens for ultra-ultra wide work, instead of being limited to 23mm as we are at the moment (unless using the H-cam and TS-E 17).
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1051


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2013, 09:20:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I do own the GH2 and GH3 and have also seen the EVF of the Sony A99. However... personally, I still prefer an OVF (or a groundglas). The technical benefits of an EVF are very clear... however, even when looking through the finder of the GH3 "the world" looks so ugly that I have a hard time to consider anything worth capturing. It looks sooo digital...

 

Well,  I like an ovf also, but love the gh3 evf.  It's like having a polaroid in your eye.  I can fire a frame hold the camera and what is in the viewfinder matches what is captured by 95%.

The only time it looks like video to me is if there is a pattern on a screen or a garment and sometimes the viewfinder (not the file) will moire.  The GH3 is a very capable camera and easy to work.

My OMD I love the little thing, but it's damn difficult to work, The GH3's completely intuitive.

These images I shot goofing around.  The first is from our London space from the patio with a gh3 set on a toy camera setting that looked 90% in the viewfinder like the image.

Given that the camera was set on the miniature look, it's pretty cool that wysiwyg.

The second is from the omd that also looked the same in the viewfinder, other than the OMD viewfinder shows more brightness than the file.



« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 09:27:12 PM by bcooter » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2013, 11:57:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The reason they bought into Mamiya was to have a body to put their backs on after being excluded by Hasselblad H.


I would agree on the CMOS think.

Best regards
Erik


- A CMOS-based medium format back. Think D800 sensor, blown up to MF size (a full 56x42mm size, not the 54x41mm nearly-645 format currently used). This would give you much better live view, high-ISO and long exposure capabilities.

- An inbuilt electronic level. Spirit levels just don't cut it - they always seem to be off by a bit!

- A panoramic MF back - maybe 24x72mm, or essentially two full-frame sensors side-by-side. Stitching a panorama isn't always an option.

- Some wider lenses. If Canon can make a TS-E 17L that can cover a full-frame sensor and still have room for shift (e.g. using the Hartblei H-cam), there's no reason Rodenstock or someone else couldn't make a 16mm or 17mm lens for ultra-ultra wide work, instead of being limited to 23mm as we are at the moment (unless using the H-cam and TS-E 17).
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2013, 12:03:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I agree with tho_mas, but I would suggest EVF-s will develop.

Best regards
Erik

I would like to see a DB (modular, of course) with sensor micro adjustment ... adjustable by the user.
This way we could fine adjust the sensor registration. The mechanism should also provide headroom so that we can set sensor tilt/swing (say 2 degrees 4 way while still maintaing registration). Make the adjustments storable and provide enough custom presets (at least 8 ).

The sensor should also provide LiveView, of course. I do own the GH2 and GH3 and have also seen the EVF of the Sony A99. However... personally, I still prefer an OVF (or a groundglas). The technical benefits of an EVF are very clear... however, even when looking through the finder of the GH3 "the world" looks so ugly that I have a hard time to consider anything worth capturing. It looks sooo digital...

 
Logged

shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2013, 12:14:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The reason they bought into Mamiya was to have a body to put their backs on after being excluded by Hasselblad H.


I would agree on the CMOS think.

Best regards
Erik



Not that lacking a body is a huge problem for a MF back.

One of the big attractions of MF backs is that you can pair almost any lens with any back/sensor. Tying yourself into a certain body drastically limits these choices. For instance, no-one has a true UWA wider than 28mm able to be used on a Mamiya, Hasselblad or Leica MF body. Tilt-shift options are also in short supply, particularly at the wider end. Use an Alpa or H-Cam, though, and your options are almost unlimited.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2013, 01:26:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I am pretty sure most backs are used on SLR bodies. So, you cannot put P1 backs on Hasselblad H, Contax is out, you don't want to join Hy6 (why?). That really makes Mamiya the only option, you want it to survive. You can definitively not put an MFDB on a Leica body.

I agree that the option to use a MFDB with a technical camera is very attractive, and I got the impression that it is a 15% segment of the market and groving.

Best regards
Erik


Not that lacking a body is a huge problem for a MF back.

One of the big attractions of MF backs is that you can pair almost any lens with any back/sensor. Tying yourself into a certain body drastically limits these choices. For instance, no-one has a true UWA wider than 28mm able to be used on a Mamiya, Hasselblad or Leica MF body. Tilt-shift options are also in short supply, particularly at the wider end. Use an Alpa or H-Cam, though, and your options are almost unlimited.
Logged

sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2013, 01:34:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Not that lacking a body is a huge problem for a MF back.

One of the big attractions of MF backs is that you can pair almost any lens with any back/sensor. Tying yourself into a certain body drastically limits these choices. For instance, no-one has a true UWA wider than 28mm able to be used on a Mamiya, Hasselblad or Leica MF body. Tilt-shift options are also in short supply, particularly at the wider end. Use an Alpa or H-Cam, though, and your options are almost unlimited.

They wanted to secure a body that will continue to work with their backs forever and not be dependent on external decision making.
They didn't tie themselves to a specific body like Hasselblad did - you are still free to mount Phase/Leaf backs to many bodies.
Lacking a body would be a huge problem - for instance if someone else was to buy Mamiya, they would have to make the HY6 totally viable for ALL professional applications, or develop/buy a new one.
Being able to provide solution of a general purpose body is essential for a DB company.
Such a solution must provide:
- Auto focus
- 1:1 macro lens
- wide angles
- Low aperture portrait lens
- zoom lens
Not all MF bodies have all that.

« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 01:42:25 AM by sbernthal » Logged
baudolino
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2013, 05:24:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I want a Mamiya 6 digital. Full frame 56x56 mm chip, with large photo sites, resolution does not need to exceed 40mp, perhaps Foveon chip or Fuji Xtrans to prevent moire. EVF plus ability to switch off rear display  easily, for the sake of battery longevity. Fast and accurate AF system with contrast detection off the chip, like Olympus OM-D, incl. face detection and focus on the nearest eye. Compact and lightweight body, with 3 interchangeable prime lenses. Battery good for 1000-2000 shots, like on a Leica S2. Lenses with aperture ring and real manual focus, not focus by wire. MF mode with assignable AF assist button and small central spot AF site, like Leica S2. Shutter speeds, ISO and exposure compensation selectable via dedicated manual dials. Price up to EUR10k for the body, lenses up to EUR3000 each. OK, I know it's not going to happen and understand the reasons why, so I'll happily continue using the S2 for digital and the Mamiya 6 for analog.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 05:33:30 AM by baudolino » Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487



WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2013, 07:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Ergonomic weather sealed body with 56x56mm 25 (x3) mp Foveon chip, perfectly fixed 16 bit output, no curtain, no mirror, electronic shutter on chip + superb lens and adapters. Body cost around 14k and each lenses around 2,5/3k.

 Cool

I think that company should work on new AF modules as well, because we start to see a gap between sensors tech and AF tech IMHO.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 07:56:14 AM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
Bernd B.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2013, 12:24:32 PM »
ReplyReply

1.) I want a foveon style non bayer moiré free digital back.

2.) I liked the option of the Hasselblad CF backs to swap camera mount. I´d like to use my old Blad instead of the H from time to time.

Bernd
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2013, 01:42:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

In my view, the best way to reduce moiré is smaller pixels. Foevon does not reduce moiré, it just doesn't produce color moiré.

Best regards
Erik

1.) I want a foveon style non bayer moiré free digital back.

2.) I liked the option of the Hasselblad CF backs to swap camera mount. I´d like to use my old Blad instead of the H from time to time.

Bernd
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 05, 2013, 01:48:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I sort of think that live view at actual pixels is best for accurate focus. Contrast sensing AF is pretty accurate. Afer that we need to look into focus shift. Present back makers are more into electronics than fine mechanics, I would be concerned about back makers adding micro mechanics.

Best regards
Erik


Ergonomic weather sealed body with 56x56mm 25 (x3) mp Foveon chip, perfectly fixed 16 bit output, no curtain, no mirror, electronic shutter on chip + superb lens and adapters. Body cost around 14k and each lenses around 2,5/3k.

 Cool

I think that company should work on new AF modules as well, because we start to see a gap between sensors tech and AF tech IMHO.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2013, 02:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik,

Sinar and Blad did well with their multi-shot backs and their step motors.

T

Hi,

I sort of think that live view at actual pixels is best for accurate focus. Contrast sensing AF is pretty accurate. Afer that we need to look into focus shift. Present back makers are more into electronics than fine mechanics, I would be concerned about back makers adding micro mechanics.

Best regards
Erik


Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2013, 03:00:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The sensor would be shifted between two fixed positions in two directions in two dimensions, much simpler than building a back with microfocus adjustment.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

Sinar and Blad did well with their multi-shot backs and their step motors.

T

Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2013, 03:04:02 PM »
ReplyReply

They could sub it out to Japan. 

Hi,

The sensor would be shifted between two fixed positions in two directions in two dimensions, much simpler than building a back with microfocus adjustment.

Best regards
Erik

Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad