Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Rune Werner Molnes on March 08, 2007, 07:46:21 am
-
Hi,
Does anyone know if the Hy6/Aif prism finder will come in a crop version? E.g designed for the 48x38mm size sensor found in for instance the Leaf Aptus 75 sensor.
In similar way as the H3D, where what you see is what you capture.
Best Regards,
Rune Werner Molnes
www.runemolnes.com
- Photographer -
-
Dear Rune,
the prism finder for the Sinar Hy6 is designed to cover the 6x6 format, since it is a 6x6 camera. The smaller sensors shall be indicated by means of a format masking.
Best regards,
Thierry
Hi,
Does anyone know if the Hy6/Aif prism finder will come in a crop version? E.g designed for the 48x38mm size sensor found in for instance the Leaf Aptus 75 sensor.
In similar way as the H3D, where what you see is what you capture.
Best Regards,
Rune Werner Molnes
www.runemolnes.com
- Photographer -
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
the prism finder for the Sinar Hy6 is designed to cover the 6x6 format, since it is a 6x6 camera.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So over 40% of the VF image is redundant when used with a digital back, and the size of the "digital crop" part of the image is likely to be significantly less than with the H system viewfinder adapted specifically to the "36x48" sensor format.
-
You can use this image to visualize the frame coverage.
With a 49X37 chip in a 48X36 VF you actually "loose" 0.5mm around the frame...this makes the "full frame 48X36" statement a bit weird...
-
Unlike the H3D, the back rotates and it can also take a 120 film back so it needs a 6x6 screen to fit everything in.
GOOD!
-
the back rotates and it can also take a 120 film back so it needs a 6x6 screen to fit everything in.
GOOD!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I prefer the H system approach of offering two viewfinders adapted to the different formats, film and digital; I suspect that a many users will only ever use digital backs with these bodies, never film.
Even with digital back rotation, a 48x48 (49x49?) digital format adapted VF would be better than a 56x56.
-
Hi
At least this system can grow & when are the sensors going to be a true 6x4.5?
Thanks Denis
-
You can use this image to visualize the frame coverage.
With a 49X37 chip in a 48X36 VF you actually "loose" 0.5mm around the frame...this makes the "full frame 48X36" statement a bit weird...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yair,
How will the backs rotate? Like an RZ where you flip a switch and the back just rotates or do you have to take the back off of the camera to change orientation?
Also looking down in the viewfinder, will it give a different crop or any indication of which orientation you are in?
JR
-
So over 40% of the VF image is redundant when used with a digital back, and the size of the "digital crop" part of the image is likely to be significantly less than with the H system viewfinder adapted specifically to the "36x48" sensor format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hasselblad just crops the finder...the image cannot be any bigger then the sensor size...the Hy6 (just like mamiya, contax,...) will probably provide finder masks for the same effect....
i would much rather have the full finder, have the back rotate!!! and mask the unused part off...on my RZ the crop is even more, because the finder is 6x7...but that does not make the image smaller, only smaller in comparison....a certain part of the male anatomy does not get longer just because the legs are shorter:)
-
hasselblad just crops the finder...the image cannot be any bigger then the sensor size...the Hy6 (just like mamiya, contax,...) will probably provide finder masks for the same effect....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105716\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wrong. The Hasselblad HVD90x has a higher degree of magnification compared to the normal HV90x viewfinder (3.1x vs 2.7x). Hence it magnifies the smaller area to appear the same size as "full frame" in the viewfinder.
Svein Erik
-
Wrong. The Hasselblad HVD90x has a higher degree of magnification compared to the normal HV90x viewfinder (3.1x vs 2.7x). Hence it magnifies the smaller area to appear the same size as "full frame" in the viewfinder.
Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105730\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
if i look through the loupe of my RZ WLF, the masked area of my P30 appears full size...is that what you mean? i can do the same with the prism for the RZ by attaching the focus aid which magnifies the area and makes the P30 "full frame"...maybe mamiya should advertise that....
no matter how you look at it, it is just playing with words and numbers....
the WLF of the Hy6 (looks like the same as for the 6008) has a loupe which would have the same effect....
-
...maybe mamiya should advertise that....
no matter how you look at it, it is just playing with words and numbers....
the WLF of the Hy6 (looks like the same as for the 6008) has a loupe which would have the same effect....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If I hold my head back from the Contax viewfinder just a bit, it keeps me from seeing the full frame in the viewfinder, but it sees exactly what the chip sees.
I think I'm gonna manufacture a head bracket, that you'd slide your head into, that holds your head in just that certain sweet spot, and I'm gonna hire me some big-city Copywriter to trump up some big words to tout my "full frame!" device with my Contax.
Hasselblad's marketing department should be marched out to the side yard and shot at dawn. Who do they think they're talking to? If Victor Hasselblad was alive, he'd shake his head in disgust.
Would be like Mini-Cooper bringing a potential customer into their showroom, but before they get them to the car, they hand the customer a set of Mr. Magoo coke-bottle glasses that magnify everything, and then they say, "See, It's a 7-Series big BMW!"
Yeah, right.
-
If I hold my head back from the Contax viewfinder just a bit, it keeps me from seeing the full frame in the viewfinder, but it sees exactly what the chip sees.
I think I'm gonna manufacture a head bracket, that you'd slide your head into, that holds your head in just that certain sweet spot, and I'm gonna hire me some big-city Copywriter to trump up some big words to tout my "full frame!" device with my Contax.
Hasselblad's marketing department should be marched out to the side yard and shot at dawn. Who do they think they're talking to? If Victor Hasselblad was alive, he'd shake his head in disgust.
Would be like Mini-Cooper bringing a potential customer into their showroom, but before they get them to the car, they hand the customer a set of Mr. Magoo coke-bottle glasses that magnify everything, and then they say, "See, It's a 7-Series big BMW!"
Yeah, right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Tuck, you off the prozac? ;-)
-
Hey Tuck, you off the prozac? ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Damn right. And I'm back to my Fighting Weight.
What's just frustrating about all this is, when you've built "a look" out of shooting a 6x8cm film camera for so many years, and then one day, they tell you, "It's time to shoot digital", but then they don't hand you another 6x8 camera, but instead, a sissy little 645, with a whole different kind of focus fall-off, and then, here come all the back makers, and just to mess with you even more, they don't make the chip match the (sissy) camera, but they make the chip *even smaller*, and then have the gall to call it "a full-frame camera", well, yeah, it kinda gets under your skin a little bit.
Does that set a record for longest run-on sentence?
-
Nice sentence, indeed! Record set as the longest? This I don't now.
More seriously, I understand your frustration. Digital MF format has changed the way to handle things and the gear to be used with, even more in "view-camera" shooting. It's still in constant evolution, on all sides: resolution, quality, handling, speed, match of the camera with the sensor, lenses, software, etc ...
We, understand "Camera/back makers", would be happy to have such sensors so-called full-frame, but current technology with related costs give it the limits. We are all trying to cope with the reality of today, and IMO we do it quite well: this reminds me having read in the begining of the 90's the following, concerning digital:
"If film would not exist, we would have to invent it"!
Does this still apply? I don't think so.
Let's be honest and recognize that digital is fantastic, and the images produced with it are as well, at least that is my opinion.
Thierry
Damn right. And I'm back to my Fighting Weight.
What's just frustrating about all this is, when you've built "a look" out of shooting a 6x8cm film camera for so many years, and then one day, they tell you, "It's time to shoot digital", but then they don't hand you another 6x8 camera, but instead, a sissy little 645, with a whole different kind of focus fall-off, and then, here come all the back makers, and just to mess with you even more, they don't make the chip match the (sissy) camera, but they make the chip *even smaller*, and then have the gall to call it "a full-frame camera", well, yeah, it kinda gets under your skin a little bit.
Does that set a record for longest run-on sentence?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Unlike the H3D, the back rotates and it can also take a 120 film back so it needs a 6x6 screen to fit everything in.
GOOD!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unlike the H3D, Sinar/Leaf tacitly admit that we will see larger chips in the near future, and are selling their customers a camera that is future-proofed. Now if they just made a deal with Phase, we'd really love them
Edmund
-
Yair,
How will the backs rotate? Like an RZ where you flip a switch and the back just rotates or do you have to take the back off of the camera to change orientation?
You have to take it off
Also looking down in the viewfinder, will it give a different crop or any indication of which orientation you are in?
JR
See my previous post with the masks, it'll be the same as in a V series or an RZ, but I'll ask about having another icon in the VF...
-
Damn right. And I'm back to my Fighting Weight.
What's just frustrating about all this is, when you've built "a look" out of shooting a 6x8cm film camera for so many years, and then one day, they tell you, "It's time to shoot digital", but then they don't hand you another 6x8 camera, but instead, a sissy little 645, with a whole different kind of focus fall-off, and then, here come all the back makers, and just to mess with you even more, they don't make the chip match the (sissy) camera, but they make the chip *even smaller*, and then have the gall to call it "a full-frame camera", well, yeah, it kinda gets under your skin a little bit.
Does that set a record for longest run-on sentence?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With your writing, Mark, it could be much longer and will still be worth every milliisecond spent reading it!!!!
The good thing is (and I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you that...), YOU (Mark Tucker) would be creating beautiful images with ANY size/ shape/ ratio/ resolution/ lens/ format camera, with or without a VF...
Yair
-
if i look through the loupe of my RZ WLF, the masked area of my P30 appears full size...is that what you mean? i can do the same with the prism for the RZ by attaching the focus aid which magnifies the area and makes the P30 "full frame"...maybe mamiya should advertise that....
no matter how you look at it, it is just playing with words and numbers....
the WLF of the Hy6 (looks like the same as for the 6008) has a loupe which would have the same effect....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The added magnification gives you a viewfinder image (from the reduced area) that is the same size as the normal viewfinder would give on a 645. Hence you will have a better view of the smaller area. For a camera that is only used for digital this is a no-brainer. Its a brilliant little option by HB for those of us that shoot digital and have no interest in what is happening outside the 1.1x crop.
If you put a 100mm on you cam instead of a 80mm you get a higher magnification of a smaller area. Is that also just playing with numbers?
Mark,
Are you drinking??
Svein Erik
-
We, understand "Camera/back makers", would be happy to have such sensors so-called full-frame, but current technology with related costs give it the limits.
If you MF back makers are about "giving the customer options" then, respectfully, why don't you give a customer an option to buy a back with a larger that "smaller than 645" chip?
Somebody probably sat in a conference room, and said, "We can only squeeze three chips out of this wafer, so they need to be this size". But what if you only got two (larger) chips out of the same wafer, but charged the customer more for that?
You guys are at some point going to be trying to compete with Canon, (which is an unwinnable war), so why not invent a new ballgame that you just might win, and offer a TRUE medium format chip size? And I dont mean 6x6 either, because that will just get cropped. I mean something like 6x7 or 6x8.
-
Dear Mark,
while I understand you well and can only agree with what you are saying/proposing (competition with Canon and a true MF sensor), I am also pretty sure that there are some other considerations in such meetings. Costs and break-even factors are certainly important issues here.
Being myself a photographer, I have "pressured" for such since long. Unfortunately I am not sitting in such conference rooms to be able to tell you why it is not the case yet.
All I know is that the "dream" sensor already exists and has been annouced about 10 months ago: 111 MPx with a 4x4" size (10,2x10,2 cm!).
That would exactly fit on a p3 even, isn't it? But don't ask me the price, I don't know it! And don't take this as a statement from me that we will come out with this. I don't know either.
Anyway, your comment shall be forwarded.
Thanks and best,
Thierry
If you MF back makers are about "giving the customer options" then, respectfully, why don't you give a customer an option to buy a back with a larger that "smaller than 645" chip?
Somebody probably sat in a conference room, and said, "We can only squeeze three chips out of this wafer, so they need to be this size". But what if you only got two (larger) chips out of the same wafer, but charged the customer more for that?
You guys are at some point going to be trying to compete with Canon, (which is an unwinnable war), so why not invent a new ballgame that you just might win, and offer a TRUE medium format chip size? And I dont mean 6x6 either, because that will just get cropped. I mean something like 6x7 or 6x8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I mean something like 6x7 or 6x8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've used and owned square hasselblads, but only shot about 10 square jobs in my life, so square not only holds not interest for me, it opens up a way different way the client/AD can interpret the image.
My clients are all talented, brilliant, respectful and beautiful (this is a public forum), but I've heard rumors that some clients tend to interfere, pick some very strange final selects, impose their will during and after a project and might be tempted to make a horizontal from a vertical frame or a vertical from a horizontal.
Square just opens up a whole new world of this type of moveable orientation and something that I really would not want to put on the table.
I've also heard rumors that some clients view a digital production as a multi frame to produce one frame process. These "rumors" say clients move heads from image to image, smiles, eyes, even hands.
As a photographer, we are now being subjected to whatever our final vision is it will change drastically once it leaves our hands.
The lack of being able to control the orientation is just another step that goes from our control and goes to some committee for final decision.
Now I am curious about something and maybe Theirry or Yair can answer this, but if the Hy6 back does not rotate without removal, is the thought of a 6x6 square chip a way to get around this? Is this the tale wagging the dog?
Having to take a back off and replace it every few minutes was difficult enough with film, but at least when it slipped and hit the ground it was only a few hundred not a few ten thousand dollars.
Once again, this is based on rumors as my clients are all talented, brilliant, respectful and beautiful.
JR
-
Anyway, your comment shall be forwarded.
Thanks and best,
Thierry
Thierry,
Don't bother forwarding those comments, because they are just based in theory; not in reality. I have no expectations that a larger sensor will come along before Canon takes over the Universe. Still, I can wish (and complain).
To be honest, in actual use, (rather than so many other comments on this board, which are made by people who don't even own a MF back), the most ideal camera to me, right now, that's actually working and shipping, would be the Contax 645 with a Phase P30 back. I shot a job with that combo a couple weeks ago, and it was close to perfection. Great color; great software (CaptureOne of course); great input profiles for the P30; great recycle rate (especially when shooting to Extreme IVs); not bad recycle rate when shooting tethered to Imac24. The only two things that need improvement on that combination would be a much larger, much more accurate LCD on the back, and to slightly enlarge the chip to echo exactly the 645 viewfinder, with absolutely ZERO crop factor. If someone would take those specs, and make an actual camera, they'd have an actual competitor to Canon.
That is worth forwarding. (Not that I'd expect it to result in an actual camera, but that's at least something to aim for).
Hasselblad (and all MF companies) seem to care less about the size of the LCD. They must think that everyone is either shooting tethered, or they have no client standing there that wants to see a Preview. Actually, none of these companies gets it about the size of the LCD, (except Canon, of course, who you'll soon be working for, and Samsung and other point-and-shoot cameras, which should be incredibly embarrassing to you guys, who're trying to sell a $40,000 solution). Here's a good test for you: You and a friend go out and shoot something. Shoot anything. Make believe that your friend is an Art Director at a large Agency. Imagine that you're holding in your hand a P.O. for a couple hundred grand. Shoot your picture, and then ask your friend, the imaginary Art Director, to come over and look at the puny little, inaccurate LCD on the back of your SinarRolleiWhatever camera, and look him in the eye and really look at his satisfaction level that he truly "gets it" about what you're shooting, and the amount of detail, and the quality of the light, (especially if it's backlit). Ask your friend to be brutally honest with you: "If I held out this (horrible) LCD, and you were spending a couple hundred grand with me, how satisfied would you be, based on what you're seeing on the LCD, that we're truly nailing the shot?"
Good luck with your project. You're gonna need it.
-
All I know is that the "dream" sensor already exists and has been annouced about 10 months ago: 111 MPx with a 4x4" size (10,2x10,2 cm!).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry, is there some literature on this sensor/announcement? when do you think it will happen if it does? I read about 60mp but with a 111 MP 4x4" size (10,2x10,2 cm!). is just Great. Thank you.
-
Mark,
all comments, suggestions AND complains are welcome and worth to be forwarded, especially if they match with my wishes.
We certainly need "luck", but there is no company having been successful out of luck only: there is a lot of hard work behind all projects, each single one. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes not, but we shall persevere that hard work and follow our belief, with inputs from guys and photographers like you or others on this forum.
Thanks for it.
Thierry
Thierry,
Don't bother forwarding those comments, because they are just based in theory; not in reality. I have no expectations that a larger sensor will come along before Canon takes over the Universe. Still, I can wish (and complain).
To be honest, in actual use, (rather than so many other comments on this board, which are made by people who don't even own a MF back), the most ideal camera to me, right now, that's actually working and shipping, would be the Contax 645 with a Phase P30 back. I shot a job with that combo a couple weeks ago, and it was close to perfection. Great color; great software (CaptureOne of course); great input profiles for the P30; great recycle rate (especially when shooting to Extreme IVs); not bad recycle rate when shooting tethered to Imac24. The only two things that need improvement on that combination would be a much larger, much more accurate LCD on the back, and to slightly enlarge the chip to echo exactly the 645 viewfinder, with absolutely ZERO crop factor. If someone would take those specs, and make an actual camera, they'd have an actual competitor to Canon.
That is worth forwarding. (Not that I'd expect it to result in an actual camera, but that's at least something to aim for).
Hasselblad (and all MF companies) seem to care less about the size of the LCD. They must think that everyone is either shooting tethered, or they have no client standing there that wants to see a Preview. Actually, none of these companies gets it about the size of the LCD, (except Canon, of course, who you'll soon be working for, and Samsung and other point-and-shoot cameras, which should be incredibly embarrassing to you guys, who're trying to sell a $40,000 solution). Here's a good test for you: You and a friend go out and shoot something. Shoot anything. Make believe that your friend is an Art Director at a large Agency. Imagine that you're holding in your hand a P.O. for a couple hundred grand. Shoot your picture, and then ask your friend, the imaginary Art Director, to come over and look at the puny little, inaccurate LCD on the back of your SinarRolleiWhatever camera, and look him in the eye and really look at his satisfaction level that he truly "gets it" about what you're shooting, and the amount of detail, and the quality of the light, (especially if it's backlit). Ask your friend to be brutally honest with you: "If I held out this (horrible) LCD, and you were spending a couple hundred grand with me, how satisfied would you be, based on what you're seeing on the LCD, that we're truly nailing the shot?"
Good luck with your project. You're gonna need it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Err...isn't this thread about prism magnification. I don't understand how it could drift off-topic.
-
Thierry,
The only two things that need improvement on that combination would be a much larger, much more accurate LCD on the back, and to slightly enlarge the chip to echo exactly the 645 viewfinder, with absolutely ZERO crop factor. If someone would take those specs, and make an actual camera, they'd have an actual competitor to Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sinar already has more acurate LCD on the back if they could only make it as large as Leaf and enlarge the chip to echo exactly Leafs LCD sze.
GAME OVER, MF Wins!
-
Yes, there has been an official announcement from Dalsa, in June last year.
http://ajaxnetphoto.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html (http://ajaxnetphoto.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html)
As I said: don't speculate about anything.
And as said Billy, this is off-topic here.
Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry, is there some literature on this sensor/announcement? when do you think it will happen if it does? I read about 60mp but with a 111 MP 4x4" size (10,2x10,2 cm!). is just Great. Thank you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The added magnification gives you a viewfinder image (from the reduced area) that is the same size as the normal viewfinder would give on a 645. Hence you will have a better view of the smaller area.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
svein, is this taken straight out of the hass brouchure? i can tell you that with the loupe on my RZ, the imagearea i am getting is probably bigger then the what hass provides....because the lope is 2x....the hass VF if it simply makes it FF is 1.1x or in case of the H31 1.3x...do they make a different VF for the H31...so that one is FF now as well? with magnification, you could really call anything FF....that is my point...
-
I've used and owned square hasselblads, but only shot about 10 square jobs in my life, so square not only holds not interest for me, it opens up a way different way the client/AD can interpret the image.
My clients are all talented, brilliant, respectful and beautiful (this is a public forum), but I've heard rumors that some clients tend to interfere, pick some very strange final selects, impose their will during and after a project and might be tempted to make a horizontal from a vertical frame or a vertical from a horizontal.
Square just opens up a whole new world of this type of moveable orientation and something that I really would not want to put on the table.
I've also heard rumors that some clients view a digital production as a multi frame to produce one frame process. These "rumors" say clients move heads from image to image, smiles, eyes, even hands.
As a photographer, we are now being subjected to whatever our final vision is it will change drastically once it leaves our hands.
The lack of being able to control the orientation is just another step that goes from our control and goes to some committee for final decision.
Now I am curious about something and maybe Theirry or Yair can answer this, but if the Hy6 back does not rotate without removal, is the thought of a 6x6 square chip a way to get around this? Is this the tale wagging the dog?
Having to take a back off and replace it every few minutes was difficult enough with film, but at least when it slipped and hit the ground it was only a few hundred not a few ten thousand dollars.
Once again, this is based on rumors as my clients are all talented, brilliant, respectful and beautiful.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
on the RZ, the back rotates....on the 6008, the emotion rotates, so i am assuming it will be the same on the Hy6.....
the square format does give a lot of options which are sometimes better not given....
there is also something that always bugged me about showing the files when shooting tethered with the P20 (square)...it's all the stuff going on outside the frame, to the left and right.....always had to make sure the preview in C1 was centered correctly to cut out the stuff that isn't meant to be in the shot, but is hard to keep so far away form the subject....you always see so much of the set....it's one thing to have a shot with a c-stand and sandbag peeking in (because it has to be there) but it is another to see the edge of the seemless, cables, stands and coffeecups....just not neat.....
-
svein, is this taken straight out of the hass brouchure? i can tell you that with the loupe on my RZ, the imagearea i am getting is probably bigger then the what hass provides....because the lope is 2x....the hass VF if it simply makes it FF is 1.1x or in case of the H31 1.3x...do they make a different VF for the H31...so that one is FF now as well? with magnification, you could really call anything FF....that is my point...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105860\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul,
Why on earth do you keep bringing up FF and the H31? This has nothing to do with either....
Its about maximizing the image in the viewfinder to the active sensor area for 1.1crop chips. It gives you a BIGGER VIEW OFF WHAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO WORK WITH...
I am not sure how I can try to explain this simpler....
And to re-state the magnifications: HV90x = 2.7x HVD90x = 3.1x
Svein Erik
-
Yair,
I've always believed that any product that had the word photographic labeled on it, immediatly doubled in price. I swear a roll of duct tape that sells for $2.99 at Wallmart would go for $7.99 at Adorama.
Digital has taken this to a new extreme. I remember with my Kodak 760 the lens mount was defective and Kodak wanted $600 to repair it. Nikon repair was $30, but Kodak was 20x that price.
Right then and there I knew that digital photography was going to be very expensive.
At the time I had a very smart studio manager that said, "you know someday we're going to look back at film and say, I remember when we could shoot and process 12 frames for $15.
I think he was right.
So my point;
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']You have to take it off[/span]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is this a design flaw or is it a planned element of the camera?
With the current 645 style sensors it looks like a design flaw, after all how are you going to switch from horizontal to vertical on a beach, in the wind, on a ladder, etc. etc.?
Or, (now we get to my point) is this just another way to move us to the next level of digital backs?
Is the thought process to say "see, now that you bought the Leaf/Sinar HY6 it's hard to switch orientation, so I guess you had better buy our Aptus 66S you know the square sensored model"?
So stepping back, my $25,000 Valeo witha $6,000 upgrade to the A-22 which will require another $6,000 upgrade to a 54S will then require another $9,000 upgrade to the 6x6 model all for the pleasure of not having to take the back off to change orientation? Add to that the cost of new cameras and lenses and let's see let me total this up . . . ah it' doesn't matter, it's just money even though it is BMW 7 series money.
Sometimes I think the Canon guys must be laughing thier asses off. In fact a lot of people are surprised their is no 1ds2 or 3, but I think it's actually a blessing.
Once again we're going to look back at those 1 dollar a frame film days and laugh.
JR
-
Once again, this is based on rumors as my clients are all talented, brilliant, respectful and beautiful.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
James,
Rumor has it that you are as talented, brilliant, respectful and beautiful as your clients,
Sorry, I couldn't resist -
BTW, has anyone here except for Thierry actually seen an Unicorn excuse me, a Hy6 that worked ? Is there a release date yet ?
Edmund
-
James,
Rumor has it that you are as talented, brilliant, respectful and beautiful as your clients,
Sorry, I couldn't resist -
BTW, has anyone here except for Thierry actually seen an Unicorn excuse me, a Hy6 that worked ? Is there a release date yet ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
I asked my CEO and she said it's a rumor.
Still, since you mentioned Mamiya and Phase, if I was Phase, (of course i'm not) and if I was truly locked out of the HY6 camera platform, two days before that camera hit the streets I would offer a deal.
A mamiya 645 kit and a Mamiya RX67 digital kit, for the price of one HY6. I'd call it the Paul Shevz package.
That way you get a dslr with autofocus, fast lenses AND a leaf shutter camera, with true back rotation and a stable, proven platform with a real user installed user base.
JR
-
i cant believe the hy6 cant rotate a back without it being removed! didnt the rollei have that rotate all worked out with the 6008/emotion?
camera progress seems to be one step forward, two steps back. there is 3 main reasons i would cough up a lot more money for the hy6 (concidering my h1 gear will loose half its as used gear when the competition arrives)- camera that supports my choice of back, proper "non removing"rotating back, more reliablity and service. so far only the last request may be granted.
why buy a hy6?? arent products need points of difference to even be worth making?
it is just as easy to turn a h1 on its side with a rrs bracket (or gimmicy rotation head) as it is to pull a hy6 back off and reattach.
i cant see any real advantages. its crazy as i am hanging out for a better product than the h1. and i would pay a lot more than h1 gear if it really had features i really could use.
so far, i cannot understand why someone will buy a hy6/sinar over a 6008/sinar? sure the hy6 "looks" more modern, but it seems the 6008 the winning feature- the proper back rotation. i actually prefer the professional look of the 6008. if phase supported it(and rotate), i would definately buy it, even though its discontinued.
paul
-
Yair,
Is this a design flaw or is it a planned element of the camera?
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Both.
I wonder why.
-
Paul,
Why on earth do you keep bringing up FF and the H31? This has nothing to do with either....
Its about maximizing the image in the viewfinder to the active sensor area for 1.1crop chips. It gives you a BIGGER VIEW OFF WHAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO WORK WITH...
I am not sure how I can try to explain this simpler....
And to re-state the magnifications: HV90x = 2.7x HVD90x = 3.1x
Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do you insist on interjecting facts when we are in the middle of a good anti-Hasselblad diatribe?
-
Reminds me of the D30 which as far as features went had rewinded about 6 canon years...
-
A friend is about to purchase an H2 camera body. Is the 3.1x magnification HVD90x prism compatible?
-
Paul,
Why on earth do you keep bringing up FF and the H31? This has nothing to do with either....
Its about maximizing the image in the viewfinder to the active sensor area for 1.1crop chips. It gives you a BIGGER VIEW OFF WHAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO WORK WITH...
I am not sure how I can try to explain this simpler....
And to re-state the magnifications: HV90x = 2.7x HVD90x = 3.1x
Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i know that neither the H39 nor the H31 has anything to do with FF...seems like hass does not....
about the VF...of course i understand what you are saying....i understand that the VF on the H39 magnifies the image slightly...i have seen it, i have looked trough it....what i am saying is that THAT image is still smaller then what i am seeing through my loupe on the RZ...
in my opinion advertising something as a wonderful and great achievement (as the magnified VF) which pretty much exists with every MF system in one form or another, is hype to me.....my personal opinion....some people will go into a store and think that the H is the only camera out there providing something everybody else has.....of course you could say the others are to blame for that....i have a different opinion about that.....
i am not saying that making a prism for each back and charging (2000$?) for it isn't very smart business move....
-
i cant believe the hy6 cant rotate a back without it being removed! didnt the rollei have that rotate all worked out with the 6008/emotion?
camera progress seems to be one step forward, two steps back. there is 3 main reasons i would cough up a lot more money for the hy6 (concidering my h1 gear will loose half its as used gear when the competition arrives)- camera that supports my choice of back, proper "non removing"rotating back, more reliablity and service. so far only the last request may be granted.
why buy a hy6?? arent products need points of difference to even be worth making?
it is just as easy to turn a h1 on its side with a rrs bracket (or gimmicy rotation head) as it is to pull a hy6 back off and reattach.
i cant see any real advantages. its crazy as i am hanging out for a better product than the h1. and i would pay a lot more than h1 gear if it really had features i really could use.
so far, i cannot understand why someone will buy a hy6/sinar over a 6008/sinar? sure the hy6 "looks" more modern, but it seems the 6008 the winning feature- the proper back rotation. i actually prefer the professional look of the 6008. if phase supported it(and rotate), i would definately buy it, even though its discontinued.
paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i totally agree.....the Hy6 is nothing more then a 6008 with a really fancy grip (that does not come off and where probably most of the tech problems will be....).....so since the choices are either emotion or leaf with the Hy6 right now.....and i would choose the sinar anyway....the 6008 is the way to go...proven, works and the back rotates......that is simply a must.....
i guess that is what comes with making a camera body and trying to make sure to control the back that go on it....the 6008/emotion rotates because there is an adapter (just like on the RZ) that makes the rotating possible....get rid of the adapter and you get stationary contacts.....really sad.....
i guess that means that there will be no phase adapter either, because there is no room for any kind of adapter....even if they made a phase version at this point....the Hy6 just died for me....
-
so far, i cannot understand why someone will buy a hy6/sinar over a 6008/sinar? sure the hy6 "looks" more modern, but it seems the 6008 the winning feature- the proper back rotation. i actually prefer the professional look of the 6008. if phase supported it(and rotate), i would definately buy it, even though its discontinued.
The 6008AF is still a current model, and to some extent a camera is just there to hold the lenses and backs together, so you won't directly gain any image quality with a Hy6 over a 6008. However, you will get a smaller and lighter body, you will get better battery life, you will lose the sync cable, you get ISO syncing between camera and back, RGB sensor for white balance, and improved mirror action. You also get a slightly different control and display layout. That's all I know about so far.
As for rotating the back on a 6008, you can do that in about a second with a bit of practice. The L bracket helps with other cameras but you still lose the waist level finder. That's a big deal to me personally. YMMV.
-
My impression when seeing the Hy6 is that it is fairly back-agnostic, with some sort of removable spacer between back and camera, that might be used for a rotation device. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think the design was done to lock anyone out, on the contrary with th extra lens coverage and back surface and back fastening it looked very future-open. I'm sorry to say this as I'm a known cynic, but the Francke CEO came across as - honest and genuinely interested in his product. The sort of guy I'd like to buy a camera from. The Leaf guys came across as very business-oriented, and the Sinar guys came across as - confused.
Edmund
i totally agree.....the Hy6 is nothing more then a 6008 with a really fancy grip (that does not come off and where probably most of the tech problems will be....).....so since the choices are either emotion or leaf with the Hy6 right now.....and i would choose the sinar anyway....the 6008 is the way to go...proven, works and the back rotates......that is simply a must.....
i guess that is what comes with making a camera body and trying to make sure to control the back that go on it....the 6008/emotion rotates because there is an adapter (just like on the RZ) that makes the rotating possible....get rid of the adapter and you get stationary contacts.....really sad.....
i guess that means that there will be no phase adapter either, because there is no room for any kind of adapter....even if they made a phase version at this point....the Hy6 just died for me....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
and i still cant understand so much discussions and either positiv or negativ emotions about a camera which already does not exist,- and if it will be out it will not be a revolution in any aspect cause its based on a many years existing design.
before so many commented in a nearly hysteric way the hy/avi positiv, now the opposite......
why not wait till the camera will have met the first hands and than to discuss about ?
its often a nice board here , but this hy/avi discussions remind me in dpreviews canon forum.
-
My impression when seeing the Hy6 is that it is fairly back-agnostic, with some sort of removable spacer between back and camera, that might be used for a rotation device. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think the design was done to lock anyone out, on the contrary with th extra lens coverage and back surface and back fastening it looked very future-open. I'm sorry to say this as I'm a known cynic, but the Francke CEO came across as - honest and genuinely interested in his product. The sort of guy I'd like to buy a camera from. The Leaf guys came across as very business-oriented, and the Sinar guys came across as - confused.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
edmund...that is how i pictured the camera as well and the fact that it is supposed to take the 645rollei mag made sense to me....that is why i keep thinking that someone will come up with an adapter....but if the whole adapter thing isn't planned in i don't see how a regular phase back would not be too far back (focus) with some kind of adapter, especially one that can rotate....the phase adapter i have for the RZ looks almost like 5mm to me....the RZ magazines have the rotating mechanism built in, so the film plane sits back a bit....
i am really surprised.....i guess it will be like the 645 mag on the 6008, it sits in an adapter, take it off rotate, put it back on....but with the emotion rotating on the 6008, there is no reason to take a step back in the wrong direction...other then to lock people out.....which really is 2 steps back....
-
The 6008AF is still a current model, and to some extent a camera is just there to hold the lenses and backs together, so you won't directly gain any image quality with a Hy6 over a 6008. However, you will get a smaller and lighter body, you will get better battery life, you will lose the sync cable, you get ISO syncing between camera and back, RGB sensor for white balance, and improved mirror action. You also get a slightly different control and display layout. That's all I know about so far.
As for rotating the back on a 6008, you can do that in about a second with a bit of practice. The L bracket helps with other cameras but you still lose the waist level finder. That's a big deal to me personally. YMMV.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i shoot a lot from ground level, and most shots are horizontal luckly so a waist finder works with an h1. have you ever tried to shoot from the ground looking through a prism all day, its neck breaking material. i also seem to get locations to shoot that im either backed up to a wall, against some unmovable object. so i got really interested in the hy6 and rollei, especially with all the various types of finders rollei has made in the past. these are the real things that make my work easier.
the rotating back is another practical feature- a lot of shots i take are going to be used as DPS and a4 portrait. this is one of the many features that made the rb/rz great cameras in their day.
i cant see why people dont want these features again? a removable rotating back is an expensive accident waiting to happen.
the hy6 weight isnt really a big selling point for me. it isnt a point and shoot or holiday camera, it should be professional work horse. all cameras seem light compared to the rz/rb i lugged around for most of career. i dont fly a lot, i would probably think differently if i did.
paul
-
and i still cant understand so much discussions and either positiv or negativ emotions about a camera which already does not exist,- and if it will be out it will not be a revolution in any aspect cause its based on a many years existing design.
before so many commented in a nearly hysteric way the hy/avi positiv, now the opposite......
why not wait till the camera will have met the first hands and than to discuss about ?
its often a nice board here , but this hy/avi discussions remind me in dpreviews canon forum.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=105953\")
Rainer, agreed. I'd prefer to see the emotional/flame content of these discussions taken down a stop or two. Speaking for myself, I'm interested in simply gathering information that I can add to my mix of research, dealer tests and personal experience in order to make an informed decision...
I can understand why folks feel angry about a business which used to produce unrivalled quality and which now charges much more for products with lower perceived quality, fewer options, all coming at a time of major changes in the industry and marketplace. Scary, anger inducing stuff. I'd just like to see some of that vented off pre-post. Manufacturers should hear this stuff, for sure. And I think it's fine to say "man this pisses me off" without the smoldering flames directed at fellow forum members.
I'm resigned to the fact that digital is buggy and that firmware will need (timely, accurate) updates (that will then fix the problem). Hardware shouldn't have these problems out of the box, and quality control should be top notch. Bad hardware makes me angry too, especially when I've paid handsomely for the privelege of using it. And this anger should be heard publically. It's information as well. I just wish that we could separate the anger part of the post from the information part a bit more. I guess what I'm trying to say is that really, we're all on the same side here as consumers. Let's not beat each other up for using product X nor irrationally defend bad business practices where they exist.
That being said, here's a vintage 2006 3D rendering (some of you have seen this already of course) of the back change on the Sinar Hy6. Not incredibly detailed, may or may not be current, may not provide any useful information, may send some into a sudden random apoplectic rage.
[a href=\"http://www.zoomatra.de/2006/sinar/vrml/vrml.html]http://www.zoomatra.de/2006/sinar/vrml/vrml.html[/url]
And, in order to save time, the knee-jerk responses can include:
1. That was clearly designed by blind misanthropes that have never touched a camera
2. That tells me nothing without seeing it for real, you have wasted precious minutes of my life and I want them back
3. Product X/Y is better/worse in my experience/dreams/pants
(liklihood of negative response to this post, 95%)
-
Rainer, agreed. I'd prefer to see the emotional/flame content of these discussions taken down a stop or two. Speaking for myself, I'm interested in simply gathering information that I can add to my mix of research, dealer tests and personal experience in order to make an informed decision...
I can understand why folks feel angry about a business which used to produce unrivalled quality and which now charges much more for products with lower perceived quality, fewer options, all coming at a time of major changes in the industry and marketplace. Scary, anger inducing stuff. I'd just like to see some of that vented off pre-post. Manufacturers should hear this stuff, for sure. And I think it's fine to say "man this pisses me off" without the smoldering flames directed at fellow forum members.
I'm resigned to the fact that digital is buggy and that firmware will need (timely, accurate) updates (that will then fix the problem). Hardware shouldn't have these problems out of the box, and quality control should be top notch. Bad hardware makes me angry too, especially when I've paid handsomely for the privelege of using it. And this anger should be heard publically. It's information as well. I just wish that we could separate the anger part of the post from the information part a bit more. I guess what I'm trying to say is that really, we're all on the same side here as consumers. Let's not beat each other up for using product X nor irrationally defend bad business practices where they exist.
That being said, here's a vintage 2006 3D rendering (some of you have seen this already of course) of the back change on the Sinar Hy6. Not incredibly detailed, may or may not be current, may not provide any useful information, may send some into a sudden random apoplectic rage.
http://www.zoomatra.de/2006/sinar/vrml/vrml.html (http://www.zoomatra.de/2006/sinar/vrml/vrml.html)
And, in order to save time, the knee-jerk responses can include:
1. That was clearly designed by blind misanthropes that have never touched a camera
2. That tells me nothing without seeing it for real, you have wasted precious minutes of my life and I want them back
3. Product X/Y is better/worse in my experience/dreams/pants
(liklihood of negative response to this post, 95%)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
sorry, im guilty of that. its just hard to not to get emotive when ive invested more in one camera than probably every other camera ive owned put together.
if i could easily put my p25 onto multiple cameras, i could just choose the camera that suited the job. but instead im hoping the Hy6 would come and save me , and give another better option than the h1
paul
-
Hi,
I recently had the opportunity to test a beta- version of the Sinar Hy6 here in Norway, and it felt just right in my hands. All important functions/buttons can be thumb- operated, and the ergonomics, size and weight is also a big plus with this camera.
I have been using mainly 35mm format and lately a Canon 1Ds MkII, and have very little or no previous experience with MF. So I approached the various MF alternatives with few preconceptions. Tried the H3D but did not like it much for various reasons; some of them being size, weight distribution/balance, ergonomics and last but not least operation/interface which I felt was very counter- intuitive.
A representative from Sinar was there promising me a new stellar 35mm ("optimized for digital") for the Hy6/AFi come August 2007.
After testing the H3D-39 against an Leaf Aptus 75/Mamiya combo, I ended up ordering my Leaf AFi 75 - camera. I've been promised delivery come summer 2007, and have been offered the opportunity to use a Leaf Aptus 75 + Mamiya 645 AFD II until the AFi is ready. I'll probably wait with the AFi until the 35mm is available, as I shoot a lot of my landscapes at wide angle.
Some keep referring to the "mythical Hy6", but it's by all means a real camera just around the corner: http://www.leaf-photography.com (http://www.leaf-photography.com)
Rune Werner Molnes
-
Hi,
I recently had the opportunity to test a beta- version of the Sinar Hy6 here in Norway, and it felt just right in my hands. All important functions/buttons can be thumb- operated, and the ergonomics, size and weight is also a big plus with this camera.
[clip]
After testing the H3D-39 against an Leaf Aptus 75/Mamiya combo, I ended up ordering my Leaf AFi 75 - camera. I've been promised delivery come summer 2007, and have been offered the opportunity to use a Leaf Aptus 75 + Mamiya 645 AFD II until the AFi is ready. I'll probably wait with the AFi until the 35mm is available, as I shoot a lot of my landscapes at wide angle.
[clip]
Rune Werner Molnes
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rune, can you comment on your comparison of the Sinar vs Leaf... what made you go with Leaf in this case, etc.?
-
Hi,
I recently had the opportunity to test a beta- version of the Sinar Hy6 here in Norway,
Rune Werner Molnes
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How's the focus ? Did you have the waist-level of the eye-level ?
E.
-
Yaya & Thierry should be able to tell us a bit more, no?
-
I did not test any Sinar backs, only the Leaf Aptus 75/Mamiya vs. H3D-39 (And the P45 on a H2).
The Leaf back was my reason for choosing the Leaf AFi and not the Hy6, for all I know the Sinar alternative might be just as good as the Leaf.
Manual focusing on the beta- Hy6 was very good, in the sense that you very easily could confirm precisely what was in focus. I used the waist-level finder with the very useful flip-up magnifier. The 90° prism viewfinder will be available when the camera ships to market. For precise manual focusing I preferred the Hy6 over the H3D.
None of the new Schneider-Kreuznach AFD lenses were available at their stand, but they claimed (of course) that the AF on the Hy6/AFi will be much faster and more precise than on the H3D.
- Rune
-
Thierry, is there some literature on this sensor/announcement? when do you think it will happen if it does? I read about 60mp but with a 111 MP 4x4" size (10,2x10,2 cm!). is just Great. Thank you.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=105847\")
If it matters to you, I guess that [a href=\"http://www.dalsa.com/news/news.asp?itemID=252]Dalsa[/url] didn't make a Bayer pattern mask
for this sensor since it's intended for use in an observatory. People at
the observatory can likely take multiple photos with different filters if
they want color. Fairchild Imaging (http://www.fairchildimaging.com/products/fpa/ccd/area/index.htm) has been manufacturing an 80+ MP
8cm x 8cm monochrome chip since before Dalsa made the 111 MP one.
Their "ultra high resolution, electro-optical framing camera for reconnaissance
and other applications" description suggests to me that as with the sensor
for the Naval observatory, it takes a military/CIA grade budget to purchase
silicon sensors this large. If you download Fairchild's PDF, I found it interesting
to read about the acceptable numbers of clusters of bad pixels in their different
quality grades. - John
-
If it matters to you, I guess that Dalsa (http://www.dalsa.com/news/news.asp?itemID=252) didn't make a Bayer pattern mask
for this sensor since it's intended for use in an observatory. People at
the observatory can likely take multiple photos with different filters if
they want color. Fairchild Imaging (http://www.fairchildimaging.com/products/fpa/ccd/area/index.htm) has been manufacturing an 80+ MP
8cm x 8cm monochrome chip since before Dalsa made the 111 MP one.
Their "ultra high resolution, electro-optical framing camera for reconnaissance
and other applications" description suggests to me that as with the sensor
for the Naval observatory, it takes a military/CIA grade budget to purchase
silicon sensors this large. If you download Fairchild's PDF, I found it interesting
to read about the acceptable numbers of clusters of bad pixels in their different
quality grades. - John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, very interesting, I appreciate the info, Thank you.
-
i know that neither the H39 nor the H31 has anything to do with FF...seems like hass does not....
about the VF...of course i understand what you are saying....i understand that the VF on the H39 magnifies the image slightly...i have seen it, i have looked trough it....what i am saying is that THAT image is still smaller then what i am seeing through my loupe on the RZ...
in my opinion advertising something as a wonderful and great achievement (as the magnified VF) which pretty much exists with every MF system in one form or another, is hype to me.....my personal opinion....some people will go into a store and think that the H is the only camera out there providing something everybody else has.....of course you could say the others are to blame for that....i have a different opinion about that.....
i am not saying that making a prism for each back and charging (2000$?) for it isn't very smart business move....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thats not quite right.
The HCD28mm lens is designed for the 22 / 39 MP sensor so 28mm is actually a 28mm lens. Important if you need really wide angle lenses and don't want to suffer from crippling lens conversion factors...
Which some might argue are present on the RZ.
Also a little known fact is that he metering system in the new finder is more accurate and also faster to meter.
Jo S.x
-
Thats not quite right.
The HCD28mm lens is designed for the 22 / 39 MP sensor so 28mm is actually a 28mm lens. Important if you need really wide angle lenses and don't want to suffer from crippling lens conversion factors...
Which some might argue are present on the RZ.
Also a little known fact is that he metering system in the new finder is more accurate and also faster to meter.
Jo S.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jo,
I believe you're wrong!
The 28 is a 28 ,however there still is the crop factor of the sensor.
In real terms the lens is a 30.8 mm lens,which is still pretty good!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Jo,
I believe you're wrong!
The 28 is a 28 ,however there still is the crop factor of the sensor.
In real terms the lens is a 30.8 mm lens,which is still pretty good!
Cheers,
Willem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I beleive I am right...
There is only a crop factor on the 31MP sensor, otherwise the image circle of the HCD28mm is 'fitted' to the 22 and 39 sensor.
Jo S.x
-
I beleive I am right...
There is only a crop factor on the 31MP sensor, otherwise the image circle of the HCD28mm is 'fitted' to the 22 and 39 sensor.
Jo S.x
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=106106\")
You can look here under compatibility...
[a href=\"http://www.hasselblad.com/media/61395063-aa6b-4c3d-b212-d9c68f90e0f8-HCD28_UK.pdf]http://www.hasselblad.com/media/61395063-a...f8-HCD28_UK.pdf[/url]
-
I beleive I am right...
There is only a crop factor on the 31MP sensor, otherwise the image circle of the HCD28mm is 'fitted' to the 22 and 39 sensor.
Jo S.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jo ,you're wrong!
The H3 22 and 39 sensors are not full frame,we all know that!
Like I said before,a 30.8mm lens is still very wide!
-
The 28 is a 28 ,however there still is the crop factor of the sensor.
In real terms the lens is a 30.8 mm lens,which is still pretty good!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Hasselblad catalogue/brochure states this for the 28mm lens:
"the HCD 4/28 mm lens is designed solely for digital use. this means that the lens is
designed for a format of 37x49 mm and does not cover the film format (41.5x56mm)."
Does this not mean that there is no crop factor involved, and that the 95 degree diagonal angle of view does not apply? (Making it approx. the same as a 20mm on a FF canon with a 94 degree diagonal angle of view...)
I was under the impression that this lens is in fact a true 28 on the H3D, can anyone confirm this?
-axel
-
Jo ,you're wrong!
The H3 22 and 39 sensors are not full frame,we all know that!
Like I said before,a 30.8mm lens is still very wide!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here we go again!
I'm right, quoting from the link above...
'The HCD 4/28 mm lens is designed solely for digital use. This means that the lens is
designed for a format of 37x49 mm and does not cover the film format (41.5x56mm).'
Believe me now?
Jo S.x
-
O.K!
So the 35,50,80,150,210 etc are 35,50,80,150,210 ?
Anyway the 28 is a 28.9 mm.
http://www.hasselblad.com/media/61395063-a...f8-HCD28_UK.pdf (http://www.hasselblad.com/media/61395063-aa6b-4c3d-b212-d9c68f90e0f8-HCD28_UK.pdf)
And the angle of view varies on which sensor is being used.
It certainly won't be the same with the new Hasselblad 31MB sensor.
Cheers,
Willem.
And please correct me if I'm wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The 28mm is a 28mm (well.. around about 28mm). So on a H3D-39 it will appear to be approximately a 30mm - even if the image circle only covers the smaller area. The 28mm describes the actual physical measurement of the lens irrelevant of the sensor size.
A 28mm for 35mm format is still a 28mm even if it cant cover anything larger format.
Svein Erik
-
The 28mm is a 28mm (well.. around about 28mm). So on a H3D-39 it will appear to be approximately a 30mm - even if the image circle only covers the smaller area. The 28mm describes the actual physical measurement of the lens irrelevant of the sensor size.
A 28mm for 35mm format is still a 28mm even if it cant cover anything larger format.
Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Svein!
I knew I was right a along!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
The 28mm is a 28mm (well.. around about 28mm). So on a H3D-39 it will appear to be approximately a 30mm - even if the image circle only covers the smaller area. The 28mm describes the actual physical measurement of the lens irrelevant of the sensor size.
A 28mm for 35mm format is still a 28mm even if it cant cover anything larger format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm getting very confused by this...
The HC lenses cover the 41,5x56mm filmformat giving a 1.1 crop factor in the image circle when you use either the kodak 22 or 39 mpix chips.
The HCD lenses though (currently the 28mm) cover only the 37x49 format, thus NOT cropping anything in the imagecircle. Are you guys telling me that it still has a 1.1 crop factor, even though it does NOT crop the imagecircle. That would be the same as saying a FF canon crops all the canon lenses with a slightly larger image circle (like all the TS/E lenses, making the 28mm TS/E something like a 40/50 mm?)
The only factor I can tell that would allow one to claim a crop factor involved would be the larger sized mirror box on the H-system bodies, and the subsequent lengt from lens exit pupil to sensor created by this oversized (in the HCD lens case) mirror box...
-axel
(not flaming, just very curious, and starting to think Hasselblad is in deep waters with this full frame 48mm system stuff on the HCD lenses if it in fact still is a crop factor involved on the HCD lenses...)
-
maybe i missunderstand you but i dont see the problem...( anyway axel is right )
a 28mm lens is a 28mm lens on whatever sensor or film size you mount it. same lens still will be a 28mm on 4x5" ( which it will not cover ofcourse ) and it will still be a 28mm on a 35mm sensor.
its the sensor size alone which determins the crop factor, and this 1.1 or 1.3 maths only says that a 28mm on a 36x49 sensor shows the same image field than a lens with 31mm would show on a "full" 645 sensor/film, cause here the image field is larger and therefor the lens need to be longer for the same image.
-
Dear Axel,
the 28mm is a 28mm and remains a 28mm as long as it exists, no matter which camera, which film size or which sensor size it is used with/on.
The important here is the lens angle, which gives the size of the image circle. This produced image circle will (or will not) cover a certain size or a certain sensor size. The size of the film/sensor is important here. And since we are speaking digital, the current size of the Kodak sensors are 36.7x49mm. And this is NOT the same size as the 4.5x6 flim size (41.5x56mm).
Important is the effect of the lens and compare what can be compared: this particular 28mm will have a certain crop (framing) which corresponds to the same crop with a 31mm (according to Willems calculation) on a (film) 4.5x6.0 (exactly 41.5x 56mm).
Hope this helps to understand, that whatever one says "full frame" is a relative wording.
Best regards,
Thierry
I'm getting very confused by this...
The HC lenses cover the 41,5x56mm filmformat giving a 1.1 crop factor in the image circle when you use either the kodak 22 or 39 mpix chips.
The HCD lenses though (currently the 28mm) cover only the 37x49 format, thus NOT cropping anything in the imagecircle. Are you guys telling me that it still has a 1.1 crop factor, even though it does NOT crop the imagecircle. That would be the same as saying a FF canon crops all the canon lenses with a slightly larger image circle (like all the TS/E lenses, making the 28mm TS/E something like a 40/50 mm?)
The only factor I can tell that would allow one to claim a crop factor involved would be the larger sized mirror box on the H-system bodies, and the subsequent lengt from lens exit pupil to sensor created by this oversized (in the HCD lens case) mirror box...
-axel
(not flaming, just very curious, and starting to think Hasselblad is in deep waters with this full frame 48mm system stuff on the HCD lenses if it in fact still is a crop factor involved on the HCD lenses...)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
the 28mm is a 28mm and remains a 28mm as long as it exists, no matter which camera, which film size or which sensor size it is used with/on.
The important here is the lens angle, which gives the size of the image circle. This produced image circle will (or will not) cover a certain size or a certain sensor size. The size of the film/sensor is important here. And since we are speaking digital, the current size of the Kodak sensors are 36.7x49mm. And this is NOT the same size as the 4.5x6 flim size (41.5x56mm).
Important is the effect of the lens and compare what can be compared: this particular 28mm will have a certain crop (framing) which corresponds to the same crop with a 31mm (according to Willems calculation) on a (film) 4.5x6.0 (exactly 41.5x 56mm).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Thierry, that's what I was looking for...
The bit about a lens being a certain mm. no matter for what format, I have understood after my first foray into medium and large format many years ago.
It seems where I got confused by HB "marketing speak" is where one starts to compare a 28mm for the 36.7x49 format (22/39mpix chip) with a 35mm for the 41.5x56 format. This is like comparing 35 with 645 and a different format altogether.
If one disregards the image circle bit for the 28, it needs a conversion factor of 1.1 to be compared to all other HC lenses, and to be treated as a 30,8mm when being compared to both 645 and 35mm for easy understading of this lens in relation to other formats.
What is clear to me though, is that this lens provides a 95 degree diagonal viewing angle "on chip" for the 22/39 mpix kodak chips, making it almost directly comparable to a 20mm on a FF canon (94 degree diagonal viewing angle, so maybe more like a 19,5mm on the canon...) if one needs to easily grasp what this lens offers in terms of wide angle. (If this is not true, and HB gives the viewing angle for a 41.5x56 format in its documentation about this lens, then someone at their marketing department need to be fired as it is seriously misleading!)
Anyways, thanks for the clarification, the 28mm does indeed have a 1.1 conversion factor when being compared to other formats using 41.5x56 film/sensor size as the base for the comparison.
-axel
(after re-reading this post, I find that my terminology is'nt at its greatest here, but I hope I have understood, and that what I just wrote is understandable )
-
Thats not quite right.
The HCD28mm lens is designed for the 22 / 39 MP sensor so 28mm is actually a 28mm lens. Important if you need really wide angle lenses and don't want to suffer from crippling lens conversion factors...
Which some might argue are present on the RZ.
Also a little known fact is that he metering system in the new finder is more accurate and also faster to meter.
Jo S.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
why do use quotes if what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with what you are quoting?
-
Thanks Svein!
I knew I was right a along!
Cheers,
Willem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
just read this whole exchange....another amazing example of hass marketing talk....so much that you can quote directly from the website/manual and still get it wrong....so really after announcing a 28 FF with big fanfare it turns out to be a 31 FF and still does not cover the whole area for film....
i just don't get what the point of trying to mislead consumers with a product that is so specialized anyway....nobody is not NOT going to buy the lens because it is a 31 (i hope)....
-
Okey Dokey!
So the 28mm remains a 28mm regardless of what it goes on, sure sure I get that.
But I believe what differentiates the HC lenses (50, 120 etc etc) to the H2D 28.9( ) is that the angle of view is not affected when it is placed on an H3D.
Whereas the other HC lenses will be affected by a crop factor... or whatever else you want to call it.
Either way its a very nice lens when I borrowed it for a couple of days.
Jo S.x
-
just read this whole exchange....another amazing example of hass marketing talk....so much that you can quote directly from the website/manual and still get it wrong....so really after announcing a 28 FF with big fanfare it turns out to be a 31 FF and still does not cover the whole area for film....
i just don't get what the point of trying to mislead consumers with a product that is so specialized anyway....nobody is not NOT going to buy the lens because it is a 31 (i hope)....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Based upon all your writings about Hasselblad it sounds to me like you hate Hasselblad and loves to write negative about every thing Hasselblad does.
Now it is not only the H2 you hate, but also the lenses.
It has become so predictebal that it is not worth reading anymore.
Every brand has qualities and faults.
Hasselblad would not be where it is today by being what you claim it is - only bad.
Try to get some grey shades into your opinions about a brand.
Then your opinion will be more interesting and credible.
Willow
-
I have a PhD in maths, and I'm confused.
Some of my cameras take 35mm film.
Some take MF film.
Some have digital sensors, the size of film.
Some have sensors cropped to various sizes.
I have a variety of lenses.
And all have lenses defined by millimeter numbers Mi.
These millimeter numbers Mi describe the distance of the nodal point of the lens to the film plane when the lens is focused at infinity.
These millimeter numbers Mi are supposed to magically relate to the angle of view of the lens, because after all we have different lenses for different angles of view.
And yet when I stick an 80mm lens on a Hasselblad film camera (nice camera!)it's a "normal " lens . On a 35mm camera it's a short-tele portrait lens.
Maybe just giving millimeter figures is not descriptive of field of view without defining the image size.
Which is why the marketing guys love it. You sell somebody a "medium format" camera except it's cropped and the field of view of the lens is reduced, but you tell him he's got the whole thing.
I'd feel more comfortable if people told me what field of view the lens had on their camera system, at a given aspect ratio.
As usual, people will tell me this is total nonsense. For those who like the less travelled road, but prefer it paved, here is a link to an FOV calculator.
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html (http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html)
Edmund
-
giving millimeter figures is not descriptive of field of view without defining the image size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Correct
No PHD required
The perspective and DOF characteristics are however defined by the focal lenghth
SMM
-
May I correct Sam, with all my due respect:
- the perspective does not depend on the focal lenght but solely on the view point (distance & angle to the subject).
- The dof depends on the aperture & the reproduction size, and does also not depend on the focal length.
Thierry
Correct
No PHD required
The perspective and DOF characteristics are however defined by the focal lenghth
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
May I correct Sam, with all my due respect:
- the perspective does not depend on the focal lenght but solely on the view point (distance & angle to the subject).
- The dof depends on the aperture & the reproduction size, and does also not depend on the focal length.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The perspective and DOF characteristics are however defined by the focal lenghth.. given a fixed field of view and shooting point
ie a 65mm on 54 a f8 looks different from an 16mm on an APS chip at f8 even though the field of view is the same - the DOF is different
An 80mm f4 4 on a blad croped in half looks the same as an 80f4 on a dslr the perspective is the same but the field of view less
Bottom line - bigger chip = less DOF for a given view at a given aperture
world record for off topicness??
SMM
-
Based upon all your writings about Hasselblad it sounds to me like you hate Hasselblad and loves to write negative about every thing Hasselblad does.
Now it is not only the H2 you hate, but also the lenses.
It has become so predictebal that it is not worth reading anymore.
Every brand has qualities and faults.
Hasselblad would not be where it is today by being what you claim it is - only bad.
Try to get some grey shades into your opinions about a brand.
Then your opinion will be more interesting and credible.
Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
did you even read what i wrote? i said nothing negative abut hass lenses....
someone pointed out that what hass claims is wrong, of course the ususal people jumped on him , even quoting has literature and it turns he is right! i don't get deceptive advertising for a product like this.....and like i said....anyone would be stupid NOT to buy the 28 becaue it is still the widest lens out there.....
anyne working with digital knows about lensfactors...whenever anyone asks me: what is that lens on this camera...i always say it is the same lens...you might just get less of it....to me a 180 for the P30 is still a 180....just cropped....the lenses haven't changed, just what we get from them and with different sensor sizes it gets even more complicated....either way i know what a 28 will give me.....
but when a company takes that and by marketing speak (some of it quoted here earlier) makes it seem like you are getting more then you think you are (which some people here obviously did and by reading the material i was very confused as well) i just don't think that is right.....do you think that this is the way to advertise this lens?
of course the 80mm is the 80 and there is no other claim about it....the 28 on the mamiya will cover the whole area, but it won't be any wider on a P45/ C39 then the Hass 28...so what is the point....
and actually, because you mentioned it....i don't like hass lenses.....the 80mm is fine, i have no problems with it...it is fine, not great (which for the money it should be) and the zoom is fine optically, only very slightly better then my 10 year old mamiya zoom which weighs a fraction and cost even less....i was never very happy about my hass V lenses either (40, 80, 120)...fine, but nothing to write home about...the only good one was the 38 on the hass wide body....nice lens....these are all my personal experiences and i am sharing them just like you do....
-
Sam
if you want to compare the dof you have to compare what can be compared: of course a smaller format on APS has more dof than on the 4x5" film. But you cannot compare like this: you have to compare at the same reproduction scale, thus enlarge the APS to the same size as the 4x5 and then you will see what I mean.
As for perspective, it is the same: make 2 shots from exactly the same view point AND with a different focal lens, the first shot with i.e. a 47mm on 4x5 and the second shot i.e. with a 600mm on 4x5. Process and look at it: the 47 will give you a smaller reproduction scale. to compare you have to enlarge it to the same size as the 600mm shot and then you will see the same depth of field (and the same perspective = converging lines are the same).
That is what I mean.
Thierry
The perspective and DOF characteristics are however defined by the focal lenghth.. given a fixed field of view and shooting point
ie a 65mm on 54 a f8 looks different from an 16mm on an APS chip at f8 even though the field of view is the same - the DOF is different
An 80mm f4 4 on a blad croped in half looks the same as an 80f4 on a dslr the perspective is the same but the field of view less
Bottom line - bigger chip = less DOF for a given view at a given aperture
world record for off topicness??
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hasselblad would not be where it is today by being what you claim it is - only bad.
It is dangerous to show popularity as a proof of quality. Think Ford, McDonalds, Bose, etc - all manage to sell well despite producing some of the lowest quality products in their respective industries.
-
...of course the ususal people jumped on him , even quoting has literature and it turns he is right!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106418\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not exacly correct in my view. I stated that the 28mm does not crop the image circle on the kodak 22 and 39 chips, and thus the 1.1 crop factor should not be used. And I am right in this respect, as long as you compare the H3D 48mm system to f.example a 35mm system, and not compare a FF 645 system to a 35mm system.
If you choose to convert the much debated hasselblad 48mm system to a 645, then you get the 1.1 conversion factor.
I must admit I was slightly confused on this topic. But I'm starting to see why hasselblad claims that they have a FF 48mm system, as the only difference is the mirror box which is slightly larger to accomodate the use of 645 film backs. Of course this system only has one lens that is true to its 48mm promise, as well as only one viewfinder and two digital backs (would probably do better with two lenses and one digital back )
Anyways, its not that important, the 28mm gives the same FOV as a 31mm when being used on a 645 system (which it can't...)
I find I'm going to use diagonal FOV to talk about coverage from now on, everything is so confusing in the multitude of marketing speak, that I feel FOV numbers are something I can relate to
-axel
-
Hi,
Does anyone know if the Hy6/Aif prism finder will come in a crop version? E.g designed for the 48x38mm size sensor found in for instance the Leaf Aptus 75 sensor.
In similar way as the H3D, where what you see is what you capture.
Best Regards,
Rune Werner Molnes
www.runemolnes.com
- Photographer -
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now, that would be a smart move. I applaud it. Let me map it out in detail for Sinar/Leaf/Rollei:
1. * REAL VALUE* Stick a mask and a magnifier inside the prism finder so that people can actually see what they're doing when shooting digital 36x48 mm with the 56w56mm Hy6.
2. *PERCEIVED VALUE A* Explain to everybody that thanks to an impressive new technology you have transformed your previous 80mm design into a short tele which can now be accurately focused with the new viewfinder and is ideal for portraits ON THE FULL FRAME. And that this new technology allows the center "sweet spot" of the lens to be used for their sweet models.
3. *PERCEIVED VALUE B* Stick a label on it that says "Full-Frame Digital", this impresses the hell out of the buyers of photo equipment.
4 *LOCK-IN* Put a dongle inside the body so that it won't work when bigger sensor comes out. Make sure very one knows that you have the only camera in the world which can take pictures with your "special portrait" lenses.
Ok, ok, here on this forum we don't think points 2,3,4 are necessary. But that may be why people here write Photographer or PhD after their name, rather than CEO.
A certain company has realized that Step 1 is actually necessary and that steps 2,3,4 rake in the money. What is interesting is that they are the only ones who did Step 1 and actually are selling the result in shops.
I have big respect for Sinar , Leaf and Rollei tech expertise and for Leaf's salesmanship. But marketing and channel is another skill altogether, and Hasselblad is running circles around them. Applause where it's due.
Edmund
-
Not exacly correct in my view. I stated that the 28mm does not crop the image circle on the kodak 22 and 39 chips, and thus the 1.1 crop factor should not be used. And I am right in this respect, as long as you compare the H3D 48mm system to f.example a 35mm system, and not compare a FF 645 system to a 35mm system.
If you choose to convert the much debated hasselblad 48mm system to a 645, then you get the 1.1 conversion factor.
I must admit I was slightly confused on this topic. But I'm starting to see why hasselblad claims that they have a FF 48mm system, as the only difference is the mirror box which is slightly larger to accomodate the use of 645 film backs. Of course this system only has one lens that is true to its 48mm promise, as well as only one viewfinder and two digital backs (would probably do better with two lenses and one digital back )
Anyways, its not that important, the 28mm gives the same FOV as a 31mm when being used on a 645 system (which it can't...)
I find I'm going to use diagonal FOV to talk about coverage from now on, everything is so confusing in the multitude of marketing speak, that I feel FOV numbers are something I can relate to
-axel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep. That is the point I was trying to make but didn't put it across so well!
Thanks!
-
did you even read what i wrote? i said nothing negative abut hass lenses....
and actually, because you mentioned it....i don't like hass lenses.....the 80mm is fine, i have no problems with it...it is fine, not great (which for the money it should be) and the zoom is fine optically, only very slightly better then my 10 year old mamiya zoom which weighs a fraction and cost even less....i was never very happy about my hass V lenses either (40, 80, 120)...fine, but nothing to write home about...the only good one was the 38 on the hass wide body....nice lens....these are all my personal experiences and i am sharing them just like you do....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106418\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You don't like the Hasselblad H body. You don't like the Hasselblad lenses. You don't like the Hasselblad digital backs. Let me guess. You really don't like the lens caps either.
-
You don't like the Hasselblad H body. You don't like the Hasselblad lenses. You don't like the Hasselblad digital backs. Let me guess. You really don't like the lens caps either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You left out the color.
JR
-
You left out the color.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
and the plastic bit on the side that gets lost
-
and the plastic bit on the side that gets lost
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've got two spare ones if you want one.
-
I've got two spare ones if you want one.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=106485\")
[a href=\"http://www.gaffertape.com/show_category.asp?cid=602]http://www.gaffertape.com/show_category.asp?cid=602[/url]
-
http://www.gaffertape.com/show_category.asp?cid=602 (http://www.gaffertape.com/show_category.asp?cid=602)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You left out the color.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That could be a deal killer with the H3D. I am thinking that instead of the Hassy H3D, it may make more sense to pick up a Hy6 and get a changing bag to rotate the back on location.
-
You don't like the Hasselblad H body. You don't like the Hasselblad lenses. You don't like the Hasselblad digital backs. Let me guess. You really don't like the lens caps either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
how did you guess?
seriously...i could not care less what brand anything is...just so happens i have had nothing but bad experiences with hasselblad and i don't see why i should not share them....
the first thing everybody says about mamiya is that the body and lenses feel plasticey.....i am not in any way offended by it nor would i go into detail about how the mamiyas are built and why called them plasticey is stupid.....if that is the way someone FEELS, that there is no way to argue one way or another....
but saying that i am simply a hasselblad hater and i have some kind of personal vendetta agains them is just ridiculous....i have nothing to gain from hasselblads loss and i don't think what is say here has any impact on their sales...but maybe they are reading and maybe they might look at a couple of things that come up here....and i am obviously not the only one raising issues here....
and yes james i don't like the color.....samys LA had a black (Fuji) model and i looked at it....i like the look much better.....also reminded me about how excited i was when the H system was announced.....i had the 680, 690, 645 fujis and loved them....so when everybody was whining about hass's move to switch to fuji glass, i was really excited....the first pics i saw where the black ones and i loved the way the camera looked.....and then i held it for the first time.....boy was i disappointed.....
hmm maybe i do have a personal vendetta against it....how something i was looking forward to could turn out to be such a disappointment?
maybe i should not have gotten so excited about the Hy6? it will be just the same?
of course i am kidding...these are cameras...just tools...i use them more then anything else....they have to be an extention of my hand and eye.....so there is an emotional attachment but it comes with relyability and being able to count on it.....
i still can't wait to try the Hy6 but it will be at least 18 months before i would even consider using one day by day as my main system.....
i am also excited about the iphone....but i also know that version 2 or 3 will be the real killer....still might buy version 1 and bitch about it though.....
-
deleted
Edmund
-
Wouldn't it help to use angles when describing Field Of View? At least in discussions amongst people who are serious enough about photography to be considering digital medium format. After all, we correctly refer to angles in the name "wide angle lenses".
In the case of lenses for use with several film/sensor formats, several angles could be stated easily enough.
Then we could avoid this confusion about whether changing the sensor causes a change in focal length!
For example, a lens of f=28mm has diagonal angular FOV
- 103º with the 70mm diagonal of 645 format
- 94º with the roughly 60mm diagonal of largest DMF sensors
- 89º with the 55mm diagonal of the 33x44mm sensors.
A bit of imprecision is OK since focal lengths vary a bit from the stated number anyway.
For comparison, the classic normal lens of focal length equal format diagonal has angular FOV of 53º, but most normals are instead a bit under 50º:
- 47º with f=80mm in 645 film format
- 47º with f=50mm in 35mm film format
- 42º with f=50mm and 35mm film format cropped for an 8"x10", 11"x14" or 16"x20" print.
-
Wouldn't it help to use angles when describing Field Of View?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes, yes, we're getting sowewhere.
Edmund