Hasselblad introduces the 50 megapixel H3DII-50

We haven't heard much from Hasselblad lately, but whenever the high-end cameramaker does make a peep, it's usually pretty impressive -- like the new 50 megapixel H3DII-50 back it just announced. Building on the H3DII-39 back, the 50 features a 36 X 48mm Kodak sensor twice the size of other full-frame DSLR sensors that generates 300MB files at 1FPS. Pricing hasn't been announced, but don't expect this bad boy to come in under the $37K pricetag of the 39 when it launches in October -- especially since Hasselblad says anyone who buys a 39 now can trade up to the 50 later for the difference in price and instructions on how to properly sleep on beds made of money.

[Thanks, Douglas]

[Fatima @ Jul 7th 2008 11:23PM]

meh

[Kal Cole @ Jul 8th 2008 12:02AM]

I agree...meh!

We should get David Pogue to re-do that infamous test where he goes on the street and ask people if they can tell the difference between a high end DSLR and a good point -and-shoot.

[silverblackvoid @ Jul 8th 2008 12:48AM]

your posting rights should be revoked.

[Temple @ Jul 8th 2008 1:04AM]

meh is right.

Hasselblad has moved to a closed system since the H3D. Meaning you can't use digital backs from other makers like PhaseOne, Leaf, etc. The H1 and H2 were open systems.

Kinda stupid to lock people into a system when you're talking about components that cost tens of thousands of dollars. The new Mamiya/Phase One system are completely open (the new 645DIII); as well as the Leaf/Synar. Meaning you can use any back (including their rivals) and can even use old Hasselblad V, Contax, Pentax and Zeiss lenses on the newest Mamiya body.

Also, max ISO is limited to ISO400 on the new CCD sensor (800 boost);. These Kodak CCD sensors are also very dated in terms of technology compared to the newer CMOS in the DSLRs. Would have actually like to have seen some improvements on the numerous flaws of the system instead of just another mega-pixel boost. Being that they are using the Kodak CCD the 50-megapixel sensor will find its way to Leaf, PhaseOne, etc that also get their sensors supplied by Kodak.

[Geir E @ Jul 8th 2008 7:43AM]

You can buy this or stich two images taken with the forthcoming Sony Alpha 900 (or the rumored Nikon d3x based on the same image chip) - with the announced 24.6 megapixel full frame sensor it would be about the same. (since this h3dii-50 was twice the size of a fullframe sensor)

[Yevon @ Jul 7th 2008 11:25PM]

Sweet, now I can finally make that ridiculously high res porn site to piss off anyone not using a dedicated fiber optic internet connection. Mwuahahah....

[ch0rx @ Jul 7th 2008 11:26PM]

I'm in for some of that lol.

"If you can't see the enter button... you can't afford it."

[Bob-B @ Jul 8th 2008 12:04PM]

Sounds good, just be sure to include thumbnails please! ( i would hate to wait 25 minutes to load a ultra high res of a pimply blond twig)

[xenophobichart @ Jul 7th 2008 11:26PM]

I'd rather buy a car

[linuxamp @ Jul 8th 2008 12:14AM]

C'mon what do you think will attract more chicks some car or this monster... oh wait...

[Denver_80203 @ Jul 8th 2008 9:37AM]

I'd rather buy gas

[Michael Scrip @ Jul 7th 2008 11:27PM]

Have we hit film resolution yet? Can we finally get rid of film?

...Let the battle begin! :)

[The_Steven @ Jul 7th 2008 11:42PM]

Depends on the ASA (ISO) and grain size, but yes, some types of film have been surpassed.

Ah, but I use to use a bromide paper from Ilford that had a contrast range from the deepest blacks and the purest whites.... I haven't seen paper like that in 20 years....

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 8th 2008 12:07AM]

@The Steven
You haven't seen it in years because the highly toxic bromide rendered you blind?

[Jesse S @ Jul 8th 2008 3:32AM]

This is a studio camera. The only people who use film in a studio application use large format.

And as for art applications...Resolution doesn't matter that much, and people use film for its look...

[The_Steven @ Jul 9th 2008 12:12AM]

@Chuckels

Toxic? Ha!
I'm still waiting for my arms to fall off. I've been up to my my elbows in Acufine, Diafine, D-76, Microdol-X, Technidol, various developers, stops, fixers, C-41, K-14, you name it, if it existed between 1979 and 1989, I've used it.

If you cut me, I'll probably bleed Dectol.

Tech-Pan Rules!

[Byrdman @ Jul 7th 2008 11:27PM]

damn this makes me feel bad about the xti i just bought.

This is very impressive, however you will pretty much need to have a hard drive teathered to this thing to store any amount of photos. still cool though

[josh @ Jul 8th 2008 12:36AM]

actually, I've seen ads in magazines for cameras like this and they come bundled with a new Mac Pro.

[Byrdman @ Jul 8th 2008 12:40AM]

lol getting mac pro with this thing is like getting a 2 gig sd card with an xsi

[Temple @ Jul 8th 2008 1:42AM]

Many times the body and lenses are free when you buy the digital back. The digital back is 90% of the cost of these medium-format systems. For instance, Phase One will give you Mamiya 645D body and lens if you buy their digital back (which ranges from $14-40k).

The reality is that technology in the bodies of the Hasselblad, Mamiya aren't that sophisticated (they are approaching ancient). Also, the lenses aren't technically advanced like the dSLR lenses with nano-crystal coating, image-stabilization, USM AF, etc. All the technology is only in the CCD sensor that Kodak makes.

The camera is only useful is a very narrow studio setting, and the lenses use bulky/ancient leaf shutters on them so that they can have high flash-sync speeds which is crucial for studio pros; outside a very limited range (ISO50-100) the camera is almost useless. But that's not the point of the camera, its designed to but the best in the studio environment accompanied by tens of thousands of dollars worth of studio lighting to pair it.

[Kris S. @ Jul 7th 2008 11:28PM]

I'd much rather buy a new computer, a car, and a high end DSLR from Canon or Nikon.

[Jesse S @ Jul 8th 2008 3:34AM]

Nikon and Canon DSLR's are (mainly) for on the road commercial applications, and amateurs. This is for the studio.

If you would rather get all that stuff, you obviously don't need this.

[ddub @ Jul 7th 2008 11:32PM]

50 megapixels sounds as ridiculous to me as a 5 petabyte hard drive. But I guess you'll need a 5 petabyte hd if you have one of these cameras.

[Bryan @ Jul 7th 2008 11:33PM]

I guess explains why we sold one of our H3DII-39's at work.

[Alex @ Jul 8th 2008 7:38AM]

One.
How many did you stock?

I doubt there will be too many midnight openings for this camera.

[Bryan Thornsberry @ Jul 7th 2008 11:35PM]

H3D is what it better give me for that kind of price tag.

[Reid @ Jul 8th 2008 12:04AM]

That, sir, was awesome.

[vileta2 @ Jul 8th 2008 12:50AM]

Well played.

[neofolklore @ Jul 8th 2008 8:53AM]

Head. I get it now.

[Pete @ Jul 7th 2008 11:46PM]

This thing isn't meant for the hobbyists among us or even for the professional wedding photographers with $8,000 Canon bodies.

Hasselblad's are basically designed for extreme studio photography, and for situations where images by necessity need to be insanely large - you don't honestly think the latest billboard advertisement was taken with a Nikon D3 do you? Obviously, it's easy to mock the 40K pricetag and point out all the wonderful things you could purchase instead, but remember this is designed for corporations and photography businesses - not for one-man operations or to capture your son's latest soccer game.

Also keep in mind that 40K is simply the body only. A standard 50mm lens, which can be purchased for around 80 bucks in a Canon mount, might run 3K in Hasselblad territory; and you pay for a real difference.

[raider @ Jul 8th 2008 1:25AM]

Coupled with the fact that you can easily make a camera's worth of profit from shooting for a big spread or billboard, the payback time is pretty quick.

[Temple @ Jul 8th 2008 1:58AM]

Most of the time these medium-format digital are rented (they go for around $500-700 for a rental). Few independent photographers purchase them outright (though some do). Hasselblad has a lease program for their cameras, and if you think about it $50k really isn't a very high business expense in reality.

For most photographers there really isn't too much of a point to really own one outright since new backs come out yearly and spending $30-50k for a product that's going to be outdated in a year is kinda pointless compared to renting (and charging the client for the rental costs) and always having the best possible equipment.

Its very rare to need anything over 20-megapixels in even the most extreme situations, and you can just rent the high-megapixel digital back when you do. For work that requires huge resolution you'll be compensated anyways. But I feel as these newer pro-dSLRs get better and better the market for medium-format digitals is rapidly shrinking (the flash-sync speed is the biggest current flaw of dSLRs for studio photographers, not image quality).

[Jay Evans @ Jul 8th 2008 2:34PM]

"you don't honestly think the latest billboard advertisement was taken with a Nikon D3 do you"

Nope. Probably with a Canon 1Ds Mark III. Billboard are printed at such a low-rez that an extreme Mega-pixel camera isn't really necessary. I bet there aren't more than 50 studios in the whole of NA that could possibly need a back like that. Most will probably rent one if they need it.

When we bought our H2 we had to decide between the Hasselbald 39MP back and the Phase One 22MP. When we told clients each 39MP file would be around 100MB, they all said they wanted the smaller file from the Phase One.

[Ben Carufel @ Jul 7th 2008 11:53PM]

And the bad part about this is you're still suck using a Hasselblad system.

I'm a Phase One/Contax user and wouldn't switch from the Contax platform for the world...

Of course, Contax gear is only going to be "easy" to get for so long since it's now out of production, and who knows what Phase One will do with regards to making backs for Contax cameras since they're out of production and Phase now has its own Mamiya-based medium format digital system. I might just end up eating my words and shooting with a Hasselblad digital system in 10 years :).

It's an interesting business we're in, these days.

[andy @ Jul 7th 2008 11:56PM]

so, who would use this? Someone taking photos for extremely big graphics, like billboards as pete suggests?

And do they have any job vacancies?

[DVO @ Jul 8th 2008 12:45AM]

fashion photographers, fine art photographers, celebrity portrait photographers, serious stock photographers, magazine lifestyle photographers, landscape and architectural photographers...

pretty much any kind of *serious* shooter whose subject is predominantly still life, or at least stationary - as 1FPS doesn't make it too easy to use for any kind of high-speed action work.

[Ethyriel @ Jul 8th 2008 1:44AM]

Fine art, where this is the cheap option...

One day, Cruse will rock my world.

[Jesse S @ Jul 8th 2008 3:37AM]

I would say fine art is still dominated by film...And I doubt there are that many studio fine art shooters.

In fact, if you watch the photography shows on Gallery HD, most of the photogs they profile use film. Although, they usually use large format.

[Pete @ Jul 8th 2008 12:01AM]

I've never used a Contax camera but there's certainly nothing wrong with Hasselblad's products. Sure, the lenses are damn expensive, but you pay a premium for a good reason; and the build quality of all their gear speaks for itself.

[onin @ Jul 8th 2008 12:03AM]

so when I walk around with this camera, I have to connect it to a laptop strapped on back or does it use CF cards?

[Za @ Jul 8th 2008 12:41AM]

At 300MB per frame, I don't see how CF cards would be useful at all. Maybe to store 10MP JPEGs as thumbnails or somesuch?

[eric f. @ Jul 8th 2008 11:03AM]

@Za, the RAW file size is actually around 65MB. It processes to a native 300MB file.

my 32 MP Phase One P30 back gives me just over 100 frames on a 4GB CF card, if I remember correctly (I usually shoot tethered).

[Tony @ Jul 8th 2008 12:05AM]

at 1 fps, would that be a regular exposure, or is this a scanning camera?

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 8th 2008 12:09AM]

No. A collection of 50 MP shots are big, but not 5 PB big.

[xenon @ Jul 8th 2008 12:11AM]

Does anyone thinks that a higher megapixel camera takes better lower resolution photos or are all the same for same resolution??

for example: is taking a 5mp photo in the same quality, when it is taken by a 8mp cam or 10mp or 50mp cam ???

???? (sorry for poor eng of me :)

[Za @ Jul 8th 2008 12:44AM]

Well, it depends. For example, a 6MP digital SLR will pretty much always have better images than a 10MP or 12MP point and shoot because of the size of the sensor. Furthermore, this thing right here has a sensor significantly larger than that of any common SLR, including high end [we are talking US$8000] Canon or [US$5000] Nikon. As a result, it will give better absolute image quality. Whether you will see the difference or need the difference in what you print is a different question entirely.

[Steven @ Jul 9th 2008 3:34AM]

Never, ever, apologize for your not-too-perfect English. Em, unless you are writing this as a native English speaker.

[JAELL @ Jul 8th 2008 1:16AM]

this could have amazing implications for space exploration, imagine a rover with this thing on it.

[simon @ Jul 8th 2008 1:28AM]

Props to you for thinking outside the box. Good show.

[Jesse S @ Jul 8th 2008 3:39AM]

Or you could use a full-frame 6x6 film camera, which has more resolution, then scan it.

Oh wait, Nasa astronauts already do that. Or have they switched fully to digital? I doubt it.

They can't have high res cameras on a rover that transmit the data back in real time...the uplink is simply too slow.

So, nice fail.