# 39 Megapixel Camera



## Roy

Hasselblad has announced a brand new 39 megapixel DSLR camera which will be rolled out through Hasselbladâ€™s national subsidiaries and channel partners in Q1 2006.

Full story : http://gadgets.fosfor.se/hasselblad-h2d-39/


----------



## Roy

I forgot about the Retail price, $29,995.


----------



## Ironpants

Stick one on the front of an American astronaut and look at the premium you can charge for your goods 40 years later............ hang on Roy I've got an idea....









Toby


----------



## mach 0.0013137

39meg









You`d need a very big `Flash Card` for that


----------



## Stan

Bit too much for web work innit?


----------



## makky

Roy, if you buy one and get bored with it, I'll let you swap it for my Nikon F3.


----------



## makky

And... I'll throw in the motordrive too.


----------



## hakim

Hasselblad have always been considered the Rolls Royce of cameras. I can't remember how many times I've drooled over their other cameras









This is going to be one heck of a camera but I suspect limited to a very few select and fortunate users









I'd like to see the picture quality though. Must be mind boggling


----------



## JoT

Roy said:


> I forgot about the Retail price, $29,995.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


I will wait then


----------



## joolz

Now that they have raised the bar sizewise it should trickle down to other manufactures. I seem to remember that AP tested a 16 mp Medium format camera and said that the results rivaled Film. But at a fiver short of Â£30.000 I'll think I'll wait for Bronica to produce a digital back for my ETRSi, in the meantime I'll stick with my Konica 4 mp unless a bargain 8 mp comes along.


----------



## makky

joolz said:


> Now that they have raised the bar sizewise it should trickle down to other manufactures. I seem to remember that AP tested a 16 mp Medium format camera and said that the results rivaled Film. But at a fiver short of Â£30.000 I'll think I'll wait for Bronica to produce a digital back for my ETRSi, in the meantime I'll stick with my Konica 4 mp unless a bargain 8 mp comes along.
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


Once they get 15-20mp cameras for 500 quidish, (in 3 years?) 35mm (and Medium Format) is dead. It's fairly dead anyway. If you look at the secondhand stuff in London shops, it's going for next to nothing. Hardly anyone wants 35mm anymore. I'm still shooting my 35mm trannies, but I think the price will shoot up in the next couple of years due to Digital. My manual focus Nikon kit is worth next to nothing, but I still love using it.

Digital cameras have no "soul". What I really mean is they just don't excite me. It's like comparing mechanical watches to quartz ones.


----------



## seiko6139

I've noticed that the old Leica screw cameras are now fetching half as much as they did 10 years ago.


----------



## seiko6139

makky said:


> joolz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that they have raised the bar sizewise it should trickle down to other manufactures. I seem to remember that AP tested a 16 mp Medium format camera and said that the results rivaled Film. But at a fiver short of Â£30.000 I'll think I'll wait for Bronica to produce a digital back for my ETRSi, in the meantime I'll stick with my Konica 4 mp unless a bargain 8 mp comes along.
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Once they get 15-20mp cameras for 500 quidish, (in 3 years?) 35mm (and Medium Format) is dead. It's fairly dead anyway. If you look at the secondhand stuff in London shops, it's going for next to nothing. Hardly anyone wants 35mm anymore. I'm still shooting my 35mm trannies, but I think the price will shoot up in the next couple of years due to Digital. My manual focus Nikon kit is worth next to nothing, but I still love using it.
> 
> Digital cameras have no "soul". What I really mean is they just don't excite me. It's like comparing mechanical watches to quartz ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​
Click to expand...

An excellent analogy! I still shoot the odd roll of Kodachrome 64. In a few years time,film cameras will enjoy a renaissance as mechanical watches have done during recent years.

I still use my digital more than my film cameras as most shots are for internet use anyway.


----------



## joolz

Potz

You can still get 110 film it isn't completely dead yet. I nearly had a Minolta 110 SLR but I couldn't make my mind up before it was sold. Which model do you have?

Digital Vs Film which is better? I don't know, digital is catching up with film that's true but I was taught with flm and although I don't take as many real photos these days I am not willing to throw out all my equipment just yet not while the still manufacture film.

Even then who is to say that someone will not make a digital adapter for all our lold cameras. They have an LCD screen that attaches to the viewfinder so who knows what is next. digital film?


----------



## mach 0.0013137

potz said:


> I still have a Minolta 110 SLR which is, to my knowledge, the smallest SLR ever built.
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


AKAIK this 16mm Narciss is the smallest SLR every built and it had interchangeable lenses





























> The Russian made Narciss of the early 1960's may be the first 16mm SLR. During the cold war it was extremely rare in the Western world. Now a few more have surfaced, but it is still rare. The Narciss uses standard 16mm film in special film cartridges for up to 24 exposures in a 12x19mm format. Shutter speeds for its 35 style focal plane are 1/2 to 1/500th. The mirror returns to viewing position as you advance the film. With its fixed take up spool, the film is rewound into the cartridge just like 35mm.


----------



## makky

Mac, what does the Narciss use for viewing - is it a glass pentaprism or is that a flip up waist level finder?

I thought the smallest 110 SLR with interchangeable lenses was the Pentax Auto 110.

In the early days of digital there were backs available for some pro 35mm SLRs like the Nikon F3 and Canon F1n. They were very expensive.

It would be quite easy for a manufacturer to offer a digtal back with adaptors for different 35mm SLRs. Unfortunately because so many people have switched to Digicams already, there is too small a market to make a product at a cheap enough price. Maybe in a few years, when a 10mp or bigger sensor could be manufactured for about Â£50, someone might try.

There are digital camera backs available for Medium and Large Format cameras. You'll gulp when you see the price... the cheapest one I've seen is Â£6,000 for a 14mp model to fit Medium Format cameras.


----------



## AlexR

Digital is dead







I don't like digital much.I have a compact digital camera,but most of my pics come from this.

Mac,s pic


----------



## mach 0.0013137

AlexR said:


> Digital is dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like digital much.I have a compact digital camera,but most of my pics come from this.
> 
> Mac,s pic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


Alex, you only post that photo to make me feel bad


----------



## mach 0.0013137

makky said:


> Mac, what does the Narciss use for viewing - is it a glass pentaprism or is that a flip up waist level finder?
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


 AFAIK it had a pentaprism, here`s some details that I found from a site called `The Sub Club`



> *Krasnogorsk Narciss *
> 
> (1961-1965) A submininature SLR from the Soviet Union -- that's right, SLR -- for 14x21mm images. In fact, it was the first subminiature SLR in the world! It was built on a request from the Soviet medical community and it had an interchangeable lens in a 23mm thread. In all about 11,000 were produced. It also has an interchangeable viewfinder, and a high-magnification finder was apparently planned but never built. Shutter speeds are B, 1/2-1/500. Lenses are: 28mm (f2.0), 28mm (f2.8), 35mm (f2.8) and 50mm(f2.0). An adapter was available to put 39mm screw-mount lenses on the camera as well as attach the camera to a microscope. The camera came in white, black and grey models. It was designed for unperforated film in special cassettes.


----------



## makky

I love that Leica.

Here's my young lady -










18 years old and quite a handful.


----------



## makky

mach 0.0013137 said:


> makky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mac, what does the Narciss use for viewing - is it a glass pentaprism or is that a flip up waist level finder?
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK it had a pentaprism, here`s some details that I found from a site called `The Sub Club`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Krasnogorsk Narciss *
> 
> (1961-1965) A submininature SLR from the Soviet Union -- that's right, SLR -- for 14x21mm images. In fact, it was the first subminiature SLR in the world! It was built on a request from the Soviet medical community and it had an interchangeable lens in a 23mm thread. In all about 11,000 were produced. It also has an interchangeable viewfinder, and a high-magnification finder was apparently planned but never built. Shutter speeds are B, 1/2-1/500. Lenses are: 28mm (f2.0), 28mm (f2.8), 35mm (f2.8) and 50mm(f2.0). An adapter was available to put 39mm screw-mount lenses on the camera as well as attach the camera to a microscope. The camera came in white, black and grey models. It was designed for unperforated film in special cassettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​
Click to expand...

It's amazing they managed to fit all that into such a small camera. If they'd made Zenits a bit smaller and lighter they could have rivalled Olympus in the 1970's. Or maybe not.


----------



## mach 0.0013137

makky said:


> It's amazing they managed to fit all that into such a small camera. If they'd made Zenits a bit smaller and lighter they could have rivalled Olympus in the 1970's. Or maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


Well the early ones such as this `C` from the 1950`s were really just modified versions of the screw mount Leica copies and were therefore very small when compared to almost any other 35mm SLR even the Olympus









OK the mirror isn`t instant return and was lowered by a piece of string (as per the original fixed pentaprism SLR the Zeiss Contax S) but it still works nearly 50 years later and takes photo`s


----------



## makky

One of the reasons I'm resisting changing to a digital SLR is that I love using my Nikon F and F3. It's not enough just to own them. These cameras were built to be used and abused. I'm so old-fashioned that I only ever use fixed focal length lenses. I have a film scanner to convert my stuff to digital. It lets me enjoy the best of both worlds.

I use a little 3mp compact for snapshots, watchshots and webpics.

Significant others are -

Canon GIII - classic 35mm rangefinder from the 70's.

Contax 139 and 137ma SLRs - My main SLRs before switching to Nikons.

Bronica ETRS - This was given to me by a friend. Used it a couple of times but I've not really taken to it. Got the AE finder, speedgrip and a polaroid back too. 6x4.5 cameras are only practical with prism finders, and with the ETRS you need the speedgrip as well to handhold it comfortably. And then it's sooo heavy. If only they'd designed it with a rotating back, or like a Pentax 6x7.

I'd dearly love to own a Hasselblad 500cm, not to use, just to hold and drool over. Or a Mamiya RB67 - a big, beautiful brute of a camera.


----------



## mach 0.0013137

If it wasn`t for the geletine used in film base I`d never have sold the R6


----------



## makky

mach 0.0013137 said:


> If it wasn`t for the geletine used in film base I`d never have sold the R6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


Aren't memory cards made from Dolphins?

Doesn't the steel used to make watches come out of Mother Earth herself?


----------



## mach 0.0013137

makky said:


> mach 0.0013137 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn`t for the geletine used in film base I`d never have sold the R6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't memory cards made from Dolphins?
> 
> Doesn't the steel used to make watches come out of Mother Earth herself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​
Click to expand...









*Stupid Boy!!!







*


----------



## makky

Sorry Mac,

Didn't mean to be disrespectful. I hadn't really thought about it before. I know gelatin has been used in film throughout the 20th century, but I assumed that by now most manufacturers would have found alternative versions. I work in a radiology department where x-ray film has been polyester based for decades. I seems that most large-format sheet films are polyester based.

You've opened up a can of worms in my mind. After doing a bit of online research, it seems that most 35mm films still contain gelatin.

Anyone know if there are non-gelatin versions?


----------



## mach 0.0013137

makky said:


> Sorry Mac,
> 
> Didn't mean to be disrespectful.
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


No worries I`m used to it









Ruddy omnivours

























makky said:


> I know gelatin has been used in film throughout the 20th century, but I assumed that by now most manufacturers would have found alternative versions. I work in a radiology department where x-ray film has been polyester based for decades. I seems that most large-format sheet films are polyester based.
> 
> You've opened up a can of worms in my mind. After doing a bit of online research, it seems that most 35mm films still contain gelatin.
> 
> Anyone know if there are non-gelatin versions?
> 
> 
> 
> ←
> ​


I searched and couldn`t find anything, there was a rumour that one of the big film producing firms was looking into the possiblity of producing a non-gelatine film base but I think digital may have scuppered it









Much as I like the features and conveniance of my Canon G3, I`d rather be using my old Leica M2 & 4`s or Nikon F`s or Contarex etc, etc


----------



## makky

Mac, you'll be relieved that none of my cameras are on leather straps or in leather cases.

Promise I'll stop wearing my sheepskin jockstrap while I'm taking pictures.







It's so cold round the nether regions this time of year...

The leather watchstraps are another matter


----------

