Jay Williams: Shouldn't they stop calling it a 645?
Hasselblad does. They distinguish between "HC" (full-frame) and "HCD" (crop-frame) lenses, and don't reference the film format, just the sensor size.
Simon97: What are the advantages of the larger sensor? Some I can think of:
Larger Pixels for low noise. The old 645D wasn't that impressive at high ISOs, but this new sensor sounds very interesting.
Smaller DOF for artistic effects. Hopefully Pentax designed the new lenses carefully concerning Bokeh quality.
Smaller apertures before diffraction blurring is noticeable.
Probably others I'm not thinking of.
@carlos - The previous-generation sensor really started to fall apart at ISO 800. I haven't seen any real-world images from the Z yet, but both Phase One and Hasselblad have been able to get *really* clean images with good depth and colour at ISO 6400 out of this sensor, so ISOs at and above 400 become genuinely useful. That, combined with "next frame fast" (burst is silly with a machine like this, but the ability to get a second frame quickly isn't) means that this camera can go where medium format, particularly the 645 format, used to go - as opposed to being the modern equivalent of a 4x5 sans movements. Indoors, you don't need to have kiloJoules of flash available to get adequate DoF; outdoors you can work earlier and later without the gentlest of breezes making everything a blurry mess. Not to mention that hand-holding becomes a thing again (extra tripod socket notwithstanding). And believe it or not, for some photography, shallow DoF is a bug, not a feature.
justmeMN: A Gold Award for crappy JPEGs, and mediocre AF?
Oh well. The review is very detailed, so people can draw their own conclusions.
... and for me, one of the least important. Not arguing with you at all, Mike; just pointing out to the OP that each of us has a different set of needs and desires for a camera to suit our own idiosyncratic oeuvre. In-camera JPEG is a disaster-recovery option for me; I'll shoot RAW+JPEG, hoping I never need the JPEG and expecting to massage the RAW quite a bit (as I did when developing and printing film). I like "next frame fast" (and always had a winder/drive on my film cameras if one was available) but I can't recall ever actually using continuous mode; photography that requires it simply doesn't interest me. I'd rather have something like Hasselblad's True Focus (a focus-and-recompose compensator) and a very small number of good AF points than a screenful of action-grabbers, though I can see why other people would want the opposite. The K3 interests me for different reasons than it would interest others; a camera designed just for me would sell precisely two copies, I think.
itchhh: Fantastic video about photography; could care less about the D4S.
This is one of my own pet peeves. The actual idiom is "could care less", and we stole it from Yiddish. There's an implied continuation: "... but that would be too much work." The idea that natural language is supposed to be composed of logically-consistent Boolean algebraic statements is one man's silly 18th-century idea (Robert Lowth, in case you were wondering), and most of what he thought about the English language (and which has been schoolroom drill for a very long time) runs contrary to the real rules of the language.
Clueless Wanderer: Hmm.. 180w. Given that an sb900 is around 78(ish) watts and a three flash bracket is relatively cheap, I find 180w to be too low a power to warrant the purchase of such a unit.
The SB900/910 is nowhere near the same class until you group a big bunch of them (not 3). Watt·seconds (Joules) aren't the sole measure of output, and aren't directly comparable between units of different designs. For instance, you would need to use a dome diffuser on the speedlights to even approximate the spread of light in a softbox or reflector unit (other than the built-in reflector+Fresnel), so you lose light there (and throw another flash on the barbie). So now you're up to $2-2.5K in speedlights (plus bracket, accessory adapter, and multiple triggers/splitters, plus 48 to 60 batteries if you plan to shoot for any length of time) to replace a single $250 monolight. That's great if you're shooting with Joe McNally' budget; not optimal for Joe Blow.
Ken Sky: In Toronto, we've got Vistek, Henry's & Downtown Camera clustered in one street. I always encourage my friends to patronize a bricks and mortar store not just to demo cameras but buy on competitive pricing remembering that service is worth 10% of the price. Not only is the C$ only worth 90 cents US but we have 13% HST. Sony & Nikon Canada help by keeping the MSRP the same in $C. You get what you pay for. If you don't patronize your local store, you will be left to shop on the internet and your town will be hollowed out.
Vistek, especially, is great. (Except that I'm not sure that the bottom floor makes the same kind of sense today as it did in the Acetate Era, when consumables like film, paper and chemistry were the most likely reason to go there.) It's incredibly handy to have a place you can go this morning to pick up some weird grip stuff you need for this afternoon's shoot, and to have staff that knows how to solve a problem that, left to your own devices, you'd go about trying to solve the hard way. The camera/lens selection and stock is secondary (though pretty comprehensive); any place that will let you spend half an hour doing interpretive dance with their display tripods trying to figure out which one suits you best (folding, setting up, testing sturdiness and stability, etc.) is the *right* kind of place for me.
Gesture: Unattractive cameras, almost seems "kludged" together, but I wish them well.
You call it "kludged"; others call it "modular". The Hassy is the only current MF camera with interchangeable viewfinders (the Phase One, the Pentax and the Leica S2 all have fixed eye-level prisms). The "grip" is the battery (although I suppose they could have made it bigger and heavier to include a separate battery compartment). You can also trade off the back, using a larger, higher-MP back when you don't need the high ISO (or when you need a lower one). Or you can opt for the lower-rez back for smaller files when that's appropriate. Or just have a spare back or body, just in case. When you strip off all of the user-exchangeable parts, you're left with a pretty small box.
dougjgreen1: I wouldn't buy any Hasselblad that doesn't have a polished wood grip
@naththo - It's really, really hard to do in-shoot capture revisions with film. And having an AD hovering over your shoulder is par for the course in commercial photography. You do whatever your hobbyist heart tells you to do; a working pro can't afford that kind of arrogance.
Not gonna happen, then. On the H5D, that "grip" is the battery.
peevee1: What does "Options for working with tilt-shift" mean?
Tilt/shift in the native Hasselblad world involves a tilt/shift adaper (the HTS 1.5, which is both a tilt/shift and a 1.5x converter to enlarge the image circle) between the camera body and lens (24, 28, 35, 50, 80 or 100mm). If that's not enough, you can always use the back on a view or technical camera.
nextSibling: I'm too invested in Nikon's system to be talked out of the D7100, but if that wasn't so this would be my new camera. Fuji are really on their game at the moment. Hopefully that'll encourage everyone else to raise theirs.
"Too slow" is a matter of use case. I can probably count the number of times I've taken more than one frame in a given second without taking my shoes off, and most of those were accidental second firings. The only reason I ever had winders/motor drives on my 35mm film SLRs was so that I could keep my eye to the finder when using longer lenses (where re-acquiring a target might be difficult). I understand that buffer depth is actually important for some people (sports/pj), but it's hardly a sine qua non for a desirable camera for everybody.
Horshack: hmm, SRAW on the 16MP D4s but not the 36MP D800.
The point (or at least one of the points) of having SRAW is to lose resolution, not just to decrease file size. Decreasing RAW file size will have a moderate impact on storage, which is tremendously cheap; decreasing resolution has a major impact on processing speed (culling, picking, editing, exporting), and time is a lot more expensive than disk space, particularly in the photojournalist's world. A "good enough" shot RIGHT NOW is much more valuable that a great shot an hour from now.
nofumble: ISO 409600 -the ISO scale is way out of date. Next ISO, million, LOL
No, ISO 409600 would be approximately the same as ASA 409600. You're thinking of the DIN rating. Tri-X was 400ASA/27DIN, and later ISO 400/27 (combined linear and log), before the log value was essentially dropped.
StanRogers: No choice *but* to volunteer, I guess. Some of the "restorations" in the site's portfolio are disasters unto themselves, and people deserve better. "Free" and "volunteer" are not excuses for shoddy work.
The third example given here, for instance, has managed to turn a delighted little girl into a somewhat tipsy middle-aged woman by faithfully turning damage into "facial features". Ringlets on the right would make me think that ringlets would be appropriate on the left as well (but maybe that's just me) and the slightest bit of research would have revealed that her middy blouse was probably a pale blue — or, less likely, pink — and should be considerably darker. I'm no Ctein, but I can do better. And that means I have to.
You might have made mention of that -- specifically the hair. I was instructed not to make up any details ("no retouching"), and the areas in question do not appear to be damage, just grainy highlights. But have it your way.
kiskam: Mr. StanRogers,We await your test photo.Quality Control, OPR
It has already been sent -- two days ago.
VojkoStrahovnik: I am suspecting that the first "rescue" is fake. But some expert opinions would be appreciated.
Not at all. You may be surprised at what can be done, especially if you have control of the scan. (Not the case with OPR — there's simply too much to do, so spending an hour getting each scan perfect and high-depth isn't practical.)
Once you have recovered what *is* there, filling in the blanks simply takes a different set of skills than a photographer typically uses. There are things you can be sure of and can reconstruct from references. Other things might simply be good, informed guesses (and how much guessing you can do depends on the nature of the restoration: does it need to be historically accurate, etc.). That takes artistic skill as much as Photoshop skill.
I'd suggest reading Ctein's "Digital Restoration from Start to Finish" to get an idea of what's possible (and what's permissible). You can't really cover it all in one book, but that one's a good start.
I understand the sentiment, but sometimes the thought isn't all that counts. These are irreplaceable memories we're talking about, so "good enough, considering the price" isn't good enough. The last thing anyone wants is to have to find a way to feel grateful for a permanent reminder of how much they've lost. And for what it's worth, I have stepped up.
I've been doing restorations since it meant rephotographing and working large, often under loupes, with pencils, 6-0 sable brushes, airbrush, matte knives and glue. Photoshop, etc., makes the task easier ("undo" or "delete a layer" is a lot less swear-worthy than "print another set and start over") and the tools are more accessible to more people, but the skills required are still more than technical, and a mechanical QA based on histograms, etc., doesn't begin to cover it.
I'm not knocking the volunteers, just saying that there's a good reason for more skilled practitioners to step into the fray.
No choice *but* to volunteer, I guess. Some of the "restorations" in the site's portfolio are disasters unto themselves, and people deserve better. "Free" and "volunteer" are not excuses for shoddy work.
NancyP: I think that Adobe has just created a market for OS emulators and other reverse-engineered methods for keeping LR and PS current versions running. Newer cameras should have either DNG RAW format or provide simple proprietary to DNG converting program.
I just don't see how this will work well in bulk. In text-based medical records processed through the cloud, there still can be lag time even with hospital grade (fast) connection, and the amount of data is miniscule in comparison.
OTOH, you may never need to buy another computer.
LR cloud would add problems. How many people are willing to have their catalogs on-line and only available on-line? LR is not "just" a rendering engine.
Not all of it is installed and run locally, no; some of the features are "server crunched".
crow24: Locking us out of our plug-ins too?
Framer, you seem to be missing a whole lot of vital points along the way. In this instance, there's the simple fact that some 8BA plugins won't work at all outside of Photoshop ("plugin-compatible" programs aren't always compatible; Portraiture is a good example here, but it's hardly alone). When you lose Photoshop (for whatever reason, but let's say you haven't had online access for more than 30 days) you also lose access to software licensed on other than a subscription basis from a third party, despite the fact that the license agreement between yourself and that third party is intact and all conditions met. Sounds like tortious interference to me, but what do I know?