Hasselblad h4?

[erick.boileau]

If medium format options were limited to 30 megapixels there would be an outcry from many, many users.

not limited but to have the choice :  30 , 50 80 , 100   and many users will take 30

[Steve Hendrix]

not limited but to have the choice :  30 , 50 80 , 100   and many users will take 30

I agree - and I agree about having the choice.


Steve Hendrix

[Mr. Rib]

Same here, but with different back. I was always amazed and attracted by that LARGE real estate and now shooting RZ with huge crop kind of kills the purpose.. And when I start thinking about the price of a possible 6x7 full frame sensor solution if it ever hits the market (hmm, 60k?), I think I'll have VERY hard time finding justification for it..even though I'd love it and have fun again thanks to it (probably that's the only justification I'll ever find, but it's still an important one right? )

A 6x7 back is the only thing that would bring me back to MFDB, so long as I could get a nice 800/1600 file out of it.  I know some people would pay $100k.  

I'd rent!

When I look at the crop on the RZ screen with my Aptus 54s, I think what a shame it is to waste all that good real estate.

[pschefz]

I think my only point is that why would medium format manufacturers restrict their 6 x7 sensors to 30 megapixels when it is likely you will be shooting 30+ megapixels with 24 x 36 sensors? As long as there is an option to not have to shoot huge files via Sensor Plus, etc, I don't see any reason to restrict the resolution if you have the real estate to saturate with. If medium format options were limited to 30 megapixels there would be an outcry from many, many users.


Steve Hendrix

i think it's funny that you pick the one point out of my list that is really irrelevant....i don't think anyone would have a problem with a 6x7 back being 40, 50 or 60 mpix....hey there is no option now! i can only have a finally full frame 645 sensor with 50 or 60 mpix.....

of course a 6x7 sensor would be super expensive...part of that is because all r&d went into making the pixels smaller and cramming more on the same size chip....instead of taking a step back and listening to what people actually WANT.....nobody WANTS a 645 sensor with 60mpix and terrible low light shooting.....everybody wants to use their old/existing cameras with backs that worked like film backs.....those did not change the iso on the body either.....

the first digital chip was amazingly expensive and had crappy everything....now they are showing cellphone chips with 14mpix shooting 60fps HD video...in low light....

the development of MF chips has been stagnant at best, where everything else has been expotential in all directions.....mass is the big factor here.....and DMF killed any chance by: having a small market to begin with and refusing to take chances and break into the top of DSLR when they had a chance by cutting their profit margins...
instead DSLR stole the bottom DMF market and added features that even the high end can't touch....

2 years ago the P21 was a great back at a great price....beat any dslr easily....today there is nothing that can compete with the d3x at the price....and even the used market can't compete with the 5DII.....and the next models will be pushing that boundary higher and higher.....they never have to reach the IQ and resolution of the high end hass and phase....because without the sales of the P20, the P65 gets more and more expensive to produce and there really is no more money for r&d.....because nobody is buying the overpriced lenses and bodies anymore either....


CES just happened.....i can't wait to see what kind of screen that new 40000$ H4D will have....i bet it won't come close to the ones on the 200$ p&s

[Steve Hendrix]

i think it's funny that you pick the one point out of my list that is really irrelevant....i don't think anyone would have a problem with a 6x7 back being 40, 50 or 60 mpix....hey there is no option now! i can only have a finally full frame 645 sensor with 50 or 60 mpix.....

of course a 6x7 sensor would be super expensive...part of that is because all r&d went into making the pixels smaller and cramming more on the same size chip....instead of taking a step back and listening to what people actually WANT.....nobody WANTS a 645 sensor with 60mpix and terrible low light shooting.....everybody wants to use their old/existing cameras with backs that worked like film backs.....those did not change the iso on the body either.....

the first digital chip was amazingly expensive and had crappy everything....now they are showing cellphone chips with 14mpix shooting 60fps HD video...in low light....

the development of MF chips has been stagnant at best, where everything else has been expotential in all directions.....mass is the big factor here.....and DMF killed any chance by: having a small market to begin with and refusing to take chances and break into the top of DSLR when they had a chance by cutting their profit margins...
instead DSLR stole the bottom DMF market and added features that even the high end can't touch....

2 years ago the P21 was a great back at a great price....beat any dslr easily....today there is nothing that can compete with the d3x at the price....and even the used market can't compete with the 5DII.....and the next models will be pushing that boundary higher and higher.....they never have to reach the IQ and resolution of the high end hass and phase....because without the sales of the P20, the P65 gets more and more expensive to produce and there really is no more money for r&d.....because nobody is buying the overpriced lenses and bodies anymore either....


CES just happened.....i can't wait to see what kind of screen that new 40000$ H4D will have....i bet it won't come close to the ones on the 200$ p&s

Paul:

I wasn't picking your points, you picked up mine which was my entry point in the thread, which was responding to Eric's post about medium format adding more megapixels. Pretty simply my position is that they will continue to do so and should continue to do so.

But since you brought up so much more....  

I would say that the option of a full frame 645 sensor shooting at 15MP (or 60) does exist currently.

I don't believe cutting profit margins would have enabled a significantly larger market for medium format. Cutting their profit margins? Most of the medium format companies had varying levels of black and red in the early to mid stages of the segment's history. I can't find any basis for a company growing its market share by cutting their profit margins, even for a company that actually was making tons of profit, which medium format companies have not.

For medium format, it is all about the imaging area size, IMO. Without that, their is no medium format. And scaling chip technology (especially CMOS with it's lower power consumption) to larger size while adding features and functionality that fulfill the radically changing imaging marketplace has obviously been a challenge.

35mm DSLR, with smaller chip sizes, lower power consumption, was and is well positioned to move rapidly to meet the changing needs of the market, which have in a short period of time changed dramatically. There is no argument that 35mm DSLR offers much more functionality for many of the demands for today, that's pretty obvious.

I do agree with you that there has been some not listening on the part of medium format manufacturers. But when they do listen, I believe fulfilling the requests has been technically challenging due to the constraints they operate under with regard to chip size and chip technology. I do know most of the technology personnel for these companies, and they all receive and sort through an amazing amount of input, which is supplied by.....photographers. I can certainly understand (and have experienced) the frustration of photographers who wonder why their medium format high ISO, in camera jpg's, better LCD screen isn't here yet.

But when it comes to larger sensor sizes, more megapixels, yes, please continue, and keep working on the rest of that list while you're at it.


Steve Hendrix

[Mr. Rib]

Unfortunately I have to agree with pschefz and it makes me sad. I can just imagine that in a short time I'll be FORCED to switch to DSLR and it wont be some brute force that makes me switch but rational cold-hearted analysis, pros and cons.. And even though I love to shoot MF, it'll be unbearable to use with a thought banging inside my head that what I'm doing can be achieved with 10 times less effort without quality loss. Because that's what we're heading to- with that kind of money in DSLR department, there is no way DSLRs are not going to catch up completely- at least in terms of mainstream commercial work and I'm talking about the final result-prints. Noone is going to see these additional 20 mpix on a photo in the magazine. Not on a big billboard / A0 print commercial neither- because of the print low quality. DSLR will catch up in terms of IQ to a rational point, I don't think they'll go for a mpix race till the very end of the world. Maybe they already catched up.. and although DSLR development teams have the money for revolutions, they are rational (well, maybe some fireworks are added because of markeing reasons but that's minor). The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that being rational without the money is what happens in MF world. That's my opinion- I'd risk to say that the designers and developers are doing their (well, almost  ) best for their limited budgets and what we get is what we CAN get for their development budgets. High ISO performance in MF world? That would mean starting from scratch because the sensor itself has to be changed and noone in MF business has that kind of money to take the risk.  Unless someone comes up with some genius idea.. The market is small and one big mistake means going out from the business these days..The only change that would probably not be THAT horrifyingly expensive for the developers would be changing the display, but would it change that much? A simple communication with upcoming Apple tablet would be much better than any LCD display improvement. With all the tethering, I think that's much more insignificant. I think that changes like better tethered mode, better live view and all other stuff we all want is simply too much of a financial effort to go through the subject with enough impact to make an actual breakthrough. The sad thing is that MF developers probably have the money only to excel in MP count and minor changes accompanying it, and that's because they are not directly responsible for sensor development (correct me if I'm wrong).

I find the place for MF backs and these are LF / technical cameras. With movements for stitching, with all these great lenses, with making LF film guys move swiftly to digital world. Although you can mount a DSLR body to bellows, I think that's a safe place for MF backs, at least for near future and that's where they can show their potential. Noone requires LF guy to shoot 2 frames per second, noone needs AF and a fast one. They can take their time.
For now I'm happy with a MFDB + RZ but that's because I don't do the stuff that needs 1000 shots per session and I don't feel noone's breath on my neck. But I think that what I felt was my way- Alpa LF + medium format to support it- will be changed to Alpa LF + DSLR to support it. That's where we are heading- to the point were noone needs MF because they are simply unjustifiable.

[pcunite]

MFD certainly has a perception problem among the online forum community. Sure most of them might be armchair photographers but those armchair folks due buy gear at some point if only to impress others.

There are times when I make a business purchase that it seems was rationalized by just a thread of doubt "what if I don't buy this" and so on. I am glad I took the time to slow down and research what switching to MFD would have cost me... not just the camera and lenses, but from the time the picture is taken to the time the image is prepared for display. MFD costs much more in money, time, and even muscle.

Sure looking at MFD side by side with DSLR the MFD is better. I think of it as Cadillac vs. Bentley. If you don't know how automobiles are assembled you would think they both look great assuming you like the styling. But knowing what is behind those door panels and the fit and finish of a Bentley makes you want one until you realize you can impress others just as easily for three times cheaper!

At some point you have to decide "am I going to be an artist or a business man?"

[Carsten W]

I think my only point is that why would medium format manufacturers restrict their 6 x7 sensors to 30 megapixels when it is likely you will be shooting 30+ megapixels with 24 x 36 sensors? As long as there is an option to not have to shoot huge files via Sensor Plus, etc, I don't see any reason to restrict the resolution if you have the real estate to saturate with. If medium format options were limited to 30 megapixels there would be an outcry from many, many users.

Tongue half in cheek, that is impossible, because MF doesn't have many, many users. When MF went digital, they left a ton of people behind who could afford expensive bodies with expensive lenses, but not expensive backs on top, especially with the special, often laborious workflow of MFDBs.

The reason for having a 30MP 6x7" back without the option of 50, 60, 80MP is of course, price. Large, simple pixels are not as expensive as huge amounts of pixels. Simply enlarge the existing low- to mid-range sensors, get a better SNR and sell them for a price more in line with the film days, and customers will be coming out of the woodworks who you didn't even know existed. The larger pixels also allow for lower tolerances, i.e. many of the P65+/view camera-type problems simply disappear, and people would be able to use the backs on their Hasselblad V/Mamiya RZ/whatever without issues.

I would *love* to buy a reasonably priced 6x6 or 6x7" 30MP back, but the 60-80MP 645 backs don't stir anything in me, especially at the prices MFDB manufacturers seem to be aiming for. I think the prices alone will kill off the manufacturers. The megapixel race which Canon finally gave up in the transition from G10 to G11 is still needlessly raging on in MF. Instead, they should be giving us massive dynamic range, highlight retention, and IQ in general, not MP. We don't all (by far) want to print 2m tall prints.

What the latest backs have given us, apart from 10% larger sensors, is the ability to print larger and larger, and larger, and even larger. Where is this going? What is the strategy behind pushing MFDBs which really only come into their own above 30x40" prints? What shrinking proportion of the market is this aimed at? The real push needs to be in IQ, not MP.

[bcooter]

At some point you have to decide "am I going to be an artist or a business man?"

You can be an artiste, you can be a bidness man, but it your one of them people that's honest bout life, it's one damn hard trick to pull off art and well paying bidness on the same day.

(I'm talkin' real art which is subjective).

Still since this forum is bout' cameras, especially them little but kinda big expensive digital cameras, let's talk cameras and bidness.

With the standard medium format price model, if anyone does make a bigger digital camera like 6x7 or 6x9 it's gonna cost more than that Leica owner's house on the Rivera and probably have a raw file the size of a Bentley (since we like to compare these cameras to cars and houses).

With the standard photographer making a living bidness model your gonna have to shoot digital on any gig that pays good and for that kinda work client's want to see the results on screen that day, all of it on a web gallery the  next morning and for those jobs, aint' nobody care if it's a 2lb black camera or a 3lb silver one.  They just want to see it, pick it, move some things around in photoshop and write the check.  

Now, with all that in mind, on some things I want to shoot for myself, or a gig that might move my career way before it fills my wallet, then I'll shoot any machine I want, whether it's a little leica or a big ol' pentax with film and when talking 6x7 or 6x9 you can buy a whole mountain of film of cameras for the price of them bigger than small digital ones.

Also be real clear that with digital you can roll your own look, in fact I should say you gotta roll your own look,  but with film at least you start with a look.  

Nothing wrong with shooting film on those days you just want to, or even picking up a film camera and shooting a few frames for your own self.


BC


P.S.  Now if I was in the seminar giving bidness, I'd start a class based around shooting film.  Shooting film ain't easy but it's damn rewarding and nothing teaches you photography like shooting film.  It's also a lot less stressful on the back end and film cameras . . . way cool film cameras are selling for less than a fancy snowblower.

It's also a good buzz to drop a transparency on a light box, or hold a big ol' contact sheet in your hand with a china marker.

Think bout' this for a moment.  How many of them country clubbers would love to hang a print on the wall of their study and when their guests ooh and ahh as they much on them little finger samwiches, the artiste can say, yea I shot that with my film camera, cause nothing replaces film?

You could call it the damn good photographer seminar series.  

Damn Good Series for short.

Sounds like a plan.

[pcunite]

Think bout' this for a moment.  How many of them country clubbers would love to hang a print on the wall of their study and when their guests ooh and ahh as they munch on them little finger samwiches, the artiste can say, yea I shot that with my film camera, cause nothing replaces film?

lol, yeah... that is what I am thinking. I love all these film holdouts... I keep thinking... "those guys sound like tea drinking, Bentley drivin, sweater wearing, plaid pants wear'n artists" Ed McMahon who gave 10 million away all the time had to sell his house. I hope these guys don't wind up on the streets starving...

someone just blogged about this:
http://robertbenson.com/blog/2009/12/29/th...still-use-film/

[Nick-T]

I'm just yawning because this is old news.

You sure?  

[eronald]

You sure?  

I guess the H will get yet another boob job, like Pamela Anderson
Yet another incremental improvement, another "REV" in comp jargon. Get the suckers to upgrade.
Reminds me of the days when cars had fins.

Edmund

[DanielStone]

You can be an artiste, you can be a bidness man, but it your one of them people that's honest bout life, it's one damn hard trick to pull off art and well paying bidness on the same day.

Now, with all that in mind, on some things I want to shoot for myself, or a gig that might move my career way before it fills my wallet, then I'll shoot any machine I want, whether it's a little leica or a big ol' pentax with film and when talking 6x7 or 6x9 you can buy a whole mountain of film of cameras for the price of them bigger than small digital ones.

Also be real clear that with digital you can roll your own look, in fact I should say you gotta roll your own look,  but with film at least you start with a look.  

Nothing wrong with shooting film on those days you just want to, or even picking up a film camera and shooting a few frames for your own self.


BC


P.S.  Now if I was in the seminar giving bidness, I'd start a class based around shooting film.  Shooting film ain't easy but it's damn rewarding and nothing teaches you photography like shooting film.  It's also a lot less stressful on the back end and film cameras . . . way cool film cameras are selling for less than a fancy snowblower.

It's also a good buzz to drop a transparency on a light box, or hold a big ol' contact sheet in your hand with a china marker.

Think bout' this for a moment.  How many of them country clubbers would love to hang a print on the wall of their study and when their guests ooh and ahh as they much on them little finger samwiches, the artiste can say, yea I shot that with my film camera, cause nothing replaces film?

You could call it the damn good photographer seminar series.  

Damn Good Series for short.

Sounds like a plan.

amen brother!!!!

or you could just start a dvd series! might be cheaper, just pay for a download to Itunes for your Iphone/Ipod, etc....

-Dan

[Dinarius]

Hasselblad has been very deliberate in not releasing product or software before they are confident of it's functionality.  I appreciate that they don't compromise on that principal.  Others have and it only causes more problems to the product and manufactures reputation.

As a devoted user of the fabulous H3Dll 39MpMS, I take exception to the bit about 'software'.

Flexcolor does exactly what it says on the tin, Phocus patently does not. When it comes to software, Hasselblad uses its customers as guinea pigs. Phocus has had far more problems than any release of ACR/LR ever had - though I accept they're dealing with them as quickly as possible.

If it was possible to process Hassie files in ACR/LR, I would wager that they would sell multiples of the number of cameras they are selling now.

That said, in multi-shot mode, my H3D is sans egal, as far as I'm concerned.  

D.

[erick.boileau]

The reason for having a 30MP 6x7" back without the option of 50, 60, 80MP is of course, price

it is not the only reason , personally I don't want to print posters on the highway , I love my Epson 3880 and I need exactly the pixels for it , let's say 40mp maximum
For the moment I wait to  see what Pentax will do

[eronald]

it is not the only reason , personally I don't want to print posters on the highway , I love my Epson 3880 and I need exactly the pixels for it , let's say 40mp maximum
For the moment I wait to  see what Pentax will do

I have an Epson 9600, which prints just slightly larger than the 3880 -boys and their toys  - and I don't have any trouble filling the space with the D3x.
I've also printed that large from my G10, albeit there I agree that it's pushing one's luck.

Edmund

[gdwhalen]

As a devoted user of the fabulous H3Dll 39MpMS, I take exception to the bit about 'software'.

Flexcolor does exactly what it says on the tin, Phocus patently does not. When it comes to software, Hasselblad uses its customers as guinea pigs. Phocus has had far more problems than any release of ACR/LR ever had - though I accept they're dealing with them as quickly as possible.

If it was possible to process Hassie files in ACR/LR, I would wager that they would sell multiples of the number of cameras they are selling now.

That said, in multi-shot mode, my H3D is sans egal, as far as I'm concerned.  

D.

I'm not sure what Phocus you are using but I have had absolutely no problems with Phocus.  I used LR and C1 and their iterations for years and Phocus does everything for me that I need and does it very well.

[Nemo]

Sure looking at MFD side by side with DSLR the MFD is better. I think of it as Cadillac vs. Bentley. If you don't know how automobiles are assembled you would think they both look great assuming you like the styling. But knowing what is behind those door panels and the fit and finish of a Bentley makes you want one until you realize you can impress others just as easily for three times cheaper!

It is not clear the correspondence Bentley-MF versus Cadillac-DSLR-35mm. The Bentley is a luxury product. When you compare MF and DSLR-35mm cameras, you find the second ones seem to be the luxury products, not the MF cameras (high resolution LCD screens, video, live view, sealed bodies, sensor dust cleaning, high capacity batteries, etc, etc, etc).

[Nemo]

The larger pixels also allow for lower tolerances

That is true. Higher resolution asks for tighter tolerances.

What the latest backs have given us, apart from 10% larger sensors, is the ability to print larger and larger, and larger, and even larger. Where is this going? What is the strategy behind pushing MFDBs which really only come into their own above 30x40" prints? What shrinking proportion of the market is this aimed at? The real push needs to be in IQ, not MP.

There is no dependence or relation between the SNR of the whole sensor and the number of pixels on full frame CCDs. You can add the information from 4 pixels and get the same resolution and SNR than you would get from a sensor of the same size and 4 times less pixels, more or less. The Fujifilm's EXR color filter structure allows for pixel binning using pairs of pixels (not 4), and many other alternatives are possible in theory.

[BernardLanguillier]

The reason for having a 30MP 6x7" back without the option of 50, 60, 80MP is of course, price. Large, simple pixels are not as expensive as huge amounts of pixels.

Hum... considering the situation at this very point of time, I would argue that a 30MP would in fact be more costly for back manufacturers. Why?

The cost of producing a sensor is made up of fixed and variable costs.

- Variable costs are mostly impacted by sensor size, not really resolution,
- Fixed cost are mostly the result of production equipment investement. Here also 30 and 60MP are close enough that the sensors would mostly be produced on the same machines. If anything the series are so small that the machine will always have to be sized taking the most demanding requirement into account.

Design costs might differ a little bit... but considering that we have a 60PM sensor already, designing a new one would actually add cost...

The truth of the matter is that back vendors might be willing to reduce their margins against larger volumes resulting from lower prices, but this would have to be the result of a shift of business model for them, not the result of lower costs resulting from lower pixel counts. If they do so and make more money, they might as well lower their pricing all together...

Simply enlarge the existing low- to mid-range sensors, get a better SNR and sell them for a price more in line with the film days, and customers will be coming out of the woodworks who you didn't even know existed. The larger pixels also allow for lower tolerances, i.e. many of the P65+/view camera-type problems simply disappear, and people would be able to use the backs on their Hasselblad V/Mamiya RZ/whatever without issues.

Well... a given camera with a given tolerance will project the same quality of information on the sensor, whatever its resolution. The P65+ image will appear less sharp when looking at the image at 100% on screen, that's it. Both 30MP and 60MP images will print exactly the same.

Cheers,
Bernard