Hasselblad Introduces its New 39 Megapixel H2D-39 Digital Camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Swingman, Jan 14, 2006.

  1. Swingman

    Swingman Guest

    Swingman, Jan 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Swingman

    Mark² Guest

    Swingman wrote:
    > Rather amazing specs, but who can afford it? <g>.
    >
    > http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=270


    Pretty expensive, alright...

    -But just remember that a 1MP(!) Canon DSLR used to be about $26,000...and
    that was only about 7+ years ago. :)
    Mark², Jan 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=270

    >
    > Pretty expensive, alright...
    >
    > -But just remember that a 1MP(!) Canon DSLR used to be about $26,000...and
    > that was only about 7+ years ago. :)


    Sure. As soon as that Hassey gets down to $399 I'm getting one.
    Edwin Pawlowski, Jan 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Swingman

    Mark² Guest

    Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=270

    >>
    >> Pretty expensive, alright...
    >>
    >> -But just remember that a 1MP(!) Canon DSLR used to be about
    >> $26,000...and that was only about 7+ years ago. :)

    >
    > Sure. As soon as that Hassey gets down to $399 I'm getting one.


    How about $3999?
    Mark², Jan 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Swingman skrev:

    > Rather amazing specs,


    Yeah, but I'm a bit surprised they stop at ISO 400, when they have a
    pixel pitch even larger than that of the EOS 5D.
    =?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=, Jan 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Swingman

    Scott W Guest

    Jan Böhme wrote:
    > Swingman skrev:
    >
    > > Rather amazing specs,

    >
    > Yeah, but I'm a bit surprised they stop at ISO 400, when they have a
    > pixel pitch even larger than that of the EOS 5D.

    Does it not have twice the area but way more then twice the number of
    pixels as the 5D?

    Scott
    Scott W, Jan 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Martin Francis, Jan 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Swingman

    Rich Guest

    On 14 Jan 2006 14:54:26 -0800, "Jan Böhme" <> wrote:

    >
    >Swingman skrev:
    >
    >> Rather amazing specs,

    >
    >Yeah, but I'm a bit surprised they stop at ISO 400, when they have a
    >pixel pitch even larger than that of the EOS 5D.


    Unlikely you'll see anyone using it to shoot a football game.
    -Rich
    Rich, Jan 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Swingman

    Swingman Guest

    > If the price is an issue, you don't need it.
    >
    > Martin


    Yes, kind of like the menus in fancy restaurants that don't show prices - if
    you need to know you're in the wrong place <g>
    Swingman, Jan 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Swingman

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 14 Jan 2006 14:54:26 -0800, "Jan Böhme" <> wrote:

    >
    >Swingman skrev:
    >
    >> Rather amazing specs,

    >
    >Yeah, but I'm a bit surprised they stop at ISO 400, when they have a
    >pixel pitch even larger than that of the EOS 5D.


    It's a studio camera. More than ISO 400 isn't needed.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Jan 15, 2006
    #10
  11. "Bill Funk" <> wrote:
    > On 14 Jan 2006 14:54:26 -0800, "Jan Böhme" <> wrote:
    >>Swingman skrev:
    >>
    >>> Rather amazing specs,

    >>
    >>Yeah, but I'm a bit surprised they stop at ISO 400, when they have a
    >>pixel pitch even larger than that of the EOS 5D.

    >
    > It's a studio camera. More than ISO 400 isn't needed.


    Maybe. I don't think that's the reason, though.

    (Note that 39MP in 36x48mm implies smaller pixels that 12MP in 36x24mm)

    The MF backs have always had hideous high-ISO performance, even for the
    lower MP ones that really did have enormous pixels. It looks to me that the
    MF back sensors have always been simple/crude/uninspired compared to the
    Canon, or even Sony, sensors. Canon and Sony have enormous markets,
    competition, very short product cycle times (not always an advantage, but it
    means lots of sensor generations have gone by), and underpaid/overworked
    Japanese engineers.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Scott W skrev:

    > Jan Böhme wrote:
    > > Swingman skrev:
    > >
    > > > Rather amazing specs,

    > >
    > > Yeah, but I'm a bit surprised they stop at ISO 400, when they have a
    > > pixel pitch even larger than that of the EOS 5D.

    > Does it not have twice the area but way more then twice the number of
    > pixels as the 5D?


    Yse, sorry. I managed to mix the pixel number up with that of the 1Ds,
    and still do the calculation bakwards. Pixel pitch is larger than EOS
    20D, though. The rest of the argument stands.

    Jan Böhme
    =?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=, Jan 15, 2006
    #12
  13. "Swingman" <> wrote in message
    news:CKhyf.294$...
    >> If the price is an issue, you don't need it.
    >>
    >> Martin

    >
    > Yes, kind of like the menus in fancy restaurants that don't show prices -
    > if you need to know you're in the wrong place <g>


    Not perhaps the best analogy.

    I think the Hassy digitals have been and will be the kind of product aimed
    at studios and agencies, whereby the camera is bought by a company rather
    than a photographer and is written off as an expense. They will eventually
    pay for themselves, as could be said of a Fuji Frontier lab or a drum
    scanner or a forklift truck or a photocopier...

    This is most certainly not the kind of product aimed at the average net
    browsing measurbator, as the number of "should I spend the extra money on a
    *** over a ***" threads on forums testifies. So, on the whole, I wouldn't
    worry too much about it.

    Martin.
    Martin Francis, Jan 15, 2006
    #13
  14. Martin Francis skrev:

    > I think the Hassy digitals have been and will be the kind of product aimed
    > at studios and agencies, whereby the camera is bought by a company rather
    > than a photographer and is written off as an expense. They will eventually
    > pay for themselves, as could be said of a Fuji Frontier lab or a drum
    > scanner or a forklift truck or a photocopier...


    Right. And as an specialised optical instrument, it isn't all that
    expensive. If having a 40MP medium format digital camera would mean the
    difference between success and failure in my research, I would buy it
    without hesitation, and raise the money for it pretty quickly.

    Jan Böhme
    =?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=, Jan 15, 2006
    #14
  15. Swingman

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:31:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Bill Funk" <> wrote:
    >> On 14 Jan 2006 14:54:26 -0800, "Jan Böhme" <> wrote:
    >>>Swingman skrev:
    >>>
    >>>> Rather amazing specs,
    >>>
    >>>Yeah, but I'm a bit surprised they stop at ISO 400, when they have a
    >>>pixel pitch even larger than that of the EOS 5D.

    >>
    >> It's a studio camera. More than ISO 400 isn't needed.

    >
    >Maybe. I don't think that's the reason, though.
    >
    >(Note that 39MP in 36x48mm implies smaller pixels that 12MP in 36x24mm)
    >
    >The MF backs have always had hideous high-ISO performance, even for the
    >lower MP ones that really did have enormous pixels. It looks to me that the
    >MF back sensors have always been simple/crude/uninspired compared to the
    >Canon, or even Sony, sensors. Canon and Sony have enormous markets,
    >competition, very short product cycle times (not always an advantage, but it
    >means lots of sensor generations have gone by), and underpaid/overworked
    >Japanese engineers.
    >
    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan
    >

    All true, I'm sure.
    Maybe the sheer size of the MF digital backs make it necessary to not
    put as much sheer technology into them, because of economics.
    They have to sell those things to someone!
    A case of 'good enough' for the intended application.
    Since it is a studio camera, and ISO 1600 isn't needed, why develop
    the sensor to be good at 1600?

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Jan 15, 2006
    #15
  16. "Bill Funk" <> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy"<> wrote:
    >>
    >>The MF backs have always had hideous high-ISO performance, even for the
    >>lower MP ones that really did have enormous pixels. It looks to me that
    >>the
    >>MF back sensors have always been simple/crude/uninspired compared to the
    >>Canon, or even Sony, sensors. Canon and Sony have enormous markets,
    >>competition, very short product cycle times (not always an advantage, but
    >>it
    >>means lots of sensor generations have gone by), and underpaid/overworked
    >>Japanese engineers.
    >>

    > All true, I'm sure.
    > Maybe the sheer size of the MF digital backs make it necessary to not
    > put as much sheer technology into them, because of economics.
    > They have to sell those things to someone!
    > A case of 'good enough' for the intended application.
    > Since it is a studio camera, and ISO 1600 isn't needed, why develop
    > the sensor to be good at 1600?


    I suspect that the images are a lot worse than DSLR images at ISO 100 as
    well. (Or at least that's what Luminous Landscape found when they looked
    closely at the blue channel in their Kodak back a while ago.)

    And many of them don't have an AA filter, which is a real disaster on a
    Bayer sensor, since you get color Moiré as well as generic Moiré. (There was
    a thread on Rob Galbraith with several MF back users find out that they
    couldn't avoid the Moiré and were scrod.)

    A matter of the emperor being buck nekked, I'm afraid. I wish they were
    doing better: I've got a nice set of 645 lenses that would be very nice to
    use on a 39MP back.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 15, 2006
    #16
  17. Swingman

    Guest

    I noticed it has 16 bit colour resolution. This should be good for
    photographing artworks. My 4MP is good for up to A4, but lacks
    definition in areas of near uniform colour.

    Is there a business case? e.g. what is the number of pictures you need
    to take before this camera is cheaper in time and materials than using
    medium format film? There may be other competitive advantages such as
    turnaround time.
    , Jan 15, 2006
    #17
  18. Swingman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > Is there a business case? e.g. what is the number of pictures you need
    > to take before this camera is cheaper in time and materials than using
    > medium format film?


    If you count the cost of drum scans, the number is surely pretty low.
    Paul Rubin, Jan 15, 2006
    #18
  19. Swingman

    Annika1980 Guest

    >Unlikely you'll see anyone using it to shoot a football game.

    Yeah, I was gonna get one, but since it has less than 2 fps I think
    I'll pass.
    Annika1980, Jan 16, 2006
    #19
  20. Swingman

    Edmund Guest

    In message <xIdyf.258$>, "Edwin Pawlowski"
    wrote:
    >
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > >> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=270

    > >
    > > Pretty expensive, alright...
    > >
    > > -But just remember that a 1MP(!) Canon DSLR used to be about

    > $26,000...and
    > > that was only about 7+ years ago. :)

    >
    > Sure. As soon as that Hassey gets down to $399 I'm getting one.


    Why? by that time you can buy a much better one for less :)
    Edmund, Jan 16, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    405
    Peter
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Brian C. Baird

    The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color

    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    4,059
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 17, 2004
  3. Mark

    5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera

    Mark, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    585
    Paul H.
    Mar 9, 2005
  4. Vik Rubenfeld

    URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots?

    Vik Rubenfeld, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    389
    Vik Rubenfeld
    Sep 26, 2005
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    667
    Alfred Molon
    Apr 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page