Bronica digital back

>>2901978
>Thoughts?
I think you haven't done even a single google search.

>>2901979
I have though. What are you aiming at? Bronica digital backs do not exist as such. There are adaptors, but they're expensive themselves and still wouldn't help the problem of existing backs being very expensive.

I have seen people making digital backs for 35mm themselves, so the concept isn't unthinkable. The biggest problem would be to obtain a large enough sensor, or else it would be cropped to a postal stamp

But what am I doing here, youre just here to whine and not to help

>>2902004
it would be cheaper if there were several smaller sensors than a single large one. Would need stitching in camera. There are also digital backs for large format.

>>2902007
Yeah I saw those, one guy spent like 100k on building two of them.

A single large sensor would be preferable, though possibly prohibitively expensive, especially for the prototype phase where much can go wrong. Stitching would demand very slick programming as to not get lines/shit between the areas or the necessity to hand stitch the images together in pp, which would be a pain

>>2901978
I've read about people modifying film rangefinders to do it, never built there own sensor before
I guess it's not impossible but you better be ready to work on this for like 2 years
I think the easiest thing would just to transplant a full frame sensor and deal with the crop

>>2902047
>I think the easiest thing would just to transplant a full frame sensor and deal with the crop
This. Is there even a full 6x6 digital back out there? I thought they were all 6x4.5.
And if all your doing is sticking a 35mm FF sensor in there, what's the point? So you can use your Bronica glass? Odds are itd be infinitely easier to adapt the glass to an alpha series Sony.

If you want to try for an engineering exercise, go for it. But I really dont see thr point.

>>2902056
>>2902047
My point would be to have a large sensor and a fun diy project, like you said. If sensors that big don't exist, or are prohibitively expensive, stitching with multiple smaller sensors would theoretically be an option, but if I must be honest, that would probably be somewhat out of my league, skill-wise. Anyways, point of the thread was just to gauge feasibility and gather ideas, so thanks for your input. If it isn't feasible, I'll just keep shooting film, which is fun enough in itself.

>>2902063
I know this is in a completely opposite direction, but look into grabbing a Polaroid back for dat instant gratification. I grabbed one for the SQ-A for $10 off keh

>>2902073
I saw some on e-bay for a mild price, I don't understand though. Why would they be so cheap? Usually Bronica accessories are quite expensive, even secondhand.

Can you just put in a Polaroid sheet and shoot? It's not the instant gratification I'm after, but it sure would be fun.

It would be cool to have all three options; normal film, polaroid and digital. The versatility would be endless, just as the entire modular system design was intended

>>2902073
Oh I started out a bit enthusiastic, I forgot that it would yield 6x7cm photos, which you could basically use as a large postal stamp. A fun gadget, but nothing to use in any (semi-)serious way

The problem is there are no cheap MF sensors available really, and with a 35mm sensor it'd (at least to me) make more sense to use a rangefinder body and 3d print a new back to it.

I've been brainstorming a 3D printed ultrawide MF camera for film with an Arduino driven solenoid shutter and light meter (could maybe add a rangefinder too) myself, might build it at some point.

Maybe figure out a simple focal reducer, like a metabones but in the camera, then onto an aps-c sensor or something? Although I'm no expert in optics and such, the Nikon e3s or whatever those early Nikon DSLR cameras were come to mind

>>2902322
>>2902394
Thanks for your ideas. A small sensor would be a lot easier, but I don't think an in-camera focus reducer would be an option, as I want the camera to be switchable to film by just switching the back. If I were to choose a small sensor (perhaps as a proof of concept, to see if it's worthwhile to invest in a MF sensor), I'd just take the crop for granted.

Ideally I'd find a cheap-ish MF sensor, would anyone know where to buy them at lower prices?

The ultrawide MF camera sounds like an awesome idea btw.

>>2902619
>Ideally I'd find a cheap-ish MF sensor, would anyone know where to buy them at lower prices?
eBay.

They literally don't exist for a very specific reason. The same reason that FF (135) sensors were limited for a time. The production cost is high, due to a larger fab, there's more likely to be errors. Add in that the demand for a MF sensor is low and you've got the perfect problem.

Digital MF is finally catching up to 6x4.5 and is almost at a 1:1 crop factor. Give it a few more years and maybe just maybe a 6x4.5 back will be available (in your dreams).
You're not going to find what you're looking for, because it doesn't exist. Your literal best bet is buying spares/repairs older MF backs where you can, but even then that's probably not worth it when you can just buy a FF (135) sensor body and adapt.

>>2901978
>but they are so expensive you'd have to sell a kidney to buy one.

really? here is a 40mp back for about the same price as an entry level Pro DSLR

The Hasselblad XD1, and Pentax 645d are also around the same price as a Nikon D5 or whatever the Canon 1Dwhatever.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Phase-One-P40-40MP-Hasselblad-H-Mount-Digital-Back-/191937715545?hash=item2cb0611d59:g:6wMAAOSw-itXqpuH

for the cost of building one yourself from scratch could buy you a London Manor, and you would still have cash for a Maybach or two.

>>2902760
You can get a 645z for near the price of a D810

>>2902763
there you go, digital MF is not that expensive and in the long run probably much cheaper than film MF. Once you factor about $30-50 per roll after processing and $50-100 x12 for scanning (12 shots per roll).

a few shoots and you have a Phase One back

>>2902778
>Once you factor about $30-50 per roll after processing and $50-100 x12 for scanning (12 shots per roll).
Once you factor in niggernomics?