Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: John Camp on December 26, 2006, 12:10:06 pm
-
I read the essay on Hassy 3HD concerns and understand what you're saying.
With those concerns aside (the questions of company direction and closed systems), if you were to start from scratch in medium format digital right now, with no legacy equipment at all, would you go with a 3HD purely on the basis of quality and useability? Or are there better choices out there?
JC
-
I would absolutely NOT go with an H3D. Get an H2 instead. You won't be able to use their 28mm lens, or their tilt / shift which is coming in '07 (supposedly), but at least you won't be locked into a completely closed system.
Or, if you can wait six months, hang on to see what the Hy6 is like, and then when you decide which back to buy you can purchase a system from a Sinar, Leaf or Phase One dealer.
Michael
-
I would absolutely NOT go with an H3D. Get an H2 instead. You won't be able to use their 28mm lens, or their tilt / shift which is coming in '07 (supposedly), but at least you won't be locked into a completely closed system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is it definate that the tilt/shift will only work on the H3D? I can't find where Hasselblad has said this, was it in private to you Michael?
-
It's definate – at least this is what was told to a number of journalists at Photokina.
Hasselblad is taking the approach with these, and likely most future lenses, of doing optical correction in firmware. This helps reduce the price of the lens and also helps keep the new system closed.
Michael
-
I was told a final decision on the TS and ability to use it on an H2 system was not made yet. However, if I had to bet, I suspect it will be an H3 only lens and that is when i might consider selling all my H2 hasselblad gear.
It's definate – at least this is what was told to a number of journalists at Photokina.
Hasselblad is taking the approach with these, and likely most future lenses, of doing optical correction in firmware. This helps reduce the price of the lens and also helps keep the new system closed.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I was told a final decision on the TS and ability to use it on an H2 system was not made yet. However, if I had to bet, I suspect it will be an H3 only lens and that is when i might consider selling all my H2 hasselblad gear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, I understand the frustration; I've invested heavily in the H system, with every lens except the 100mm f2.2. However, how much would it cost to upgrade an H2 to an H3? Probably not much and there you have it, no need to sell everything. But I certainly understand the disappointment and frustration.
I still shoot film; if the tilt/shift is done with software, I'll make my move to digital or live without it. I won't sell all of my H gear over this. I don't even know if I want a tilt/shift done with software, I'd have to get used to the concept of "soft-optics."
-
Well it is not that simple. I paid alot for leaf digital back, and I purchased a hasselblad H sliding back adapter for my view camera. I am not sure if i could use the digital back on that sliding back or not. Even if i did trade in, I figure I would still need another 10K and I just bought all this stuff this summer.
I am curious why you never purchased the 100mm lens. That is the one i am considering. Mark
Mark, I understand the frustration; I've invested heavily in the H system, with every lens except the 100mm f2.2. However, how much would it cost to upgrade an H2 to an H3? Probably not much and there you have it, no need to sell everything. But I certainly understand the disappointment and frustration.
I still shoot film; if the tilt/shift is done with software, I'll make my move to digital or live without it. I won't sell all of my H gear over this. I don't even know if I want a tilt/shift done with software, I'd have to get used to the concept of "soft-optics."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Just for clarity – if one is shooting film then upgrading to an H3 may well be worthwhile.
But if one of shooting digital then one needs to be aware that only a Hasselblad back will work on an H3.
Michael
-
I guess if I was starting from scratch I would consider the H3 closed system but I might feel alittle uncomfortable locking myself in with Hasselblad changing their "format" every couple of years. mark
Just for clarity – if one is shooting film then upgrading to an H3 may well be worthwhile.
But if one of shooting digital then one needs to be aware that only a Hasselblad back will work on an H3.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Just for clarity – if one is shooting film then upgrading to an H3 may well be worthwhile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael - what advancements are there with an H3 over an H2 for film? I wonder if an H2 can be upgraded to an H3 (I have two H2s full bodies)?
Mark - I didn't purchase the 100mm f2.2 because I have the 80mm and the 120mm; the gap is best for portrait photographers and it easily missed for the type of landscape work I do. Plus I recently purchased the 55-110mm zoom, so it's covered. I would love to see some 100mm wide open shots, on second thought, don't show me, I may want to buy one.
-
I don't even know if I want a tilt/shift done with software, I'd have to get used to the concept of "soft-optics."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most probably, the optics would on the contrary be optimized for sharpness with less emphasis on distorsion and CA, since these 2 can be corrected in software with limited impact on image quality.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I would absolutely NOT go with an H3D. Get an H2 instead. You won't be able to use their 28mm lens, or their tilt / shift which is coming in '07 (supposedly), but at least you won't be locked into a completely closed system.
Or, if you can wait six months, hang on to see what the Hy6 is like, and then when you decide which back to buy you can purchase a system from a Sinar, Leaf or Phase One dealer.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree. THIS closed system is a good or bad thing depending upon whether it enhances or limits you in some material way with respect to one or more capabilities in your ability to create images of the type you want and with the workflow that works for you. Does the H3D produce color that is inferior in any way to a Phase or Leaf back? How about the "look" of the file? Do you like what some consider an analytic, "digital" look to the Phase files? Is the ability to use a 28mm lens and a tilt/shift lens with built-in, optical correction of lens aberrations desirable? Is an integrated package with one battery desirable? How about one manufacturer being responsible for both the camera and the back? Does the Flexcolor software "work" for you compared to the software from other MFDBs?
As with most things, the H3D is a balance sheet with assets and liabilities that you need to weigh for your style of work. In the end, no one can make that evaluation for you. These are MFDBs, not ideologies. A Canon 1Ds is also a closed system and no one complains. They just look at its strengths and weaknesses in a clinical way.
-
It's definate – at least this is what was told to a number of journalists at Photokina.
Hasselblad is taking the approach with these, and likely most future lenses, of doing optical correction in firmware. This helps reduce the price of the lens and also helps keep the new system closed.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an emotional response, not a professional opinion backed up by any empirical data. I would suggest that you do a comparative test of the Mamiya 28mm lens with your Phase P45 against a H3D-39 with the new 28mm Hasselblad lens. Then, we will see if Hasselblad was "just" trying to save money and keep the system closed.
-
Emotional?
My comments are based on intervews conducted by me as well as others with Christian Poulsen, the CEO of Hasselblad at Photokina in September. I am simply reporting what we were told. Nothing emotional about the information, other of course than my response to it.
And as for the Canon 1Ds being a closed system, that's a complete non-sequitar. A Canon system doesn't have interchangable sensors (backs), which the H1 and H2 do. I would agree that the H3D is like a Canon in that you buy the camera and sensor as a system. The H1 and H2 are more like a film based system which allows the photographer to choose their recording medium.
The situation is simply this. Hasselblad has huge debt, and can't make enough money to service that debt by selling just cameras and lenses. Their margins on digital backs are much higher, but they have to share that market on the H1 and H2 with Phase One, Leaf and Sinar / Jenoptic.
By making the H3 incompable with any back other than their own they want to force photographers to buy H backs. By creating lenses which reply on software to correct for optical abberations they lower production costs as well as lock out the competition (through patent protection).
It's a marketing strategy, that's all. And based on reaction by photographers and dealers so far, a highly flawed one. It's also thrown off course by the F&H Hy6, which likely blindsided Hasselblad. Soon there will be an alternative medium format system backed by all of its digital back competators. Without the Hy6 Hasselblad "might" have been able to force their program down our throats. With it, it seems to me to be a doomed strategy.
As someone who owns an H1, H2 and four H lenses this is of more than academic interest. So, if my tone seems emotional – well, it is. On the other hands, I am simply stating the facts as I know them. If anyone has definitive information to the contrary I'll be pleased to hear it, and publish it.
In fact, if anyone from Hasselblad reads this, I would be happy to provide an online forum for a debate on the matter.
Michael
-
Emotional?
My comments are based on intervews conducted by me as well as others with Christian Poulsen, the CEO of Hasselblad at Photokina in September. I am simply reporting what we were told. Nothing emotional about the information, other of course than my response to it.
And as for the Canon 1Ds being a closed system, that's a complete non-sequitar. A Canon system doesn't have interchangable sensors (backs), which the H1 and H2 do. I would agree that the H3D is like a Canon in that you buy the camera and sensor as a system. The H1 and H2 are more like a film based system which allows the photographer to choose their recording medium.
The situation is simply this. Hasselblad has huge debt, and can't make enough money to service that debt by selling just cameras and lenses. Their margins on digital backs are much higher, but they have to share that market on the H1 and H2 with Phase One, Leaf and Sinar / Jenoptic.
By making the H3 incompable with any back other than their own they want to force photographers to buy H backs. By creating lenses which reply on software to correct for optical abberations they lower production costs as well as lock out the competition (through patent protection).
It's a marketing strategy, that's all. And based on reaction by photographers and dealers so far, a highly flawed one. It's also thrown off course by the F&H Hy6, which likely blindsided Hasselblad. Soon there will be an alternative medium format system backed by all of its digital back competators. Without the Hy6 Hasselblad "might" have been able to force their program down our throats. With it, it seems to me to be a doomed strategy.
As someone who owns an H1, H2 and four H lenses this is of more than academic interest. So, if my tone seems emotional – well, it is. On the other hands, I am simply stating the facts as I know them. If anyone has definitive information to the contrary I'll be pleased to hear it, and publish it.
In fact, if anyone from Hasselblad reads this, I would be happy to provide an online forum for a debate on the matter.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
1. Surely interviews are no way to conduct a test of optical performance. The question is this: does Hassselblad's 28mm lens substantially outperform Mamiya's? If it does, then cost savings and marketing leverage were not the only reasons for Hasselblad's approach with the 28mm, and your implication that they were is simply wrong.
2. The sensors in MFDBs are really not the "film". The software (and what you do with the files in the software) is the film. All of the latest generation of MFDBs are capable of providing exceptional performance, and the differences are really over how easy or difficult it is to pull that level of exceptional performance out of the software.
3. The issue of open v. closed is a red herring for anyone who does not already have an H1 or H2 with another company's back. The relevant question is whether the H3D allows you (i)to work more or less efficiently and (ii)to create better (or worse or the same quality) files than some other camera/back combination. All of the handwringing over the marketing, ethical and related issues is nonsense. The focus should be on performance, but Michael does not seem to be particularly interested in addressing that. Out of character for him.
-
The only thing further that I'll add to this discussion is that image quality is only one of a number of factors that need to be considered.
Cost (initial purchase as well as ongoing service), upgradability, interoperability, ergonomics, after sales support, resale value, etc, etc, are all factors that need to be considered. To soley focus on image quality is to ignore practical considerations.
Been there. Done that. No thanks.
Michael
-
The only thing further that I'll add to this discussion is that image quality is only one of a number of factors that need to be considered.
Cost (initial purchase as well as ongoing service), upgradability, interoperability, ergonomics, after sales support, resale value, etc, etc, are all factors that need to be considered. To soley focus on image quality is to ignore practical considerations.<snip>
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I will say that image quality was not one of my considerations when I asked the original question; I assume that the quality of ALL of thse backs will meet my standards, which might be somewhat lower than is the case with other people. I haven't shot MF since I got rid of a film RZ several years ago, in moving to digital. If I go back, I was more intersted in everything else that Michael just mentioned -- initial cost; upgradability; potential resale value in case it doesn't work for me; the possibility of being trapped in a closed system that fails, and therefore goes from closed to dead end; its usefulness or shortcomings when used out in the countryside; and, extremely important, the software learning curve. Spending days just learning new software doesn't appeal to me; I spend too much time at a computer already.
By the way, my initial reference to a "3HD" didn't come because I was too long in front of a computer, or because it was 3 a.m., etc., etc.; it was simple ignorance.
I've now started reading about the Hy6, and my inclination is to put off any decision until summer (when I do most of my shooting anyway) to see what reviewers say about that. It sounds terrific, but then, I've been burned before.
JC
-
The only thing further that I'll add to this discussion is that image quality is only one of a number of factors that need to be considered.
Cost (initial purchase as well as ongoing service), upgradability, interoperability, ergonomics, after sales support, resale value, etc, etc, are all factors that need to be considered. To soley focus on image quality is to ignore practical considerations.
Been there. Done that. No thanks.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who said that image quality was the only relevant consideration? I referred to "performance" in terms of BOTH image quality and the efficiency of the workflow in being able to extract that quality. As for the other criteria you mention, I will just say that the Hy6 is a blank slate today, but based upon the historical record of Rollei, those are not likely to be the Hy6's selling strengths.
-
Who said that image quality was the only relevant consideration? I referred to "performance" in terms of BOTH image quality and the efficiency of the workflow in being able to extract that quality. As for the other criteria you mention, I will just say that the Hy6 is a blank slate today, but based upon the historical record of Rollei, those are not likely to be the Hy6's selling strengths.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What you seem to be overlooking is that many MFDB owners are tight to a brand (be it Leaf, Phase,...) because it makes it a lot cheaper for them to upgrade to the next generation back.
Hassy has chosen a path with some advantages, but also some clear drawbacks. It would seem that you are not realistic about these drawbacks, and about how many potential buyers see these drawbacks.
I have personnally taken the decision to "lock myself" in the Mamiya ZD system coming from a H1 + film back, but I was starting from scratch in the MFD world and the entry price was low. I have decided to leave the Hassy world for various reasons, but the closure of the system is a major one. It just doesn't appear to be a platform with enough options anymore, even if the image quality of the H3D is probably great.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Emotional?
The situation is simply this. Hasselblad has huge debt, and can't make enough money to service that debt by selling just cameras and lenses. Their margins on digital backs are much higher, but they have to share that market on the H1 and H2 with Phase One, Leaf and Sinar / Jenoptic.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael:
We've been through this. I've spoken personally with Christian Poulsen myself. The idea that you had any kind of "interview" that qualifies you to state that Hasselblad has huge debt and that determines their path is a bunch of crap.
You distort Hasselblad's financial picture, you pick and choose what you want from your "interview", you have no real dialogue with Hasselblad at all, no real attempt to communicate with them or understand them. Instead, you take a snatch of information from your "interview" and parade it on your website as if it's a complete financial picture of Hasselblad.
And for the record, this is most certainly not a "doomed" strategy. Most dealers I've spoken to feel it's the right path for Hasselblad. Since the announcement, interest and sales from end users has increased dramatically. Every other digital back manufacturer is trying to get to the same place, and if they're not there in 5 years, their position - no matter who they are - will be tenuous at best.
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
-
In terms of everything but its presence in rental houses and dealer support in the US, people who've used a Rollei 6008 AF or Integral (including me) for any length of time generally think it's one of the best MF cameras ever made.
As for the other criteria you mention, I will just say that the Hy6 is a blank slate today, but based upon the historical record of Rollei, those are not likely to be the Hy6's selling strengths.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I would like to add another point about why it is absurd to compare the Hasselblad and Canon scenarios. The canon releases do not preclude one from using their new or older lenses on any of their EOS systems. The one exception is the EF-S lenses made specifically for the 1.6x crop sensors. This fills a niche for digital rebel users who do not have the appropriate wide angle options. In the case of Hasselblad, their new lenses(for which their is a general void-- 28mm and T/S) will likely not be supported by their H2 system even though Hassy claims they will still support this system. Mark
Emotional?
My comments are based on intervews conducted by me as well as others with Christian Poulsen, the CEO of Hasselblad at Photokina in September. I am simply reporting what we were told. Nothing emotional about the information, other of course than my response to it.
And as for the Canon 1Ds being a closed system, that's a complete non-sequitar. A Canon system doesn't have interchangable sensors (backs), which the H1 and H2 do. I would agree that the H3D is like a Canon in that you buy the camera and sensor as a system. The H1 and H2 are more like a film based system which allows the photographer to choose their recording medium.
The situation is simply this. Hasselblad has huge debt, and can't make enough money to service that debt by selling just cameras and lenses. Their margins on digital backs are much higher, but they have to share that market on the H1 and H2 with Phase One, Leaf and Sinar / Jenoptic.
By making the H3 incompable with any back other than their own they want to force photographers to buy H backs. By creating lenses which reply on software to correct for optical abberations they lower production costs as well as lock out the competition (through patent protection).
It's a marketing strategy, that's all. And based on reaction by photographers and dealers so far, a highly flawed one. It's also thrown off course by the F&H Hy6, which likely blindsided Hasselblad. Soon there will be an alternative medium format system backed by all of its digital back competators. Without the Hy6 Hasselblad "might" have been able to force their program down our throats. With it, it seems to me to be a doomed strategy.
As someone who owns an H1, H2 and four H lenses this is of more than academic interest. So, if my tone seems emotional – well, it is. On the other hands, I am simply stating the facts as I know them. If anyone has definitive information to the contrary I'll be pleased to hear it, and publish it.
In fact, if anyone from Hasselblad reads this, I would be happy to provide an online forum for a debate on the matter.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
What you seem to be overlooking is that many MFDB owners are tight to a brand (be it Leaf, Phase,...) because it makes it a lot cheaper for them to upgrade to the next generation back.
Hassy has chosen a path with some advantages, but also some clear drawbacks. It would seem that you are not realistic about these drawbacks, and about how many potential buyers see these drawbacks.
I have personnally taken the decision to "lock myself" in the Mamiya ZD system coming from a H1 + film back, but I was starting from scratch in the MFD world and the entry price was low. I have decided to leave the Hassy world for various reasons, but the closure of the system is a major one. It just doesn't appear to be a platform with enough options anymore, even if the image quality of the H3D is probably great.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
1. I understand why legacy Phase and Leaf owners are ticked about the H3D, but the original poster was asking about a the best option for a NEW owner of a MFDB.
2. Just what options do the other platforms available today offer that Hasselblad does not? What am I missing? Let's see, there is Contax and Mamiya. One has already been discontinued. Their roadmap looks quite cloudy. As between Hasselblad and Mamiya, who do you trust more to have a fulsome offering of new lenses and other capabilities in the future? Mamiya has had the ZD out for how long now and they are petrified to release it in the US. You want to place your faith in them?
3. Before you left the Hassy world, did you test the Hasselblad offerings to provide an objective basis for the decision? I can relate to someone testing the equipment and doing an informed assessment that concludes that the Hasselblad path---camera, lenses, back, and software--- does not meet their needs, but how does one reach that conclusion without any testing and in anticipation of a camera, the Hy6, that does not even exist yet?
-
2. Just what options do the other platforms available today offer that Hasselblad does not? What am I missing? Let's see, there is Contax and Mamiya. One has already been discontinued. Their roadmap looks quite cloudy. As between Hasselblad and Mamiya, who do you trust more to have a fulsome offering of new lenses and other capabilities in the future? Mamiya has had the ZD out for how long now and they are petrified to release it in the US. You want to place your faith in them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, I agree that Hassy has a better chance to still be alive in a few years than Mamiya has.
3. Before you left the Hassy world, did you test the Hasselblad offerings to provide an objective basis for the decision? I can relate to someone testing the equipment and doing an informed assessment that concludes that the Hasselblad path---camera, lenses, back, and software--- does not meet their needs, but how does one reach that conclusion without any testing and in anticipation of a camera, the Hy6, that does not even exist yet?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I am concerned, I didn't do these tests, but have never really questionned the quality of the results delivered by the H3D, except perhaps at higher ISO where I suspect that Leaf has a significant lead.
One thing though is that I never really liked the H1 system. It was very buggy, was basically unusable handheld in portrait mode. The lenses are very expensive and way too heavy compared to the competition. I now find the Mamiya 35 mm to be basically as good as the Hassy, at about 1/2 the weight and 1/2 the price.
My decision to go the Mamiya route was financial first, but the idea of being able to keep using my set of Mamiya lenses in the future if I end up being in a position to upgrade later to a Leaf or Phase back on a 645 AF was also part of the equation.
If I had decided to invest in Hassy, and to buy one of their 3000+ US$ 28 mm for a H3D (price is unconfirmed as far as I know) only to find out 6 months later that the next generation Leaf trumps the H3D/H4D, that money would have been simply wasted.
This is purely theoretical as far as I am concerned since I didn't have the funds to buy into high end anyway.
If I were to start from scratch today and looking into a high end system, I would wait until at least PMA and/or the release of the first reviews of the new Rollei system before taking a decision. The situation is very confused today, and the positionning of Phase relative to the Rollei system is still unclear.
Regards,
Bernard
-
1. I understand why legacy Phase and Leaf owners are ticked about the H3D, but the original poster was asking about a the best option for a NEW owner of a MFDB.
When you upgrade that leaf back are you stuck with the same system? Or can you switch from a foo camera company compatible back to a bar camera company compatible back? In these uncertain times that might be a good thing. Or not. Depends on who's financials you trust.
-
Hasselblad ... optical correction in firmware. This helps reduce the price of the lens and also helps keep the new system closed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The last clause is one way to spin it. As a possible alternative,
"Optical correction in firmware has advantages such as reducing the price of the lens and perhaps allowing lower distortion that can be achieved by purely optical means in a wide angle lens at any price, and this is one inherent advantage of an "integrated" ("closed") system over a "mix and match" one.
-
Yes, it's "spin", but it's also accurate.
Hasselblad has made it clear that they do not intend to license their interface, and therefore no other manufacturer will be able to make their backs able to work with these lenses.
Another aspect of this is that there is currently legal action being taken in Europe in the Competition courts (not sure of the right naming), as to whether this approach by Hasseblad could be considered, what is known in the US, as "restraint of trade". First round hearings went against Hasselblad, I am told.
Call it spin. Call it the public interest. We'll see.
Michael
-
Just for clarity – if one is shooting film then upgrading to an H3 may well be worthwhile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael, I know there's a lot of back and forth on other issues, but if you could be specific on why it would be worthwhile for film shooters to move from an H2 to H3? Thanks.
-
Simply that the new lenses may prove worthwhile. Since there's no issue regarding the digital back interface, there's no reason to not consider an updage or purchase of an H3 if it looks like it'll do the job. The only problem that I have is Hasselblad turning into a closed system when it comes to digital.
Michael
-
Simply that the new lenses may prove worthwhile. Since there's no issue regarding the digital back interface, there's no reason to not consider an updage or purchase of an H3 if it looks like it'll do the job. The only problem that I have is Hasselblad turning into a closed system when it comes to digital.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, the new 28mm lens for the H3 is NOT compatible with the film back. It must be part of a plan to force owners of H1s and H2s to give up film and buy a Hasselblad digital back.
-
You're right. I'd forgotten that. The lens correction is in the back, and obviously not in film backs.
Couple that with the price of film backs having been raised to $2,000 last year, and the writing is on the wall.
Michael
-
You're right. I'd forgotten that. The lens correction is in the back, and obviously not in film backs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I got the impression there was more to it than the 28mm lens. I'll stick with the H2. Thanks.
-
I got the impression there was more to it than the 28mm lens. I'll stick with the H2. Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At any rate, there is no H3 camera anyway. There is only an H1 or H2 camera. The only H3 is an H3D, which in addition to the Hasselblad digital back, will accept the Hasselblad film back, and no other digital backs.
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
-
At any rate, there is no H3 camera anyway. There is only an H1 or H2 camera. The only H3 is an H3D, which in addition to the Hasselblad digital back, will accept the Hasselblad film back, and no other digital backs.
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
If Hasselblad is to support film back on H3D, that brings another thought which leads me to believe that their non-software corrected lenses & software corrected lenses like 28mm etc. could be altered/corrected using their own processing FlexColor software `using computer of course`.
If this is possible, then the difference is pure choice of convenience shooting with digital back Including the auto-correction of course. I doubt that the correction feature will be absent in their present/future FlexColor software and only available in their DB with the correction applied auto-internally.
If that proves to be true, what is to stop any of us using film, scanned, processed and finally corrected in their FlexColor software regardless of camera choice, H2/H3D. This will not be a promising solution/workflow for any of us using LEAF/PHASE/eMotion, but if available, it’s there, so why not use it? I know 28mm does not cover the full frame but If scanned not a huge problem….. However, still `sufficiently` CLOSED!!!
REGARDS
-
I suspect the image correction is done by the digital back when the shutter is opened. Does anyone know, is this image perspective control similar to the technology offered in CS2?
Does anyone know if it is WYSIWYG through the viewfinder--meaning, when you look through the viewfinder, do you see what is captured digitally with the H3D?
Has anyone purchased an H3D yet? If so, can you please tell me the firmware version? I would not be surprised if is the same as my H2 firmware/software version--which has proven to be very stable and reliable.
-
Another aspect of this is that there is currently legal action being taken in Europe in the Competition courts (not sure of the right naming), as to whether this approach by Hasseblad could be considered, what is known in the US, as "restraint of trade".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I take it that this legal claim is based on the idea that it would be possible for Imacon-Hasseblad and partner Fuji to share their body-back protocols with competitors, but they chose not to. On any other grounds, the H3D is less closed than physically integrated body-with-sensor systems like the Mamiya ZD and all those 35mm and smaller format DSLR's, which are not subject to any such legal action.
But if it is a matter of not sharing proprietary communication protocols, what about the common practice of SLR makers not sharing their body-lens communication protocols with third party lens makes, so that Sigma in particular has to reverse engineer those protocols, and so sometimes has to re-chip lenses to keep them working with newer SLR bodies?
I have seen little or no criticism of those attempts to keep SLR lens-body systems closed (never mind that the efforts are often defeated by reverse engineering) and in analogy to the current enthusiasm for the Rollei system, I do not see openness much used as an argument for adopting FourThirds, or restricting oneself to using the older out-of-patent "public domain" parts of other lens-body interfaces.
Thus I expect that the degree of openness of the various options (Rollei, Imacon-Hasselblad, Mamiya, the delayed Pentax integrated DMF body, or even the best of the smaller format systems) will often be outweighed by other factors when photographers choose systems.
-
I have seen little or no criticism of those attempts to keep SLR lens-body systems closed (never mind that the efforts are often defeated by reverse engineering) and in analogy to the current enthusiasm for the Rollei system, I do not see openness much used as an argument for adopting FourThirds, or restricting oneself to using the older out-of-patent "public domain" parts of other lens-body interfaces.
That debate was certainly lively enough while it raged, but that is a few years ago now.
I don't see anything particularly new about the Hasselblad H3D debate that wasn't already raised in the debate of "chipped" lenses.
But rest assured, there was an argument then, too.
-
In regards to the question about what the other backs have that Hasselblad does not..
SPEED.
I cannot speak for the H3D but I recently worked a job where the photographer had an H1D and hired me for an additional camera setup with a Phase P30 back. The recycle time on for the H1D back was quite slow compared to the P30.
I tried to rent an Hasselblad back recent and Samy's Camera Rental Department in LA told me they stopped renting the H1D system because of so many complaints and problems from their client base. They have been renting Leaf backs for a long time and now rent Phase too.
-
In regards to the question about what the other backs have that Hasselblad does not..
SPEED.
I cannot speak for the H3D but I recently worked a job where the photographer had an H1D and hired me for an additional camera setup with a Phase P30 back. The recycle time on for the H1D back was quite slow compared to the P30.
I tried to rent an Hasselblad back recent and Samy's Camera Rental Department in LA told me they stopped renting the H1D system because of so many complaints and problems from their client base. They have been renting Leaf backs for a long time and now rent Phase too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric:
How can you possibly promote an argument that the Hasselblad backs are slow compared to other backs when you are talking about comparing the very latest Phase One back (and one with a smaller chip) to a Hasselblad product 2 generations back (nearly 3 years ago)?
Of course Samy's stopped carrying H1D's - they're 3 years old, and were the very first attempt at an integrated solution (with all the inherent growing pains).
If you compare an H3D to a P45, the capture speed is very equivalent. The Plus series Phase backs will get a bit faster and so will the S series Aptus's. This will come at a cost. Hasselblad backs will also get faster, perhaps through FREE software upgrade enhancements - as they have with many other recent advancements. Dalsa chipped products (Leaf, Sinar) are a bit faster than Kodak chipped products (Hasselblad, Phase). But aside from that, there's no speed disadvantage with an H3D.
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
-
Steve,
I started out specifically saying I cannot speak about the H3D. Sorry you got offended by my comparison. It was not scientific, merely a comparison of equipment I had on set recently.
I do hope that the H3D is as fast as the P30 and Leaf Aptus. That would be great. Unfortuntately it is not for rent locally in Los Angeles. I look forward to seeing it. I can only presume that if it as great an improvement as everyone says then it will be in the rental department soon.
-
Steve,
I started out specifically saying I cannot speak about the H3D. Sorry you got offended by my comparison. It was not scientific, merely a comparison of equipment I had on set recently.
I do hope that the H3D is as fast as the P30 and Leaf Aptus. That would be great. Unfortuntately it is not for rent locally in Los Angeles. I look forward to seeing it. I can only presume that if it as great an improvement as everyone says then it will be in the rental department soon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric:
I'm sorry - I didn't mean to come across that harsh.
What I see very frequently when photographers discuss Hasselblad is the same comparison that you brought up, which is comparing a product that is several generations back with the latest competition model. It seems to happen a lot, perhaps because dealers have been inconsistent about their committment to Imacon/Hasselblad in terms of keeping equipment updated.
We picked up Imacon in October, 2003 as a fully authorized dealer after selling Leaf, Sinar and Eyelike for many years prior (and still do). We have continually refreshed our inventory as the product line has evolved. From that process, we have been in a unique position to see the development - including all the stumbles - of their products as they have tried to catch up to their competitors. There is no question that Imacon took a while to get up to speed on digital back technology. The integration with Hasselblad - the mess that that company was - and the product line evolvement has also been a challenge.
We currently do not have any H1D's in our rental inventory. It's not that the H1D is a bad product per se, but compared to what is available today, it's inferior. Hasselblad has made significant strides with their product of late, particularly in the past 6 months, and I speak in terms of trouble-free operation, color fidelity, software features, and yes, capture speed. Anyone who hasn't shot with a Hasselblad product within the last 6 months is really looking at a different level of product.
Samy's is an authorized Hasselblad reseller. They should have something newer than an H1D in inventory. If you have trouble finding an H3D for rent or trial in Los Angeles, contact Hasselblad at 1-800-367-6434, etx. 1. Ask for Victor Noranjo.
Thanks,
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital