Hy6 prismfinder designet to fit sensor size?

[thsinar]

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]

[James Russell]

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

[Mark_Tucker]

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.

[Caracalla]

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.

[thsinar]

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]

[BJNY]

Err...isn't this thread about prism magnification.  I don't understand how it could drift off-topic.

[Caracalla]

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!

[thsinar]

Yes, there has been an official announcement from Dalsa, in June last year.

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]

[pss]

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...

[pss]

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.....

[sundstei]

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

[James Russell]

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

[eronald]

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 Russell]

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

[paul_jones]

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

[hubell]

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.

[hubell]

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?

[Ben Rubinstein]

Reminds me of the D30 which as far as features went had rewinded about 6 canon years...

[BJNY]

A friend is about to purchase an H2 camera body.  Is the 3.1x magnification HVD90x prism compatible?

[pss]

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....