[stevebrot]

LargeSense proved that 8x10 sensors are possible for ~90k; they're working on a higher res 4x5 for $65k. So although they are very expensive by 35mm standards, I don't see why 6x7 wouldn't be possible for 30-40k or so, in the price range of some existing high end 645 MF systems.

Theirs is an interesting project and while the 4x5 may be easily cropped to 6x7 the following caveats, aside from price, should frame the practicality of the project.

• The 8x10 version offers 26Mpx as a single shot device.
• The 4x5 version is spec'd to offer 6.7Mpx as a two component* multi-shot device when that product is actually released.

Yes, the S/N ratio should be impressive, but comparison to even a low resolution scan of a film original would be telling.


Steve

* Sensor back attached to the camera and cabled processor/storage/power unit on the ground or taped to a tripod leg.

[fehknt]

The 8x10 version offers 26Mpx as a single shot device.

Yep, that sums up why I have no interest (aside from price) -- I can shoot film and use my K-1 to do pixel-shift scanning at 36mp+ effective resolution even without needing to stitch images; yes film adds up over time but... not to 90k.

[Silent Street]

With all the benefits of a larger sensor size, it would seem that 6x7 would offer the greatest benefit, in terms of MF, when compared to 6x4.5.

Quite apart from the prohibitive cost and sheer physical size of the sensor, then add the horror of the camera's physical size, can you imagine the size of the RAW file in 6x7?? The file would be truly ginormous, and require significant processing power.

You'll undoubtedly need a full spectrum system for any digital 6x7. Like 6x4.5, 6x7 is a 'dead format'. I can't see history being repeated any time going forward.

[torashi]

Such a large sensor would need a cooling unit to keep noise level low. Maybe if there's a way to standardize that size for multiple uses, like telescope arrays could bring the cost down.

---

Last edited by torashi; 09-16-2020 at 08:11 AM.

[bikehead90]

Quite apart from the prohibitive cost and sheer physical size of the sensor, then add the horror of the camera's physical size, can you imagine the size of the RAW file in 6x7?? The file would be truly ginormous, and require significant processing power.

You'll undoubtedly need a full spectrum system for any digital 6x7. Like 6x4.5, 6x7 is a 'dead format'. I can't see history being repeated any time going forward.

Eh, there’s no kill like overkill. Lol. I fell In love with the 6x7 format the first time I saw the camera at a used camera store. But yeah, it is a pretty monster-sized camera, so a digital would presumably be just as if not bigger and heavier.

[desertscape]

because I’m torn between saving for a 645Z or a 67

The equipment you use is not as important as your ability to use it and talent. A great shooter will do just as well with a 645Z as a 67. Those who grew up with film, will probably feel more comfortable with the 67, while digital era folks will probably prefer the Z. Both are just tools and both can get the job done.

[fehknt]

Re: OP decision on 645 (well, 645 crop) digital and 6x7: the 6x7 (not the 67ii mind you, but the older 6x7MLU) can be had for such a small fraction of the price of the 645Z that was an easy decision for me to make. Are you willing to deal with film? If so, seems the 6x7 is a no-brainer then. But don't expect it to magically make your photos better -- it'll give you a system that has plenty of good lenses designed without aspherics (if you care about that, which I find myself going back and forth on) -- with the bigger format, the lens imperfections of the older designs aren't as obvious as they are on old 35mm lenses. If you're looking for "modern" looking photos, then you should save up for the digital system IMO.

[torashi]

Re: OP decision on 645 (well, 645 crop) digital and 6x7: the 6x7 (not the 67ii mind you, but the older 6x7MLU) can be had for such a small fraction of the price of the 645Z that was an easy decision for me to make. Are you willing to deal with film? If so, seems the 6x7 is a no-brainer then. But don't expect it to magically make your photos better -- it'll give you a system that has plenty of good lenses designed without aspherics (if you care about that, which I find myself going back and forth on) -- with the bigger format, the lens imperfections of the older designs aren't as obvious as they are on old 35mm lenses. If you're looking for "modern" looking photos, then you should save up for the digital system IMO.

There is one aspheric. The 2.8/75mm AL. I don't know if the other sharp late designs are, like the 55 or 200. It is rather one of the more expensive ones.

[Silent Street]

There is one aspheric. The 2.8/75mm AL. I don't know if the other sharp late designs are, like the 55 or 200. It is rather one of the more expensive ones.

The 75/2.8AL is more than $3,000 ex-Japan . That is odd. It just doesn't pass the pub sniff test.
The 55mm has a floating element I think (and inherent rattles that are thoroughly offputting). It is very, very sharp, but no fancy apo/asph glass.

A camera -- any camera, is only going to be as good as the lens stuck on the front of it. It befuddles me that people want to spend $7,000 on a camera but only $1,000 on a run-of-the-mill kit lens.

[bikehead90]

The equipment you use is not as important as your ability to use it and talent. A great shooter will do just as well with a 645Z as a 67. Those who grew up with film, will probably feel more comfortable with the 67, while digital era folks will probably prefer the Z. Both are just tools and both can get the job done.

Oh, no I totally believe in that philosophy, but my question is wether or not I want to shoot MF digitally or film. I love using my MX, but do I want to add another batch of film I need to develop or do I want the simplicity of digital? I absolutely think a crap camera, like the GameBoy Pocket camera, in the right hands, could shoot some extremely interesting stuff with that 1/2 megapixel monster.

[Silent Street]

Oh, no I totally believe in that philosophy, but my question is wether or not I want to shoot MF digitally or film. I love using my MX, but do I want to add another batch of film I need to develop or do I want the simplicity of digital? I absolutely think a crap camera, like the GameBoy Pocket camera, in the right hands, could shoot some extremely interesting stuff with that 1/2 megapixel monster.

Yes, it is important to understand the underlying philosophy by Desertscape — all the digital/film equipment in the world will not help a photographer who is hellbent on technical things relating to the camera rather than having a thorough understanding of conceptualisation, visual arrangement, interpretation, knowledge of subject and understanding of light in all its forms. It is true that a very decent photograph can be made with the most rudimentary cameras around: a lot of my finest have not been made on the Pentax 67, but a ZeroImage 69 multiformat pinhole camera! I have seen spectacular images made with Lomo Diana cameras. Others still of home made pinhole cameras. Don't fall into the pitiful trap of believing that a mega-expensive camera will make you a better photographer. It will not. Making something better comes from within yourself.

[Lord Lucan]

I fell In love with the 6x7 format the first time I saw the camera at a used camera store. But yeah, it is a pretty monster-sized camera, so a digital would presumably be just as if not bigger and heavier.

Here is a line-up of a 35mm film LX, an APS-C digital K10-D, a FF digital K-1, and a film 6x7.

The K-1 digital sensor is the same size as the LX film gate, yet how much bigger the K-1 body is! The K-1 is getting on for the body size of the 6x7, yet the 6x7 film gate has over four times the K-1 sensor area. Now imagine how large a 6x7 digital body might be.

[torashi]

The 75/2.8AL is more than $3,000 ex-Japan . That is odd. It just doesn't pass the pub sniff test.

The 55mm has a floating element I think (and inherent rattles that are thoroughly offputting). It is very, very sharp, but no fancy apo/asph glass.



A camera -- any camera, is only going to be as good as the lens stuck on the front of it. It befuddles me that people want to spend $7,000 on a camera but only $1,000 on a run-of-the-mill kit lens.

That's completely true. Although for the P67 system there's no bad lens choice, since most perform exceptionally. With the same lens, one could get the same results with an ugly, beat up first generation 6×7 as with with the latest 67 II.
As for today's systems, many kit lenses are just rubbish. If they weren't, people wouldn't buy anything else. Even then most people don't. And for family photos, that's okay. It's more about the memories and stories behind, than about the picture quality itself. And no Photoshop needed with softer lenses.

[gofour3]

Re: OP decision on 645 (well, 645 crop) digital and 6x7: the 6x7 (not the 67ii mind you, but the older 6x7MLU) can be had for such a small fraction of the price of the 645Z that was an easy decision for me to make. Are you willing to deal with film? If so, seems the 6x7 is a no-brainer then. But don't expect it to magically make your photos better -- it'll give you a system that has plenty of good lenses designed without aspherics (if you care about that, which I find myself going back and forth on) -- with the bigger format, the lens imperfections of the older designs aren't as obvious as they are on old 35mm lenses. If you're looking for "modern" looking photos, then you should save up for the digital system IMO.

The Pentax 67 75/2.8 had AL elements.

Also the late 300mm, 400mm & 800mm Pentax 67 telephoto lenses had ED lens elements, so that's equivalent to AL elements in wide angle lenses.

Phil.

[desertscape]

but my question is wether or not I want to shoot MF digitally or film

I think only you can answer that question.