What about mirrorlesss MFD?

[David Watson]

I am taking my life in my hands by writing this post and I know that I will possibly be accused of being a Hasselblad fanboy - I am not BTW.

I think that we need a new heading in addition to medium format or cameras and that should be devoted to MF mirrorless.  I have recently switched from conventional MFD and DSLR to a Hasselblad X1D system and I feel sure that there must be many pros and amateurs out there doing the same or similar.

The existing MFD section is just of no interest to me as it seems to be primarily interested in the P1 products and technical cameras which some would say are now even more of a niche product than they ever were.  The same thing applies to the Hasselblad H series and with the likely introduction of a mirrorless 100MP (or more) camera appearing soon I think we need a section focussed on these products.  The headings could be (tongue in cheek)

MF - retro - film and big clunky cameras
MF - today - mirrorless

Just something for Kevin and the team to think about.

[Rob C]

Well, David, I still am a fan of the film 'blads, and perhaps a great deal of the affection is down to the 6x6 forrmat: I love square, and found it tremendously useful for work.

I wonder if any manufacturer has thought of making a 36mm x 36mm digital body... it would have enough pixies inside, and a very adaptable shape. The only thing wrong (for me) with my regular 135 formats is that in vertical format, they are too narrow for many portrait situations and force you to use less real estate than you want to, almost making it as silly as shooting the same shot in the horizontal.

I wouldn't care if it was a reflex camera or a sans mirror invention; I'd probably have to use it on a tripod anyway. The only glitch would be cost. For folks shooting covers etc. square provides lots of cropping area for some AD to do his best. 

Separate threads? Never any harm with that.

Rob

[KLaban]

Well, David, I still am a fan of the film 'blads, and perhaps a great deal of the affection is down to the 6x6 forrmat: I love square, and found it tremendously useful for work.

I wonder if any manufacturer has thought of making a 36mm x 36mm digital body... it would have enough pixies inside, and a very adaptable shape. The only thing wrong (for me) with my regular 135 formats is that in vertical format, they are too narrow for many portrait situations and force you to use less real estate than you want to, almost making it as silly as shooting the same shot in the horizontal.

I wouldn't care if it was a reflex camera or a sans mirror invention; I'd probably have to use it on a tripod anyway. The only glitch would be cost. For folks shooting covers etc. square provides lots of cropping area for some AD to do his best. 

Separate threads? Never any harm with that.

Rob

Hasselblad made their CFV 16 digital back with 36x36 sensor. They can be bought used comparatively cheaply today. I believe our mate Kenna used one.

[Rob C]

Yes, you linked me to that back some time ago; trouble, today, is that it becomes a compromise because of the rest of the older system. As you know, I had a couple of the film cameras too, and loved them, but I also made a test once in an attempt to prove something to myself about enlarging same-size bits of film from different formats. In my case, I did it blowing up a 24mm x 36mm section of a 'blad negative and comparing it with the same physical size of subject area using the full, native 24mm x 36mm film from the Nikon. The Nikon negative was better; they were the same film types, of course, both either FP3 or the later FP4.

That test supported something that the BJP's chief tester, Geoffrey Crawley once wrote there, saying that people who bought into 6x7 expecting to be transferring the same quality of the full 135 format across a much larger film were going to be disappointed, because small-format lenses are better just because they are small, and need cover a smaller area of film.

Apart from that, of course, to go for the old 'blad system today would be a bit crazy because the best cameras are already relative antiques. No, a new system around the smaller square would be obliged to incorporate the latest developments.... probably putting it beyond my willingness to spend, anyway.

:-(

[KLaban]

Yes, you linked me to that back some time ago; trouble, today, is that it becomes a compromise because of the rest of the older system. As you know, I had a couple of the film cameras too, and loved them, but I also made a test once in an attempt to prove something to myself about enlarging same-size bits of film from different formats. In my case, I did it blowing up a 24mm x 36mm section of a 'blad negative and comparing it with the same physical size of subject area using the full, native 24mm x 36mm film from the Nikon. The Nikon negative was better; they were the same film types, of course, both either FP3 or the later FP4.

That test supported something that the BJP's chief tester, Geoffrey Crawley once wrote there, saying that people who bought into 6x7 expecting to be transferring the same quality of the full 135 format across a much larger film were going to be disappointed, because small-format lenses are better just because they are small, and need cover a smaller area of film.

Apart from that, of course, to go for the old 'blad system today would be a bit crazy because the best cameras are already relative antiques. No, a new system around the smaller square would be obliged to incorporate the latest developments.... probably putting it beyond my willingness to spend, anyway.

:-(

Understood.

Perhaps Leica missed a trick with the SL? Would have given it a Unique Selling Point, no?

;-)

[BJL]

I wonder if any manufacturer has thought of making a 36mm x 36mm digital body...

Of course, there were 36x36mm DMF backs, back in the days when MF sensors were CCDs from Kodak and Phillips/Dalsa, adapted from sensors they were making in higher volume for X-ray machines and other scientific equipment. As soon as sensors started being specifically designed for medium format cameras and photography, they went to the oblong shapes preferred by the great majority of photographers, and more compatible with the "645" (54x42mm) format that had already become dominant in the late film era.

Given that you are almost certainly stuck with 4:3 from now on, how bad is it to crop to square occasionally?

P. S. EVF ("mirrorless") cameras can at least save you from the distraction of a 4:3 preview image by offering a square crop VF mode!

[BAB]

Yes, you linked me to that back some time ago; trouble, today, is that it becomes a compromise because of the rest of the older system. As you know, I had a couple of the film cameras too, and loved them, but I also made a test once in an attempt to prove something to myself about enlarging same-size bits of film from different formats. In my case, I did it blowing up a 24mm x 36mm section of a 'blad negative and comparing it with the same physical size of subject area using the full, native 24mm x 36mm film from the Nikon. The Nikon negative was better; they were the same film types, of course, both either FP3 or the later FP4.

That test supported something that the BJP's chief tester, Geoffrey Crawley once wrote there, saying that people who bought into 6x7 expecting to be transferring the same quality of the full 135 format across a much larger film were going to be disappointed, because small-format lenses are better just because they are small, and need cover a smaller area of film.

HMM....due to the flatness of the film?

Apart from that, of course, to go for the old 'blad system today would be a bit crazy because the best cameras are already relative antiques. No, a new system around the smaller square would be obliged to incorporate the latest developments.... probably putting it beyond my willingness to spend, anyway.

:-(

[Rob C]

I don't think so, or 4x5 etc. would only have worked with glass plates. Printed from thousands of both and found them no different, just the film less likely to get smashed and me lose my job.

Yes, there is, here, an inherent difference in ultimate magnification factors to reach the same size of print, but I don't believe it depends just on receptor, but on lens design possibilities which can be verified via non-film results, on a screen, thus removing the factor of flatness. But nonetheless, it is a factor and can vary depending on several inputs including temperature, humidity, camera gate design and efficiency of pressure plate.