brad_trostad

Actually it makes a lot of sense that they partnered with Sony. Sony can develop the these niche large imagers and then sell more than if they only put them in their own cameras. The means volumes increase and they mitigate risk in their huge semiconductor investment. If you we're a investor looking to buy hasselblad, all you would see is a money put if you had to go it alone in designing and producing those large imagers. Canon seems like the odd man out these days with nothing in the field to match the Sony based imagers. I suspect you will never know the true cost to make the hssselblad or phaseone cameras. If you find a credible source it would be very interesting to know the actual numbers.

<p>Its Brad vs Brad (how often does that happen!)</p> <p>I agree with what you said, but I look at this this way. Apple believes their watch is worth $350 so they will charge that much but only if they think they are going to make some money after all is said and done.</p> <p>Lets say it cost them $200 to make that watch, I don't know a whole lot of electronics manufacturers who would even take this on unless the volumes were assured to be in the millions. Or if related sales (ie the phones) would also increase. My guess is that Apple has already worked with (putting it nicely) its suppliers to get that cost of goods down to below 1/3 the selling price and know apple it may be below 1/4.</p> <p>And there is also the fact that you are often not first. Hasselbad does this, Phase one does that, Leaf comes out this, Hasselbad responds with that. By then pricing is more established (unless it is a totally new market - such as the first iPad).</p> <p>So if you are Hasselbad and about to come out with another high resolution camera or back, you know you can't just price it at $1,00,000 and get it (well maybe NASA will by 10). So you have a more realistic upper number in mind. Then you look at your costs to produce. If that ratio is anywhere near 1:1 I don't know many companies that will move forward unless they have hug sums of money off shore (Apple!) to subsidize it until the volumes increase and costs drop. </p> <p>If I had to guess, it's probably cost Hasselbad $2,500-$6000 to make a $40,000 camera. That's probably 7x-10x COG's to final price to buyer. I bet they would love to sell 1,000,000 cameras a year and charge $9,000 but until there is a demand, they need to make a lot more money of each sale to recoup initial investments. So they can't really go that low on the number either.</p> <p>Also, the people in the middle to make some money on these products as they will be expected to support them and they aren't selling 50 a day. So their sale channel is getting a decent cut as well. </p> <p>I know there is no magic ratio. But in complex electronic devices these ratios are not uncommon.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I thought lack of WiFi in this camera is due to its construction (all the metal inside)?</p> <p>Its too bad Canon does make one of the plug in Wifi modules like Nikon has. Price it at $50. That would get the antennae outside the body interference. Actually, just include it with the body when sold new.</p>

<p>Its not just about the name (although that clearly plays some part in it). It is supply and demand. It is a function of the cost of goods(the price of all the components), the cost to assemble, costs for R&D, etc. </p> <p>If the world only demanded 10,000 iPads, they wouldn't be $400 (unless their competitors were selling 5,000,000 of a similar thing with many shared parts). The price would be much higher because someone would have to make those LCD touchscreens but their volumes would be so low they would have to charge more to recoup their fabrication costs.</p> <p>I'm sure the Hasselblad and Phase costs fall into this same bucket. They aren't producing 5,000,000 of these larger imagers. And no one else is either. So let's say they only sell 10,000 on 2-3yrs, then the cost to make those not so common imagers will be quite high. And because it is such a large imager, better colors, etc then the surrounding processor(s), memory, etc are also more expensive than a typical DSLR.</p> <p>Often you will see the price for gadget run about 3-6x (or more) the cost of the goods to make it. Any less and it just won't be profitable enough to justify making them and supporting them later on.</p> <p>Finally, there is demand. What if they could only make 5,000 of those cameras a year and 10,000 agencies / photogs want them Then they can charge even more.</p> <p>I just wish there was a 50MP back for my old 500cm (which there is) for under $3000 (which there is not)</p>

<p>Hasselblad 500CM + 80CF + Tri-X 400 + DSLR Scan<br> <img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0009.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br> <strong>Tree Hugger</strong></p> <p> </p>

<p>Hasselblad 500CM + 80 CF + Tri-X 400 + Scanned with DSLR</p> <p><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0008.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br> <strong>Hanging Around</strong></p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback so far.</p> <p>Re: Why compare 35mm vs MF. Yeah, in a way its silly. However after having just started with MF and using the Zeiss 80mm 2.8, I find that I really, really like it. As I read more about the Zeiss lineup for Hasselblad I read how the 100mm and 180mm are such good lenses. So it I was wondering if the C/Y lineup was made with the same optical formulas, coatings, same micro contrast and punchy look. Or did Zeiss do something unique for Hasselblad.</p>

<p>I was wondering (in general) if the Hasselblad versions and the C/Y versions are basically the same designs, same micro contrast, same saturation, same bokeh characteristics, etc. If having a specific lens to compare helps, I guess I would be interested in the 100mm and 180mm lenses as the Hasselblad versions are said to be incredibly sharp.</p>

<p>I think I bought that same one. I got the one that adapts b60 to 77mm. It does work. But the material is quite flimsy so its a bit hard to get the filter threaded onto it. At this cost it is worth it and lets me use my polarizer and nd filters. I'm thinking it might be easier to put the filter on the adapter first and put them on the lens last.</p>

<p>I have been doing some more reading after Joe's comments. The first thing I have learned is that my trusty old 5D2 is probably not the weapon of choice for DSLR scanning of MF negatives. Its resolution comes in at 78.6lp/mm vs resolutions of 102lp/mm for the 36Mp Sony imagers and 128lp/mm for the Sony 24Mp imagers.</p> <p>I took a peak at the photozone lens review for my Canon 100L macro. They show the charts for MTF50 in lp/ph.</p> <p>How does a person determine the lp/mm number for this lens (or any lens)?</p> <p>I am curious, does it resolve well enough to hit the 45-50Mp number that Joe indicated would be more realistic?</p> <p>And I think I now get the part about the lens needing to producing those resolution figures across the entire frame. I guess I probably knew it was somewhat of an issue but hadn't got far enough along yet to see it's effects. For my case using the least number of stitched images meant there would be more regions where the sharper part of the image from one frame would meet the lower resolution portion of the image from another frame. Now I wonder if that may have even been noticeable printed at 13x19?</p> <p>So to mitigate this if one only has standard lenses, then many slightly overlapped images would be required and then force the stitcher to use the sweetspot (ie center) of each (good luck there). Or shoot all the images, crop to the centers first and then stitch.</p> <p>Which brings us back to Borys proposal. He proposes to use his Zeiss MF lens on the APS-C DSLR. In doing so he is effectively pre-cropping (quite significantly for that matter) on the APS-C imager to use the highest and most consistent resolution portion of the len's image circle.</p> <p>Given he intends to use a high enough resolution APS-C imager: is the Zeiss MF lens good enough (in its center when stopped down) for a final stitched 50Mp image? </p> <p>If not, is there another cost effective lens option (which through cropping) might give acceptable even resolution across the APS-C frame. Perhaps an older Medium Format macro lens?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thank you for that info Rodeo Joe!</p> <p>I know Ken gets beat up pretty bad from time to time however I had read this article on his site (<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm</a>). The claim is that Velvia 50 will require about 320 pixels per millimeter. For 6x6, that would greatly exceed the 45..50Mp you stated.</p> <p>That being said I just tried an extension tube (for 1.3:1) on my 100L and I don't think the image looked really any better than it did at 1:1. So I definitely believe I will not be getting any more detail from my 6x6 slides unless there is something else I am missing.</p> <p>I am a bit bummed. I had hoped there was more detail in there and I had hoped I would be able to get it with a macro lens, tubes and a fairly modern DSLR.</p> <p>Now I am wondering something, other than dynamic range - is a drum scan going to be any sharper than a DSLR scan with a macro lens?</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback E.!</p> <p>Camera: HB 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF, Velvia 50.<br /> Scanner: 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched<br /> Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass)<br> Converted to B&W in PS (wish I would have had tri-x for this shot) <br> <img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0007.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br> <strong>Cowgirls</strong></p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Borys,</p> <p>I think I understand, you want to be able to scan your MF negatives using as much of your Hasselblad kit as possible and want to minimize your investment in the digital portion (the DSLR).</p> <p>First a question - are you scanning all types of film - color negative, B&W and slides?</p> <p>I am using my Canon 5D2 and 100 macro lens. It requires a minimum of 6 RAW shots and I end up with images of about 8500x8500 pixels or about 72mp (after cropping out the film border). That is about 25MB as a high quality Jpeg or about 195MB as a tiff file with no layers and no compression. One nice thing about using the Canon is that I can shoot tethered and can us the Eos utility to micro step the focus while watching a 10x live view image on the PC for both focus and framing.</p> <p>Since I have started with slide film I have been very impressed with the colors, saturation, etc. I feel that the DR of the slide isn't that much beyond the old Canon (I know it is but just doesn't seem to be a big deal).</p> <p>What I do find lacking is the sharpness. When I look under a loupe I think I am seeing more resolution that my DSLR scan. So I will be trying a extension tube on the macro lens to see what more I can get from it. I think I have ruled out camera shake, etc.</p> <p>If I can obtain the sharpness I am after, then the next issue will of course be dynamic range for color negative and B&W film. That I believe is a place where just any old crop DSLR may not be ideal. This is where the Nikon D800's, D810's come in. But it is also where the Sony NEX 6, NEX 7 and the A7's come in. Those Nikons and Sony can capture more DR. Just one problem - all of those cameras listed above will set you back $$$$ except the NEX models.</p> <p>So if you are okay with APS-C / crop take a closer look at the Sony NEX-6 or NEX-7. I currently have a NEX-6. Its a camera that has a fantastic image, just kinda crappy menus and speed. For slide scanning none of these issues should be a big deal (especially if they can be tethered). The good part, with Sony's throw anything and everything out there are fast as you can marketing approach, the NEX's are now going for around US$400 used these days! Then get a manual adapter to get your Zeiss to E-Mount (or use Zeiss to Canon and Canon to E-Mount).</p> <p>Here I too would recommend following the sage advise of the others regarding the lens. Get one of the cheap, great macro lenses mentioned above. Maybe with one extension tube. Mount the NEX on your copy stand and shoot sony raw files. Perhaps you could get the NEX 6 or NEX 7, a great old manual focus macro lens and one ext tube for about US$600.</p> <p>I think the bigger issues with going after more resolution is that when you have stitch so many images (say anything 6+) on photos that have large featureless areas (eg. blue sky) the stitching becomes a pain in the rear. To date, my nemesis slide is just a simple flag against the blue sky shot. There is so much nearly featureless blue sky that the stitcher never produces an image I like. I find that this is the only distraction on my mind when shooting film. This is where the D800, D810 and Sony A7r would come in handy since they are full frame high resolution so less overall images to stitch. I think I once calculated that using one those three cameras would yield something like 12500x12500 images or about 150mp!!!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br />Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br />Mount: Gepe slide frame (with ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table<br> <strong> </strong><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0005.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br> <strong>Cruiser At The Drive-In</strong></p> <p> </p>

<p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br />Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br />Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table<img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0004.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br> <strong>Summer Smiles</strong></p>

<p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br />Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br />Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table<br> <img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0003.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br> <strong>Wine On The Patio</strong></p>

<p>Please welcome a film virgin! I started with digital and this is my first time with film.<br> Picked up an old Hasselblad kit and after seeing the first slides a few weeks ago I am hooked!</p> <p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br> Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br> Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table</p> <p><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0001.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /></p> <center> <p><strong>Remove Before Flight</strong></p> <center> <p> </p> </center></center>