Hasselblad mirrorless camera

[Jimmy]

9 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Yes but significant improvement of a mediocrity does not necessary give something great. Actually the DR is still less good than on a 600$ D5500. Is this acceptable for 10 times the price? You judge.

If it holds DR across a wider ISO range than the Sony sensor, then yes. Canon have always had lower DR... but better spread.

Regardless, if they are hitting 14 stops... that is a significant step up whereas the blog article says there is no improvement 

[Jimmy]

On the topic of compressed raw codecs.... What the hell are GoPro doing with CineForm Raw?

They just seem to be sat on the codec/patent without ever doing much with it. It's been licensed on a couple of cameras, but could be a real asset to a company like Sony or Canon, as it was patented before REDcode.

[sanveer]

39 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

On the topic of compressed raw codecs.... What the hell are GoPro doing with CineForm Raw?

They just seem to be sat on the codec/patent without ever doing much with it. It's been licensed on a couple of cameras, but could be a real asset to a company like Sony or Canon, as it was patented before REDcode.

GoPro have moved from making Action Cams to making Coffins now. They should be jumping into their own coffins first.

RIP GoPro. Everyone screwed you. You waited like a h@@ker on duty. You asked for it. 

I am wondering, now, in Hindsight, was GoPro a Scam like Enron and many others?

[John Matthews]

Just thought I'd share this link concerning the limitations of such a large sensor and shallow mount. Eventually, physics and practicality will have its role to play.

http://petapixel.com/2016/06/27/developing-zoom-lens-x1d-almost-impossible-says-hasselblad/

[IronFilm]

On 6/18/2016 at 0:28 PM, jcs said:

I think we all agree with that point- what we can do in the real world with available equipment is all the really matters vs. math and theory. If there was a business reason to use a Phase One, I'd use one. Their cameras systems are top notch (design, usability, and final image quality). Currently the 5D3 and 1DX II with fast lenses (especially the 85mm 1.2L and 135mm F2L) can create crazy shallow DOF (sometimes too shallow to be usable wide open).

Here's a test many don't realize they can try with any camera to better understand equivalence. Shoot with the same lens, change settings, then crop in post (images 3 and 4 from: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ )

Full Frame

Super 35 (cropped in post- same lens)

Is there a difference? Sure, but so minor that the average person (client etc.) won't ever notice the difference. You can do this test with your MF camera, and crop to FF! Since you are using the exact same lens, only changing camera settings and cropping in post, lens and sensor technology will be identical. The only thing changing is effective sensor size. Try it!

Thus unless a client could clearly see the difference, why would a business invest in MF bodies and lenses? At the ultra high end, it's more marketing/appearances, and perhaps most importantly, Phase One for example does produce the highest megapixel professional/studio cameras(?) along with what looks like the best processing currently available. As noted in the link posted in this thread, the 50Mpixel 5DSR is very similar in quality to the 50Mpixel Phase One for ultimate image quality.

I agree, I bet there are more professionals using digital medium format for largely marketing/appearances reasons than for real, noticeable, concrete differences in image results.

Because at the high end of a being a photographer, marketing your brand matters even more than quality of result. As by that point everyone is already very good!

On 6/18/2016 at 1:25 PM, jcs said:

This debate is visual- where's the visual proof: correctly set up MF and FF systems for equivalence? I posted a link to the 5DSR compared to the Phase One. The difference is minor, and not enough for a business to invest in MF systems. To learn and help others one must do some work- shoot a correctly set up MF vs. FF test. Shooting with a zoom- that's perfectly valid, the debate is sensor size, not lenses, though now the consensus is it's not sensor size anymore but MF lenses themselves. So a SpeedBooster for FF would make sense if that were true, and thus Brian Caldwell's comment that it's not worth it because the MF lenses aren't better than the top FF lenses. So if true the debate would shift to MF provides a better value due to lower cost. Is that really true?

Good job at breaking down the pro MF arguments one by one. 

And MF sure is not winning on a cost basis! (no matter how cheap a Pentax digital MF gets!)

[IronFilm]

On 6/18/2016 at 7:44 AM, jcs said:

Those are indeed visible differences for as 'ideal' a test as is physically possible since a very high quality zoom lens was used on the same camera (cropping in post after changing settings to simulate an APS-C crop). Since the differences are very subtle, the aesthetic quality boost may be lost on the general public, in the same way as fine food and alcohol, can be etc. Were the Hateful 8 and The Revenant better movies being shot on the ARRI 65? Did they make more money because of the large format camera used? (smaller format cameras were also used). The answers to both questions is probably not significantly. With effectively unlimited budgets, why not shoot on the 'best'? The relative cost of the larger format camera is insignificant to the film's budget. However using the pinnacle-best gear makes the directors and DPs happy, and that counts for something.

Exactly. When the costs to get the best of the best only take up a small fraction of a percent of your budget, but it makes key team members happy and inspired, then that worth more than makes up for the cost!

[Mattias Burling]

I shoot both FF and MF on a project as we speak. And the difference is like the difference between m4/3 and FF. If one can't tell the difference then that's OK to.

[Liam]

Did we already know the shutter was inside the lens..?? That's kind of a buzzkill. Sorry if i just missed that discussion point somewhere... first I'm hearing /:

[tupp]

55 minutes ago, Liam said:

Did we already know the shutter was inside the lens..??

I didn't know that this digital model used leaf shutters (inside the lens), but the film Hasselblads (and some other medium format brands) used leaf shutters.  One thing that was cool with some of the lenses for the 500C was that the shutter ring on the lens was adjacent to the aperture ring, so that once you set your exposure, turning both rings together would maintain the same exposure while changing to another desired shutter speed or aperture.

 

 

1 hour ago, Liam said:

That's kind of a buzzkill.

Why?

[Policar]

8 minutes ago, tupp said:

I didn't know that this digital model used leaf shutters (inside the lens), but the film Hasselblads (and some other medium format brands) used leaf shutters.  One thing that was cool with some of the lenses for the 500C was that the shutter ring on the lens was adjacent to the aperture ring, so that once you set your exposure, turning both rings together would maintain the same exposure while changing to another desired shutter speed or aperture.

 

 

Why?

Agreed, granted I don't know much about this but particularly with a larger sensor I'd think a leaf shutter would be far preferable. If I recall only the Pentax 67 among 6x6 and larger SLRs had a film plane shutter and it caused softness from being so big and inducing camera shake. The mirror slap was intense on my RZ67 and the Hasselblads, so I guess that's a bigger issue, but I think the motion from the shutter is less and the flash sync superior. Mamiya 7 is still my dream camera. That's what I thought of when I saw this. 

What's your preference for film plane shutters? Just curious. Especially with no mirror a leaf shutter seems way better, way better/faster for flash sync, too. Imo way preferable for something like this but again it's been a while since I was shooting MF and I'm a novice at it.

[Liam]

34 minutes ago, tupp said:

I didn't know that this digital model used leaf shutters (inside the lens), but the film Hasselblads (and some other medium format brands) used leaf shutters.  One thing that was cool with some of the lenses for the 500C was that the shutter ring on the lens was adjacent to the aperture ring, so that once you set your exposure, turning both rings together would maintain the same exposure while changing to another desired shutter speed or aperture.

 

 

Why?

Sorry, just jumped the gun I think, haha, uninformed. Thought the shutter would just take up space and make it matter less that there's a short flange.

[tupp]

38 minutes ago, Liam said:

Thought the shutter would just take up space and make it matter less that there's a short flange.

Actually, if the X1D lacks a digital shutter function, it would probably preclude using/adapting many other medium format lenses for still shooting.  So, you might be on to something.

[Liam]

53 minutes ago, tupp said:

Actually, if the X1D lacks a digital shutter function, it would probably preclude using/adapting many other medium format lenses for still shooting.  So, you might be on to something.

Think in the announcement they said it has all their previous glass available to use in it, so I think they have it sorted, but that would indeed be a pity