Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad  (Read 40488 times)

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #80 on: October 23, 2007, 07:07:07 pm »

Quote
monopoly doesn't sound good for any consumer...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which is the monopoly? Canon, Hasselblad or Nikon?

They are each producing a product line of integrated digital camera systems that do not interchange with the others.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2007, 07:08:20 pm by TechTalk »
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #81 on: October 23, 2007, 08:10:45 pm »

Quote
Also since the release of the H3D the sales of the H2 have fallen in the past year & that is why they are dropping it out of there line. i
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The decline in H2 sales is very much the consequence of the lack of clarity of Hassy as far as the future of the H2 was concerned.

IMHO, there is no doubt that their intention was to kill the H2 from day one. They acted in such a way as to make people stop buying the H2, and are now using sales decline as a justification for their action.

This being said, I have no problem with Hassy deciding to concentrate on a closed system, it is indeed their prerogative. I would have preferred a more clear cut communication from them, instead of the current lukewarm approach.

Overall, I feel that Hassy products are currently still overpriced, like the other MFDB. I am also not sure about their upgrade policy. How much would I have to pay to migrate a H3D39 to an hypothetical H4D55?

Cheers,
Bernard

Sean H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #82 on: October 23, 2007, 08:59:59 pm »

Quote
I guess you are talking about Canon and Nikon 35mm equipment ? Because if Canon or Nikon should decide to go into MF the consequences for Hasselblad would be quick and ugly ...In fact one can say that the whole company is built on the bet that Canon or Nikon won't find it profitable to enter this niche market. Howver Fiat did own Ferrari which makes slightly faster and more expensive cars; VW seem to own Lamborghini which also cater to those who want to drive faster than Beetles ...

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that you and TechTalk have raised a major issue about the future of DMF cameras and backs. I am circling the DMF world saving my money and getting advice about which DMF camera/back (integrated or not) to purchase. For the most part, this forum has been very useful and I've received lots of thoughtful advice from the photographers here. But I too worry about Canon or Nikon entering the MF world. The next iteration of Canon FF will be better than the last one. Likely, Nikon's future cameras (D4 and so on) will also increase their megapixels and image quality. Hopefully this will stimulate the DMF manufacturers to produce even better cameras and backs. We have seen the demise of several MF camera companies in the past 10 years and I would not like to see more go to their funerals. I understand that the energies of capitalism and competition can lead to this. Still, I hope that Phase, Leaf, Sinar, Mamiya and Hasselblad are around five years (or more) from now. Competition is good for us all.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 12:25:35 am by Sean H »
Logged

Steve Kerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #83 on: October 23, 2007, 09:42:14 pm »

There was an interesting experiment on, IIRC, the photodo web site, where they took top quality large format, medium format, and 35mm lenses, and determined what image quality each could produce at equal depth of field.  The result (which I believe also matches the mathematics) was that all three produced the same resolution.  (If you think about it, a given size aperture will produce the same depth of field, no matter what the focal length.)

I expect that a FF 35mm camera with a 39 MP sensor with 14- or 16-bit conversion, using high-quality lenses (I recall that they used a Leice lens), would produce an image that is the equal of a medium format camera with a 39 MP back.
Logged

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #84 on: October 23, 2007, 10:17:10 pm »

Quote
There was an interesting experiment on, IIRC, the photodo web site, where they took top quality large format, medium format, and 35mm lenses, and determined what image quality each could produce at equal depth of field.  The result (which I believe also matches the mathematics) was that all three produced the same resolution.  (If you think about it, a given size aperture will produce the same depth of field, no matter what the focal length.)

I expect that a FF 35mm camera with a 39 MP sensor with 14- or 16-bit conversion, using high-quality lenses (I recall that they used a Leice lens), would produce an image that is the equal of a medium format camera with a 39 MP back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Equal in terms of what? Resolution? O.K. Dynamic Range? Not very likely. Scaleablity would also suffer in a smaller format for the same reason. Too little information collected per pixel.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Sean H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #85 on: October 23, 2007, 10:17:35 pm »

Quote
There was an interesting experiment on, IIRC, the photodo web site, where they took top quality large format, medium format, and 35mm lenses, and determined what image quality each could produce at equal depth of field.  The result (which I believe also matches the mathematics) was that all three produced the same resolution.  (If you think about it, a given size aperture will produce the same depth of field, no matter what the focal length.)

I expect that a FF 35mm camera with a 39 MP sensor with 14- or 16-bit conversion, using high-quality lenses (I recall that they used a Leice lens), would produce an image that is the equal of a medium format camera with a 39 MP back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm....an interesting possibility....but the sensor sizes in MF and FF are different with the area of the MF sensors on average, being larger than that of a 35 mm FF.  Shouldn't that mean that the image quality would be different as would the IQ of any enlargement from a MF vs 35 mm FF? Perhaps Edmund, Foto-Z, TechTalk and the others can comment please? Thanks.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 12:24:48 am by Sean H »
Logged

Steve Kerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #86 on: October 23, 2007, 10:23:40 pm »

Quote
Equal in terms of what? Resolution? O.K. Dynamic Range? Not very likely. Scaleablity would also suffer in a smaller format for the same reason. Too little information collected per pixel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In terms of the resolution presented to the image plane by the lens.

Quote
Dynamic Range? Not very likely.
As long as the MTF, flare, etc., matches, the dynamic range will be the same.

Quote
Scaleablity would also suffer in a smaller format for the same reason. Too little information collected per pixel.
I have no idea what those two sentences are supposed to mean.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #87 on: October 23, 2007, 10:24:25 pm »

Quote
I expect that a FF 35mm camera with a 39 MP sensor with 14- or 16-bit conversion, using high-quality lenses (I recall that they used a Leice lens), would produce an image that is the equal of a medium format camera with a 39 MP back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It depends on:

- the type of lens: wides are more of a problem,
- the lens manufacturer: Nikon can probablymake it on the wide end judging from their latest 14-24 f2.8 proposal, Canon doesn't appear to have the technology today, the german lens manufacturers might have a chance too.
- what you consider as a definition of image quality. Are we speaking of resolution in the center of the frame, or accross the frame (including corners),...

Overall, you are probably mostly correct.

Cheers,
Bernard

Steve Kerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #88 on: October 23, 2007, 10:30:28 pm »

Quote
Hmmm....an interesting possibility....but the sensor sizes in MF and FF are different with the area of the MF sensors on average, being larger than that of a 35 mm FF.  Shouldn't that mean that the image quality would be different as would the IQ of any enlargement? Perhaps Edmund, Foto-Z, TechTalk and the others can comment please? Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But you end up collecting the same amount of light.  Consider two lenses capturing the same angle, each with a 1 mm aperture, one projecting an image that is 20mm from the lens, the other 40mm.  Assume that the angular capture of each pixel is the same.  Then, the "larger format" at 40mm covers 4 times the area.  But, in the 20mm configuration, the light is 4 times brighter at the image plane (because of the Square Law).  So, both pixels are receiving the same number of photons of light in a given period of time.  So the fact that the pixels are different sizes doesn't matter much, to a first-order approximation.

In fact, the smaller pixels may have an advantage, because they have a smaller area that is collecting thermal noise.
Logged

Steve Kerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #89 on: October 23, 2007, 10:35:01 pm »

Quote
It depends on:

- the type of lens: wides are more of a problem,
- the lens manufacturer: Nikon can probablymake it on the wide end judging from their latest 14-24 f2.8 proposal, Canon doesn't appear to have the technology today, the german lens manufacturers might have a chance too.
- what you consider as a definition of image quality. Are we speaking of resolution in the center of the frame, or accross the frame (including corners),...

Overall, you are probably mostly correct.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,

I was speaking in theory, not about the current capabilities of any particular manufacturer.  In terms of current manufacturers, I'd probably be talking about Leica or Schneider or Rodenstock producing lenses that are of a quality level similar to the Schneider lenses for the Rollei.
Logged

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #90 on: October 23, 2007, 10:46:21 pm »

Quote
But you end up collecting the same amount of light.  Consider two lenses capturing the same angle, each with a 1 mm aperture, one projecting an image that is 20mm from the lens, the other 40mm.  Assume that the angular capture of each pixel is the same.  Then, the "larger format" at 40mm covers 4 times the area.  But, in the 20mm configuration, the light is 4 times brighter at the image plane (because of the Square Law).  So, both pixels are receiving the same number of photons of light in a given period of time.  So the fact that the pixels are different sizes doesn't matter much, to a first-order approximation.

In fact, the smaller pixels may have an advantage, because they have a smaller area that is collecting thermal noise.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No way. No how.  Here's a link to get you started... [a href=\"http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm]Digital Sensor Size Basics[/url]
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #91 on: October 23, 2007, 11:04:39 pm »

It is absolutely my opinion. I think we should all be welcoming somebody like him who is putting the finger where it hurts or showing contradictions. His claims, information and statements are imo always given accurately and with the right evidence, documents or links to the correct corresponding documents.
I do really appreciate having somebody like TechTalk here and it does only help all of us.

Thierry

Quote
I believe he tries in his posts to be very objective and fair. He simply objects to rants or unfounded opinions masquerading as factual statements, which is something we should all appreciate, and he is trying to set the record straight. Do you see him running down Sinar generally or the Hy6? Do you seem him doing that with Phase? Does he ascribe the complete lack of commercial success of Rollei products in the US to the cultural inferiority of Americans? I haven't. His modus operandi here is not negative about other companies' products. Let's be clear. There are many here who simply do not want to hear positive(or even simple factual) reports about Hasselblad and its products, and anyone who questions them or calls them out on their inaccurate statements gets in the way of their free for all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #92 on: October 23, 2007, 11:40:44 pm »

hcubell,

Why should I not be speaking about others? I have done so for Sinar users but also for non-Sinar users in the past, when I have the feeling that their contribution is worth the respect of us.

I respect your opinion, even if I do disagree with this forum being an advertising plateform for the Hy6. I am not sure who are the 3 but have my idea. You may have noticed that those 3 (if they are the same as my idea is) have never and do never start a topic and/or a claim by their own, simply responding with facts and correcting sometimes information provided here which is not accurate or then even purposely wrong.

You may have also noticed how often Sinar or Rolleiflex are bashed, out of the blue (by much more than 3 people), with absolutely no knowledge of the product, un-intentionally or not, having never even used it. Those 3 people do intervene in this case and it is absolutely their right to present the readers with counter-facts and their experiences and knowledge. But I can assure you that there is no connection between those 3 persons nor any consultation between them before posting.

Everybody wishes to give his contribution here and open the debate to the highest possible level. Most of the posters here are honest and full of sense with their postings and having no bias nor special agenda then to debate with respect and their experience. Graham is imo to be put in this category. It happens that he is a user of the brand I do represent, but I can say this from many others who are not and who I highly respect.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Thierry, I would never speak for others, but in all candor, reading this Forum regularly over the past year feels to me like I'm living in the middle of an uniterrupted advertising campaign for the Hy6, run on a collective basis by three individuals. Fine, you can can do that, nobody is forcing me to read it. OTOH, Foto-Z has seemingly never passed up an opportunity to run down Hasselblad and its latest products, and yet he has apparently never even used them. You may note that exactly nine minutes elapsed between the first post in this thread with the Poulsen letter and Foto-Z's post about it being marketing bs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

cerett

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • http://
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #93 on: October 23, 2007, 11:44:42 pm »

Nobody has mentioned the "options" at the end of the letter. I wonder what kind of deals they are going to be offering on 11/1 to encourage H1/H2 owners to trade in their cameras and buy an H3D? Will that include turning in third party DB's?
Logged

Steve Kerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #94 on: October 23, 2007, 11:47:32 pm »

Quote
No way. No how.  Here's a link to get you started... Digital Sensor Size Basics
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tech, I have bolded the key phrase from the document you linked:
Quote
Further, larger pixels receive a greater flux of photons over a given exposure time (at the same aperture), so their light signal is much stronger.  For a given amount of background noise, this produces a higher signal to noise ratio-- and thus a smoother looking photo.
As that article describes earlier, with different formats, you do not use the same aperture (in terms of f-number) to get the same depth of field.  I could be wrong, but I believe that it actually works out that you use the same aperture in terms of millimeters to get equal DoF.  Thus, the same amount of light striking a pixel of a given angular size.

In fact, they say the same thing about aperture, farther down in the article:
Quote
On the other hand, if you wish to maintain the same depth of field, larger sensor sizes do not necessarily have a resolution advantage.  Further, the diffraction-limited depth of field is the same for all sensor sizes.  In other words, if one were to use the smallest aperture before diffraction became significant, all sensor sizes would produce the same depth of field-- even though the diffraction limited aperture will be different.  (Bold in the original)
Logged

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #95 on: October 24, 2007, 12:01:16 am »

Quote
Tech, I have bolded the key phrase from the document you linked:

As that article describes earlier, with different formats, you do not use the same aperture (in terms of f-number) to get the same depth of field.  I could be wrong, but I believe that it actually works out that you use the same aperture in terms of millimeters to get equal DoF.  Thus, the same amount of light striking a pixel of a given angular size.

In fact, they say the same thing about aperture, farther down in the article:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The key here is not how much light is entering the sensor. The key is how much you can store. This is called pixel "well capacity". The larger pixel will have a greater storage capacity for the electrons that are created from the photons entering two different size wells.

Sorry that the link that I provided doesn't really explain this in any depth.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Steve Kerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #96 on: October 24, 2007, 01:25:41 am »

Quote
The key here is not how much light is entering the sensor. The key is how much you can store. This is called pixel "well capacity". The larger pixel will have a greater storage capacity for the electrons that are created from the photons entering two different size wells.

Sorry that the link that I provided doesn't really explain this in any depth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you want to store more, then increase the capacitance.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 02:02:10 am by Steve Kerman »
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #97 on: October 24, 2007, 02:08:37 am »

Quote
OTOH, Foto-Z has seemingly never passed up an opportunity to run down Hasselblad and its latest products,[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Clearly not true. I haven't started a single thread about Hasselblad, and I usually don't participate in Hasselblad related threads.

I took exception to Hasselblad's "letter" because it contained false or misleading information, to the point of being an insult to our intelligence. (If they are dropping the H2 due to 'falling sales', then why go to the expense of releasing a less-featured replacement? Pleeeeease.) Unfortunately this seems to be a regular event with Hasselblad marketing.

I also correct misinformation which is posted from time to time, such as eronald's post about the Hass H series being the only camera option for fast flash sync when in fact there are two current models with faster flash sync capability.

I can not comprehend why anyone would object to me posting a correction to false information.

Finally, it can't be denied that Hasselblad is the best-known brand in the MF world, which leads to a lot of newcomers asking about the Hasselblad options without apparently being aware that there are competitive products which may suit them better. The same seems to be true of Phase One to a lesser extent. The power of marketing... So if I point out that these players are not the only game in town I can only be doing the poster a favour by enlightening them as to their options. Some of the features of a Sinar eMotion back, for example, are undeniably advantageous (e.g. adapter system) and could make this the obvious choice for some users, but only if they know about it!

Quote
and yet he has apparently never even used them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have used an H1 and H2, both with Phase backs.

Quote
You may note that exactly nine minutes elapsed between the first post in this thread with the Poulsen letter and Foto-Z's post about it being marketing bs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The time of my post is completely irrelevant, and I used the term 'marketing noise', not BS (although I was thinking it  )
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 04:46:18 am by foto-z »
Logged

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #98 on: October 24, 2007, 02:37:07 am »

Quote
If you want to store more, then increase the capacitance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a finite physical limit to how many electrons can be trapped in a potential well, just like there is a limit to how much water a bucket will hold. It is the saturation limit of the potential well. A larger pixel has a larger well and can simply hold more electrons. There is no way to change this as you can't make the electrons smaller or the potential well bigger than they are already. That's the advantage of a physically larger sensor. In basic terms, the larger number of electrons that can be counted, the wider range of light you can measure and as a result capture a wider dynamic range.
 
If this still isn't clear, I'll try to find you a decent link that explains it better.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 02:51:26 am by TechTalk »
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Bernd B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
Letter from Christian Poulsen Hasselblad
« Reply #99 on: October 24, 2007, 04:14:41 am »

Quote
Nobody has mentioned the "options" at the end of the letter. I wonder what kind of deals they are going to be offering on 11/1 to encourage H1/H2 owners to trade in their cameras and buy an H3D? Will that include turning in third party DB's?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148281\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By the moment you say it, it becomes obvious to me: they want to draw the existing H1 and H2 out of the market.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up