LS911 9x11 inch large format digital camera

**interested_observer** · 03-26-2018, 12:59 PM - **2 Likes**

Quote:

Taking a Photo with the LS911 Large Format Digital Camera

Youtu.be

8x10 (10x8) Large format digital back model LS911

**BigMackCam** · 03-26-2018, 01:17 PM - **1 Like**

I don't care how unsuitable this is for my photography, nor how impractical it would be for me to use, but I absolutely, unequivocally NEED that camera. Complete with "Sox the Fox" for test shots...

disconnekt · 03-26-2018, 01:36 PM - **1 Like**

In a word

**TwoUptons** · 03-26-2018, 02:39 PM

12 Mp? $106,000?

I do like the vignette correction, but I’m looking for anything that screams awesome, apart from the price...

-Eric

**BigMackCam** · 03-26-2018, 03:05 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TwoUptons

12 Mp? $106,000?

I do like the vignette correction, but I’m looking for anything that screams awesome, apart from the price...

The control that's offered by a view camera with bellows, perhaps?

It's not all about the megapickles... in this case, as with any view camera, you get:

- The ability to skew the plane of critical focus
- The ability to distort the shape of the image by skewing the film / sensor plane
- Shallow depth of field - much shallower (if required)
- Smaller apertures can be used (if required) due to longer focal length lenses
- Access to some wonderful large format lenses

One of my favourite photographers is Stephen Shore. I marvel at his "one horse town" shots taken with large format cameras, that are in *perfect* focus throughout the entire depth of field. Very, very different to the hyper-focal approach we use on our DSLRs, and much more effective when used properly...

In any case, this is clearly an early model. If it takes off (and I realise that's a big "if"), we'll see higher resolution models further down the line.

Topsy · 03-26-2018, 03:10 PM

I mean, that's cool and all but..

How much film that size could you shoot (and get higher resolution) for that price?

I mean, sure, 12mp is technically enough, but I'm not sure I deem 12mp on a 9x11 enough?..

As I said, it's cool and all but it's niche in the niche of photography that is large format photography would be so small.. I guess that it justifies the price.

**BigMackCam** · 03-26-2018, 03:15 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Topsy

I mean, that's cool and all but..

How much film that size could you shoot (and get higher resolution) for that price?

I mean, sure, 12mp is technically enough, but I'm not sure I deem 12mp on a 9x11 enough?..

As I mentioned above, it's not about the megapickles. It's about the control that a view camera gives you.

I agree, though, for many people it would be more sensible to shoot a film view camera and professionally scan the results. But there will be some artists who will embrace the immediacy that digital large format photography offers them.

If I had an unlimited budget (and I'm quietly confident that this weekend's UK National Lottery is coming my way), I'd buy one

photoptimist · 03-26-2018, 03:22 PM

Base ISO of 2100!!!

And less than a penny-a-pixel!

Cool tech! It looks like the sensor is actually a glass plate with the photodiodes and CMOS circuitry deposited on to the glass substrate using the same manufacturing methods as TFT displays. The high base ISO suggests that the well depth isn't as high as a silicon wafer sensor could be but the total depth is still on the order of 10X that of the sensors in the K-1 or 645Z.

Hopefully they've plated on a decent AR coating otherwise the lack of microlenses means the vignetting will be painful with wide lenses unless one uses an apodization filter on the lens.

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

**BigMackCam** · 03-26-2018, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by photoptimist

Base ISO of 2100!!!

And less than a penny-a-pixel!

Nice

Originally posted by photoptimist

Cool tech! It looks like the sensor is actually a glass plate with the photodiodes and CMOS circuitry deposited on to the glass substrate using the same manufacturing methods as TFT displays. The high base ISO suggests that the well depth isn't as high as a silicon wafer sensor could be but the total depth is still on the order of 10X that of the sensors in the K-1 or 645Z.

At some point, I'm going to ask you nicely if you might direct me towards some reading to understand that properly. I'm technically (and, to some extent, electronically) minded enough that I'm sure I could, but right now my knowledge in that area is fractionally above zero. Is the level of knowledge you display the result of many years' learning, or could I grasp it (the basics, at least) with some intensive reading?

Originally posted by photoptimist

Hopefully they've plated on a decent AR coating otherwise the lack of microlenses means the vignetting will be painful with wide lenses unless one uses an apodization filter on the lens.

The test shots definitely showed vignetting. Is that different to how it would appear on film, though? So long as it accurately represents the film equivalent, I personally wouldn't be too concerned. I mean, it's only $106,000

Originally posted by photoptimist

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

You had me at "Cool tech!"...

MarkJerling · 03-26-2018, 03:45 PM - **3 Likes**

If it was a Pentax camera half the forum would be complaining that it's not got enough AF points.

photoptimist · 03-26-2018, 03:50 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by MarkJerling

If it was a Pentax camera half the forum would be complaining that it's not got enough AF points.

LOL!

And the other half would be cheering that it's mirrorless and does 4k video.

**BigMackCam** · 03-26-2018, 04:01 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MarkJerling

If it was a Pentax camera half the forum would be complaining that it's not got enough AF points.

Originally posted by photoptimist

LOL!

And the other half would be cheering that it's mirrorless and does 4k video.

Yeah, I'm just waiting for the first person who criticises the frame rate and lens choice for "birds in flight" work...

MarkJerling · 03-26-2018, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by photoptimist

LOL!

And the other half would be cheering that it's mirrorless and does 4k video.

4K is so yesteryear.

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Yeah, I'm just waiting for the first person who criticises the frame rate and lens choice for "birds in flight" work...

Yup! You've said it! LOL

Topsy · 03-26-2018, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

As I mentioned above, it's not about the megapickles. It's about the control that a view camera gives you.

I agree, though, for many people it would be more sensible to shoot a film view camera and professionally scan the results. But there will be some artists who will embrace the immediacy that digital large format photography offers them.

Yes, my slow typing on my phone prevented me from seeing your above post.

I'm happy to see it succeed, I suppose the price tag alone will create a small market for it, and I suppose for some studios and artists it'd be very convenient as you say.

However for landscapes I'd prefer cobbling together a camera with an array of medium format sensors and something to move them, let's call it 'pickle-shift', to bridge the gap between them. A modular sensor.

The flatbed scanner conversion from a few years ago impressed me too..

photoptimist · 03-26-2018, 04:33 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Nice

At some point, I'm going to ask you nicely if you might direct me towards some reading to understand that properly. I'm technically (and, to some extent, electronically) minded enough that I'm sure I could, but right now my knowledge in that area is fractionally above zero. Is the level of knowledge you display the result of many years' learning, or could I grasp it (the basics, at least) with some intensive reading?

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.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs448a-10/sensors-noise-14jan10-opt.pdf
https://www.visiononline.org/userAssets/aiaUploads/file/CVP_The-Fundamentals...-Chouinard.pdf
Fundamentals of Image Sensor Performance

Originally posted by BigMackCam

The test shots definitely showed vignetting. Is that different to how it would appear on film, though? So long as it accurately represents the film equivalent, I personally wouldn't be too concerned. I mean, it's only $106,000

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.

03-26-2018, 01:36 PM - 1 Like	#3
disconnekt Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: SoCal/I.E. Photos: Albums Posts: 1,699	In a word Attached Images

03-26-2018, 03:05 PM - 1 Like	#5
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by TwoUptons 12 Mp? $106,000? I do like the vignette correction, but I’m looking for anything that screams awesome, apart from the price... The control that's offered by a view camera with bellows, perhaps? It's not all about the megapickles... in this case, as with any view camera, you get: - The ability to skew the plane of critical focus - The ability to distort the shape of the image by skewing the film / sensor plane - Shallow depth of field - much shallower (if required) - Smaller apertures can be used (if required) due to longer focal length lenses - Access to some wonderful large format lenses One of my favourite photographers is Stephen Shore. I marvel at his "one horse town" shots taken with large format cameras, that are in perfect focus throughout the entire depth of field. Very, very different to the hyper-focal approach we use on our DSLRs, and much more effective when used properly... In any case, this is clearly an early model. If it takes off (and I realise that's a big "if"), we'll see higher resolution models further down the line. Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-26-2018 at 03:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your non-pentax medium-format and large-format pictures	DenisG	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	26	12-07-2020 08:02 PM
Any full size digital or large size enlargement medium format pics on the net?	PPPPPP42	Pentax Medium Format	53	09-22-2012 12:52 PM
Very, Very, Very Large Format Camera Available	shutterdrone	General Talk	22	03-22-2008 10:43 AM

03-26-2018, 01:17 PM - 1 Like	#2
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	I don't care how unsuitable this is for my photography, nor how impractical it would be for me to use, but I absolutely, unequivocally NEED that camera. Complete with "Sox the Fox" for test shots...

03-26-2018, 02:39 PM	#4
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,213	12 Mp? $106,000? I do like the vignette correction, but I’m looking for anything that screams awesome, apart from the price... -Eric

03-26-2018, 03:10 PM	#6
Topsy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 625	I mean, that's cool and all but.. How much film that size could you shoot (and get higher resolution) for that price? I mean, sure, 12mp is technically enough, but I'm not sure I deem 12mp on a 9x11 enough?.. As I said, it's cool and all but it's niche in the niche of photography that is large format photography would be so small.. I guess that it justifies the price.

03-26-2018, 03:15 PM - 1 Like	#7
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by Topsy I mean, that's cool and all but.. How much film that size could you shoot (and get higher resolution) for that price? I mean, sure, 12mp is technically enough, but I'm not sure I deem 12mp on a 9x11 enough?.. As I mentioned above, it's not about the megapickles. It's about the control that a view camera gives you. I agree, though, for many people it would be more sensible to shoot a film view camera and professionally scan the results. But there will be some artists who will embrace the immediacy that digital large format photography offers them. If I had an unlimited budget (and I'm quietly confident that this weekend's UK National Lottery is coming my way), I'd buy one

03-26-2018, 03:22 PM	#8
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	Base ISO of 2100!!! And less than a penny-a-pixel! Cool tech! It looks like the sensor is actually a glass plate with the photodiodes and CMOS circuitry deposited on to the glass substrate using the same manufacturing methods as TFT displays. The high base ISO suggests that the well depth isn't as high as a silicon wafer sensor could be but the total depth is still on the order of 10X that of the sensors in the K-1 or 645Z. Hopefully they've plated on a decent AR coating otherwise the lack of microlenses means the vignetting will be painful with wide lenses unless one uses an apodization filter on the lens. Oh, and a 165 mm f/5.6 lens on this beast will be "equivalent" to an 18 mm f/0.67 on FF.

03-26-2018, 03:41 PM	#9
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by photoptimist Base ISO of 2100!!! And less than a penny-a-pixel! Nice Originally posted by photoptimist Cool tech! It looks like the sensor is actually a glass plate with the photodiodes and CMOS circuitry deposited on to the glass substrate using the same manufacturing methods as TFT displays. The high base ISO suggests that the well depth isn't as high as a silicon wafer sensor could be but the total depth is still on the order of 10X that of the sensors in the K-1 or 645Z. At some point, I'm going to ask you nicely if you might direct me towards some reading to understand that properly. I'm technically (and, to some extent, electronically) minded enough that I'm sure I could, but right now my knowledge in that area is fractionally above zero. Is the level of knowledge you display the result of many years' learning, or could I grasp it (the basics, at least) with some intensive reading? Originally posted by photoptimist Hopefully they've plated on a decent AR coating otherwise the lack of microlenses means the vignetting will be painful with wide lenses unless one uses an apodization filter on the lens. The test shots definitely showed vignetting. Is that different to how it would appear on film, though? So long as it accurately represents the film equivalent, I personally wouldn't be too concerned. I mean, it's only $106,000 Originally posted by photoptimist Oh, and a 165 mm f/5.6 lens on this beast will be "equivalent" to an 18 mm f/0.67 on FF. You had me at "Cool tech!"...

03-26-2018, 03:45 PM - 3 Likes	#10
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	If it was a Pentax camera half the forum would be complaining that it's not got enough AF points.

03-26-2018, 03:50 PM - 2 Likes	#11
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	Originally posted by MarkJerling If it was a Pentax camera half the forum would be complaining that it's not got enough AF points. LOL! And the other half would be cheering that it's mirrorless and does 4k video.

03-26-2018, 04:01 PM - 1 Like	#12
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by MarkJerling If it was a Pentax camera half the forum would be complaining that it's not got enough AF points. Originally posted by photoptimist LOL! And the other half would be cheering that it's mirrorless and does 4k video. Yeah, I'm just waiting for the first person who criticises the frame rate and lens choice for "birds in flight" work...

03-26-2018, 04:03 PM	#13
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Originally posted by photoptimist LOL! And the other half would be cheering that it's mirrorless and does 4k video. 4K is so yesteryear. Originally posted by BigMackCam Yeah, I'm just waiting for the first person who criticises the frame rate and lens choice for "birds in flight" work... Yup! You've said it! LOL

03-26-2018, 04:18 PM	#14
Topsy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 625	Originally posted by BigMackCam As I mentioned above, it's not about the megapickles. It's about the control that a view camera gives you. I agree, though, for many people it would be more sensible to shoot a film view camera and professionally scan the results. But there will be some artists who will embrace the immediacy that digital large format photography offers them. Yes, my slow typing on my phone prevented me from seeing your above post. I'm happy to see it succeed, I suppose the price tag alone will create a small market for it, and I suppose for some studios and artists it'd be very convenient as you say. However for landscapes I'd prefer cobbling together a camera with an array of medium format sensors and something to move them, let's call it 'pickle-shift', to bridge the gap between them. A modular sensor. The flatbed scanner conversion from a few years ago impressed me too..

03-26-2018, 04:33 PM - 2 Likes	#15
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	Originally posted by BigMackCam Nice At some point, I'm going to ask you nicely if you might direct me towards some reading to understand that properly. I'm technically (and, to some extent, electronically) minded enough that I'm sure I could, but right now my knowledge in that area is fractionally above zero. Is the level of knowledge you display the result of many years' learning, or could I grasp it (the basics, at least) with some intensive reading? 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. https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs448a-10/sensors-noise-14jan10-opt.pdf https://www.visiononline.org/userAssets/aiaUploads/file/CVP_The-Fundamentals...-Chouinard.pdf Fundamentals of Image Sensor Performance Originally posted by BigMackCam The test shots definitely showed vignetting. Is that different to how it would appear on film, though? So long as it accurately represents the film equivalent, I personally wouldn't be too concerned. I mean, it's only $106,000 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.