Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

And at that price, it might be made for Hasselblad by Sony

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

Yeah, I looked up the price of lenses as well----OUCH!!!!!-----it'll cost about 12k by the time you can shoot much with it.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

much like the alpa 12, but the build quality and photographic results are worth every penny. and, if you are young, you can amortise the initial cost over the years.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

I thought the accepted theory here was that it is the SIZE if the sensor that was important, not the NUMBER of MP? That FX is soooo much better than dx, and MF is better yet.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

Actually it's handmade in Sweden. Says so right on top of the camera. Everyone knows that something handmade is going to cost more than something mass produced in a factory.

will

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yeah. Hassy, Phase 1, Leaf/Mamiya and Pentax all had to drastically reduce the prices they were charging for their digital MF.

They also finally had to stop using CCD and switch to CMOS sensors, the way all the DSLR manufacturers did some years earlier (following Canon's early lead).

We probably have Nikon/Sony (Nikony? Sikon?) and Canon to thank for the improvements in MF.... with their 36MP and 50MP full frame DSLRs (and mirrorless) that are starting to rival the MF cameras.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

n3eg is another intelligent contributor to the conversation. My Mama told me to say nothing if I had nothing nice to say. Sometimes that is difficult here.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Yes, MF sensors do have an advantage in size. Only the most expensive cameras have it though. Not affordable to most on this forum. Including me. If you intend to buy this Hasselblad camera, hats off to you.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

how about the guys that buy the Million dollar Diesel pushers , Its all relative, a friend has a $35,000 camera, its nothing to him, I have a $3000. camera I wish I could afford the $35,000. one. My buddy, loves photography he could only afford $250 for a used one. It all depends on who you are and where you are in life. Oh and were looking for something no more than 34 feet, prefer Diesel low miles and under $35,000. Its

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

there really is no "ultimate" in anything. it all depends on how you use fully, what you have. this is not to say that critical, industrial or exhibition prints do not require excellent cameras, lenses or digital imaging devices, but some of those are within reach of most users. the secondary market, the older lenses for leica, for instance, are easily affordable. concerning megapixel counts, that is a red herring, and causes much distraction in the user groups. the important thing to understand is the larger the format, the better the end result. so, if you want to go to medium format, you might start with a used device, such as the hasselblad h1 or a hasselblad 500 series body. imacon and leaf digital backs, used, are available for both. for me, i'd prefer hanging a digital back on a 500 series body, as you have a larger format (6x6 as opposed to 6x4.5 in the h1) and a more dependable camera body which allows you to use film backs and a huge selection of wonderful zeiss optics.

what you gain in a 6x6 body is the larger image in the waist level or prism viewfinder, and the ability to make horizontal or vertical images as you wish. is there a weight gain? yes. is there only one zoom lens offered? yes. but the prime optics on the hasselblad 500 series are stunning and provide a 3 dimensional image on film or digital. in this society, everyone thinks the newest is better than the oldest. this is not necessarily true. and certainly in making images, be it film or digital, often older lenses, for instance, are much better than new.

so, anyway, that takes care of the "ultimate" issue. and if you really want to knock your socks off, try large format. you will never go "back" to anything else!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Cat, yes, that seems to be some woman's trains of thoughts!
Size DOES matter!!!
SS

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

The size still does matter - even in digital photography.

It has been always that way.
From the smallest cameras using film for 8mm movie cameras (about the size of the 1/2.3 digital sensor today) to 8"x10" view cameras.
Do we need the medium or large formats digital cameras for just to view images on the computer screen or for occasional prints sized 8"x10"?
Convenience seems to be winning - although with some sacrifices.

And how about prices?
Do you remember the incredible Sinars and Linhofs offering lens/back tilts and swings?
The technological change from film to digital is not over yet.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

yup, anyone what to match my 5x4 linhof technikardan for critical (which is all i do) work, with anything in the digital realm?