Hasselblad mirrorless camera

[Andrew Reid]

Some observations about the Europeans right now...

Their engineering base is dwindling and they find it hard to complete on very complex projects. Berlin's new airport. Leica SL's LOG output.

They are transitioning to a softer services economy like the UK.

This means Hasselblad, like German companies and Leica, are full of marketing people (even though they're a Swedish company - the same applies right across the continent!)

It seems from the rumours that they have put a 50MP medium format sensor from Sony in a mirrorless camera, I sincerely hope it is more engineering driven than marketing puff.

[Nikkor]

I believe Hasselblad is swedish. And the thing with the airport in Berlin is that the guy who made the installations wasn't actually an engineer.

But I agree, softer service economy turns all people into lumpen.

[jcs]

Yeah Hasselblad is Swedish. Their main competition is Phase One. A top-of-the-line Phase One camera system starts getting into ARRI Amira price territory. A RED Weapon could also be considered somewhat competitive for those shooting high-end commercials with stills and video.

Perhaps 'game changer' is a MF camera system that is much lower cost. This could be very profitable- sell more for less. The high-end market is very small and Phase One looks pretty solid in terms of both hardware and software- if I needed the best still camera money can buy, that's what I'd get.

[Andrew Reid]

Germany, Swedish, Europe, all the same thing these days really

[Leica50mm]

I would love a medium format Leica Q ! 

[BrooklynDan]

I've been handling and playing around with medium format Hasselblad and Phase One cameras at my job, and let me just say, the look is something special. It's not just the depth of field. You can get similar results with fast lenses on full frame. Medium format glass tends to be slower. 2.8 or 4 max. But the visual prespective of 645 is unique. The 50mm is a wide angle. You get amazing separation between foreground and background. It's a rich, layered look that you just can't get on a smaller format.

I can't wait until medium format video becomes a thing, but it's gonna be a tough road to get there. The cameras are staggeringly expensive ($40K and up), and getting clean, jello-free 4K from the entire 50mp+ sensors will be a technical nightmare.

[Nikkor]

14 minutes ago, BrooklynDan said:

I've been handling and playing around with medium format Hasselblad and Phase One cameras at my job, and let me just say, the look is something special. It's not just the depth of field. You can get similar results with fast lenses on full frame. Medium format glass tends to be slower. 2.8 or 4 max. But the visual prespective of 645 is unique. The 50mm is a wide angle. You get amazing separation between foreground and background. It's a rich, layered look that you just can't get on a smaller format.

I can't wait until medium format video becomes a thing, but it's gonna be a tough road to get there. The cameras are staggeringly expensive ($40K and up), and getting clean, jello-free 4K from the entire 50mp+ sensors will be a technical nightmare.

Whaa??? That can't be true, this has been debunked, you have to fix your eyes.

[jcs]

17 minutes ago, BrooklynDan said:

You get amazing separation between foreground and background. It's a rich, layered look that you just can't get on a smaller format.

I took the Full Frame Look (vs. S35) challenge and created images that were equivalent: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ . Some folks posted 'debunking' shots with MF vs. FF but didn't use equivalent camera settings per the math (and not even the same framing).

The math and physics also apply to MF vs FF. If it's possible to match via the equivalence equations an MF camera + lens to a FF camera + lens, the images will be identical. However, part of the difference is the sensor technology and software processing, where Phase One appears to really shine. Thus comparing a Canon 1DX II or Nikon D5 to a Phase One (any recent) may still show the Phase One providing a better image. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a market for these very expensive MF cameras.

[Andrew Reid]

16 minutes ago, BrooklynDan said:

getting clean, jello-free 4K from the entire 50mp+ sensors will be a technical nightmare.

Agree on your medium format image observations, the look is truly special and different to full frame.

The 4K from 50MP isn't impossible.

Remember the A7R II for $3k does pixel binned 4K from 42MP. And it actually looks pretty ok, with less rolling shutter than the native 4K Super 35mm crop.

[Nikkor]

3 minutes ago, jcs said:

The math and physics also apply to MF vs FF. 

If you'd take your time with the DOF equations you would find the mathematical proof that what you are saying is full of shit. (if you had eyes you wouldn't need math, but hey...)

[jcs]

6 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

If you'd take your time with the DOF equations you would find the mathematical proof that what you are saying is full of shit.

Here's the math- where's the error? http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

I replicated with actual test and images, and got the results predicted by the math ( http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ ).

If Phase One or Hasselblad sent me a camera and lenses, I'd be happy to shoot equivalence tests against the Canon 1DX II and L-lenses and post the results.

[Nikkor]

10 minutes ago, jcs said:

Here's the math- where's the error? http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

I replicated with actual test and images, and got the results predicted by the math ( http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ ).

have fun.

 

[BrooklynDan]

15 minutes ago, jcs said:

Here's the math- where's the error? http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

I replicated with actual test and images, and got the results predicted by the math ( http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ ).

I'm not talking about math. I'm talking about SOUL. Something our industry is sorely lacking in.

[jcs]

Just now, Nikkor said:

This is the math.

That's a 3D surface heat-map style plot. Where are the equations? Starting with the equations we can set up cameras for equivalence, shoot, and compare to theory. An interesting plot would be MF + lens vs. FF + lens set up for equivalence showing DOF behavior in the real world (vs. just the math). Theory and reality don't always match (theory and math are only approximates to reality anyway). From a purely math/physics point of view, there's nothing really special about sensor size. However the physics of light, manufacturing processes, sensor and software implementations can have a very profound effect on the final image. Thus, we need to shoot proper equivalence tests to see if there is a real result. Brain Caldwell (posts here sometimes, designed the SpeedBoosters), does optics for a living. He posted the same thing- it's actually easier to get the "MF look" with a FF camera (or with a SB on S35 etc.) because there are plenty of fast FF lenses available to provide for equivalence with MF + slower lenses.

[richg101]

21 minutes ago, jcs said:

I took the Full Frame Look (vs. S35) challenge and created images that were equivalent: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ . Some folks posted 'debunking' shots with MF vs. FF but didn't use equivalent camera settings per the math (and not even the same framing).

 

give me a shout when you find a lens/sensor that will replicate my leaf afi-ii 10 and a 180mm/2.8

 

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7506/26997678725_133cd94b63_o.jpg

[Nikkor]

1 minute ago, jcs said:

That's a 3D surface heat-map style plot. Where are the equations? Starting with the equations we can set up cameras for equivalence, shoot, and compare to theory. An interesting plot would be MF + lens vs. FF + lens set up for equivalence showing DOF behavior in the real world (vs. just the math). Theory and reality don't always match (theory and math are only approximates to reality anyway). From a purely math/physics point of view, there's nothing really special about sensor size. However the physics of light, manufacturing processes, sensor and software implementations can have a very profound effect on the final image. Thus, we need to shoot proper equivalence tests to see if there is a real result. Brain Caldwell (posts here sometimes, designed the SpeedBoosters), does optics for a living. He posted the same thing- it's actually easier to get the "MF look" with a FF camera (or with a SB on S35 etc.) because there are plenty of fast FF lenses available to provide for equivalence with MF + slower lenses.

I'm not giving you the equation :p

[jcs]

7 minutes ago, BrooklynDan said:

I'm not talking about math. I'm talking about SOUL. Something our industry is sorely lacking in.

If there is a real effect of any kind, shooting a proper equivalence test will show it.

[BrooklynDan]

19 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Agree on your medium format image observations, the look is truly special and different to full frame.

The 4K from 50MP isn't impossible.

Remember the A7R II for $3k does pixel binned 4K from 42MP. And it actually looks pretty ok, with less rolling shutter than the native 4K Super 35mm crop.

You got double the sensor real estate to cover compared to full frame. It's got to be an incredibly fast readout, or the image is gonna be mush. Especially with the shallow depth-of-field.

Until recently, medium format cameras used CCDs. CMOS sensors are actually a recent development in this arena. Maybe going back to those would be a smart idea. Imagine the motion cadence!

My dream would be a 645 sensor purpose-built for video with a lower pixel count. Maybe 6K or 8K spread out over a 60mm-wide sensor area. Bigger pixels = low-light monster. And then use the space between the pixels for the circuitry required for a global shutter.

[jcs]

2 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

I'm not giving you the equation :p

lol, those plots looked like something sampled from tests (which would be a good thing), and in any case the plot can be recreated from simple linear equations, which is what the equivalence equations predict as well. Regardless of math or plots, the real proof is real world tests, where the cameras are set up properly for equivalence.

Here's a cool test comparing FF Nikon D800E to Hasselblad MF: https://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

Bigger pixels, 16-bit vs 14-bit (and perhaps firmware/software) are where he noted a difference. That said, the difference was small (see for yourself).

[Nikkor]