8x10 back in my lifetime??

[photobickett]

I was wondering if anyone thinks a cheap (like $1000) back for my 8x10 camera will ever happen?? I don’t really care, digital photography is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned, but I thought that would be fun to play around with.

[edtog]

Maybe in kit form but there really isn't a commercial demand for it to drive the price down to $1000, and imagine the dust!

[Daniel Stone]

you never know.

I'll imagine a 6x6 or 6x7 sensor is in the pipeline in the next 10 years, but you never know.

pro's I assist for have been fully satisfied with the 5DII and some T/S lenses, or Zeiss glass. they still use MFDB's on some jobs requiring bigger/more detailed files, but the client's needs have changed, and now, 3D rendering is taking the stage more and more.

but something 8x10 sized, under $1k? Its a big stretch IMO. look at the price of current sub-6x4.5cm sized sensors and the technology to go with them. Multiply that by 30 or so, and you might have a *baseline* pricing to start with, not counting R&D involved(or bad silicon wafers, the basis of CCD/CMOS sensor technology)

just my $.02

-Dan

[Ben Syverson]

Maybe someday they'll grow digital sensors on a petri dish as large as you like for $10 per square inch.

How long were you planning on living?

[Ed Kelsey]

Makes no sense at all especially when they are getting 80 megapixels on a 645 size (or slightly less) sensor. 80 megapixels is probably close (and maybe superior to) to 8x10 resolution anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

Was that a joke, Ed? Sure resembled one.

[Lenny Eiger]

I think I'd be happier with a 4x5. I'd like more depth of field than med format gives, and less weight than the 8x10. I'd prefer a 6x7 like the Mamiya 7 II, if it had lenses that could do f45. One could take that anywhere....

And uhhh, 80 mgpxls is not there yet.

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Eighty megapixels is easy, compared to the other problems. Lets see ... you've got
that little postage-stamp size sensor ... but now you've got to come up with a lens
which will put as much information on it as on fairly ordinary 8x10 film. Forget f/45;
you'll probably have to settle for f/4 to avoid diffraction, but hey ... now all you need to do is figure out how to get a lot more MTF out of the lens and making the
lens still suitable (giving up, of course, all almenities like a large image circle with movements). Increasing the MTF by 50% might be possible. But hey, to match the
detail on plain ordinary 8x10 film you need to raise the MTF around 3000%!!!
Now the even bigger problem --- how does one invent a digital darkcloth, and the
push-button to make the image frosty and upside-down, and yes, fully 8X10 dimension, so it's fun to look at?

[vinny]

Makes no sense at all especially when they are getting 80 megapixels on a 645 size (or slightly less) sensor. 80 megapixels is probably close (and maybe superior to) to 8x10 resolution anyway.

can o' worms, opened. Let's see how nasty this thread gets.

[Drew Wiley]

Vinny - no need for anyone to get nasty; maybe a little sarcastic, though. Just another one of those uniformed bits of nonsense which can be immediately cured by
someone picking up an 8x10 and learning how much fun it is, and what it can actually do. I'll print a couple of 8X10 negs tomorrow, along with a couple 6X7's,
and maybe even one or two 35mm. It's all fun and legit. But those who open cans of
worms, well, guess it's better than being a worm...