Hasselblad H4D-40 to be launched on Feb 10th

[Dick Roadnight]

Even with a vertical grip I would think it would feel all off balance, with the viewfinder sticking our of the left side and all.

I have not patented it, but I have designed a vertical grip... which would in a second, (without detaching) change from horizontal to vertical, with the centre of gravity above the hand. It would  be possible to make it so that the camera could be used either side up, with the viewfinder left or right... for one-handed right eye, right hand or left eye, left hand operation. This would be extremely useful for those of us who like to use hand-held off camera flash.

I would think that you could get one of the almost full-frame 645 backs with too many megapixels (40? 60?) shoot horizontally for commerce, and simply crop for vertical.  Fashion your own viewfinder mask, set up an auto crop thingy in C1, and it should work just fine. No?
Then you could take the mask out and shoot full-frame horizontal files for your 40x60 sunsets ;-)

I am not personally doing this, however. I have been shooting for major ad agencies in NY with my Canon and no one bats an eye. I use the 70-200 lenses with that nifty rotating tripod collar and go horiz to vert in a second, no problems.

If the sensor is horizontal 5:4 ratio, and you cropped to 1 to the square root of 4 (A4 or magazine shape) you would waste nearly half your pixels (4* 2.828 instead of 4*5).

One feature that would make MF cameras less hassle would be being able to turn off Bayer interpolation... so you would get a very hight quality file half the size... and this might enable the cameras to do more frames per second.

[Dick Roadnight]

This is definitely not my conception, as otherwise we would be dead in the water.

I don't know what you hope to achieve by your second puzzle?  Naturally I would reach for the 1ds3 with a schedule like that.

Hasselblads are for image makers who put quality before productivity... if your customers are not willing to pay for quality, then dump them or use a snapshot camera.

[aaron]

Hasselblads are for image makers who put quality before productivity.

For an investment of 20 or 30 grand in a camera, i would kind of expect it to give me both  

[Ben Rubinstein]

The ones that whinge are the ones that shoot for a living. For the happy ones, many of them seem to be workshop leaders or otherwise associated with manufacturers/retailers.

That's pretty much the impression I get as an outsider. I'm listening to the former not the latter as I am a pro and therefore only their opinion is relevant.

I'd also like to state for the record that if I could afford to travel just to sit at the feet of BCooter and learn from his wisdom for a couple of months - I'd take the time off my business and do it. The man speaks straight to me...

[David Grover / Capture One]

That's pretty much the impression I get as an outsider. I'm listening to the former not the latter as I am a pro and therefore only their opinion is relevant.

What about the Pro's that don't visit forums?

[Dick Roadnight]

Hasselblads are for image makers who put quality before productivity.

For an investment of 20 or 30 grand in a camera, i would kind of expect it to give me both  

Most pros have more than one camera system... if you need a 40 tonne truck you would not expect it to do everything that a mini would do.

One of the aspects of MF that slows you down is the file size, and to some extent you cannot get quality from small files, but it would be nice to have the option to turn off Bayer interpolation and get smaller files. Buying a bigger computer can enable you to handle the larger files in the same time... but one of the time-saving aspects of MF is that, for most jobs, (if you can control the lighting) you get a usable or good file without having to do a great deal of post-processing.

It is odd that the 35mm DSLRs are not an order of magnitude smaller than MFDSLRs... but a vertical grip would make for easier handling.

What else makes a MFDSLR less productive than a CaNikon?

... of course, image makers that want High IQ put their Hasselblad digibacks on view cameras, and accept low productivity!

[Doug Peterson]

One feature that would make MF cameras less hassle would be being able to turn off Bayer interpolation... so you would get a very hight quality file half the size... and this might enable the cameras to do more frames per second.

One of the aspects of MF that slows you down is the file size, and to some extent you cannot get quality from small files, but it would be nice to have the option to turn off Bayer interpolation and get smaller files. Buying a bigger computer can enable you to handle the larger files in the same time... but one of the time-saving aspects of MF is that, for most jobs, (if you can control the lighting) you get a usable or good file without having to do a great deal of post-processing.

Phase One already does this on the 65+ and 40+. You can elect to shoot full resolution - it's faster than most people think (about a frame per second for the 60 megapixel 65+) and C1 handles the large files better than you'd think - BUT it's still slow relative to handling a dSLR file.

But put that same digital back in Sensor+ mode and the 65+ now shoots incredibly sharp 15 megapixel files at significantly faster speeds (1.4 fps) and the files are MUCH faster to work with. The 15 megapixel files are wickedly sharp because they are being interpolated down from a 60 megapixel sensor before the analog-to-digital conversion and compare very very well to a 22 megapixel dSLR. And as a side benefit the native ISO of the system jumps two stops so that ISO 1600 is remarkably clean.

Of course Phase One tells us that their implementation of this (whereby you get faster frame rates and a two stop gain in ISO) is under their patent. So it would be interesting to see if/how Hasselblad proceeds.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

[Guy Mancuso]

Phase One already does this on the 65+ and 40+. You can elect to shoot full resolution - it's faster than most people think (about a frame per second for the 60 megapixel 65+) and C1 handles the large files better than you'd think - BUT it's still slow relative to handling a dSLR file.

But put that same digital back in Sensor+ mode and the 65+ now shoots incredibly sharp 15 megapixel files at significantly faster speeds (1.4 fps) and the files are MUCH faster to work with. The 15 megapixel files are wickedly sharp because they are being interpolated down from a 60 megapixel sensor before the analog-to-digital conversion and compare very very well to a 22 megapixel dSLR. And as a side benefit the native ISO of the system jumps two stops so that ISO 1600 is remarkably clean.

Of course Phase One tells us that their implementation of this (whereby you get faster frame rates and a two stop gain in ISO) is under their patent. So it would be interesting to see if/how Hasselblad proceeds.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

Exactly the reasons i bought the P40+ is Sensor plus . The system is faster, the files take seconds to process on a laptop and i can get a show or whatever I need ready for a client in very fast time. Besides all that the binned down files are incredible good not to mention nearly noise free high ISO . For me it's like shooting two different cams and even with the full res files the DF is very quick to shoot with. People criticizes this new DF body but with hardly any shutter lag now and faster to shoot in real world it is much more powerful than the specs. This back has hit a lot of check marks for me when it comes to shooting speed. Perfect maybe not but damn good. Seriously I highly recommend getting a demo on this combo . I think many would be quite surprised by it.

I still think Phase can get better at the body no question but this is far better than the previous models for sure. I think the Hassy 40 has picked up speed as well with 1.1 shooting times. These newer sensors seem to have been designed to work faster. I don't know enough about Hassy to make serious comments on facts but it seems to me this is a nice back.

[aaron]

Hasselblads are for image makers who put quality before productivity.


Most pros have more than one camera system... if you need a 40 tonne truck you would not expect it to do everything that a mini would do.

One of the aspects of MF that slows you down is the file size, and to some extent you cannot get quality from small files, but it would be nice to have the option to turn off Bayer interpolation and get smaller files. Buying a bigger computer can enable you to handle the larger files in the same time... but one of the time-saving aspects of MF is that, for most jobs, (if you can control the lighting) you get a usable or good file without having to do a great deal of post-processing.

It is odd that the 35mm DSLRs are not an order of magnitude smaller than MFDSLRs... but a vertical grip would make for easier handling.

What else makes a MFDSLR less productive than a CaNikon?

... of course, image makers that want High IQ put their Hasselblad digibacks on view cameras, and accept low productivity!

I agree with some of that but the thing is that most pros absolutely do not have more than one camera system, the vast majority of pros are now using 35mm digital. Thats not neccessarily by choice but by economics, MFD makers have priced them out of the market.

10 years ago, most pros did have more than one system but most of them essentially made their living with medium format cameras.

As to what makes a MFDSLR less productive? Well on most jobs i would need to have 3 cameras with different lenses etc.. $$$£££€€€........
The real question is what makes a MFD soooo much mre expensive than 35mm SLR?  
Its certainly not the R&D that goes into them, so i guess that 33x44mm piece of wafer costs 15 or 16 grand?  

I am a working pro, i shoot every day, i work in various fields of photography- whatever pays the mortgage... i come across other pros regularily but I dont remember the last time i met another pro carrying a mfd camera but they all have an old hassie or bronica in the back of the press...
Now the younger guys on the scene, totally different kettle of fish, they have no historic reference or fond memories of shooting 6x6film, they couldnt care less about them, its Nikon or Canon full stop. Tick Tock.

[gwhitf]

I don't know what you hope to achieve by your second puzzle?  Naturally I would reach for the 1ds3 with a schedule like that.

David,

None of us switched from MediumFormat to 35 for money reasons. We switched because of error messages, clunky software, slow recycle, huge files, LCD issues, and overall slow workflow.

That's all we're asking for -- just one camera model that is more like a DSLR in its mindset. None of us need megapixels; 22 is just fine. Hell, most of those would even get thrown away. We want the fine Hasselblad lenses, and the large viewfinders, but with a production-minded mentality of smaller files, fast software, solid tethering, and something that does not require a Digital Tech and a Tower on a Kart, to pull off.

If there is money in the amateurs, then yes, give us an easy-to-use, fast, amateur Hasselblad. Not everyone wants to deal with 60MP every time they hit the shutter release.

My list, (and the list of others who have bolted MF):

* 22MP max.
* At least one frame per second, if not faster. See Phase P21+.
* Software that is fast on a laptop; not requiring tower.
* Separate tether software from process software. Need fast Previews.
* At least ASA 800 that's usable, at full rez.
* No mirror slap. Handholdable to a 30th.
* Long lasting batteries.
* Big, nice LCD.
* Trustable autofocus.

All we ask for is one model. The StillLifeGuys and TheSunsetGuys can have 39 and 50 and 60; just give us one model that's fast.

[rogan]

Hasselblads are for image makers who put quality before productivity... if your customers are not willing to pay for quality, then dump them or use a snapshot camera.

edited......nevermind

[rogan]

In ROW (Rest of World, not including our subsidiaries of UK, Germany, USA) we had a sales growth in January from 2009.

Wow, that means you sold 2!
Are you really bragging sales are up over last year?
Love to compare unit sales of mf(all brands) today to 2005 or 2006. I  bet it's less than half.(Hassy may be up but thats only because they had an awful product/software in 2005-2006)
I have a mf in the closet(aptus-leaf) and it hasn't been used more than once or twice in the last year on a job. Yes, I am a dreaded commercial photographer and I agree with cooter and g-wtf that there is no way today I would buy another mf back. If I shot still life, maybe, but as a people shooter, the cameras have fallen too far behind and the asa on the backs isn't there. I will look again when someone releases a cmos chip.
As to hassy, I agree it's time for a new camera. Forget the vertical grip. Since all backs come with dedicated bodies anyway, just make them one piece. Leica broke thru but in true Leica fashion it has so many faults for MY work I can't use it. Take what they did Hassy and make it usable. Make it use the existing H lens, a dslr one piece, cmos chip, 2fps, multi point af, standardize on one file format and make it work in other programs as well as your own. Most photographers(commercial) that I know use multiple cameras. I need to have a workflow that allows me to process different camera types in one program.
To me, the only two companies that seem capable of making what would truly work for me are Nikon and Canon. Phase, Hassy, sinar, leaf don't really seem to listen to what I need, they only want to tell me why theirs is better for me.
(For the record, there are a lot of people out there who shoot really hi rez pictures of dirt that are perfectly happy now. God bless em. There are also a ton of people shooters who left MF and NOTHING out there today is close to tempting them to come back)

[vandevanterSH]

"10 years ago, most pros did have more than one system but most of them essentially made their living with medium format cameras"
********
Is the end-product better today than 10-15 years ago?  Is a fashion shoot with the photographer shooting multiple frames a second ending up with better product than the 120/220 film shooter of old?

Steve

[NikolaBorissov]

How extremely curious is to see what other working pros' requirements are... At that point I might also throw in my 2 cents, even if I generally never discuss anything equipment-related. I shoot fashion/beauty/advertising stuff only, I don't own a MFD system but I rent a Hassy quite often. The reasons I haven't bought it yet (and from the look of the H4D I won't be buying it anytime soon) are:

- speed - simple, it's tectonically slow. The H3DII-50 simply can't keep up, with it's low fps, general lack of speed and of quick response. On a recent beauty shoot I had to thrash lots of frames because of that - I need the camera to react in the split-second when I see the hair/dress floating as I want it, or the model is in that perfect phase of the movement. Come on, how many fps is the 21 MP 1 DS3 doing? I haven't done the math, but I would bet anything that the MB/sec flow is way bigger than that of a 50 MP / 1 fps camera.
- AF - if I'm going to fork out 50-60k USD for a camera system, is it too much to want it's AF to be at least equal to that of a mid-range DSLR? I hope at least that HUGE issue is going to be resolved by the H4D with it's funky new AF thingy. For that kind of money, "you can focus manually" is not something that should be even said.
- no RAW+JPG mode - is it really that hard to implement this??? With my Canons I always shoot RAW+JPG so the client's AD, CD or whatever gets the previews on a USB stick right at the end of the shoot; and it is extremely frustrating having to explain to people why the uber-camera that they are renting for me is so dumb that they have to wait another hour or two to get the previews. Totally unacceptable, and it has happened every single time I've rented the Hassy.  
- 3FR - I can't shoot tethered, because I am constantly moving around; so what I get is 3FRs on my CF card that are completely useless (you can't even zoom the damn thing) before being imported in FFF. More time lost. I know why they have to do it, but again, if I am spending that kind of money, I can't justify that loss of time because of DAC, software corrections or whatever. Get the tech in-camera stuff right and make it shoot DNG!
- Phocus - has to be the worst piece of software ever written by a human being, really. I am a PC user, and it keeps crashing all the time, it's packed with bugs, it's slower even than the camera itself. I suppose it behaves better on a Mac, but on PC it's as painful to use as having your eyes poked out. With hot iron. And no other program ever does this on my computer, in case you want to blame the PC platform. That's the new, improved 2.0. My digital guy hates me every time we have to use it. Everybody I know that has ever worked with it, EVERYBODY, is saying the same thing, especially digi tech guys and retouchers.
- bugs - at least 2-3 times on every shoot the camera simply stops working and the Hassy guy has to fiddle around with it for some time to make it work again. The reasons are always different and mysterious. Never, ever has this happened with a Canon, not one single time.
- no WiFi option? WTF?


On the plus side: IQ is more than fantastic. File size is not a problem, the more - the better. 40-60 MP is perfect, ad agency guys love to crop when they change they mind on a layout post factum, urgh. The weight and size is not a problem, I love the solid feel of the whole thing. Add a ring flash for even more heavy lifting, that compensates for the times I can't go to the gym because of a shoot. Nice

Now, from where I stand, there two options. One - I could live with this slow/buggy/unfriendly system, because of the high IQ, but it should cost half of what it costs now, it's simply ridiculously expensive compared to film MF and DSLRs. When you shoot with it a couple of times, it seems even more overpriced compared to the overall experience quality you get, IQ is not everything. Two: OK, keep the price tag, I can live with it. BUT, get rid of all the bugs, improve the AF, speed, software. Christ, for what a 3-4 lenses + 50 mp body system costs,  it should be able to make coffee and answer phone calls! I don't want to struggle with a camera, I want it to be a natural, hassle-free part of me.

I'm sorry if I sound too bitter, but last week's experience was simply too frustrating, way more than usual. I really love the IQ, and I WANT it badly, but the rest is just not coherent with the asking price. And this comes from a guy who was eagerly, cash-in-hand, expecting the H4D. Now I guess I will have to wait 3-4 years for the H5D. Again, I am the furthest possible from being a tech guy, I hate talking about equipment and never do it, but I am simply too disappointed this time and had to let it out...

Peace

[TMARK]

Wow, that means you sold 2!
Are you really bragging sales are up over last year?
Love to compare unit sales of mf(all brands) today to 2005 or 2006. I  bet it's less than half.(Hassy may be up but thats only because they had an awful product/software in 2005-2006)
I have a mf in the closet(aptus-leaf) and it hasn't been used more than once or twice in the last year on a job. Yes, I am a dreaded commercial photographer and I agree with cooter and g-wtf that there is no way today I would buy another mf back. If I shot still life, maybe, but as a people shooter, the cameras have fallen too far behind and the asa on the backs isn't there. I will look again when someone releases a cmos chip.
As to hassy, I agree it's time for a new camera. Forget the vertical grip. Since all backs come with dedicated bodies anyway, just make them one piece. Leica broke thru but in true Leica fashion it has so many faults for MY work I can't use it. Take what they did Hassy and make it usable. Make it use the existing H lens, a dslr one piece, cmos chip, 2fps, multi point af, standardize on one file format and make it work in other programs as well as your own. Most photographers(commercial) that I know use multiple cameras. I need to have a workflow that allows me to process different camera types in one program.
To me, the only two companies that seem capable of making what would truly work for me are Nikon and Canon. Phase, Hassy, sinar, leaf don't really seem to listen to what I need, they only want to tell me why theirs is better for me.
(For the record, there are a lot of people out there who shoot really hi rez pictures of dirt that are perfectly happy now. God bless em. There are also a ton of people shooters who left MF and NOTHING out there today is close to tempting them to come back)

Yes.  

[lisa_r]

"10 years ago, most pros did have more than one system but most of them essentially made their living with medium format cameras"
********
Is the end-product better today than 10-15 years ago?  Is a fashion shoot with the photographer shooting multiple frames a second ending up with better product than the 120/220 film shooter of old?

Steve

The photographer is able to get A LOT more accomplished in a day than 10 years ago. I know for me, seeing on a big screen exactly what has been captured, as opposed to shooting some film, sending assistant to lab, waiting for clips to come back, etc. Now THAT was slow. Is end product better? For me, yes. Becasue I am able to fine tune lighting like never before (again, this is because of the tethered-camera laptop/desktop LCD giving me very accurate information.) So yes, I believe I am getting better product, and faster. I don't know a lot of people who shoot multiple frames per second, - it's not the speed of the camera as much as it is the speed of the (LCD) feedback which counts the most in my experience. It's just way more productive.

[bcooter]

Is the end-product better today than 10-15 years ago?  Is a fashion shoot with the photographer shooting multiple frames a second ending up with better product than the 120/220 film shooter of old?

Steve

Uh, yes.  Images for advertising are more professional and market targeted than ever before.

Are they better . .  . I don't know . . . it's advertising so it's hard to judge with so many cooks in the kitchen.   Some campaigns  are outstanding in their creativity, some are just the old grin and bite advertising with a smile.

Some even produce an ironic message that is probably not intended.

such as these fellas "waiting" for their new camera.

http://www.hasselblad.com/countdown

I doubt if medium format wants to enhance the idea of "waiting" for product to be delivered.

Funny thing is this still camera makers ad is shot in video in 16x9 format.  I wonder if they used a 5d2?



BC

[TMARK]

"10 years ago, most pros did have more than one system but most of them essentially made their living with medium format cameras"
********
Is the end-product better today than 10-15 years ago?  Is a fashion shoot with the photographer shooting multiple frames a second ending up with better product than the 120/220 film shooter of old?

Steve

This is my gripe and why my Aptus 54s sits in the Peli case.  I don't think for fashion or lifestyle the product is better.  Its better for the clients in terms of turn around and pushing lab/post costs on to the shooter. Its more convenient, but for $20k - $40k for MF digital (new), you don't really improve on an RZ and Portra or TMax.  I do think that the 35mm digital cams have finally improved on their film counterparts in every way.  

On the positive side, if I shot buildings or still life, or landscapes, I'd shoot a back, probably the P65+ on a mini view camera.  This is one area where MFD has advanced and made the cameras as usable as their film counter parts.

Edited to add:  I'm mainly taliking about the usability of teh cameras themselves, which is why the H4D announcement was such a bummer.

[rolleiflexpages]

I think this thread is getting a bit off-topic and became a beauty contest between 35mm and MF digital camera systems. I do not want to go into that. I am a keen hobby photographer and use both Leica 35mm (film-based) systems, a Hasselblad H1 film-based system, and Rolleiflex 6008 AF and Hy6 systems (both with film and digital backs). I am thus not making money with my stuff and thus the requirements are quite different from "pro" shooters. For me, it is also pleasure that counts and obtaining ultimate picture quality. It is quite obvious that MF is ahead of 35mm systems, even Leica systems. Size does make a difference. At the same time there are situations where you would prefer the 35mm over the MF systems because of size, weight etc. But all that is besides the point.

I think that the original point was that Hasselblad has led people to believe that something almost revolutionary was on its way with the count-down clock. Of course, it is not and that is when the pudding falls. The problem is not per se the qualities, or deficiencies, of the new H4D system. It is that something was announced with that much hype, way out of line with the reality. If the P.R. hype had not been such, this debate would not have been held or, at least, it would have been a different one. I believe that the hype was really out of place and not in relation to the announcement. Some marketing spin doctor must have had a bad day. But that does not diminish the inherent qualities of the H4D, of course.

Just my two cents ...

[erick.boileau]

My list, (and the list of others who have bolted MF):

* 22MP max.
* At least one frame per second, if not faster. See Phase P21+.
* Software that is fast on a laptop; not requiring tower.
* Separate tether software from process software. Need fast Previews.
* At least ASA 800 that's usable, at full rez.
* No mirror slap. Handholdable to a 30th.
* Long lasting batteries.
* Big, nice LCD.
* Trustable autofocus.

All we ask for is one model. The StillLifeGuys and TheSunsetGuys can have 39 and 50 and 60; just give us one model that's fast.

I agree totally

pixels sucks when you don't need it , why they don't do H4d 22 ?  50 to 800 ISO for 7000 euro ?
and Long lasting batteries for long exposures ...