Hasselblad rolls out 39 megapixel H3D II DSLR
By Donald Melanson 
posted September 18th 2007 4:08PM
posted September 18th 2007 4:08PM
Hasselblad may have already hit 39 megapixels more than a year ago, but that doesn't make the company's new H3D II DSLR any less impressive, which hits that same mark with a few other improvements. Those include a new 3-inch display, which promises both a clearer view of images and lower power consumption, as well as an apparently revamped menu system that'll let you tweak settings using the thumbwheel controls on the camera. Otherwise, you can expect just about everything you could ask for in a $37,000 camera, including 48x36 mm CCD image sensors (the largest currently available), a Global Image Locator that tags photos with the exact geographic co-ordinates at the time they were taken, and an array of features that promise to keep your shots free of noise and moiré effects, to name just a few. What's more, if 39 megapixels and $37k is just a bit too much for you, you can opt for one of two lesser models that Hasselblad's also just introduced, including the 31 megapixel H3D-31II ($30,000) and the 22 megapixel H3D-22II ($25,000).
Am saving up for the Tera-pixel family of cameras.
Been saving since pixels increased in cameras on a weekly basis.
Does hasselbad offer any lens adapters for more main-stream lenses?
I can't imagine working with a picture that large, it would be wonderful and probably extremely laggy on all but a 10,000 mac pro.
*drool*
Hasselblad make medium format cameras; if you could somehow adapt a lens, it would not make very nice pictures.
If by "mainstream" you mean lenses for DSLRs with 35mm sized sensors or smaller (Canon, Nikon, etc.), then no. The image produced by those lenses wouldn't cover the entire sensor of the Hasselblad.
at 21 mp canons new 1DS mkIII is certainly entering this territory, couldn't one further assume that canon's more recent 'L' glass be capable of sustaining such high resolutions?
You can get a medium format Digital Back on pretty much any medium format camera (Mamiya, Pentax, Hasselblad, etc.)
The Hasselblad actually uses the Phase One Digital back (they are available for other cameras as well).
Josh - it has nothing to do with resolution/quality. The image being projected onto the sensor by a 35mm format lens is physically too small to fill up the whole sensor. Your image would be a circle within a black square of unexposed pixels.
Josh - maybe you weren't referring to my post. I may have misread... sorry.
Josh: It has nothing to do with megapixels, the Hassy lenses are much larger to provide an image circle for the 48x36mm medum format sensor (actually they're still designed for 56x41mm medum format film, but that's beside the point), an lens for a full frame Canon or Nikon SLR is designed for a 36x24mm image area. It would be like trying to use an EF-S or DX lens on a full frame camera (while Nikon will let you do this on the upcoming D3, the resolution drops from 12mp to 5mp because it is using only the center portion of the sensor (and Canon won't let you do it at all)). If we assume there aren't any other technical hurdles, you would get severe vigneting towards the edges of the frame. If you're already spending nearly 40 grand on a camera, why skimp another couple of thousand on a lens (most of the Hassy lenses are in the $2-3,000.00 range).
Darn, I was hoping to pick it up for $36,750 and stick my Tamrac 28-200 on it.
No, no, no.
Cheap lenses on expensive camera = sad.
Expensive lenses on cheap camera = sexy.
Sorry, my misunderstanding, i figured the sensor wasn't that much larger - that is just massive compared to 35mm cameras.
@ryan
lol, tamrons are too loud anyways.
@barry
so my 70-200 2.8 L on a rebel XT is bringing sexy back?
I for one welcome our megapixel overlords.
Makes my 10 Megapixel canon feel... inadequate
*shoves TP into his 6.3MP 10D to make it look bigger*
Eh, call me when they get a gigapixel.
@paul
I have a rebel XT and am perfectly content with 8, but when i am out shooting events i feel the same way. Hate it when those guys with 1Ds mkIIs walk by with two times the resolution and a camera that dwarfs mine :(
I shoot large format (8x10)[that's inches not mm.]
Yawn.
At a mere 1000dpi I need 80 megapixels. A more useful 3000dpi weighs in at 720Mpixels.
I'll remember to put that on my Christmas list for Santa
Santa called me, he said he can't swing it, his credit wasn't approved.
That's almost a 1000 dollars per megapixel. Almost .. Come on Hasselblad, you can do it.
Next time I get an assignement to take pictures to be made into Time Square billboard, I'll keep Hasselblad in mind.
The only comment that makes sense.
People your 10Mp cameras are fine just like your previous 35mm film cameras were fine. This are the digital equivalent to medium format which consumers do not need.
Billboards are printed fairly low-res, between 30 - 72 dpi, sometimes lower.
the hasselhoff.
David is packing
That thing is a beast...hey engadget...how about giving one of those out for you next contest:D
Saving up my man-whore earnings to buy one of these beauties.
*contributes*
Well I made $900,000 in Fantasy stock trading (Thanks Berny) So I'll just buy a whole crate of these.
By the time you have saved up a 60 megapixel version will be avaliable ;)
"Hasselblad"
The fugly name prevents me from buying anything from them.
If you're saying that, chances are you don't need to buy anything from them either...!
i'd like to see a comparison between the 22 mpix hassy and the 21mpix canon.
not that i could afford either :(
Hasselblad would win I think :)
36x24mm on regular "fullframes" is half of the 48x36 that Hasselblad's middle format has. More space for light to shine on, lenses with greater aperture and longer focal length. So it would be sharper. And Hasselblad has 16 bits per color. 65k vs. Canon's 12bit - 4k...
The Phase One back that the Hasselblad uses are frequently criticized for "banding" issues. The Canon 1Ds Mark III is an overall better camera (especially when low-light, speed, flexibility) are concerned. Medium Format Digital cameras (like the Hasselblad and Mamiya ZD) have their place for rare studio work with studio lighting and billboard-size picture requirements (but not much else).
The 1Ds Mark III is probably a better overall camera. Digital medium format has its special niche. But the market is owned by Mamiya; which actually has better optics and a larger selection of digital backs (including the 39MP Phase One back that this Hasselblad uses).
Canon's shoot in 14bit/pixel, but this is only available in RAW.
I am a professional photographer and the gentleman who says Mamiya owns the Medium Format Digital market has no clue what he's talking about. Mamiya is lagging way behind in the digital realm. Hassleblad's Zeiss Optics are the best available. I know, I own both.
The Canon 1DS MIII is going to be a great camera but it can not begin to compare to the quality image you'll get off of a 39mp Medium Format sized sensor. Image quality in digital is all about the size of the individual photo diodes that make up the sensor array. The larger the individual photodiodes the higher quality of image you get. The sensor array of a medium format camera uses a much large photodiode than even a full frame 35mm sensor.
Another major difference between the current crop of top of the line FF 35mm DSLR's and the MF cameras is in the area of Bit Depth. The MF cameras all capture at 16bits per color channel. The 35mm format DSLRs are typically 12bits per channel. The newest top end Canon's and Nikons are now at 14bit color depth. This makes a very large difference in the smoothness of color gradiations.
The final big difference is in the dynamic range of a Medium Format camera. Most 35mm DSLR's have about 5-6 stops of dynamic range which is very akin to shooting slide film. The MF digital sensors have 8+ stops of dynamic range which allows the photographer to not have to compromise the shot at either the high or low end of the light spectrum. To put this in laymans terms, think of a picture taken in the brilliant morning sunlight after a snow storm. The barn is in front of a bunch of trees that are also covered in snow. The snow will be very bright and the shadows will be almost black. Normal DSLRS can not capture the entire range of brightness from pure white to pure black. They can either expose to make the whites look correct which will make the shadows too dark, or they can expose to make the shadowed areas look right but which will cause the snowy areas to be very over exposed. MF doesn't have that problem.
>>I am a professional photographer and the gentleman who says Mamiya owns the Medium Format Digital market has no clue what he's talking about. Mamiya is lagging way behind in the digital realm. Hassleblad's Zeiss Optics are the best available. I know, I own both.
This statement makes me think you're full of it. Or some "professional" wedding photographer.
First off, neither Hasselblad nor Mamiya actually make digital backs. The Mamiya ZD back and the Hasselblad H-series are made by third-party manufacturers (Phase One, Leaf).
The reason why most photographers choose the Mamiya for Digital medium format is due to its modularity. The Mamiya accepts ALL digital backs on its RZ67 system from any company.
The choices available on the Hasselblad are much smaller. Also, the Mamiya optics have been gold standard in the medium-format industry for decades.
Temple has probably never seen a fashion shoot.
Is temple forgetting about the fact that hasselblad bought out imacon and makes packages like the H3D that integrate the two? Because that's what this article is about, that's not a Phase back.
Oh yeah...where's the HDMI ? Huh ? If you're going all consumer way with the 3-inch LCD :P ?
There's a guy who can't afford the digital one, so shooting the middle format film with analog one is fine, you can scan them later at higher resolution than 39MPix :)
And when it comes to digital, EOS 1Ds Mark II currently does the job. Fullframe + 12-24mm lens = sees behind the corner ;)
How good is the dynamic range on this thing?
Gotta love all the ignorant comments.
This thing might "only" have 39 megapixels, but with a medium format sensor, the quality will be much better than any 35 mm full-frame DSLR.
So let's please stop comparing apples and oranges.
This is just like DSLR posts with idiots toting their pocket cams, saying how they also have 12 megapixels, and such.
You're right about that. I have a professional portrait photographer in the family, and she uses a Canon EOS 5D. She says its as much or more than she really needs.
This is a seriously professional camera we are looking at here. Very hard to justify...
If you actually bought one of these. How long do you think it would take to pay it off with contract work, or renting the camera. Would it be a good investment?
Would you really want to rent out a $37,000 piece of very sensitive equiptment?
@InsertAlias: From what I can gather, these kind of cameras are almost always rented.
39MP Playboy bunny pictures. SWEET!!!
39 megapixels? My dear lord, images so sharp they could cut your eyeballs just looking at them.