After Photokina Medium Format rumors (UPD. And The WINNAH is FUUUJIIII !!! )

[eronald]

I would love 6x6 digital. I would think it would obviously have an autocrop/viewfinder mask function too though of course.

I shoot magazines and they run square images all the time. traditionally, 6x6 has been favoured for it's cropping flexibility. Magazines run what the photographer shoots and they book the photographer for what ever it is they do.

Maybe you oughta tell Hassy that. I think killing the square V concept rather than milking it was the marketing decision that moved them from being the lead player in MF to being an afterthought.

Once they went to a rectangle they were just a bigger kludgy 35mm camera, down in the mud wrestling with Mamiya and the speedy cheap Nikons and Canons!


Edmund

[BJL]

The persistent dream of a return to square format cameras (which the camera industry was solidly moving away from already in the film era) fascinates me. Let me try to comment on a few of the incorrect outright nonsensical claims:

- There are several sensor maker who could do a custom 56x56mm CMOS sensor for Hasselblad: for example, Teledyne-Dalsa and Canon both offer custom CMOS sensor sizes up to "wafer scale". The barrier is cost relative to expected market interest, not an imagined uncooperative Sony monopoly.

- The claim that a square Hasselblad would offer a distinction from phone-camera is ironical coming from the person who argued for a strong modern interest in square by citing its use on Instagram! The kids are OK with cropping.

- The idea that Hasselblad's current weakness is due to not staying with the square is strange considering that (a) Hasselblad's traditional main rival Rollei stayed with the square, and faired far worse, whereas (b) the rival that is outperforming "H" is the evolution of Mamiya's 645 system.

- A collection of old manual focus "V" lens designs would be a very poor basis for a new system, and "H" lenses can not be trusted to cover true "6x6" (56x56mm), especially when the higher resolution demands of todays DMF meet the likely poor corner performance outside the image circle for which those "645" lenses are designed.  Or is the proposal a "crop square MF"? About 50x50mm would fit the 70mm diagonal of 645.

- AFAIK, Hasselblad's "square mirrorless" mock-up was likely nothing more than a 3D-printed illustration (or a clay or balsa-wood carving, if the design shop went old-school.) Is there any evidence that, as Bo_Dez says, "The prototype was actually quite elaborate."?

[BJL]

I'm confident in saying that Pentax isn't doing anything with their 645z line.

Sadly, I see no reason to disagree. Or to expect any long term future for Pentax ILCs in any format.

[BJL]

As a professional rumormonger, i kinda mix the chatter on the net.

As an semi-professional skeptic (professional scientist), you can probably guess how much credence I give to "the chatter on the net" when not at least filtered by sources with a decent track record (which some rumor sites do have.) "Chatter on the 'net" is at best an insight into a community's hope and fears, at worst skewed by "influence campaigns", meaning covert propaganda.

If chatter on the 'net were trustworthy then (a) Canon and Nikon would have stayed with their SLR mounts for those new EVF camera systems, (b) 6x6 MF is on the verge of making a comeback (and has been on this verge for many years) (c) APS-C and MFT are on the verge of being obsoleted by 36x24mm format  (and again, have been on this verge for many years).

[eronald]

BJL,

- On Semi could certainly do such a sensor.

- My argument is that Hassy wilted faster because they didn't manage the transition away from the V. If they had supplied a useable product with similar ergonomics AT THE TIME to Hassy photographers, they might have better capitalised on their goodwill.

- You think the square camera is a joke, I think it might be standout. Who knows? The survival of the Leica M is hilarious.

Edmund

The persistent dream of a return to square format cameras (which the camera industry was solidly moving away from already in the film era) fascinates me. Let me try to comment on a few of the incorrect outright nonsensical claims:

- There are several sensor maker who could do a custom 56x56mm CMOS sensor for Hasselblad: for example, Teledyne-Dalsa and Canon both offer custom CMOS sensor sizes up to "wafer scale". The barrier is cost relative to expected market interest, not an imagined uncooperative Sony monopoly.

- The claim that a square Hasselblad would offer a distinction from phone-camera is ironical coming from the person who argued for a strong modern interest in square by citing its use on Instagram! The kids are OK with cropping.

- The idea that Hasselblad's current weakness is due to not staying with the square is strange considering that (a) Hasselblad's traditional main rival Rollei stayed with the square, and faired far worse, whereas (b) the rival that is outperforming "H" is the evolution of Mamiya's 645 system.

- A collection of old manual focus "V" lens designs would be a very poor basis for a new system, and "H" lenses can not be trusted to cover true "6x6" (56x56mm), especially when the higher resolution demands of todays DMF meet the likely poor corner performance outside the image circle for which those "645" lenses are designed.  Or is the proposal a "crop square MF"? About 50x50mm would fit the 70mm diagonal of 645.

- AFAIK, Hasselblad's "square mirrorless" mock-up was likely nothing more than a 3D-printed illustration (or a clay or balsa-wood carving, if the design shop went old-school.) Is there any evidence that, as Bo_Dez says, "The prototype was actually quite elaborate."?

[eronald]

As an semi-professional skeptic (professional scientist), you can probably guess how much credence I give to "the chatter on the net" when not at least filtered by sources with a decent track record (which some rumor sites do have.) "Chatter on the 'net" is at best an insight into a community's hope and fears, at worst skewed by "influence campaigns", meaning covert propaganda.

If chatter on the 'net were trustworthy then (a) Canon and Nikon would have stayed with their SLR mounts for those new EVF camera systems, (b) 6x6 MF is on the verge of making a comeback (and has been on this verge for many years) (c) APS-C and MFT are on the verge of being obsoleted by 36x24mm format  (and again, have been on this verge for many years).

BJL I used to get paid pretty well month after month to write a tech rumor column ;I'm not going to teach you how to make a photograph, and you're not going to teach me how to evaluate *rumors* and eventualities. You disagree with *my* predictions? Well they're up there in post number 1 so you can make fun of me. Go ahead. Any prediction is hostage to last minute events, just look at the Kavanaugh nomination. I know a lot of professional pollsters and newspapers who put their money on the UK staying in the EU, and on Mrs Clinton winning the last election - but I haven't heard you point out that these people were useless.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think it will happen. My guess is that MFD market is around 1% of the large sensor market and I would guess that square format is a small part of that. Cropping 44x33 mm to 33x33 mm yields a square format and so does cropping 54x41 m to 41x41 mm yield a square format.

To put it simply, it makes zero sense. You can crop existing sensors to square. But, developing a square sensor for perhaps 0.1% of the market may not make any sense.

But, if the market grows by a factor of ten, it may make sense.

Best regards
Erik

The uncropped  square is not much use for magazines, but it is a nice format for maybe 15 or 20% of portrait, art and architecture images, and for some people it could become a style. I think it plays well on walls.

Going 54x54 would give Hassy a look very far from cellphones, and allow the arty crowd to make a statement, it might be a smart move if they already have the lenses in the H-system and old V system and just need to create a body. Also, Alpa has lenses which would go well with a lager sensor.


Edmund

[cgarnerhome]

Edmund – since you’re so good at prognostication perhaps you should start a new MFD thread focusing on where we will be in 5 years.  Obviously, we are rapidly reaching the point of diminishing returns regarding MPs so what’s next

[eronald]

Hi,

I don't think it will happen. My guess is that MFD market is around 1% of the large sensor market and I would guess that square format is a small part of that. Cropping 44x33 mm to 33x33 mm yields a square format and so does cropping 54x41 m to 41x41 mm yield a square format.

To put it simply, it makes zero sense. You can crop existing sensors to square. But, developing a square sensor for perhaps 0.1% of the market may not make any sense.

But, if the market grows by a factor of ten, it may make sense.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
 I agree with you, it won't happen.

 However you do get largeish square sensors as side products from large sensors rectangular with defects. If a big defect is on the side but the sensor is functional you can still package it in a large box and optically crop to use the center square.

Edmund

[eronald]

Edmund – since you’re so good at prognostication perhaps you should start a new MFD thread focusing on where we will be in 5 years.  Obviously, we are rapidly reaching the point of diminishing returns regarding MPs so what’s next

If I were any good at that then I'd be getting hired by the camera companies

Truth is, the camera phone crowd is now upsetting the apple cart and nobody knows what's coming next.

The amount of money which Apple and Google are investing in the photography side of their product is gynormous. Yes, looking that word up is NSFW.

Some of the stuff we're talking about in this thread, ie GFX-50R, the bodies are already made in batches just waiting for their sensors, the boxes are already printed. It's a bit like the Kavanaugh nomination - barring last minute drama this gets announced and sold. If there were an earthquake in Japan tomorrow -let's hope not- and the Sony plants are affected, then the announcement might be delayed or even the product kllled.


Edmund

[Bo_Dez]

Maybe you oughta tell Hassy that. I think killing the square V concept rather than milking it was the marketing decision that moved them from being the lead player in MF to being an afterthought.

Once they went to a rectangle they were just a bigger kludgy 35mm camera, down in the mud wrestling with Mamiya and the speedy cheap Nikons and Canons!


Edmund

I'm with you, on that, 100%. I told that to Hasselblad already it was the same loud cry from a lot of people. The H actually was and is a very good camera but it took many years for me to get over the V. I still have my V cameras and I consider them one of the best designed cameras of all time. It's a great shame to have lost them.

6x6 digital isn't really possible now, it certainly wasn't possible all those years ago. I actually found the V to work exceptionally well with Phase One backs because you could mount the back rotated. It was great. By 60MP, though, it was getting hard to focus, the tolerances just aren't there and it needed an entire overhaul and redesign with new componentry and interface. It's a shame and I really wish that Hasselblad focussed their attention on the original platform and not the H.

[eronald]

I'm with you, on that, 100%. I told that to Hasselblad already it was the same loud cry from a lot of people. The H actually was and is a very good camera but it took many years for me to get over the V. I still have my V cameras and I consider them one of the best designed cameras of all time. It's a great shame to have lost them.

6x6 digital isn't really possible now, it certainly wasn't possible all those years ago. I actually found the V to work exceptionally well with Phase One backs because you could mount the back rotated. It was great. By 60MP, though, it was getting hard to focus, the tolerances just aren't there and it needed an entire overhaul and redesign with new componentry and interface. It's a shame and I really wish that Hasselblad focussed their attention on the original platform and not the H.

Yes. Clearly the V wasn't a digital design, but the users had a system for using it.
It can be argued that a slow transition would have allowed the company to retain the customer base.

Edmund

[Bo_Dez]

Yes. Clearly the V wasn't a digital design, but the users had a system for using it.
It can be argued that a slow transition would have allowed the company to retain the customer base.

Edmund

Unfortunately Hasselblad had a few too many years being run by monkeys.

[eronald]

Unfortunately Hasselblad had a few too many years being run by monkeys.

Actually I think it was the opposite issue, Christian Poulsen is a smart guy, and he was a founder of Imacon, and he was all-modern and saw the weakness of the V and didn't realize the importance of the DNA of a legacy brand. He did get the tech right and he was a photographer so the H track record as a camera ended up pretty good.

Edmund

[faberryman]

If anyone thinks that the GFX100/XD2 are going to be thee same price as the GFX50/X1D, I think they are going to be in for a rude surprise.

[BJL]

... I know a lot of professional pollsters and newspapers who put their money on the UK staying in the EU, and on Mrs Clinton winning the last election - but I haven't heard you point out that these people were useless.

I am not saying that pollsters are reliable; on the contrary, I am saying that your "a lot of people on the internet are saying"-style sourcing is _not_ reliable! (To the extent that I see a 2018 release as still likely, it is based on what Sony itself has said, not pollsters and pundits.) So I do not understand how adding a few more wrong predictions to my list adds credibility to your prediction that the 100MP 44x33mm sensor is not coming to DMF cameras until late 2019.

But at least I sense that this corner of the 'net is moving to acceptance that we will not see any future DMF cameras using sensors larger than "645", so I should quit while I am ahead.

[eronald]

I am not saying that pollsters are reliable; on the contrary, I am saying that your "a lot of people on the internet are saying"-style sourcing is _not_ reliable! (To the extent that I see a 2018 release as still likely, it is based on what Sony itself has said, not pollsters and pundits.) So I do not understand how adding more a few wrong predictions to my list adds credibility to your prediction that the 100MP 44x33mm sensor is not coming to DMF cameras until late 2019.

But at least I sense that this corner of the 'net is moving to acceptance that we will not see any future DMF cameras using sensors larger than "645", so I should quit while I am ahead.

Does the acceptance of this corner of the net - without any real information - imply your opinion reflects the reality? By your own argument, no

The interesting thing is we're having a friendly discussion while often these threads erupt into a mess. That may be because all the cards will get turned over anyway in a couple of days.


Edmund

[eronald]

If anyone thinks that the GFX100/XD2 are going to be thee same price as the GFX50/X1D, I think they are going to be in for a rude surprise.

Yes, there is this small issue of pricing. With the fairly certain datum that GFX-50R < $5K.
If you are right then pros will flock to the 50R as they often care less about MP than the luxury buyers. 

Edmund

[faberryman]

If you are right then pros will flock to the 50R as they often care less about MP than the luxury buyers.

I don't know the ratio of pros to luxury buyers for the 100MP and 150MP Phase One products, so I can't evaluate your assertion. Non-professional Phase One buyers do not strike me as the same as Leica buyers. They seem more interested in photography rather than owning a certain camera brand.

[eronald]

I don't know the ratio of pros to luxury buyers for the 100MP and 150MP Phase One products, so I can't evaluate your assertion. Non-professional Phase One buyers do not strike me as the same as Leica buyers. They seem more interested in photography rather than owning a certain camera brand.

Phase has no horse in this race.

We are discussing the Hassy and Fuji systems here. Hassy XD is now a prestige brand. Fuji GFX is more of a consumer enthusiast thing. Both are used by pros, but the pricing actually reflects the more populated market segment each system is addressing.

I would assume that
- if Fuji hikes prices their target customers (photo enthusiasts) will go and buy dSLRs and continue their photo hobby.
- if Hassy hikes prices their target clients (Ferrari owners) won't care - the camera is a rounding error in their annual income.

Pros will of course do a cost benefit analysis. I suspect those who shoot international campaigns won't even look at the price tag of either system, and just buy more of what they already have, because at their billing costs they don't have the time to learn another menu system. And those who shoot a meeting or some catalog work will get the GFX-50R and go home with a smile.

Edmund