David wrote: > Do you have a predicted time frame for this death? Is it similar to the > death that film will have once it is overtaken by digital? (as so many have > also predicted)
No. I don't know when film dies. I believe it will be around for the foreseeable future and that 6X6 will still exist as long as roll film can be bought. "Dying" is relative here. > Just out of curiosity, why haven't we seen a decent amount of Pentax 645 > digital sensors? > There are a number of digital sensors and backs made for the 6x6 format - > also for the 645 format - it seems that what you're saying is that in order > to standardize for effective sensor production that there should only be > one or the other format. If this is the case, and we know that there are a > lot of 35mm digital SLRS available currently (and maybe even Pentax will > produce one in the near future) then why isn't the "standard" the 35mm > sensor? Why even bother with Medium Format sensors? The digital market are now in a chaotic state. The industry is talking to each other regarding sensor standards; everyone agrees that sensors need to be standardised in order to get prices down. What has emerged for slr's is a below full frame 35mm sensor; the Olydak format is one of those and will perhaps be the standard; the 35mm size is another and also the 6X4,5. The problem with the 6X6 format for digital is that for sensors prices increases exponentially with area. It is possible that a 6X6 sensor will cost twice the amount of a 6X4,5. This will be a waste if you end up with an image using a 6X4,5 area anyway. Besides, 6X6 is far less popular as well to start with. Another obvious point is that Hasselblad wouldn't have made the H1 6X4,5 if the users really wanted a 6X6. 6X6 users are about to die like Cadillac owners. Todays photographers grew up with Nikon and Canon AF and most of them won't be attracted to a square format; a format that was far more popular when their grandfathers grew up. > I'm not so sure why you can't just accept the fact that there can be more > than one MF size - why you feel that 6x6 has to die - why you feel that > everyone wants to enjoy rotating their cameras to go from landscape to > portrait. It is a fact and the writing on the wall is that Hasseblad, who has constantly touted the virtue of this format, doesn't have enough faith it in to make their new camera system use it. Square isn't the hottest thing anymore. Just to set the record straight. I never said that square format was waste of time or money. Nor did I say it wasn't worth pursuing if you like the stuff. What I said was that it is waste of space and by this I mean that you either waste film area or paper area. Whether this "waste" is acceptable or not is really down to the individual users but it is fact of life that most people don't want a format where they end up routinely cropping the image down to a smaller format. P�l
