I think that a 6x6 camera with the capabilities of the H1 would be invigorating. I think that a more manual camera like the V series with the capabilities of a full frame digital imaging sensor would be invigorating. It's quietly disappointing that market dynamics have brought neither.
When the 205 TCC was introduced one of the new features was the databus connection. The ad copy noted that since it was a digital connection that the camera was ready for future developments. It's been disappointing that no future developments have tied into the databus connection as implemented on the F series cameras, until now--with the F series bodies having been dropped from production. Indeed, when the 555 ELD was introduced a databus connector was placed on the opposite side. I asked a Hasselblad representative why it wasn't kept on the same side and why the 205/203 cameras weren't given the same functionality of controlling a digital back through databus. I was told that it was "never designed for that". I meekly wish I could have kindly presented him with the 205 TCC brochure where it inferred otherwise. Now it's seven years later, and the V system is contracting and the F series is no longer being made, and we're finally getting a way for the F series cameras to drive a digital back through the databus connection (although at the expense of full operability of the E magazines). I wish that back when the 555 ELD was being planned that the decision would have been to keep databus consistently located and allow the F series bodies to be upgraded to this same functionality.
I wonder a bit about the decision to restrict the H1 to 6x4.5. I wonder if the H1 would have been made a 6x6 camera with special functionality and accessories to make it compelling to 6x4.5 shooters, if both formats couldn't have been well accommodated. Until the 30+ megapixel backs started shipping I think the EOS-1DS Mark II was a decidely better investment, and it still may be, but if an H1 was based on 6x6 and hence allowed for ergonomic operation while shooting vertical formats this would add a strong advantage to choosing it. (It could allow for this even with a rectangular imaging sensor since it would allow for sensor magazines with rotatable sensors.)
___ The segment of the still photography market that requires camera movements could be greatly aided by a 6x6 chip. Indeed, I think the V system approach has been the right thing, and I think that digital image capture and digital communication between modular parts--in replacement of mechanical linkages--can enhance the approach. Are we satisfied with 16 megapixel images such as found in the EOS 1DS Mark II? How much denser will imaging chips become? I think that we may reach a point when the traditional advantages of the V system will once again be with us, and I hope that Hasselblad will respond:
Would not a Flex Body/Arc Body camera that supported a 6x6 chip magazine be a fabulous tool for field usage; and maybe a matching studio version with even greater flexibility of movements? I think that the Arc Body should have allowed the use of CF lenses, and F lenses with a supplemental shutter even if it only functioned at slower speeds: all of this could now be more easily made possible by using digital linkages and electronic motors in individual components.
I'll happily let go of film transport capabilities in this "new camera", but the magazine should be removable so that it can be shared with other camera bodies, which could include a compact rangefinder like body. I'll also happily let go of some of the traditional materials and the style of the V series. But please give us a square format solution: a square format solution that works with wide angle lenses and takes full advantage of the size of the camera.
___ If I want to take a still image and pan across it in HD video, 1080p specifically, I need a lot of pixels, and 50 megapixel images would be wonderful to work with. If I want to do the same with 4520x2540 pixel digital cinema images then I will likely need even more than 50 megapixels. And large format film shooters are accustomed to the quality that 50+ megapixels would provide.
If 50 megapixels is much more than someone's needs, at least if it's full frame then wide angle images can be captured and the file can be written down to a smaller size. The square format is particularly compelling when shooting weddings and other such events. And without the need for mechanical linkages maybe a Hasselblad could produce 3 frames a second.
Most prints that I've made, that weren't intended for an album, measured 20x20 inches, and I've been eager to make 30x30 inch and larger prints, and I would look forward to having the extra pixels available, just as I have been grateful for the extra film surface area in medium format in the past. Indeed, when working with single focal length lenses I can't always crop full frame as I might with a zoom, but with extra film surface area or with extra pixels, I can crop later. And hence, while a 16 megapixel back might make a fine 20x20, if I'm starting with 50 megapixels then my options to select just the right 16 megapixels to print are greatly expanded.
___ digital cinema is Red, Square still image capture is the future too, I wish the best success, to Hasselblad, and each of you!
