Slashdot Mirror

This isn't the little shit sensor that comes with the cheap point and shoots, or cellphones which are all diffraction limited now and have shit lenses. Still I am not impressed with the cannon as something like this exists which has an even larger sensor. For a reasonable comparison (not actual size) of the different sensor sizes you can check this out. Most of the consumer cameras in phones and point and shoots have the 1/2.5 or 1/1.7 sized sensor in them.The hasselblad sensor likely isn't the 60mm X 60mm that film frame was but it is bigger than the 35mm full frame. The full frame sensor like what is mentioned for this cannon is the same size as a standard 35mm film frame.

Then again I only find this interesting from a technological perspective as I still use a film camera (go go Pentax Spotmatic F that never seems to want to die). Personally I like film I know how film behaves on the extremes (also known as how it fails), and have a lot of good lenses and accessories for taking the pictures I want with my film camera. When I was in Israel with work and went on a tour of Jerusalem I took some great pictures with my camera that while being made fun of by my co-workers who just had their phones as I had the antique. I also have taken a liking to slow black and white film (ISO 50) if I really want clear crisp pictures and for color I usually just stick to ISO 100.

Up to a point you will be a better photographer. It isn't like I could hand you one of these and then you would all of a sudden take 10x-60x better pictures, you might manage 5%-10% better but not 10000%. Keeping with the photography example if one wants to take great pictures they would probably be better served by first learning how to compose and frame an image, then learning how to take good pictures by understanding how things like film/sensor speed, shutter speed, and f-stops work, paying attention to how they affect exposure as well as depth of focus. I say this as someone who still hasn't migrated to digital and actually still uses the last revision of one of these so it is at least 39 years old and I have won some awards at the county and state fair for pictures I have taken. Even my oldest child who is 6 can take better pictures than most people, he is interested in photography, as I have been teaching him the fundamentals but he uses a 13 year old digital camera that was just a regular consumer grade one.

The point being just wanting people who grew up with something in existence doesn't mean they actually understand it. Just like with digital natives, they may be able to save the princess, post a selfie to flickr, and tweet about the dump they took, but they don't really understand how the technology behind them works.

Two problems. The sensor is barely what could be called "medium format". The article says these sensors are 36.7 x 49 mm. That's basically twice the size of the standard 35 mm frame (36 x 24 mm). Even 6x4.5 is bigger than that.

The other problem is bigger - price. For $14K you could get several medium format film cameras and lenses (e.g Hasselblad/Zeiss, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, etc), a very good film scanner (e.g Hasselblad Flextight X5), a big server to store your scans on, plus a fridge full of film.

You'd only go the digital route if you need fast turn-around. For everything else, I'd rather go the film option, thanks.

If an America company was smart (kodak comes to mind, but then, they are not very smart), they would follow the Fischer Pen approach and design a camera to survive in space, water, etc. and then advertise it as being rugged for space as well as water, camping, etc.

This is exactly what Hasselblad did.

Of course, Hasselblad products were already absurdly rugged (and expensive to match), so it's likely that very little additional engineering effort was required.

Many of the photos taken during the early Apollo missions were shot with hand held Hasselblad cameras. On the first moon landing Armstrong took a fairly well known shot of Aldrin on the surface. As far as I know all our manned missions since have had Hasselblad on board.

These are more pleasing to the eye than what is being transmitted from the Phoenix lance but a little less scientifically useful. They are also limited to missions that will return, since the film has to be developed.

A good portion of the gear used now shoots photos in stereo so objects can be more accurately scaled and located. And B&W only sensors can be made more accurate in that regard than color (a quick look at any decent graphic explanation of one will illustrate why). As previous posts have noted, filters can be used to determine color.

Many of the photos taken during the early Apollo missions were shot with hand held Hasselblad cameras. On the first moon landing Armstrong took a fairly well known shot of Aldrin on the surface. As far as I know all our manned missions since have had Hasselblad on board.

These are more pleasing to the eye than what is being transmitted from the Phoenix lance but a little less scientifically useful. They are also limited to missions that will return, since the film has to be developed.

A good portion of the gear used now shoots photos in stereo so objects can be more accurately scaled and located. And B&W only sensors can be made more accurate in that regard than color (a quick look at any decent graphic explanation of one will illustrate why). As previous posts have noted, filters can be used to determine color.

If you ever make it to one of the Apollo landing sites, be sure to grab yourself one of these sweet Hasselblad EDC cameras they left behind on the Moon. Apparently there were 12 of them left on the surface.

http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.as px

DSLR 39 mega pixel with RAW output

http://hasselblad.com/index.asp?pageURL=/launch010 6/h2d39.asp?secId=1143&itemId=3849

nuf said