Hasselblad H lenses ready for larger sensors?

[Markpark]

background: am considering in buying a leaf AFi 6 for 20k... hasselblad now dropped the H3D-31 price. Therefore a H3D would be around 6k cheaper (when I buy the same lenses). 6k is a lot of money and I'm no sure whether the leaf makes up for that.

 
question: I was wondering, the H3D bodies can only connect to 48x36mm sensors.. any larger won't fit. So if there's going te bo a larger sensor in the future, they will have to design a new body as well.

but apart from the body, do the lenses offer a circle of view (don't know if thats the right word) that is large enough for eg 55x55 sensors, or will you see light drop off at the corners and need to invest in new lenses as well?

[rethmeier]

All those Hasselblad H series lenses are designed for the 6x4.5 format!
If you want the 6x6 format the Hy6 is your answer.
Of course if there will be a square 6x6 sensor one day?
Cheers,
Willem.

[Graham Mitchell]

I believe the 28mm lens was designed to cover only 48x36mm.

[Mike W]

I think fotoZ is right. Both Mamiya and Hasselblad released 28mm's, but only Mamiya's version covers full 645 (it can be used on film-based cams).

regards,

Mike

[mtomalty]

So if there's going te bo a larger sensor in the future, they(Hasselblad) will have to design a new body as well.

The same case could be made for the Mamiya AFD and the PhaseOne platforms.
All existing Contax cameras,and owners, would also be out be out of the loop.

I don't think it's likely that there will be a movement from back makers to go to a
physically larger sensor when it would exclude selling upgrade packages to what must
represent as much as 90% of the installed user base for digital backs

I'm only guessing at the %,of course but I think you get my point.

As well,if you decide to go with the H3D-31 you've allowed yourself a decent upgrade margin
to move to within the Hasselblad line of backs should you wish to upgrade to a physically
larger sensor


MT

[amsp]

The same case could be made for the Mamiya AFD and the PhaseOne platforms.
All existing Contax cameras,and owners, would also be out be out of the loop.

I don't think it's likely that there will be a movement from back makers to go to a
physically larger sensor when it would exclude selling upgrade packages to what must
represent as much as 90% of the installed user base for digital backs

I'm only guessing at the %,of course but I think you get my point.

As well,if you decide to go with the H3D-31 you've allowed yourself a decent upgrade margin
to move to within the Hasselblad line of backs should you wish to upgrade to a physically
larger sensor
MT
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mamiya still has the rz67 which would be able to use a bigger sensor, and I have no doubt we will eventually see just that.

[BJL]

the H3D bodies can only connect to 48x36mm sensors.. any larger won't fit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The current Hasselblad digital backs have sensors no larger than about 48x36mm for the good reason that no suitable larger sensors are made. (Mamiya and Hy6 bodies have the same current sensor size restriction.)

But I have not heard that the bodies themselves are limited to 48x36 format, at least if equipped with the appropriate viewfinder. (Hasselblad offers two H systems VF's: one for the 56x42mm format of "645", the other for 48x36mm format and with higher magnification, giving about the same sized VF image of the slightly smaller frame. By the way, the latter VF threrefore meters correctly only from the smaller digital frame, unlike other current MF systems which with digital backs meter irrelevant light from the edges of the 56x42mm or even 56x56mm frame.)


And as others have said, all H lenses except the 28mm are designed for formats up to 56x42mm.

[gss]

Since all the lenses except the 28 were designed to used with the H film backs, we know they will cover a 42mm x 56mm digital sensor.  I wouldn't even guess if these lenses would cover a 56mm x 56mm one; that would require an extra 13% image circle size.
However, just increasing from the current sensor size to full 645 would up the resolution from 39 million pixels (just cannot use the word MP here) to 50 million pixels.

[mtomalty]

Mamiya still has the rz67 which would be able to use a bigger sensor, and I have no doubt we will eventually see just that.

I also didn't consider the base of existing Hass V system cameras.
These could also take a larger sensor but,again,I don't think we'll see much in the way of larger
sensors.

MT

[hubell]

What will come first, a cable release for the  Hy6 or a 56mmx56mm sensor?

Now what if a backmaker own its own camera platform that was designed to work with larger sensors from the very beginning? Jenoptik (Sinar's parent company) makes the Sinar backs and owns the Hy6 camera. If any backmaker would have an incentive to move to bigger sensors it would be Jenoptik. And when Jenoptik would make the jump, Leaf would have to follow because they sell the same camera. Suddenly the entire marketplace might look very different. And an adaptable Sinar back with, say, 56x56mm sensor would also be most welcome on Alpa, Cambo, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad V and F. Just to name a few.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[mtomalty]

Suddenly the entire marketplace might look very different.

Yup.  When you put it that way I imagine things could look very different.

MT

[thsinar]

I let you guess.

Thierry

What will come first, a cable release for the  Hy6 or a 56mmx56mm sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[James R Russell]

I let you guess.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since square formats do not fit a canvas for 95% of the print and 100% of electronic display, I assume that medium format will probably come out with one, because it's just that illogical.

It will also probably raise the price of an already expensive system to an incredibly expensive sytem.

I can give you about 1 reason why I'd like a square format, (edge to edge on a 645 baed camera and about 2 dozen reasons why I wouldn't.

First I don't want clients cropping vertical and horizontals out of a frame that was crafted to be one or the other.

Secondly, it's just wasted space and expense.   Third, does this address higher iso, faster shooting, easier storage, better previews?  Fourth, well forget it because I'm boring myself.

Now what does make sense is to get away from format all together, or make the format user defined.

2:3 rations sucks for a full page vertical because your always cropping off the tops and bottoms, but consequently 2:3  is brilliant horizontal for double pages, computer view, inserting into video.

Medium format is just the opposite.

Now maybe if it was user defined and I could set the camera with a sensor oreintation device that would black out the 2x3 frame to 4:3 if vertal, but open up to 2x3 if the camera is held horizontal AND the software would reflect this when it came time to process.

Regardless of what I think, and I only have one opinion, I guess somebody will come out with a square sensor just because we have a new square camera.

It's a shame they didn't come out with true 645, 6x7 sensors because they're were already a lot of those cameras in the market.

This is probably a mute point anyway, because from what I can tell the new format is 16x9 horizontal.

JR

[heinrichvoelkel]

Now maybe if it was user defined and I could set the camera with a sensor oreintation device that would black out the 2x3 frame to 4:3 if vertal, but open up to 2x3 if the camera is held horizontal AND the software would reflect this when it came time to process.


JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204016\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the Nikon d3 is doing this already....!

[heinrichvoelkel]

I don't understand why you wouldn't like to shoot square for commercial jobs...it is perfect to pull out of the one perfect frame a horizontal for billboards and some high quality verticals for the bus stop....would make life easier...at least sometimes...

[amsp]

The automatic format change from 2:3 in horizontal and 3:4 in vertical is a feature I'd really like to see too.

[James R Russell]

I don't understand why you wouldn't like to shoot square for commercial jobs...it is perfect to pull out of the one perfect frame a horizontal for billboards and some high quality verticals for the bus stop....would make life easier...at least sometimes...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204028\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I could do square if you push a button and it blacks out to vertical, push the botton again and the viewfinder blacks out to horizontal.

The thing is you know it won't work that way, you'll get some kind of ground glass with little scribe marks in them showing both horizontal and vertical and you'll always have to remember which one you were shooting.

Maybe I'm not that smart but I know I'd just find myself filling a square frame.

Then again, shooting vertical with a square is not that diffiuclt, but shooting horizontal is tough because you have to give it much more room top to bottom than you normally would.  In other words don't stick a head close to the top of the frame or you won't have enough sides.

Also you get down to client choice.  Now I'm all for giving clients an option, but to furnish a square and say take your pick is way too much and which lens do you use, better yet, how to you decide on the lens?  Well today I'm shooting an 80mm but I'm pulling back enough to make a douible page horizontal and a single page vertical so on the vertical it's an 80mm on the horizontal it crops out to a 120mm, except it bends like an 80.

Regardless, I still think somebody will make a square sensor,   but unless there are some different camera features then I don't see where a square is that workable.

JR

[BJL]

I don't think it's likely that there will be a movement from back makers to go to a physically larger sensor when it would exclude selling upgrade packages to what must represent as much as 90% of the installed user base for digital backs
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The bigger question is whether sensor makers will offer photographic sensors in formats too large to be used with the now dominant 645-based MF systems, with the likelihood that lower sales volume would force prices to be far higher than for sensors that do fit 645.

Adding one or two smaller-format-only lens designs to existing MF systems is likely to be the most cost effective route, even for Hy6 and its currently cramped digital wide-angle options.

And for the small proportion of cases where both vertical and horizontal framings might both be wanted, I would guess that taking two versions of a shot is generally likely to be preferable to the extra cost, bulk, and lens design complications of enlarging the format area by one third, from a 4 by 3 shape to the corresponding "4 by 4". Not that MF was moving from square (6x6) to oblong (645 and some 6x7, 6x8 etc.) even before the digital transition.