[thunderbrick]

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/21/hasselblad-releases-cfv-50c-cmos-back-v-system-cameras/

[Bob in St. Louis]

That's pretty cool. Impressive price point too.
But a question from a noob...is 50MP really necessary?

[thunderbrick]

More important, is $15K doable?

Bob, my (office) D800 is what, 36MP?  50MP is not so much bigger, and I'd love to see what fixed focal-length Hassy glass would do with a digital back.

[Bob in St. Louis]

You're asking the wrong guy is 15K is doable. 
But every once in a while, I've shot an amazing image with many fewer MP than 50.
My D40 is 6. Granted, the sensor it's equipped with is laughable, but as far as MP are concerned, 50 seems like a crazy number.
So, what what point are MP irrelevant? 

[Early B.]

So, what what point are MP irrelevant?

For pro use, 24 MP is probably as high as you really need. For consumer use, 12 MP is more than sufficient. My "ancient" Nikon D200 is a mere 10MP, and 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. I used to own a Nikon D70 which is only 6MP, but 98% of the time, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the same image shot with a 16MP camera. The vast majority of camera owners simply aren't taking RAW images, uploading them to Photo Shop and performing major photo manipulations on their work.

There are other factors that are just as important as pixel count such as ISO, dynamic range, color accuracy and pixel size. Personally, a high dynamic range is more important than any of them. It's analogous to high resolution in audio.

[Brad]

And sensor size

[Photon46]

For pro use, 24 MP is probably as high as you really need. For consumer use, 12 MP is more than sufficient. My "ancient" Nikon D200 is a mere 10MP, and 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. I used to own a Nikon D70 which is only 6MP, but 98% of the time, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the same image shot with a 16MP camera. The vast majority of camera owners simply aren't taking RAW images, uploading them to Photo Shop and performing major photo manipulations on their work.

There are other factors that are just as important as pixel count such as ISO, dynamic range, color accuracy and pixel size. Personally, a high dynamic range is more important than any of them. It's analogous to high resolution in audio.

I think that's an over simplification. While 24mp will suffice for most print and media applications as far as size goes, (as you mentioned) there's way more to the story than size. The image quality factors you mention improve dramatically with large sensors in medium format backs. After I  switched to shooting with a Phase One P65+ (65mp) back/Cambo system, I was stunned at how completely it eclipsed the image quality of my previous top of the line Canon DLSR files. There is a phenomenal increase in every parameter of image quality, it is apparent even in a small 1000 x 800 pixel jpeg made from the camera. Every one of my long time clients remarks on the image quality the first time they see a file from the Phase One. Once your clients see the images from a big medium format camera system, they can't get enough and don't ever want to see another DLSR file from you again  There is a down side to it, of course. The costs are much higher and your work flow may be slower with a medium format system. While most casual users may be content to shoot jpegs, EVERY serious pro quality photographer I know shoots RAW. When people ask me for advice on how to improve their photography, I always tell them they should start shooting RAW files and learn how to use a pro quality editing program like Photoshop or Capture One. Most never do.

Thunderbrick, the old Hassy lenses are definitely inferior compared to today's lenses that are specifically corrected for digital backs. In the days of film, lenses focused different colors of light at different planes because film was coated in different layers to capture red, green, and blue. There were at least three layers in color film, maybe more. Digital sensors are a flat plane and the lens design is completely different. Lenses today can be corrected to much tinier fractions of a wavelength than they were in Hasselblad's heyday. I've got Schnieder Digitars and Rodenstock Digarons that blow my mind with their resolution, lack of color fringing and color correction. Way better than the Hasselblad, Schneider, and Rodenstock film lenses I own.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Good info, thanks guy.
Ok...here's a question that's totally off topic (from the main post)....
In my 6MP DSLR, would I notice a difference if I start shooting RAW as opposed to the "highest/fine" image quality setting?

[thunderbrick]

Thunderbrick, the old Hassy lenses are definitely inferior compared to today's lenses that are specifically corrected for digital backs. I've got Schnieder Digitars and Rodenstock Digarons that blow my mind with their resolution, lack of color fringing and color correction. Way better than the Hasselblad, Schneider, and Rodenstock film lenses I own.

Well, Shit!   

[SET Man]

Hey!

    Good points there Photon46 

    I've read about that and find is funny that they making a digital for their V system of which they have abandoned  And of course the sticker price of $15K... Ouch!

    Anyway, talking about Hassy V system. After many years of seeing, admiring, and using them on some jobs... I've never own one. But recently I pulled a trigger on a '73 vintage 500 C/M with 80mm T* chrome, got both body and lens completely CLAed. what a beauty!

    So, will I get that digital back even if I could easily afford it? Maybe. But as Photon46 mentioned the old lens won't do as well as the new lenses optimized for flat digital sensor. With that I and maybe some other vintage film cameras fans would use that $15K to feed the Hassy with real film... think of how many roll of 120 films I can get!

    Well, if they stop making 120 film than I will have to get the digital back, maybe by than the back will cost much less than that.

Take care,
Buddy 



   

[Early B.]

The quality of medium format images has already been surpassed (or at least equaled) by the Nikon D800. There are countless comparisons between the 36MP D800 and higher MP medium format cameras costing thousands more like this one:  http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/


 

[JohnR]

Good info, thanks guy.
Ok...here's a question that's totally off topic (from the main post)....
In my 6MP DSLR, would I notice a difference if I start shooting RAW as opposed to the "highest/fine" image quality setting?

Depends on what you are looking for, but probably. The RAW file (if processed properly) will have more detail and absent some of the odd things that JPEG can do at eg edges. Dynamic range/control will be greater. But you can try yourself: shoot some pics in Raw+Fine, process the raw file, and compare to the Fine from camera.

Edit: with that said, sometimes it can be harder to get the results you want from a RAW file compared to what the camera gives you! e.g. white balance

[Photon46]

The quality of medium format images has already been surpassed (or at least equaled) by the Nikon D800. There are countless comparisons between the 36MP D800 and higher MP medium format cameras costing thousands more like this one:  http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

But you are still limited to the technical constraints of a DLSR camera system. With an interchangeable medium format back, I can work with a studio view camera system one day, install the back in a traditional medium format style body another day when I need mobility for portrait work, and then install it in a technical Arca Swiss body when I need a mobile architectural camera system. A DLSR is a "jack of all trades/master of none" kind of camera system and a pro needs a "master of its domain" when you're trying to do the best work possible in studio/product and architectural settings. That said, one problem with medium format is the greater attention you have to pay to getting precise focus when doing portrait and wedding work with a medium format. Using longer medium format lenses, your plane of focus is more shallow compared to those lenses used with a full frame DLSR.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Thank you John! 

[charmerci]

IDK - The Hassie close up of the girl looks so much better to me than the Nikon. I was rooting for the Nikon too - price-wise.

[SET Man]

IDK - The Hassie close up of the girl looks so much better to me than the Nikon. I was rooting for the Nikon too - price-wise.

Hey!
 
     I've never own MF digital camera but I've seen some works from digital MF and they can be stunning especially when large prints are needed. Yes, I've seen lots of talk about DSLR Vs. Digital MF. True that the new 36MP 35mm FF sensor can be very good but there at the end the larger size of each pixel can make a big different I feel. The new CMOS used in that Hassy seems to have some interesting improvement like higher ISO and etc. Funny that it is not really a full frame 56mm square format

    Well, it is all about what format will be right for the job. Each have its own advantages and disadvantages. Just like back in the film days.

   Anyway, one last thing about that article. If that guy is going to post an overcooked picture like that he can save money and use any cheap DSLRs for that 

Take care,
Buddy

   

[Folsom]

$15k? I don't see the point.

[gnuyork]

For pro use, 24 MP is probably as high as you really need. For consumer use, 12 MP is more than sufficient. My "ancient" Nikon D200 is a mere 10MP, and 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. I used to own a Nikon D70 which is only 6MP, but 98% of the time, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the same image shot with a 16MP camera. The vast majority of camera owners simply aren't taking RAW images, uploading them to Photo Shop and performing major photo manipulations on their work.

There are other factors that are just as important as pixel count such as ISO, dynamic range, color accuracy and pixel size. Personally, a high dynamic range is more important than any of them. It's analogous to high resolution in audio.

Large printing. I'll take every MP I can get!

And I agree with Photon. I have shot the Cambo/Phase IQ180 (as well as the P45+) combo. Incredible. If I were a pro I would not hesitate one bit the have the medium format system if my business model could support it.