tkbslc: How many rolls could you have developed and scanned for the $9500 price difference between this and a Fuji GF670?
Let's put things into realistic perspective. I'd have to order film, store film, load film, worry about mis-loaded film, drive to UPS, mail film and keep notes explaining how I want the film developed & that's added cost because no one is going to developing film how you want it without getting paid well. Otherwise your film is just run through a machine. I don't want to develop film myself.
I have to wait for films to be returned (remember those days?). There will be some shots that will have to be "re-developed". Ideally, today, one would just have the films scanned, but that is pricey and takes time even when done yourself. I *never* want to return to those expensive & time wasting days :)
Or... one can shoot with a 50mp CMOS, have any iso under the sun available to them instantly. Try that with film. I can shoot a client, stop by Starbucks on the way home and start edit/processing while sipping a green tea frap on my little Macbook (iMac + workstation for big jobs).
Toon Vogels: This is ugly, even my old 500C/M looks much better!
I agree with villagranvicent.. the 500 series is just pleasant to look at, however, unlike the 645Z (ugly... but getting less ugly to me daily), the X1D looks nice to me and frankly I'd take my ugly duckling Pentax and or the X1D over the older (but wonderful!!) 500 series any day of the week! :)
bgbs: bottom line hassy is an expensive system. One mediocre lens over $2K?
$2k is relatively cheap. There are also more than a few lenses costing $2k or more that aren't stellar from Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, et al, as if that's something new from a manufacturer. This Hasselblad + lenses is cheaper than the Pentax 645Z + 90mm and 28-45mm. Many who shoot MF do so with one lens, so $9k + $2+ for a digital medium format, 50mp, CMOS kit isn't exactly "pricey".
jorg14: So, what's next? 2-1/4 square? 4X5?Full frame is so yesterday. I mean how could you even take a serious shot with APS-C or 4/3's right?
Today, it's not that FF is so "yesterday", but rather society at large is closer to being able to acquire the full breadth of photographic quality and negative (sensor) size. I'd rather shoot a 4x5-"like" size sensor for portraits over my FF cameras or even medium format for portraiture, landscapes or macro photography. FF (35mm) is not the epitome of photographic quality; it's not even the preference (price independent) for many photographers... and that's the point.
Kari Rannisto: Pls give us a Hasselblad forum so we can discuss these wonderful cameras and see wonderful pictures taken by these
How in the world, in 2016, is there not a Medium Format forum on a digital photography site as comprehensive as DPreview?
Joe Pineapples II: Wow - I love it. This looks like the digital successor to my old Mamiya 6 medium-format rangefinder. I reckon Hasselblad have knocked one out of the ballpark here. This could be destined to become a digital classic.
Light Pilgrim: How will it fare compared to 5Ds?
Got your point(less) the first time. Two lenses. The fact of the matter is that many of us shooting the Pentax are keeping the 28-45 affixed to the camera most often... and donning a 120 or 90mm as the next most applicable lens. Many others shooting Hasselblad are using the 80 or 100mm (a Hasselblad fav of mine). Sooooo.. a 45mm and a 90mm are the first two Hasselblad lenses and that's odd to you? (chuckle) Yeah, it seems to me like someone at Hasselblad is actually using common sense for once... especially since today many are using the shorter focal lengths as an alternative for the long-in-the-tooth vanilla approach to portraiture and since for many people who'd buy the system, those two lenses are just fine at the start. The point is simply that if such puts you off that much, then the camera isn't for you and just drive on. I doubt it will put portrait shooters off much ;)
rrccad, no, the 5sr (while a fine camera) is not really a competitor in this arena, the colour range (blown whites and lack of colour) just doesn't cut it. In many landscape shots the colour deficit will be obvious from reasonable viewing distances. Medium and large formats are just a different facet of photography and thankfully, more available to the general public than in years past. A MF film body can be had for cheap.
The difference in out of focus progression is also something that I find different with MF. Let me be clear, there are areas where it doesn't make sense to shoot MF any longer in general (catalog work, etc.) but for fine art, portraiture, etc... medium and large format are the only game in town as far as I'm concerned.
ScanSpeak: So is this a full frame sensor?
Lars V the terms are used relatively as they relate to film and are reasonable denotations. MF sensors less than FF (compared to MF film) are common in MF digital cameras. Even so, this latest mirrorless offering is a strong contender it seems. The best MF news I've seen since the debut of the Pentax 645Z.
Badbatz: Paid $700 for a 500 C/M kit ( body, WLF, 80/2.8, A12 magazine) in 1972. That's approx $4000 in today's dollars.The new stuff is WAY overpriced. A kit in the $6000 range would sell like hotcakes if the camera is any good.
There's a reason why 500 series are flooding eBay, etc.. "Overpriced" is also a relative term. It's only overpriced when it's not being purchased due to the price. If Hasselblad could sell these for $20k and get $20k, then it wouldn't be "overpriced" even at that price.
There's no way I'd compare this thing to using a 500 series Hasselblad (great cameras... but..). The older camera's are just less relevant today. The last thing I want to do is have to buy film, load film, shoot film (unless it's large format offering more detail as opposed to a *comparatively* grainy fuzzy detail with the smaller formats..) and then having to find someone competent to develop the film. We're talking about over $400/month in film costs (minimum) for many photographers. That's $5k/annum or a new 50mp mirrorless Hasselblad paid for in less than 2 years just in film costs alone. Can shoot twice as much with the digital cam and by the time it dies, I'm ready for a new body anyway.
Mrrowe8: Blah blah blah blah blah .. Yes it's nice ,yes it's super expensive, so not really a for the masses camera, to bad .. The biggest question is it possibly to little to late to be relevant to the already solid cameras out there with solid image making pedigree.. Feel free to leave a snotty snobby response at the beep .....BEEP
(1) Newsflash... eh.. $9k isn't "super expensive". It's less than the cost of many 2nd-hand-ratty-bass-boats.
(2) Hasselblad isn't marketing to the 'masses' (no matter what they say).
(3) What cameras 'out there' with "solid image making pedigree" are you talking about? If you're not talking about a camera with a like-sensor size, then zip.. because it's not relevant.
(4) Unless you have your head in the sand, MF is going to be the new general standard because the smaller sensors for less specialized work (e.g. portraiture), don't cut it as-well-as larger sensors do. You're looking dead in the face of the future. Larger sensors in a smaller form factor. Surprised? You shouldn't be... no more than anyone should've been surprised that Nikon finally got around to going FF or *finally* offering up more than a paltry 12mp.
For pete's sake.. there are lenses that cost more than this camera...
stevo23: Same sensor size, Mp and price as the Pentax 645Z? (Lenses not withstanding...)
This camera is putting the Pentax over a barrel somewhat, because it offers things that the pentax doesn't have. tilt/shift lenses (adapter), leaf shutter lenses, 1/2000 sync speed... all the stuff that many working folks expect to see in a MF *system*. Pentax dropped the ball and hopefully this Hasselblad will spank some sense into Pentax which seems oblivious to what should and shouldn't be available to MF photographers. That said, the 645Z is a wonderful camera, the 28-45 stabilized 28-45 and 90mm lens + tilt screen, etc., are a definite plus... but that sync speed (shakes head). I'm giving Hasselblad the nod on this camera. It's a game changer for MF.
Retzius: is "handmade in sweden" a good thing? I can't think of anything else that is supposed to be good because it is "handmade in sweden"...
Personally I don't care if a 50,000lb robot put the camera, car, or printer together as long as it has an attractive price, works, and doesn't cause me an unreasonable amount of maintenance. I just don't get all wrapped up into "handmade" or even "hand dipped ice cream"... I don't care if a machine dipped the d___ cone! ;)
left eye: 645Z - £6799 / 1550gis undercut by the X1D - £5990 / 725g
I'm not normally an advocate of EVF - and it's 'hurry up take a picture you're draining my battery!!', and do wonder what the battery life will be if taking one's time eyeing up shots on a tripod. Anyway a great addition to the camera world for sure, I'm tempted by it's hubris.
... Actually the Pentax is FAR less of a deal with this camera on the market. The 28-45 f/4 (stabilized) lens alone is about $4,500 for the Pentax and almost as much again for the 90mm f/2.8 macro. There are legacy lenses which could be had for great deals but the bottom line is that the Pentax has a glaring shortcoming which is sync speed / no modern leaf shutter lenses which is absolutely, irrefutably ridiculous in 2016 for a medium format system.
Hasselblad *has* put a monkey wrench in the system with this camera and has hit back hard, and will woo a lot of people who would've otherwise purchased the Pentax over to Hasselblad. I don't fancy mirrorless, but I'll be keeping an eye on this camera. Hasselblad did a fine job with this from what I can tell thus far.
Potemkin_Photo: I will most likely skip my next car purchase to get this "game-changer." NOT!
Well... if you're in the market for a car costing as much then you're probably not the intended market demographic. ;)
villagranvicent: Well... the sample shots are nothing my Sony A7 with the Zeiss 35mm cannot handle.
Shoot medium format for a week, then go back to the Sony.... and report back here.
Jonathan F/2: What slow lenses! Micro Four Third prime lenses are faster, smaller and cheaper! F/3.5 and F/3.2 is still F/3.5 and F/3.2!
Why are teeny-tiny sensors even being mentioned in this thread? Why would anyone looking at this camera care if M4/3 lenses are faster when the results of the camera/lens combo aren't in the same league?
n3eg: Wow! It has ABSOLUTELY NO EQIVALENCE! f/3.2 is like, what, f/zero-point-nothing on micro four thirds? And DOF of a butterfly wing! Ooooh, I can't wait to shoot this at f/256!!!
All I know is shooting a 100mm f.2.2 lens on this camera or a 50mm f/2.8 on a Pentax, wide open, from a typical portrait distance(s) isn't going to be that big of a deal, and will easily give you enough depth to keep the important stuff in focus.
No, which is no different from most MF cameras or backs that have ever been produced.
TN Args: It won't be a game changer unless it enters at a more affordable price point than the current range. If you want to change 'the world of photography', as the hype says, then you have to affect a reasonable proportion of that world.
villagranvicent... finally, someone who gets it.