Bakman_29: This is called glamour photography, borderlining on "cheap" fashion. Then talking about "keeping everything real" while photoshopping the hell out of it. "fashion" is a different level.
Would like to see some of your expert work.
sneakyracer: Colors are awful in these sample images. I guess that has nothing to do with the lens but still. Ugly. The lens however seems to have very nice bokeh and is sharp. Very promising.
Is that CA or is it from a purple colored light used for background lighting?
you might want to get your monitor checked out...colors look great to me. I use a 10 bit color monitor with color correcting software.
ChuckTa: It's a bit hefty price for the spec.With 24mp, I can see a Fuji do away the xtran and just make one without the filter in the future. It will certainly make the image a bit sharper.
The X-trans filter has to do with how color is interpreted, Fuji removed any "MOIRE" filter with the original X-trans cameras.
I will reserve judgement until I see the photos it produces.
I am sure glad they are focusing on nitch stuff like IR photography. Just glad they keep ignoring the fact that they have no real option for flash photography.
Seems like a good pairing if you like a thin DOF or need a compressed image. Captain obvious, right? Seriously though, this lens looks to be incredibly sharp, even wide open. I am saving my dollars for one.
JordanAT: Hassleblad's two core strengths, mechanical reliability and optics, are likely gone. Mechanical reliability on the level of the film cameras from 40 years ago are lost on the modern camera. By combining the film and body into one unit, you have created a disposable camera. Whether the life is 1 year of 5 years is irrelevant when compared to a product which previously could be expected to have a 20 year (or longer) useful life in a pro shop. If you have to change your body to upgrade your "film," the utility of old hardware diminishes much more rapidly.
As for optics, even if there are any optical engineers left at H it means they're probably woefully behind in creating the massively complex aspherical element design which modern sensors demand for sharp images. Poorly focused "art lenses" will always have their place, but to go forward with world-leading designs will require rebuilding the entire lens line from scratch. And I'm not sure there's enough alligator skin in HK to do that.
Jardan you have clearly NEVER used a modern Hassy.
Teila Day: Hey Perry- don't insult my intelligence with the poor excuses (ridiculous tap dancing story that I refuse to believe) why Hasselblad come out with the hideous looking rebadged cameras. How 'bout Hasselblad spend more time making the H line weather sealed, and more reliable! How 'bout focusing on faster electronics, even better software, faster sync speeds/lenses, etc..
Want to wow people, then re-work the old 500 series with AF, metering, great electronics, a mirror that isn't trying to slap itself to death, that takes a re-worked modern FILM back as well as the updated CMOS 50mp digital back... that still looks like the old classic 503. If I owned Hasselblad, I would have fired you.
I don't give a flippity-flop about a "core values" story. I'm about end product, great results, and dollars & cents; core values or not. Create a camera that offers not only eye popping performance and IQ, but at a price point that compels me to reach deep into my purse at the same time!
Now that is a comment I can agree with!
Hasselblad's lenses are designed and manufactured by FUJIFILM JAPAN now. ALL OF THEM are of aspherical design and are VERY SHARP. Also they cover a much larger area, requiring them to be less sharp than a comparable Canon or Nikon camera using a sensor with the same megapixels. Also I own an H3D-39II manufactured in I think 2007-08. It is still a very useful camera.
The management company might as well own them if the photographer is only allowed to use them in a way that the management company approves of.
WOW from 24mm all the way to 35mm's... Come on, I'm sure they could have spent their time on something more creative than this. I like the new Sigma offerings as much as the next guy, but this is just silly, isn't it?
Conrad567: The largest problem I can see, is that if you want a film like look to your videos you need to shoot at 24fpp [approx] and @ 1/50th sec shutter speed. This makes it impossible to make a sharp image of certain subjects, cars, kids, pets, trees while there is any kind of breeze etc.
I come from a wedding photographer background. You can probably see why I would use this king of feature. It can and probably will change how some kinds of photography might be performed, but it will always have it's limits.
I get what you both are saying...but why add 4K to a camera if it is not about video? The title says, "Reach to Grab Stills From Video Dream". I am just pointing out the obvious, which is that the dream continues... By nature, stills and video don't go together. This goes way back into the film era, long before digital.
Optimal shutter speed is 2x the fpp. Hence the 1/50th sec shutter. This is Film Making 101.
The largest problem I can see, is that if you want a film like look to your videos you need to shoot at 24fpp [approx] and @ 1/50th sec shutter speed. This makes it impossible to make a sharp image of certain subjects, cars, kids, pets, trees while there is any kind of breeze etc.
zsedcft: The problem with this is that a D810 with a 600mm lens would look better, take less time and have more actual resolution than this. This is not me being a Nikon fanboy, it is the truth unfortunately. If they had used a higher resolution medium format back the result would have been even better. Also, if you take a picture of a fairly plain scene, don't screw up one of the only features in the image (the cable car). I don't think that anyone would have begrudged them a little bit of clone stamp to clean it up.
Sorry to be so negative, but these guys were just doing it for Canon's publicity. Sometimes people knock it out of the park with PR stunts, this is not one of those times.
Seriously, it is a 40 terabyte file. 40! You could have used a Nikon D1x and had PLENTY of resolution with that many photos. Hell A photo that large can be seen from the moon!
Entirely too much time on their hands.