The new Hasselblad and

Mads Bjerke wrote:

Any modern camera is capable of outperforming the photographer.

The gear isn’t the deciding factor.

Good point!

Best regards

Erik

JimKasson wrote:

Gandolphi wrote:

The 38mm are getting some pretty heavy testing thanks to Jim our hard working MOD.

Not all the results seem overwhelmingly positive so the question is:

Can the new XC 2, with the new 38mm lens, take decent photographs?

Of course it can!

I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera:

2006, 6 MP APS-C CCD sensor.

Eleven years later, 42 MP 24x36 mm CMOS sensor. Obviously better image quality but not obviously a better image.

I used to have an A2-size print of the first image on the wall, later I replaced it with an A2-print of the second image.

No discussion, the second image has better image quality. Still the first one was quite OK and may actually be a better image.

I would suggest that more is more. But it may be that once it is good enough, better may matter less.

There is also an observer dependence. A normal viewer may prefer the first image, because light is better. A pixel peeper may prefer the second one, because it has much better detail.

I could go back to that place, with my most decent gear. But light will be different. Also, the main subject happens to be the guy with the hat and the camera in both images.

Happens to be my best friend. He is no longer with us, he fought a fight with cancer and came out #2. We cannot rely on things coming back. So, it makes sense to shoot with the best gear we have and trying to make the best of it.

Just to say, my great friend worked at Hasselblad, once upon the time. He actually built his own camera, while working at Hasselblad.
Best regards

Erik

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Gandolphi wrote:

The 38mm are getting some pretty heavy testing thanks to Jim our hard working MOD.

Not all the results seem overwhelmingly positive so the question is:

Can the new XC 2, with the new 38mm lens, take decent photographs?

Of course it can!

I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera:

2006, 6 MP APS-C CCD sensor.

Eleven years later, 42 MP 24x36 mm CMOS sensor. Obviously better image quality but not obviously a better image.

I used to have an A2-size print of the first image on the wall, later I replaced it with an A2-print of the second image.

No discussion, the second image has better image quality. Still the first one was quite OK and may actually be a better image.

I would suggest that more is more. But it may be that once it is good enough, better may matter less.

There is also an observer dependence. A normal viewer may prefer the first image, because light is better. A pixel peeper may prefer the second one, because it has much better detail.

I could go back to that place, with my most decent gear. But light will be different. Also, the main subject happens to be the guy with the hat and the camera in both images.

Happens to be my best friend. He is no longer with us, he fought a fight with cancer and came out #2. We cannot rely on things coming back. So, it makes sense to shoot with the best gear we have and trying to make the best of it.

Just to say, my great friend worked at Hasselblad, once upon the time. He actually built his own camera, while working at Hasselblad.
Best regards

Erik

Lovely photos Eric.

Are those same people ?!

Bashir Lunat wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Gandolphi wrote:

The 38mm are getting some pretty heavy testing thanks to Jim our hard working MOD.

Not all the results seem overwhelmingly positive so the question is:

Can the new XC 2, with the new 38mm lens, take decent photographs?

Of course it can!

I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera:

2006, 6 MP APS-C CCD sensor.

Eleven years later, 42 MP 24x36 mm CMOS sensor. Obviously better image quality but not obviously a better image.

I used to have an A2-size print of the first image on the wall, later I replaced it with an A2-print of the second image.

No discussion, the second image has better image quality. Still the first one was quite OK and may actually be a better image.

I would suggest that more is more. But it may be that once it is good enough, better may matter less.

There is also an observer dependence. A normal viewer may prefer the first image, because light is better. A pixel peeper may prefer the second one, because it has much better detail.

I could go back to that place, with my most decent gear. But light will be different. Also, the main subject happens to be the guy with the hat and the camera in both images.

Happens to be my best friend. He is no longer with us, he fought a fight with cancer and came out #2. We cannot rely on things coming back. So, it makes sense to shoot with the best gear we have and trying to make the best of it.

Just to say, my great friend worked at Hasselblad, once upon the time. He actually built his own camera, while working at Hasselblad.
Best regards

Erik

Lovely photos Eric.

Are those same people ?!

Extremely patient models?

Yes, very patient!

Bashir Lunat wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Gandolphi wrote:

The 38mm are getting some pretty heavy testing thanks to Jim our hard working MOD.

Not all the results seem overwhelmingly positive so the question is:

Can the new XC 2, with the new 38mm lens, take decent photographs?

Of course it can!

I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera:

2006, 6 MP APS-C CCD sensor.

Eleven years later, 42 MP 24x36 mm CMOS sensor. Obviously better image quality but not obviously a better image.

I used to have an A2-size print of the first image on the wall, later I replaced it with an A2-print of the second image.

No discussion, the second image has better image quality. Still the first one was quite OK and may actually be a better image.

I would suggest that more is more. But it may be that once it is good enough, better may matter less.

There is also an observer dependence. A normal viewer may prefer the first image, because light is better. A pixel peeper may prefer the second one, because it has much better detail.

I could go back to that place, with my most decent gear. But light will be different. Also, the main subject happens to be the guy with the hat and the camera in both images.

Happens to be my best friend. He is no longer with us, he fought a fight with cancer and came out #2. We cannot rely on things coming back. So, it makes sense to shoot with the best gear we have and trying to make the best of it.

Just to say, my great friend worked at Hasselblad, once upon the time. He actually built his own camera, while working at Hasselblad.
Best regards

Erik

Lovely photos Eric.

Are those same people ?!

No, they guy in the 'cowboy hat' is my friend, the others are just guys and dolls happening to be there.

The first image was in my early digital experience. The second was in my third period. Using a Sony A7RII with zooms. Now days I use a Sony A7rIV with primes.
My second period was shooting medium format with a Phase One back. That was the least productive period of my recent photographic live. That said, the Phase One combo did yield some great images.

But, in the end, the MFD gear is the stuff left behind...
Best regards

Erik

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Bashir Lunat wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Gandolphi wrote:

The 38mm are getting some pretty heavy testing thanks to Jim our hard working MOD.

Not all the results seem overwhelmingly positive so the question is:

Can the new XC 2, with the new 38mm lens, take decent photographs?

Of course it can!

I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera:

2006, 6 MP APS-C CCD sensor.

Eleven years later, 42 MP 24x36 mm CMOS sensor. Obviously better image quality but not obviously a better image.

I used to have an A2-size print of the first image on the wall, later I replaced it with an A2-print of the second image.

No discussion, the second image has better image quality. Still the first one was quite OK and may actually be a better image.

I would suggest that more is more. But it may be that once it is good enough, better may matter less.

There is also an observer dependence. A normal viewer may prefer the first image, because light is better. A pixel peeper may prefer the second one, because it has much better detail.

I could go back to that place, with my most decent gear. But light will be different. Also, the main subject happens to be the guy with the hat and the camera in both images.

Happens to be my best friend. He is no longer with us, he fought a fight with cancer and came out #2. We cannot rely on things coming back. So, it makes sense to shoot with the best gear we have and trying to make the best of it.

Just to say, my great friend worked at Hasselblad, once upon the time. He actually built his own camera, while working at Hasselblad.
Best regards

Erik

Lovely photos Eric.

Are those same people ?!

No, they guy in the 'cowboy hat' is my friend, the others are just guys and dolls happening to be there.

The first image was in my early digital experience. The second was in my third period. Using a Sony A7RII with zooms. Now days I use a Sony A7rIV with primes.
My second period was shooting medium format with a Phase One back. That was the least productive period of my recent photographic live. That said, the Phase One combo did yield some great images.

But, in the end, the MFD gear is the stuff left behind...
Best regards

Erik

Thank you Eric, I still have that cable you gave me.

Talking aout photos, I load Flickr Explore page almost once a day to see whats there. Today picked about three eyecatching photos two of them were shot on phone cameras.A Huawei and Samsung. Not one with MF gear.

Bashir Lunat wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Bashir Lunat wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Gandolphi wrote:

The 38mm are getting some pretty heavy testing thanks to Jim our hard working MOD.

Not all the results seem overwhelmingly positive so the question is:

Can the new XC 2, with the new 38mm lens, take decent photographs?

Of course it can!

I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera:

2006, 6 MP APS-C CCD sensor.

Eleven years later, 42 MP 24x36 mm CMOS sensor. Obviously better image quality but not obviously a better image.

I used to have an A2-size print of the first image on the wall, later I replaced it with an A2-print of the second image.

No discussion, the second image has better image quality. Still the first one was quite OK and may actually be a better image.

I would suggest that more is more. But it may be that once it is good enough, better may matter less.

There is also an observer dependence. A normal viewer may prefer the first image, because light is better. A pixel peeper may prefer the second one, because it has much better detail.

I could go back to that place, with my most decent gear. But light will be different. Also, the main subject happens to be the guy with the hat and the camera in both images.

Happens to be my best friend. He is no longer with us, he fought a fight with cancer and came out #2. We cannot rely on things coming back. So, it makes sense to shoot with the best gear we have and trying to make the best of it.

Just to say, my great friend worked at Hasselblad, once upon the time. He actually built his own camera, while working at Hasselblad.
Best regards

Erik

Lovely photos Eric.

Are those same people ?!

No, they guy in the 'cowboy hat' is my friend, the others are just guys and dolls happening to be there.

The first image was in my early digital experience. The second was in my third period. Using a Sony A7RII with zooms. Now days I use a Sony A7rIV with primes.
My second period was shooting medium format with a Phase One back. That was the least productive period of my recent photographic live. That said, the Phase One combo did yield some great images.

But, in the end, the MFD gear is the stuff left behind...
Best regards

Erik

Thank you Eric, I still have that cable you gave me.

Talking aout photos, I load Flickr Explore page almost once a day to see whats there. Today picked about three eyecatching photos two of them were shot on phone cameras.A Huawei and Samsung. Not one with MF gear.

Well it could be simple that the phone crowd is positing more.:)

JimKasson wrote:

Bashir Lunat wrote:

Talking aout photos, I load Flickr Explore page almost once a day to see whats there. Today picked about three eyecatching photos two of them were shot on phone cameras.A Huawei and Samsung. Not one with MF gear.

The best camera is the one you have with you.

Uncle Jim, I agree. But my point is number of "PRO" liking those photos make me think that we,photo enthusiast and public at general have fifferent yad sticks to to like or dislike any photos.

PS: Apology to Gandolhi for distracting this thread.

Back to OP's qestion.

Regards.

“I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera: . . . “

This reminds me of the time not “really” all that many years ago when Michael Reichmann had the audacity to proclaim that the Canon 60D (I think that was the model) now equalled 35mm film in image quality.  Quite the “stir” at the time.  I think he was right and the rest is history.  I even understand Fujifilm’s use of the term “large format” for the GFX 100x cameras.  They are using “image quality equivalent” rather than “sensor vs film dimensions equivalent,” and my GFX 100 certainly rivals much of the 4x5 I shot back in the day.

Jim is correct, the best camera is the one you have with you “when it happens in front of you.”    I’m currently playing with the raw files from an iPhone 14 Pro Max and it kinda makes me mad.  LOL

On the other hand, I’m following Jim’s testing of the new ‘blad and see nothing that would tempt me vis-a-vis my GFX 100 and some “missing things” (e.g. no remote release capability) that make is “less than” for my use-case.  Sure is a beautiful beast esthetically though.

Rand

Rand 47 wrote:

“I have decent photographs shot with my 2005 generation 6 MP APS-C camera: . . . “

This reminds me of the time not “really” all that many years ago when Michael Reichmann had the audacity to proclaim that the Canon 60D (I think that was the model) now equalled 35mm film in image quality. Quite the “stir” at the time. I think he was right and the rest is history. I even understand Fujifilm’s use of the term “large format” for the GFX 100x cameras. They are using “image quality equivalent” rather than “sensor vs film dimensions equivalent,” and my GFX 100 certainly rivals much of the 4x5 I shot back in the day.

Jim is correct, the best camera is the one you have with you “when it happens in front of you.” I’m currently playing with the raw files from an iPhone 14 Pro Max and it kinda makes me mad. LOL

Mad because they’re good?  (I need a new phone - apologies for the OT).

On the other hand, I’m following Jim’s testing of the new ‘blad and see nothing that would tempt me vis-a-vis my GFX 100 and some “missing things” (e.g. no remote release capability) that make is “less than” for my use-case. Sure is a beautiful beast esthetically though.

Rand

Doppler9000 wrote:

” I’m currently playing with the raw files from an iPhone 14 Pro Max and it kinda makes me mad. LOL

Mad because they’re good? (I need a new phone - apologies for the OT)

Yup…. mad(dening) because it’s so good.  LOL   Computational imaging was very clunky in the beginning - zoomed in there were lots of odd artifacts.  “Not so much” w/ the iPhone 14 Pro.

Rand

Hi,

Nope. Keep on keeping on. I'm following all of it.

Stan

Hi,

And so that becomes the camera you have with you. No problem there that I can see.

Beats the hell out of a 126 Instamatic! Once upon a time that was the camera I would have had with me and an F2 was the one I took when I knew I needed a real camera.

As time marched on, those units changed. And I won't go down that particular Memory Lane!