Digital 8x10 camera?

[Ko.Fe.]

you wrote "using the camera for business to make $$"

this is 8x10 monochrome 12MP

8x10 full frame hi res (Tera-pixels) might find a market

12MP images we know have a market (lo-res press such as some sports)

put the two together and they don't add synergistically, they cancel out, because an 8x10 can't be used for on-the-run photography, and a 12MP image is no use to the hi-res boys and girls.

I'm puzzled exactly which type of photographer would find this useful, I'm genuinely curious, am I missing something, can you suggest what "business" that might be?

This is not monochrome:
http://largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

What for this camera could be in use:
http://largesense.com/gallery/

I'm judging digital cameras by their output. Which is not MPs always. This is 12MP camera introduced in 2015. And still sold, manufactured new.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...C-765wZhXntj_qiOWG3lnHFN8e3IOgFxoCJ94QAvD_BwE

This 8x10 digital camera output a.k.a. pictures are pleasing. Regarding monochrome, they are way better than Leica Monochrome (which is next to ugly digital monochrome). IMO.

 

[tedr1]

Thank you.

I now know that you like the pictures, and that you believe them to be superior to another digital monochrome camera.

Unfortunately this does not answer the question.

 

[jim10219]

So here's what I don't get. You spend $106,000 on a digital large format camera that is 12MP, is hardly what I would call portable, has no rear movements and it comes with a Sinar F1 front standard? For that price, I'd expect at least a P2. I mean, are you trying to save weight or cost here?

 

[jtk]

for a hobbyist it might be a little expensive, but for someone using the camera for business to make $$, its a write off and they can charge a pretty good $$ for huge digital images
made with it.

Businesses that post ads or info routinely online deliver considerably more information from digital videos than a single shot of any size (e.g.8X10 film) could conceivably deliver online (compare a minute of iPhone video with one film shot) .

Still photography has long been an inferior visual information delivery vehicle, therefore is already inappropriate for the most information delivery. "Art photography" is already closer to tintype than it is to an information delivery tool.

 

[blockend]

Cheaper to stitch a comparable number of conventional image files together with software. For tripod work there already exists multiple image in-camera magic offering astonishing resolution.

 

[Luckless]

Stitching of course can only get you so far, and is difficult or downright unusable for a wide range of photographs.

Hopefully we see continued development put into the technology, as there are few reasons why further miniaturization of the design and components couldn't get something like this down to roughly the size of a standard two sheet film holder. Which would basically be a modern ultra thin laptop with a sensor on one side of the housing.

I think a 4x5 is a bit more sensible target to start with, but from the engineering stand point it is totally reasonable to work something like that down to at least a Grafmatic sized unit, possibly with an external power supply-display-battery pack module, and still come in at around the bulk of a few holders. If they get the price down enough with enough resolution, then I would probably find myself flipping a coin each time I go to take a camera out as to whether or not I run film or digital.

 

[George Mann]

6mp is almost double IQ what film neg is

Nope, not even close!

 

[blockend]

Nope, not even close!

I've heard 35mm quoted as anywhere between 6mp and 18mp equivalence. At 3200 dpi on a domestic flatbed scanner I don't think I get the lower figure from negative film.

 

[jtk]

I've heard 35mm quoted as anywhere between 6mp and 18mp equivalence. At 3200 dpi on a domestic flatbed scanner I don't think I get the lower figure from negative film.

Scanners don't record "dpi"...they record "ppi"

"dpi" refers to dots-per-inch....specifically halftone dots. "ppi" refers to pixels...as in digital.

 

[George Mann]

I've heard 35mm quoted as anywhere between 6mp and 18mp equivalence. At 3200 dpi on a domestic flatbed scanner I don't think I get the lower figure from negative film.

The current limits of scanner resolution is wholly irrelevant when discussing the actual resolution of film!

 

[faberryman]

Scanners don't record "dpi"...they record "ppi"

"dpi" refers to dots-per-inch....specifically halftone dots. "ppi" refers to pixels...as in digital.

It is a common error, and people can be forgiven for making it. Here is how Epson describes its V850 flatbed scanner on its website:

"Featuring enhanced high-pass optics that deliver the highest level of image quality with faster scan speeds, the V850 Pro can convert a wide range of media and film formats into professional-quality digital images. This high-productivity 6400dpi scanner requires virtually no warm-up time, can remove dust and scratches automatically and includes two sets of high-quality film holders."

 

[moose10101]

The current limits of scanner resolution is wholly irrelevant when discussing the actual resolution of film!

And the actual resolution of film is wholly irrelevant to what can be produced with it.

 

[blockend]

The current limits of scanner resolution is wholly irrelevant when discussing the actual resolution of film!

I fail to see how it's "wholly" irrelevant when home scanning of film outweighs darkroom printing by a large margin. People think flatbed scanning has benefits that outweigh its technical disadvantages, or they wouldn't be adopting it so widely.

 

[blockend]

And the actual resolution of film is wholly irrelevant to what can be produced with it.

True. Even the best apochromatic computer designed enlarging lenses diminish the image captured by the camera lens to some extent. Moreover the current trend is away from exhausting the optical potential of film, even in medium and large format, by the use of cameras that explore film's other characteristics.