6x6 digital back for 500 series Hasselblad?

[wiltw]

I am not aware of anyone building a commonly available sensor larger than 645, so a 6x6 back would probably not be a easily acquired thing.

Indeed, it is only the most very recent Hassy backs which even can be stated to be close to 'full 645 frame' at 53.4 x 40.0mm...they have been smaller than 56mm x 43mm, like 43.8 x 32.9mm!

 

[buildbot]

Well, and this, not that they made many haha: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5839668318/fujifilmback

 

[Pieter12]

The two barriers to medium format digital, for me, are 1. cost of a modern digital back ($30,000+) and 2. the total unserviceability of older, more affordable backs. I actually like the look of CCD sensors rather than the more modern CMOS sensors and since I really never print film larger than 16x20, the modest resolution of the older backs is not that much of an issue. If I had a project that required really large prints, I would rent an outfit anyway.

 

[flavio81]

The two barriers to medium format digital, for me, are 1. cost of a modern digital back ($30,000+) and 2. the total unserviceability of older, more affordable backs. I actually like the look of CCD sensors rather than the more modern CMOS sensors and since I really never print film larger than 16x20, the modest resolution of the older backs is not that much of an issue. If I had a project that required really large prints, I would rent an outfit anyway.

CCD sensors give great color.

 

[wiltw]

The two barriers to medium format digital, for me, are 1. cost of a modern digital back ($30,000+) and 2. the total unserviceability of older, more affordable backs. I actually like the look of CCD sensors rather than the more modern CMOS sensors and since I really never print film larger than 16x20, the modest resolution of the older backs is not that much of an issue. If I had a project that required really large prints, I would rent an outfit anyway.

I made a 12" x 60" print from my Canon S110 tiny sensor (7.6mm x 5.7mm) and no one has ever voiced, "Too bad you didn't use a FF camera!".
I am certain a print that large could be made from a 53mm x 40mm sensor!

 

[MattKing]

I made a 12" x 60" print from my Canon S110 tiny sensor (7.6mm x 5.7mm) and no one has ever voiced, "Too bad you didn't use a FF camera!".
I am certain a print that large could be made from a 53mm x 40mm sensor!

The biggest problem with a smaller than full frame sensor in a camera like this is that there is no way to convert the viewing and focusing system to that same smaller than full frame.
You can add masks, but the view is still smaller.
It aalso complicates lens choice - particularly if you like wider than "normal" lenses.

 

[wiltw]

The biggest problem with a smaller than full frame sensor in a camera like this is that there is no way to convert the viewing and focusing system to that same smaller than full frame.
You can add masks, but the view is still smaller.
It aalso complicates lens choice - particularly if you like wider than "normal" lenses.

And viewfinder size is an attribute which makes so many value shooting with Medium Format cameras...it's just that digital medium format is preposterously expensive that even pros need to lease them, under terms which facilitate upgrading without great loss of value due to technical obsolescence of sensors.

 

[Pieter12]

The biggest problem with a smaller than full frame sensor in a camera like this is that there is no way to convert the viewing and focusing system to that same smaller than full frame.
You can add masks, but the view is still smaller.
It aalso complicates lens choice - particularly if you like wider than "normal" lenses.

I assume you are referring to MF, not the S110 of the previous post. For the Rollei/Leaf/Sinar Hy6, there is a mask that fits over the viewfinder screen to show the sensor area. Yes, the effective focal length of the lenses changes but not by that much. And there aren't many extreme wide-angle lenses in MF anyway, except maybe the SWC but that's not super wide by FF standards, and the occasional fisheye (mostly an expensive novelty lens in my book).

 

[epatsellis]

There is one option nobody has mentioned, using a Betterlight back on an RB. My Super 6k-HS shoots approx 6000x6000, or 9000x9000 in expanded mode, all at 7x7, one can finally ignore the crop lines on the ground glass.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's digital man, crop it.
Seriously.

That just means that the so called photographer does not know the first thing about taking a photograph. Maybe with intensive remedial training the so called photographer might some day aspire to taking a snapshot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There was actually at least one true full frame 6x6 DB: The dicomed bigshot: http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9610ecs.html
https://web.archive.org/web/19990202213746/http://www.dicomed.com/products.htm#bigshot
A 16MP 60x60mm CCD sensor for Hasselblad V! I've only ever seen one for sale once.

The two barriers to medium format digital, for me, are 1. cost of a modern digital back ($30,000+) and 2. the total unserviceability of older, more affordable backs. I actually like the look of CCD sensors rather than the more modern CMOS sensors and since I really never print film larger than 16x20, the modest resolution of the older backs is not that much of an issue. If I had a project that required really large prints, I would rent an outfit anyway.

There are no practical 6x6 digital systems. First of all the cost to make sensors that large with a high enough yield per batch rate [all or virtual all the pixel must be fully functional], then the CCDs [or equivalent] must move the analog information digitally fast enough and accurately enough to the electronics. Then the data needs a high speed data bus. A few years ago the technology was not there. Now even if it were there, and I do not see in the electrical engineering trade journals it is, the small market there would have been has disappeared or diminished to the point that it would not be economically feasible to bring it to market. So for people like me who brought up Hasselblad and Rollei SL6000 equipment at the bargain prices ten to fifteen years ago, are all set and have built up the film stashes for the future.

 

[Richard Man]

Just a few "bad" CMOS colors using 203FE+CFV back

 

[Pieter12]

There is one option nobody has mentioned, using a Betterlight back on an RB. My Super 6k-HS shoots approx 6000x6000, or 9000x9000 in expanded mode, all at 7x7, one can finally ignore the crop lines on the ground glass.

It is a scanning back, meaning you can only use it on stationary subjects, as in the studio for still life, product shots or for landscapes. Not very practical. Is it even made anymore?

 

[kinglang]

hope a 66 DB will get in future.

 

[Rockaway Studios]

the mechanics of making a digital sensor work with a camera built for film are not impossible but have always been really kludgy in practice. The camera must "wake up" the sensor before the exposure can happen, and a film camera just doesn't have that circuit. There is nothing particularly special about 6x6 format IMO other than you never have to turn the camera to portrait orientation.

If you are dreaming of a digital 6x6 back to take advantage of how cheap 500CMs are since they are strictly hobbiest cameras for the most part these days - you will be disappointed. For a digital sensor you really want a body designed to use it. The Phase One XF is actually a really, really nice MF system, and if you figure out how to buy used, the body is less expensive than a used Leica, anyway. Swapping sensors via switching backs is a real bonus - I have a CCD back (Leaf Credo 80) and have rented CMOS backs(IQ3, IQ4) , and am looking at an achromatic back...but my bodies and glass remain the same. It's a pro system with pro prices...but absolute pro results as well.