Taylor Sherman wrote: Lee Saxon wrote:
Anybody want to take bets on whether Hasselblad made the same mistake Sony made with the E mount and this mount and these lenses only cover the 3.3x4.4 sensor and will barely work if at all in the future when it becomes affordable to make 6x4.5 sensors?
Well, given that the sensor is barely visible behind the mount, I\'d say they\'ve committed to this size and nothing larger.
I think that the demand for true 4.5 x 6cm sensors is likely to be quite small. The quality obtainable from the 33mm x 44mm mini MF sensors is really quite excellent. Except for the lower MP, it is roughly equivalent to stitching two 24mm x 36mm 50 MP frames with room for overlap.
Such cameras could eventually be the ideal for those whose highest goals include best print quality. That is a small market perhaps...
Jman13 wrote:
I guess I don\'t really get it that much....
and... justruss replied:
You get a different look from the larger sensor and photo sites...
Yes, but... the difference is not nearly equivalent to the difference between full frame DSLR (24mm x 36mm) and old school MF (which was 645 or larger). There are a few ways that 33mm x 44mm 50MP can improve on 24mm x 36mm 50MP, though the difference is likely to be significant to a somewhat small group. The larger format holds the potential for better system resolution, which is different thing than sensor or lens resolution. There are potential noise/DR advantages. Higher photo site densities could achieve some extremely high sensor resolution levels.
There are some downsides as well. Cost is clearly one. The size and bulk/weight of lenses is another. The difficulty of producing very long lenses is an issue. Given the extremely high quality obtainable by current full frame systems, the point at which the improvements from mini MF become visible is far enough out toward the edge that most users won\'t find it to be a good trade.
Taylor Sherman wrote: Lee Saxon wrote:
Anybody want to take bets on whether Hasselblad made the same mistake Sony made with the E mount and this mount and these lenses only cover the 3.3x4.4 sensor and will barely work if at all in the future when it becomes affordable to make 6x4.5 sensors?
Well, given that the sensor is barely visible behind the mount, I\'d say they\'ve committed to this size and nothing larger.
I think that the demand for true 4.5 x 6cm sensors is likely to be quite small. The quality obtainable from the 33mm x 44mm mini MF sensors is really quite excellent. Except for the lower MP, it is roughly equivalent to stitching two 24mm x 36mm 50 MP frames with room for overlap.
Such cameras could eventually be the ideal for those whose highest goals include best print quality. That is a small market perhaps...
Jman13 wrote:
I guess I don\'t really get it that much....
and... justruss replied:
You get a different look from the larger sensor and photo sites...
Yes, but... the difference is not nearly equivalent to the difference between full frame DSLR (24mm x 36mm) and old school MF (which was 645 or larger).
Taylor Sherman wrote: Lee Saxon wrote:
Anybody want to take bets on whether Hasselblad made the same mistake Sony made with the E mount and this mount and these lenses only cover the 3.3x4.4 sensor and will barely work if at all in the future when it becomes affordable to make 6x4.5 sensors?
Well, given that the sensor is barely visible behind the mount, I\'d say they\'ve committed to this size and nothing larger.
I think that the demand for true 4.5 x 6cm sensors is likely to be quite small. The quality obtainable from the 33mm x 44mm mini MF sensors is really quite excellent. Except for the lower MP, it is roughly equivalent to stitching two 24mm x 36mm 50 MP frames with room for overlap.
Such cameras could eventually be the ideal for those whose highest goals include best print quality. That is a small market perhaps...
Dan
Jun 21, 2016 at 04:22 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13613258 « Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless »
