1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

'Hasselblad Mirrorless "Almost" Medium Format Coming?'

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by RT_Panther, Jul 28, 2012.

  1. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
  2. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    I hear Bugatti makes a $1,000,000.00 sports car too ... and it holds about as much interest for me as a $50k (or more) camera. :tongue:
     
  3. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    It's all relative to what you earn/make....
    To some Micro Four Thirds are ludicrously expensive......
     
  4. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    I strongly believe there is a market for a mirrorless MF camera in the market. There are even rumors about Canon considering a "larger than FF sensor" camera. Technically, anything between FF and Large Format is MF.

    The charm of such a camera would be hard to resist for some. A sensor twice the surface of FF with ~50-55Mp is hard to argue about, esp. if it's combined with competend high ISO performance. A MF camera can also be made "small enough", just have a look at Fuji rangefinder MF film cameras.

    The main issue with MF cameras is the lens selection. If existing MF lenses can be used this would help a lot.
     
  5. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Mirrorless MF would be very attractive for view and technical camera users where a separate ground glass is used for focus and composition. This could replace the ground glass. With SLR cameras, the use is less important.

    ISO performance has always been lower in MF. Whether a CMOS MF chip would change that is unknown.

    MF lenses would be no issue here. Hasselblad already has a 200MP back and their lenses are fine. Pentax and Mamiya lenses also work well on their cameras.

    I seriously doubt that Canon would invert in a Leica S2 type system. They would need to design a completely new lens line. The cost is too great for the returns. And it si an old rumor.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    I don't think it's very plausible either. I would even guess it comes from the notion that Canon can't beat Sony in the FF sensor tech war, so they'd had to resort to a larger sensor to cover ground.

    Realistically speaking, there has to be evaluated if there is a market (and what volume we speak of) for such a camera. My personal, possibly far off the mark, evaluation, is that, a ~$5-6K MF body, with weight/size similar to todays pro FF cameras, comparable ISO performance and an adequate selection of high quality glass would be very desirable. I'd certainly prefer this to a D800 or 5DMk3 should I have the need for a camera at that level.

    For the time being, the rumored Hasselblad will be the highest end mirrorless in the market, albeit in a niche one.
     
  7. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    That is called a Pentax 645D and it costs $10k.
     
  8. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    That would actually be an Alpa or Arca Swiss body with a Phase One IQ series back.
     
  9. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon

    Do you mean $2.6 million? :eek:
     
  10. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    I don't agree. The main issue with DMF cameras is price pure and simple. The market for $10k+ cameras was never large, and it has only gotten smaller as the quality of FF DSLRs has improved.

    The only thing a DMF camera would give Canon is prestige.

    They sell more 1DX cameras in a month than all DMF cameras sell in a year. Even if they were to double the market, that's an awful lot of R&D to commit to a tiny niche.

    DH
     
  11. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Phase states their IQ series back that do use a CCD does have live view.
     
  12. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Compact Camera Meter

    I don't think it qualifies in the size/weight department. And it costs $10K. Not sure about high ISO performance being comparable, but definitely not what I was saying in the post you quoted.

    I'm unfortunately not familiar with those except by name. Can they be considered the "highest end mirrorless" MF systems today?

    Of course. What I really don't know is exactly what makes a MF so much more expensive to manufacture apart from economies of scale.
     
  13. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    But that is just the mirror box--you do understand the 645D is designed for the 6x4.5 format like the 35mm cameras are design for the 35mm format--DSLRs with larger formats are going to need larger mirror boxes. However, the width and height are essentially the same. Practically, there is not dealt difference in size--BTW, I have a 645D, so I can speak from experience.

    Compare ISO 1600 between a D800 and Pentax 645D. Not much in it.

    It cost $10k because MFD is expensive. Canon is not going to make a similar camera for less just because it is Canon--price is not arbitrary. Pulling a number out of the air does not suddenly change the realities of camera manufacturing.



    They are technical cameras and they don't have a mirror. The simplest bodies don't have movements. "Mirrorless" is a rather meaningless term.
     
  14. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Certainly. Elimination of the mirror would bring it more in line with the size/weight of a D800, for example. Because now it's not in the same category and everyone can see this even from photos, no need to own both cameras.

    This is a tautology. I'm asking WHAT makes an MFD expensive. Is a MF sensor +$5000 the cost of a FF sensor to manufacture? Or is it economy of scale for the most part?


    Thanks for the clarification! I agree "mirrorless" in meaningless in every case.
     
  15. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Sorry, I saw your answer after posting mine. What I'm getting at is, if some company started from ground zero today, how much more would a MFD cost in relation to FF? Without knowing any specifics, I'd assume 50%-80%, certainly not 300%. I don't say this is feasible today, just for the sake of argument. Also I'm talking about a mirrorless MFD, which will shrink costs further.
     
  16. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Then you are not comparing DSLRs. Go look at a Leica S2. But you still have a problem of the lenses--bigger sensor need different lenses. Technical camera with MFDB can be smaller, but I doubt you would appreciate the cameras as they are rather archaic.
     
  17. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    I would say you have no idea about camera manufacturing. Starting from ground zero would be the most expensive way to do this. And to make your own sensor is also resulting in huge costs, which is why companies like to share sensors. The mirror box does not make huge savings in costs, just look at m4/3. Pentax made a great advance in costs. You can buy an entire camera with mirror box for significantly less than a 40MP Phase or Leaf back. So it ain't the mirror box that is driving prices up.
     
  18. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    You are correct. I should have been more specific - full-speed Live View. IIRC the Phase back go up to 4 fps. That's okay for some things, but as your primary viewfinder, I think that would be a problem.

    Two points. First, assuming equal manufacturing technology, sensor costs grow with the square of the size (due to yield issues). A DMF sensor is about 2x the size of a FF sensor, so that means >4x the cost. Worse, if the volume on the large sensor is 1/10 to 1/100 that of the FF sensor as it is currently, you'll have to at least double the cost again. Granted, the sensor isn't the only component, but it makes a pretty big difference.

    DH