[rdenney]

Might also add something towards this:
I believe back in the day, large format and medium format was used to make 1:1 large prints.
I believe it was Leica with their rangefinders that really made the 35mm a standard film size with the intent to enlarge prints.
Now with digital cameras, increasing megapixel count, and increased tech like AI and the noise reducing accelerator units - really makes those larger formats seem expensive and unnecessary.
imo, as a happy aps-c shooter, the above is how I even perceive a full frame 35mm camera..

Medium format roll film in professional cameras was intended for enlargement from the beginning, certainly before the Leica.

And 4x5 and larger enlargers have been made since the days of dry plates.

Miniature cameras (as 35mm was originally called) were looking for extreme portability, but even more looking for a cheap bulk film source, which is why Leitz used 35mm cine film. It’s not that they made enlargement a thing, it’s that enlargement made 35mm practical—35mm makes no sense without enlargement or projection. That’s why Leitz sold enlargers as well as cameras.

Larger formats generally provide more tonality, resolution and detail for a given optical, film/sensor, and printing state of the art, but at higher cost and reduced convenience.

The main reason for smaller digital sensors is yield—for a given wafer, one flaw ruins half the wafer for medium format, but only one of many APS-C or smaller sensors made from that wafer. Error reductions and production reliability have reduced costs, but volumes with large sensors are very low which increases cost.

Personally, I’m hoping for an affordable 4x5 digital back that will attach to a camera using Graflok rails.

Rick “Ansel Adams was making amateur enlargements from a quarter-plate camera before the Leica was invented” Denney

[SteveinSLC]

Sony just launched an FF camera in a body that's smaller than most APSC cameras. Personally I think the ergonomics are probably terrible, but going mirrorless would mean that the body and weight could be smaller than the equivalent SLR, even with a sensor larger than the 645Z.

[fehknt]

I’m hoping for an affordable 4x5 digital back that will attach to a camera using Graflok rails

I mean, if there was a 4x5 digital graflock that was semi-affordable... yeah, I'd have a hard time not splurging on it.

I'm thinking about building my own stitching back but it's not going to be pretty and the multi-shot time will be prohibitive of anything but the simplest of static shots. (I even tried using my K-1 as a digital back to my LF camera -- it worked at the center but away from the center the incoming rays hit the lens mount and are mechanically vignetted; so it basically was useless.)

[FozzFoster]

Saw this today and thought this thread would appreciate:

Attached Images

 

[barondla]

Saw this today and thought this thread would appreciate:

Very interesting illustration. Makes it easy to visualize the waste of larger sensors. Why can't they cut FF and 1" out of the same platter and eliminate the waste?

Thanks,
barondla

[kaseki]

A factor in cost and practicality of FF MF sensor chips may be that with commonly used optics for laying out the silicon circuitry, they might have to be stitched. This would further affect yield. I expect that sensor integrated circuit tech has to depend on computer integrated circuit tech for affordability.

But then there is this counterexample:
Cerebras unveils world's largest computer chip - DCD

[Serkevan]

Very interesting illustration. Makes it easy to visualize the waste of larger sensors. Why can't they cut FF and 1" out of the same platter and eliminate the waste?

Thanks,
barondla

If you cut from a wafer made for 42MP (random number) FF sensors, you'll end up with a 6 MP 1" sensor, hardly acceptable for today's standards.

---------- Post added 09-18-20 at 10:09 AM ----------

Saw this today and thought this thread would appreciate:

Not really a lot of space for 6x4.5 or 6x7 sensors there, no...

[torashi]

Medium format roll film in professional cameras was intended for enlargement from the beginning, certainly before the Leica.

And 4x5 and larger enlargers have been made since the days of dry plates.

Miniature cameras (as 35mm was originally called) were looking for extreme portability, but even more looking for a cheap bulk film source, which is why Leitz used 35mm cine film. It’s not that they made enlargement a thing, it’s that enlargement made 35mm practical—35mm makes no sense without enlargement or projection. That’s why Leitz sold enlargers as well as cameras.

Larger formats generally provide more tonality, resolution and detail for a given optical, film/sensor, and printing state of the art, but at higher cost and reduced convenience.

The main reason for smaller digital sensors is yield—for a given wafer, one flaw ruins half the wafer for medium format, but only one of many APS-C or smaller sensors made from that wafer. Error reductions and production reliability have reduced costs, but volumes with large sensors are very low which increases cost.

Personally, I’m hoping for an affordable 4x5 digital back that will attach to a camera using Graflok rails.

Rick “Ansel Adams was making amateur enlargements from a quarter-plate camera before the Leica was invented” Denney

I'd be all over it, too. Something that resolved around the same as the smoothest film on the best scanner, and only limited by the diffraction at the smaller apertures normally used. But 6.7MP @~65k is megaparsecs away from being affordable.

[TDvN57]

I think only you can answer that question.

The reasons I switched from mf film to mf digital were:
1. I did, and still do all my editing in digital and not in a darkroom.
2. That required my film images to be converted to digital.
3. No matter how high quality your film image is, the scanner's imaging ability to convert to digital will determine the final image going into your workflow.
4. I bought and eventually sold a few of the most popular MF scanners and all turned out to be disappointments.
5. The only scanner I could find that would have matched the quality of a MF film image, was a monster drum scanner costing +/- USD15k the size of a refrigerator.
6. The only alternative to buying a monster scanner, would have been too find a lab near me with a comparable scanner. I did find one but the cost of scanning was quite expensive, I don't remember the amounts anymore.

The conclusion was that mf film was adding a huge overhead in workflow time delay and scanning cost, before I could get a raw image ready for editing in digital. The cost of a 645z looked a lot less expensive.

After that realization I switched to digital and sold everything film related.

[desertscape]

I think a lot of the consideration between a 67 and a Z depends on what you plan on doing with the images. If Bikehead90 intended to us a MF camera as a full time pro, the Z is a good choice. But if he intended the camera be used for non-professional purposes, then the 67 is a good alternative. Concerning the subject of using a 67 for pro work by scanning to digital, it can be done successfully, unless one is bent on producing large size prints or having images published to large sizes. I have sold many images that started as a 67 slide and were converted to digital via a Plustek 120 scanner, so it can be done.

This image was from the 67 and scanned. Published many years ago.

[bjolester]

There are still some professional photographers that use the Pentax 67 as their main camera, for instance the British photographer Ian Cameron. He makes his living as a a full time landscape photographer, sells prints and arranges workshops. He scans his 6x7 transparencies on a Nikon Coolscan 9000.

Transient Light : Photography of Ian Cameron

[desertscape]

There are still some professional photographers that use the Pentax 67 as their main camera

Myself and Silent Street ( Gary) are as well but I am semi-retired now. I am familiar with Ian.

[Silent Street]

Myself and Silent Street ( Gary) are as well but I am semi-retired now. I am familiar with Ian.

That's correct.
I am going into semi-retirement at the end of this year. Melbourne, where my print lab is, is still in Stage 4 lockdown so nothing is getting done there at all, and Australia Post is also severely affected by staggered staffing at distribution centres = long delays with mail. This is very, very frustrating. COVID has caused chaos down there (none at all here in the NT with borders slammed shut in July).

There are emergent problems with my health (a 45 year old kidney transplant, currently a record here in Australia) that will require a watching brief going forward and likely relocation back to Victoria where specialists are. It also means I am restricted to carrying a much lighter 67 load on my back now and to avoid dehydration at any cost. At the moment activity is restricted not by health, but the gluggy aftermath around Alice of a surprisingly large dump of rain that has caused floods in a very long line from Darwin down to South Australia!

[fehknt]

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.

IMO this may be equivalent to the impact to sharpness, but it's not equivalent to the manufacturing processes that lead to OOF highlights showing the grinding or molding marks of aspherics.

And yes, the AL lens had aspheric element (that's the AL after all in the name). But my point was that you can have a complete stable of great lenses without aspherics if that matters to you, and I don't find myself missing a 75/2.8 in particular for any reason.

[bjolester]

This image was from the 67 and scanned. Published many years ago.

Great capture of a beautiful location! The Plustek OpticFilm 120 seems like a very capable scanner.