Faster and cheaper scan back for large format.

[StoneNYC]

I don't thing enough people would be interested to make a scanning back with trying to develop. A large sensor or a series of large sensors would get much more interest.

This was done, a guy who used Polaroids to check his large format work when Polaroid stopped producing the large sizes (8x10 or maybe 20x24?) had a custom made back, it was only 10 megapixels and cost him $500,000 to have 2 made (a usable one and a backup) ... He only used it to "check" an image before using normal film to take the official shot...

So it probably wouldn't be affordable to produce a large sensor, the guy looked into it and decided that maybe 10 photographers in the world would spend that kind of money for a non-scanning back and even at $200,000 price tag the added phone support and technical support that would HAVE to come with it wouldn't be sustainable as a business model long term.

This is all my memory of reading an article, my numbers could be off slightly.

[George Stewart]

I'd happily spend $5k for a 4x5 back and $10k for an 8x10 unit. I'd like them to be totally self contained - no computer needed. Ideally, they would have an off the shelf LiIon battery, an SD card slot, and a small touch display to make setting adjustments and check histogram, etc. Oh, and it should output DNG files, which means no special software would be needed even 50 years from now. I'd be happy with 100MP from 4x5 and perhaps 200-300MP from 8x10. It seems to me that all the components except the frame assembly should be readily available.

[StoneNYC]

I'd happily spend $5k for a 4x5 back and $10k for an 8x10 unit. I'd like them to be totally self contained - no computer needed. Ideally, they would have an off the shelf LiIon battery, an SD card slot, and a small touch display to make setting adjustments and check histogram, etc. Oh, and it should output DNG files, which means no special software would be needed even 50 years from now. I'd be happy with 100MP from 4x5 and perhaps 200-300MP from 8x10. It seems to me that all the components except the frame assembly should be readily available.

You do realize the MF digital backs that are 80mp are $40,000+ currently...

Also CompactFlash would be much better than SD which is why all the pro digital cameras use CF over the cheaper and slower SD cards that are less stable and don't contain redundancy (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Sevo]

The preference for CF is a relic from times when SD was tediously slow and limited to 2GB - these days they have caught up in speed and size. Both formats still have annoying issues, but there is little development in CF any more and its market is dwindling, so it looks as if that will be left behind and soon grow obsolete. I would not buy a new CF only camera unless it is discounted accordingly or of a shortlived type that won't see the end of CF availability.

[George Stewart]

You do realize the MF digital backs that are 80mp are $40,000+ currently...

Also CompactFlash would be much better than SD which is why all the pro digital cameras use CF over the cheaper and slower SD cards that are less stable and don't contain redundancy (correct me if I'm wrong).

I shoot with a digital 'blad and know the cost of high end equipment. I also know the positives and negatives associated with each type of system. For me a digital 4x5 and/or 8x10 would offer the best user experience and image quality. While a scanning back isn't ideal, its the best readily available system we have today for a camera with the most compositional control and best user experience.

The read-write speeds of the fastest SDXC cards is right there with CF cards. They are fine for high resolution HD video and high frame rate still cameras. The only issue with them is that the technology is expanding so fast, one can't just buy an SDXC card and expect it to work in a few year old camera that may only be SDHC compatible.

[Sevo]

Both formats still have annoying issues

That is, CF is built around a long obsolete hard disk bus architecture that was native to mid 1990's PCs, and won't ever get any faster - the proposed faster successors (CFast and XQD) are incompatible and it rather looks as if they will silently fail on the market. There never was a device using CFast in its five years of existence, so it presumably is dead. And two years after the XQD release, the Nikon D4 still seems to be the only photographic camera that can handle it, there only seems to be a single OEM (Sony), and not even the Nikon pro dealers around here stock XQD cards. Besides, bus architecture and market presence issues mean that CF and its successors have vanished from modern (non desktop) computers and are unlikely to return.

SD on the other hand has forced obsolescence issues in the shape of a lack of upward compatibility intentionally designed into the system, and a speed rating system that does only help the makers to market their cards with false claims...

[StoneNYC]

I'm not sure what the Chinese man said... But it's my understanding that CF is still much more stable... Personally I've had 6, yes 6 SD cards fail and get corrupted after just a year or two, while my first ever CF card is still functioning just fine (56mb card haha) and none of my CF cards have ever failed.

I wouldn't trust any shoot on an SD card they have failed or had corrupted files way too often for comfort.

Perhaps you're right that it's definitely an older technology, then again, as they say "they don't make 'em like they used to". Haha

[Sevo]

Japanese - and it was merely spam laced with popular phrases to get found in as many different contexts as possible by search engines.

CF stability is partially a matter of the architecture (which allows for lower level repair software in the case of original CF - but that will be gone with XQD), partially a matter of prices and market segments. There are high reliability SD cards, but few people buy them when the same money can also buy them half a dozen cards that are four times as big and two times as fast. Given the low price of SD cards, there are no reasonable financial obstacles to a regime of "write once and retire to the archive", with which mid-range brand name cards will be about as safe as repeatedly using one single high quality CF card.

[Light Guru]

This was done, a guy who used Polaroids to check his large format work when Polaroid stopped producing the large sizes (8x10 or maybe 20x24?) had a custom made back, it was only 10 megapixels and cost him $500,000 to have 2 made (a usable one and a backup) ... He only used it to "check" an image before using normal film to take the official shot...

So it probably wouldn't be affordable to produce a large sensor, the guy looked into it and decided that maybe 10 photographers in the world would spend that kind of money for a non-scanning back and even at $200,000 price tag the added phone support and technical support that would HAVE to come with it wouldn't be sustainable as a business model long term.

This is all my memory of reading an article, my numbers could be off slightly.

Yes I'm familiar with the story you are talking about.
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/08...e-digital-back

He had it built in 2009 and he did a 8x10 sensor. The cost of sensors is cheaper now and im talking about offering one in a 4x5 or slightly smaller size. the cost would be MUCH less then the 500,000 or even 200,000.

The cost would be even less if multiple sensors were used together to form a combined large sensor. If they can use 166 sensors to make this camera http://petapixel.com/2013/06/24/this...weighs-3-tons/ then using say 6-10 sensors to make a 4x5 sensor array.

[Thom Bennett]

Interesting proposal. I'd say your market would be Architectural photographers who may still have a 4x5 laying around and haven't jumped into a Medium Format Digital back, those who do copy work (museums, galleries, etc.), landscapers and maybe some art and editorial photographers. I think the commercial studio world (where I live) has already adapted to medium format digital backs that they can use with strobes. Would you be able to compose on the ground glass and then insert the device just like a film holder? $3 - 5K sounds like a reasonable price point.