Like a 4x6 and larger?
Here’s an extensive discussion of the issue. (about 1/3 of the way down the page)
I used to have the link for a company that did, but I’ve lost it. Of course, the camera was a measely $29K or so, which leads me to think consumer versions will be a ways off.
What would be the point? I know why large-format works with film. But digital? Why? (Honest question)
IIRC, it has to do with the image resolution of the CCD. Even the expensive digital cameras Lucas used to shoot the latest SW movies aren’t quite up to high quality film stock. As someone who’s played around with medium format cameras and regular old 35mms, I can tell you that there’s a big difference in picture quality, even though medium format is largely abandoned.
Thanks. Thought it might be something like that. My experience was all with 35mm and medium-format film.
A larger CCD would require more memory, but with 8Gb Compact Flash cards relatively cheap (about $475 on ebay), that shouldn’t be much of a problem.
Not that this, um, resolves anything, but I’ve heard that photos taken with an 8 megapixel camera should have the same approximately sharpness as conventional print film. Seems like a rather debatable claim, as many variables enter the equation.
Yes, but larger CCDs are harder to build than smaller ones, which adds to their cost, and if your CCD doesn’t have the same kind of resolution level that film stock has, a kiloquad’s worth of memory ain’t going to do you much good (other than allowing you to take more pictures).
So, can they make CCDs with a higher resolution? More importantly, would there be a market?
Among others… check out Sinar’s large format digitals.
Hasselblad makes several medium format digital cameras and backs for those who don’t need view camera size or movements.
Actually, I can remember Sinarbron making digital backs for large format for well over a decade now, maybe even longer. I saw them all the time when I used to go to Photokina and PMA.
I’m afraid to ask the prices on those.
I’m not sure of what the resolution of the uber-high end digital cameras are now. The $1 million+ cameras which are aimed at the film industry might be over the level of film, or at least close. Certainly, we’ll eventually be able to figure out how to do them, because there’s no physical reason why we can’t. As for a market, yeah there’ll be one. The movie companies would love it, because then people would have to go to the theater to see a movie, since the image quality would surpass anything that they could see on their HDTV (think IMAX[SUP]8[/SUP]). Once the price of the gear started dropping, the pros who run photography studios, then the gadget freaks will have to have one, and that’ll drop the price even more. In about 20 years or so, expect 'em to be selling for $10 in Wallyworld.
Here’s a digital back for my preferred medium-format platform, the Mamiya 645. 22-Megapixel (yes, you heard me) and it can be yours for $25,000 or so.
Needless to say, I’ll be sticking with good ol’ 220 film for the time being. 
Here’s one of Sinar’s new medium format digital backs. 22M pixels!
For various items from single backs for 4x5 to complete systems of medium format to 20x24", I’ve seen prices as low as $10K and as high as several million samollians. 20K - 250K seems to be the usual stickers for these high end pro items.
BTW, Tucker, do a web search for the tests of Canon’s EOS1Ds. Digital has already beaten film’s resolution. Did it a couple of years back, actually.
(Any magazine’s tests will do, they all published the same findings at about the same time.)
I figured that they had, since Lucas’s cameras were pretty close, and I’m reasonably certain that something like Moore’s Law would apply to CCDs as well, but I didn’t want to make the claim that they had.
One of the interesting findings was that in the proper mode (raw) and at the CCD’s optimal ISO (100), the digital beat the film because of film’s grain. The digital was noiseless at it optimal settings and has no grain. Of course, even higher pixels in similar sized sensors will produce even better resolution. Remember that this camera in the review is from 2002.
I thought this was going to be about large format cameras…???
You know, 9" X 9" like a mapping camera.
Yeah, they are here.
You were discussing detail and quality and …right?
No matter the back, you got to have the glass…
And for accuracy, most hand held cameras don’t have the quality of lenses needed. They have too much distortion for one thing.
One can have all the pixels in the world or all the great negatives you want, but if the reproduction or viewing device is less than, all that quality is wasted.