Once you sit back and take look at photography, I think you'd agree that the time spent taking photos is often the most undervalued yet the most significant aspect of the process. The Verge reviews the Hasselblad 907X 50C, which has a price tag of $6,400 for the body alone, and it's slow. But, can slow actually be a good thing?
I've been one of them. I've scrolled the new camera specifications to see how many frames per second the camera I was interested in could capture. I remember having a wedding photographer who kept her finger on the trigger for almost full seconds to not miss a shot when she took our photos. If you've got the space and the camera, you can take more than one image. Why not?
Although selection and editing of images as a professional photographer is crucially important, I've realized that photography to me is more related to the process of composing and taking the time to be sure you've got the shot you wanted. It's the fun, and I assume why most of us get into photography. It's the idea of getting out, making a mission out of it, and going where not many people go, and doing something creative in the process.
Is It Worth It?
Well, that's relative. The camera is slow, yet It has a 50-megapixel sensor, with the Hasselblad color science. So for owners of Hasselblad lenses, who currently only shoot film, it can be a great move to digital. Personally, I can't afford $6400 for the body alone that I won't be able to use in my professional working day. So no, it's not for me. But like I said, it's relative, and there surely are Hasselblad loyalists that this makes sense to.
Conclusion
The idea that got triggered when I watched the review was about the time spent, and what really matters. We love photography, and perhaps it's just the idea that with all the technology in the world today with incredible dynamic range and frames per second captured, Hasselbad decided to launch a camera that's counter-intuitive, almost like they are trying to tell us to remember the joy of photography.
I was wondering how slow but I didn't check the video. The specs say 2.7 fps, while the GFX 50r is close to 3 fps. So that is similar. I suppose it is slow compared to 30fps of the new Sony.
Not only burst speed, the AF is slow, processing speed is slow too.
Only "fast" thing might be the flash sync speed.
Being slow in general is not something I'm particularly concerned about. The deal breaker for me is the hit and miss auto focus. I just don't get how in this day and age the auto focus can be (or at least seems to be) worse than cameras I've used from the 60's. It simply can't be relied upon.
Who had autofocus in the ‘60s?
Literally no one.
Absolutely correct. I thought I had typed 80's, my bad.
Minolta developed the AF and introduced it into their Maxxum line, which I believe was the late 80's
Excellent post, I started with a 1000F back in the sixties, bought it used. Picture like no other camera except maybe Leica at the time. Bulky, hard to use, but amazing pictures with a wonderful Zeiss lens. I used them for years.
If you are after 'fast food' photography this is not for you
as well as for example Leica or analogue 6x6 or 4x5
If you want to take photographs, this will be a great camera for you!
Grip: I use an universal L-bracket from Arca Swiss as grip and tripod mount, it is the best and universal solution
One main advantage for the camera:
you can mount many lenses with adapter, of course the good old Hasselblad V lenses and the H lenses (with AF!) and even the Leica M lenses (if the image circle is o.k. for or tilt/shift lenses from Canon (if don't know about electronic Nikon adapters)
you have an universal digital back for any camera, that takes Hasselblad V film backs, of course like the 500 line and the 90x analogue cameras
and you can mount it on any 4x5 camera with the universal back and stitch shift and tilt images, I got my adapter yesterday and have a great time testing it on my 4x5 cameras
the IQ is impressive and the 16 bit is so much more than the usual 14 bit color depth
the attached pictures made with the XCD 21mm
you may find my first impressions here (more coming every day):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/albums/72157718344144918
A remark in this video that irritated me: Someone actually asked how the camera compares to an iphone 12? This person probably also asks whether a Formula 1 car performs differently than a minivan ...
It's quite ironic as hasselblad cameras and lenses were made by fuji for last 15-20 years, and now they're owned by DJI to bump up quality of drone branding.
Reminds me of the 903 SWC I owned back in the 90s, except this one costs even more!
"Is it worth it?" is always a relative question. For me, it doesn't matter at all that it's slow as I shoot landscape. I would imagine this would be true for most landscape photographers. So, anyone else having different needs which call for...the obvious...well you know where this is going. If IQ is equivalent or more to its predecessors...then we're good to go. Looks nice, so I will give this more serious attention.