YUM! Hassy 100MP Camera!

I want to see a Hassy V compatible 6x6 mono back good enough to get at least the resolution of my CS9000 from a medium format negative, then the race can stop... In terms of pixels, they are there already, but the sensor is not square.
 
The serious answer is that at 500MP and 56*41mm diffraction is going to kick in at before f4. Sensor pitch should still be fine (similar to 1-inch sensors today) but lens designs and DOF will be limited. I don't see too much of a point going there.

Canon has a 120MP FF sensor (I think?) in the works - which is probably pushing things pretty far. I doubt we'd see much more than that for 135.

But yes, a digital 6x6 will be intriguing...
 
mfogiel said:
I want to see a Hassy V compatible 6x6 mono back good enough to get at least the resolution of my CS9000 from a medium format negative, then the race can stop... In terms of pixels, they are there already, but the sensor is not square.
Click to expand...

Pretty much any FF DSLR and a half-decent lens cropped square already exceeds what you could get from the 9000 and most 6x6 negatives.

With perhaps Pan F+ or similar, perfect technique, and a good drum scan, you might get the opposite result.

I invite anyone who disagrees to test it for themselves.
 
Seeing that a Nokia smart phone is already offered with over 40mp camera sensor, I find this Hasselblad offering disappointing.
Sure the Nokia has about half the resolution, but I can swipe right with it.
Try and do that with a Hasselblad.
 
I lost faith in Hasselblad as they slowly let 6x6 and the V series die.
A retro square sensor camera aimed at the prosumer market might work well for them.
 
The original Nikon DSLR was a couple of megapixels and cost twenty grand or something stupid from memory. This is 100 megapixels and costs about fifteen grand more than that Nikon.

Bargain!
 
@Corran
I get roughly a 9000x9000 pixels scan from a 6x6 frame, and in terms of optical resolution we are not much different. Where is this DSLR sensor that has 9000 pixels on the short side?
 
Corran said:
Pretty much any FF DSLR and a half-decent lens cropped square already exceeds what you could get from the 9000 and most 6x6 negatives.

With perhaps Pan F+ or similar, perfect technique, and a good drum scan, you might get the opposite result.

I invite anyone who disagrees to test it for themselves.
Click to expand...

Heh. Heh. Yes, "exceeds" . . . but can you do anything with the extra pixels? I feel like you have to be a card-carrying member of the "60-foot long L.A. Billboard Photographers' Club" to need this. Still, Hassy must have identified some market segment that was clamoring for images this size. Maybe they want to laser-etch images on the surface of the Moon . . .
 
Hasselblad used to have a full page ad on the back cover of quite a few issues of Shutterbug.

Why did they quit?

For the vast majority of pros, Canon, Nikon and a few others have taken their business.

Maybe they want this for folks who can afford a Bentley.

Not many units sold but expensive.

Sorry, I'll pass on both.
 
PhotoMat said:
I'd have to trade in my MacBook for a Cray to process the files.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes that occurred to me too. I don't think I could store very many 100MP shots on my iMac hard drive. And I don't know what I would do with such a large file, either. Maybe produce 12 foot by 12 foot murals for Grand Central terminal. But no one has asked me to do that.

It might be good for arial reconnaissance work. Although with Google maps, I'm not sure if they do that any more.
 
mfogiel said:
@Corran
I get roughly a 9000x9000 pixels scan from a 6x6 frame, and in terms of optical resolution we are not much different. Where is this DSLR sensor that has 9000 pixels on the short side?
Click to expand...

Pixels ≠ resolution. I highly recommend you borrow or rent, say, a D800, and do a simple test. I have, and it was enlightening. I still shoot film for other reasons.
 
^^^ Well, I'm using Nikon CS 9000, and it resolves 3800 ppi, that still makes 8550 pixels on the short end, so unless your D800, which has 4900 pixels on the short end, uses a lens with an MTF=1,75, i.e. outresolves itself almost twice, this can't be done.
 
If I were a professional photographer with lots of paying clients who want me to produce images that require a 100MP camera, then I would maybe buy such a camera. It would be for the profession.

As an amateur, I would need some cash to burn to get this camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom