Big megapixel camera?

[sharka23]

Thing about digital MF is it's no where near the size of most film MF, it's more like FF on steroids. I think the S2's sensor is 30x45mm, Hassleblads 33x44. In medium format film the smallest was 45x60, and laterly the most common 60x70.

There is a subtle difference when the light image falling on the sensor ( or film) is larger. In some (many) styles of pictures there is no perceivable difference, but in others it is there.

The recorded image on digital MF is nothing like as large as film MFs, and with the rapid gain in digital technology the benefit to many of using MF must be diminishing. Certainly nearly all the pros I knew who used MF film all use FF now There is one I can think of who uses Hassleblad digital.

The introduction of really good FF big megapixel cameras can only keep reducing the sales of MF - IMO.

So can't see companies like Canon or Nikon ever considering it !

I need to correct your post:

(the big) hasselblad sensor size is 40x54mm
same size like the phase one backs.

yes, the MF-film was 60mm tall but only 54mm are/were used !!
so effectively the big hasselblad and phase one sensors are exactly the
same size as the good old 645 MF systems.

and the difference between MF and FF is not only the size of the sensor.
CCD, better lenses, 16bit, fast flashsyncro /leaf shutter up to /800, ...

so there will remain a gap when canon introduces their big megapixel body.

thanks

 

[sagittariansrock]

Larger sensor is the advantage but not CCD
The advantage of MF will soon be 0 if they not start a collaboration with for example Sony, the CCD tech is old and there are only one manufacture left , Dalsa

I don't agree with that. CCD provides more uniformity at the cost of money and time. So if you don't care about money and speed of processing, you'd go CCD- just look at all the microscopes, for example.

 

[Sporgon]

@Sarka23, yes you're quite right about the 54mm height of recorded image on 120 film, it's a long time since I've used it now ! But my point really is that digital MF doesn't have the advantage of greatly increased size of recorded image that 6x7 had over 35mm. And 645 was always a little "ho-hum" against 35mm: a great loss of flexibility for a relatively marginal image gain.

Also MF lenses are not necessarily better than FF, the larger the format the more forgiving of the lens.

Your other points accepted, but you don't half have to pay for it.