It's official. The SLR is dead! Long Live Mirrorless!
Why are you hanging on to your inferior, ancient SLR?
>system for 9k usd with 2 lenses
yeah noooo
>>2868308
because i like to take pictures with it. why do you care so much?
>>2868308
Because it's excellent, and versatile, and didn't cost me $10,000.
>>2868308
That looks actually really handy to me. Sweet. Looks like Hassy has learned their lesson.
I need good AF
>>2868308
>It's official. The SLR is dead! Long Live Mirrorless!
>>2868343
this was an american invention right?
>>2868308
Okay. Have fun with your 10 minute battery life.
>>2868347
german if I recall correctly
>>2868308
>same 1.3x crop sensor as 645Z
>2 slow-ish AF primes, one is a weird 70mm equiv
>$9000 body only
I'm not convinced that it's going to be any kind of game-changer. It's essentially an A7R2 with a slightly bigger sensor, but lacking 80% of functionality and 90% of lens choice. I bet most buyers will be getting it with a mount adapter as a backup for their "big" Hassy, which is a niche within a niche.
>Mirrorless
>Leaf shutter
Still hears a SLAP!
>>2868347
>american
Nope. German engineer Oskar Barnack from Leitz invented the 35mm camera back in the early 1910s.. which then became the Leica.
>>2868360
The camera accepts H-mount lenses with the adapter from Hasselblad. Makes 14 lenses for this camera at the start.
105 2.4
83 1.8
>>2868308
I might make the jump when we get actual 645 sensors. This is barely bigger than full frame, and seems to be older tech, at quite a cost. No thank you.
>>2868366
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Alter-Schwede-Hasselblad-stellt-spiegellose-Mittelformatkamera-X1D-vor-3245815.html
According to this article the XCD 45 mm f/3.5 will cost about 2300 Euros, the XCD 90 mm f/3.2 will cost 2725 Euros.
>>2868360
>It's essentially an A7R2
Nope, they made the entire camera by themselves. It is not an modified Sony barebone.
>>2868368
To even think that you would buy this to use the AF lenses with is preposterous.
>>2868367
>I might make the jump when we get actual 645 sensors
So, Is this an ABSOLUTE thing, or just "near enough"?
We already have 53.7x40.4 Sensors. 6x4.5 film is actually 56x41.5. Cough up buddy. Digital Medium Format has been here for a few months now.
>>2868364
The problem with the adapter is that it kills the size advantage of mirrorless - how many people do you see using A lenses on E-mount cameras, or 4/3 on m4/3?
So as I've said -
>I bet most buyers will be getting it with a mount adapter as a backup for their "big" Hassy
>>2868367
10bux says it's the same sensor as 645Z, which is pretty damn good.
>>2868370
I meant usage-wise. Obviously, it's not Lunar kind of bullshit.
>>2868371
You do realize that H-system has had AF for years, right?
>>2868372
I mean in a small compact fairly inexpensive package. The jump in image quality is only worth so much to me, and "so much" isn't $40,000 unfortunately.
>>2868382
Make up your fucking mind and stop making vague misleading statements.
>>2868383
I'm sorry, did my opinion offend you for some reason? I didn't realize this was preschool.
>>2868384
>did my opinion offend you
No. Because it wasn't an opinion.
You said
>I'd make the jump when we get actual 645 sensors
>seems to be older tech, at quite a cost
Then you complain that the near 6x4.5 sensors are already on the market are not compact and are expensive. Of course they are.
If you want to class your misleading and stupid comment an opinion then go ahead if it helps you sleep better tonight.
What you're looking for won't exist for years to come, so your so called opinion literally matters to no-one. Go back to commenting on petapixel articles and rumour sites : ^ )
>>2868372
120 film gates vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and camera to camera.
Some Mamiyas gates are large enough that the image extends into the rebate.
>>2868390
>Some Mamiyas gates are large enough that the image extends into the rebate.
Go ahead and name a Mamiya 6x4.5 camera that does so.
>>2868370
>Nope, they made the entire camera by themselves.
No.
>It is not an modified Sony barebone
Yes, because it's a fujifilm barebones.
In 3 months fuji will release their variant.
Hassleblad is a shell that doesn't make shit anymore.
"Look Mom I posted it again! xD"
>>2868384
You were perfectly clear the first time dude, and yes this IS preschool. Just stop while you're still ahead
>>2868380
You do realize that H-system has had AF for years, right
Yeah, that's not my point. I see this becoming a smashing success as the "adapt any MF MF lens ever" camera. I see no real world advantage over the 645Z in this camera if you're just using the AF lenses. Might as well get an A7RII for 85% of the image quality and save enough money to buy the entire lens line.
Nice bit of kit; good to see that Hasselblad is back on track with a serious MILC, after the shameful Sony re-badging clusterfuck.
Probably has shitty AF.
Each lens costs as much as the body, not surprising though. Probably f/3.5 rather than f/2.8 to save some weight.
No mention of an electronic shutter option for adapted lenses without a leaf shutter, but as it has video then presumably it's there. If so, then hopefully not jello-tastic and/or hits DR too much.
>Hasselblad actually making their own camera for once
My girlfriend is now considering going mirrorless.
How do I explain to her, with sources, that this is a moronic fucking decision?
>>2868666
Hi satan. Just tell her to look at all the Fedora wearing Sony shills, and ask her if she too wants to end up as a greasy neckbeard only shooting cats in her basement. If she says yes, mirrorless is for her.
>>2868380
>how many people do you see using A lenses on E-mount cameras, or 4/3 on m4/3?
A small number for A-mount, because E-mount has no lenses, and Sony users don't mind carrying huge lenses and huge adapters for their tiny tiny mirrorless body because of memes or something.
Anybody you see shooting sports with a E-M1 will likely have some 4/3rds telephotos in their arsenal. There's some amazingly fast stuff like the 150/2 and such available.
>>2868666
Anal, without lube
>>2868666
Buy her a Samsung NX1 so she can benefit from the amazing after-sales service and feel secure in the knowledge that they are wisely continuing to invest in the NX system, and have an extensive roadmap of future pro lenses!
>>2868682
>how many people do you see using A lenses on E-mount cameras, or 4/3 on m4/3?
I use a Pentax 6x7 Super Takumar 105mm F2.4 on my Pentax QS-1
>>2868666
Lying is not healthy for any relationship.
>>2868660
My bad.
>>2868666
>My girlfriend is now considering going mirrorless.
>How do I explain to her, with sources, that this is a moronic fucking decision?
soon to be ex girlfriend. but nice trips \m/
>>2868682
I use the 16mm 2.8 quite a bit for the jobs I do (real-estate interiors) shit work but it pays the bills and is still better than weddings.
>>2868714
holy shit thats a good idea what the fuck
>>2868776
its fucking weird.
>>2868790
Can you post a pic of it in use?
I'd fucking love to be able to try using that glorious 6x7 55 f/4 on a k1
That would be stupid fun
>>2868660
Actually both are.
>1080p 24fps
Useless.
>>2868842
For you.
dslr's are going to die eventually because a flappy mirror is a leftover from film age. Not even baiting. Since now we have acces to live view through sensor itself, whats the fucking point of that mirror???? This is all true and its a shame dslr fags still defend this.
>>2868666
Evf is garbage, it isn't going to be a compact camera. It'll be within 3-400g. Battery life is awful, usually more menu diving, auto focus is abysmally worse.
"BUT MUH IMAGE PREVIEW FOR COMPOSITION"
Any good photographer worth their salt will be using off camera lighting (flashes, etc) and the EVF cannot compensate for that. Anything that's too fast to setup flash will be too fast for an EVF in anything but perfect light.
Plus the feel of the mirror slap and shutter shock combined gives an excellent feedback for every shot.
>>2868932
>it isn't going to be a compact camera
Do you know many smaller digital MF options?
>auto focus is abysmally worse.
No it's not, it was before phase detection on sensor was a thing
>the EVF cannot compensate for that
No but it gives you perfect preview of how your ambient light is, so you can balance it with your fill, noob
>feel of the mirror slap and shutter shock
Your camera moves when it's taking a shot... sounds desirable :/
>>2868932
>Any good photographer worth their salt will be using off camera lighting (flashes, etc)
Ah yeah I remember when Ansel Adams used an array of fucking kleig lights to illuminate Yosemite.
>>2868943
>We lie to ladies to get them to do what we want
>State-of-the-Art ergonomics
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D500 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.2 Image-Specific Properties: Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/8.0 ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Fine Weather Flash Flash, Return Not Detected Focal Length 60.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual
>>2868952
>no d-pad or nipple
Literally what the fuck hasselblad?
>>2868978
It has touch screen. That's actually far more intuitive and fast operation.
>>2868989
Except you have to take it away from your face literally every time you want to change your focus point...
>>2868989
Isn't it kinda pointless to weather seal the body but then have a touchscreen that would be hard to operate under tough weather conditions?
>>2868990
You mean when your eye is in the EVF?
Not necessarily. It depends on how they build it, but a mini joystick can never be faster and more precise than your finger gesture, you don't need eyes on your finger to operate focus point.
>>2868992
When your eye is to the viewfinder, your face is in the way of the screen.
Your finger can be super precise, but what won't be as precise is the touch receptor on the screen, or the focus point system that it is applied to. If you tap on a feature on the screen that doesn't happen to fall on a focus point, it's going to give you the next-nearest point in whatever direction, which may not be where you want it to be.
touch-screen AF can be great in specific situations, if things align perfectly, or it can be slow, clunky, and infuriating.
A mini joy stick can absolutely be faster and more precise because I can stay in my shooting position to use it.
>>2869014
When you operate a laptop, you have your eye on the screen, not on the touch pad.
>>2869017
...???
Press your face up against your keyboard.
Now try to type, without moving it.
>>2869017
Try typing a message on your phone's keyboard with autocorrect turned off, while looking at something else, while the phone is pressed against your face.
>>2869019
We were talking about moving focus points, not typing text.
>>2869022
The point is, you need to look at your screen to see what part of the scene you're going to be tapping on, and you need to not have your face smashed up against it in order to be able to touch the points you need.
>>2869027
No it really depends on how intuitive they build the touch screen.
Moving the focus point could be made as seamlessly as moving the mouse marker on your PC.
>>2869029
Yes, now try to move the mouse and click on something without looking at the screen, while your face is on the mouse pad, in the way.
This is one of the reasons why the photography industry has such a hard time evolving and innovating.
It's full of fucktards who can't think new thoughts out of the box.
>>2869030
The touch pad can be partitioned so the right half is the one that operates the focus point.
>>2869035
>he touch pad can be partitioned so the right half is the one that operates the focus point.
Is it? Can you adjust how big the touch patch is? What if you're left eye dominant? What if your nose touches it as you crouch and turn your face? etc.
If it's implemented perfectly, it's at best, the same as an AF nipple, while being more complex. At worst, it's a lot worse.
>>2868682
>Anybody you see shooting sports with a E-M1
Cryptids don't count
>>2868952
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D40 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 846 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 300 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2007:06:02 16:00:12 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 1600 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 498 Image Height 332 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Soft Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
It's like I'm talking to a baby who can't think independently.
>>2869042
If you're blind in your right eye, then reverse the halves so the left side controls the focus point.
>Can you adjust how big the touch patch is?
Software can partition the touch surface in zones and deactivate certain sones.
>all of these kids mad that a 10,000 dollar camera made for working professionals doesn't have the same ergonomics as their sony playstation babysitting machine's controller
>>2869046
>then reverse the halves so the left side controls the focus point.
And then imagine how you're holding the camera to use that without adjusting your shooting position.
>Software can
Yes, but will it? Software CAN do anything, but Hasselblad only gets credit for how the camera will actually function.
>>2869050
>And then imagine how you're holding the camera to use that without adjusting your shooting position.
I'm holding my camera right now, pointing my left eye into the viefinder and poking around the left half of the lcd with my left hand fingers/thumb.
Why don't you try it yourself?
>Yes, but will it?
That's why I prefaced this discussion with "if it's build well enough". Scroll up.
>>2869053
Not the previous poster, but point is that the X1D, a camera that should be aimed at pro photographers, has poorly thought out design and ergonomics that don't make sense.
A touch screen makes sense when you don't have/use a viewfinder. And when you use the EVF, you need another input device that allows you to keep your eye on the vf.
>>2869049
I'm just kind of puzzled why super-expensive cameras like this or SL, supposedly made for working professionals, get UIs that look like they were made by a drunk Jony Ive, while cheap consumer cameras get UIs just like pro DSLRs with the omission of a few buttons.
>>2869058
I just wouldn't judge them so fast.
And I've already said hat it depends on how well they implemented this feature. The technology is there, and has been for long time, but it's up to Hasselblad to implement it right.
>>2869053
>Why don't you try it yourself?
When I'm holding my camera, all of the fingers on my left hand are out in front of my camera. None are anywhere near the left side of the LCD.
>>2869064
Try holding both hands on the camera body.
>>2869066
>Try holding both hands on the camera body.
Like a retard with unstable photos and no control of anything going on on the lens...
>>2869068
Some cameras are build for that kind of operation.
It's not as bad as it sounds, also the lens barrel typically don't have any necessary functions these days.
Aperture rings were removed a long time ago, focus ring is made redundant by AF.
>>2868308
>Why are you hanging on to your inferior, ancient SLR?
it's an amazing camera
>>2869070
>Some cameras are build for that kind of operation.
No, they aren't. The point of holding a camera the "traditional" way is to stabilize the camera, and hold the weight in your left hand, so you're free to have your right hand loose to operate controls and squeeze the shutter button without affecting stability or position of the camera. There is no camera out there that is designed to be used the way you see tourists use cameras.
>>2869116
There are some that are build with additional handles on the left side.
Anyway, it's just something you have to live with if you're blind on the right eye.
It's unfortunate, but the same can be said for many other handicaps.
You could have a person who has both his legs amputated, and it will impact this photography too, but there just isn't much the camera itself can do to alleviate that.
>>2869123
I have the use of both of my eyes, and use my left eye on the viewfinder.
Either way, all of this stuff is totally moot assuming they use the same functionality for touch screen AF that literally everyone else uses, which is poorly implemented. (Unless there's a camera I'm unaware of that lets you drag your finger across a blacked out screen to move focus points on half the screen with your eye to the viewfinder)
If it's "the LCD shows the scene, and you can poke it with your finger to get it to focus" it will be worse than an AF nipple that lets you adjust the points in the viewfinder without moving your hands or face.
>>2869126
>Unless there's a camera I'm unaware of that lets you drag your finger across a blacked out screen to move focus points on half the screen with your eye to the viewfinder
There is. So now you finally understand how pessimistic, inside the box kind of person you are.
>>2869128
That's pretty cool. What camera is it?
>>2869060
Because lots of high-end expensive stuff is designed by drunk monkeys.
Look at top end hi-fi kit, and how much of it is ridiculous overblown shit that costs megabux and isn't even very reliable or user-friendly.
>>2869060
Because despite the cameras being super expensive, their small sales numbers and high overhead mean that their development budgets are much smaller than mainstream cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. can also spread their UX development over many models, while somebody like Leica or Hasselblad generally have to work up a totally new system for every camera they release, since new models are so rare.
I suppose there's also some element of them just not having to try as hard, because they don't have the direct competition that mainstream camera companies do.
>>2868776
>>2868795
>>2868790
Here you go
Pentax QS-1
Pentax 6x7 55mm f4
Pentax Q to PK Adapter
Pentax PK to 6x7 Adapter
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model Nexus 5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:23 22:36:51 Exposure Time 16664153/500000000 sec F-Number f/2.4 ISO Speed Rating 328 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.97 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1728 Image Height 1351 White Balance Auto
>>2869365
weird as fuck. called it.
do you have sample pics? that 55mm is gorgeous. i fucking know because i own one wooo.
>>2869366
Just one on my "traveling" tablet
Posted this once before
With the "crop factor" it is the equivalent of a 258.5
This was in May about 9am
Albuquerque, NM Old Town
The San Felipe de Neri Church, founded in 1706
This was handheld
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:23 22:55:42 Exposure Time 1/2500 sec Exposure Bias 0 EV Focal Length 55.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2869377
>With the "crop factor" it is the equivalent of a 258.5
cucked.
>>2869387
Your right I stated that incorrectly
The "apparent" focal length of this lens on the QS-1 is:
6x7 55mm lens x 1.5 (for 35mm) then x 4.7 for the Q = 387.75
Thanks for catching the error
>>2869129
The relatively cheap, entry level d5500. Don't know about other models as I'm not that much into gear and specs but it doesn't seem like a super-hi-tech-ultra-sophisticated feature in 2016.
>>2868308
i am because pentaprisms are great
>>2869409
Holy fuck. Imma get a QS1 and a 500mm mirror tele so I can stalk people from 25 miles away :^)
>3000mm
Ayy
>>2869377
>crop factor
Compared to what sensor?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1203 Image Height 680 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:26 19:58:24 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1203 Image Height 680
>>2869694
The QS-1 sensor size is 1/1.7 inch (7.6mm x 5.7mm), or a 4.7 crop, as compared to the "standard" reference "Full Frame" sensor being 35mm (35.8mm x 23.9mm), usually considered a 1:1, the lens was made for a Pentax 6x7 medium format camera, with a "sensor" (film size) of 54x70mm, so a "crop factor" of 1.5 as compared to the 35mm standard
Of course "crop factor" is just a simplified method of explaining "Field of View"
So the QS-1, using a 55mm medium format lens as the same FoV as a 35mm (full frame) camera using a 387.75 lens
I have a Pentax 6x7 and most of the lenses, so I got a few adapters and use them with my Q, also use them on an a7, an a6000 and a G7, just having a good time using a lot of old lenses on a bunch of modern sensors
Non professional photographer, I just enjoy photography, if I didn't have fun I would move on to something else, get a lot of comments about the setup, guys want to know about the lenses, women think the camera is cute, my dog would just prefer we kept walking and ,y wife is glad my retirement keeps me out of her house
>>2868926
dslr is awesome at taking pictures at eyelevel for everything else mirrorless with LiveView rocks. but to be honest there will never be the all supirior body. use the body that is best suited for the job. or would you drive a Tesla through the woods?
>>2868926
I think even shutter will die eventually when engineers will figure out how to perform instant sensor readout without rolling shutter. Global shutter is a thing now, but only for res <= 4k and >= 1/60s of exposure time, but this numbers surely will improve with time
>>2868308
autofocus tracking
>>2870157
I welcome our new fully solid state cameras
>>2870572
>solid state camera
>focus is fixed solid
That sounds wonderful, you daft moron
>>2871160
>Cameras = lenses
Who's daft?
>>2868926
The mirror is completely unrelated to film.
It is there because of the optical viewfinder.
(film)Cameras did not have a viewfinder to begin with, it was an evolution that added an unparalleled advancement in camera technology.
From this point of view the (d)slr concept is king.
Viewfinder rendering will have to be damn good for it to be deemed a worthwhile (but still not really equivalent) replacement.
Then there is of course the unrelated digital issue of actually having to power the sensor the entire viewing time for the camera to be usable at all.
This is especially true with a big sensor such as op pic related.
>>2870569
it already exists on mirrorless...
>>2871197
Sorry but even the mirrorless camera with the best AF in single point (GX8, GH4, A6000+) can't track for shit. They get easily distracted and miss as many frames as they catch.
mirrorless is king!
Fuck your SLR, fuck it good!
>>2871466
>miss as many frames as they catch.
So do Canon DSLRs
>>2871472
Bullshit
>>2871472
Maybe the rebels. I don't shoot Canon but I borrowed I think a 7D to shoot a sports game and it nailed focus for days.
>>2871474
It is truly amazing how well (higher end) DSLR's focus.
What I find cool is that they predict where the subject will be during the exposure, instead of just focusing where it is currently.
All the decades of work Canon and Nikon put into developing their AF systems really shows, I love that.
>>2868308
Because rolling shutter is about as amateur hour as you can get when it comes to video.
>>2871466
Haven't had an issue with focus tracking shooting in a moving car. I understand it's hard to consider that after spending so much on a DSLR that Mirrorless are catching up so fast. Its just a matter of time, might as well start building up gear starting now.
>>2871160
electromagnetic meniscus lenses? I dunno, it's possible.
>>2868313
you're right. 80mm is all you need.
>>2868436
Fuji X-GW690
>when
Used 645Z is $5000, new around $7000.
All the good Pentax 645 digital lenses. All the excellent manual 645 lenses. All the glorious 6x7 lenses, some with leaf shutter.
Yeah, no, Hasselblad is just late to the show with noting new to offer.
