AlexBakerPhotoz: I totally gave up on stock photography sales and any commercial photography and now only do Fine Art work, my true love anyway. I do maintain a website and enjoy having it as a portfolio but know full well that internet sales are a pipe dream. Steal my work at alexbakerphotoz.com
Stolen. Thank you. Ha, just kidding. Great work! Love the pictures. I'm really surprised how HUGE and high rez your photos are. I guess someone won't need to look too hard to get your high resolution pictures. ;-)
Thanks for sharing your images.
StevenMajor: It could only be the unrealistic expectation of the photographer when posting the image that would cause disappointment. Beware of what you seek.
dpreview commenters may not steal your images, but they do download them, modify it, then repost it to show you how you should have modified the picture. In a lot of cases, that's not okay unless they ask the photographer, which they don't. I was actually quite mad the first time that happened to me.
Steve Bingham: I had one of my low rez photos stolen from photo.net years ago - 0ver 100 times and counting. Best I can tell it has had over 2.5 million views that I KNOW of. To date I haven't made a nickel from the picture. It is what it is. I took it down. Even now it is on 64 other sites! No credit of course.
With the internet being world wide and the proliferation of smart phones, no image is safe. Copyright protection means nothing.
I basically gave up trying to be a police for my photos. One of my photos suddenly got a ton of views and I just figured it was school children using it for their projects.
I ended up making the photo 720x??? or smaller and only 72 dpi. I'm not sure if that's small enough to deter people though. Also, I put my copyright and "all rights reserved" IN the picture. I know it's ugly and takes away from the picture, but I want the people to know who made it and that I hold all rights.
Mingthein had a picture of his camera used on the manufacturer's website and advertising without his knowledge or permission. The company thought it was okay because they kept his byline that he puts on the outside of his picture. He settled the illegal use case.
fotokeena: I have been wishing for Hasselblad to make such a back that can integrate with the V system seamlessly for a long time, looks like they finally did it. Now owners can use their well built bodies and lenses, as well as prism finders, I am glad that they finally recognize there are still a lot of people hanging on to their old"golden standard" system, and it's value.
Great job Hasselblad, even thought I can't afford the price, how about making a barebones version for $5K to $6K? for the non-profit making photographers.
This particular CFV-50c is a little different than the previous because you use the PM/PME-90 now. I heard you couldn't do that previously. The back is tapered on the top to allow the use of the viewfinder. I think that was a good design choice.
dinoSnake: Congratulations to Hasselblad for finally making a product that their customers wanted a number of years ago.
If only other companies would actually listen to their customers. Eventually.
They made quite a few digital backs, the CFV-16, CFV-16 II, CFV-39, CFV-50 and now this one, CFV-50c. Not quite sure what part of your "customers wanted a number of years ago" you're talking about.
If it were 56mm x 56mm sensor then this would be real news. I'm just happy Hasselblad is making a back to fit the v-series and they didn't abandon it altogether.
Really nice photographs at the end of the video.
Videos are getting to a point where you must have at least a few shots taken with a one of those robotic drones or your video doesn't look interesting. Kind of the same when you're doing time lapse videos. It must be panning, moving, or zooming or it doesn't capture anyone's interest.
There's always one person who will say the sample pictures look soft. I'm waiting for that person to post.
I didn't read the description and just watched the video. I was expecting it to go up, up, up. When it stalled and started coming down I was like "oh sh*t!" and waiting for the upcoming explosion. Then it just landed. I was thinking "huh, that's pretty cool."
arhmatic: For the Portland bridge test --- all that gear and effort spend, and they came out with ZERO files?
How is that possible? They forgot the put the card in? Details?
It sounded like they had the pictures outputting to laptop...well, they hoped it would. Probably used a wifi card that didn't work properly.
Devendra: Now if they had only used D7100 and a Nikon 80-400mm @400mm f/8 instead of some lower-mp canon.
oh yes a gigapan pro can easily handle both.. and more (I have used it with Sigma 50-500mm)
Probably would have taken too long if the focal length was so long.
I've taken 1000+ shot Gigapans and it didn't take 5 hours. I think the 5 hour shot the article was referring to was the one taken on the Oregon bridge. 560 images should have just taken about 75 minutes or so, not including moving the rig.
harryh: Incredible., 99,999999999% of us all here will never, NEVER make such a photo in their life.
This is so difficult to make that everyone who never made a gigapano must only look at it in absolute adoration. The result is marvelous, great.
Only one thing puzzles me; after so much preparation i should have taken a high resolutiuon camera like a a Nikon D800, it would have even been sharper.
I thought the same thing about the camera choice, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say. The Gigapan speaks volumes on the quality of the equipment. The Canon is 21 MP so there's not THAT MUCH of a difference between 21 and 36 MP. I was thinking maybe he should have used a 200mm lens instead though. It probably would have taken too long though and the lighting would have changed too much.
Jogger: lmao at all the butt-hurt mirrorless evangelicals. the fact is that none of the mirrorless offerings would be able to command a $6000 asking price for a body-only camera.
Hasselblad hasn't put their wood sidings on a mirrorless camera yet. Once they do it'll be $10,000.
Looking at those wafers I just wish someone would just cut them into 6 cm x 6 cm squares and put it into a camera back that I can use with my Hasselblad V-series! I'm sure people with 6x7 and 4x5 cameras are thinking the same.
Wow! What an awesome job she has and the final results are spectacular.
nathantw: I might be the minority, but I went into a Sony store, stuck my SD card into the A7R, shot some frames with the attached 50mm f/1.8 lens, went home, stuck it into my computer to look at the quality and was utterly not impressed.
Also the camera was unnecessarily loud when clicking the shutter. I was able to hear it on the other side of the store going off when someone clicked the shutter. What the heck? It's mirrorless for goodness sakes.
You're right that those are some really nice photos shot with the camera on teh fredmiranda site. However, they aren't showing me anything that couldn't be done on any other digital camera. The problem with digital cameras is that the sensor is the determining factor and so many cameras have the same or similar sensors in some cameras that everything looks the same. That can be a good thing and that can be a bad thing. In this case it's a nice sensor, but nothing we haven't seen before (Nikon D800).
I understand my experience with the camera in the Sony Store isn't indicative of what the camera is capable of since all the settings could have been skewed towards "pleasing everyone" look, but it just didn't impress me, which is why I said it could be just me and I'm sure it was, save for a few people.
I might be the minority, but I went into a Sony store, stuck my SD card into the A7R, shot some frames with the attached 50mm f/1.8 lens, went home, stuck it into my computer to look at the quality and was utterly not impressed.
nathantw: If it's 16-bit color (it should be) and has better IQ at anything other than ISO 400 (which it will) then I think they might have a winner. Unfortunately it'll probably still cost an arm and a leg ($50k - $60k) with lenses in the $5k range. However, if they brought out an affordable CMOS 6x6 camera back that fits the Hasselblad V-series, then dangnammit, I'm there!
That was one thing I was going to fix if I had won that $600 million lotto by myself. I would have made a 6x6 sensor to fit into a Hasselblad V-series and filled that nitch. I know it wouldn't sell all that much, but if it was successful then I'd make it for Bronica and Rollei then move up to 6x7 and get the RZ people. I was all set, but alas, it wasn't meant to be since I didn't win.
Of course, I do know that it's better to have digital backs on the H-series instead since critical focusing isn't easy on a V-series (I had a Kodak digital back) and not having auto exposures was a pain at times.
mpgxsvcd: Serious Question. How many of you shoot Medium Format or would switch to Medium Format if the right camera body was produced?
Yup, I shoot it.