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

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:57:58 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

This camera:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/has...ing-experience

Looks nice, and I love the leaf shutter in the lens. But I wonder how
much better the IQ is than other cams, like the Sony a7r II?

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.

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.


--
PeterN

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

On 14/12/2016 11:33 @wiz, 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. 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!!!



LOL! Precisely!...

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).

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

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

--
PeterN

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.

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.

Tell it to "them."

who is 'them' ?

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, 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.

you're proving my point, that people cherry pick.

the hassleblad may be expensive and with few lenses available, making
it product for a limited audience, but that is not the issue.

the fact is that a larger sensor will always produce better results
than a smaller sensor (assuming comparable sensor technology). it's
physics.