justmeMN: Girly Men can't handle a camera that's this big. They have to use mirrorless cameras. :-)
Goodmeme, I second that 100%. I can't think of a camera from any other company that I'd rather shoot over a pro Nikon/Canon body. There's just too much other stuff that I find appealing. Even going from a pro body to the smaller bodies like the D810 or 5D3 can be a wee bit frustrating at first. I prefer shooting the larger bodies so much better as well. I don't think I'll go for another small-body after using the 5D2 (which has been good to me).
Mike FL: "the lens was awarded one of the top three worst lenses of 2015 !" by other popular site.
It is, take a look, this thing is not only noticeably worse than Panasonic TZ100 which has the same spec even Panasonic TZ100's lens is much smaller, but also noticeably worse than Panasonic old P&S LX7 and NF1.
Take a look, and look closely the text.
Canon is well known for sub par sensor, but LENS?
People didn't take their Canon's back because despite the antiquated sensor, the camera offered advantages and an over all better fit for those respective users that other manufacturers couldn't match. So what if people want up-to-date sensor tech when they're spending $3000-$7000 for a camera?
As far as post processing goes-- most work that leads to getting paid will be manipulated whether you're shooting a film or digital device... and a good sensor helps reduce any requisite post work.
Leonp: The background music tells me this is an advertorial of a groundbreaking product that will totally change the market and that the video is made by a student in something like Pruduct Design and Inventions for his bachelors degree. All the rest of the video definetly will be ok since it's made by Dpreview, no offense, but I only got to 27 seconds.
QuantumPhysics: By the way, medium format is not dead by any means.
Not even remotely close (to being dead); if prices keep falling MF will become the new professional standard for most things that aren't moving fast, and in time, even that will change with better technology. The Z is practically as fast as a Canon 5D2 and that's unheard of in MF. However MF languished for years and manufacturers really need to step it up. I think Pentax has had a hand in shaking the market. If Pentax (Richoh) dives in with both feet, prices across the board will fall fast.
I don't need the cheesy music, but as far as the rest of the video, I'm not watching a camera vid. for the purpose of witnessing a slick production, I just want basic information which this video did a decent job of providing. Perhaps your requirements are far haughtier, but I think most people are aligned with my sentiment... I'd rather spend a time watching something "informative" as opposed to beautifully slick but providing only luke-warm content even if professionally done by pricey-Avid Technology (R)-toting-geniuses; etc..
The vid was a mere quick-n-dirty look at a new camera. It didn't need to be, and people didn't need to waste their time making it "slick".
Abbas Rafey: With price tag of this camera I can build an empire of cameras with superb glasses and I won't miss any thing from large print to a high flash sync to whatsoever this cam can get.
tbcass, the implication is that a 100mp MF sensor doesn't offer much of a "image quality" advantage over a good 35mm digital bodies. The fact of the matter is if you show me a macro of a Bee's face taken with a current 24mp body and the exact same scene taken with a current 100mp body, I consider the "better defined detail" gleaned from the 100mp Hasselblad or Phase more pleasing and "better" than what can be had with a 24mp body. Does that translate into a better "quality image" to me? Yes it does, and that's predicated on size/detail alone, not mentioning other advantages.
Same with shooting a high school band. The photos shot with a 35mm camera look like crud compared to some old geezer getting up on a ladder and shooting a crusty, old, rickety, rag-tag view camera.
all things equal; size adds quality.
Is that worth$10-15k in my opinion? Yes! So much so that if I shot landscapes or made my money shooting macro work, I wouldn't even consider a smaller sensor or film size.
En Trance: Price Prohibitive. I would generally be skeptical about such a jump in technology and the price multiplication of X25. Try an introductory price of $4,000.00 please. I guess that someone needs a $100,000.00 camera. Fully aware of the Big H pricing. Wish I had a professional reason to make such an investment. Must be a good life.
En Trance, I'd like to know what "better" cameras you're talking about. I doubt if I'd consider them "better" over the current 100mp Hasselblad offering for what I like shooting most. I can't think of camera costing $6k, let alone under $5k, that I'd consider "better" than this Hasselblad unless I'm going out to shoot action portraits-- then I'd rather grab a 1Dx. In less than 10 years from now though, MF cameras will be fast enough where action portraiture can easily be shot with the bigger sensor cameras.
f64manray: This seems kinda absurd. I'm sure the video IQ is quite nice, but who in this price range wouldn't opt for Cinema EOS or Alexa over this? I don't think the video will be a draw, and it's probably a waste of their R&D's resources.
Was it "overkill" for photographers to shoot the entire wedding party + both families using a view camera decades ago? It's the large family photographs that people used MF and LF for when a wedding is concerned. Same with shooting an entire high school band. 35mm had you trying to find yourself in the pic while squinting. The print form LF was much easier on the eyes + more obvious detail.
Once we get past 200-300mp, then we can talk about "overkill", but when we're not even in Large Format territory yet, I think it's premature.
tbcass, the size of the file, sync speed, aspect ratio, etc., aren't "image quality" specific advantages. Shooting MF/LF isn't *just* an image quality endeavor.
Abbas Rafey, you're presupposing. You mention "We have been using 35 mm film and we were doing excellent work now with new dslr it's more than enough." Not for me it isn't. When I look at 35mm film shots, most of them I wish were shot on a larger piece of film. The only reason most photographers shot 35mm is because they didn't have a MF body/lenses.
People shot a lot of MF film decades ago and even that compared to today's technology, keeps me (usually) from shooting up a roll of 120 film. I'd *much* rather (understatement) shoot digital today. Unfortunately we don't have digital 6x7 and 6x9. We've still a long way to go in camera improvements. Why anyone thought 5mp was "enough" (even generally speaking) doesn't even make a shred of sense to me.
TareqPhoto: If i will have only $20000 then i will buy H6D-100C, i only need this amount and i can buy H6D-100C immediately, but i know i am not a pro and i won't use the camera so i have to wait and just hold my current gear.
TareqPhoto, you better start looking at selling quick then because (1) the prices of new cameras are falling noticeably, and are further heavily discounted around the Christmas holiday season (2) Many buyers prefer the CMOS sensor (3) Those who aren't vested in Hasselblad "system" can get better performance from a brand newPentax 645Z at roughly half the price with multiple focus points as opposed to relying on "tru focus" to compensate for recomposition, etc..
(4) The H4D-60 tech is over 7 years old (no less of a wonderful capable camera however; don't get me wrong!"... it's just that he benefit of new vs. old when considering price, might compel one to buy "new" during the Christmas Holidays at a steep discount and enjoy the benefits of a new CMOS for relatively little more than a used H4D-60 selling for $12k. Something to think about.
I wouldn't sell it. I'd keep working the heck out of it! :)
Why I wrote "*I think* *most* will find the frame from a 645 more pleasing. You can crop 100mp down to a FF aspect ratio. You can't do the reverse. You're right; opinions and it's nice to learn and find out what other people like. Cool stuff! :)
Marksphoto: Can somebody tell me what jobs I can shoot in order to pay off an investment into this cameras system?
... because "ordinary" people figure they can better use $20,000 on something else other than a camera and lenses, a successful financial planner with a LLM in taxation is more likely to be able to better afford a MF system opposed to a fireman, policeman, bus driver or house mom doing the same. But you already knew that.
To answer your question: A financial planner, physicians, tenured airline pilots, etc., *more often* engage in hobbies or side jobs that the average person generally deems too expensive. A Boart cert. cardiologist, ortho, or plastics surgeon might finance a $2.8mil P-51 Mustang. A fireman is far less likely to do so. An attorney who loves photography might invest $40k in a MF system + lenses; a bus driver is far less likely to be so inclined...
6x9: Nice, but too expensive for me.Waiting for the new 645D from Pentax. Rumors say that it is almost there :) Should be times cheaper.
Hopefully by 200mp (giving Large Format a really good run for its money) Pentax will have their head out-of-the sand, and will offer a system with better / leaf lenses. That said, Pentax rocked the MF world with the 645Z; which basically told other manufacturers to buck up, get off their behinds and make better systems or go out of business.
Whether FF comes "close" to medium format (MF) is relative to your definition of close based on what you shoot and how much work you don't want to do in post. In many scenics, the 5Ds doesn't come close to MF CMOS sensors in scenes with a broad colour range... late afternoon sun shining into a window on a plant indoors... the MF sensor manages colour so much better.
2. Colour. the colour is just different and in many shots you'd spend over 30min just trying to match the colour from a MF sensor.
3. Sync speed. Have a gymnast on the beach jump out of wet sand on the beach into "full splits" and look at the blur in the hair, water, and sand flung into the air from a slow 1/250th or even 1/500th shutter (max sync). Take the same shot at 1/1600th and the difference is clear (pun). ;)
4. Aspect ratio. FF can't match it. I think most will find the frame from a 645 more pleasing.
Hasselblad "worth it" over FF? It *can* be 10 times over depending on what you're paid to shoot.
jaygeephoto: Does anyone here understand the difference between high end professional equipment meant to do the heavy lifting and all the other stuff? It's not all about speed and megapixel counts or any of that; it's like comparing sports cars to trucks. If there was a story here about a Sinar or Linfof half the people here would be deriding them for not having neck strap lugs or a built in flash.
I'm thinking maintenance. Mirror slap as it supposedly relates to image quality isn't worth mentioning from a practical standpoint. When you think of a 500 series Hasselblad going KAp-BLAnc! (lovely sound) it makes one wonder if all the mirror re-alignment/re-shimming issues & maintenance requirements may have been kept at bay with a modern designed mirror box that minimize the mirror's banging action. I think a highly modernized, (but made for heavy-duty usage) version of the 503CW for example; metering, H lens mount, fixed 50mp CMOS, etc., for $10k; would sell like hot cakes today.
I agree; there's nothing like turning the focus ring on a well designed lens. I fancy a heavy, all-metal, smooth-as-silk focus ring on Zeiss lenses. Most other lenses feel like they came from a K-Mart "Blue Light Special" bin in comparison.
Film: I think filmmakers prefer it because until relatively recent, there wasn't anything to rival film's qualities?
I'm just glad we have *options* today! :)
Veterinarians, strip club owners, dentists, curators, and pornographers sitting 'round the Hasselblad, exchanging stories on how they use the camera respectively; between bouts of holding hands and humming Kumbaya. :)
iAPX: I see it's not a camera for me, it's not probably a good replacement for a pocket mirrorless, or an action dslr. Some seems to find it "pricey", it surely is, but compared to what???
It's not pricey, it's under $100 per work day, or if you mind, with lenses and accessories largely under 10% of what a professional studio photographer will earn with it.
It's really pricey if you think about vacation's photographies, selfies, crush it while attached to a drone, compare it to a smartphone, if you want top put it on your car desk, or as a home-security camera. Do you really think it has been conceived for that?
Photomonkey, I agree, long duration isn't perfect and is why I mentioned manufacturers (such as Broncolor, Profoto, etc.) jumping in on the tech to make it much better. Short flash (great for studio) doesn't give as many options as bettering the "long burn" technology, which allows for more options when shooting in ambient light at a much lower cost. Easier to get 3200ws over 1/2000th than trying to usher a full 3200ws from a pack in only 1/2000th seconds? Either way, the engineering today is miles ahead of yesteryear and I'm thankful for what we do have.Short sync still wouldn't help the Pentax out in the ambient as the 1/125th shutter is just painfully slow... need a different shutter.
Kudos to Hasselblad; 1/2000th sync is spectacular; did Pentax get the memo yet? :)
spontaneousservices: Impressive... but what on earth do you do with 100 mp? Do you crop head shots out of a group portait?
Why do people keep asking that? People don't think anything of it when some old guy drags out a view camera, and takes photographs of rocks in a dry lake bed... but if the same guy takes out a 100mp medium format camera and does the same thing, now all the sudden it's "Wow... who needs all that detail?" ;)
Kinda like being "wowed' by a new pickup truck when there's monster dump trucks all over the place. 50mp doesn't quite give 20x30" at 300ppi file; 100mp is about 30x40". So basically we're talking about run of the mill large format sized prints that don't have to be uprezed... finally. We're not in Large Format camera territory yet, but the tech is getting there.
At this juncture we're no where near gobsmacked "huge" sizes. What we do have finally is enough resolution to print 20x30" and 30x40" with wiggle room to spare (resizing, cropping, tilt-to-straighten lines or horizon, etc.)
marcio_napoli: Hope no one takes it personally, but I find it a bit ironic that enthusiasts claim they need 42 - 50mp+ (whenever a new Canon, Nikon, Sony is released) for their hobbyist needs...
...But, when an equipment meant to be used by really high end pros shooting for Calvin Klein, Vogue, Vanity Fair, has 100mp, some people go "who needs that thing?".
Ironic much, isnt it?
I'd post a bit longer, but you get what I mean.
Many people shoot 50 60, 80mp (and I would think 100mp backs now as well) for their own work, which probably pays a lot more in the long run than the "big" magazine gigs.
The 100mp Hasselblad is noticeably better, and cheaper than the "large" backs of only a few years ago. Prices have fallen considerably. Not sure why you think an introductory price of $4k would be good for a company, when there's too many people willing to pay an intro price of $15k for a 100mp medium format (MF) camera and back combo... throw in the 100mm lens and the camera/back/lens combo would sell out quick if offered for $15k.
You can't buy a good wide angle lens (wider than 30mm) for less than $4k, let alone that being an intro price for the camera and back :)