Shel Belinkoff wrote: > It's a 645,
I mean equivalent to 6x9 film. > 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? Since neither medium fomat nor large format is a format (they are a format range), probably the blad is the largest possible medium format, or the smallest possible large format :-) After all, Sinar (known large format maker) manufacture a 22Mpix "large format" digital camera system. > 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? It depends on the use their picture are meant for. And don't forget that probably the most critical point in digital photography ist the lens. I'm not sure that 645 format lenses can reach the performance a digital sensor needs to surpass a smaller sensor. > Seems a no brainer to me: more pixels, less noise, better color. That's > what med format is about compared to 35mm. What about the additional cost of lenses? > Anyway, I don't see the Canon as the new med format. It is not necessary you see it to be. You can be wrong and I can be wrong even more, but neither of us will decide. Technology and market laws will decide. Just like all film format had their market, all digital formats will have theirs too. However, I'm convinced that Hasselblad will never sell as many H1 as they sold 500-series cameras in the past. Dario
