Ruben,
High resolution lenses? Is that why they put a "low pass" filter (i.e. a resolution limiting diffuser, a.k.a. soft focus filter. Yes, that's what that thing really is!) in front of the sensor? Hmmm...
;-)
I too scan "full size", producing 230+ MB files. But i don't use that size very often. Most of the time, a smaller file will suffice. And most of the time, a 16 MP 35 mm based digital camera will produce all that's needed...
MF digital backs lack mostly in size. While they produce a bit more MP, they do not produce the format advantage a bigger sensor could/should give.
No MF advantage, these things are, apart from the few extra MP, only larger, more cumbersome, and more expensive.
Since the bulk of published photography can be done using a smaller, cheaper, easier to use 35 mm digital product, MF (digital and (!) film) is losing market in a hurry.
That, and that alone is responsible for the pending demise of companies like Hasselblad. They're just not competitive; offer no incentive to spend the extra money and trouble to go digiital using MF.
And as long as they don't they do not have the faintest chance of competing, staying alive being more (!) expensive, less convenient.
The Imacon merger should have resulted in a new marketing strategy, one that did recognize and acknowledge the fact that MF digital is seriously trailing behind, and consequently one that tried to make up for this.
Instead, the MF digital products still remain disproportionally expensive, and offer very little, if anything at all, to make people want to sink money in them.
It's very simple: bend or break time. Imablad/Hasselcon does not appear to be willing to bend even a tiny bit.
Not good. Not good at all.
Oh, and yes: film is still better than digital. But that isn't going to help firms like Hasselblad in the current market. And it doesn't look like this digital revolution is going to take a turn soon.
Simon,
This "digi-obsession" is about the 'discovery' that for what was once the domain of large format cameras and ditto slides, nowadays a tiny 6 MP 35 mm based digital camera will do.
Imagine what a full-frame 16 MP 35 mm based camera will do... it will be all the tool a modern day photographer needs. No kidding.
It is not just about needing a 'fast' camera; digital's convenience is apparent no matter what you do. (People didn't lug around large format camera's because it was fun. They always were a pain in the rear end, but you knew why you went that 'extra mile'. Nowadays, nobody is asking for that extra bit using large format, or even medium format cameras can give.
Why, when there still are ways to produce more quality, is a bit of a mystery (though the above mentioned convenience will play a large part, coupled to/part of the general down-hill motion consumerism has given civilisation).
The 16 MP Canon is no different from most other digital cameras un that it too has a diffusor in front of the sensor.
Why get high resolution lenses when what the less expensive/less good ones produce is already too much???
Lens resolution is not going to limit the usefullness of digital on medium format. Sensor size, convenience, and price will.
A "disease" digital imaging certainly is not. There are many advantages.
And there are many, many newsgroups and discussion lists devoted to the inherent problems of using film and chemicals. So what's new?
;-)
The discontiunation of the 501 CM is not really unrelated to digi issues. On the conttrary. Digital is taking away the market share, the income, of MF manufactureres. And Hasselblad is no exception.
The 503 is/was not really a replacement of the 501.
The 503-line was an upgrade of the original 500 C(/M). Out of nostalgic reasons, the "original" was not discontinued when the first 503, the 503 CX, appeared, but continued for a while as "Classic".
The 503 CX was replaced by the 503 CXi, adding winder capability (though we did not know that at the time), which in turn was replaced by the 503 CW (adding the larger mirror).
Meanwhile, Hasselblad tried to attract new customers by offering a cheaper (well...) entry level. Part of that entry level was the 501 C and the CB line of lenses. The 501 C was upgraded to 501 CM, probably because it would be too expensive to continue producing two lines of innards (one with "old" mirror, one with GSM). The CB lenses just disappeared. Now the last bit of "entry level", the 501 CM, disappears as well.
Failed attempt.
Failed why? There are several reasons i can think of.
One would have beeen that people decided which body they wanted: the basic 501 C(M) or the 503 CW. The difference in price was not great, the 503 CW offered more...
Another important part of it certainly is that people do not want to buy even entry level Hasselblads. They want to buy digital cameras...
;-)
cheers Ruben
