OT: Sinar Hy6

[MJSfoto1956]

Ok, it's a bit off-topic, but I thought some of you would be interested.

I just had the pleasure of handling (for a few minutes) the new Sinar Hy6 medium format, 6x6 digital camera. The ergonomics are fabulous -- this is a classic, well-designed, European-quality camera that will take professionals into the next 10-20 years. Probably the best thing I liked about the camera was that it works with all Rollei 6008 accessories -- allowing you to shoot both 6x6 film and 36x48mm digital. (the hope is that someone will eventually offer a 6x6 digital back someday) The camera body and back was so light weight that I started complaining about the weight of the lenses -- particularly their 180mm, f2.8 auto focus lens.

I'm looking forward to a three-week evaluation of this camera later this year.

Anyway, while some of you might understandably sneer at mere "medium format" it is very very clear to me that the big players in the industry are investing in quality equipment to improve upon what Canon and their likes have delivered to date. From my perspective, the future of medium and large format looks bright!

[Tom Conway]

Michael: What other lenses are available? How does it compare to the Mamiya "Z"? How about cost for the Hy6? Is it being sold in the US? Thanks, Tom Conway.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The Sinar Hy6/Sinarback eMotion 54LV will have a suggested catalog price of $30,500.

Hmmm..... lets see, a jeep liberty to go take pics or a camera?...

Can someone explain to me what is the benefit of a camera like this over a high end DSLR? Neither has movements, magazines and catalog work don't require 1 gig files, a scanning back for a 4x5 would allow me to work more like LF for the same price and the lenses are cheaper. I really don't understand the role of MF in the digital world.

[Gordon Moat]

I recently got an invite from Leaf to try out their version of the Hy6. Don't know if I will be able to make it to do that, though it does seem to be an interesting system.

As far as a usage for something like this, just a quick walk around a mall or trade show will reveal some very large prints on display, especially at clothing stores. The advantage of medium format digital is that the individual cell site sizes on the chips are slightly larger, and cover double the area of a 35mm sized chip. So like medium format allows better tonality than 35mm, these medium format chips allow better tonality than possible with a high end Canon or Nikon.

Unfortunately, the economics are more difficult. A high end and high volume shooter might need such a purchase to get a bigger right-off on their taxes. More likely is that these will be bought by outfits that will then rent them to photographers as needed, or they might end up on lease plans, rather than outright purchase. I might be a candidate for renting one of these, though it would take much convincing for me to use something other than my 4x5 on commercial shoots; I would quite simply miss the movements and the different work-flow.

I still think medium format film is very relevant in commercial shooting. Even that might be overkill for some later printing or publication, though it is better to have too much information on film, than trying to up-size something less to fit.

There are also many early adopters, or simply baby boomer generation with excess cash. Quite likely some of these will sell to hobbiests and enthusiasts, though their purchases will fuel R&D for the next developments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Doug Dolde]

Kurland has one one Ebay for $10.5K. That's the camera kit, no digital back. And they want $108 to ship UPS Ground. Talk about bullshit !

http://tinyurl.com/3dwuyk

Regarding the above comments, of course MF digital is not a viable economic proposition for a fine arts type shooter. It only pencils out for a working pro commercial photographer.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Kurland has one one Ebay for $10.5K. That's the camera kit, no digital back. And they want $108 to ship UPS Ground. Talk about bullshit !

http://tinyurl.com/3dwuyk

Regarding the above comments, of course MF digital is not a viable economic proposition for a fine arts type shooter. It only pencils out for a working pro commercial photographer.

I still don't get it. A working commercial photographer can get just about anything he needs from a DSLR, I always thought big prints were the realm of fine arts...sure, you might see a big poster at the gap or some such store, but hey the people looking at them are not looking at how well is printed, or if there are any artifacts, they look good from 6 feet... and show the fashion...which is what they care for....

[Gordon Moat]

I think there are barely enough professionals buying these to make them continue. These are very much niche products for the few, whether working or not. My own choice, with that much money, would be to put that into marketing and advertising my capabilities; and I think that would give a greater return on investment. However, I have had the odd client come along thinking these were the next best thing to holes in Swiss cheese . . . so they paid for the rental, and I used a MFDB shot alongside film (which is basically back-up gear) . . . when the client gets a CD-R with the image files (scanned film, or MFDB captures), they cannot pick out which shot originated from which capture method . . . I think that is a good indicator of a few things.

When I looked through the latest Lürzer's Archive 200 Best Advertising Photographers, what I found was that over half the shots similar to the work realms that I shoot, originated on large format (usually 4x5). The only other aspect is that all that film was scanned and post processed. To a client who gets image files, scanned film is no different than direct digital capture, and in many cases probably more than they need. So I have no economic incentive to switch to using a MFDB at the current level.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think there are barely enough professionals buying these to make them continue. These are very much niche products for the few, whether working or not. My own choice, with that much money, would be to put that into marketing and advertising my capabilities; and I think that would give a greater return on investment. However, I have had the odd client come along thinking these were the next best thing to holes in Swiss cheese . . . so they paid for the rental, and I used a MFDB shot alongside film (which is basically back-up gear) . . . when the client gets a CD-R with the image files (scanned film, or MFDB captures), they cannot pick out which shot originated from which capture method . . . I think that is a good indicator of a few things.

When I looked through the latest Lürzer's Archive 200 Best Advertising Photographers, what I found was that over half the shots similar to the work realms that I shoot, originated on large format (usually 4x5). The only other aspect is that all that film was scanned and post processed. To a client who gets image files, scanned film is no different than direct digital capture, and in many cases probably more than they need. So I have no economic incentive to switch to using a MFDB at the current level.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

I don?t want to put words in your mouth but it seems that what you are saying is that for shots that will be enlarged to a greater degree then a 4x5 with film will be just as good and that or anything else a dslr would work....and that the only reason to buy one of these would be to impress the clients....

[Frank Petronio]

Jorge, with the MF Digital you do getting a nice clean file with better detail in the shadows and highlights compared to a DSLR. This makes a difference on things like some of the highly detailed, high quality fashion/beauty/cosmetic ads where shooting a 39mp MF is so much nicer than trying to shoot a model with a 4x5. It is going to be so much nicer to her skin than any DSLR, and the raw shot provides a lot more for the retoucher to work with.

Otherwise, I think some food and auto ad photos really benefit from the extended range that the DSLR would clip.

Basically skin, chrome, and delicate highlights are what really benefit...

And if you walk around a big modern US Mall store, some of the banners and large photos are reproduced quite nicely, with a lot of detail, even up close.

BUT yeah, if you're careful I am sure a good photographer could do fine with a D3 or 1DSmk3... a large part is snob appeal and to impress the client. And the big chip gives you a margin of error that helps too. Look at the shots Tyra did on America's Next Top Model using a digital Blad -- the greyscale conversions were top notch.

[Gordon Moat]

I don?t want to put words in your mouth but it seems that what you are saying is that for shots that will be enlarged to a greater degree then a 4x5 with film will be just as good and that or anything else a dslr would work....and that the only reason to buy one of these would be to impress the clients....

LOL

One way to look at this is that a client usually will review images on their computer monitor. A computer monitor will only show so much, and even if they go to 300% magnification, they are still only seeing a reduced image. It really takes prints to make better decisions.

Compare that to plopping a 4x5 transparency on a light table, then handing the client a 7x loupe. Nearly everyone I have done that for has been blown away at the level of detail. Try to view anything on a computer monitor at 700% magnification, and it becomes too difficult to figure out what one is seeing . . . computer loupes/displays have a long way to go still.

I personally know one architectural shooter who justifiably uses the latest PhaseOne digital back, and has it on a Cambo. The images he shoots with that set-up get printed quite large for in-store display usage (like Apple Store in NYC). Of course, he paid for the entire set-up and lenses after the first shoot he did with that. So . . . it is possible to justify, but quite likely some people are just out to impress their clients.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography