I wonder if we can expect this from Nikon at some time?
http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/promotions/h4d-200ms-jonathan-beer.aspx
DG
http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/promotions/h4d-200ms-jonathan-beer.aspx
DG
I really doubt you'd get the same resolution from a 35mm slide. Now if you shot 6x6 or larger I wouldn't hold my breath.if i really, really, REALLY need that kind of resolution, i'll pull my F5 out of the cupboard and load up with some Velvia or similar.
voila, far higher resolution than the 'blad @ a fraction the cost.
That is what we (DSLR shooters) have multiple focus points for, while Hasselblads H series just have one (center).I want the accelerometer focus setup from the new Hasselblads. That'd be great when shooting at 1.4.
Gigapan is not the same as medium format - full stop. No DSLR will challenge the richness or dynamic range of medium format backs in my opinion.Buy a GigaPan robot and stitch with the included software—or software of choice. The Hassleflex will only do a 200MP scene without movement, while the Gigapan software will do up to nine shots at each position, letting you avoid cutting vehicles or pedestrians into parts, or even doing HDR with a 9.0EV range. It will handle a D700 and most Nikon lenses for under a thousand dollars.
The Hassleblad certainly is nothing to write off, if you have clients that can afford it, but for an enthusiast there are less expensive solutions that give you entry into practical gigapixel resolutions.
But 35mm FF might very well be the biggest digital format generally available very soon. Medium format sales have declined about 30% a year, and this trend began before digital, well in the 1990's. Current sales of all MF digital backs and MF cameras are less than 6000 units annually. This doesn't create enough revenue to invest much in R&D.... 35mm fullframe digital is starting to look a bit stale.
I really doubt you'd get the same resolution from a 35mm slide. Now if you shot 6x6 or larger I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm not really sure about that, I hear/read opposing comments. But it doesn't really matter to me, pixel peeping interests me in no way at all. In the end, I happily use both formats and could hardly care which is "best". :smile:35mm film is still sharper and capable of higher resolving values than any digital sensor yet made.
Not to start a film vs. digital war, but IMHO as a film shooter, that day has passed. My M9 out-resolves my film Hasselblads and probably my 6x9 Fujis when scanned with a 9000. Drum scan may pull them to even, but an Imacon costs more than an M9+most Summilux.35mm film is still sharper and capable of higher resolving values than any digital sensor yet made.