Hasselblad beat Canon and Nikon to a professional Mirrorless camera Body

WestEndFoto

I don't see this as ideal for a wedding camera. This is for photographers where IQ must not be compromised and most wedding clients are not a target market for this type of photographer. I am thinking fashion photographers, commercial photographers and landscape photographers. A zoom compromises IQ and these situations unlikely to require the flexibility of a zoom. Also, can you imagine how big a 24-70 equivalent would be in this format.

spraynpray

I read that it has a 1/2000th sec fastest shutter speed. That's a bit limiting isn't it?

paulr

Clearly the new CEO is making major changes to the Hasselblad Company. With a promise of new things to come at Photokina.
This could only be good for the market, maybe PhaseOne will now counter measure.
It looks like the medium format manufactures are looking closely at the 35mm Format to turn the challenge round from 35mm. If prices can compete with pro end of the 35mm end. It will make interesting reading if this happens, however they would have to reduce the cost of lenses too.

WestEndFoto

spraynpray said:

I read that it has a 1/2000th sec fastest shutter speed. That's a bit limiting isn't it?

Yes, but so is a 1/250 sync speed.

snakebunk

According to fujirumors.com there is also a less expensive mirrorless medium format camera coming from Fujifilm.

Crosby

In the specs for the new 'Blad is indicates that it's compatible with the Nikon TTL flash system at the leaf shutter syncs up to 1/2000. That's awesome, but I wonder if that means it will also be compatible with the Profoto B1and B2 with their TTL trigger system. I'm an old Nikon and Hasselblad Guy (but also shoot Fujifilm X series) and hope that would be true for the Hassy/Nikon/Profoto mixing would be great!

paulr

Would consult manufactures.

kanuck

Is anyone on here planning to buy one by any chance? I'd love to see some shots from it. I bet it's going to be fantastic for landscapes If the price drops a bit in the next year or so I'd love to have one with a nice 30mm or 45mm lens. The 90 is going to be terrific I think too. At these prices the X1D with just 1 lens at a focal length that you are most comfortable with would be realistic.

paulr

Any Volunteers?

WestEndFoto

I will hold out for a larger format.

kanuck

paulr said:

Any Volunteers?

Volunteers with a large credit card balance?

Perhaps we should open a pool on this forum collecting funds for one and we could then each spend 1 week with it in 2017 haha

Paperman

Its sensor ( 44 x 33 mm ) seems to have a considerable area advantage over FF - almost 1.7 times larger ... But is the advantage really that great for most FF photographers that shoot & crop to the regular 2:3 rectangular frame ?

Most of pixel the gain is in the vertical dimension leaving only 22% horizontally. I learned ( maybe wrongly ) that a rectangular crop is more pleasing to the eye and I have avoided square-ish crops like the plague.

I know - who am I to judge the logic behind Medium Format dimensions but doesn't this camera suit only to those shooting & cropping mostly near to square ratios ( fashion photographers ) ? The gain is limited if one does not utilise the vertical pixels.

WestEndFoto

I love the classic 5 by 4 crop. But it has to suit the subject. The only rule I stick to is that I only use whole numbers. Well, like all rules, I do break them on occasion.

donaldejose

Cropping ratios are making less and less sense now that so many people display their work on line rather than printing them to fit into standard size frames. For example, it doesn't make any difference what your crop ratio is for PAD or for Flicker or for your website. If you are going to print them large and display them without frames crop ratio doesn't matter. Crop to suit the subject seems the best rule of thumb now.

WestEndFoto

Yes Donaldjose, let composition rule, not constrained by "standard paper sizes".

Paperman

Well, my computer screen is also sort of rectangular

Ironheart

All computer screens are rectangles. I've yet to see one that isn't
BTW all squares are rectangles too...

WestEndFoto

It would be hard to imagine anything other than a rectangle / square.

spraynpray

donaldejose said:

Cropping ratios are making less and less sense now that so many people display their work on line rather than printing them to fit into standard size frames. For example, it doesn't make any difference what your crop ratio is for PAD or for Flicker or for your website. If you are going to print them large and display them without frames crop ratio doesn't matter. Crop to suit the subject seems the best rule of thumb now.

I always use standard size frames but make the mounts myself so I crop most images to whatever size I fancy.

Ironheart

WestEndFoto said:

It would be hard to imagine anything other than a rectangle / square.

Oscilloscopes used to be round.
Both of my cars have custom shaped LCD screens.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2364900/sharps-highdef-igzo-lcd-can-be-made-in-any-shape.html

WestEndFoto

I have often imagined a round sensor that would use all of the FX image, but it seems awkward.

Paperman

donaldejose said:

Cropping ratios are making less and less sense now that so many people display their work on line rather than printing them to fit into standard size frames.

Sssshh ! ! .. We're going to have a real hard time justifying the 36/50 Mps if you all start talking like this ....

snakebunk

I like the idea of a square sensor because you would never have to think about turning it around.

WestEndFoto

snakebunk said:

I like the idea of a square sensor because you would never have to think about turning it around.

The mirror would not fit on a DSLR. It would only fit on a mirrorless.

snakebunk

WestEndFoto said:

snakebunk said:

I like the idea of a square sensor because you would never have to think about turning it around.

The mirror would not fit on a DSLR. It would only fit on a mirrorless.

Which is what this thread is about.