Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on September 19, 2016, 10:56:33 am
-
Unfortunately, it is only a concept at this point, but if reaction is positive, we may see this in a couple of years.
It would make a lot of (old) Hasselblad V shooters happy.
http://www.hasselblad.com/press/media-library/v1d-4116-concept
Hasselblad’s engineers and designers came up with a modular concept with a square format (75MP) inspired by the classic Hasselblad V Camera. One of the fundamental principles behind the design of the V1D is the modular approach. Hasselblad creates a uniquely flexible platform for photographers to set up the camera to suit their specific needs.
-
With a 100MP sensor cropped at 40mm x 40mm, still delivering 75 MP.
I need urgently to win the lottery. :)
-
No, that's what you call a concept. ie. believe it if it happens. They stole Fuji's thunder with an early release, but they stole it well. They tried to steal it again with this fake camera.
-
Hi,
Very little details...
They already have an anniversary version of the X1D, is this more of that Hasselbling stuff?
Best regards
Erik
Unfortunately, it is only a concept at this point, but if reaction is positive, we may see this in a couple of years.
It would make a lot of (old) Hasselblad V shooters happy.
http://www.hasselblad.com/press/media-library/v1d-4116-concept
Hasselblad’s engineers and designers came up with a modular concept with a square format (75MP) inspired by the classic Hasselblad V Camera. One of the fundamental principles behind the design of the V1D is the modular approach. Hasselblad creates a uniquely flexible platform for photographers to set up the camera to suit their specific needs.
-
I guess we know the basics :
Sony 100 MP sensor cropped to a 40mmm x 40mm (so we know the quality is top)
Electronics from the X1D / H6 (more userfriendly - touch screen)
Design is the Hasselblad 500CM
Lenses are the XCD lenses (so you can use them on both cameras)
All together, nice concept, hope it will be launched one day. :)
-
Cost is cost, and the 100MP cost is the same to Hasselblad, even if they decide to crop it to 75MP, net that makes no sense as you still need to get the same cost as 100MP from the camera.
Do you guys really want a Square camera that bad, net pay as much as a 645 sensor, get 25% less resolution? I can't see Hasselblad selling such a concept for a loss just to make a statement.
Maybe there is a "square" Sony or other sensor coming, that is the only way I can see this making financial sense.
But again, I never got square anyway. have enough problem with 645.
Paul C
-
By the time we see this in-store, the cost of a 100 MP sensor may have become reasonable:
So if you crop it to give "square" photographers their holy grail, what the heck?
-
Cost is cost, and the 100MP cost is the same to Hasselblad, even if they decide to crop it to 75MP, net that makes no sense as you still need to get the same cost as 100MP from the camera.
Do you guys really want a Square camera that bad, net pay as much as a 645 sensor, get 25% less resolution? I can't see Hasselblad selling such a concept for a loss just to make a statement.
Maybe there is a "square" Sony or other sensor coming, that is the only way I can see this making financial sense.
But again, I never got square anyway. have enough problem with 645.
Paul C
That's because 645 ain't square.
;-)
Rob C
-
Hi,
Since I have been shooting the Hasselblad near square crops get more frequent. That said, I don't care that much for formats. I crop to subjects.
Throwing away sensor area makes zero sense for me. But this is just a concept, it will not be around for 2-3 years. Who nows what sensors are around in 2-3 years?
But, in my opinion it may be a just a bling product. Any features to make it more useful?
Hasselblad needs to decide if they design tools for the demanding photographer or blingy stuff, hand made in Sweden of Japanese components.
Best regards
Erik
Cost is cost, and the 100MP cost is the same to Hasselblad, even if they decide to crop it to 75MP, net that makes no sense as you still need to get the same cost as 100MP from the camera.
Do you guys really want a Square camera that bad, net pay as much as a 645 sensor, get 25% less resolution? I can't see Hasselblad selling such a concept for a loss just to make a statement.
Maybe there is a "square" Sony or other sensor coming, that is the only way I can see this making financial sense.
But again, I never got square anyway. have enough problem with 645.
Paul C
-
Since I have been shooting the Hasselblad near square crops get more frequent. That said, I don't care that much for formats. I crop to subjects.
Throwing away sensor area makes zero sense for me. But this is just a concept, it will not be around for 2-3 years. Who nows what sensors are around in 2-3 years?
But, in my opinion it may be a just a bling product. Any features to make it more useful?
Erik,
I happen to strongly disagree.
Square sensors have been a major requirements from MF photographers since moving to digital, there is a real market for this and these is a significant body of photographic work done in square format. Significant in quality and numbers.
That this sensor would be a cropped version of the current 100mp part is anybody's guess.
Now, it is obvious that this is a trump card aimed at conveying the message that the X1D lenses are a sound investment since they will also be usable on other future Hassy bodies... compared to Fuji lenses of course. ;)
In the end the market reaction will dictate what happens from now, and it will come from people who have been using the V system, not as an opportunity to enter MF at low(er) cost like you did (no issues with that of course), but because they have loved the square format and appreciate its artistic value and impact on shooting approach.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, no matter how much some people want to work in square format, so long as the sensor used is 4:3 shape, what advantage is there to imposing a mandatory crop to 3/4 of the sensor area versus having a 1:1 crop mode but also a mode that uses all of the sensor? If desired, add some fancy electronic viewfinder masking so that only the square composition is visible when that mode is in use.
A "square only" camera is only of practical value of either the sensor is square, or when using film, where to get the same size of square image from an "oblong frame" camera would waste film, as in using 6x7 format and then cropping to 6x6.
-
On a mirrorless (like on the X1D), one may use whatever aspect ratio sensor as he wishes... especially if it is a leaf shutter based system (where one doesn't have to adapt the focal plane shutter to the sensor's aspect ratio... Therefore it would be far easier to integrate a 37x37 (or so) sensor on the X1D than realise a concept exercise on a mirrorbox camera... It wouldn't need a new lens series either... ;)
-
Bernard, no matter how much some people want to work in square format, so long as the sensor used is 4:3 shape, what advantage is there to imposing a mandatory crop to 3/4 of the sensor area versus having a 1:1 crop mode but also a mode that uses all of the sensor? If desired, add some fancy electronic viewfinder masking so that only the square composition is visible when that mode is in use.
A "square only" camera is only of practical value of either the sensor is square, or when using film, where to get the same size of square image from an "oblong frame" camera would waste film, as in using 6x7 format and then cropping to 6x6.
Actually, if a rectangular sensor happens to have one defect which is strongly offcenter (ie close to the edge) as measured on the long axis, one can recast it as a square sensor by ignoring the data of that "wing" and use it anyway. I'm sure someone here who is good with numbers or pictures or whatever we journalists don't understand can work it out.
In other words, there is probably a treasure trove of fabricated defective sensors sitting there at Sony, waiting to be sold for peanuts as "square cameras" rather than as "engineering quality" sensors. P1 used the same trick, I believe in bygone days.
Edmund
-
Bernard, no matter how much some people want to work in square format, so long as the sensor used is 4:3 shape, what advantage is there to imposing a mandatory crop to 3/4 of the sensor area versus having a 1:1 crop mode but also a mode that uses all of the sensor?
Little besides the one mentioned just above, but why are we assuming there isn't going to be a square sensor?
We assumed for years that there would never be a MF CMOS because Sony would never ever be interested in the kind of volumes MF were associated to, now we have 2 or different sizes, the larger one bound to sell in the low thousands of units per year.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The "cropping" of the sensor may have to do with the size of the image-circle of the lens. Hasselblad appears to work with the new x-series of lenses here. Anyone know how large sensor these cover? Would they cover the rectangular Version of the full-frame sensor?
Cheers,
Dag Ole
-
"Hasselblad appears to work with the new x-series of lenses here...."
x-series of lenses on a design with mirrorbox that has much longer mounting distance? :o :o ??? :'(
-
Actually, if a rectangular sensor happens to have one defect which is strongly offcenter (ie close to the edge) as measured on the long axis, one can recast it as a square sensor by ignoring the data of that "wing" and use it anyway.
Edmund: that's an intriguing idea: get "square sensors" relatively cheap with no new sensor design or production commitments, by using partially defective 4:3 sensors where the fatal defects are only in the one quarter of the sensor that is not used.
. . . why are we assuming there isn't going to be a square sensor?
Bernard: I was responding to the proposal in most of this thread that this camera would use the existing 100MP 4:3 shaped Sony sensor, but always cropping to a square from it.
As to why there would not instead be a dedicated square sensor; for the same reasons that have been rehashed in innumerable threads about "why not a square format digital camera?": not nearly enough demand. And no, posts from many dozens of square format enthusiasts is not nearly sufficient evidence of commercially adequate demand. Instead, the total absence of square format sensors since the 36x36mm Kodak CCDs – even while the square format Rollei-based system was still around – is one big hint of low demand; the earlier clear move away from square formats back in the film era (when of course "square format chemical sensors" were readily available) is another.
By the way, the "ground glass VF" option illustrated suggests that this CAD fantasy is meant to have a reflex mirror; if so, X1D lenses would not be usable. But maybe that top-down VF is just part of the retro styling (optional LCD on top) for what is meant to be mirrorless.
-
....But maybe that top-down VF is just part of the retro styling (optional LCD on top) for what is meant to be mirrorless....
Why then not just use the "square" sensor on an X1D? ...no new lenses required, no "lifestyle" exercise... just another version of the X1D which if it fails, "no big deal"... Notice that everybody is talking about the square sensor here... none on the project. ...but the square sensor can always be integrated on the current X1D...
-
This camera is getting lots of attention under glass. Part of what Perry shared with me a while back about getting back to roots. I have a meeting with Perry on Friday and should know a lot more than. It's a strange show here at Photokina. Large sensor cameras are getting the new and attention. Nikon has nothing of serious interest. They already announced their cameras. The new Olympus looks interesting even as a m3/4. The Fuji booth which is huge is filled to capacity. We are working on a report so stay tuned.
-
Thanks Kevin.
-
BJL,
I assume someone who is good with numbers would tell you that sensor yields can be approximated by a base Poisson statistic with a defect probability rho per infinitesimal unit surface, p(defect)= rho*ds, yadda yadda so .... there should be a lot of cast-off defects lying around the Sony stockyard. Certainly many more than the number of good sensor shipped out - assuming provision has been made to partition the chip so the defect is not terminal :)
Edmund
Edmund: that's an intriguing idea: get "square sensors" relatively cheap with no new sensor design or production commitments, by using partially defective 4:3 sensors where the fatal defects are only in the one quarter of the sensor that is not used.
Bernard: I was responding to the proposal in most of this thread that this camera would use the existing 100MP 4:3 shaped Sony sensor, but always cropping to a square from it.
As to why there would not instead be a dedicated square sensor; for the same reasons that have been rehashed in innumerable threads about "why not a square format digital camera?": not nearly enough demand. And no, posts from many dozens of square format enthusiasts is not nearly sufficient evidence of commercially adequate demand. Instead, the total absence of square format sensors since the 36x36mm Kodak CCDs – even while the square format Rollei-based system was still around – is one big hint of low demand; the earlier clear move away from square formats back in the film era (when of course "square format chemical sensors" were readily available) is another.
By the way, the "ground glass VF" option illustrated suggests that this CAD fantasy is meant to have a reflex mirror; if so, X1D lenses would not be usable. But maybe that top-down VF is just part of the retro styling (optional LCD on top) for what is meant to be mirrorless.
-
As to why there would not instead be a dedicated square sensor; for the same reasons that have been rehashed in innumerable threads about "why not a square format digital camera?": not nearly enough demand. And no, posts from many dozens of square format enthusiasts is not nearly sufficient evidence of commercially adequate demand. Instead, the total absence of square format sensors since the 36x36mm Kodak CCDs – even while the square format Rollei-based system was still around – is one big hint of low demand; the earlier clear move away from square formats back in the film era (when of course "square format chemical sensors" were readily available) is another.
Yes, that's an opìnion, but not a definitive one.
A 36mm x 36mm sensor isn't the same concept as a full 6x6 format negative which, if I remember, was in the 50-something mm squ. zone.
Using a 36mm squ. sensor would be delightful in a different, smaller than 500C body type. It could probably work very well.
That the Rollei didn't use a 36 squ. sensor isn't surprising - what would it have achieved - still too small to satisfy diehard 6x6 fans, and would just turn existing lenses into longer ones, which had that been the photographer's choice, he'd have bought already.
At least, that's how I see it at the moment.
Moving to 6x7 was something I did, first Bronica and then Pentax, and almost instantly regretted both times. My original Swedish Squares beat Japanese Rectangles any day - for me.
Rob C
-
The V1D presented at Photokina is just a mockup, it is not functional. There is no sensor in it. On this picture, one would see that the screens are glued-on pictures.
-
The V1D presented at Photokina is just a mockup, it is not functional. There is no sensor in it. On this picture, one would see that the screens are glued-on pictures.
Indeed, it looks like one of those plastic toy prop computers, stereos, and such used in furniture store displays. Nostalgically, it seems that for illustrating early design proposals, the fine art of carving models from balsa wood has been replaced by 3D printing.
In my most cynical mood, I am not sure if Hasselblad has even decided on fiddly details like whether to use an OVF or an EVF.
-
I would be very surprising if they were to go back to an OVF.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At the risk of repeating myself: it is not a camera, it is only a mockup. It is a way to generate buzz, to show that Hasselblad has not forgotten about its "heritage", etc... Perry Oosting understood that the brand value lies in the connection to the iconic V series and is simply playing that card.
-
At the risk of repeating myself: it is not a camera, it is only a mockup. It is a way to generate buzz, to show that Hasselblad has not forgotten about its "heritage", etc... Perry Oosting understood that the brand value lies in the connection to the iconic V series and is simply playing that card.
Exactly! And it didn't become iconic by accident, which is something some forget: it fulfilled a huge need and made work for countless photographers feel less like, well, work. And man, did it deliver!
At the 'right' price, it would excite a lot of people into buying. But, what's a 'right' price beyond the generally affordable? For me, I think something around the 3000 pounds makes a price-point attractive to many different types of photographer. I think MF simply has to compete with the FF cameras for the same customers to become much more widely acceptable, especially now, with all camera sales apparently dropping off whichever cliff they find themselves approaching.
Put simply, I think the days of format justifying huge price band differentiation is passing fast.
Rob
-
@landscapephoto, I agree that this mockup gives no sign that Hasselblad has done any real design work on this, but let's play along and imagine what might be possible. The 75MP figure strongly suggests the same pixel size as Sony's latest MF sensor, just cut down to a 40mm square. It seems inconceivable that they would go backwards to lower resolution (bigger photo sites) so 40mm seems a safe maximum. Then the diagonal is no more than about 56mm, so close enough to the 55mm diagonal of the G1X, and the same lenses could be used.
-
Rob, wouldn't that be just lovely? But, as the saying goes, dream on!
What else is there?
;-)
Rob
-
@landscapephoto, I agree that this mockup gives no sign that Hasselblad has done any real design work on this, but let's play along and imagine what might be possible. The 75MP figure strongly suggests the same pixel size as Sony's latest MF sensor, just cut down to a 40mm square. It seems inconceivable that they would go backwards to lower resolution (bigger photo sites) so 40mm seems a safe maximum. Then the diagonal is no more than about 56mm, so close enough to the 55mm diagonal of the G1X, and the same lenses could be used.
Well... yes. Perry Oosting said as much. In the V1D specs, they used a 100 mpix sensor cropped to square and found out that the output was exactly 75 mpix, for 75 years of Hasselblad. And indeed it uses the G1X lenses, that what is mounted on the mockup on the photo.
If the price of the 100 mpix sensor gets down, they may even build the camera. But it will be more of a fashion statement than anything else.
-
Well... yes. Perry Oosting said as much. In the V1D specs, they used a 100 mpix sensor cropped to square and found out that the output was exactly 75 mpix, for 75 years of Hasselblad. And indeed it uses the G1X lenses, that what is mounted on the mockup on the photo.
If the price of the 100 mpix sensor gets down, they may even build the camera. But it will be more of a fashion statement than anything else.
I hadn't noticed that the lenses are real (there "spartan" styling makes them look like fakes too) and are for the X1D (I got those letters garbled). So much for the debate over whether it will have a mirror.
But with no mirror, there is a double affectation here: not just square sensor, but the deep cube-shaped body, with all that extra depth pointless if there is not a mirror inside. And of course there is the faux film winding knob . . .
-
I agree that this mockup gives no sign that Hasselblad has done any real design work on this,
Billy did you see the renders?Looks like a bit of thought has gone into it...
-
But with no mirror, there is a double affectation here: not just square sensor, but the deep cube-shaped body, with all that extra depth pointless if there is not a mirror inside. And of course there is the faux film winding knob . . .
Yes, I was wondering the same. The design is nice, but how is the space used in the absence of a mirror is indeed a good question.
I guess that the answer would be for batteries, etc... which would be a solution similar to that retained by Fuji since they put the battery between the sensor and the screen to reduce heating.
The faux film windering knob could be used as a soft control for whatever function is currently active.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hey, it's simply beautiful!
No idea what the thing stuck into the 'winding' hole does/would do, but for a grip, it's not gonna work: it would have be held by a plate screwed into the base, not obstructing the fingers right in the middle.
Good luck, 'blad, go for it!
Rob c