gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless | |
GMPhotography wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
About the comparisons to full frame...
The larger sensor provides higher system resolution, which can affect things like corner resolution, etc. A lens with equal lp/mm performance will provide greater system resolution on the larger sensor system.
The Hasselblad system, as I understand it, produces 16-bit files. I don\'t know precisely how Hasselblad makes use of the additional bits, but they have the potential to allow greater dynamic range (perhaps possible with the larger photo sites, but probably not two bits worth) and/or a greater number of luminosity values. The latter can potentially provide smoother gradients and more color/tonal subtly, at least at the theoretical level.
Given the very high quality of current high MP full frame systems, while the improvements will be measurable, they will not be visible in any but some rather specialized situations, mostly about very large prints. (I sort of chuckle at the images of the 50MP mini MF system that try to make it look like a fine handheld camera. Well, yes, but you are going to be wasting the resolution potential.)
There are downsides. One particular issue relates to lenses, and to long lenses in particular. We hardly bat an eyelash at the idea of shooting at 400mm and above with full frame, and relatively inexpensive and high quality lenses are available to use for this purpose. That isn\'t going to be the case with any MF format, even the 33mmx 44mm mini MF system. The cameras a likely to be focal length limited, and lenses providing a given reach are likely to be huge and very expensive.
I\'m personally very interested in the potentials of the mini MF systems for parts of my photography, but I think that the percentage of photographers who will benefit from such things is going to be quite small.
Dan
Hassy and Phase shooters shoot 300mm and longer. The only issue I ran into was a dead spot from the FP shutter at around 1/30 on my Phase body. I shot MF for almost 7 years and owned 5 backs. Your comments are really fishing in the wrong direction. Until you own one for awhile than your just guessing. Sorry Dan I don\'t guess, I owned it and I would still own it if not for a personal issue with my wife\'s health. MF is awesome but you need to have a attitude that your going to work at it. I think you keep relating things to sports and wildlife. Really that a specialized area and you can\'t mix it in general topic or use on systems that are not intended for it. Not every system does everything well, sometimes it\'s just not the right tool. But don\'t try to tell me that , I shot runway, golf , football and wildlife with it. Not the perfect tool but it can be done
Tariq yes you will get benefit from it over 35 how much I still think is a good chunk.
Did you read my post before replying? :-(
I listed a bunch of positive things about MF and pointed out that I\'m interested. Then I simply pointed out that those who rely on long focal lengths (I mentioned the common use of 400mm) will find that they have to deal with extra cost and weight/bulk (and limited selection) if they move to MF. There\'s nothing remotely controversial about that it is a simple fact, and something to be considered by those who find the cameras interesting.
I was considering a move to the Pentax 645z myself recently though I may still \"go there\" at some point but decided against it primarily because I rely on the 100-400mm zoom a lot in my work. On the other hand, a few colleagues of mine are using such cameras/backs (including Pentax, Mamiya, Phase One, and one fellow making use of the Seitz 7 x 17) and this gear suits their work well.
I have nothing against mini MF or any other format. It is important to consider both the pluses and minuses of any format choice.
And, for the record, back in my \"film days\" did shoot MF cameras, including the old twin lens reflex Rollei and Yashica ( which autocorrect wants to turn into \"Yeshiva!\") cameras, a Speed Graphic, and others.
Dan
|
