The H6D100c and H6D50c thread: The orange shutter button cameras!

[Hywel]

In a way, I think this launch is a flop, because there is no real reason to upgrade except for CMOS or super-hi rez, and everybody who wants a CMOS Hassy already has it by this time. On the other hand, all the other launches from Hassy were equally low key in a way with the core model carried over with a new designation.

I dunno, it's got me seriously thinking about upgrading my H3Dii. I wish they were running the upgrade offer for a bit longer, it's a whole chunk of cash to come up with in a hurry, so I probably won't.

I'd skipped the first iteration CMOS Hasselblad in favour of getting an A7Rii and suite of lenses, because it seemed to me that the A7Rii covered a different part of the "shooting envelope" (IBIS and fast lenses for available and low light situations and relatively lightweight for the mountains, compared with even the CMOS Hasselblad). 

I'm not short of video-capable cameras but even so it's always an attractive feature, especially if it comes with Hasselblad colour science. I wish the 50 megapixel model did RAW video, even if only in full HD instead of 4K.

If I had it, I'd use the video on it. Same as I use video on everything from my GoPro through my iPhone to GH4, 7D, A7Rii and RED. Sometimes grabbing a few minutes of behind the scenes video on a shoot is very valuable, and sometimes you just want to shoot a quick video on location without bringing the whole RED plus lighting plus cards plus batteries plus lenses set-up with you.

Sadly I probably can't justify the cost right now, even with the trade-in, but it's got me scanning the Hasselblad spec sheets with great interest again and wondering if I can afford it, which the previous iteration H5D-50C just didn't. I don't really know why- I was looking at the Pentax 645z instead, before going the Sony route.

Flash sync at 1/2000th is also pretty appealing. I do end up hitting the 1/800th fairly often when counter-balancing daylight with portable strobes in Spain.

Probably I should spend my money on an upgrade of my lighting system next, but I'm at least TEMPTED by the new Hasselblad.

Cheers, Hywel

[DrakeJ]

For me, the H6D-50c is certainly appealing with 1/2000s shutter speed and a good screen, and I'm looking to "invest" in MF. But price is prohibitive, especially considering the price of the H5D in comparison and the price cut they issued not long ago.

[NickT]

It would be really interesting to know this... I presume they are great and (almost) entirely based on trade offs, right?  It is rather easy for one to predict that it is so...

Theodoros
Just to re-iterate I will not be responding to your posts here or anywhere else.

[eronald]

This is why Phase One have been so smart in targeting institutions and the "money no problem" sector of the amateur photo community. With a few notable exceptions in the stratosphere of the profession, professional photographers do not rake in enough cash anymore to pay for this style of equipment on a regular upgrade schedule. By adhering to the "elitist" ethos, MF has killed the goose that lays the golden egg. We can only hope that at some point the japanese eg. Pentax and co. will come in with a cheap sexy product - in the past they have not disappointed.

Edmund

I dunno, it's got me seriously thinking about upgrading my H3Dii. I wish they were running the upgrade offer for a bit longer, it's a whole chunk of cash to come up with in a hurry, so I probably won't.

I'd skipped the first iteration CMOS Hasselblad in favour of getting an A7Rii and suite of lenses, because it seemed to me that the A7Rii covered a different part of the "shooting envelope" (IBIS and fast lenses for available and low light situations and relatively lightweight for the mountains, compared with even the CMOS Hasselblad). 

I'm not short of video-capable cameras but even so it's always an attractive feature, especially if it comes with Hasselblad colour science. I wish the 50 megapixel model did RAW video, even if only in full HD instead of 4K.

If I had it, I'd use the video on it. Same as I use video on everything from my GoPro through my iPhone to GH4, 7D, A7Rii and RED. Sometimes grabbing a few minutes of behind the scenes video on a shoot is very valuable, and sometimes you just want to shoot a quick video on location without bringing the whole RED plus lighting plus cards plus batteries plus lenses set-up with you.

Sadly I probably can't justify the cost right now, even with the trade-in, but it's got me scanning the Hasselblad spec sheets with great interest again and wondering if I can afford it, which the previous iteration H5D-50C just didn't. I don't really know why- I was looking at the Pentax 645z instead, before going the Sony route.

Flash sync at 1/2000th is also pretty appealing. I do end up hitting the 1/800th fairly often when counter-balancing daylight with portable strobes in Spain.

Probably I should spend my money on an upgrade of my lighting system next, but I'm at least TEMPTED by the new Hasselblad.

Cheers, Hywel

[eronald]

All you say is true. And d'you think people would buy more of the MF gear if it were at 2x the 35mm price like the old Hassys?
Hassy's bodies are made in Japan - they *could* compete on price with Pentax if they really wanted to. Japanese design engineers at Pentax also get paid and live very well.   

Edmund

I don't think it's always a matter of if you can afford one of the new medium format cameras for production, but "if" you should afford it.

So I'm not saying one brand, or format is actually better than the other, that's a personal decision, but the bottom line is for a long time digital has been good and given the demands of our industry, it takes a client request/demand to move you to newer equipment with incremental upgrades.

IMO

BC

[Christoph B.]

Yes and no. I think there's a big difference between a system where you can exchange parts very easily and that also has its own software for editing and tethered shooting, has a fairly quick and reliable service and lots of representatives who can help you when you have problems and provide you with backup gear or rent stuff - and a camera producer without all those things.
Also - a system without leaf shutter is much cheaper than a system with leaf shutter...

I guess Hasselblad could save costs by making a 'closed' integrated compact system like Pentax, stop working on Phocus, close their service centres in America and Europe and not have any representatives etc - then it would perhaps cost as much as a 645Z. Oh and no full frame sensor and no leaf shutter lenses too.

[BJL]

And d'you think people would buy more of the MF gear if it were at 2x the 35mm price like the old Hassys?
Hassy's bodies are made in Japan - they *could* compete on price with Pentax if they really wanted to. Japanese design engineers at Pentax also get paid and live very well.   

Edmund

Your optimism about "cheap MF for the masses" ignores some factors.

Firstly, the image quality available from digital cameras in formats 36x24mm and smaller is far greater than film of the same format. (And it might be that technical image quality needed by a lot of professional photography has been reduced by a move to web advertising, and the resolution limits of computer screens.)  So there is inherently a far smaller group of photographers with professional needs for medium and large format. (It's just that a large proportion of them hang out in this forum!)  So the economies of scale are far worse: even if an MF body costs for a digital back about the same to make as one for a film back, the demand and  sales volume will be far lower, so the retail price will include a far larger "fixed cost recovery" component.

Secondly, semiconductor sensor costs scale up badly with size, far worse than with film, for manufacturing reasons that have been discussed many times (like lower yields, and the need for for on-sensor stitching to fabricate a sensor bigger than about 30x20mm, and more stitched parts and 2D stitching as the size increases further).  So MF back costs will probably stay far higher than MF film backs, adding another disincentive for moving up to MF compared to that decision with film cameras, and so again reducing the sales volume, worsening the economies of scale, and raising the retail pricing needed to be profitable.

By the way, I am not sure about that frequent claim of Hasselblad bodies being made in Japan (by Fujifilm); they do have a new factory in Sweden.  (Though I understand that the lenses are, and now the sensors are Japanese too.)  But that debate is not so relevant: Hasselblad might well have at least the option of lowering costs by moving manufacturing off-shore – if the cost savings are enough to offset any loss of prestige and thus market value.  (Some high-end camera enthusiasts are borderline racist in their on-line denigration of "non-Teutonic" products.)

[landscapephoto]

Hassy's bodies are made in Japan

Hasselblad's bodies are made in Sweden.

Edit: the backs are also made in Sweden, even if the Cmos censor is made in Japan. The optical part of lenses is designed by Per Nordlund, in Sweden, and manufactured by Fuji in Japan. The mechanics of the lenses are made in Sweden, including the shutter.

[eronald]

BJL

 the bodies, it has been pointed out, are made in sweden. my bad.
 regardless, the backs are solid state electronics and at some point should drop, drop, drop in absolute price. Like FF 35mm did.
 I'm well aware of Poisson statistics and yield curves.

Edmund

Your optimism about "cheap MF for the masses" ignores some factors.

Firstly, the image quality available from digital cameras in formats 36x24mm and smaller is far greater than film of the same format. (And it might be that technical image quality needed by a lot of professional photography has been reduced by a move to web advertising, and the resolution limits of computer screens.)  So there is inherently a far smaller group of photographers with professional needs for medium and large format. (It's just that a large proportion of them hang out in this forum!)  So the economies of scale are far worse: even if an MF body costs for a digital back about the same to make as one for a film back, the demand and  sales volume will be far lower, so the retail price will include a far larger "fixed cost recovery" component.

Secondly, semiconductor sensor costs scale up badly with size, far worse than with film, for manufacturing reasons that have been discussed many times (like lower yields, and the need for for on-sensor stitching to fabricate a sensor bigger than about 30x20mm, and more stitched parts and 2D stitching as the size increases further).  So MF back costs will probably stay far higher than MF film backs, adding another disincentive for moving up to MF compared to that decision with film cameras, and so again reducing the sales volume, worsening the economies of scale, and raising the retail pricing needed to be profitable.

By the way, I am not sure about that frequent claim of Hasselblad bodies being made in Japan (by Fujifilm); they do have a new factory in Sweden.  (Though I understand that the lenses are, and now the sensors are Japanese too.)  But that debate is not so relevant: Hasselblad might well have at least the option of lowering costs by moving manufacturing off-shore – if the cost savings are enough to offset any loss of prestige and thus market value.  (Some high-end camera enthusiasts are borderline racist in their on-line denigration of "non-Teutonic" products.)

[landscapephoto]

regardless, the backs are solid state electronics and at some point should drop, drop, drop in absolute price. Like FF 35mm did.

Where they are made is irrelevant for that.

The question is interesting: will MF electronics drop in price in the future, as FF 35mm did? One thing is sure: they will not drop in price in the next 3 years. After that: all bets are off: maybe 8K video will make these large sensors a necessity and they will then indeed drop in price.

You see: the problems with electronics and price drop is that it requires huge investments. Huge investments require a huge market base. If, say, in 2020-2025 we have 100"-150" screens at a 1000$ price point, then we will have a market for 8K video (or even 16K video). That, in turn, requires larger sensors (because noise is quite obvious in video and physics dictates that to minimise noise one needs lots of photons). These larger sensors would then trickled down to photography.

Then: if, on the other hand, the general public decides that massive screens needs too much place on their walls (whatever the price), electronic manufacturers will be in a crisis (as they are every 20 years or so) and will need to do something else than flat screens. And then the large sensors will stay a niche market.

[Theodoros]

.....One thing is sure: they will not drop in price in the next 3 years....

Why?  ...and why it is "for sure"? 

[kers]

... maybe 8K video will make these large sensors a necessity ....

Please explain, because my D810 delivers 36MP very well and the lenses too.
IMHO i also think lenses for cinema are largely overpriced.

[Theodoros]

Please explain, because my D810 delivers 36MP very well and the lenses too.
IMHO i also think lenses for cinema are largely overpriced.

One needs at least a sensor with 8196pixels on its large size to make 8k video at the full width of the sensor... So it is explainable if pixels are of enough size as to cope well with low light...

[Miyata610]

Please explain, because my D810 delivers 36MP very well and the lenses too.
IMHO i also think lenses for cinema are largely overpriced.

A critical feature of a cinema lens is that it mustn't "breathe" during focus. This adds complexity to the optical design. They also need to be matched so that the various focal lengths need to behave in a similar way, one would expect a set of primes that all operate across the same set of T stops, with identical colour cast.  Finally, they must be physically similar with focus and aperture ring gears that will mate to the follow focus system.

If you can achieve all that for the price of an Otus then you're doing well. Especially since you won't sell many.  It's probably easy at ten times the price.  These things get rented more often then owned.

Rant over.

[landscapephoto]

Please explain, because my D810 delivers 36MP very well and the lenses too.

Your D810 will not deliver a 8K video stream. For doing that at the level of quality required by broadcasters and filmmakers, you will need bigger pixels. The problem is not sharpness (that is only an obsession of online photographers), but noise levels.

Then, the market for video is much bigger than the market for MF photography. The video market would be large enough to finance production of stepper technology for making large CMOS sensors at a more reasonable price.

[AreBee]

Miyata610,

A critical feature of a cinema lens is that it mustn't "breathe" during focus.

Parfocal lens.

[Hywel]

Then, the market for video is much bigger than the market for MF photography. The video market would be large enough to finance production of stepper technology for making large CMOS sensors at a more reasonable price.

Not at all clear that that's the case to me.

The market for large sensor video, for example, is so small that Arri had to cannibalise Hasselblad lenses to make lenses for the Arri 65. http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

Cine lenses are so damned expensive precisely because the market for high end video is actually a lot smaller than high-end (ie MF) stills. Sure, the mechanical and optical requirements are more demanding too but the main thing is that they are produced in TINY production runs. Sony built new lens-making machines for GM series stills lenses- not cine lenses.

4K for acquisition has definitely made it and is here to stay. There's a very strong case for acquiring in 4K even if delivering in full HD or 2K.

In fact lots of feature films shown in cinemas are finished in 2K (even if they were shot in 4K or more). We don't have much in the way of 4K delivery infrastructure yet, even if we have sensors and displays capable of delivering it we just don't have the ways to get it out to people (except in ultra-compressed online forms, which I'm skeptical really deserve the 4K label if they are throwing away 99+% of the image information).

At typical viewing distances in the home for human eyeballs, 4K has marginal gains over 2K: http://prolost.com/blog/2013/1/22/4k-in-the-home.html
If you've got a projector and a big screen, it's worth it, but not otherwise. Contrast and black levels are much more important to perceived quality at typical viewing distance.

Computer monitors are higher resolution, but it's not clear how many people actually use them for media consumption rather than media creation. They are more likely to use iPads etc, which whilst in theory are capable of vast resolution with retina screens actually look perfectly super with full HD video. Same as televisions, and even most projectors in the home, as above.

All of which means that whilst I can see 8K video as desirable for acquisition, and probably inevitable (RED and Arri are around 6K already) I don't see that that necessarily means it will trickle down to consumer level gear any time soon.

It might, because of the numbers game to sell us cameras. But broadcasters and film-makers are a small market, not a mass market.

Cheers, Hywel

[eronald]

Miyata610,

Parfocal lens.

maybe this means focus moves even when not zooming?

[Chris Livsey]

maybe this means focus moves even when not zooming?

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/mythbusting-parfocal-photo-zooms/

[landscapephoto]

Not at all clear that that's the case to me.

Neither it is for me, which is why I said "maybe".

The market for large sensor video, for example, is so small that Arri had to cannibalise Hasselblad lenses to make lenses for the Arri 65. http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

Arri is a relatively small company and the 65 is more a proof of concept than something they want to sell to all their customers. The situation may (or may not) be very different in 3 to 5 years.

4K for acquisition has definitely made it and is here to stay. There's a very strong case for acquiring in 4K even if delivering in full HD or
At typical viewing distances in the home for human eyeballs, 4K has marginal gains over 2K: http://prolost.com/blog/2013/1/22/4k-in-the-home.html
If you've got a projector and a big screen, it's worth it, but not otherwise. Contrast and black levels are much more important to perceived quality at typical viewing distance.

If we are trying to predict the situation in 3 to 5 years, we don't do it from the screens people use today. What I was saying is that the electronic giants have pushed larger screens in the past 10 years, because it is an easy way to get consumers to replace their TVs. For this to make sense, they also have pushed higher resolution, because larger screens mainly make sense with better resolution. And for the resolution, they the cameras to produce content. We now have 4K screens and cameras, even if 2K is sufficient for most people.

We know that the same electronic giants are tooling for 8K. For them it makes sense to continue to try to convince the public to buy new screens. If their plan succeeds, content providers will indeed need 8K cameras in 3-5 years, just as they are exchanging their 2K cameras for 4K cameras today.

It may be that the plan fails, for example that consumers do not make the jump to 4K next year, because they fail to see the difference. This sometimes happens: for example, the plan 3 years ago was that every TV would be 3D, this has failed. It may also be that the plan succeeds and that consumers move to 4K next year, in which case the 8K screens will be the next step in 3-5 years.