HotDuckZ said:
1Ds Mark IV, Will it be noise machine?

Always! "smirk"

Leica is the only one to try "35"mm format (sorta) 32mpx and look at the price tag. You could get many hasselblad systems for cheaper! Sadly Canon needs to improve on their high Iso's before they take on a higher mpx camera.

I missed that, but the lens is actually a Hassy as it say Hasselblad right on it. I need to look into this more, and make a few calls. I a hunch I have been a bit misinformed.

I have been doing a lot of reading about the development of the H1, and it seems that Hasselblad did not have the full expertise to design this camera and build this camera as they have not manufactured a camera with autofocus. They had the concept of what they wanted, but contracted Fuji to design and build it, and invested $35 million to have it developed. With that type of investment, it seems kind of strange that they would getting grief from Fuji because of sales volume.

But Pabnj haven't the H-series Hasseys always been sold as Fuji's in Japan? That's nothing new, at least that's what I thought. Notice that the textured grip on that "Fuji" lens has the letter "H" all around it.

It has been my long time understanding the Hasselblad H1 & H2 cameras are Fuji designs. Here is pic of the Fuji version.

http://realworldworkflow.com/blog/?m=200710

I really can't elaborate on the sources though. In an above post of mine I mentioned Hasselblad some time ago released an inventory of H2 cameras they had "sitting in the warehouse", but what they actually did was secretly started selling the H2 bodies all over again. My understanding you can still get a new H2 today. It has been largely rumored that they did this for two reasons, fist off, they need the money, and secondly to appease Fuji.

It was Hasselblad CEO Christian Poulsen who was a big proponent of the closed camera system which has not been too successful for them, and recently he resigned. Then again, at that level, no one gets fired.

That is why I believe Hasselblad will open up their system again. They have found out the hard way photographers want options. Phase One on the other hand has been exceedingly successful with their open platform for their digital backs, cameras, and Capture One software. Think of a medium format photographer who has a Hasselblad H2, Phase One back, and for other location type shoots, a Nikon or Canon DSLR. He can use the same RAW software throughout his workflow which is a big advantage. He can't do that with any other platform. I also would not be surprised if Hasselblad released their RAW software Phocus to support DSLRs as well.

We will see what the future holds.

My understanding is that Hasselblad designed the H series body and components but Fuji builds them. It is in fact Hasselblad's design. So not sure how Fuji can reject the license? The lenses are designed and built by Fuji so maybe that license is the one coming to an end?

Either way Hasselblad can still hook up with another lens manufacturer (Zeiss again? Or how about Nikon :^)

Perhaps a new series is going to be announced?

Darn the Fuji, Hasselblad is here to stay and I am sure Samsung for example could do a better job then Fuji ...

Really? I didn't know the H bodies were Fuji's? Hmmm...

I mean I didn't know they were still licensed by Fuji.

Do you have a source (link)about Fuji being unhappy?

NikoDoby said:
License from Nikon?

No, Hasselblad licenses their camera body from Fuji who actually manufactures the H system bodies for them. Fuji is not happy with the volume of orders from Hasselbad, and may yank the license. If that happens, that could be the finale straw for Hasselblad regardless of their financial situation.

studios, pro fashion photographers

studios, pro fashion photographers

Hmmhmm, now which market is that aiming for? :^D

License from Nikon?

Another model that is rumored to go head-to-head with the D3X is the medium format Pentax 645D. It is rumored to have a 39mp sensor from Kodak and will come in at $6500USD! Expected to be announced at PMA in Feb2010.

mb said:
I wonder when they will put the counter for money needed, it will be in thousands of dollars and increasing every single day … 30.000$, 31.000$ … 41.000$, 42.000$ … 51.000$, 52.000$

That is funny. They are hemorrhaging a ton money. I wonder when their venture capitalist shuts them off. The other thing I am hearing is that Fuji is getting anxious since they are not selling enough bodies, and are dangerously close to losing the license agreement. I wonder when they Fuji shuts them off too.

lol mb but I don't think the D3X or the Leica S2 is hurting them...yet.

I wonder when they will put the counter for money needed, it will be in thousands of dollars and increasing every single day … 30.000$, 31.000$ … 41.000$, 42.000$ … 51.000$, 52.000$

I guess we will find out in 21days, 4hours, and 27 minutes :^)

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/countdown.aspx

NikoDoby said:
The 1DsM4 is, for the most part, a studio camera. Sharpness would be high on the list of things to get right. Besides medium format is close to 100megapixels already. Hasselblad has a countdown going on their website and some believe they will unveil a new 100mp digital back!

12mp is starting to look like 4mp to me.

A 100MP back! WOW! That would be nice, but unlikely. People who own the 60MP backs now have issues processing the file sizes, and complain of slower workflow even on the latest Apple quad core computers decked out with 12 megs of memory. How could they release a 100MP back? What chip would they use? I have not heard of anything from Kodak or Dalsa of such a chip.

I have an idea the countdown represents Hasselblad opening up their camera to support third party backs. Many do not know, but you can still get an H2 body new from Hasselblad without it being locked to their back. Hasselblad secretly released them by stating they had excess inventory in the warehouse they needed to get rid of. All they'll do is make it official under the H4 nameplate.

alphanikonrex said:
Ohh, the focal plane...I gotcha completely soap :^D

mb, you're wrong :^P

Yes if we are talking about perfect imaginary lens made of one “thin” single glass element where the size of that element determines the pupil size and where diffraction is a result of the angle light beams are making passing the edges of this pupil when the lens is focused to infinity the rule is correct. It is all about similarity of triangles really and it says no matter the focal length the ration between focal length and pupil size (f number) would be the same if the angle (and resulting diffraction) is the same. This rule does not apply to telescopes as you have already mentioned where simply larger means better resolution.
A common mistake in my opinion is to assume a real world camera lenses are the perfect lenses. We can not make such a lens on Nikon F-mount because you can not bring pupil (diaphragm) closer then around 50mm so the rule can not be accurate for lenses shorter than that.
One more thing, as you focus closer diffraction increases because the angle is changed.
If I remember correctly the absolute theoretical resolution limit on any glass lens in air in worst case scenario, meaning blue visible light, is around 300nm if I am not mistaken.

soap said:
I said point in that last message and I meant plane.

Ohh, the focal plane...I gotcha completely soap :^D

mb, you're wrong :^P

alphanikonrex said:
Yeah, then I'm getting confused...

Excuse my stupidity but what exactly is the focal point?

I said point in that last message and I meant plane.

mb said:
There is a common mistake about aperture and diffraction.
It is not the F number but the size of the diaphragm opening that makes a diffraction effect.
For example on telephoto 200mm lens f/20 will give a 10mm opening and will produce almost no visible diffraction, while the same f/20 on 20mm lens will give you a small “pin” hole of about 1mm and will cause very noticeable diffraction.

No your statement is a common mistake. Now let me explain. We are interested in cameras here not telescopes. Diffraction is usually measured by the Rayleigh criterion which is the line pair separation (L). At the image plane it is directly related to the f-stop. The formula is L = 1.22 * f-stop wavelength.

The formula you are referring to is for the object side, typically a telescope and is measured in arch-seconds. The the formula is sin angle = 1.22 * wavelength / aperture.

A simple rule of thumb for a camera lens is resolution in microns = f-stop. That is f5.6 will resolve about 5.6 microns, assuming a diffraction limited lens.

Yeah, then I'm getting confused...

Excuse my stupidity but what exactly is the focal point?

alphanikonrex said:
When I peer inside my 80-200mm ƒ/2.8, the last element is very far away (towards the inside of the lens) from the mount of the lens compared to my 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5, which has its last element very close to the mount. Also, when I zoom from 18mm to 70mm the element "disappears" inside the lens as it gets farther from the mount. Does a 600mm lens have it's final element even farther away from the mount (than my 80-200mm, for example)? Is this what you're talking about soap?

Talking about the apparent distance between the aperture diaphragm (the metal-bladed constricting choke point) and the focal point. You're talking about the rear element.

But, don't get confused. What mb said makes total sense - it is just that the one reference I cited above claims that's not the total picture. I eagerly await the verdict. ;)

Uh oh, I'm getting confused again ;^)

What mb says makes sense, except the numbers I got were based off of the calculator on the website soap linked to, which did not ask for anything info about my focal length. But soap maybe makes sense to me, if somebody will please answer this question for me:

When I peer inside my 80-200mm ƒ/2.8, the last element is very far away (towards the inside of the lens) from the mount of the lens compared to my 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5, which has its last element very close to the mount. Also, when I zoom from 18mm to 70mm the element "disappears" inside the lens as it gets farther from the mount. Does a 600mm lens have it's final element even farther away from the mount (than my 80-200mm, for example)? Is this what you're talking about soap?

mb said:
There is a common mistake about aperture and diffraction.
It is not the F number but the size of the diaphragm opening that makes a diffraction effect.
For example on telephoto 200mm lens f/20 will give a 10mm opening and will produce almost no visible diffraction, while the same f/20 on 20mm lens will give you a small “pin” hole of about 1mm and will cause very noticeable diffraction.

Does not the distance to focal plane also increase with focal length, negating this?

ref: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm