New backs to give 35mm format shooters the "drools"

31 Mpix not enough? How about 39 Mpix?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05...se1_3backs.asp

Doesn't state the bodies, but prob. Hassy and Mamiya models offered.
Price not stated... but as the man said, if you need to ask, you can't
afford it.

Cheers,
Alan

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
ups.com...
31 Mpix not enough? How about 39 Mpix?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05...se1_3backs.asp

Doesn't state the bodies, but prob. Hassy and Mamiya models offered.
Price not stated... but as the man said, if you need to ask, you can't
afford it.

Cheers,
Alan


It's $30K (U.S.), - what a bargain!

BTW, you can use the back on any camera that accepts Hasselblad A or H
series backs, or Mamiya backs. You can also use the back on view cameras
via adapters.

I'm sure they'll sell like crazy! not

Walt

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
ups.com...
31 Mpix not enough? How about 39 Mpix?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05...se1_3backs.asp

Doesn't state the bodies, but prob. Hassy and Mamiya models offered.
Price not stated... but as the man said, if you need to ask, you can't
afford it.

I thought Leaf already made a 52MB (?).

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:26:53 -0400, "Walt Hanks"
wrote:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
oups.com...
31 Mpix not enough? How about 39 Mpix?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05...se1_3backs.asp

Doesn't state the bodies, but prob. Hassy and Mamiya models offered.
Price not stated... but as the man said, if you need to ask, you can't
afford it.

Cheers,
Alan


It's $30K (U.S.), - what a bargain!

BTW, you can use the back on any camera that accepts Hasselblad A or H
series backs, or Mamiya backs. You can also use the back on view cameras
via adapters.

I'm sure they'll sell like crazy! not

Walt


Lets compare cost to resolution:
Phase 1 39mp $30k = 1300 pixels per $1.
Canon 16mp $8k = 2000 pixels per $1.
Olympus E-300 8mp $800 = 10000 pixels per $1. With lenses!
Cheapo Fuji 4mp $250 = 16000 pixels per $1. With a lens!

What does this mean?
Nothing.

Can someone please explain to me just what a "back" is, as compared to a
camera "body"?

Many thanks,

CC

As this comparison shows, it's not the number of pixels, but the size of the
sensor that drives the price. The challenge is to produce a defect-free
piece of silicon. If the manufacturing process has an average of one defect
per area the size of a medium format sensor, half of them will end up bad.
On the other hand, if the same process is used to make the tiny sensors of a
P&S, the same piece of silicon will yield perhaps 99 good sensors and one
bad. A much cheaper manufacturing process, like one having ten defects over
the same area will still yield around 80-90 good small sensors, allowing to
produce them and make good money. But no matter how many times one tries,
such process will practically never deliver even a single defect-free medium
format sensor. Not exact numbers by any stretch of imagination, but you can
see the logic behind the price ratio.


Lets compare cost to resolution:
Phase 1 39mp $30k = 1300 pixels per $1.
Canon 16mp $8k = 2000 pixels per $1.
Olympus E-300 8mp $800 = 10000 pixels per $1. With lenses!
Cheapo Fuji 4mp $250 = 16000 pixels per $1. With a lens!

What does this mean?

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
Can someone please explain to me just what a "back" is, as compared to a
camera "body"?

Many thanks,

CC



The "back" is the portion of the camera that holds the film. With medium
format and large format cameras, they are typically interchangeable, so you
can have multiple backs for one camera body.

The digital backs in question simply replace the film backs on existing
cameras, so you don't buy an entirely new camera to go digital, you just buy
the back.

However, these backs are extremely expensive because of low volume
production and very high pixel counts to satisfy the needs of demanding
commercial photographers.

Walt

Yikes!

So you're saying you can spend $30,000 and then you STILL need a camera and
a lens to be able to take photos?


"Walt Hanks" wrote in message
...

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
Can someone please explain to me just what a "back" is, as compared to a
camera "body"?

Many thanks,

CC



The "back" is the portion of the camera that holds the film. With medium
format and large format cameras, they are typically interchangeable, so
you
can have multiple backs for one camera body.

The digital backs in question simply replace the film backs on existing
cameras, so you don't buy an entirely new camera to go digital, you just
buy
the back.

However, these backs are extremely expensive because of low volume
production and very high pixel counts to satisfy the needs of demanding
commercial photographers.

Walt

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

So you're saying you can spend $30,000 and then you STILL need a camera
and
a lens to be able to take photos?



I think it is safe to assume that anyone in the market for this back would
already have an extensive collection of bodies and lenses.

Walt

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:44:03 -0700, "Happy Traveler"
wrote:

As this comparison shows, it's not the number of pixels, but the size of the
sensor that drives the price. The challenge is to produce a defect-free
piece of silicon. If the manufacturing process has an average of one defect
per area the size of a medium format sensor, half of them will end up bad.
On the other hand, if the same process is used to make the tiny sensors of a
P&S, the same piece of silicon will yield perhaps 99 good sensors and one
bad. A much cheaper manufacturing process, like one having ten defects over
the same area will still yield around 80-90 good small sensors, allowing to
produce them and make good money. But no matter how many times one tries,
such process will practically never deliver even a single defect-free medium
format sensor. Not exact numbers by any stretch of imagination, but you can
see the logic behind the price ratio.

True enough, but ...

Most semi-conductor manufacturers practice "yield" management. For
microprocessors, it means testing all "dies" at the highest speed
rating (for your current product line). Those that pass get packaged
up and labeled at that fastest speed, and sold for a correspondingly
high price.

Those that don't pass, they get tested at the next speed rating, "one
down" from the fastest. The same yield process. Those that don't
pass this slower speed test get rejected and then tested again at the
next lower speed, and so on and so forth. If the manufacturing
process is good, not that many "dies" are actually defective and have
to be discarded.

Same process for memory chips, and also for photosensors, CMOS and
CCD. So in principle all sensors can be tested for that 54 MB
Hasselblad-back part. Those that fail, which is probably most of
those parts, will be sliced up and then tested again as ???? size the
manufacturer also sells.

Part of the logic behind the pricing is that there is a market at that
high price. At some point, the price for all these sensors will drop
as volumes increase and manufacturing processes are tweaked to improve
yields.

It has always been this way in semiconductors and will probably always
be this way.

Back in the long-ago day of single-sided and double-sided floppy
disks, Verbatim and others practiced the same yield management for
floppy disk media,

Father (grandfather??) Kodak