Two different anonymous sources got hints about a quite surprising new Sony camera. They have been told Sony will launch their own Sony branded medium format camera within the next 5-6 months. It will use the same 50MP 44x33mm sensor used by the $27,500 Hasselblad H5D-50c (here at BHphoto).
Both sources stressed to say that the camera will not compete against the Hasselblad, Pentax 645DII and Phase one using the same Sony sensor. The camera is “completely different“! And….good news…it’s cheaper than them 🙂
Don’t know if this could be a sot of medium format RX camera with fixed lens or a new interchangeable lens mount system. This part is pure SAR admin’s curiosity and not a rumor. But I want to know if…:
[poll id=”177”]
Note for the “medium format camera” sources:
Please be patient if I don’t post all what they send me. I am using the info they share to double if not triple check the quality of the information with trusted sources. But I would be happy if they can keep sending me more details and if they want they can create a fake gmail account to contact me directly and anonymously at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com. Thanks!
More about the new Sony sensor:
Sensor Type: 50 Megapixels CMOS (8272 x 6200, 5.3 × 5.3 μm)
Sensor Dimensions: 32.9 x 43.8mm (sensor is physically 70% larger than a Full Frame sensor)
Image Size: RAW 3FR capture 65MB on average. TIFF 8 bit: 154MB (on the Hasselblad H5D-50c).
———
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
——–
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
0 Responses
The RX1 is already a unique product. This would take the RX line to a complete new level. I can definitively see this camera appealing to those who would have used the Rolleiflex more than their 500CM’s for the compact aspect and the leaf shutter (which every RX camera so far uses)
So, is this the new Rolleiflex sans the second lens?
If it comes with a 40mm FOV equivalent lens, it would be appealing to both the 35mm FOV crowd and the 50mm FOV crowd, I think. Rolleiflex and Hassy’s classic 500 series all had 50mm FOV equivalent lenses but a slightly wider wouldn’t be a bad idea, I think.
Nice, nice.
V lenses from Hasselblad have built-in leaf shutters 😉
903SWC! The wide angle crowd is here!
that’s one neat camera, shame it’s hard to use it with digital backs (at least the current crop)
Not that I would not like such a camera, but a No because given the price of the RX1 I expect a MF version would be well out of my price range even if it was cheap compared to current MF offerings.
At $5000 definitely no, at $3500 definitely yes if the lens is a 50mm equivalent, at $3000 yes with a 35 to 50mm equivalent
I’d like a Ferrari for $10k, definitely yes if the engine is a v-12, at $7500 if it’s a v- 8.
Oh, right, a consumer should never state its market preferences. I wouldn’t buy Ferraris for 10k nor for 7.5k, as I live in a mountain region with very narrow roads and Ferrari have no utility for me as a consumer. But I guess you know better!
The monetary value you are giving the potential RX MF camera is out of touch with the standard digital MF price range. More so when you think of CMOS technology compared to the, what, 95% of MF CCD cameras out there?
As I mention below. This is the price for a body and lens. Even if you cannot change lenses, if the performance is really good, it is well worth $5K, whether you like it or not.
Sorry to disappoint you Hendrick, but you cannot state what the perceived value of a good is to a single consumer. Obviously I’m well conscious that I’m not in the target market for digital MF at the present day, I would be if the price would be lower, if I worked with photography in a way that a digital MF would make me earn more money and thus justify the investment or if I had a higher income. But nobody can state that “it’s well worth it, wheter you like it or not”. I simply told the price point of an imagined good that would make me buy it.
I did not say I know better, merely stating my preferences as a consumer. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic.
I never wrote that I know better, I merely stated my consumer preferences. Unfortunately it is not realistic, and I shall remain Ferrari-less. Sony has been throwing a lot of darts at the wall lately, maybe your [seemingly unrealistic] preference will become reality.
Misunderstanding then 🙂 I agree with you about the fact being non realistic
Who cares, just make it. It’s a better halo product than the Hasselbland Failer.
It will be great if it is a mirrorless med format camera, with adaptors to use Hasselblad lenses and Phaseone lenses!
for V lenses for Hasselblad you’d need to have ability to attach sync cable
Will consider seriously if it is like a Mamiya 7 with RX1 style.
Sony should focus on supporting its two *existing* systems (or quasi-systems, as for now) instead of even more diversifying its product range and creating third quasi-system. E-system has currently a decent range of bodies that need more high quality, verstaile & fast lenses. A-system has few high quality, fast, versatile lenses, but the design of many dates back to 1980s and is easily outperformed by rivals; it needs a real “flagship” too, which could compete with 1D-whatever and D4-whatever to attract agencies, photojournalists and win some competitions: this is what makes people say the real photographers use Canikons.
If it’s a fixed lens, then it’s not a system.
admin writes: “Don’t know if this could be a sot of medium format RX camera with fixed lens or a new interchangeable lens mount system”, so he doesn’t rule out a new system. That’s what I’m relating to.
Okay. I agree with you about introducing new mount – it is not necessary.
The pro lineup for the a-mount is actually pretty good – the Zeiss primes and the Zeiss/G zooms are all fairly modern designs. They could possibly do with weather sealing on a few models, but the only obvious gaps are a Zeiss 35mm and 100mm macro and a t&s. They may not be affordable on an amateur budget, but for a pro they’ll cover most of the bases.
What Sony’s really lacking is the combination of support, accessories and marketing to break into the pro market, assuming the a99ii makes up for the shortcomings in the a99.
Weather sealing is the one area. The other is the AF drive: all the Zeiss/G primes (except for the fresh 50/1.4) use noisy screwdrive, which makes them unsuitable for video work. Sony 35/1.4G is antique Minolta design which performs poorly compared to state-of-the-art lens. 70-200/2.8 G2 zoom has very small changes compared to old Minolta 70-200/2.8, mainly in AR coating.
I agree with your last sentence, yet I see there still needs some work to be done in the lens department.
The 24mm is SSM.
Best part of the story will be Hasselblad jazzing that thing up and selling it for 20k.
You give them too little credit, it will be at least $50000 if they rebadge. David Lynch will buy two!
Hassleblad already announced a camera with this sensor. It costs more than 20k.
Yes, that’s part of the joke.
Awesome, another system that Sony can release and ignore.
Wow! That rumour is something quite…different….
I would buy one if there is a clear advantage over the RX1, esp in terms of DOF, noise, and not too much bigger. But if it is fixed lens I would expect it to be more of a studio camera rather than the compact camera that the RX1 is
i’ll buy one, but only after the price drops 6 mos later. After the deep discounts Sony dropped onto th A7(R), I’m not going to go preordering cameras from them again. I’ll definitely wait at least 6 months after new releases.
the best part in waiting are the people who buys things on impulse then sell it back on ebay. I just say a mint condition A7 for 1200 with receipt. I am a bit pissed I did not wait as I normally do.
If true, it would be incredible. I will have to fly to Japan to buy one (if it comes with an EVF, hotshoe and flash sync port) 🙂
(It will be far more expensive here in the EU. 🙁 )
I think the admin has this rumor right. It’s not will they release a MF camera but more how. Will it have a fixed lens or what mount will it use?
Currently sony sells all the mf sensors and does not produce a mf camera.
This is economically a great position to be in.
It seems unlikely that they would jeopardise that by producing a competing mf camera.
Perhaps they will bypass the conflict by producing a very different type of camera and that would qualify as the surprise sony keeps hinting at.
Agreed – it would make little business sense for Sony to release a camera with the same MF sensor for half the price of the cheapest camera put out by one of their three MF customers (Pentax, $10k).
History and precedent show that they have never undercut Nikon in the 35mm product space.
Well not necessarily true. While Nikon was selling the D3x for $8000 Sony undercut them with the A900 for $3000. They used the same sensor but Nikon’s was modified to their spec which was tuned and optimized for great high ISO. Sony was tuned for maximum color fidelity at base up to ISO 1600.
Thanks for the info, I never realized that the sensors were the same since the performance was so different. That said, the $3000 a900 was not a cheap camera compared to similar options. The Canon 5d2 was $2600, released about the same time. It was not really undercutting competitors. The a900 lacked features such as the video abilities of the Canon & Nikon and it was in a prosumer body – of which there were many options available at or below the price of the a900.
I think what Sony may be producing here is an MF equivalent
of the A7 duo. You would buy the basic camera body and in the same way use
adaptors to accommodate lenses already made by the established MF manufacturers,
for whom Sony supply the sensor. Sony would not be in conflict with these guys
because they would have no lenses of their own to fit this body, well not yet!
That would most definitely be a direct conflict ( competition ) therefore I would not expect Sony to do that.
Yes, we will just have to wait and see on that one, it all depends on Sony’s contractual supply obligations I suppose. From what you are saying though, you sound as if you favour an RX type camera may be coming?
Personally I have no use for mf.
I do almost exclusively macro and telephoto work.
MF would reduce dof to virtually useless unless I were to shoot at f64.
My 600mm that I currently use on my a77 would need to be about 3000mm.
To be honest I’ll be more surprised if they don’t release something using their mf sensor… It makes sense to have a body using it, especially if they’re seriously targeting the pro market.
I would buy such camera if and only if it would use Contax 645 AF mount.
back in the 90` almost every professinal photograpjer used and owned a mf system, but the insane price levels of digital mf kept most of them out and digital mf became mostly a luxury product for rich amateurs . if sony goes the same route as with the a7 i´m sure many of those old mf lenses out there get a secound life. i am a hassselblad user but i would buy a sony mf as soon as such a camera is available.
V lenses work great on the a7R!
MF is 70% bigger than FF (well, this actually it’s smaller than all traditional MFs).
FF is more than 100% bigger than APS.
Going from FF to MF yields less relative improvements in IQ compared to going from APS to FF.
Going from FF to MF costs way more than going from APS to FF.
Not really exciting imo. Sony is probably trying to suck out the lasts bits of R&D money spend into CMOS before transitioning to next gen. tech (which is a perfectly reasonable strategy). The next gen. FF sensor will probably be much better than this MF sensor anyways.
You are probably right with your prediction but if the release dates are arranged such a way -1 year after the debut of the MF sensor for the new tech FF Nikon cams and 2-2.5 years to incorporate them in Sony E or A mount cams- the prospects are bright for Sony. If the industry does not collapse altogether by that time!
Thats why it dosen’t make sense to go with a totally new mount, but a fixed lens camera, despite very limiting, might be suitable solution for some. especially if a couple of versions, e.g. a wide angle/landscape version and a medium-tele/portrait version
Just what we need is a whole set of new decentered Sony
lens.
The deal killer would be a fixed lens, plus why a small end MF sensor? The a7R is not only full frame (small format) 36MP, but can handle numerous different lenses from other manufacturers. If Sony was going MF why not a similar design? Like a Fuji 670 body with true full MF sensor.
there’s no such a sensor on the market (at least for photographic applications), the largest sensors are from Dalsa at 53.9×40.4 I can’t imagine how much would it cost to have such a large sensor as 6×7 🙂
Hence I said 670 body ( thin, mirrorless) not 6×7 sensor… 6×7 sensor would eliminate too many lenses (645 crowd). A 56×36 sensor would be ideal ( Leaf Aptus 10 size) .
Same way E mount managed it…..
Now i think of it i’ll bet they release a pro 35mm with MF sensor that can work with normal FF lenses or new zeiss MF sensor ones. (it will likely have the same style lens on sensor system FF E uses) so it can handle the sharper angle an MF lens through an A-mount hole would need….
Looking at the past two years, I wouldn’t be surprised if the next flagship A-mount camera has that Medium Format sensor inside.
How can an A mount camera have a mf sensor inside?
While I suspect a fixed lens RX camera to surface first, I agree that if Sony were to use this sensor in an interchangeable body, it’s likely to be A-mount.
I think it’s unlikely that Sony would create a new mount. So between the A and E mounts, only a mirrorless A-mount body would be able to sufficiently house a sensor of this size, allowing the following:
-Current full frame A-mount lenses would be able to use the oversized sensor in a true multi-aspect ratio fashion. Meaning that you could shoot any aspect ratio you wanted while utilizing the full 43mm image circle of the lens. Only issue being that some lenses have rear masks that may cause vignetting.
-Current medium format lenses (645 and larger) could be used via adapter, utilizing the full sensor real estate.
-Sony could potentially produce future A-mount lenses to project larger image circles that would cover this sensor (minimum 55mm image circle). The side benefit of these lenses MF ready A-mount lenses would be exceptional corner to corner sharpness when used on standard full frame A-mount bodies.
I would most certainly buy such a camera! My 35/2.8 PC-Distagon waits in anticipation…
The problem with the RX styled camera would be the size of it. You would need quite large battery to drive fast processing unit for live view. You are dealing with massive data stream off sensor in comparison with smaller sensor (36×24) and 16-bit read out instead of 14-bit. All that requires a lot of processing power and a lot of juice to drive it.
I would love fixed lens ‘almost’ medium format (44×33 is a strange crop) walk around camera though. That’s the beauty of Mamiya 6 system with the collapsible lenses for it, even though it’s 6×6 format, it is compact.
forgot to add, that PhaseOne’s DF+ is large camera yet it ‘just’ manages 30fps live view with this new CMOS sensor. Also having the same sensor as PhaseOne and Hasselblad backs doesn’t mean you’ll get the same IQ, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes, it’s not just a sensor.
Yes you need a lot of processing power, but they can go dual-BionzX, or even triple, which probably would make sense at the MF procepoints.
well the body itself… someone was saying it might be ff dslr sized?… would mean there could be bigger battery space. if we could get the same battery life (cry a lil here) as the rx1, wouldnt that still be decent for the freedom of a smaller carry-around-able MF system? hopefully theyd also have some sort of plug in ability.
Medium format mirrorless would be a great photography tool. For portability, it can uses collapsible lens or even FF lenses. For a heavier setup, medium format lenses can be used(ala Pentax 645D). If tilt-shift operation is required, it can be used as a medium format digital back.
technically speaking, all view cameras are mirror less cameras 🙂 small alpa 12tc is great portable camera, would like to try one with PhaseOne IQ250 with live view, probably you could get away with focusing screen on it as new PhaseOne backs have high resolution screens and IQ250 reasonable refresh rate for live view
Yes please 😀
I wonder about that PL-lookalike mount (some Sony video mount I forgot the name of, I think it was two letters… PZ?) that the 4K prototype was equipped with… might that be large enough for a medium format sensor? It was at least larger than A-mount and had both A- and E-mount adapters.
it was stated in a video somewhere that people on the internet may have confused that camera which has PL mount and A mount (which was shown at NAB) with a camera that has A and E mount, it would make sense since the flange distance of PL and A are much closer than A and E
I think it was in the Q&A section of the last announcement they had when Sony announced more 4k stuff
No doubt Sony will use the same algorithm and compress down to 8 bits like they do on every other “14 bit” camera they make.
source?
The source is his trollness!
poor guy… parents named him Maxine… 😉 hehehe
Medium format(serious pro. sector) + fixed lens(amateur sector) = bullshit 🙂
you truly have no clue, do you? http://www.gf670.com
Rolleiflex (many variations with differing focal lengths and apertures) was not bullshit.
Used by Richard Avedon, Irving Penn and many others.
it seems, from what ive notice, that a lot of mf shooters dont go around carrying like 10 lenses with them and swapping out. 2-3 seems to be average FROM WHAT IVE SEEN(this is a spazzy internet comment disclaimer for those with internet aspergers syndrome) so i could see a pro just buying 2 – 3 cameras with fixed lenses. the individual combos would be smaller, and should have better IQ (rx1 seems better than the a7+35/2.8 from what ive seen) that all sounds like WIN for a mf shooter to me(as a non mf shooter). similar to having 2-3 ff fixed lens cameras vs 1 larger camera and 2-3 larger lenses and the hassle of swapping them out. shrug
Yep, that’s the philosophy Sigma chose with their DP series, 3 small fixed lens cameras. It also removes lens+mount headache and possible inaccuracies in the fit and allows for better marriage between the sensor and the lens.
Hasselbland, Phase One medium format have no fixed lens cameras. Furthermore digital back + camera + lens = the right formula for professionals. More options, more freedom. All other stuff for enthusiast, or for limited exceptions.
This could be very interesting, Sony my start out by introducing a medium format fixed lens camera in a form factor similar in size to a current full frame digital camera (A99, 5DM3, D800 etc.) mimicking the concept of the RX-1/1r. Then later expand to interchangeable lenses possibly using current medium format lens mount technology. Sony would then bring medium format technology into the 21’st century by integrating features most come to expect in a modern camera.
Considering that buying MF just for the sensor format is mostly ideology I’d ratherl ike to know first what other details come into play. Without the proper ecosystem I’d have a 5k paperweight. I.e the A7r does the same thing but cheaper and more flexible/better. With support for some nice leafshuttered focal lengths otoh we’d be on the course to something tempting…add an integrated Air Control/TTL and a high quality liveview instead of the reflex system…who takes preorders? 🙂
Sony is expected to introduce a 54mp ff stacked sensor early to mid 2015.
This would further reduce any possible advantage of producing a new mf interchangeable lens camera, that I already consider highly unlikely.
54mp in total would be 18mp per stack, thats absolute nonsense.
If they ever (highly doubtable) create an stacked sensor, it will either have 3×16 or 3×24 megapixels. That would be 48 or 108
For every other size they would have to create a complete new process for creating sensors.
I was specifically told 54mp …18x3mp stacked…introduced in early to mid 2015.
Believe anything you want.
Mysterious. I heard 1:1 the identical rumor about canon doing this.
Dont know if its true with canon either, but at least they are known to produce 18mp chips 😉
Vamp
You cleary know absolutely zero about sensors and you argumments are totally without the smallest shred of merrit.
I have wasted enough time with you for today..I suggest you read a little more about
Bayer array
Stacked sensrs
Demosaicing
So your future arguments might make a little more sense.
I would enjoy debating with you but you currently lack ANY knowledge of the the topic you are trying too debate.
Canon has a 120mp apcH senor…that will shoot 9.5 frames/second and may introduce it shortly after the 54mp Sony sensor that will be used by Sony Nikon and others.
This is a stacked sensor..it IS a whole new process for creating sensors.
Sensors are produced in multiple steps, the step of the silicon chip on which the photodiods are is independend from the step the they are used (for example before they have bayer matrix and before they are getting stacked (if ever))
Sony have machines producing 16, 24 and 36 mp silicon chips.
For createing 18 megapixel silicium chips, they would have to use a whole new machine, just because one single sensor uses 18mp chips?
Why the shell should they do that? Why not just use 16 megapixels? The technology is already there and it would be only an very minimal increase in production cost for an stacked sensor.
Why create a fucking whole new Sensor which would bust the price into the sky?
Sony even doesnt create own Sensors for their own, they use the same sensor they produce for Nikon, Pentax an so on, to keep cost low. Because all of this business is fucking expensive and Sony is in high depts.
Why blow all this cost effecient sensor production into nothing just to use 18 except of 16 Megapixels?
Clearly you live on another planet or you would know by now that Sony just purchased an old Nintendo factory to increase current production of cmos.
The are completely retooling one of thier existing facrtories to exclusively produce stacked sensors..new technolgy.
Furthermore Sony currently produces many more sensor sizes than you jave indicated.
Lastly you obviosly have no idea what you are talking about.
A 24mp bayer sensor is 6mp r, 6mp b and 12mp g…not 24mp.
A 36mp bayer is 9mp r, 9mp b and 18mp g
The 6 or 9 mp color files ..yes thats all they are as raw data..are then interpolated by a process called DEMOSAICING ..google it you might actually learn something…4 times from 4 differrent pixel locations to produce a 24 or 36mp file.
Bayer does not actually produce any real color pixels… they are all interpolated
Your imaginary manufactuing process is wrong.
All sensors begin with the same size silicon wafer and then multiple chips are bult on each wafer.
Thes are then seperated later in the process.
Does that mean you’re shooting Sigma/Foveon now because they have APS-C stacked sensors and that reduce “any possible advantage” that FF has?
Why would anyone buy a sigma camera that only works with special sigma mount sigma lenses..they would really need lots of money to throw in the garbage.
If compatibility is the main issue then you should be pleasantly surprised to know that a Sigma SA mount bodies can be very easily converted to the Canon EF mount to make them fully compatible with AF (and sometimes IS) of Canon lenses.
Here’s one for sale:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234180/0?keyword=sigma,sd1m
Andrea I think in the past you have hinted at Sony using the MF CMOS sensor but not for a couple of years.
I expect if they are to bring a camera to the market this year using te 50MP CMOS sensor it will be a beefed up RX camera with a fixed Zeiss lens, though I think many people would prefer a camera which takes inter changable lenses, but that would require a new lens mount and lenses. Sony currently just doesn’t have resourses for a new range of lenses.
Shut up. Here’s my Credit Card. Bill me. BUT I want a compact & fast leaf shutter lens/es. Thank you Sony.
If it does come with a fixed Zeiss lens optimized for the sensor, I hope it will be an ultra wide-angle. That would make for a killer landscape camera! With such a large sensor it could easily be cropped down without losing detail.
That means no third-party lenses right? Only overpriced Sony Zeiss Shit right? Oh dammit.
But anyway, this is just a rumor. Sony will neither produce an medium format camera (why should they), also they wont produce an 54MP stacked Sensor (why should they?)
Can anyone explain here why Sony should change anything on their current line-up? Everything else will most likely be a no-go.
Also the Sensor would have 48 Megapixels, not 50. For 50 Megapixel Sony would need to create a complete whole new Sensor design which is highly unlikely
Its either 48 Megapixels or 72, everything else gives no sense.
It’ll be e-mount trick…. larger sensor in an a-mount with lenses on sensor and zeiss lenses for larger sensor (35mm ff crop for current). another reason it’s a good idea is any 3rd party lens company wouldn’t need to build a new mount…..
It cost northing to build a new mount. Its a cheap peace of metal. To build new lenses for a new Sensor is about 99% of the price.
Just tell me one good reason to use medium format over Full-Frame. And please dont say Noise, current FullFrame Cameras are able to shoot up at ISO 25’600 with little noise, thats already darkness (nobody shoots in darkness? Why? Its dark lol)
If there wasn’t a good reason nobody would shoot it…. more pixels, more detail, without knackering everything by making pixels on sensor too small for low light….. it’s not about low light….. it’s about adding a more detailed image without degrading the quality
Detail for what?
Normally if you shoot a face, you want to look at the face and not just the top of the nose.
Even if you print at 20×30 meters, you would have to step back so many meters to see the whole face on the image that 24 Megapixels are still more than enough.
I never get why people are so about hunting megapixels. The only advantage is that you need less focal distance as you can crop.
But beside cropping, you dont have any advantage.
If you shoot a landscape, you want to look at the beautiful landscape, not just at a single tree. To see all of the beautiful landscape, you have look it at screen size (2 Megapixels) and as said, even printed, the larger you print, the more you have to step back.
There is an limit for usefull resolution and 36 Megapixel already broke this limit, so why adding more? Beside cropping you do not have any advantage.
But you have huge disadvantages. To outresolve the Sensor 100% (what you have to do if you want to crop) you camera gear will be more than 3kg with an fixed focal-length lense.
And you have to pay at least 5000$, are you kidding? Why should Sony do this? Why waste money so hard?
I think even 36x36mm would seem more reasonable than this absurd 44x33mm size, this MF is only less than 70% larger than FF, much smaller a difference than the difference in size between FF and APS-C in proportion (125%). I don’t see a point in this upgrade if it really is for Dof. 36x36mm is only slightly smaller than 44x33mm, but you get complete FF crop both vertically and horizontally, and you shoot a square format when using the entire sensor, what MF was originally all about.
They should make a 36x36mm stacked sensor, so detail is pixel for pixel instead of interpolated. It should be easier for current 135 lenses to cover this frame too.
Square sensors should be the norm (!).
However, if you are implying a square sensor to capture the 35mm light circle (I.e., A-mount, E-mount, FX, etc.), you are limited to 30.6mm x 30.6mm.
You mean 135 lenses cover strictly (35^2+35^2)^(1/2)? Not 1mm more? I thought telecentric lenses usually cover more than what’s needed. Well if that really is the case, then all the more reason to adapt projection lenses I guess? My Cinelux Premiere is a lot of fun and covers more than the 35mm FF image circle, although it’s meant for Super 35.
Of course – lenses cover the image circle that their design limits them to, which may be greater or less than the image circle for their intended use – the latter with well known consequences.
Of course… We’d be lucky enough if 1/4 of 135 lenses would cover 36×36, but that’s already a lot of flexibility.
Sorry, (35^2+24^2)^(1/2)…got a little mixed up typing on my phone.
Baby steps, Sony needs to prove the process at the smaller size then they can hopefully move up to a 6×4.5 equivalent sensor, which is about as big as the MF is using these days. 56 x 41.5mm, something like that. 2324 square mm vs 864 for FF. I expect to see it in a few years. Hopefully if Sony does go MF system they do so with a bigger sensor in mind.
36×36 is just one ugly 1.5x factor, look at cfv-16 – it’s been done, long time ago, no need for it all your lenses you had just became a bit unusable with strange AOV and not so hot DoF control. Original square was 6×6 or 56×56 to be precise.
Do your math bro…
Crop factor: apsc and ff: [(36^2+24^2)^(1/2)]/[(24^2+16^2)^(1/2)]=1.5
Ff and 36×36:[(36^2+36^2)^(1/2)]/[(36^2+24^2)^(1/2)]=1.177
I agree with you that a x1.5 factor is awkward, I’ve tried and given up( amazing how some manage to use a wide x2 on m43 as a normal), but 1.177 really is fine. Besides, it’s got the square shape, at least.
Sorry for the confusion, that’s what I meant. MF lenses on 36×36 sensor. I use it form time to time as I like square format but due to the crop it isn’t the same as when I shoot on film. That’s the thing, with digital the golden trio for V system goes from 50-80-150 to 40-60-120 at 48×36 sensor size – not keen to replace all lenses.
dynamic range and depth of field
Yeah, as too much depth of field isnt already an problem on Full Format. Even at 24mm you have to use Aperture 11 or even more to take photos of landscapes, the Lenses are getting horrible worse on apertures of 16 and more (depending on the lense).
And with f/1.4 you have enought dof that with an portrait only the top of the nose is sharp.
Does anyone really need more dof?
Also Dynamic Range isnt increased, dynamic range is about signal handling and A/D Convertion, as long noise doesnt limit it, there is no increase in dynamic range.
DR is increased – pixels capturing more light – if the pixels are larger.
Which is why a7 has more DR than nex7.
there is more to DR than simple pixel size:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___896_795
Are you that blind? Is it daylight? Lol
It’s the same benefits of going FF over Aps-c or aps-c over mFT.
And do you think being able to select iso 25600 means it’s actually usable? ROFL
The reason why you use f/11 on a 24mm lens is because you don’t know how to take photos properly.
And yes, DR does improve. Also i bet you think DR is just the difference between lowest and highest response per pixel. LOL
What do you mean by the sensor not having 50 Mp? The new sensor Sony made for Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax does have 50 Mp.
New a99 (or above a99) 35mm full frame with a larger than FF sensor with 35mm crop mode for current lenses and a set of zeiss lenses for full MF work…… (exactly what they just did on e-mount with 7/7r)
This would be epic as it could give MF quality into less common markets
Surely you don’t think building it around the A mount actually helps?
Didn’t say it helps, just they did that trick recently on a7/a7r to install big sensor on smaller body, same trick could allow sony to produce a 35mm size pro body with MF sensor and lenses but still work with your current FF 35mm kit….. a body that size is handy for MF as most current options are very expensive and quite large
Big sensor bodies having mechanical compatibility to use lenses made for small sensors is a total gimmick. The whole reason why people go for big sensors is because they want the benefits of… the bigger sensor… ! The backwards compatibility is a thing that manufacturers put in there to quieten people who have invested in small sensor lenses but everyone at the end of the day knows that lenses that cover the whole sensor is the way to go.
Even people who buy budget FF cameras like 6D, D600/D610, A7, etc. for the first time don’t bother to use APS-C lenses for anything other than to check out what happens (or out of plain ignorance). This new thing is a DMF camera that’ll cost $5000 or more from the guesses here and people capable of putting down that kind of money will look elsewhere for lens options… not existing A mount lenses to use in a crop mode.
Ok! If its little bit true its perfect in one case. Ok camera is medium format with fixed lens in body like RX1 for example about 5000$.
Lets take this camera, mechanical remove build in lens and with adaptor use body for any Middle format lenses available. Only one problem in this case is focal plane – if its on sensor – its good, if its in lens not good.
Good Idea. Only worst marketing with hardware-software limitations can fall it down…
where does the $5k price come from. that’s one of the dumber things on the internet right now. lol.
Focal plane in the lens? Yeah, that would be bad alright. But I suppose you meant leaf shutter.
Maybe a multi crop oversized sensor (similar to the idea first in the digital still camera world with the Panasonic GH1) with FF mount that allows for a vertical portrait crop (cropfactor just 1.09) that almost covers an entire 35mm FF, thus no meainginful need to rotate the camera, especially when using an EVF.
And for example all common aspect ratio’s while maintaining a FF FOV (1.0 cropfactor), such as 3:2, 4:3, 16:9, etc. Possible even a 33x33mm square crop, if the lens projection allows it.
That, with A-mount and a specially made UWA lens/lenses covering the whole sensor, would be a hit.
I like the idea of dedicated cameras, like the RX-1 being able to be considered a dedicated “street shooting” camera.
I know some guys who do studio work, and one of them just told me that he would buy it and bolt it to his studio tripod, and it would never leave that mount. Fair enough, if an all-in-one meets 80 or 90% of your needs, then go for it, if you do dedicated-type sessions. There is nothing preventing one from owning another system to round out the other 10 or 20%.
I applaud this general direction, as begun by the RX-1. The only place it would seem to not make sense is at the long end, for wildlife photography.
actually the rx-1 is a pretty sorry street shooter compared to other fixed lens cameras.
Pretty sure Vivian Maier’s Rolliflex was light hungry yet she made images that no Ricoh GR or X100 could. Great street photography has nothing to do with deep DOF and fast AF.
if you are still in the name dropping phase of the photography journey,
I loudly garlic-laugh in your face.
He is not those people nor is he arrogant /a numbskull and he is a damned good photog! Think before you spew please!
bs, rx-1 is spectacular for street photography, you don´t know what you are talking about..
I dont know if you know but DOF can be adjusted and old style street photography doesn’t rely on AF.
I don’t know any other camera that is used by more pretentious and clueless people than a X100. I say this as a person who has been a fan and a user of Fujis since way before people discovered X100s
just because something was done a certain way in the past in the absence of modern tools, doesn’t mean it’s better that way, Einstein. I mean, I used to spend 1400 a month feeding my Polaroid backs on my contax 645. it worked, but it wasn’t ideal, and I’d never go back voluntarily.
funny you talk about photo gear pretentiousness, when you are just a gear hound and not a photographer. enjoy those overpriced fuji MF rangefinders, I know they are still sitting on your credit card. lol.
I can only agree with the Einstein part. But you missed the ball on the rest of it. I said “old style street photography” for a reason. That’s the established meaning of “street photography”… go and ask anyone who is bent on that. It’s not to say that using AF and non-Leicas for street photography is wrong. You didn’t say it was the new kind. And even then, the X100’s AF is crap.
I hate to call myself a photographer because it makes people associate me with the likes of clueless jokers who do dumb things like shooting Polaroid on 645 cameras. But I do use pretty much all my cameras and I shoot almost every day. And no… have never bought anything on a loan or put it on a credit card to sit there. That’s for dudes like you LOL
you are just another internet amateur with G.A.S. your portfolio is sleep therapy.
Would an idiot who shoots polaroid on 645 know anything about anything? LOL
it’s called testing exposure. we had to do things like this before the days of digital, boy. you know absolutely NOTHING. please shut your mouth.
And what a limited knowledge of film you have. Look in to how response curves are different between even regular film emulsions… let alone Polaroid. Also the best you have done is 645… what a noob 😀
typical amateur wiki-esque nerdbaggery. you are NOT a photographer.
Why? Because because I know how to use a light meter, real film and formats larger than 645? ROFL
read my post again:
“just because something was done a certain way in the past in the absence of modern tools, doesn’t mean it’s better that way, Einstein. I mean, I used to spend 1400 a month feeding my Polaroid backs on my contax 645. it worked, but it wasn’t ideal, and I’d never go back voluntarily.”
I can tell you are not a college graduate.
Formats larger than 645 are modern? LOL
I’m not a college graduate? ROFL… you should stick to your area of expertise… conquering eels perhaps.
explain what that has to do with anything in my above quoted post. or st*u.
interesting, you might use good old sunny 16 rule or a light meter (with addition to adjust exposure to whatever you’re after) – saves money on polaroid over period of time
shut your MOUTH
What? have I offended you in any way that you need to react like that? Or are you clicking ‘reply’ to wrong comment? In any case, you might want to keep it down or go and play with your pimples if you’re not old enough to behave appropriately.
Sony can make 2 different versions compact-ish MF cameras with fixed lenses and tempting prices they might fit well with someones needs. If Zeiss are given the freedom to design a couple of dedicated lenses (for two different versions, not interchangeable) without the registration distnce limitation similar to RX1/r even the shutter can be built into the lens, etc, MF can probably be made significantly more compact, potentially cheaper and the lenses optimised for the sensor. They can use dual, even triple, BionzX to provide the processing power and they have another game changer(s) on their hands!
The speed of the a7r means it could already use dual Bionz x. Sony’s just holding back.
oh oh please please.. another sony mount with no lenses for it…..
RX: Fixed Lens
“This part is pure SAR admin’s curiosity and not a rumor.”
So, whether or not its RX isnt set. You’d have to think RX would be the way to go, both because it makes it cheaper and because then Sony has an excuse for not supporting the lens line. But, then who would buy it?
Sony could almost make a “Digital IMAX” from that sensor…….
There already is a digital imax camera. Its based on the Sony F65.
Aw…no…tell me about completely different when you release a non-cropped 6×6 medium format!
I’d love that too.
that would be interesting but I think the target market would be for start up professionals and it has to have inter-changable lenses. A medium format camera with a fixed lens is pretty useless in my opinion……
50MP is not necessary unless you are doing super large prints for clients; any enthusiast do not need 50MP lol
Consider that Rolleiflex and Fuji made fixed lens medium format cameras for decades. A fixed lens digital might still have a market. I would like to see one with a black and white sensor!
yeh but that’s a very small niche market…..not something Sony should pursue if they want to maximize their bottom line
minipixels.net | Automotive Photography + Design
shhhh..enthusiast think they need always next camera w/more mp and in 10 years we’ll have 108 mp cameras (of course 36mp will be scoffed at as dinasour toy)
I would vote for FF 54 Mpix which is equivalent to 24Mpix on APS-C e.g. A6000, A77, NEX7 etc
+1
who needs that large shots, are you in production of large sized publicity panels.
Having more MPs and not using it all the time is better than not having and needing it.
Some dpreview-reading jokers out there still think that more MPs mean more noise LOL
And here we go again … Sony and the lens dilemma 😉
They’ve been long offer an option to use adapter to fit different mount. Maybe this one also offer the same option to speed up the adoption.
what if its an RX and has fixed lens?
What I would buy from Sony is a full manual focusing camera in the NEX-7 style body with a FF sensor of 24 mpix and with manual lenses in a correct price range. If Sony does such a camera, they will find many customers.
You do realize no matter how good RXes are, they’re still part of the ‘consumer aimed’ Cybershots.
Now, imagine Cybershots with medium frames…
If it’s true this only means one thing, Sony WANTS Leica thoroughly dead. It’s personal lol.
“no matter how good RXes are, they’re still part of the ‘consumer aimed’ Cybershots”
Er, no. Cybershot is Sony’s term for everything with a fixed lens.
Alpha is everything with interchangable lenses.
And within Alpha, the E-mount is now focused on consumers while the A-mount is aimed at enthusiasts and (semi)pros (with an obvious overlap at the high-E/low A-end). And the FE mount, well, never mind that one.
IIRC when the RX1 came out Sony stated something that this was deliberately done under the Cybershot moniker to show that Cybershots were NOT just point-and-shoots and travelzooms.
There are several reasons why a medium format RX camera like this would be exciting for professional wedding photographers. But… the biggest reason wouldn’t be High Detail, High Dynamic Range, or Less Noise. The main reason why wedding photographers would embrace a camera like this would be because they could stop shooting film.
Yes. You read that correctly.
You may think I’m crazy, but I assure you, there are several professional photographers out there who are still shooting film for weddings. And what’s even more shocking is that many of these film-shooting wedding photographers aren’t die-hards who never switched to digital. Nope. Many of them recently SWITCHED to film within the last couple of years. It’s a trend. And it’s not craziness. It actually produces stunningly beautiful results which cannot be replicated on any full frame DSLR with it’s 36x24mm sensor.
Here are a few examples of some of the best photographers who shoot film for all their wedding photography, some of whom are spearheading this movement through their workshops and seminars at major wedding photography conferences like WPPI held in Las Vegas each March…
http://josevilla.com
http://jonaspeterson.com
http://tecpetajaphoto.com
http://jonathancanlasphotography.com (and his http://filmisnotdead.com workshops)
http://www.estherandgabe.com
http://www.sandovalstudios.com
Plus… there are scores of photographers who are emulating this look (quite handily I might add) by purchasing a Contax 645 AF camera and shooting exclusively with the standard Carl Zeiss 80mm f/2 lens. See here: http://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=contax%20wedding
The reason for this dramatically different look is twofold. Yes. The normal lens for the Contax 645 produces a very shallow depth of field look, but it’s also devoid of the barrel distortion that most fast 50mm prime lenses for 35mm photography suffer from. And… Because the normal field of view on a 6×4.5cm “sensor” (120 film) or on Phase One’s full frame 53.9×40.4mm digital backs that can be mounted on a 645 Contax, Mamiya, or Phase One camera is produced by an 80mm lens (not a 50mm lens), there’s a lot more compression with the same normal field of view.
Now… by compression, I’m not talking about a reduction in file size. I’m talking about the photographic term compression which refers to objects in the background appearing “closer” to objects in the foreground – a foreshortening of distance which is especially lovely when creating an environmental portrait of a person or a couple. It allows you to still compose your frame with a whole lot of the surroundings in your portrait (like a 50mm on a full frame DSLR does), whilst maintaining that beautiful “bokeh look” that shooting with an 85mm f/1.4 on a full frame DSLR provides.
For some comparisons, a Contax 645 medium format camera with an 80mm f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Planar lens gives the equivalent field of view and depth of field of a 51.4mm f/1.3 lens on a full frame DSLR, and Mamiya’s manual-focus-only 80mm f/1.9 lens mounted on either a Mamiya 645 medium format camera or a Phase One medium format camera gives the equivalent field of view and depth of field of a 51.4mm f/1.2 lens on a full frame DSLR.
So… If Sony wanted to surpass both of those camera systems (with either film or a digital back mounted onto them) Sony would need to mount a fixed 64mm f/1.4 lens onto their medium format camera, resulting in a equivalent field of view and depth of field of a 51.3mm f/1.1 lens on a full frame DSLR.
If Sony does this right, they’ll be able to make the claim of the best combination for modern wedding portraiture of flattering compression, zero distortion, the shallowest depth of field with beautiful “bokeh” PLUS sharper details, higher dynamic range & less noise at high ISO than 120 film has or all existing medium format digital systems currently have.
It would be a massive win for Sony because there are a lot of wedding photographers who would kill to have the “look” of film in a digital camera. Make no mistake. The “look” of film isn’t a washed out, “pastel” colour palette look, nor is it a lowered contrast, murky black-point look (though both of those hideous post production techniques popularized by the “filters” in apps like Instagram, Hipstamatic, and VSCO Cam have tried their hardest to teach the world that the film “look” can be emulated in post production).
The “look” of film, as professional wedding photographers see it, is the look of an 80mm f/2 lens. It’s what we digital wedding photographers are competing against. And it’s high time that a camera manufacturer finally caught wind of this trend and built us the camera that will allow us to be competitive in the modern wedding photography market without having to take a giant step backwards and “start” shooting film (or… take a giant hit to our bottom line and invest in a Phase One full frame Digital back)
So… To sum it up. Sony would see great success with this medium format RX camera using their 43.8×32.9mm CMOS sensor if they release it with a 64mm f/1.4 lens (or anything around that, like a 60mm f/1.4, a 65mm f/1.4, or even a 70mm f/1.4, plus it would be most welcome if it were a leaf shutter lens, so that photographers could shoot at a flash sync speed of 1/500 of a second (or perhaps higher).
Here’s hoping!
Cheers,
Ben Welland, owner, http://byfieldpitman.com
P.S. Here are some recent wedding magazine covers that were shot on film with the Contax 645 and an 80mm f/2 lens. It’s a real trend folks!
Yep, I also know one wedding photographer who shoots in tandem 5DMK3 with Hassy V -> you can’t fake the look of Zeiss glass or any other MF lens on 6×6 negative – there simply is not way out of it.
Are you sure about the compression? Doesn’t it depend on the format? i.e. A 25mm lens covering the 135 frame adapted to a m4/3 body should give you FF 50mm angle of view but the 25mm compression, and a 25mm covering the m43 frame should give FF 50mm angle of view and the intended 50mm compression. That’s why I once tried to use a 35mm for 135 on my NEX-7 as a 50mm but had to return it. The compression and the angle simply didn’t match, and it felt awkward.
I’m glad people still take their time to shoot film. I’ve seen on Engadget an apprentice of um…” one of the top ten in the US”, so she claims, shoot m43 along with her mentor, and be mighty proud of it.
Hi S.Yu. You’re right. The compression would be slightly different. I was saying that to get the field of view of an 80mm f/2 on a 6×4.5cm negative on the new Sony sensor, you’d need to mount at 64mm f/1.4 lens onto it. To get the exact same compression as an 80mm lens, it would have to be an 80mm lens, regardless of the sensor size.
That’s… The exact opposite of what I meant. I meant that the compression of 50mm on FF=33mm on APS-C=25mm on m43, of course I mean native lenses with the appropriate image circle, not used cropped.
645, 80mm f/2
44×33 Sony DMF, 62.8mm f/1.57
35mm FF, 51.4mm f/1.28
So, no… the focal length also needs to change if you’re trying to match things between formats. The magnification should stay the same.
Yes. You’d have to mount a 63mm f/1.6 lens in front of Sony’s new sensor to match the field of view and match the depth of field of the 80mm f/2.
I suggested a 64mm f/1.4 because I was suggesting that Sony try and outdo the Contax “look” and produce a medium format fixed lens camera that yielded an even shallower depth of field than the Contax.
Compression though, is not the same as field of view (or magnification). The compression effect that I’m talking about is the foreshortening of the distance between objects in the scene that a telephoto lens has and a wide angle lens does not. And while an 80mm lens isn’t THAT much more telephoto than a 50mm lens is… It does affect the look.
A portrait taken with an 80mm lens on medium format, taken by standing in the same spot, at the same distance to your subject as a portrait taken with a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR will show a background that appears slightly closer in the medium format image. There will also be a little bit less distortion, but distortion is different from compression.
What “compression” you are talking about? Perspective distortion? It will stay the same for the same FOV, because of the light’s linear spread.
Well… I don’t know what the real name of it is, he started using this term anyway. What I mean is how the difference in the distance of subjects to the camera seem exaggerated on a wide angle and how everything seems compressed onto a thin plane on a telephoto. He said how 80mm on 44x33mm would get everything more compressed than 50mm on FF but maintain the same angle of view. I disagree.
Actually I’ve been wondering what it would take to achieve the effect he mentioned, getting more compression while maintaining the same angle of view, except for taking multiple shots on an 80 that would cover the angle of view on a 50 stitched.
That’s exactly it. The only way to get the look of a Contax 80mm f/2 on a full frame DSLR (the field of view, the shallow depth of field, and the “compression” effect that an 80mm lens has and a 50mm lens can never have regardless of sensor size) is to shoot your full frame DSLR with an 80mm prime (or an 85mm prime as they’re far more common) at f/2 and then stitch approximately 6 shots together.
It’s difficult to do from up close, like in a headshot or a 3/4 portrait, but if you’re a bit farther away and you’re doing a full length shot, Ryan Brenizer (the guy that coined the term “Brenizer Effect”) suggests that you take the first frame with the entire person in the frame, and then you take the other frames around the person as the background elements are less likely to move. You can then stitch, say, 9 frames, with the frame in the middle containing the person and the other 8 frames being of the background around the person. Then crop the final stitched image to suit your personal taste in composition.
The Brenizer effect works quite well for imitating the medium format look with a DSLR.
It’s just shame that Fuji has been slowly killing off some of their films. I’ve got fridge loaded with Acros100, Reala100, Ektar100 and PortaPro160/400 – all 120 format, but not quite sure if I’ll be able to get Reala (discontinued) again and I like the rendering for portraits a lot.
That’s awesome hexx. I used to shoot Reala almost exclusively too! I actually still have 2 rolls of it in 220 format in my freezer. It was a beautiful film.
Let’s say that this RX Medium format camera becomes a hit, then what? Is Sony going to make a Medium format ILC? What is focus, right? Everytime Sony changes their mind some other line up end up suffering for lack of lenses and even bodies. Sony could make a solid system for each of their mounts and sensors sizes before adventuring in another one, what Sony is, a teenager? Settle down, have some focus.
The thing is that there are (or there were) TWO different teams; the Alpha Team and the Cybershot Team.
So, assuming there still those two, in theory, the development of a medium format RX camera (therefore being made by the Cybershot Team) wouldn’t affect the development over the Alpha part.
But that’s not really my question and it would sure affect the Alpha cameras and system. When the RX1 turned out to be a camera people wanted, that gave Sony what they needed to come up with the A7/R and that’s when they shifted the focus to FF E-mount. And just to be clear, Sony has a history of shifting focus, the problem is that when they shift they give a big eff you to whatever they were working on before. It’s been a while since you don’t have new stuff for A-mount, be it APS-C or FF, it’s been a while since there is no roadmap for E-mount lenses. If this Medium format becomes a thing, what will Sony abandon in order to develop it further?
The full frame nex cameras were in development at the same time as the rx1.
It is a medium format 120 megapixel mirrorless and lensless camera.
It will take all black photos.
Sony Spokesperson Hank Dickless said in an interview, “Yeah, well, we figured that we could shave off bout $12,000 per camera if we took out the ability to have lenses.” When asked if this would impact the functionality for photographers, he said, “Absolutely not. Based on our trial studies with medium format photographers from across the country, less than one percent reported they were adversely affected by not having a lens for the camera.”
Nuff said.
It won’t take all black photos because there will be a light leak somewhere.
This Medium Format RX1 type camera with a Optimized lens seems very logical to me. Sony is just following a successful RX1 game plan for a Sensor they already have developed.
Too bad they won’t be doing a 6X9 digital medium format camera. I love shooting large, but at 8 frames a roll it does get frustrating.
This would be a dream come true in RX format or interchangeable format. Sony if you want to truly set yourself apart from the rest of the pack and blow peoples minds away then PLEASE make this happen. I’ll buy one for sure!!
A mirrorless medium format camera makes a lot of sense. Mirror slap on an MF camera is a bitch, and the fact that MF lenses are 1-2 stops slower relative to 35mm lenses makes low light shots very challenging without a tripod. I really hope Sony pulls this off. But please have more than 2 primes available upon launch.
I think they will have no lenses at all at launch.
Haha. Sony outdoes itself, releasing a new system camera, new mount, and zero lenses.
Then, 5 months later, adds a second body. And no lenses.
And forum people immediately comain about when next body will be relesed with faster AF.
It is told about FIXED lens camera. Where did You find info about new mount?
“Don’t know if this could be a sot of medium format RX camera with fixed lens or a new interchangeable lens mount system.” -SAR admin
That is where he gets it from.
I think, everybody understands that Sony will not release new mount. So it will be fixed lens camera or ILC with one of the existing MF mounts
but who would that be? Pentax, Hassie, and Mamiya (phase one) are all spoken for. That only leave Leica and its S system.
Hassie; they have a partnership.
Why would Hassie kill its highend market? Besides Hassie AF Lenses are Made by Fujinon. So maybe they are doing something with Fuji. (H series aren’t zeiss only C)
Hasselblad doesn’t make lenses. The V aren’t made anymore and the H series are made by fujinon.
Don’t know if they would be able to use another brands mount system. As at that price with that sensor they would kill dead the other system.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/canon-announces-m15p-cl-industrial-camera-with-monochrome-sensor-and-nikon-f-mount/ – Canon released camera with Nikon mount )))))
very special camera for a market that needs an aperture ring on the lens.
It is Sony. I would not put yet another new mount/lens system in the “impossible” column. 😉
I was being candidly sarcastic. I’m a tad skeptical about them making a MF camera this year
I will also wait and see if a product actually appears lol. Though given that they are making the sensor used in the new the Hasselblad and Pentax 645d MF cameras. A high spec fixed lens camera utilising this sensor { more sales help amortize development costs} does not seem beyond the realms of possibility.
Most likely, it will use APS-C E-mount lenses with a coffee can sized adapter, and vignette 80% of the sensor so it’s like 3.2 MP. But man o man, the crop is fantastic for telephoto lenses….if only there were any E-mount telephoto lenses!!!
If they use E mount lenses with a “coffee can sized adapter” the lenses would become telephoto anyway.
Shutter induced vibration is a huge issue too which is why we love leaf shutter lenses so much in the MF world. They would need to do leaf shutter lenses or just make the darn thing with a Mamiya mount. But with the partnership with Hasselblad, they might opt for a Hassy mount.
Well they are also already in partnership with Phase one who owns a large chunk of mamiya. I don’t think Phase wants Sony eating its Mamiya division. I don’t know how Sony could make a Medium format camera that doesn’t compete in that market space. I guess we will see maybe
Maybe this will come without lenses but with an FE-to-ME speedbooster adapter :p.
(Yes, I just decided to call the mount ME).
Worlds first MF mirrorless camera. Very smart!!
No doubt FE/A mount adapters…
At that price. Take my money now!!!
$*!£ me!!! Another line of Sony cameras for which there won’t be enough lenses!
Hopefully Sony can give us a new system, which will open up medium format to the rest of us who are reluctant to invest in a Hasselblad. I’d be great if this camera was a A99 with grip sized product, and mirror-less.
I think Sony is the only company capable of pulling this off.
http://www.hartblei.de/en/hartbleicam2.htm
There is a MF system call HCam B1, which is able to control Canon or Nikon lenses, best for shooting landscape by tilt-shift lenses. But again, no Sony lenses. Due to the image circle may not big enough to cover the sensor, I wonder should the lense being develop from zero or just support any body mount e.g. hasselblad Vmount through adapter.
Sensor’s too small. I want a true 6×7 MF. Damn, is that a wave of Bronica-nostalgia I’m feeling? 🙂
could it be a medium format video camera?
Oh god, if they made basically a medium format rx1 I’d literally lose my mind in delight. At $5000 I’d try to find a way, that’d be a DREAM
For much less you can shoot much bigger… the question is, if you like it that much, why don’t you? 🙂
Something like the Mamiya 6 with an A mount would be pretty nice.
like
like above post
why isnt this working?!?
If it is a fixed FL fixed lens camera like RX1, it would be SUCH a waste of both the lens and the sensor!
But a fixed sharp UWA zoom, say 16-40 equivalent, even slow, would be appropriate. A landscaper’s dream.
A zoom ? You got to be kidding !
A zoom MF lens will be big, even fixed. How about fixed prime, with T-S function??
+1
Ultra wide-angle lenses are useless without T-S. That’s one reason why architectural photographers use view cameras with digital backs, or DSRLs with specific T-S lenses.
Camera movements (“T-S”) benefit longer lenses than wide lenses. Tilt is necessary with long lenses. Shift doesn’t solve problems on wide angles either.
High resolution capture needs movements because stopping down leads to diffraction.
UWA lenses have smaller image circle than longer lenses, the benefits are rather small when it comes to shift/rise/fall in comparison with longer focal lengths. Sure, this sensor is rather small so you might get few mm on top.
Forget the zoom, make it a fixed UWA prime like a Zeiss Otus class 18mm or 21mm optimized for this sensor… now that would be a dream landscape camera! With such a large sensor, one could easily crop for detail shots.
Real landscape photographers don’t use regular primes, let alone zooms.
Sony WILL NOT make an interchangeable lens mf camera.
They now make ALL mf sensors for all brands and WILL NOT jeopardize that position.
Possibly a fixed lens camera but ZERO POSSIBILITY of interchangeable lenses.
I agree with this.
I can see a very special Sony MF studio camera with a killer EVF, a universal adapter mount for manual legacy lenses and laptop tethering.
I also agree, I know a studio guy who is salivating over this very possibility.
I agree with Bengt, I mean.
why EVF if you’re tethered? you can use all the real estate of the back (at least in the case of IQ and Credo backs) for focusing or your laptop screen -> it’s already in the wild and has been for some time
Well yeah a while would be an under estimate. Live view focusing has been around since like 1998-99 on the leaf backs. (maybe 2000)
Sony makes all medium format sensors? Are you nuts?
They don’t even make remotely close to ALL MF sensors. The Phase One IQ160, 260, 180, 280, the Leaf products, etc all are NOT Sony sensors. They do make all CMOS MF sensors but only a fraction of ALL MF sensors. In fact they do not even make one 645 format sensor as the 50 megapixel MF sensor is a 1.3x crop of a 645 sensor. Phase One is the market leader in volume and dollar sales of MF cameras and only one of their current 6 production backs utilize the Sony sensor.
I do agree that they will likely not do a Sony branded interchangeable lens MF camera.
Maybe they use the MF Sensor in a A or E-Mount camera as a multi-aspect sensor ? Would waste a lot of sensor space though.
And you would get a lot black edges in your pictures.
Do you have any full frame Sonys? They automatically crop if you use a APS-C lens.
The A and E mount are too small for that size sensor, therefore you would never be able to use the full sensor. Ever.
1. “Multi-aspect sensor” doesn’t mean the whole sensor will be used. There are lots of other aspect ratios that can make use of the current full image circle. The only requirement is that it’ll work well only with lenses that don’t have a rear baffle. Also see the Panasonic GH1 and GH2 in relation to this.
2. There’s this new thing the kids are doing called math. If you’re crazy enough to use it, enlarge the M39/Leica screw mount proportions to the A mount and you’ll see that a 55mm diagonal sensor can be perfectly accommodated by the A mount.
Since you’re out of the cave, it might be time to shave off that beard too? LOL
Should be very simple. The best solution would be an interchangable lens system with E mount which is compatible with Sony’s Full Frame lenses (E mount and A mount) and allow us to use those in the cropped size. At the product launch, they can start with a Medium Format 35mm or 50mm, and slowly add the other Medium Format lenses to the product range…
Yes super simple to put a medium format sensor in a mount just big enough for full frame.
Adapters can handle that…
Oh yes I forgot adapters allow light to curve around the mount that would be too small. It’s been a while since I’ve been in physics class.
The adapter that comes with the metal file and grinder can do this easy. You just being lazy. haha.
I predict Sony F3 mount. Seen here first. 🙂
Or FZ mount. 🙂
FZ makes the most sense!!!
The diameter might be too small, FZ was designed to be a video mount. Video sensors are typically small than full frame sensors.
FZ was designed to be adaptable to other mounts, including E-mount. It is huge by itself.
My body is so ready for an affordable medium format camera. Give it a trio of sharp, reasonably fast primes (say f1.8), an EVF and working sensor based autofocus. Make an adaptor so A mount lenses can be used in crop mode, and your done.
No need for a fully fleshed out system (really, Pentax and Leica haven’t fleshed out theirs, and they have more reason to), just fill the large void left by the Mamiya 6 and 7.
> Medium format
> Reasonably fast
> f1.8
Yeah…
Tell me, how do you define reasonably fast for medium format.
You will not see f1.8 on these lenses.
Something along the lines of the Mamiya 80/1.9 for the standard lens.
A stop slower for the wide and tele would be fine, something like the Zeiss Distagon and Mamiya 45/2.8. They could just re-release the Planar 110/2 with modern coatings for the tele.
>They could just re-release the Planar 110/2 with modern coatings for the tele.<
+1
(:-)
Good move Sony! However, I am waiting for the DxO image sensor test results before I re-prioritize my equipment budget.
DxO is a joke. Please don’t spend your money based on that gimmicky site.
Really, that’s what I tell people when they ask if they should buy a leica.
Hi Bart,
I am talking about DxO image sensor testing. It’s free and it’s objective.
So is astrology then…
Only someone who hasn’t read up on their methodology, or don’t know how to interpret their results would compare it to astrology.
First, you should look at their graphs and other measurement results, not just the sensor scores, which only tell part of the truth.
Second, their sensor analysis is based on unconverted raw files, i.e. they are not demosaiced. This means that they compare the quality of the raw files themselves (including any noise reduction applied already in the raw file), independent of the influence of any particular conversion software. As a consequence, their results may not always correspond with what you see in actual images (which are always viewed in a demosaiced state), but they come as close as we can to assessing the underlying sensor performance. This may not always be photographically relevant, but that’s another story.
As a scientist I only look at the graphs and not the dumbed-down scores made for the non-scientific masses (google my opinions about DxOMark and you will see how much I find fault in their rating system). And as a scientist who does computational image processing on a daily basis I also know the limitations of their methodologies that they don’t state. I write my own raw converters, fyi. What makes you think I don’t know what I’m talking about? Instead you could have asked why I say what I say instead of trying to defend some website that doesn’t give a rats behind about you… or do they?
All what you say is irrelevant. It does not matter that you are a scientist and you know etc as it provides no verifiable facts. Who says what is not important in science ,it is what is said. Opinions have no value when people say they are being factual. So you could have provided us may with some usefull information on DxO or point us at a website where you show us in a verifiable way why DxO is on the same level as astrology.
As it stands you are on the same level as astrology for us as we do not have anything else than a claim of someone who knows better.
Is this your way of asking nicely when someone is trying to teach you something that you don’t know? No wonder you guys never finished school and have so much against education.
Ask me nicely and I will point you in the right direction. I still won’t do your homework for you just because I can.
If I claim that climate changes ti is me who has tp provide the proof. If I make such a claim, put it in a paper without references Science or Nature (or other peerreviewed papers) of course will reject them. And no, me telling htem they need to do their homework won’t help a lot. S: you claim, you prove and you provide. Not me. I made no claims.
The difference is when a scientist writes a paper to a journal, they want it to be accepted by the journal. I don’t care if you dxo-worshippers accept what im saying. It’s not my obligation to teach you ppl these things. Ask me nicely and I will point them in the right direction.
BTW: an assumtpion, ad hominem and not on topic. Is that the way you approach a sciencific debate in general btw?
This is not a scientific debate… this is a bunch of ignorant people getting pitchforks and being defensive about their religion.
Mamiya 7 mirrorless digital. 80mm f/2.8 fixed lens. I’m sold.
You need a 60/65mm lens on that sensor size, to compare to the 80mm on the mamiya 7.
could Zeiss be relaunching the Contax name with Sony? in an email reply (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-10700.html) they stated they own the Contax name. a Ziess/Sony MF cam with a shorter flange distance could use the 645 lens.
If it’s an RX, what would it be called? RX-0?
RX-pensive.
What do you mean “won’t compete with Hassy, Pentax, Leica… completely different”?
If it’s MF, then it will most certainly compete with the aforementioned, no matter how different Sony claims it will be. Most likely won’t be any more different than a99 is from a D600. Different doesn’t equal better for the tog in that price group.
Many don’t like EVF for strobe work.
A Mamiya 6 design (with collapsible lens mount) would be perfect. Maybe make two fixed lens versions like the Fuji 6×9 rangefinders. A 80mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/4 (or 43mm f/4.5 like the biogon design on the 7’s WA lens). Real optical viewfinder instead of EVF. I don’t understand why this hasn’t been done before….rangefinder design is ideal for these new sensors.
Why range finder? It was good for film but not when digital sensors can do live view.
Give us RX-SWC, Zeiss Biogon 38/4.5!
We’ve learned enough about how conventional wide angle lenses like biogons dont suit digital sensors…
$5,000. I rather spend $4,000 if they put out a digital back for Contax 645!
if sony did license the contax name and bring a C645 mark II, i hope they would keep the same mount, with revised zeiss lenses, i wouldnt buy the sony, but if new lenses would be compatible with the old body…..*drooooool*
Definitely would buy it! but maybe slightly cheaper (3k plus!)
Sony should just stick to making cameras with fixed lenses. Then they wouldn’t have 3 different mounts with pitiful lens ranges to “support” them (or not, as the case is).
do they really have 3 mounts?
I see 2 mounts, with 2 formats each.
not that crazy
DSLR mount, old NEX mount, new FF mirrorless mount.
wrong knucklehead, NEX mount and new FF mirrorless mount are the same. its e mount.
Do you or have you owned a Sony system camera? What lenses are you missing that you feel you need? All of the most frequently used ranges are covered and the IQ of the higher end lenses is good to excellent by most people’s measure in every mount they offer. If you want or like Zeiss lenses they’re the only ones that feature AF (if that’s important to you) and if you’re into adapting older lenses onto a “35mm digital back” then you will be hard pressed to find a better camera for that than a A7 or A7r. No it doesn’t work well with EVERY M-mount lens but it works good enough to excellent with a lot of them. M lenses still work better on a M in general (I know… I have one of those too) but for the gaps in the FE mount they work well if you already have them. If not then there are many older SLR lenses that hold up or surpass some of todays lenses available for really low prices if you know what you want.
Im guessing interchangable lenses,, anything else would be wierd for MF camera.
The question is will it use the same mount system as say Hasselblad ??
or will Sony go and make a new mount ??
S-mount for Sony or perhaps Z-mount for the ultimate in image quality ??
Omega Mount would also be nice 🙂
Ford’s “faster horses” quote is so true. Why does everyone want rangefinders? They’re a horrible evil that was necessary during the film days to make small and quiet cameras.
Rangefinders are terrible at focusing, can’t focus off-center, can’t focus very close, not good with long lenses, not good with tilt-shift lenses, can’t focus on horizontal/vertical lines in landscape/portrait and they need calibration. And people still want this when digital sensors are capable of showing the actual picture… the exact thing during composition.
If you want to make your life difficult but in a nice way, go shoot film LOL
Because people who want them never actually used them – that I believe would be correct answer for the majority of those requests. It’s also lack of understanding of the birth of EVIL project back in the day and what benefits it brought in small package over, then available, RF solutions.
Agree… they probably never used a rangefinder. After getting a digital rangefinder, they’ll switch to the rear LCD or an EVF most of the time… basically the X100 story all over again.
I’ve been using SLRs, mirrorless, and rangefinders for years. Both film and digital. I love rangefinders the most. No contest.
Simply because a camera doesn’t do something or lacks modern features does not mean it’s not fun. In fact sometimes it’s exactly the opposite.
It’s just like cars. The VAST majority of people (at least in the US) drive automatics with tons of comfort and convenience features. That makes them “better” to most. But to a car enthusiast, it’s all fluff. They’d rather be in a stripped down 1990 Miata.
I went from DSLRs to m43, RX1r, and an old Epson RD1.Dont miss the DSLRs, hardly use my m43, love the IQ of the RX, but the Epson Rangefinder is my favorite to actually use.
I have and use a few rangefinders too… for me the fun comes from the camera rather than from the focus system.
Also the issues with the rangefinders compared to EVF are things that will limit the photo-taking. It’s not a convenience thing like auto vs. manual transmission. Not being able to focus off-center is a real issue that needs to be worked around and it’s difficult, compared to what a TTL focusing system can do. I’m not going to repeat all the limitations because I’ve already written them down.
We understand your choices and opinions are the only correct ones.
Please forgive us for ever thinking differently.
We now see there is only one path- the one you choose for us.
Anyone’s free to use whatever they choose… but the problem comes when they try to do bogus justifications.
Yes, understood. My prefering to shoot with a rangefinder, and finding it more enjoyable than TTL cameras is a bogus justification.
I’m sorry that I only have 10 film cameras both TTL and rangefinder, and 3 digital cameras both TTL and rangefinder, and still prefer the rangefinders. Mia culpa. Forgive me.
Again, forgive us for not liking what you like and thinking differently.
Only you, the true and all-knowing photographer is correct.
I urge you to go to the RFF forums and request to have it shut down! There’s a whole bunch of infidels shooting with rangefinders over there! All those poor people, completely separated from your far superior insight need a savior.
Wide open with an extremely fast normal or telephoto lens – yes it CAN be more difficult to focus off center. With some practice and skill (and I don’t know why you wouldn’t shoot at your hearts content to get more proficient in the digital age) you can do it no problem.
Sorry but there are too many years and too much evidence of pictures being taken this way to believe that it can’t be done. If you don’t prefer digital rangefinders then that’s completely fine but spreading incorrect information is damaging to your credibility on the subject.
I’m not a fanboy though and I use what works for me – currently that’s a Leica M9-P and two Sony A7 series cameras (A7 and A7r.)
Well you can do Macro with rangefinders but there aren’t as many choices. Many people choose rangefinders because they love them and they are more inconspicuous. I like them because I can actually see outside the frame. I can compose more quickly. Most lenses have range markers for hyper focal composing so I can take pictures stopped down just as quickly with a dSLR (but it did take more practice to get right.) To each their own. It’s just another tool. I primarily moved to the A7 and A7r for my door cameras and my M9P will probably be sold toward purchasing a M Monochrom.
You don’t have to like rangefinders – camera choice is purely a subjective choice. I don’t see myself EVER buying another dSLR ever. I won’t deny they are a “jack of all trades” camera and they have their strengths over some other types. I just don’t need fast AF or 1200mm lenses either.Just a nice set of primes covering somewhere between 18-24, a 35, a 50-60, a 75-90, and a 100-135. A midrange and/or a medium telephoto are handy for travel. But that’s about all I need. The other stuff is nice to have but how little I’d use it doesn’t it make it worth considering whether or not to buy into a system FOR ME.
So maybe you shouldn’t knock other people’s choice. It’s really not hurting you in the grand scheme of things.
Who does macro with rangefinders? You can also use variable focal length lenses with rangefinders (e.g. Tri-Elmars) but does anyone other than nut cases want to go down that hack job path? 🙂
You said that people choose rangefinders because they’re inconspicuous and because some like to have a small set of focal lengths… are you saying that an EVF-based camera is more conspicuous and must use big zooms? Because that’s the topic here.
I too have several rangefinder cameras and I love them because they shoot film I like in a small package… not because they have a rangefinder.
There are people who do Macro with rangefinders…Check Flickr or many other photo sharing sites. I never said it was ideal or the best tool for the job but I was addressing the spreading of incorrect information of whether or not you COULD do Macro. Again no need to judge what works for other people… It’s simply immature to refer to those people as “nut cases” because their methods don’t work for you.
I use an A7 and A7r now as my primary travel cameras. They are good cameras and the closest thing I’ve seen in a CMOS system to the color results of my M9. I was referring to dSLR being larger than rangefinders and until the A7 series was released then M9 was the only game in town for a small FF camera system. If you want APS-C or smaller than sure there’s a lot of choices and if small is your concern forget the system cams and grab a point and shoot or your cellphone… if one was to continue boring and borderline sarcastic attacks.
Again though if you don’t like rangefinders because you don’t like rangefinders there are plenty of other small non-rangefinder cameras to choose from that shoot film. People just can’t make a blanket statement like “people who want rangefinders never used them” or “that they’re obsolete technology” when they continue to sell about as fast as they make them.
Outside the M, X-Pro 1, and the X100 there aren’t digital optical solutions that let you see outside the frame lines and some people love that ability (myself included.) It doesn’t mean that EVF is bad. I have the A7/ A7r, NEX-5, plus my Panasonic G1 still. They work great in a capacity similar to a dSLR or a 35mm digital back for adapting vintage lenses. I love my M9-P (had a M9 prior to it) as well though and I’ve gotten on with it as my primary system, for the last 4 or 5 years with no issues.
Sony RX1 styled Medium format camera would be nice 🙂
A fixed tilt/shift lens would be cool, maybe even a Leica like Tri-Elmar at 16-25-35 with Tilt/Shift. That would be a dream camera for landscape and architecture photography!
1:3 (14.5mm x 44mm) or 1:2 (22mm x 44mm) format camera?
50mp is too close to the 36mp available now to have any great resolution advantage.
It’s Not a problem. The MF Sensor is just 70% (As stated) compared to the FF in terms of surface area.
Just what we needed… Maybe this time they release a new system without any lens available… 😉
Great! Simply great. I mainly see a need or function for this for landscape shooting like with a 25 mm equivalent (so 35-40 mm) lens on it.
hoping sony will make the sensor shifts and the lense(s) with large image circles to shoot urban landscapes with it..