LFPCPH: I have been thinking. The Hasselblad Xpan camera had 45mm 4.0 and a 90mm 4.0 lenses. Could the new 45mm 3.5 and 90mm 3.2 be the same lens designs ?
Delivering lenses with equivalent focal lengths of 24, 35 and 70 mm does not strike me as something motivated by anything beyond the plain usual: They are commonly used (equivalent) focal length. Maybe 70 mm less so but that is probably due to the intention of keeping the lens still reasonably compact.
But we will soon enough know when the full technical details of these lenses are available. However, whether you would then see me being right as merely having made a lucky guess or as having appropriately assessed the probability (by virtue of having identified what are the more relevant factors), is something that is beyond my ability.
I think optical design has progressed noticeably since the X-Pan lenses where developed. I also don't think that the X-Pan lenses will do particularly good on digital (the WA ones). Incorporating AF might also have lead to a different optical design.
Overall, I would place a pretty high bet on them not being optically identical.
JapanAntoine: Very impressive how small they managed to design this camera!I wonder if they haven't done a bit too much though, especially on the mount design as it makes it super close to the sensor... but hey, with leaf-shutter lenses and all these nice ideas, I won't complain!Can't wait to see one next to a Pentax 645Z :-D
A symmetric WA lens has to have lens elements close to the image plane and is the opposite of telecentric. If a larger distance between the last lens element and the image plane is has be achieved, a retrofocus design is required which will be more telecentric. But the opposite isn't true, ie, a WA lens doesn't have to be symmetric to (a) have lens elements close to the image plane and (b) be shorter than a retrofocus lens that has to clear a mirror box. Retrofocus lenses allow for a larger distance between lens and image plane, but they don't require it. And you can design a retrofocus (WA) lens that is shorter than a classical retrofocus SLR design (when allowing a shorter distance between lens and image plane) but still relatively telecentric. It won't be as short as a symmetric design but still shorter than an SLR lens.2) Equally important is that if a very short flange distance allows you to have very short lenses, it doesn't force you to do so.
If you put an H series (DSLR) lens and put it via an adaptor on the X1D, the angle of incidence won't be any different than on a H6D. You have just replaced the mirrorbox with an empty tube. When designing native lenses, you naturally wouldn't just take an H series lens and weld an empty tube to it, you wouldn't get a more compact system if you did so.
Therefore native lenses would be designed by removing the restraint to have a lot of empty space between the last lens element and the image plane and with the goal to make the lens shorter. There are 2 things to consider here: 1) A shorter lens and a shorter distance between the last lens element and the image does not have to mean that the lens is less telecentric and has steep angles of incidence. In fact, if you can put the last lens element very close to the sensor (in fixed lens cameras like the Ricoh GR or Sony RX1 that distance is less than 10 millimetre) that last element can actually help in make the lens more telecentric.
tlinn: And still no History palette. I will never understand this omission. There is no downside to this feature. If you don't need it you don't have to use it. Even plug ins have History palettes these days.
My way of trying out multiple settings of the same tool is just to move the slider back and forth a couple of times. And when I want to compare things side-by-side, I create a variant that then gets deleted again once I have made my decision. So, usually I spent a few seconds with a given tool and then move to the next one. For some settings like WB, I often adjust one image of a series and then apply that to the complete series. Then, as I go through the images one-by-one, I might re-tweak the WB for an image and then apply that new WB setting to the whole series.
Re: 3) Aperture is a bit better than C1 in that all adjustments are in one single column, ie, you can see all edits in one single list (and don't have to go through multiple tabs). In a sense, this is a list, just one that shows slider positions graphically instead of 'history list' that shows numbers.
I am not as familiar with C1 yet, but in Aperture when I copied adjustments from an image, I'd get a window with a list of the adjustments.
I don't want to say that a history doesn't have its uses. It does show ones own decision tree. But my main point is probably that relying on the history betrays that one is still following the editing workflow from before parametric image editors to some degree where (a) the order of adjustments applied mattered and (b) creating versions was expensive (in terms of disk space). And in regard to order, I pretty much always apply adjustments in the order they are listed in the tool list because I think this order makes a lot of sense.
"It is a way to learn the behavior of an editor by stepping through a list of all your edits and seeing the visual results."You can already do this now, just reset/disable each adjustment tool one by one. Or quick and dirty via cmd/ctrl-Z, ie, move a slider, see what changes, undo it again. Then move to the next tool.
Re: 2) Thankfully undo works over many steps. Just hit undo multiple times until you are back to where you want to be. And why is creating variants ridiculous? They cost very little in terms of disk space. If I had to choose between an application that offered variants and one that offered a history, I'd find the former much more useful.
Maybe I just don't apply as many adjustment steps as you do. My guess would be that very rarely go above ten. While I am editing an image, I am pretty much fully aware what adjustments I have already applied.
That's what I use undo for. Undo is the tool recover from mistakes. And if you talk about uncovering mistakes that are older, how do you know to which point in the history you have to go back to, how do you know there even is such a state? It's trial & error, the same trial & error could be applied to just going through your adjustment sliders and disabling what you think might be the mistake.
If you want to keep access to multiple states, versions/virtual copies are a better way (than going back and forth between two states via a history palette).
In a parametric image editor, the order in which you change adjustment settings doesn't matter. They are always applied in the same order. A history would only tell you which slider you moved first, but to replicate the result that information is not necessary, as long as all the sliders end up at the same position, it doesn't matter which one you moved first and which last.
Guenter Hofstaedter: It's not supporting my Z but the K1 To bad because i like the program but it just works with my Nikon and Sony gear but not with my pentax 645Z
There seems to be a thread running through the list of supported cameras: no support for MF competitor.
The closer, the merrier. A shorter flange distance adds no constraint on lenses to be less telecentric. It adds the option to be less telecentric but not a requirement.
Lassoni: But what if the lenses were little bit slower, just so they could also be lighter? I'm not saying pancake small, but small enough to be comparable to smallest FF lenses maybe? Have big sensor, but let retard the optics in terms of speed a little bit so they package doesn't end up being heavy, and you have body + 2-3 primes weighting under 2 kilos.
Speed in lenses had always meant shutter speed for a given IQ (aka noise) level. Since the same ISO value doesn't mean the same amount of noise on MF as on FF, the same f-stop doesn't mean the same lens 'speed' either. Otherwise the Pentax LX-7 would be the king of the hill when it comes to low light performance for zoom lenses.
D135ima: Mixed feelings. Not just about this thing. and about all 33*44. Even after pentax dumping, Even after Sony CMOS incoming in this world it stil has unfavorable combination of price / functionality / speed comparing to the 2000-3500$ SLRs in particular D810
Costs for a silicon wafer just aren't decreasing very fast. The last wafer size increase (from 200 to 300 mm) started in 2000 and reduced costs by about 30 to the 40%. That's the kind of price reduction curve you can expect for production costs of large sensors. Larger sales volumes help in spreading development costs, that's what you see with Pentax. But sales volumes can only go so far at $5000+ prices.
On top of that, lens costs per kg of glass also aren't decreasing a lot if at all.
Gary Eickmeier: The event will be at 1400 CET and 0500 PST? What is CET? What would that be in, say, PDT or EDT? Aren't they on Daylight Time in the Pacific zone?
CET = Central European Time, the time zone most of Western Europe is on.
Photorumors just posted the first images including the first two lenses and their specs: http://photorumors.com/2016/06/21/the-new-hasselblad-x1d-medium-format-mirrorless-camera-leaked-online/
Body: $9000Lenses: $2300 & $2700 (45 mm f/3.5 & 90 mm f/3.2)
Sunshine4784: Hope it is a mirrorless medium format camera. But the price should be lower than Pentax 645Z. More than 10,000 is meaningless for mirrorless MF.
Who is suggesting that Hasselblad will be charging more for their mirrorless MF camera than for their MF DSLRs?
A Pentax MF mirrorless should be cheaper (to manufacture) than a Pentax MF DSLR. Same is true for Hasselblad. What doesn't follow is that a Hasselblad MF mirrorless should be cheaper than a Pentax MF DSLR as long as current Hasselblad DSLRs cost about 3x what Pentax MF DSLRs cost.
lucinio: The first medium format digital mirrorless ? Maybe not to much bigger and too much more expensive than Leica SL ?
First AF MF mirrorless, first EVF MF mirrorless, first MF mirrorless where you don't have to manually cock the shutter between releases, first MF mirrorless without cables sprouting from the camera. Or to summarise, first modern MF mirrorless.
I think AF and liveview is what really distinguishes the category of cameras that coined the term mirrorless from the cameras that existed before them. The Phase One A series only have one of these two defining features. How the focussing is achieved and how the image is framed has served to define camera categories for a long time (besides other classifying features like interchangeable lenses and film/sensor size).
grock: Honestly, what would truly be a "game changer" at this point? Would it be physically possible (and practical) to build a camera that can use lenses from multiple manufacturers? Or would it be too bulky/expensive/impractical from a business standpoint? Because I would love to be able to buy a camera body that isn't determined by all the lenses I already own.
Look at Leica's adaptors to use Hasselblad and Contax 645 lenses with AF on their Leica S (achieved by having a crop MF sensor that allows a smaller mirrorbox than 6x4.5 MF SLRs and thus creates space for an adaptor). Hasselblad can do the same (and even use Leica S lenses).