Hasselblad mirrorless MF

http://www.hasselblad.com/x1d

Mirrorless seems like a good idea for an MF camera, because it
eliminates mirror shake.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2016-06-22 18:18:52 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

http://www.hasselblad.com/x1d

Mirrorless seems like a good idea for an MF camera, because it
eliminates mirror shake.

Nice, but at $8000 for body only is way too rich for me.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-06-22 18:30:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-06-22 18:18:52 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

http://www.hasselblad.com/x1d

Mirrorless seems like a good idea for an MF camera, because it
eliminates mirror shake.

Nice, but at $8000 for body only is way too rich for me.

....er, make that $8995 for body only.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Alfred Molon:

http://www.hasselblad.com/x1d

Mirrorless seems like a good idea for an MF camera, because it
eliminates mirror shake.

To be sure. But I looked at the Hasselblad gallery for this camera and
none of the photos screamed out "Had to be made with this ~$12,000
camera!" I didn't see anything that a Canon/Fuji/Nikon/Sony could not
do @ 1/3 the price. Mirror shake? Do you see any evidence of that in
this 5D Mark III photo that I made a few days ago (without mirror lock)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/27098962364? 'Cause I sure
don't. I don't know about the cheapest of DSLR cameras, but I think
mirror shake is a memory dredged up from the mists of time, the days of
all-mechanical cameras, a minor problem that I haven't seen from any
brand of DSLR.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:18:52 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

http://www.hasselblad.com/x1d

Mirrorless seems like a good idea for an MF camera, because it
eliminates mirror shake.

True, and the use of leaf shutters is a perfect match for a Macro 4/3
camera. I hope the real world use of this cam turns out as good as it
looks. Nice recovery from those luxury Sonys, isn't it?

In article , Davoud says...
Mirror shake? Do you see any evidence of that in
this 5D Mark III photo that I made a few days ago (without mirror lock)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/27098962364? 'Cause I sure
don't. I don't know about the cheapest of DSLR cameras, but I think
mirror shake is a memory dredged up from the mists of time, the days of
all-mechanical cameras, a minor problem that I haven't seen from any
brand of DSLR.

But on a MF camera, mirrors are *huge*. Besides you can't always use
mirror lock up.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Davoud:
Mirror shake? Do you see any evidence of that in
this 5D Mark III photo that I made a few days ago (without mirror lock)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/27098962364? 'Cause I sure
don't. I don't know about the cheapest of DSLR cameras, but I think
mirror shake is a memory dredged up from the mists of time, the days of
all-mechanical cameras, a minor problem that I haven't seen from any
brand of DSLR.

Alfred Molon
But on a MF camera, mirrors are *huge*. Besides you can't always use
mirror lock up.

I hadn't thought about that. Probably one of the reasons I haven't used
a MF camera in many years (Hasselblad 500C and Mamiya RB67). I had
myself convinced for a while that I had to have a PhaseONE after seeing
Alexia Sinclair's work
http://profoto.com/blog/fine-art-pho...air-traveled-f
rozen-castle/, but I knew all along that deep pockets do not make one
a great artist. Alas.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:51:13 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Davoud says...
Mirror shake? Do you see any evidence of that in
this 5D Mark III photo that I made a few days ago (without mirror lock)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/27098962364? 'Cause I sure
don't. I don't know about the cheapest of DSLR cameras, but I think
mirror shake is a memory dredged up from the mists of time, the days of
all-mechanical cameras, a minor problem that I haven't seen from any
brand of DSLR.

But on a MF camera, mirrors are *huge*. Besides you can't always use
mirror lock up.

I'm not disagreeing, but why does MF make any difference?

Alfred Molon:
But on a MF camera, mirrors are *huge*. Besides you can't always use
mirror lock up.

Bill W:
I'm not disagreeing, but why does MF make any difference?

Assuming that you meant why does MF make a difference in mirror size,
it's because the larger sensor requires a larger optical viewfinder (if
one is to see the full frame) and a larger viewfinder requires a larger
mirror. Much larger than a 24x36mm DSLR camera.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:34:14 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Alfred Molon:
But on a MF camera, mirrors are *huge*. Besides you can't always use
mirror lock up.

Bill W:
I'm not disagreeing, but why does MF make any difference?

Assuming that you meant why does MF make a difference in mirror size,
it's because the larger sensor requires a larger optical viewfinder (if
one is to see the full frame) and a larger viewfinder requires a larger
mirror. Much larger than a 24x36mm DSLR camera.

I'm an idiot. I never really read what everyone was saying, and
thought MF was manual focus.