Hasselblad sold to Private Equity Ventizz

[Roger Hicks]

People make the exact same arguments about larger formats in film the people who shoot mf or even lf film don't seem to agree. As emulsions for smaller formats have improved, so have larger formats.

The future's 135 format sensors might be much better than today's digital mf cameras but that's not what they'll be competing with. Digital mf is not only getting better and better but also cheaper. You can now buy a Hasselblad H system camera for approximately the price of a Canon 1Ds series camera few years ago.

Exactly. You're always up against pixel size and amplification. When you see REALLY BIG prints at trade shows, the difference is clear. I'd be surprised if the gap narrowed enough to knock out 'MF' digi.

Then again, I was completely wrong about the professional uptake of digital. I said in print that I suspected that digicams would stop at 6 megapixels because it was all amateurs needed, and that big sensors would not sell in large enough quantities to recover development costs and draw professionals away from film. Boy, was I wrong.

Sometimes it's a good ideas to confess to your mistakes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

People make the exact same arguments about larger formats in film the people who shoot mf or even lf film don't seem to agree. As emulsions for smaller formats have improved, so have larger formats.

The future's 135 format sensors might be much better than today's digital mf cameras but that's not what they'll be competing with. Digital mf is not only getting better and better but also cheaper. You can now buy a Hasselblad H system camera for approximately the price of a Canon 1Ds series camera few years ago.

There comes a point where more pixels are useless and for all but really big prints that point has already been reached. The quality of pixels has a little way to go on 135 format sensors but not far. At that point demand for bigger sensors all but dries up. Digital capture files can be upsized far more effectively than scanned film files so we are already there except for critically demanding large output and few work under those constraints.

 

[efirmage]

Well, for those of us who are also struggling to transition into the digital age, there will still be plenty of used film Hasselblads 😀

 

[didjiman]

Dynamic range - MF digital will always have an advantage in that regard, as bigger is better.

The latest 80MP backs claim a DR of 12 stops, and certainly even the last couple generations 30 and 40MP backs have far greater dynamic range than the Leica M9 and the other "full frame" dSLR. I can say that because I own both the M9 and a P30 back - but there are other factors - for example, I shoot mainly with the Fuji TX-2 (XPan II) because I love the panoramic format.

 

[Texsport]

Digital XPAN III ( with M mount flange spacing ) please 😀

If that happened, I'd even buy a 30mm lens for it.

Texsport

 

[dubes]

People make the exact same arguments about larger formats in film the people who shoot mf or even lf film don't seem to agree. As emulsions for smaller formats have improved, so have larger formats.

Starting as I did with 35mm, I was never interested in medium format--bigger negatives, yes, but otherwise the same game. Large format, on the other hand, allows for changing the film plane independently of the lens plane, and that opens up a whole world of creativity. Medium format might one day go the way of the dodo (I said "might"), but I believe large format will be around as long folks are taking still photos.

 

[bobbyrab]

MF digital still has the advantage in sheer pixels, no doubt - they're running 65MP now, or even 200MP with Hassy's latest multi-exposure back. I don't see 35mm doing this any time soon, but I don't think it necessarily needs to either. The M9 does put up a good fight against MFDBs, beyond which - yes, it's really just more pixels.

I would have agreed with that until I rented for a job I was doing, the Leica S2, the files are really so much better than I get from my 5d mark2, I was surprised just how much more clarity of detail, and the files just have a beautiful pop to them. I was also surprised that skin texture was both sharper/more detailed, but at the same time smoother, the Canon files are quite aggressive even with sharpening off, but I don't believe this has a lot to do with the pixel numbers as much as the sensor and pixel size, the file size is bigger 23 against about 40 (I think), but that's not so much when you view on screen, so on screen the canon file at 100% is the same size image as the Leica at 66%. However the biggest surprise for me was having some 6x9 prints done just to check for colour balance, and even at that size the quality is apparent. Full frame SLRs are very good, but as long as MFD improves at the same rate there will always be a Market for it.

 

[rogerzilla]

135 format digital is already so good and MF so expensive you have to question why anyone would need, let alone want, MF digital.

Shallower DOF?

That's why I wouldn't buy a DSLR unless it were full-frame. My gallery shows how often I use shallow DOF. Personally, 35mm DOF is shallow enough for me, but if you want shallow DOF *and* a wide angle, it has to be MF.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Starting as I did with 35mm, I was never interested in medium format--bigger negatives, yes, but otherwise the same game. Large format, on the other hand, allows for changing the film plane independently of the lens plane, and that opens up a whole world of creativity. Medium format might one day go the way of the dodo (I said "might"), but I believe large format will be around as long folks are taking still photos.

Ummm.... Baby Linhof?

Rollfilm backs on 4x5?

Then of course there's proper LF: big enough for sensible-sized contact prints, which lets out 4x5 inch for me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dubes]

Roger, Well, I had to Google 'Baby Linhof' (hadn't heard that term before).

I realize that you've probably forgotten more about photography than I'll ever know, but as you know another advantage of large format / sheet film is the ability to process each negative individually. Can't do that with rollfilm 😀 (though honestly I feel this is where digital really shines).