A good B/W photo can be really nice.
It looks like this was taken with a Hasselblad. The square format, the short depth of field.
Short depth of field for people photos has been the one casualty of the digital revolution, since sensors are generally smaller than film formats were. I think somebody should make and market a reasonably priced "portrait" camera, consisting of a large sensor, but not necessarily super-high rez, 16MP might do it, and a good, fast portrait lens. Short telephoto with a large aperture. Again, for portraits it would not need to be the sharpest lens in the world, so maybe money could be saved there too.
Admittedly a reasonably priced alternative already exists, in the form of the Canon 5D with the economical, but very sharp 100mm F:2.0, see sample below. (OK, it's closer than you'd normally do a portrait.) I think altogether they may sell for less than $2,500 now. But an even larger sensor would be great. I think if Phase One (digital backs for medium format) for example got together with a camera maker and made this dedicated camera and they could sell it for less than $5,000, it would be a hit.
5 comments:
Mamiya did a digiback camera combo a while back for under 10K. The closest thing that phase has is the new phase one camera system but the price is nowhere near the $5000 mark. You might want to see what you could do with Pentax 67 lenses and a Canon Body. There was a post about using those lenses with the body on my digital tech blog: http://www.realworldworkflow.com
Eric
ebisaac at realworldworkflow dot com
Nice dress, reminded me of this one, I believe she was the actress in Beauty and the Beast (not KH).
The problem with your wish is that silicon devices are "sold by the area", and the price increases exponentially with the said area.
Just in case you wonder why, draw a circle of somewhere between 6 and 12 inches in diameter. This circle represents a semiconductor wafer. Now, fit a many rectangular sensors of the size you'd wish for in that circle. Finally, close your eyes and hit the circle with your pen 5 times at random locations (representing manufacturing defects). Open your eyes, and count how many sensors you get that have 0 defects.
Repeat the exercise with APS-C sized rectangles, and you will understand why large format sensors are so costly. Each wafer costs the same to process, irrespective of the number of devices on it...
As far as resolution goes, well, it has much less influence on the cost of a sensor, and that's why this parameter tends to be the first one to increase. Therefore, wishing for less wouldn't help much...
What we could look forward to, however, would be some adventurous startup who would use a technology other than crystalline silicon to make large format sensors. Using a manufacturing process such as those used to make modern LCD displays, an amorphous semiconductor based large-format sensor could be envisioned, for a price not much higher than that of an LCD display. The large cells would also pretty much guarantee decent light sensitivity, despite a less performing process...
The big question is, would there be enough buyers for an 8x10 digital back, even if it was cheap?
A few years ago we were talking about would it be possible to make a generic digital film to put into existing SLR's. We discussed digital backs, and film can methods. Are 8x10 backs generic? Or do they all have custom fit doors? The housing is a small cost compared with the sensor, but still, economies of scale. Ever noticed how many body kits there are for Corollas, and how few for Matrix's?
Yes, 8x10 is a generic format and many lenses, bodies and accessories are available for it. The 4x5 format is somewhat more common, convenience obliges.
Post a Comment