Love the Hasselblad Camera

[Johnmcl7]

Not that I know of- Samsung has developed a 100+mp 1/1.7” sensor going in phones though. We can imagine the camera bump we would need for a 1” sensor and associated optics so it is an obvious physical limitation. That wasn’t my point- at least I didn’t mean to suggest phones had 1” sensors. I was simply saying high end phones produce great images not far behind the M2P. The camera is now more than up to the task for producing great images- amazing given it can fly with a small drone.

The last one was a Panasonic which was a big flop although the fact that Panasonic aren't a big phone manufacturer likely didn't help, the large sensor meant a very prominent bump and a slow F2.8 aperture which reduced its low light advantage:

Panasonic announces Lumix DMC-CM1 smartphone with 1-inch sensor

The Panasonic Lumix DMC CM1's 1-inch sensor is the largest in any smartphone camera.

www.dpreview.com

The older Nokia 808 Pureview was just slightly below a 1in sensor:

Nokia 808 PureView Review

The Nokia 808 PureView made headlines for its maximum resolution of 38MP. So what's behind the big numbers? Read our in-depth review to find out.

www.dpreview.com

For most people the photos from their phone's 1/2.3in sensor or similar is good enough and keeps the phone thin and light whereas those wanting better IQ are likely to use a dedicated device so no surprise larger sensor phones (1in or above) have gone nowhere.

Straight out of camera a high end phone will in most cases produce a better image than the M2P despite the significant difference in sensor sizes as the M2P's processing is nowhere near as good but with a small bit of processing work, the M2P can demonstrate a large advantage in dynamic range and high iso. The processing phones can do is very impressive but I'd always take a larger sensor by choice as I prefer being able to get the photo I want in a single shot (image stacking and computational photography can be inconsistent) and I have the latitude in the image to process it as I want. For those who don't process their images I can definitely appreciate the 1/2.3in sensor being good enough and not much benefit from larger 1in sensors but I wouldn't agree in general a 1/2.3in sensor is good enough at all, they're a long way behind even a 1in sensor.

 

[WithTheBirds]

The last one was a Panasonic which was a big flop although the fact that Panasonic aren't a big phone manufacturer likely didn't help, the large sensor meant a very prominent bump and a slow F2.8 aperture which reduced its low light advantage:

Panasonic announces Lumix DMC-CM1 smartphone with 1-inch sensor

The Panasonic Lumix DMC CM1's 1-inch sensor is the largest in any smartphone camera.

www.dpreview.com

The older Nokia 808 Pureview was just slightly below a 1in sensor:

Nokia 808 PureView Review

The Nokia 808 PureView made headlines for its maximum resolution of 38MP. So what's behind the big numbers? Read our in-depth review to find out.

www.dpreview.com

For most people the photos from their phone's 1/2.3in sensor or similar is good enough and keeps the phone thin and light whereas those wanting better IQ are likely to use a dedicated device so no surprise larger sensor phones (1in or above) have gone nowhere.

Straight out of camera a high end phone will in most cases produce a better image than the M2P despite the significant difference in sensor sizes as the M2P's processing is nowhere near as good but with a small bit of processing work, the M2P can demonstrate a large advantage in dynamic range and high iso. The processing phones can do is very impressive but I'd always take a larger sensor by choice as I prefer being able to get the photo I want in a single shot (image stacking and computational photography can be inconsistent) and I have the latitude in the image to process it as I want. For those who don't process their images I can definitely appreciate the 1/2.3in sensor being good enough and not much benefit from larger 1in sensors but I wouldn't agree in general a 1/2.3in sensor is good enough at all, they're a long way behind even a 1in sensor.

I appreciate the benefits of sensor size- I have several pro SLR bodies with full frame sensors. My lightweight kit is based around the M4/3 system. I also understand the benefits of good glass, one of my hobbies is collecting lenses and I routinely shoot with Zeiss and Leica optics using adapters. I shoot raw and almost always process my images. The point I was making is that the M2P camera sits a lot closer to a higher end phone camera (smaller sensor than most dedicated cameras with optics greatly compromised to meet weight, size and production cost requirement) than to what we know to have been Hasselblads traditional offerings. The P4P/A/PV2 isn't Hasselblad branded- good luck trying to spot the difference in output between it and the M2P pro. The M2P camera is astonishing for what it is- no question.

 

[KS-6]

The point I was making is that the M2P camera sits a lot closer to a higher end phone camera (smaller sensor than most dedicated cameras with optics greatly compromised to meet weight, size and production cost requirement) than to what we know to have been Hasselblads traditional offerings.

The corners, yes, but the rest of the image area is quite meaty, especially when running it through DXO before ACR.

I find it to be plenty sharp for print campaigns, annual reports and even some large presentation prints. Could the output be technically better, yes, especially in those pesky corners. But overall it is certainly good enough to move it out of the phone camera class for me, the DNG files are quite pliable and stitch together nicely.

Here is a test shot made today for a client for a later action shoot, full shot and then 100%:

 

[WithTheBirds]

The corners, yes, but the rest of the image area is quite meaty, especially when running it through DXO before ACR.

I find it to be plenty sharp for print campaigns, annual reports and even some large presentation prints. Could the output be technically better, yes, especially in those pesky corners. But overall it is certainly good enough to move it out of the phone camera class for me, the DNG files are quite pliable and stitch together nicely.

Here is a test shot made today for a client for a later action shoot, full shot and then 100%:

View attachment 79992View attachment 79993

I agree it is very good- better than might be expected given the fact it needs to be light enough to fly on a small sUAV- the results with a little care in post are fantastic.