What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Changes Coming Hold on to your seat

I believe that Hasselblad is so deep into the 645 digital format, I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if further work was done with square format in the foreseeable future ... other than migrating existing technology to retro fit the vast supply of existing V cameras in the marketplace.

What they can do is make the H system even more versatile so multiple camera platforms are less needed. Then for many (not all), the camera could then function as a DSLR, a MF studio camera, and the back used on a view camera.

For ex&le: full frame sensor to squeeze a bit more out of the 645 size restriction (50+ meg.); Continuously improve the ISO response (which they are already doing); Improve Flexcolor with a total rev& so it works like Lightroom (which they supposedly they are close to finishing); Add multiple cross type focus points; Replace the LCD set-up with a more faithful one; investigate lighter materials to reduce weight; Produce a T/S lens; Make even more use of the "integrated" concept with proprietary firmware and software image improvements; etc.
 
What they can also do is what Kodak (and others) once did: put their own sensors in a Nikon or Canon body, add a collection of "Hasselblad" lenses, and mix with the players in the market that is generating quite respectable turnovers, and profits.
 
uhm... despite what Jürgen thinks, that is.
wink.gif


We will still have to wait and see whether the Hy6 thingy takes off, or not. Too soon to see it as a direction giving competitor.
And i think Hasselblad would do well to sit back, and let the people behind the Hy6 test the water, before they jump in after them.
 
"What they can also do is what Kodak (and others) once did: put their own sensors in a Nikon or Canon body, add a collection of "Hasselblad" lenses, and mix with the players in the market that is generating quite respectable turnovers, and profits"

God forbid.
 
Well... Hasselcon/Imablad is a Danish company producing sensors...
Poulsen once said that he thought the H-cameras (things he inherited) were too big.
Put one and one together...

Then there is the market thing (which one is 'moving' rather briskly, which one is going like frozen treacle) too
Add another one...

They tried the small format camera market before, and not whithout success. Fuji (one of those companies converting other company's bodies) was a Hasselblad partner then is a Hasselblad partner today and....
So one more to add.
wink.gif
 
Well... Hasselcon/Imablad is a Danish company producing sensors...
Poulsen once said that he thought the H-cameras (things he inherited) were too big.
Put one and one together...


I thought Imacon used Kodak sensors.
 
O.k. ...

"Well... Hasselcon/Imablad is a Danish company producing digital capture systems..."

How's that?
wink.gif
 
Hi Q.G.,

> O.k. ...
>
> "Well... Hasselcon/Imablad is a Danish company producing digital
> capture systems..."
>
> How's that?

Perfect!

Regards,

Austin
 
Peter - FANTASTIC!
happy.gif
Are you still living here?

RE the talk of pros seeing mega mega mega MP digi SLRs as some sort of substitute for MF reminds me of how I bought my Linhof Technika V (for a song).

He wanted to fund his digi darkroom and new Nikon pro digi-SLR etc so sold his MF and LF gear. 1 year later he called: "any chance you want to sell back the Linhof kit?" I replied: "you have to be joking". He commented that digi 35mm is no substitute for MF etc. I said that has been a known fact of science since film was invented. How truly discerning pro could see a DSLR as a true substitute for MF boggles my mind. Every image I have see that tries to prove the point misses the mark by a long shot IMHO.

Jurgen said: "I am an absolute HASSELBLAD V-SYSTEM freak , never really liked the H-SYSTEM design and I dare to look over the fence to see what other brands have to offer."

Makes a lot of sense to me Jurgen!
happy.gif
And as you said "Amen"!
happy.gif


And "HASSELBLAD might be forced to take care of the "digital square market" " - great point Jurgen - one hopes so!
happy.gif


Marc said: "People dedicated to the V system have already made their preference known verses the Canon's of the world. Give them the superior image and keep it that way at a comparable price ... leave the bells and whistles to Canon and Nikon.

AMEN Marc!
happy.gif


The R10 Marc - how clever! Me too! And if / when they do, I only hope that it has the heft that it deserves to have. Maybe canon could supply Leica the body/shells from the 1xyz!
happy.gif
 
"How truly discerning pro could see a DSLR as a true substitute for MF boggles my mind"

Simon, it might boggle your mind but the fact is there are more 35 based DSLRs being used by professional photographers than all the other formats put together. Most don't see the DSLRs as a substitute for MF digital but as a digital solution in their own right. Most jobs/clients simply don't require the additional qualities of MF. I personally know of several hundred full time professionals happily using DSLRs. Horses for courses.
 
Part of what Keith says is true. The wedding photography profession, once a MF stronghold, has all but gone totally DSLR. It's a Billion dollar business that literally changed overnight.

Many advanced amateurs with money to burn have opted out of MF in favor of these high end DSLRs. While not "pros", they represented a significant source of income and accessory purchases for companies like Hasselblad ... because they tended to buy new gear.

"Most jobs/clients simply don't require the additional qualities of MF"

I'm not sure I agree with this statement in the context of this discussion. Professionals that use 35mm type DSLRs, and don't need the quality of MF, were using more spontanious 35mm film based cameras before that anyway. Editorial shooters, lifestyle shooters, etc.

"Horses for courses" was in effect before digital came along.

The advertising industry ( Art Direction/Creative Direction is my profession) has been impacted by all of this to some degree or another. I see thousands of photographer's work each year and am deluged by solicitations of all types via direct mail and e-mail. (10 to 20 e-mails with links to work on average per day). This is because my ad agency produces work for print media of all types for a range of clients. Everything we do is digital because the entire printing industry is digital ... clients want a highly versatile ability for use, from magazine ads to billboards to website postings. Art directors want the ability to resize and crop ... and these demands drive us to insisting on MF digital for a majority of the work we purchase ... and we are most certainly not alone in this trend.
 
It was my experience that editorial, wedding, social, lifestyle, food, horticulture etc. was dominated by medium format film before switching to 35 based DSLR. The traditional 35mm film markets were sport and travel. I totally agree that most advertising work is still MF digital and for good reason and I can't see that changing anytime soon.
 
To my knowledge, most editorial was 35mm before digital came along ... as was sports, news, and paparazzi celebrity mag pics.

Food was done with multiple formats depending on style, and still is ( 2 of my national ad accounts are food clients) ... in 10 years of doing food ads, I've yet to buy a 35mm based shot for any of my clients ... it's all MFD or a MF digital back on a view-camera. Editorial food work for books and magazines may well be 35mm DSLR now, but most of it was 35mm film prior to that.

Lifestyle was also mixed depending on the intent and style of the photographer... but most of it was spontanious 35mm film works before digital.

Larger MF, like Pentax 6X7 and Mamiya RZ (and some Hassey) used for fashion was impacted pretty heavily by 645 ... and now stands ripe for DSLR dominance ... ( Canon even mentions that category in their hype for the 1DsMKIII).

Car advertising photography is beginning to go the way of the Dodo. CGI is what's happening to that business ( I live and work in Detroit ). The reason is it has always been nearly impossible to get the protypes to shoot in time to make the ads. All Hummer advertising is now computer generated. Many others are following the same path.
 
I worked in publishing for many years before switching to advertising, most of the editorial work I saw, particularly in house, was shot using Hasselbad and Mamiya 67. Much of the work that switched to 35mm in the sixties and seventies gradually reverted to MF. Marc, as you say food and lifestyle was indeed very mixed depending on client and use.

A correction on my previous post, somehow I managed to include horticulture in the list of MF dominated work despite having worked in the field for many years using MF and being in the minority!

Marc, I'm sure your right about car advertising photography, I recently bought a new Mini and all the various brochures were illustrated by boring sterile CGI images.
 
Keith, I don't disagree at all with your comments about pros use of DSLRs. And as a user of 35mm, 6x6 and LF 4x5 I am very conscious of the expression "different horses for different courses".

But IMHO, many "so-called" pros delude themselves or are at least self-serving when they argue that top end DSLRs are SUBSTITUTABLE for / the equivalent of (I choose my words very carefully and I don't say BETTER) MF of any type.

I am not saying that they are using the wrong equipment etc etc... I am simply saying that all the chatter you read with people saying "the Canon 1DS MII is as good as MF" .... blah blah is just not correct.

The one key paradigm that applied to film, remains true in digital photography - size matters!
happy.gif


All the same the MF manufacturers have suffered some loss of market share at the hands of Canon and Nikon, I suppose that the mind-blowing cost of digi in each format has delivered many cases of "sticker shock".
 
Nikon D3. Well Jurgen what a surprise - for so long now Nikon has said that full frame digi-35mm is not necessary and that their cropped frame quality was as good as Canon's full frame!!
happy.gif
Gee I wonder why they decided on full frame now......... I just can't imagine...!!
happy.gif


Here is a link: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp

It will be interesting to see how they have located the sensor since the Nikon mount / gate is relatively small.
 
Marc, your R10 reminds me of Leica's introduction of the "Summarit class" lenses.

They sound like great value for money and still with a relatively fast max aperture of f2.5. Have you trialled one yet?

What might be very pleasing to those who prefer more classic lens designs and the way they draw with less "harsh" modern contrast that aspheric formulas often do, is the classic spherical design of each focal length.
 
"I am not saying that they are using the wrong equipment etc etc... I am simply saying that all the chatter you read with people saying "the Canon 1DS MII is as good as MF" .... blah blah is just not correct."

Simon, I'm afraid that I'm equally irritated by either argument. They are different, each has pluses and minuses.
 
Simon, isn't the smaller sensor Nikon argument similar to Hasselbalds "square" argument before the H camera? Everyone argues the merits of what they have to offer at the time ... but if the market disagrees, then you have to come up with something else.

That Nikon D3 is interesting ... it has some pretty outrageous high ISO options ... which haven't been Nikon's strong point to date. We'll see. Of interest to me because Zeiss makes some pretty nice manual glass for the F mount. The use of microprisms in the sensor design (Like Leica M8 and some Phase One backs), may have made full frame more doable with the smaller F mount.

The Horses for courses debate is the same one that went on before digital. I get where Simon is coming from and understood his POV ... DSLRs are NOT the equal to MF digital when considering image quality. Handling issues, and other considerations remain the same as before digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top