The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica S2 vs Hasselblad H4D

Status
Not open for further replies.

Professional

Active member
This discussion easily could open another rathole :) Anyway here my answer, maybe some others can answer better.

1) In terms of innovative product - depends what you see as innovation ??? H has the TS adapter, but did you really try it? I have one, a great tool, but it makes your bulky MFD cam even bulkier. No more AF etc. I meanwhile prefer a tech cam + MFDB here! But this is a personal opinion of course.

Phase has TS lenses meanwhile - a Schneider lens, which without any doubt I rate upfront higher than any Fujinon H lens!

2) True Focus - innovative for sure, but the Phase DF is at least as fast, without True Focus, but did we have TF before and did the shots not get sharp? Not to speak about the S2 which in my opinion is toping both H and P

3) 60MP back - you could get the P65+ for almost 2 years now, in times when H was only able to deliver 50MP. It took them 2 years to make their promises true and come with a 60MP camera. Meanwhile Phase already has a 80MP back (Leaf). How long will it take H to come there?

4) Higher resolution screen - I could not care less about a higher res screen, or larger screen, but I would really love a screen which is easily readable even in bright sunlight. All vendors suck here!

In terms of digital and digital workflow (C1 Pro) Phase has the clear technology advantage today and I see no signs they would give that up.

Having said all this, my mind is that Leica is interesting nevertheless because of their S system which actually is also on top technology wise, but sure a bit limited in terms of flexibility - at least today.

All these systems are great systems, it always depends on what you really need. I would not buy pure technology leadership, if the system does not fit my needs - right?
Well said, but still people buy whatever suit their needs, whether they believe in all of what you said or not.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
This discussion easily could open another rathole :) Anyway here my answer, maybe some others can answer better.

1) In terms of innovative product - depends what you see as innovation ??? H has the TS adapter, but did you really try it? I have one, a great tool, but it makes your bulky MFD cam even bulkier. No more AF etc. I meanwhile prefer a tech cam + MFDB here! But this is a personal opinion of course.

Yes I use a HTS. It has streamlined my commercial table-top work-flow, added new creative possibilities for portraits, and has cut any need to use my Rollei Xact-II to almost zero except for wide work and extreme TS needs. It is nowhere near the size of a view camera and fits into a side pocket of my H bag so it's with me all the time ... and bulky is a relative term since the thing isn't exactly a hand held accessory anyway ... even though you can use it that way for spontaneous portraits.

Phase has TS lenses meanwhile - a Schneider lens, which without any doubt I rate upfront higher than any Fujinon H lens!

Like I said about the Leica lenses ... let's see the proof. Web blab is one thing, printed proof is another. Blind Brand name devotion doesn't work anymore. Images tell the story.

2) True Focus - innovative for sure, but the Phase DF is at least as fast, without True Focus, but did we have TF before and did the shots not get sharp? Not to speak about the S2 which in my opinion is toping both H and P

Now this is just odd. If using the center focus point only were accurate for off-center subjects, why would the DSLRs add 45 focus points? It's physics. And yes there were sharp shots before ... and a lot of not so sharp shots which you never saw. This is a major technological AF innovation that has improved my use of MFD a lot, especially for more spontaneous candid work. I've seen no evidence that the S2 AF is faster than the H or Phase camera ... my experience with the S2 was the opposite. I believe that it has been improved, but I doubt it is better than H or Phase

3) 60MP back - you could get the P65+ for almost 2 years now, in times when H was only able to deliver 50MP. It took them 2 years to make their promises true and come with a 60MP camera. Meanwhile Phase already has a 80MP back (Leaf). How long will it take H to come there?

IMO, this is true. Hasselblad prioritized their limited resources on other things their users requested ... (see above). Plus, they continued to support their legacy V users with a 39 and 50 meg CFV back and continue to develop their Multi-Shot technology (soon to offer 200 meg). Different requests dictate different R&D paths. The Meg race isn't everything to everyone.

4) Higher resolution screen - I could not care less about a higher res screen, or larger screen, but I would really love a screen which is easily readable even in bright sunlight. All vendors suck here!

Also true that they all suck. However, I do care about a high res screen for paid location work so I can check focus better. No existing H4D/60 has the double res LCD yet because the firmware hasn't been quite completed to enable it. So, hopefully we'll see how good it is in a month or so. It does cheese me off that Hassey didn't put that screen on the 40 and 50 meg backs.

In terms of digital and digital workflow (C1 Pro) Phase has the clear technology advantage today and I see no signs they would give that up.

Matter of opinion. I have both Phocus and C1Pro software on my computer, and both suck in terms of workflow compared to LR3.2 ... so both have a long way to go. Phocus has DAC for HC and Zeiss V work, has Hasselblad true color profiles, and is necessary for tethered Multi-Shot work, which is all I care about.

Having said all this, my mind is that Leica is interesting nevertheless because of their S system which actually is also on top technology wise, but sure a bit limited in terms of flexibility - at least today.

The S2 doesn't fit on that view camera you seem to like, and it's smaller sensor would limit the use of a super wide image circle even if it did. It doesn't have a big bright waist level finder, and unlike my H2F or most any Mamiya camera, it can't shoot film. Technology on paper is one thing, actually having the stuff to use is another. If Hassey was slow to market with the H4D/60 then the S2 system is a snail compared to a rabbit. However, both companies have been slow to market with certain things for the same reason ... they want it right, and deserve credit for doing that.

All these systems are great systems, it always depends on what you really need. I would not buy pure technology leadership, if the system does not fit my needs - right?
So, As you can see, I can counter point each statement here (which is kinda fun ;) ) ... but I think you should sell or trade all your Hasselblad gear and buy a Phase One system. Then in a few months you can post some other opinions, and sell the Phase system for a Leica S2 ... then in a few months ... :ROTFL:


- Marc
 

jlm

Workshop Member
"No existing H4D/60 has the double res LCD yet because the firmware hasn't been quite completed to enable it. So, hopefully we'll see how good it is in a month or so."

first I have heard of this, explains the lack of any comments on the new screen from any of the few H4D-60 posters, including D grover
 

fotografz

Well-known member
And sometimes they buy according to reviews/recommendations or something else rather than needs.
Yep, and some buy without ever trying the gear themselves, only to find it doesn't meet their needs ... and then complain about it like it was the gear's fault.

-Marc
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
As an H4D owner whose had a few quirks with the first H4D and a few quirks with a prior H3D. I am ultimately satisfied with this camera. As mentioned before the customer service is the best. I know sometimes a few lemons sneak by, but I don't want to have to make lemonade when I need my camera at that moment! I don't care about the LCD screen, it's never an accurate representation of the exposure, it just uses more battery when the contrast is turned up. I wouldn't judge a camera based on that. Use the histogram on the top of the grip for a general overview. The sensor in the Leica is the Kodak KAF 37500, which some say, does not have the better higher ISO capability of the KAF 40000, used in the H4D/40. A rain cover will suffice my weather needs for now (even the S2 users should have one handy). The evolution of any camera will be partly based on user reports, we'll see what happens to Leica and the S2
 

fotografz

Well-known member
"No existing H4D/60 has the double res LCD yet because the firmware hasn't been quite completed to enable it. So, hopefully we'll see how good it is in a month or so."

first I have heard of this, explains the lack of any comments on the new screen from any of the few H4D-60 posters, including D grover
All of the H4D/60s have the double res LCD hardware ... it just isn't enabled yet.

I suspect (but don't know) that a higher resolution LCD display presents any of the high meg back makers with a challenge. That is a lot of data to crunch into a LCD review, and the higher resolution could affect shooting/review speed. Remains to be seen if that is the case, and if they can balance it out. Pentax and Leica seem to have done it with their 40 meg MFD cameras, but admittedly 60 or 80 meg FF is another level.

Frankly, this is what I meant saying the meg race isn't everything. 40, 50, 60 meg is more than enough for all but the most demanding applications ... beyond that 50MS or 80 meg fits the rest. I'd rather see more versatility and utilitarian innovations ...

starting with the LCD so you can check focus. Apps that allow remote viewing and control such as those beginning to appear should be improved and become standard. More work-flow versatility in the software. More stable tethered transfers (Mac and the MFD companies seeing eye-to-eye more), more innovations like sensor plus that extend the use of the system more, continued improvement in higher ISO performance, etc., etc.

I'm sure we could all compile a list of our own.

-Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Dual Cards
One wireless Card
Jpegs for at least for Ipad/Iphone wireless viewing
Bigger Higher Res LCD. Okay that is a given
Focus mask on LCD , like C1 with focus mask
Histo that TELLS you your a stop over idiot. Okay a beep or display that spells it out
Get RID of the crop viewfinders add magnification for the finder with dial it in back size.
Double lock mechanism for back removal.

I have more but that is another thread. LOL
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Dual Cards
One wireless Card
Jpegs for at least for Ipad/Iphone wireless viewing
Bigger Higher Res LCD. Okay that is a given
Focus mask on LCD , like C1 with focus mask
Histo that TELLS you your a stop over idiot. Okay a beep or display that spells it out
Get RID of the crop viewfinders add magnification for the finder with dial it in back size.
Double lock mechanism for back removal.

I have more but that is another thread. LOL
YES! Dual mirrored cards should be manditory ... even if it slows down capture time (which it shouldn't), and make it an option if it does. Don't care if they are CFs or not.

Hassey already has a big enough LCD ... but they should be much higher res so you can jump to 100% and scroll to check focus.

Hassey also already has the over/under exposure beep, but that's still not as good as the thin line histogram over-lay that the Leica DMR had ... IMO, it was the best ever :thumbup:

-Marc
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
@ Marc,

you will not see me sell my H system ;) I rather might change my H3D against a H4D60 :D

Having said that, I disagree with some of your answers,especially:

HTS - it is larger (or at least as large) as a Cambo WRS which I used myself during one of the workshops with great success. I own the HTS myself and I carry it always with me when I take my H equipment for a shoot, so I know what I am talking about. And it will never be able to bring the results you can achieve wit such a tech cam and a German lens (Rodenstock, Schneider etc) - period - unfortunately. This is something which Hasselblad themselves confirmed to me and having the results from the Cambo WRS in combination with P40+ and P45 I know what I am speaking about! None of the far east lens makers has managed to come close to these lenses. Same is true for Leica glass, if you like it or not.

Usage of the S2 - what I tried to say (maybe it was not clear) is, that a S2 with 2 or 3 lenses and a tech cam with maybe a P40+ or a P65+ will outperform any of the H combinations for sure. Just unfair to compare. S2 much more agile, faster, easier to handle (a no brainer for an old Leica shooter) and AF very fast. Tech cam for static shots and where you need it, in my case for landscapes.

AF - True Focus - man this is really a bummer! I usually use even DSLRs just with the center AF point, this is the way I shoot and the way I compose: focus, meter and then find the right composition - then shoot. I do agree that of course having some 51 AF points in a Nikon (or whatever number in a Canon) helps in doing fast dynamic AF shooting. But I can tell you one thing for sure - even that does not work satisfyingly enough because if you use a high speed tele wide open and just rely on your multipoint AF and shoot portraits of a hopefully moving and turning model in order to get out the static look of your pictures then just forget ANY multipoint AF. SO what does True focus mean for this type of exercise? Nothing, because with True AF you would never be close to follow a moving model fast enough - simply does not work. So what you can get in maximum is successful static compositions in portraits but nothing more. So TF is for sure helping in some circumstances, but overall it is a drop of water on hot stone - not solving ALL the AF issues which are still there today. Would I not buy it if I get it for free with any new Hasselblad I buy today - of course I would take it but be very careful what the real benefit is. Great if it works for you and your type of photography, for mine there are definitely less hits.

Did I forget to argue on any other points you made - maybe but I think you can read out of these 3 answers already what the facts are: not all photographers have the same needs and the same habits and processes to shoot. Does this make one more successful as another? For sure not! You have to know your equipment and be able to play it to the degree that you get the results you desire and/or need for customers.

Finally it is true at least for me, that I easily would give up things like TF if I could get the easiness of handling of a Leica camera. Would Hasselblad have brought 2 H4 models, one with TF and the other one wit just the operational controls as the S2, my decision which one to get would be a no brainer! See what I mean?
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
@ Marc,

you will not see me sell my H system ;) I rather might change my H3D against a H4D60 :D

Having said that, I disagree with some of your answers,especially:

HTS - it is larger (or at least as large) as a Cambo WRS which I used myself during one of the workshops with great success. I own the HTS myself and I carry it always with me when I take my H equipment for a shoot, so I know what I am talking about. And it will never be able to bring the results you can achieve wit such a tech cam and a German lens (Rodenstock, Schneider etc) - period - unfortunately. This is something which Hasselblad themselves confirmed to me and having the results from the Cambo WRS in combination with P40+ and P45 I know what I am speaking about! None of the far east lens makers has managed to come close to these lenses. Same is true for Leica glass, if you like it or not.

Usage of the S2 - what I tried to say (maybe it was not clear) is, that a S2 with 2 or 3 lenses and a tech cam with maybe a P40+ or a P65+ will outperform any of the H combinations for sure. Just unfair to compare. S2 much more agile, faster, easier to handle (a no brainer for an old Leica shooter) and AF very fast. Tech cam for static shots and where you need it, in my case for landscapes.

AF - True Focus - man this is really a bummer! I usually use even DSLRs just with the center AF point, this is the way I shoot and the way I compose: focus, meter and then find the right composition - then shoot. I do agree that of course having some 51 AF points in a Nikon (or whatever number in a Canon) helps in doing fast dynamic AF shooting. But I can tell you one thing for sure - even that does not work satisfyingly enough because if you use a high speed tele wide open and just rely on your multipoint AF and shoot portraits of a hopefully moving and turning model in order to get out the static look of your pictures then just forget ANY multipoint AF. SO what does True focus mean for this type of exercise? Nothing, because with True AF you would never be close to follow a moving model fast enough - simply does not work. So what you can get in maximum is successful static compositions in portraits but nothing more. So TF is for sure helping in some circumstances, but overall it is a drop of water on hot stone - not solving ALL the AF issues which are still there today. Would I not buy it if I get it for free with any new Hasselblad I buy today - of course I would take it but be very careful what the real benefit is. Great if it works for you and your type of photography, for mine there are definitely less hits.

Did I forget to argue on any other points you made - maybe but I think you can read out of these 3 answers already what the facts are: not all photographers have the same needs and the same habits and processes to shoot. Does this make one more successful as another? For sure not! You have to know your equipment and be able to play it to the degree that you get the results you desire and/or need for customers.

Finally it is true at least for me, that I easily would give up things like TF if I could get the easiness of handling of a Leica camera. Would Hasselblad have brought 2 H4 models, one with TF and the other one wit just the operational controls as the S2, my decision which one to get would be a no brainer! See what I mean?

Of course, dedicated fix element lenses will outperform internal focusing optics every time ... including Leica and Schneider as well as Zeiss, Fuji, Pentax, etc..

Just because you cannot shoot moving subjects with off-center focusing doesn't mean that no one can.

Your comments on TF make no sense to me ... if you are currently shooting an off-center subject using the center focus point, and then recompose, isn't that the same as TF?, except TF figures out the focus correction so it stays in focus, even to the far edge of the frame. Do you understand how TF works? Are you using a H4 camera?

BUT, if it isn't appropriate, I don't use it ... like any optional feature. So if you want it for something it's there, otherwise DON'T press the TF Lock button. No brainer.

Best of luck ...

-Marc
 

John Black

Active member
As Marc almost said, True Focus is not related to tracking. It allows you to center focus, lock focus and then recompose. The camera will then recalc focus based upon the change in pitch and yaw. It's really quite brilliant. Also,Hass' AF engine makes corrections for focus shift based upon the selected aperture for a given HC lens.
 

tjv

Active member
I would have thought that everyone would appreciate a higher res LCD, even if only to check 100% focus. I, too, couldn't care less about checking the colour or exposure of the captured image on anything other than a histogram, but the LCD should at least be an accurate and reliable indication of the focus point. Right?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Of course, dedicated fix element lenses will outperform internal focusing optics every time ... including Leica and Schneider as well as Zeiss, Fuji, Pentax, etc..

Just because you cannot shoot moving subjects with off-center focusing doesn't mean that no one can.

Your comments on TF make no sense to me ... if you are currently shooting an off-center subject using the center focus point, and then recompose, isn't that the same as TF?, except TF figures out the focus correction so it stays in focus, even to the far edge of the frame. Do you understand how TF works? Are you using a H4 camera?

BUT, if it isn't appropriate, I don't use it ... like any optional feature. So if you want it for something it's there, otherwise DON'T press the TF Lock button. No brainer.

Best of luck ...

-Marc
I tried TF for several hours on a H4D camera - no worries. And I am not saying it is bad, but I wonder why people start commenting like that they could not shoot before and without TF ?????? Really odd.

Just my 5c.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I would have thought that everyone would appreciate a higher res LCD, even if only to check 100% focus. I, too, couldn't care less about checking the colour or exposure of the captured image on anything other than a histogram, but the LCD should at least be an accurate and reliable indication of the focus point. Right?
Absolutely! Without live-view on the LCD, it's the next best thing.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I tried TF for several hours on a H4D camera - no worries. And I am not saying it is bad, but I wonder why people start commenting like that they could not shoot before and without TF ?????? Really odd.

Just my 5c.
Well, that is obviously an exaggeration that I haven't personally heard from anyone myself. However, the notion is probably rooted in the fact that MF DOF is more demanding then with FF 35mm ...just like it's less demanding on a crop frame 35mm and even less on an P&S sized sensor ... and as the MF digital sensors increase in size and relentlessly increase the meg count while reducing the pixel pitch ... inaccurate focus becomes more apparent.

Many MF shooters use manual focusing, or stop down more to cover the field-of-focus for off-center subjects ... and while AF has been a wonderful addition to the format, it has always suffered from the restriction of a center focus point while focusing on an off-center subject, especially when using a wider aperture. The more off-center and close to the camera the subject, the worse the problem ... more apparent when using wide to medium focal length lenses due to the severity of movement from the subject to the center of the frame. So, True Focus/Focus Lock is less useful with the 300mm lens, if it even makes much difference at all. I think David G. has actually said something to that effect somewhere on a Hassey forum. That said, I still use it with my 300mm to CMA.

35mm cameras were able to address the issue by placing focus points outside the center area for you to select ... but if you'll notice those points have always been placed fairly close to the center point, and never out to the edges of the viewfinder. Likewise, Phamamiya added a few focus points outside the center point but not very far out. I'd speculate that this is due to some restriction of existing technology, and how far away they can be.

Hasselblad leap-frogged the restriction with an elegant pitch & yaw based solution as mention by John Black above. So, you can focus on any area of the scene, even a subject at the farthest edge of the viewfinder, lock focus with TF, and recompose ... in a nano-second the camera calculates the adjustment to keep the off-center subject in critical focus. In practice, it is very fast and very accurate.

It does take a little practice at first, but not much. Like with manual focus, or center focus/recompose, or using an off-center focus point, you cannot sway in and out ... TF does not fix that. Nothing fixes that except excellent technique and/or stopping down more to cover the error.

Just my $20K worth :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Well, that is obviously an exaggeration that I haven't personally heard from anyone myself. However, the notion is probably rooted in the fact that MF DOF is more demanding then with FF 35mm ...just like it's less demanding on a crop frame 35mm and even less on an P&S sized sensor ... and as the MF digital sensors increase in size and relentlessly increase the meg count while reducing the pixel pitch ... inaccurate focus becomes more apparent.

Many MF shooters use manual focusing, or stop down more to cover the field-of-focus for off-center subjects ... and while AF has been a wonderful addition to the format, it has always suffered from the restriction of a center focus point while focusing on an off-center subject, especially when using a wider aperture. The more off-center and close to the camera the subject, the worse the problem ... more apparent when using wide to medium focal length lenses due to the severity of movement from the subject to the center of the frame. So, True Focus/Focus Lock is less useful with the 300mm lens, if it even makes much difference at all. I think David G. has actually said something to that effect somewhere on a Hassey forum. That said, I still use it with my 300mm to CMA.

35mm cameras were able to address the issue by placing focus points outside the center area for you to select ... but if you'll notice those points have always been placed fairly close to the center point, and never out to the edges of the viewfinder. Likewise, Phamamiya added a few focus points outside the center point but not very far out. I'd speculate that this is due to some restriction of existing technology, and how far away they can be.

Hasselblad leap-frogged the restriction with an elegant pitch & yaw based solution as mention by John Black above. So, you can focus on any area of the scene, even a subject at the farthest edge of the viewfinder, lock focus with TF, and recompose ... in a nano-second the camera calculates the adjustment to keep the off-center subject in critical focus. In practice, it is very fast and very accurate.

It does take a little practice at first, but not much. Like with manual focus, or center focus/recompose, or using an off-center focus point, you cannot sway in and out ... TF does not fix that. Nothing fixes that except excellent technique and/or stopping down more to cover the error.

Just my $20K worth :ROTFL:

-Marc
Ok, TF is great! I agree! I only try to be careful to overvalue it!

Actually I would like to see TF in combination with multiple AF points in an MF camera. Why is it so hard to build an MF cam with at least 5 AF points? Or 11 like in the Olympus E3 or E5? One could actually buy such a solution from Olympus for example as they are selling their AF module as OEM. It of course would need some rework, but I do not understand MF camera vendors why they tend to reinvent the wheel.

I might consider upgrading my H3D39 to an H4D40, which seems to bring a number of advantages WRT speed and TF and newer sensor technology. I am still kind of hesitating to upgrade to a H4D60, as I do NOT want to handle that huge amount of data and actually do not need 60MP.
 

jerome

Member
Ok, TF is great! I agree! I only try to be careful to overvalue it!

Actually I would like to see TF in combination with multiple AF points in an MF camera. Why is it so hard to build an MF cam with at least 5 AF points? Or 11 like in the Olympus E3 or E5? One could actually buy such a solution from Olympus for example as they are selling their AF module as OEM. It of course would need some rework, but I do not understand MF camera vendors why they tend to reinvent the wheel.

I might consider upgrading my H3D39 to an H4D40, which seems to bring a number of advantages WRT speed and TF and newer sensor technology. I am still kind of hesitating to upgrade to a H4D60, as I do NOT want to handle that huge amount of data and actually do not need 60MP.
Hi,

I use TF on my H4D50, it's very useful, and really it's more convenient than AF points ! You just have to push TF button and let your Hassy do the job for you !

It's very effective :)
 

doug

Well-known member
.. Like with manual focus, or center focus/recompose, or using an off-center focus point, you cannot sway in and out ... TF does not fix that.
I find that my subject will sway in and out enough that re-composing after focussing doesn't work, no matter how quick or accurate the focussing is. Focus points miss the point, no matter how many there are. I need to be able to focus anywhere in the image area and not have to re-compose.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Ok, TF is great! I agree! I only try to be careful to overvalue it!

Actually I would like to see TF in combination with multiple AF points in an MF camera. Why is it so hard to build an MF cam with at least 5 AF points? Or 11 like in the Olympus E3 or E5? One could actually buy such a solution from Olympus for example as they are selling their AF module as OEM. It of course would need some rework, but I do not understand MF camera vendors why they tend to reinvent the wheel.

I might consider upgrading my H3D39 to an H4D40, which seems to bring a number of advantages WRT speed and TF and newer sensor technology. I am still kind of hesitating to upgrade to a H4D60, as I do NOT want to handle that huge amount of data and actually do not need 60MP.
IMO that is wise thinking. I'm debating the 60 upgrade myself. I have the H4D/40 already, and while handling big files isn't an issue I fret about, I do debate the value of going to 60 meg over my current CF39/MS studio camera. Generally, I don't need more than 40 meg unless in the studio shooting critical stuff, especially if it includes fabrics or clothing as the product. However, I don't shoot landscapes, and could see going to 60 meg single shot if I did ... like Jack did.

I wish there was more info on the recently announced 200 meg H4D/50 multi-shot step-module upgrade ... mostly how much that would cost above a H4D/50MS :bugeyes:

Again, I think the difficulty is using multiple AF points for MFD is the physical size of the area to be covered. The Oly E3 AF area coverage works for a little sensor area ... but put that same AF point spread in a MFD viewfinder and it would be a relatively insignificant grouping in the center, and nearly useless for off-center subjects.

The other thing is that even with 35mm AF ... the outer AF points are no where near the sensitivity of the center AF point. Which is why the "re-inventing of the wheel" by Hasselblad was actually quite brilliant thinking since it only uses the sensitive center AF point for off-center focusing, and then calculates Pitch and Yaw to adjust the fine focusing when you reframe.

Now whether multiple AF points is possible with a new, wider ranging AF technology I have no idea. Probably would be significant R&D costs for a relatively small volume of MFD applications.

But I'd speculate that if anyone pulls that off it'll be Phase One because it would be an answer to the Hassey solution and blunt that advantage.

-Marc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top