lobalobo

<blockquote> <p>If there is sufficient demand then new lenses will be developed which will solve this problem. This is what happened with smaller format digital cameras.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks. I can see how the sensor might be developed to solve the problem, but the lens? I wide angle lens inherently sends light in at wide angles, doesn't it?</p>

<p>At PDN Expo today, a seemingly very knowledgeable rep of one of the companies made an interesting point. Medium format CMOS sensors, he said, particularly full-format MF Sensors (if they are developed) will run into problems at the edges of images taken on a technical camera with wide angle large format lenses. The problem, he says, is the angle of light, which needs to be straighter on a CMOS sensor than a CCD sensor. Interesting point, and an important one, it seems to me, inasmuch as wide angle is, I imagine, a frequent use for MF digital (it is for me in 4x5 film, e.g.) and the progress of technology suggests that once CMOS ramps up it will replace CCD entirely. If so, does this mean a limitation on the use of technical cameras and large format lenses? Will technical cameras be replaced by perhaps better fixed body ILC cameras, maybe Phase One's oft teased new camera? (I say ILC and not DSLR because with CMOS the mirror too will become a thing of the past, I bet, at least once EVF technology advances far enough.) Just curious what those on this forum think. I'm speculating on less information than you all have. Thanks in advance.</p>

<blockquote> <p>That corporate identity is why an agency is retained, or at least why different agencies given jobs are obliged to stick to the style book.<br />Something like that.</p> </blockquote> <p>Makes sense.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Some advertising designers like 'punch'. Other designers like muted colours. Yet other designers like other things.</p> </blockquote> <p>True enough, but it does strike me as curious that there is seemingly such a consistent pattern over the years between the two companies. There may be nothing to find from delving deeper, as you say, but it is a conundrum, at least in my opinion.</p>

<blockquote> <p>At any rate, my perception of the Hasselblad line is that the image was more true to life in terms of color and contrast control, much the same way I perceive Nikon DSLRs to be compared to Canon, which seems punchier. Not that either is bad, but it depends on what you're after.</p> </blockquote> <p>My impression, exactly, both the comparison of Nikon to Canon and of Phase One (ads) to Hasselblad (ads). This reminds me of a survey I once read where consumers who prefer Pepsi to Coke and those who prefer Coke to Pepsi gave the <em>same</em>, mutually inconsistent, reason: that their favorite was "less sweet," as if it were a virtue to favor a less sweet soft drink. So perhaps consumers prefer the punchier Canon images while pros are mixed or prefer the more realistic Nikon images. Because Canon sells a lot of cameras to consumers, I wouldn't be surprised, then, if their ads highlighted contrast and saturation. But I doubt that Phase One sells many digital backs (which are priced like cars) to consumers. That is, I would have predicted that Phase One and Hasselblad were after the same audience and so would have expected uniformity in their ads, but that's not what seems to be the case. Perhaps even pros are split on punch versus realism and there is a bit of clientele effect. I wonder.</p>

<p>Inasmuch as I'm a hobbyist, not a pro, I don't own a medium format back, but I imagine that one day I will (perhaps after winning a lottery). So I keep track of developments in the products and have over the years noticed (or think I've noticed) the following oddity: the images Phase One uses to advertise its backs are high in contrast and saturation while those Hasselblad chooses are not. So, compare, for example, the following images chosen to illustrate the image quality of the very same (Sony) sensor:</p> <p>http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series.aspx with</p> <p><a href="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h5d-50c.aspx">http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h5d-50c.aspx</a> .</p> <p>From what I have read, there is little actual difference in what the Phase One and Hasselblad backs are capable of producing, and it is not that the consumer-friendly contrast and saturation are necessarily better illustrations of the quality of a professional instrument. But inasmuch as both companies are, presumably, targeting the same audience, I do wonder at what appears to me to be a distinctly different marketing choice. Any ideas as to why?</p> <p> </p>