[BigMackCam]

Here's three good sources covering much the same material but with slightly different balances of graphics vs. text and basics versus deeper technical issues. The first one may be all you need to get a good idea of most of the concepts but perhaps the others might help clarify things or provide more depth.
...
Film cameras typically show a cosine(theta) to the fourth power vignetting caused by each unit of area of the off-axis parts of the film emulsion having an oblique view of the lens pupil, being foreshortened with respect to that pupil, and being a greater distance from the pupil (a 1/r^2 loss). See http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Cosine_Fourth_Falloff.pdf for the math on this. It's mostly a problem with wide-angle lenses, especially on short-flange cameras.

Digital cameras also have this cos(theta)^4 attenuation, too. But digital suffers from even more vignetting because of reflections off the glass and silicon surfaces of the sensor assembly, Whereas film emulsions have a matte surface that absorbs light from almost any direction, digital sensors are shiny and tend to reflect off-axis light.

Fantastic! Thank you I'm off to bed now, but you've given me my "coffee time" reading for the next couple of days

[ABBANDON]

I laugh in the face of their puny modified Sinar and will be sticking to the real thing although I'm prepared to admit Provia at £330 a box does make me wince and while resolution isn't everything seriously 12MP ? Hurt your web browser you know it likes it While working with film isn't instant I did drop off a 36" drum scanned print of that off the next morning if you have your own darkroom and scanner it is perfectly possible to get reasonably fast results.
Sinar have been or at least used to sell P3 100x100mm cameras for digitail backs for some time although I believe these were / are mostly an array of four medium format digitail sensors and to be honest for lots of tasks 5x4 makes a lot more sense

Oh, and a 165 mm f/5.6 lens on this beast will be "equivalent" to an 18 mm f/0.67 on FF.]

I'm not aware of any such lens existing there is the old 165mm F8 Super Angulon which most people pass over for the Nikon 150mm F8 SW or 150mm F5.6 Super symmar XL or the 155 F6.8 Grandagon N if you can find one all should cover at least but the Nikon 120SW is still your go to silly 10x8 wide angle no movements to speak of though.

Given the existance of viable medium and large format rigs I can not really see this going far for the money you can get way better technical quality (in most respects at least) shooting film and as far as commercail applications are concerned the talk on large format forums for years and a few pros I have talked to is they might use large format for their own interest but they stopped using it comercailly years ago. Back in the day the area where 10x8 seemed to rule supreme was car photograph so they could produce house sized billboard posters now a lot of car advertising is apparently CGI.

From an amuteur prospective the film option would be way cheaper suitable 10x8 lenses are mostly hundreds it's only wide angles that comand really high prices, what you need to process 10x8 isn't vastly expensive cameras can certainly be yours for under £1000 and if you want to go hard core and run your own drum scanner that need not break the bank either plus some people are happy with the Epson flatbeds or stiching dslr scans.

[BigMackCam]

I laugh in the face of their puny modified Sinar

By "modified", I assume you mean that entire digital back?

Given the existance of viable medium and large format rigs I can not really see this going far for the money you can get way better technical quality (in most respects at least) shooting film and as far as commercail applications are concerned the talk on large format forums for years and a few pros I have talked to is they might use large format for their own interest but they stopped using it comercailly years ago.

It's a niche within an already niche market, that's for sure... but I think there will be some limited demand. Whether it'll be enough, we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure they've worked out the pricing based on projection of low sales volumes.

It's natural to compare this camera to the film equivalent, but it's a different shooting and workflow experience - with advantages and disadvantages to both.

Regarding resolution, only 20 years ago Kodak's DCS520 offered a miserly 2MP on a 1" sensor for a cool $15k (equivalent to $23k now) - but people used those cameras professionally, as well as for serious amateur work (for those who could justify the expense). Given the acceleration of technology, this 12MP large format is surely only the start. If the company can get just enough funding through sales of the 12MP model and further investment, we'll see the resolution increase and prices come down.

[photoptimist]

My semi-feasible dream camera would be built around the STA1600B( STA1600 | Semiconductor Technology Associates, Inc. ). It's a 10560 x 10560 CCD sensor with 9 µm pixels which makes it a 111 MPix square sensor of just under 4" on a side. The sensor seems capable of nearly 15 EV of DR so the IQ should be stunning. I'd build that sensor into the back of a 4x5 camera to create something that offers all the movements of large format in something more portable that 8x10.

[normhead]

12 MP is sort of the bare minimum for acceptable photo quality, so this is kind of in it's infancy.

But, if it takes a K-1s 7000-x 5000 to produce 4000x 3000 lw/ph it is quite possible that if the larger pixel sites can actually produce a one to one each line, it could produce similar resolution to a K-1 with much more 3-d pop.

After all, it's not pixel resolution but lw/ph that counts. And as pointed out a Nikon D7200 with their best 24mm lens has practically the same resolution as a K-1. SO there are many variables in producing resolution.

The larger pixel sites mean more resolution with cheaper lenses. But with film, the advantage to large format was you could use larger sheets of the same film, so a 4x5 image would have many times more "pixels" than smaller format. The large format doesn't really have the same appeal without that advantage, at least for me. I would argue that most current cameras achieve their resolution by oversampling. If this new sensor still has to oversample, it's hard to see how it could be worth 100 grand.


In my own mind I'm not sure that oversampling isn't the better approach. Call me sceptical.

[ABBANDON]

By "modified", I assume you mean that entire digital back?

Well it's a bit of a Frankinstiens monster to the best of my knowledge that front standard (Sinar F2 10x8) hasn't been produced for ten years, it's very much a built from bits we had to play with by the look of it, also a G Claron ? I know some people love them but there are way better choices out there. It clearly is a knocked together prototype rather than a production camera at this point.
Pretty much no one at all is still manafacturing Large Format lenses let alone ones that cover 10x8 everyone gave up as there are so many available seconhand it long ago stoped being viable to produce them and the reason I even mention it is like in smaller format when medium and large format backs started to appear it was the same old your old analouge lenses aren't good enough any more you need these shiney new digitailly optomised ones and as anything LF is small production new lenses that would cover 10x8 will be an arm and a leg. I'm indiferent to it succeding or not as is I very much doubt it will as it is not really offering anything specail enough and while you can argue that there are rich enthusiasts who will pay for things many years of reading Large Format Info suggests that very few are prepared to pay large amounts for somwthing like this there is much more a culture of doing things on the relative cheap in the LF community such as it is. For commercail applications at the moment I just can not see this having any appeal if it is not offering resolution to beat existing medium or large format view cameras what is the selling point ? Again resolution isn't everything but what does it offer that makes it uniquely worth while ?

My semi-feasible dream camera would be built around the STA1600B( STA1600 | Semiconductor Technology Associates, Inc. ). It's a 10560 x 10560 CCD sensor with 9 µm pixels which makes it a 111 MPix square sensor of just under 4" on a side. The sensor seems capable of nearly 15 EV of DR so the IQ should be stunning. I'd build that sensor into the back of a 4x5 camera to create something that offers all the movements of large format in something more portable that 8x10.

I could argue that you can still get something like that from colur negative film drumscanned but am more than prepared to admit that from the point of view of instant results this is a far more practical and useable prospect I probably don't want to know how much that senor costs though.

Also the stories I hear are that for years no one has wanted to pay for the kind of work people did with movements most pros who shot 5x4 rarely use more than a DSLR and photoshop now. I've read this time and again and been told it when buying LF gear off of pros often enough about the only exceptions were high end food photographers using medium format digitail rigs with movements.




Edit

Looking at the photos on their site that is not even the front standard from a 10x8 it's from the 5x4 F2 you could use it for smaller 10x8 lenses but I really wouldn't push your luck with things like say the big 360mm F6.8 or 750mm lenses

[BigMackCam]

^^^ ... and as soon as my lottery win is confirmed this coming weekend, I'm still buying one

Anyway, it's an excuse to extend my Soviet lens collection into large format territory

[ABBANDON]

^^^ ... and as soon as my lottery win is confirmed this coming weekend, I'm still buying one

Anyway, it's an excuse to extend my Soviet lens collection into large format territory

It's your potentail money ....

The reason I can never be bothered about the latest and greatest DSLR is all the LF toys I know I can get for the same money.

just to make you jealous then The closest thing I have to a Soviet LF lens K3II for scale (well the Apo Germinars were originally Jena GDR lenses that one is a late Docter Optics after renunification version.

Soviet lenses seem a bit hit and miss to me I like my Arasat 35mm F2.8 shift but the Helios 44M-4 I picked up an unknown Zenit at a vintage fair the other day for a fiver not so much stuck said Helios on a K3II and rapidly concluded that I wouldn't be bothering to do that again.

[photoptimist]

I could argue that you can still get something like that from colur negative film drumscanned but am more than prepared to admit that from the point of view of instant results this is a far more practical and useable prospect I probably don't want to know how much that senor costs though.

I'm sure you are right. The MTF curves for print film show that it exceeds the pixel pitch of the STA1600B sensor.

Besides the instant review of results, where current generation digital wins over film is in dynamic range and higher sensitivity. Although the manufacturer does not give the base ISO for the STA1600B, my guess is that it's somewhere around 800. Moreover, the high DR of the sensor suggests that one could increase the gain by as much as 5 stops (to as high as ISO 25,600) and still have a good image. Thus, one can use f/64 and a motion-stopping 1/250 shutter speed for shots under most day light conditions just by pushing the ISO.

Also the stories I hear are that for years no one has wanted to pay for the kind of work people did with movements most pros who shot 5x4 rarely use more than a DSLR and photoshop now. I've read this time and again and been told it when buying LF gear off of pros often enough about the only exceptions were high end food photographers using medium format digitail rigs with movements.

I'm not surprised that clients and pros have turned their backs on LF. For professional photography, the final image is all that really matters. The client & the pro are going to pick the equipment and process that delivers results with the least cost, labor, and time. With digital, perspective-controlling shift effects can now be done in post (assuming the starting image has enough resolution). Focus-stacking can out-perform tilting the plane of focus and various selective blurring techniques replicate the toy-macro effect of tilting the plane of focus in the opposite direction. It's a lot faster to move digital bits than to move front and rear standards.

But for hobbyists and artists, the process and the equipment matters. Mahogany and brass may not affect the final image but they do affect the photographer's enjoyment of the process. And maybe the LS911 isn't the cheapest way to get a 12 MPIx image or an 8x10 image, but it may the coolest way to do so for some people.

[BigMackCam]

It's your potentail money ....

My only issue with that is the word "potential". I'm already writing out my shopping list

The reason I can never be bothered about the latest and greatest DSLR is all the LF toys I know I can get for the same money.

I don't bother about the latest and greatest kit either. I've never ventured into LF though, and rarely even shoot 35mm film

just to make you jealous then The closest thing I have to a Soviet LF lens K3II for scale (well the Apo Germinars were originally Jena GDR lenses that one is a late Docter Optics after renunification version.

Soviet lenses seem a bit hit and miss to me I like my Arasat 35mm F2.8 shift but the Helios 44M-4 I picked up an unknown Zenit at a vintage fair the other day for a fiver not so much stuck said Helios on a K3II and rapidly concluded that I wouldn't be bothering to do that again.

The 44M-4 - at least, the non-MC version - is a fairly average lens, but used wisely it can still produce beautiful images, and I like having to work at it. But then, we could say the same of almost any lens. I like the simplicity and honesty of the 44M-4. Any limitations on resolution are soon forgotten at 1:2 reproduction or smaller, with a little sharpening to the full size RAW and resized final output. I assume the version you picked up is the non-MC version... You might be pleasantly surprised with its multi-coated brother.

If all I ever shot with again was my Soviet lenses, I'd be quite satisfied. Some are average, some are good, and a few are excellent - but that's using my unwritten personal measurement criteria. YMMV - it's a very subjective thing, and we're all different

[BigMackCam]

But for hobbyists and artists, the process and the equipment matters. Mahogany and brass may not affect the final image but they do affect the photographer's enjoyment of the process. And maybe the LS911 isn't the cheapest way to get a 12 MPIx image or an 8x10 image, but it may the coolest way to do so for some people.

Bingo.

In all seriousness, short of that lottery win - and I'm not talking about a million, but many times that - I could never dream of buying one of these. Heck, I'm not even qualified to use it properly until I pop my cherry on affordable LF film gear. But the enjoyment I'd get from such a rig would be intense. So if money were no object (I'm looking at you, National Lottery!!), I'd have to treat myself to this camera... plus a nice Industar-37 4.5/300 to get me started I'd have to use electronic shutter, but I can live with that for now...