The Perfect Camera
It's close.
Full 35 mm sensor (Wide! I can go wide!), 12.8 MP (Crop! I can crop! -- At the expense of some of the "Wide!", of course.), blahblahblah. It's a 10D/20Dish deal with a bigger sensor, or a 1D(s) without the weatherproofing and "feel free to throw me at a tank, should you feel the need to take it out" sort of construction found on professional cameras.
Why is it only close?
About the square sensor: Hasselblad has argued for generations that 6x6 is a superior format (not just to 35 mm, but to other medium formats) because it does not waste glass. Round lenses throw round images. To make sure your rectangular bit of film (or digital sensor) is within the image circle, you need a bigger, heavier lens than you do for a square bit of film of equal area. The rectangle "wastes" more of the image circle.
In film, you could make the case that square film required wider rolls, which are unwieldy, or that changing the standards is hard (APS didn't really take off, did it? -- Nor did Kodak's earlier attempts like the disc camera.). Digital cannot make these excuses. You could claim that people prefer rectangles -- that they're aesthetically more pleasing. Hogwash. The 35 mm format is close to the Golden Ratio, but not quite. 645 is closer, I think. Besides, you can always crop a square image -- and it's easy to crop on a computer. Average consumers don't want to crop? Fine. Give them rectangles. But give the serious photographers squares. We don't want to lug around useless glass.
Hasselblad announced a new camera -- the sensor? 37x49 mm. What the hell, people? If you won't make square sensors, who will? And yes, I realise I can get a digital back for a Hassy and get square shots that way. But c'mon, now. There's gotta be cheaper and easier ways. Do rectangles perhaps more efficiently fill a round silicon wafer? I doubt it, but I have not sat down to prove it yet.
Gimme my square!
Full 35 mm sensor (Wide! I can go wide!), 12.8 MP (Crop! I can crop! -- At the expense of some of the "Wide!", of course.), blahblahblah. It's a 10D/20Dish deal with a bigger sensor, or a 1D(s) without the weatherproofing and "feel free to throw me at a tank, should you feel the need to take it out" sort of construction found on professional cameras.
Why is it only close?
- It weighs two pounds, without a lens
- It costs $3300, without a lens
- It does not have AF assist, without an external flash (ooooh...syllepsis?)
- It does not have a square sensor
About the square sensor: Hasselblad has argued for generations that 6x6 is a superior format (not just to 35 mm, but to other medium formats) because it does not waste glass. Round lenses throw round images. To make sure your rectangular bit of film (or digital sensor) is within the image circle, you need a bigger, heavier lens than you do for a square bit of film of equal area. The rectangle "wastes" more of the image circle.
In film, you could make the case that square film required wider rolls, which are unwieldy, or that changing the standards is hard (APS didn't really take off, did it? -- Nor did Kodak's earlier attempts like the disc camera.). Digital cannot make these excuses. You could claim that people prefer rectangles -- that they're aesthetically more pleasing. Hogwash. The 35 mm format is close to the Golden Ratio, but not quite. 645 is closer, I think. Besides, you can always crop a square image -- and it's easy to crop on a computer. Average consumers don't want to crop? Fine. Give them rectangles. But give the serious photographers squares. We don't want to lug around useless glass.
Hasselblad announced a new camera -- the sensor? 37x49 mm. What the hell, people? If you won't make square sensors, who will? And yes, I realise I can get a digital back for a Hassy and get square shots that way. But c'mon, now. There's gotta be cheaper and easier ways. Do rectangles perhaps more efficiently fill a round silicon wafer? I doubt it, but I have not sat down to prove it yet.
Gimme my square!
posted by alex. at 02:45
2 comments
