Hasselblad claims to have sold a year's worth of new cameras in a week

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:01:33 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Tuesday, 13 December 2016 21:57:25 UTC-5, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:38:02 -0500, nospam wrote:
: : In article ,
: : RichA wrote:
: :
: :
: : Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger sensored
: : cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad nauseam about the laws
: : of physics that demand they are right.
: :
: : no demanding needed. they are right. the laws of physics have not been
: : overturned.
: :
: : The problem is, once you show them a
: : medium format camera, those laws go out the window and all of a sudden,
: : larger medium format is no better than their FF's!!!
: :
: : nonsense. all things being equal, an mf size sensor will blow away full
: : frame.
: :
: : the problem is that trolls cherry pick what they're comparing.
:
: No, the problem, in this case, is that the poverty of functionality (and I
: suspect also of lens selection) of the Hassy means that all things aren't
: anywhere near equal.
:
: I don't doubt that the Hassy will be a fine camera. But it's a niche camera,
: of the "if you need it, you'll know it" sort. It isn't going to replace
: conventional DSLRs, either full-frame or APS-C. The comparison between APS-C
: and FF is radically different, because two choices can be virtually identical
: in every respect except the frame size.
:
: Bob
:
: And all of a sudden, FF shooters all become professional sports shooters, or shooters of wildlife only under adverse conditions...

I didn't.

Bob

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:17:08 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , PeterN
: wrote:
:
: Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger
: sensored
: cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad nauseam about the laws
: of physics that demand they are right.
:
: no demanding needed. they are right. the laws of physics have not been
: overturned.
:
: The problem is, once you show them a
: medium format camera, those laws go out the window and all of a sudden,
: larger medium format is no better than their FF's!!!
:
: nonsense. all things being equal, an mf size sensor will blow away full
: frame.
:
: the problem is that trolls cherry pick what they're comparing.
:
:
: No. The problem is that it's the photographer, not the tool. Engaging
: in, or provoking a tool war is simply blaming the tool for personal
: deficiencies. Many years ago, the horse racing photo of the year was
: taken with a Brownie.
:
: whoosh.
:
: this isn't a tool war. it's physics. larger sensors will outperform
: smaller sensors, unless you cherry pick.
:
: simple as that.

Yes, but cherry picking isn't a bad thing. It allows you to decide what
factors define "better" for you, e.g.: size, weight, resolution, low-light
performance, price, lens availability, etc. Those factors are often not
proportional to sensor size.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger
: sensored
: cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad nauseam about the
: laws
: of physics that demand they are right.
:
: no demanding needed. they are right. the laws of physics have not been
: overturned.
:
: The problem is, once you show them a
: medium format camera, those laws go out the window and all of a sudden,
: larger medium format is no better than their FF's!!!
:
: nonsense. all things being equal, an mf size sensor will blow away full
: frame.
:
: the problem is that trolls cherry pick what they're comparing.
:
:
: No. The problem is that it's the photographer, not the tool. Engaging
: in, or provoking a tool war is simply blaming the tool for personal
: deficiencies. Many years ago, the horse racing photo of the year was
: taken with a Brownie.
:
: whoosh.
:
: this isn't a tool war. it's physics. larger sensors will outperform
: smaller sensors, unless you cherry pick.
:
: simple as that.

Yes, but cherry picking isn't a bad thing.

it is when making objective comparisons.

It allows you to decide what
factors define "better" for you, e.g.: size, weight, resolution, low-light
performance, price, lens availability, etc. Those factors are often not
proportional to sensor size.

this isn't about what is better for you or anyone else nor is it about
whether something is available in a store. seriously, wtf? performance
is not dependent on how many are in stock at a store.

it's about objective measurements of two different size formats. that's
all. the laws of physics state that a larger sensor will outperform a
smaller one. simple as that.

whether someone *needs* that level of performance is an entirely
separate matter. most people don't.

however, they *do* need to know how well the various options compare so
that they can make an informed choice.

most people are happy with cellphone cameras, but that doesn't mean a
cellphone camera outperforms an slr. it doesn't.

On 12/14/2016 11:14 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 12/14/2016 8:20 AM, Whiskers wrote:
On 2016-12-14, PeterN wrote:
On 12/13/2016 7:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:


Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger
sensored cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad
nauseam about the laws of physics that demand they are right.

no demanding needed. they are right. the laws of physics have not
been overturned.

The problem is, once you show them a medium format camera, those
laws go out the window and all of a sudden, larger medium format is
no better than their FF's!!!

nonsense. all things being equal, an mf size sensor will blow away
full frame.

the problem is that trolls cherry pick what they're comparing.


No. The problem is that it's the photographer, not the tool. Engaging
in, or provoking a tool war is simply blaming the tool for personal
deficiencies. Many years ago, the horse racing photo of the year was
taken with a Brownie.

Weren't they all medium format? (Mine is 6x9cm).

VBG

Many years ago, I shot photos of a high school football game for the
local newspaper, using a Kodak Pocket Tele-Instamatic. This camera had a
lever that switched in a "telephoto" lens. When I gave the 5x7 B&W
prints to the editor, I told him I got a new camera and asked how he
liked the photos. He said he couldn't tell any difference; they were fine.
The right camera can make the job easier, but if the person running the
camera doesn't know how to the job, the camera can't do it for him.

--
Ken Hart

On 12/14/2016 5:22 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 12/14/2016 11:14 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 12/14/2016 8:20 AM, Whiskers wrote:
On 2016-12-14, PeterN wrote:
On 12/13/2016 7:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:


Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger
sensored cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad
nauseam about the laws of physics that demand they are right.

no demanding needed. they are right. the laws of physics have not
been overturned.

The problem is, once you show them a medium format camera, those
laws go out the window and all of a sudden, larger medium format is
no better than their FF's!!!

nonsense. all things being equal, an mf size sensor will blow away
full frame.

the problem is that trolls cherry pick what they're comparing.


No. The problem is that it's the photographer, not the tool. Engaging
in, or provoking a tool war is simply blaming the tool for personal
deficiencies. Many years ago, the horse racing photo of the year was
taken with a Brownie.

Weren't they all medium format? (Mine is 6x9cm).

VBG

Many years ago, I shot photos of a high school football game for the
local newspaper, using a Kodak Pocket Tele-Instamatic. This camera had a
lever that switched in a "telephoto" lens. When I gave the 5x7 B&W
prints to the editor, I told him I got a new camera and asked how he
liked the photos. He said he couldn't tell any difference; they were fine.
The right camera can make the job easier, but if the person running the
camera doesn't know how to the job, the camera can't do it for him.


Which is something some here ignore, in their anxiety to insinuate
themselves into a conversation.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:22:26 -0500, Ken Hart wrote:
: Many years ago, I shot photos of a high school football game for the
: local newspaper, using a Kodak Pocket Tele-Instamatic. This camera had a
: lever that switched in a "telephoto" lens. When I gave the 5x7 B&W
: prints to the editor, I told him I got a new camera and asked how he
: liked the photos. He said he couldn't tell any difference; they were fine.
: The right camera can make the job easier, but if the person running the
: camera doesn't know how to the job, the camera can't do it for him.

I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the subject: Better
equipment will make any photographer better. How much better depends on how
good you already are. The better you already are, the more difference better
equipment makes.

Bob

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:14:03 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 16:04:41 UTC-5, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:17:08 -0500, nospam wrote:
: : In article , PeterN
: : wrote:
: :
: : Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger
: : sensored
: : cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad nauseam about the laws
: : of physics that demand they are right.
: :
: : no demanding needed. they are right. the laws of physics have not been
: : overturned.
: :
: : The problem is, once you show them a
: : medium format camera, those laws go out the window and all of a sudden,
: : larger medium format is no better than their FF's!!!
: :
: : nonsense. all things being equal, an mf size sensor will blow away full
: : frame.
: :
: : the problem is that trolls cherry pick what they're comparing.
: :
: :
: : No. The problem is that it's the photographer, not the tool. Engaging
: : in, or provoking a tool war is simply blaming the tool for personal
: : deficiencies. Many years ago, the horse racing photo of the year was
: : taken with a Brownie.
: :
: : whoosh.
: :
: : this isn't a tool war. it's physics. larger sensors will outperform
: : smaller sensors, unless you cherry pick.
: :
: : simple as that.
:
: Yes, but cherry picking isn't a bad thing. It allows you to decide what
: factors define "better" for you, e.g.: size, weight, resolution, low-light
: performance, price, lens availability, etc. Those factors are often not
: proportional to sensor size.
:
: Bob
:
: But sensor performance isn't predicated on camera performance. Sensors are tested in a static situation, where the rest of the camera's characteristics are not factored-in. The larger sensor produces the best quality image. To put it another way, imagine if you were shooting a football game with a FF camera and you averaged all the shots (good and bad) to gain insight into how the camera's sensor performed. It would be a waste of time.

I guess so, but it's hard to see the relevance to the overall discussion.

This discussion started with someone (you?) claiming that FF users brag about
the larger sensor size of their cameras relative to APS-C, but are
contemptuous of the even larger sensor size of a MF camera. What I'm saying is
that the situations aren't comparable. You can go from an APS-C camera to a FF
camera and not lose any of the useful features of the smaller camera. But when
you go to a medium format camera, you shell out a lot more money for a camera
that often lacks many of the features that most users find indispensable. So
if all that's important to you is higher resolution or better low-light
performance (the other advantage of a larger sensor), then by all means buy a
MF camera. But in almost any other situation you're better off sticking with
FF or even APS-C. I'm not saying that larger sensors aren't better, just that
a better sensor isn't always what you need.

Bob

Overall, an image is a product sum of a lot of contributing variables and as
such, these sorts of "what ifs" assume that all other factors are utterly equal.
Okay, but in the real world they are not, so a crop with a great AF system will
get the shot at the football game, whereas the medium format with not as
good of an AF will miss the action...end of story (and the usefulness of the debate).

-hh

On 2016-12-15, -hh wrote:
Overall, an image is a product sum of a lot of contributing variables
and as such, these sorts of "what ifs" assume that all other factors
are utterly equal. Okay, but in the real world they are not, so a
crop with a great AF system will get the shot at the football game,
whereas the medium format with not as good of an AF will miss the
action...end of story (and the usefulness of the debate).

-hh

Unless perhaps the camera is in the hands of a sports photographer who
can anticipate the action and focus manually before squeezing the
button. AF isn't the only way to focus (except on cameras that have had
the manual focussing mechanisms left out to save weight or money).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:


I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the subject: Better
equipment will make any photographer better. How much better depends on how
good you already are. The better you already are, the more difference better
equipment makes.

better equipment only makes a difference if the existing equipment is
limiting in some way. otherwise it won't help at all.

for example, if someone shoots still life, then the high frame rate of
a nikon d4 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.