Hasselblad to release H3D at Photokina

Hasselblad is poised to launch the new H3D during opening day of Photokina this year. The H3D, as the company claims, is the world's first 48mm full frame DSLR camera, and comes in two versions, starting at 22 megapixels and ranges as high as 39 megapixels. It's also got an eye or waist-level viewfinder, an ISO range of 50 to 400, and can stretch out its shutter speed to 32 seconds. We don't have any info on pricing or availability, but given that its predecessors cost in the $30,000 - $40,000 range, it's a safe bet that the H3D is at least as much, and probably worth every penny to the three or four photographers that will ever buy it.

[Motoi @ Sep 26th 2006 2:23AM]

Thats a beautiful piece of hardware. Just think about what the paparazzi will get for their photos now

[LittleJoe @ Sep 26th 2006 2:27AM]

Oh god... please give me the strength to rob someone much wealthier than I so that I might be able to buy this incredibly holy camera.

[Alex M @ Sep 26th 2006 2:32AM]

Lead engineer: more megapixels, more megapixels...no, too much

[Stevo @ Sep 26th 2006 3:21AM]

Dude, the name on the title and description is wrong, there no thing like H3D, the people from letsgodigital is wrong too. The name is Maker: Horseman, Model: 3D. They also introduced two other models.

Check it with the people from America's at 'Horseman to introduce SW-D2 Pro, LD Pro, and the Horseman 3D Stereo Camera at Expo in Germany' : http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/2006/09/26/horseman-to-introduce-swd2-pro-ld-pro-and-the-horseman-3d-stereo-camera-at-expo-in-germany.aspx

[Luke Zepnick @ Sep 26th 2006 4:00AM]

I don't care what it's called or how much it is, 39 fricking megapixels is more than anyone would ever use. These people go beyond practicality to rediculousness just to make a camera that can take pictures that blow up as big as an apartment building. Well if I was rich, I'd buy a cool car or something with that 40 grand.

[Bolo @ Sep 26th 2006 6:04AM]

Who will ever use 39 megapixels ? Hm... Let's take a look around. have you seen those hudge banners placen on buildings ? have you seen a lot of big posters ? Well, the photos for those banners are made with this camera's analog brothers (medium format). Of course for you, your friends and general users this camera is useless. 40k for an advertising agency is nothing... I'm sure they will sell it very well.

[Mauswe @ Sep 26th 2006 4:17AM]

Hmm... Iso range from 50 to...WHAT 400?! How come?

[cordite @ Sep 26th 2006 4:37AM]

Having used 35mm cameras as well as medium format equipment from Hasselblad, I can assure all of you that the camera has a place in the hands of more than 4 pro photographers. The real breakthrough will be if they can halve the price from its predecessors. While 35mm type DSLRs have taken the their portion of the film market there is still a significant portion of the market still in need of higher quality. For catalogs and other studio type work 5 or 10 MP is not enough. For a lot of things it is but just consider how kick ass that 3 MP digicam was in 2000 compared to the 3 MP today and its quite apparent that MP isn't the whole story. Processing, color depth (8bit, 12bit, 24bit) and Lens quality are all important factors in making a shot look good whether in auto brochure or a 100 ft billboard.

[Ebzy @ Sep 26th 2006 7:42AM]

tsk tsk!
Remind me not to cross your path littlejoe

[brudy @ Sep 26th 2006 8:54AM]

This is a pro level, primarily studio use, medium format camera. There is very little else like it out there. People griping about who needs that many megapixels should stick to their point and shoots. You clearly do not understand what this is and who it is targeted towards.

[Jarrod Turner @ Sep 26th 2006 9:31AM]

I like how they never even smoothed out the problems in the H2D, what a scam! Also, this is definitely not a paparazzi camera, to be sure.

[mark @ Sep 26th 2006 10:08AM]

There's been at least one other 39 megapixel medium-format solution on the market already (the Phase One P45), but it's just the camera back which gets mounted on existing medium-format camera bodies.

And yes, kids, there are a lot of situations in which 39 megapixels are just barely enough -- or even not quite sufficient. When you're shooting high-quality images (product beauty shots, fashion, etc) for clients who are paying a lot of money for them, you better believe you need as much resolution as you can get, because those images WILL be used in posters and tradeshow displays where jagged, pixelated images are completely unacceptable. Keep in mind that for offset printing, images need to be 100% of their final printed size at 300ppi. And contrary to what some people claim, res'ing images up does not work well unless they're soft to begin with. So it's important to have as much resolution as possible when shooting.

[Ryan @ Sep 26th 2006 10:20AM]

Mark,

Your final rez is dependent on the linescreen being used, and not necessarily always 300dpi. Note I say dpi because you aren't printing pixels. On a traditional linescreen of 120lpi, you can easily get away with 180dpi, or 1.5x the linescreen. Sometimes a lower res can actually make the image appear clearer after the printing process (of course, this also depends on the RIP engine being used). In fact, some RIP engines will allow you to create a higher than usual linescreen with lower res images with surprisingly specatacular results using stochastic and hybrid RIP engines.

And larger images can be "faked" with traditional DSLRs using these modern RIP engines, but, yes, they are definitely not of the quality of Medium format images.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Mark @ Sep 26th 2006 3:27PM]

Ryan, you make good points, but it's important to bear in mind that the types of images shot with a system like this Hasselblad or a Phase One P45 will frequently be repurposed for a variety of different media. A product beauty shot may get used in a magazine with a 120lpi screen, but then the client may ask for a 24x36 (or larger) poster with a 300lpi screen. That's a bit of an extreme example (the super-high line screen, not the poster) -- although this sort of thing does happen, and it's actually a pretty regular occurrence if you substitute that 300lpi screen with a 175lpi one. And you're right, depending on the process the RIP can generate good results with far less res than the traditional twice whatever your line screen is going to be -- stochastic is an excellent example. But again, when you're dealing with an image that's going to be repurposed, you can't always be sure of what all the demands will be. Chances are it'll end up being printed with a traditional halftone screen at some point, and very possibly at a large size, by a print vendor with an unsophisticated prepress department, so you definitely want as much res as you can get to accommodate these types of uses.

jjd, that's a really good question. I'm not sure how 48x36 qualifies as full-frame either.

[jjd @ Sep 26th 2006 10:21AM]

Could someone please explain to me how 48 mm x 36m m is considered "Full Frame" for a medium format camera?

If it were 60mmx45, maybe I could go along, but really I would consider "full frame" to mean 6cm x 6cm.

I have no idea under what circumstances they can call 48x36 "full frame".

--Jim--

[grandguru @ Sep 27th 2006 3:27AM]

Anyone out there with a medium format camera go and measure the film gate and then wonder why people have always called it 6x6 or 6x4.5.

[Ryan @ Sep 26th 2006 10:23AM]

Sorry, meant to say tradition magazine linescreen in my previous comment. My bad.

[Ryan @ Sep 26th 2006 10:27AM]

jjd,
Maybe it has to do with final image output at a usable resolution. That is a good question, though.

[tr @ Sep 26th 2006 10:31AM]

"Thats a beautiful piece of hardware. Just think about what the paparazzi will get for their photos now"

for some reason, i don't think the paparazzi are running around chasing after celebrities with a hasselblad in their hands.

[ExcavatE @ Sep 26th 2006 11:42AM]

That's a nice piece of hardware

[morgan @ Sep 26th 2006 1:07PM]

Good point on lpi Ryan. It's still better starting off with the most information possible and scaling down.

[Andy @ Sep 26th 2006 4:56PM]

jjd, I was about to say the same thing.

It seems even at these high levels we are still victims of shameless marketing speak. The camera should speak for itself, for what it will cost.

[jjd @ Sep 27th 2006 10:15AM]

According to Wikipedia 120 film produces an image 56mm x 56mm. So I'm still not sure how 48mm x 36mm is "full frame".

[Johewa @ Jan 9th 2007 11:39AM]

I'll never see this gorgeous hunk of a camera in my lifetime but it is not illegal to dream,fantasize or even drool for that matter. Sighhh.

[Michael @ Jan 26th 2007 8:33PM]

I own this camera and the files are beautiful. The photos are stunning. Clients love it and it is worth every penny. If you cannot afford to buy one, rent it. It only costs like $700 per day.

http://michaelcreagh.com