It's a 645, but the point of my question was, if the Canon @ 16mp is considered to be med format, what would the 'blad be? Is it not med format? Or would it be large format?
Further, the Canon, AFAIK, has only a 12bit sensor, while the 'blad claims 16bits. With both at the same price, which might the pro photog using med format prefer? Seems a no brainer to me: more pixels, less noise, better color. That's what med format is about compared to 35mm. Anyway, I don't see the Canon as the new med format. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 10/27/2004 10:14:57 AM > Subject: Re: state of the art 35mm DSLR > > 6x9? > > Dario > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 6:48 PM > Subject: Re: state of the art 35mm DSLR > > > > So, what might the new Hasselblad med format @ 22mp and 16bit color, and > > which, I understand, has a price of $7,000, be? > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Yes, I agree, but don't forget that 24x36 DLSR's are the digital medium > > > format, aimed to that same pro customers which bought Hasselblads and > > 6x7's. > > > When you consider the lenses too, such a system is probably not more > > > expensive than a complete 6x6 or 6x7 outfit. > > > > > > Amateurs, even advanced amateurs who bought 35mm high-end SLR's like > many > > > among us, are supposed to replace them with 6-8 Mpix APS-format DLSR's, > > now > > > under $1.7K. > > > > > > Also, it is interesting to note that the previous co-kings (Kodak 14Mp > and > > > Canon 11Mp) were introduced two years ago at Photokina 2002. Another > sign > > of > > > them being top-end pro stuff, not the high-end consumer equipment which > is > > > usually superseded each year (while the average consumer stuff lives 6 > > > months or so). > > > > > > Dario > > > >
