And Hasselblad have, thank the camera gods, moved away from rebranding Sony's. Even if Sony were to end up with the same basic camera, which I doubt, Hasselblad introducing it first would still mean that they probably had considerable input in its creation. And even if not - at least it's not hideously overpriced (I think at USD 9k, it's the cheapest medium format digital camera after the Pentax 645Z)...
Now if someone would produce a universal extension containing a shutter and sporting a Canon EF mount (which'd mean you could adapt just about every 35mm lens in existence ... yes, you can adapt Nikon lenses to the Canon mount) ...
In all honesty, this looks like the last camera I need - but also like the last camera I'd ever need (excuse the bad pun, it's early in the morning).
This looks more or less exactly like the digital Mamiya 6 I dreamt up and thought I'd never live to see (the EVF is a different position, but that's about it). And it's actually a lot smaller than the Mamiya 6. If it handles well (the grip indicates that it most probably will), then this is one fantastic camera. Bravo, Hasselblad.
Lucky me I don't have the skills nor the money nor the image processing pipeline (hardware!) to buy one ...
is no one perturbed that there is no mechanical shutter? i'm very bullish on this otherwise, but dont quite understand that decision, and my simple mind (perhaps incorrectly) finds it needlessly limiting. i do understand it allows for lens based leaf shutters, but otherwise seems to have big downsides for legacy glass use. please confirm or correct!
I understand why YOU would want to be able to use legacy lenses. But I'm fairly certain that Hasselblad would like you to buy THEIR lenses.
I'm sure that as electronic shutters become the norm, most camera makers will try to cut legacy glass out of their equation. Why would they limit themselves to selling you JUST a body when they can go back to the well again and again for each lens you need to purchase.
I'm only speculating, there could be some totally different reason why they aren't using a mechanical shutter inside the body.
thanks luke, but not sure i quite understand: virtually every single mirrorless from sony, fuji, oly, panny and even leica, across FF, apsc and m4/3 formats have mechanical shutters. all those companies sell proprietary lenses specifically for those systems. all accomodate legacy glass--including those made by the manufacturer! same is true for pentax medium format, insofar as mechanical shutter and pentax legacy glass is concerned. so i unfortunately remain confused about this choice, which, btw, i think has more to do with wanting to incorporate a lens based leaf shutter than another proprietary advantage...what i remain confused about is the advantage of such a system in a mirrorless format, and the other benefits/detriments lack of mechanical shutter has on this system now and going forward.
From Ming's page......... "To fill out the rest of the lens line, the camera is fully compatible with the H system lenses – in fact, the contact pins look the same and I suspect the adaptor will just be a tube with extended electrical contacts. It remains to be seen whether the native XCD lenses are highly telecentric or the sensor itself has an offset microlens array. Finally, a 30mm is planned for Photokina.
Before anybody asks again in the comments, the body contains no shutter. This means whilst the flange distance is very short and some 35mm lenses may well cover the format, they will only be usable if a) there is an electronic shutter implemented in firmware – that has yet to be confirmed, and b) some enterprising third party gets out the lathes."
While I'm sure they'll make money selling the body..... the REAL money is selling you the lenses once you're hooked. At least that is how I would do it if I had the first mirrorless medium format camera to reach the market.
again, i agree, the money has always been in the lenses. however, while that is true, no one has ever done this, put out a mirrorless with no mechanical shutter. when faced with the same reality, sony didnt do it when they were the first and only mirrorless full frame. fuji didnt do it. pentax didnt do it. oly didnt do it when they were the first 4/3 and then the first m4/3. do none of those guys understand what is so plain to hassy, or is it possible there is another explanation?
regardless of motivation, the lack of mechanical shutter has real implications for those who want to buy in, and i hope they--and me--are educated as to what those are, positive and negative.