P1 price list... Will they insist on it?

[JoeKitchen]

I keep hearing people say higher megapixel backs will result in less depth of field.  No principle of physics with which I am familiar supports that.... Sensor size would affect DOF; megapixel count would not.

Depth of field, in part, is dependent on how small the circles of confusion are in relationship to the size of the pixels or the film grain. 

A sensor with smaller pixels require smaller circles of confusion to register the same DoF as a sensor with larger pixels. 

So yes, DoF will be effected as pixels get smaller. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It depends of application. If you print the circle of confusion needed for a print is only dependent on print size and magnification. So if you use a 20 MP sensor or 100 MP sensor you would hav the same CoC for a given size of print viewed at a given distance.

Viewing the image at actual pixels, magnification increases proportionally to the square root of the MP. So, if you look at an 80 MP image at actual pixels it will have twice the size (in inches/centimeters) of the 20 MP image. So you need to stop down two stops for the same visual acuity at actual pixels.

Now, look at the same 80 MP image at 1:2 magnification and DoF will be the same as the 20 MP image viewed at 1:1 magnification. Simple, isn't it?

Best regards
Erik

Depth of field, in part, is dependent on how small the circles of confusion are in relationship to the size of the pixels or the film grain. 

A sensor with smaller pixels require smaller circles of confusion to register the same DoF as a sensor with larger pixels. 

So yes, DoF will be effect as pixels get smaller.

[JoeKitchen]

Well...

I posted in another thread that I have a couple of jobs coming up in May for which 100mp "would be useful" given the nature of the jobs.  Do they "require" 100mp? In a strict sense, no: it's not like the client said "you must have a camera that shoots 100mp."   But in a practical sense, it's entirely possible to have potential work (as I do) for which 100mp would be useful, even if not strictly required, and even though the 100mp options are new. *I* can get these jobs done faster and better with a 100mp option, given the subject matter.  Someone else might be able to do them equally well and equally efficiently with 50mp files. Or 30mp files. Or an iPhone.  And that's fair enough. But it's myopic to believe that there's no professional scenarios in which 100mp would be deemed "needed" by a photographer. 

In a pinch, I could make do, of course, and might very well have to do so.

I have a issue with this statement. 

I feel, that we as photographers, are always looking for excuses to use the next great thing or to purchase that better camera.  In many cases, our excuses are reasonable and legitimate. 

However, I think a good portion of the time we are fooling ourselves by insisting that that is what the client wants or needs, and create an elaborate self-fulling prophecy so we can explain to our other halves why we need to shell it out the dough. 

Insofar as 100 MP, I just do not think you need it.  I can not see any client even being thrilled that they are getting 100 MP instead of 80, or 60, or even 40, past the first few minutes.  I think it is just that we as photographer find having 100 MP cool and sexier, so we convince ourselves that clients need it, and thus create an excuse to buy it. 

Same thing has happened with the very high quality super wide lenses of late.  I hear so many photographers talk about the Canon 17 t/s, or the Rodenstock 23mm and 28mm, and insist that their clients need those super wide images.  (In reality, it is just that "we" want those lenses and made up an excuse to buy one.) 

Meanwhile, I just smile and nod, thinking about the clients I have just taken on because their pervious photographer keep on giving them "images with obscure angles that should be (close to) 90 degrees but are not," or "images where the foreground looks stretched," etc. 

[JoeKitchen]

Hi,

It depends of application. If you print the circle of confusion needed for a print is only dependent on print size and magnification. So if you use a 20 MP sensor or 100 MP sensor you would hav the same CoC for a given size of print viewed at a given distance.

Viewing the image at actual pixels, magnification increases proportionally to the square root of the MP. So, if you look at an 80 MP image at actual pixels it will have twice the size (in inches/centimeters) of the 20 MP image. So you need to stop down two stops for the same visual acuity at actual pixels.

Now, look at the same 80 MP image at 1:2 magnification and DoF will be the same as the 20 MP image viewed at 1:1 magnification. Simple, isn't it?

Best regards
Erik

Yes Erik, you are correct; viewing distance and (print) size will dictate the CoC you need.  I wrote my response under the premise that since we were talking about 100 MP and the need for it, it would be understood that we are looking at the image at full res. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Insofar as 100 MP, I just do not think you need it.

Hi Joe,

It's not a question of needing 100 Mp, it's rather about allowing to produce better image quality.

A 100 MP sensor of a given size, will extract a higher MTF image out of the same lens that a lower MP sensor would. A higher Mp sensor will suffer less from aliasing artifacts. A higher Mp sensor will allow to down-sample and achieve higher (color) resolution at a given output size. A higher Mp sensor can be leveled/keystone/lens distortion corrected with less quality loss, especially when the image is subsequently down-sampled. A higher Mp sensor will allow larger output at a given/required resolution.

Do we need higher quality? Some do, some don't. Given the option, I'd take the opportunity.

I can not see any client even being thrilled that they are getting 100 MP instead of 80, or 60, or even 40, past the first few minutes.

It's not the Mpixels, it's the image quality. I've yet to meet a client who prefers lower quality for the same price.

Cheers,
Bart

[Theodoros]

Do you really think that Phase One is reading this list and quaking in their boots over your predictions of doom and gloom? Just saying something time and time again, and louder and louder doesn't make it true.

Also your predictions of IQ2 & IQ1 versions of the 100mp back clearly demonstrates further that you have absolutely no idea at all what you are talking about.

That the MF market is expanding (and is expected to keep doing so), is a fact... Mr. Oosten mentioned it in his interview at "e-photozine"... https://www.ephotozine.com/article/perry-oosting-on-the-hasselblad-h6d-29166 Obviously, the reasons for the market expansion is 1. The new technology and ergonomics that came with the Cmos backs (especially the quality of LV) and 2. The much better pricing policy of Hasselblad which made the new technology more accessible... Now there is really large sensor HQ Raw video too... Another reason for MF to boost.

The introduction of the Leaf Credo 100, IQ2-100 & IQ1-100 is common P1 practice as to offer the same products at better price... Remember what happened with the IQ250? After the market appreciation was lower than expected (because of the pricing of it), they removed Wi-Fi and offered the IQ-150 at several thousands less... In the mean time, Hassy asked for 1500 more for the WiFi version of the H5-50c and now they are charging only 500 more... So it's not "guessing" or "prediction"... It's the method P1 uses (good marketing too, as it (partly) "covers" their insane pricing to the funs of them) as to lower prices... Therefore, now that the H6D has been introduced both at significantly higher spec and significantly lower price, it is common sense that they'll follow the same practice as to lower prices down... That is unless they want to sit aside and look at Hassy dominating the market, while at the same time they'll try to convince some fun boys to spend more as to stay with the company (but that would be a very small fraction of the market).

Can you give me a good reason why one should buy P1 and have no access to film, no access to video, no multishot and pay significantly more at the moment? Heck, Hassy will even part exchange his DF & P back at higher prices than P1 will, bringing the cost of the investment to ...half or less and add to that the HQ video, access to multishot and to film for free!

[Theodoros]

Hi Joe,

It's not a question of needing 100 Mp, it's rather about allowing to produce better image quality.

A 100 MP sensor of a given size, will extract a higher MTF image out of the same lens that a lower MP sensor would. A higher Mp sensor will suffer less from aliasing artifacts. A higher Mp sensor will allow to down-sample and achieve higher (color) resolution at a given output size. A higher Mp sensor can be leveled/keystone/lens distortion corrected with less quality loss, especially when the image is subsequently down-sampled. A higher Mp sensor will allow larger output at a given/required resolution.

Do we need higher quality? Some do, some don't. Given the option, I'd take the opportunity.

It's not the Mpixels, it's the image quality. I've yet to meet a client who prefers lower quality for the same price.

Cheers,
Bart

Surely there are cases that very high resolution is needed, but in most of them, the requirement is for high optical resolution rather than presence of pixels as such... In most cases high (optical) resolution  is need it is on still subjects and thus, a 12 years old Multishot back should be much preferred over an 100mp resolution single shot back... Other that that, I don't see how an 100mp single shot back can increase detail over an 80mp back... Is there more room on the Nyquist limit?  Even if there is, it surely can't be all that much...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That the MF market is expanding (and is expected to keep doing so), is a fact... Mr. Oosten mentioned it in his interview at "e-photozine"...

Where does he say that?

Can you give me a good reason why one should buy P1 and have no access to film,

Film ? Who still needs that for quality output? Scanners are becoming rare as well, and a first generation sampling by a 100 Mp camera at 5522 PPI is hard to beat by 6000-8000 PPI drumscans of grain.

no access to video,

There are better tools for that. Or would a Master Chef prefer to use a Swiss Army knife instead of a dedicated High Carbon steel kitchen knife?

no multishot

The benefits of Multishot are becoming more marginal at 100 Mp sampling density. Maybe that's why Hasselblad didn't produce a 400Mp Multi-Scanning version (not yet anyway)?

and pay significantly more at the moment?

As always, it's not what you pay, but what you can earn with a tool that makes it an investment or not. Besides, there are other factors than purchase price alone that need to be factored in.

Cheers,
Bart

[william]

Hm.  I think I understand where you're coming from.  The predicate would be "viewing the image at actual pixels" (zoomed in to 100%), which isn't something I generally have reason to do...

Hi,

It depends of application. If you print the circle of confusion needed for a print is only dependent on print size and magnification. So if you use a 20 MP sensor or 100 MP sensor you would hav the same CoC for a given size of print viewed at a given distance.

Viewing the image at actual pixels, magnification increases proportionally to the square root of the MP. So, if you look at an 80 MP image at actual pixels it will have twice the size (in inches/centimeters) of the 20 MP image. So you need to stop down two stops for the same visual acuity at actual pixels.

Now, look at the same 80 MP image at 1:2 magnification and DoF will be the same as the 20 MP image viewed at 1:1 magnification. Simple, isn't it?

Best regards
Erik

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Other that that, I don't see how an 100mp single shot back can increase detail over an 80mp back... Is there more room on the Nyquist limit?  Even if there is, it surely can't be all that much...

Yes, there is some, especially when compared to similar technology CMOS 50Mp backs (4.6 micron pitch instead of 5.3 micron pitch, or 108.7 cy/mm versus 94.3 cy/mm at Nquist, or 15% higher) the resolution difference is significant (more than 1% becomes visible, more than 10% is significant), and overall MTF is higher, and aliasing is less. But resolution is not the only benefit, overall image quality benefits as well, and postprocessing results become more robust.

Cheers,
Bart

[abouho]

Can you give me a good reason why one should buy P1 and have no access to film, no access to video, no multishot and pay significantly more at the moment?

Because it's 2016. Most professional photographers stopped using film over 10 years ago, they use professional video cameras to shoot video, they realise that a decent singleshot system can, in most cases, give more detail than a half-assed multishot one, and can easily pay off the difference between a Hasselblad and a Phase One in a singe shoot.

[eronald]

Because it's 2016. Most professional photographers stopped using film over 10 years ago, they use professional video cameras to shoot video, they realise that a decent singleshot system can, in most cases, give more detail than a half-assed multishot one, and can easily pay off the difference between a Hasselblad and a Phase One in a singe shoot.

If you really have perfect such knowledge, you will be a desirable marketing consultant for the industry!
I pity Hasselblad for getting their market wrong, they should have thought of hiring you.

Edmund

[Chris Livsey]

Art over science and this is a very fast good read.

http://motion.kodak.com/us/en/motion/blog/blog_post?contentid=4294993681

In the midst of this digital a quote from the above link : "Film is very similar to how the human eye sees the world - realistic and elegant."

[JoeKitchen]

Hi Joe,

It's not a question of needing 100 Mp, it's rather about allowing to produce better image quality.

A 100 MP sensor of a given size, will extract a higher MTF image out of the same lens that a lower MP sensor would. A higher Mp sensor will suffer less from aliasing artifacts. A higher Mp sensor will allow to down-sample and achieve higher (color) resolution at a given output size. A higher Mp sensor can be leveled/keystone/lens distortion corrected with less quality loss, especially when the image is subsequently down-sampled. A higher Mp sensor will allow larger output at a given/required resolution.

Do we need higher quality? Some do, some don't. Given the option, I'd take the opportunity.

It's not the Mpixels, it's the image quality. I've yet to meet a client who prefers lower quality for the same price.

Cheers,
Bart

Although I contest that what you say is correct, I really think we are splitting hears here. 

First, let me say that my main concern is use with wide angle tech camera lenses.  It just appears that the Dalsa 60 MP sensor will be the last chip made that will work with those wides. 

But beyond that, the IQ of the 260 is superb.  I just can not see the reason for the IQ3 100 over the IQ 260, or 360. 

Yes, there is the higher MP which will sample down to a better file, and the higher ISO, which can help with ambient light shooting.  But in the end, ADs are more concerned about the feel of the image, not the per pixel noise.  And if you are only using ambient light, I doubt you will be getting the jobs to afford the IQ3 100, since you look will be very similar to many others out there.

Going back to the point of ... well if the difference in price between the 360 and the 3 100 really makes a difference to you, then you really should not be considering either. 

Well, $10K is still $10K, and that $10K can get you a lot further if put it into marketing then putting it into 40 more MP. 

[Theodoros]

.......they realise that a decent singleshot system can, in most cases, give more detail than a half-assed multishot one.....

LOL.... You are real fun to talk with... Thanks, but I had all the jokes I could hear for the rest of the year....

[Theodoros]

Where does he say that?

Cheers,
Bart

Look at the paragraph where he speaks on the new entry level-portable Hasselblad coming soon and on the other paragraph where he speaks on the pricing policy that resulted on them selling 25% of the year capacity of production, only in December... I also remind you him saying "we are straggling to keep with demand - which of course is a good thing" in the Lula (video) review...

[Graham Welland]

The introduction of the Leaf Credo 100, IQ2-100 & IQ1-100 is common P1 practice as to offer the same products at better price... Remember what happened with the IQ250? After the market appreciation was lower than expected (because of the pricing of it), they removed Wi-Fi and offered the IQ-150 at several thousands less...

I very much think that the IQ150 was the exception vs the rule. They didn't produce a replacement IQ180 or 280 using the newer CCD used in the IQ380. Also, I doubt that they'd want to produce IQ backs that aren't IQ3 series designed to work with the XF.

Maybe they will in which case I'd be pleasantly surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

[Christopher]

I really must have missed something with my IQ180, because I would say it works very well with my Arca and my wide angle lenses. I much prefer it over my old P65


Christopher Hauser
ch@chauser.eu

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Look at the paragraph where he speaks on the new entry level-portable Hasselblad coming soon and on the other paragraph where he speaks on the pricing policy that resulted on them selling 25% of the year capacity of production, only in December... I also remind you him saying "we are straggling to keep with demand - which of course is a good thing" in the Lula (video) review...

None of those is the same as an expanding MF market, and certainly not as a fact.

Cheers,
Bart

[Theodoros]

I very much think that the IQ150 was the exception vs the rule. They didn't produce a replacement IQ180 or 280 using the newer CCD used in the IQ380. Also, I doubt that they'd want to produce IQ backs that aren't IQ3 series designed to work with the XF.

Maybe they will in which case I'd be pleasantly surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

That's what I'm saying... To lower the price of the IQ3-100, they'll have to use the same trick as with the IQ-250 (i.e. remove a minor spec and price it significantly lower), there is no competition for the 80mp CCD sensor, is there? The competition is with the H6D  on the Cmos 100mp sensor which is much better specified and at significantly lower price... Now what they'll come up with if Hasselblad decides to sell the 100mp sensor as a stand alone back (possibly for third party platforms too), or as an (even cheaper) H5D-100,  this remains to be seen...