Most expensive camera I've seen

[MrEastSide]

So, I kinda thought the Canon EOS cameras were pushing it being between 4-10k in some cases. But, I was just browsing B & H Cause I was bored and I was checking their demo and open box specials and I saw this. I've never heard of this brand, but the price is likely why.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...amera_Kit.html

Who in God's name would need to go to this extreme? Whether you were a pro or not. Isn't a $10,000 dollar EOS good enough? lol! I don't know a ton about photography yet so maybe this camera turns into a spaceship and flies too?

[mn shutterbug]

That brand has been around for generations. At one time, it was the sought after camera for wedding and portrait photographers. I'm sure there are still many out there using the hassy. The Mamiya came along and due to the more affordable price, I believe became a bit more popular for the pros. It's certainly not the kind of camera you want to take on a nature hike.

Actually, I had forgot all about the cameras. I'm surprised they actually make them digital now. They used to be mainly medium format cameras.

[Jumpseat]

Some day when we all grow-up and know all there is to know about photography we will demand to own a Hasselblad. Hasselblad manufactures some of the finest cameras on the planet. They are the photographic equivalent of the Maybach automobile and primarily used by very serious professionals. Some of the more affluent amateurs can even afford the film series. Glamour, fashion, and portrait work is their forte.

I have used a Mamiya for years and still dream of Hasselblads. You’ll find that medium format equipment is at … shall we say … a different price point. Particularly medium format digital.

But, turn into a spaceship and fly too? Well, if you know how to use it.

.

[MrEastSide]

And it's a demo item... What is it brand new, like 30k? :cryin:

[Jumpseat]

The first shock that someone new to medium format (MF) photography has to over come is the pricing structure of the equipment. These things are sold in separate components; body (an unusable box by itself), view finder, film back, (and/or) digital back, lenses, and misc. accessories. The least expensive component is usually the film back (the film holder) which can cost more than your D80. And, digital backs alone can sell for up to $16000.

Needless to say, brand new MF equipment is not for we mere mortals. But the results even MF film can provide in competent hands is simply spectacular. While digital has pretty much rendered 35mm film obsolete, it has a long way to go before it even compares to MF film. MF provides incredibly sharp images with beautiful, smooth color transition. And, when I scan my 6x9CM film it can give me up to a 400+meg file. Larger than I could ever want or achieve with any DSLR.

Again, this is usually a professional or serious amateur format. As an example; some of the top photography magazines, such as Arizona Highways, traditionally will not accept anything that isn’t at least MF. And, if you really want to get into photo esoterica check out Large Format. There you will find the Masters of the Universe.

[Xia_Ke]

Why "settle" for only the 22MP version? Might as well go all out and get the 39MP....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

I would LOVE to own a 'blad. An older 500 or 501 is what makes me drool. One of these days... Ones of these days... ;)

[mn shutterbug]

The price probably isn't a real issue for the pros who can command over $30,0000 to shoot one wedding. I forget the photographer's name, but I used to own a book that stated that one particular photographer would not shoot a wedding for less than 30K.This was close to 20 years ago. He shot mainly celebrity weddings. It would be nice to be able to pay for all your equipment from just one shoot.

[nps474]

I read a recent review on the 30+MP Hasselblad. The resolution is so outstanding, a single image taken with the camera is already so high, it can be blown up to billboard size!

[MrEastSide]

Why "settle" for only the 22MP version? Might as well go all out and get the 39MP....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

:yikes: Now that's a brutal price tag. Cannot be returned. lol! Better be sure it's what you want!

[Jumpseat]

RETURNED!!!! Are you nuts? Once I had it you'd have to pry it out of my cold dead fingers.


.

[MrEastSide]

Makes me wonder what it actually costs the company to produce... I can't imagine it really coming close to that price tag. I don't know what parts costs or what materials they use, but 24-30k?

[rsimmons]

R&D has to be really expensive for creating a 39 megapixel camera, plus the lenses, etc., etc., etc. And on top of that you have to factor in how many you're going to sell. The more you sell, the less the price. Supply and demand. You can own a mercedes for $80,000 or a Ferrari for $300,000.

[Jumpseat]

I don’t think they use anything exotic to build them. The expensive component is the “digital back”. The sensor is massive compared to the DX sensor used in our Nikons. Actually, even compared to Nikon’s new FX sensor. Mechanically, the bodies, lenses, viewfinders, backs (film and digital), and accessories may be physically larger than their 35mm based film and digital counterparts, but the technology is no more advanced. And, often, not as advanced. There are two things that I think helps keep the prices elevated; production and customers. Compared to 35mm based film and digital camera production MF camera production is extremely small, especially digital MF. This simply means that they can’t spread the cost of research, development and manufacturing over as many units sold. Secondly, their customer base is mostly professionals who can take the high prices as business expenses. But, in all seriousness, I have to agree with you; that is a shocking price tag.

.

[Loupey]

Like the exotic car analogy that Jumpseat mentioned, if you have to ask "how much" you can't afford it anyway Like cars, clothes, watches, purses, .... perhaps these cameras are more a status thing - to better impress the clients.

Overkill to the nth degree for the majority of work I would guess. Wonder how many people would be able to discern a 1DsIII image verses a hassy image in a magazine or even billboard. I'm not knowledgeable in commercial printing capabilities or high volume printing presses, but the limitations there seem to be the weak link in the chain.

I kept my medium format equipment with the hope that a third party company would make an "affordable" digital back for it in the near future. Last time I checked, there was one manufacturer 3 or 4 years ago that made one for it. If memory serves me correctly, it was in the 16~20mp range and the back alone was the cost of a small car (non exotic )

At the local pro shop, I've been seeing medium format gear coming in steady on trades for the last 4 years. Based on just my observation, I figure the vast majority of MF users have already jumped ship. I've worked with a few pros who do use MF with digital backs and the shooting sessions are brutally slow. One, two, perhaps three frames and then wait for the images to upload to a MAC via tethered firewire cable for the next 45 seconds. Not the most comfortable way to shoot natural looking poses.

[Frog]

I bet you can get a better price from usaphotonation, expresscamera, etc.

[Jumpseat]

I couldn’t agree more with Loupey. The sad part is that so many of us carry around thousands of dollars worth of camera gear to take a photo we then post on the web. A photo that would look just a good using a less expensive P&S system. Considering that many of us use the internet, in one form or another, to share our photos the question becomes: Is there a difference between formats? And, by format I refer to P&S (small sensor digital), DSLR APS (medium size sensor), DSLR FX (I’m going to use Nikon’s term for full-frame because it’s easier), 35mm film, MF film, MF digital, and LF (large format). For this discussion I am referring to the higher quality P&S cameras.

I spend a lot of time browsing online photo galleries. My wife chides me saying that I spend more time looking at other people’s photos than my own. And, of course, this is a very subjective topic but here is my opinion. Now, again this is just MY opinion; I am not looking to start a war with any one or drag this out into a multi Re: thing. If anyone disagrees, please do. Your opinion is just as valid.

That said the answer is a definite yes and no. From what I have observed there is very little difference between digital formats when presented on the internet. Usually, the difference, as with all formats, is the photographer’s skill. With a few exceptions of good photographers using outstanding cameras and the best film, 35mm does not live up to the current state of any digital format. However, digital still has a long way to go before it can exceed the image quality of a good MF or Large format film camera using high quality film in the hands of a competent photographer. And, while MF digital may present a slight improvement over digital APS and FX the improvement is certainly not worth the money.

On the other hand, if the presentation media is high quality print, MF (film and digital) and LF are simply unbeatable. And, digital APS and FX still win over most 35mm film. Unfortunately, print media is where the small sensor P&S shows its vulnerability.

Sorry, MrEastSide, this is probably further than you wanted to go with the subject.

[MrEastSide]

Not at all. It's better to have things explained then to just sit and scratch my head and wonder what the difference is or what makes it so expensive or if it's really worth it. And although I don't know much about photography yet, your explanation was more than easy to comprehend.

[fx101]

I have actually shot the film back Hasselblad H2. The body alone is around 3k but let me tell you the build quality for these things is even beyond Leica. Nonetheless this is a camera that should not leave the studio, at least in its digital form, for the digital backs are quite heavy. A friend owns a mamiya medium back (18 megapixels) and it is quite heavy, so I imagine the hassy backs are the same (but hey, its 39 megapixels, I will carry that). The hasselblad lenses are legendary, imagine what kind of quality lens you need for a 39 megapixel camera . I've shot a 5d and a 1ds and those REALLY show the flaws of an "L" series lens. Something three times the resolution will really need some quality glass. When I shot the H2 film the lens that was on it (a 12mm I believe) was alone worth 7k, what you would expect to pay for a nice telephoto. I will probably never buy one though... . As for returning it... who in their right mind would return it? It might be heavy, but you try prying that camera off me with a crowbar, its not going to happen.


Now my question is... imagine what kind of image you would have if you stitched together 5 39 megapixel photos to create a panorama. That would be insane!