Mister Joseph: I don't get "high budget" shoots. They use super high-powered lights during broad outdoor daylight then stack a bunch of ND filters on their lenses.
Not nearly as much as you'd think. Of course, I only have actual experience to go by, but...
solarider: Can do the same combining 50 mp raw files with the Pentax 645Z while saving ~$12,000 on the body alone. I'm sure the Hasselblad is quite the camera nonetheless.
Have fun moving your Pentax exactly one pixel, then exactly half a pixel. Just the four-shot mode (50MP image that's de-Bayered by full-pixel shifts) does more than super-rezzing a huge stack of random images; the extra half-pixel moves provide enough to give the added luma detail. I'm not calling the 'Blad a bargoon by any means, but you can't get the same picture out of the Pentax without a precisely controlled mechanical rig that will pretty much make up the price difference (and will also subtly shift the POV, which will produce parallax smearing on anything that isn't flat).
Ellis Vener: There are some pretty stringent limitations on multi-step backs-the camera cannot move, even a tiny amount, between frames.-same thing with subject: absolute stillness required.- the lighting needs to be absolutely consistent exposure to exposure, during the sequence.
So is this camera for?
If you photograph fabrics , especially carpet and rugs;, or certain types of products including furniture, sculpture, and artwork.
And there's always single-shot mode for when multishot can't work. Of course, you'll have to settle for crappy old everyday 50MP images, but it saves you having to have a second camera.
Black Box: Just wondering. Who would need a 200MP photo and what for? Isn't this just another megapixel race only on a much higher price level?
PS I'm very happy for Hasselblad, though. With Don Luca finally nursing his bruised [donkey], the company is returning to what it does well. The winter of our disconent is gone?
Lest anyone forget: this isn't Hasselblad's first 200MP multishot camera (there is an existing model based on the 50MP Kodak CCD that's been around for a while; a development on the 50MP multishot that just did the Bayer compensation shuffle). All this camera really does that's new is reduce the amount of light required (especially good for conservators and archivists, but even a still-lifer will appreciate being able to lose 75% of the heads or heat) and speed up the process. The market for the new camera will be approximately the same as it was for the old version. They're not expecting everybody and his Uncle Bob to run out and buy one. (Oh, and you can use the camera in straight-ahead single shot mode for normal 50MP shots as well.)
The "super high-powered lights", by the way, are for continuity. Do you think people won't notice when a single scene, after editing, seems to flash back and forth between several obviously different times of the day? Even an hour's difference can mean a huge change in shadow direction.
Lukas Gal: Little mistake RAID = redundant array of independent disks not Inexpensive.
Yep. Thinking (or reading) "independent" rather than "inexpensive" is just an indicator of excess youth (or pathological pedantry combined with a willingness to accept Minitrue's new version of history).
NiklaiN: Use Nikon software for Nikon RAW files. You will see miracles!
It's not a particular mystery - it's Google's patent (from Nik), as is the control point idea that's used in Viveza and CaptureNX 2. Google isn't licensing it to anyone else (which is why Nikon can't further develop CaptureNX 2).
LJohnK2: - No mask function- No blemish removal - No CCP- No generic clarity slider- No, No, No,
Hey Nikon com'on up here to Canada.... we have Community College Programs that have 2nd year Co-op students that can produce better than this.
What the hell is Nikon thinking !!!....seriously Nikon just open source your ADL algorithm so real programs like Lightroom can include it and be done with this.
That "years ago" is less than two years, and any updates to CaptureNX 2 were just Bayer extraction matrices (database stuff, not software changes). Look, Nikon lost the rights to the technology (after a reasonable transition time) with Nik's acquisition because Google wanted Snapseed and an improved feature set in Picassa, and Google just can't be outbid. It's not like Nikon has deliberately played a rotten trick on you (us, since I'm a Nikon shooter too).
qwertyasdf: I had been using the PS I bought like some 5 years ago, I don't even know if it's a CS 5 or 6. No issues, no subscription crap.
Does having the latest (not necessarily the greatest) PS matters so much to a real photographer?Aren't there many great photos created before PS even existed?
Sorry guys, if you think that having this CC is so important to your pictures, you might just not be a good enough photographer.
Yes, they did - and they make better software now, with fewer work-arounds and kludges needed to do the same work we've always done, and with better results to boot. Do you need the latest and greatest? Only if you want to do a better job faster, with more immediate feedback. Don't romanticize a past that never was; the REAL past was expensive, smelly, seriously hard on the eyes, took days to perfect a single "straight" photo, and involved a lot of swearing.
Complain about the licensing if you want to - I pretty much agree with that - but not about the software. It's necessary for "real" photography, and CC 2014 is a significant step up from CS 5.5.
G Sciorio: It's a beautiful lens. Shame they don't make one with a native M43 mount. I ended up buying the parts and built my own which cost me about $150 and a few days of time. Mine is not as pretty, nor does it have aperture control but the bokeh rocks like nothing else.
No, you don't want a native mount - you want a nice cherrywood-and-brass cabinet-sized housing for the MFT that has a Canon or Nikon mount up front. With a dark cloth, of course so you can see the LCD "ground glass", and matching sticks. And to really do it up right, you'll need to have your subjects hold very still for a second or twelve after the exposure is complete. The film holder would just be a frame holding a dark slide, but if you're going to do it, might as well go whole hog, right?
Ken G1999: I use CS6 only and concerned that when I get my next camera the RAW converter may not be compatible as I believe there will be no more updates for CS6. Does any one know if this is correct. I am happy to stay with CS6 for some years yet and although I can use Canon DPP to convert my RAW files I find it very clunky and without the great features of Adobe. What are the alternatives as I am not going CC. I guess I will be stuck with DPP. Any ideas please
If you aren't using Lightroom and are happy with the process engine in ACR in CS6, you can always use the DNG converter utility. Basically, that takes in the raw sensor data, along with a baked-in version of the Bayer matrix/camera profile and the profile for the lens (if the lens is in the Adobe db; custom profiles are not supported), and stuffs it all into one file so that it can be processed by an older version of the raw processing engine that doesn't support the camera. Of course, this will only work for as long as the camera you're using is still using a Bayer-pattern colour filter array, so it's not completely future-proof. And there are quite a few alternative raw processors out there, some of them quite good. (If you're a Mac type, you can always use Hasselblad's Phocus, which is a free download, at least for as long as the basic raw codecs are part of the Mac's OS.)
I see this getting a lot of likes, which is really sad. It indicates an almost complete lack of knowledge of what went into photography in the past. We chose our film emulsions for their responses. We chose our developments. We chose our papers (and processing for them). We dodged and burned and scraped and masked and sharpened and softened and bleached and spotted and sometimes even airbrushed and rephotographed. Last I checked, you couldn't easily swap sensors in most digital cameras, and dodging and burning on an inkjet printer while it's printing is a real pain in the buttocks; post-processing takes the place of not only the darkroom but an awful lot of the decisions that we once had to make before the shutter was clicked. Photoshop (and other image editors) didn't change what we do, it just changed how and when we do it.
benbammens: I like this article :) Makes it easier to understand what Nikon changed in the camera :)
The "What You Need To Know" feature is a new one here (and the D810 isn't the first product to get the treatment, even if it is the first *camera* to get it). The site is improving, and you're complaining about it?
Nukunukoo: I don't get it. With or without an OLPF is a binary thing: you either have it or not. It's like saying a woman became "slightly" pregnant! So all this while that we have been hearing that the D800e has no OLPF, it actually has and the "effect" is created automagically? So does that mean that the D7100 without the OLPF will suddenly be like the D800e when the D7200 comes out? Kindly clarify.
> once the information is missing (filtered out) nothing will restore it.
That's not exactly true, but only because of the way the OLPF works. We use the word "blur" as a sort of shorthand, but it's actually a very controlled (and directional) spreading of the light when it passes through a crystal. Ordinarily, there would be one spreading the light left-right and another doing the up-down (so light "bleeds" controllably into the 8 pixels surrounding the target pixel). But these crystals are directional; passing the light "backwards" through a crystal oriented in the same direction but flipped front-to-back will bring the light back together. Like splitting then recombining a spectrum using two prisms, it's not perfect, but it's awfully close. It's not like sharpening a blurred image; the second filter isn't trying to create something out of nothing, the "data" is still there. Removing the OLPF altogether just gets rid of the remaining imperfections (and makes the system simpler).
David Myers: I would buy it for the 24mm 'wider' angle lens and the 'real world' viewfinder. These are two things that every expensive 'prosumer' should consider as being the bare minimum items for a pro's 'pocket backup' camera!
The 24mm 'lens equivalent' matches the angle of view of the Zeiss 38mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC - perfect for interior shots. This is the 'Goldilocks' wide angle: Not too close - not too wide: A really wide shot without details being too small in the image! I can then do a simple crop if I need more magnification at the 'long' end and all is well!
And EVERY pro needs a proper eye level viewfinder. You can't 'lock and brace' a camera into your face like a 'human tripod' for precise shots if you have to wave the camera around in the air with one hand while shielding the LCD screen with the other!
David Myers: www.digitalmasters.com.au.au
Really, when you think about it, this machine is essentially the equivalent of a very nice entry-level APS-C DSLR/MILC + kit lens that's a smidge wider but just as "fast" (whether you're talking about ultimate light gathering or DoF) *that fits in a pocket or purse*. No, you can't swap lenses -- but an awful lot of people don't ever swap lenses anyway. And an awful lot of people that might have been DLSR/MILC buyers have really been looking for a camera like this one. The fact that it makes a really handy second/third/fourth camera for the obsessed or the professional is just an added bonus.
saralecaire: Goes to show that technical know how and skill plays second fiddle to the people/connection you have.
Most of what makes Peter's work stand out is a phenomenon I've described as creating "a person who happens to be in a picture rather than a picture that happens to have a person in it". There are an awful lot of highly competent camera operators, lighting technicians, colourists and designers out there who pretty much forget that the end game of headshots and portraiture is to have the viewer look *through* the picture *at* the person. The purely photographic aspect is often about not making any real mistakes; the human connection is what elevates the merely good to excellence (in this genre). It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Hurley's running banter and simple setups or the intricacies of a Karsh, it's the ability to breathe life and the sense of "knowing" the subject into the picture that makes all of the difference.
photo perzon: So what camera got you started?
Peter started with a Mamiya 645 (a smallish medium format film camera that now lives on as both the Mamiya and Phase One 645 bodies). That made a lot of sense at the time for anyone who was aiming for pro work - not too tremendously expensive (as these things go), and enlarges well with a LOT less grain than 35mm. And digital wasn't really a thing yet at the time (2000). You can do pretty much the same thing he was doing at the time with any of the current generation of larger-chip enthusiast/pro digital cameras (film grain isn't a concern anymore, and the ISOs where noise becomes a problem would have been strictly double-naught spy work stuff in the film days; nothing you'd use for headshots). You still have the sun, and any lighting you might want to use is a whole lot cheaper at the entry level than it was back then. And the learning resources today compared to then?! All you need is the drive.
ojosodo: I can't imagine how this isn't completely useless. And so what about processing? Are we going to give Ansel Adams' great works a "Don't trust" rating because they have been post-processed? haha.
I'd think that "this is the purported use case" and "it's essentially worthless for that use case" isn't exactly "refuting your own argument", since badi never actually argued that it was useful (the smiley is usually a dead giveaway in such cases).
F Stop Fitzgerald: I vaguely remember hearing an interview a few years back on NPR radio, where a computer scientist found a way to detect if a shot had been altered in Photoshop. He was using this technology for legal/court cases, etc. I wonder if this is a by-product of that guy?
Philosophically, perhaps, but not technologically. That method analyzed the image noise signature, which would allow it to detect things like compositing and cloning/healing; areas of the picture that weren't part of the original capture would have different noise patterns from the rest of the image. (Unless, of course, you knew exactly what the software was looking for, reduced the original image noise to insignificance, and overlaid consistent artificial camera-sourced noise to create a unified noise signature throughout the image. With sufficient technical chops, you can even back-port an edited/composited image to a "raw" file. It's just a lot more trouble than a person is likely to go to unless there was a lot at stake.)
Andrew Elliott: Hello there,
If f-stop is the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, should an f0.95 lens not be a little shorter than it is wide? OK maybe add in the barrel width, etc so a little longer than it is wide.
How come this lens (and others the same shape, like the faster MFT lenses) all look twice as long as they are wide?
thanks for any helping my understanding...Andy
Focal length does not necessarily have much to do with the physical length of the lens system. A lens may be retrofocal (physically longer than the focal length - optically the equivalent of a long lens looking through a wide-angle lens at the world) or telephoto (physically shorter than the focal length - optically equivalent to a wide-angle lens looking through a telescope). Even when the system is neither retrofocal nor telephoto, there may be a significant amount of glass both in front of and behind the optical centre of the lens (which would lie at a distance from the sensor equal to the focal length of the lens). Most fast, relatively short (wide-angle and "normal") lenses made for digital sensors are retrofocal so that the light from the back of the lens is hitting the sensor at closer to right angles. That allows both the colour matrix (Bayer) filter and the microlenses that lie above the actual sensor to do their job.