Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: dennismv on April 02, 2008, 08:35:35 pm
-
I came across this review: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/ (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/)
In short (jumping to conclusion of the article), image quality per pixel does not deliver perfection. In particular, colored specs and lack of "pop" (liveness) to the image.
Can anyone confirm if HD3II has same issues ?
-
I came across this review: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/ (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/)
In short (jumping to conclusion of the article), image quality per pixel does not deliver perfection. In particular, colored specs and lack of "pop" (liveness) to the image.
Can anyone confirm if HD3II has same issues ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lloyd had the camera for a whole two hours.
Nick-T
-
Lloyd had the camera for a whole two hours.
Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lloyd seemed to have an affection for the 503CW and I think it showed in his review (nothing wrong with that).
But he clearly didn't have a grasp on what he was dealing with. Also this review is on the original H3D, not the current H3DII. He is correct on 2 aspects - the small LCD screen and the rainbow affect from on-point speculars. (Both dramatically improved with the H3DII).
His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.
This is one issue that comes up frequently with reviewers of Hasselblad products. Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).
That's where not knowing the software comes into play. It's very simple to create as punchy or as sharp an image as you like and have that be applied upon import or capture automatically with either Flexcolor or Phocus.
In addition to Lloyd's inaccurate review, I've also seen this with the January/February edition of Photo techniques, where Mark Dubovey (possible misspell, sorry) compared the Canon 1DS-MKII, the H3DII-39, the P45+ on H2 and the P45+ on Linhof with Rodenstock Digital Lenses. His conclusion was that the P45+ on H2 dusted the H3D-39 in dynamic range and sharpness and this is completely inaccurate. He even stated in the review that he left all software settings at "0" (defaults) which naturally would result in the P45+ image appearing much better than the H3DII-39 image because of those defaults. While his review was well written, I believe choosing to ignore how each of the individual software programs handle image quality produced a faulty result.
Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.
Steve Hendrix
-
Steve,
Well explained, and I can confirm what you are mentioning, that Sinar has absolutely the same approach concerning the capture files: let the choice and all options to the users and not or very little applying any default setting (like sharpening, contrast/tonal curve).
Best regards,
Thierry
His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.
This is one issue that comes up frequently with reviewers of Hasselblad products. Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).
That's where not knowing the software comes into play. It's very simple to create as punchy or as sharp an image as you like and have that be applied upon import or capture automatically with either Flexcolor or Phocus.
.....
... I believe choosing to ignore how each of the individual software programs handle image quality produced a faulty result.
Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think that there's a consensus that all the backs are now converging to equivalent (good) quality, although a Steve points out the workflows are very different.
I don't think this equivalence is true for the lenses though - the look is still different from brand to brand. And the MF crowd are probably capable of seeing the difference. As for the bodies ...
Edmund
Lloyd seemed to have an affection for the 503CW and I think it showed in his review (nothing wrong with that).
But he clearly didn't have a grasp on what he was dealing with. Also this review is on the original H3D, not the current H3DII. He is correct on 2 aspects - the small LCD screen and the rainbow affect from on-point speculars. (Both dramatically improved with the H3DII).
His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.
This is one issue that comes up frequently with reviewers of Hasselblad products. Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).
That's where not knowing the software comes into play. It's very simple to create as punchy or as sharp an image as you like and have that be applied upon import or capture automatically with either Flexcolor or Phocus.
In addition to Lloyd's inaccurate review, I've also seen this with the January/February edition of Photo techniques, where Mark Dubovey (possible misspell, sorry) compared the Canon 1DS-MKII, the H3DII-39, the P45+ on H2 and the P45+ on Linhof with Rodenstock Digital Lenses. His conclusion was that the P45+ on H2 dusted the H3D-39 in dynamic range and sharpness and this is completely inaccurate. He even stated in the review that he left all software settings at "0" (defaults) which naturally would result in the P45+ image appearing much better than the H3DII-39 image because of those defaults. While his review was well written, I believe choosing to ignore how each of the individual software programs handle image quality produced a faulty result.
Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
thanks much.
I suppose 2 hours is indeed not enough time to figure all the ins and outs. Also, I was not aware of the different philosophies. I suppose when I get one (Hasselblad) I'll need to spend some quality time with it.
-
thanks much.
I suppose 2 hours is indeed not enough time to figure all the ins and outs. Also, I was not aware of the different philosophies. I suppose when I get one (Hasselblad) I'll need to spend some quality time with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just a few quotes so people who don't have time can see that this is an article by a man who really likes the 503CWD and is probably frustrated with the H and nothing more:
"I don’t think I’d ever quite get used to the H3D form factor." - yes, it's different, so is the new Volvo when you compare it with the box Volvo from 1979!
"...I found this [H3D] harder to work with than the viewfinder of the 503CWD..." - spend more than 2 hours with it.
"...feel as easy as the 503CWD viewfinder." - yes, by the 4th hour it'll be second nature.
"I simply would not trust this camera to take optimal exposures..." - because you don't know how to use it!
"Is the H3D ready for prime time, or is it a science fair project? I expect zero problems with a Hasselblad, especially for US$30K." - argh, sometimes I agree!
I won't quote more, but clearly, this is not a proper review, it's a comparison of an older model Hassy with a newer one, and clearly biased towards the older, and more comfortable (for the reviewer), model.
It's like reading one of Michael's reviews, you know there's an underlying bias or anger or frustration with the brand.
-
Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a very accurate statement. I've been working with the H3DII39 for several months now and the above is very true. I'm just not sure how a reviewer gets around this fact when he/she has perhaps an hour with a camera.
-
... Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).
Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can only verify this with my own experience, having worked with several H3D bodies and flexcolor over the last couple of years, and now on a P45+ with H2 body. For those who wish to have "ultimate" control over their image, the flexcolor approachis is the way to go IMHO.
Coming from Flexcolor to C1 was not easy, and if you want to "zero" an image in C1 to achieve the "neutral" starting point you get in Flexcolor, the results are somewhat inferior IMO.
C1 is on the other hand much better in "out of the box" color and rendition, and handling my canon files as well is a huge bonus!
The difference in approach may well be a reason to chose one over the other, as software skills and the wish to learn them may vary. The software side of MFDB's have been pointed out endlessly on this forum, and the importance of this is as relevant today as it was yesterday and the year before that...
-
Since I chose to finalize my images in PS Hasselblad is currently my preferred choice.
If you want to you can give any direction to any review. Maybe you should read reviews more like personal opinions given within the capability scope of the reviewer and nothing more.
I know I can get equally good results from Leaf, I am sure I can get it from P1 & Sinar as well.
As far as the ergomics for the H goes, I prefer the handling of my D300 I hate the mirror slap of the H, etc..
I am still searching for the perfect camera but I am pretty sure I will never find it since the goal posts vary per type of photography.
-
Steve Hendrix wrote-
His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.
Justin.
-
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's difficult to imagine you have ever taken a digital photo after the above statement. So you're happy with a group of people - a group you may never meet - deciding how your image will look? You want all your images to look the same way? Sorry if that's aggressive but it really is an incredible statement.
-
Steve Hendrix wrote-
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If one chooses an "open" brand one can just swap software - Photoshop seems to be kludgy but usable.
Hardware is different, I'm not sure if one can ever get used to a viewfinder one dislikes.
Edmund
-
It's difficult to imagine you have ever taken a digital photo after the above statement. So you're happy with a group of people - a group you may never meet - deciding how your image will look? You want all your images to look the same way? Sorry if that's aggressive but it really is an incredible statement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Stuart,
Be nice !
Some photographers would like to get good color out of the box, just like in the film days.
There should be an aftermarket for such "film looks", but the camera software guys are not really cooperating.
Edmund
-
Stuart,
Be nice !
Some photographers would like to get good color out of the box, just like in the film days.
There should be an aftermarket for such "film looks", but the camera software guys are not really cooperating.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I quite agree. Having spent 18 months using computer software/printer technology to try to eradicate yellow tints from images taken with a Hasselblad CFV back, I finally gave up. Hasselblad refunded the total amount paid for the back and I am now using a Phase One P45 back. I have looked at the range of Hasselblad's digital products and they all have a yellow tint, which is most obvious in landscape photograph. Hasselblad have a serious problem here, which they have at last acknowledged.
-
Steve Hendrix wrote-
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use my H3D 39 11 every day & love the flat neutral non-punchy images that it delivers thus allowing me to enhance to my hearts content in Flexcolor & PS.
Peter.http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/folder_post_icons/icon1.gif
-
The comments above are accurate - re: knowing the bodies, default approach to the image 'negative', spending more than two hrs with them etc.
That being said, bear in mind:
--------
1. LLoyds site is not a haven for MF users.
2. Lloyds does do exceptional work reviewing, in real life (not just test chart work) 135 gear of many varieties
3. He doesn't pull punches, but he also doesn't shy away from changing his mind upon further use of an item - and doesn't make excuses for having made a rush to judgement or an error.
4. He did what any 135 user would do that was even vaguely interested in a MF system. Went in, was able to borrow two very different snack-bracket systems for a couple of hrs each, shot with them and notes his PERSONAL likes, dislikes and initial impressions. It was by far a real test and was never put forth as such. It was a simple, "Hey, I tried something different and FYI - here are my thoughts"
As for anyone making the go/no go purchase (or even should I test) decision on a $30K+ MF kit based on 1 users 2 hr walk-around-the-area test drive ......
4a This was also Hasselblad vs. Hasselblad, not someone with a Canon bias pulling a tantrum (how much of that @#$ do we see every day?) against Nikon or vise versa. " Based on my quick use, I liked the cheaper Hasselblad kit over the more costly one..." The problem here is...? If I sold H, I'd rather have a new owner of a CWD I could maybe upgrade to a H3DII later than no H owner at all.
For every 1 person reading the article who might now go into a shop biased against the H3D, there is also a person heading in expecting to LOVE the CWD. In short, there is someone going into a Hasselblad dealer. The rest is up to the sales staff.
5. I find, like I assume many do, that I either take to a new camera, car, etc., very quickly. He just didn't take to the H3 vs the CWD and told us why. Such is life.
6. IQ aside, there is also an immediate unconscious comparison taking place the moment anyone would put hands-on the kits in question: 'what does $20,000+ extra get you?". The question would be no different than if Jane Doe were trying a Canon 20D vs 1Ds3.
For most people (again IQ aside) laying hands on two cameras where #1 costs 3x that of #2, the more expensive unit is expected to knock YOUR personal socks off in terms of handling, viewfinder, AF (if present), ergonomics, etc. I mean, you are paying some of that premium for those features are you not?
If that 'wow momma!' moment doesn't hit YOU ASAP, the next sub-conscious bias will be: "... well the IQ had better not only be $30K good, but $30K+ the ergo/handling quirks I don't like good...". If that fails to make itself immediately apparent ....
7. The vendor, knowing the systems, should have explained what to expect in the differences in how the two units delivered. I get the impression they just handed him the two systems with a quick 'how to' and 'let him go play with them'. That's the kind of salesmanship that bites you in the $$$. Any work after the fact is now up-hill battle to overcome 'gut feel' biases you could have avoided. With Lloyd being a web reviewer, they should have been doubly diligent.
8. I'd rather see Lloyd published what he did than the usual unmitigated BS we see 90% of the time elsewhere: "Both systems were just soooo perfect. I mean, jeepers, it's like buying a Lexus vs. a Bentley, how could you go wrong. It depends on how you want to work, the format you want, dribble, dribble, bow, scrape, genuflect...."
In short, take the article for what it was -- and what it was presented as and be thankful you've got it at all.
-
Stuart,
Be nice !
Some photographers would like to get good color out of the box, just like in the film days.
There should be an aftermarket for such "film looks", but the camera software guys are not really cooperating.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, Edmund, sorry. And sorry Justin. Did seem a bit heavy. But I'm still surprised in these digital days if anyone takes a shot and doesn't try even a little experimentation. Maybe it was the phrase "startling image" that got me excited. The idea that a camera can produce such a thing feels alien. IMHO the camera and software should be as neutral as possible but allow the user to do a lot of experimenting to get the final chosen image.
Which is what I should have said instead of being so belligerent. Sorry again.
-
The comments above are accurate - re: knowing the bodies, default approach to the image 'negative', spending more than two hrs with them etc.
That being said, bear in mind: ------
1. LLoyds site is not a haven for MF users...., etc
In short, take the article for what it was -- and what it was presented as and be thankful you've got it at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I don't blame Lloyd - he's not paid for reviewing that I know of. But regardless of a reviewers intentions, reviews of a product that paint either an inaccurate or incomplete picture do not help end users determine if that product is right for them to spend $20,000 - $30,000 on. And when I see those reviews, I feel compelled to correct them because anyone who would consider that product may not consider it for all the wrong reasons after reading that review.
These are very important purchases for many reasons, the high cost involved, the nature in which it will be used, etc. "Winging it" with regard to how much you know about a product before spending $30,000 is not a great way to spend your money, and reviews can sometimes produce the same result if they're inaccurate or incomplete, as most are.
That said, reviewing a product is very difficult, especially when you get a limited amount of time with it (and limited involvement from the manufacturer). I like reviews. I'd like to see more of them. It's more the fault of the manufacturer than the reviewer for an inaccurate review. Sometimes it's not practical, but I would send a manufacturers representative to spend the time with the reviewer while they review the product to help produce an accurate review. Even a positive review can have inaccurate information in it that may erroneously expose the one thing that is a deal breaker for someone, when it actually is not a deal breaker. And so they buy their (in reality) 2nd choice because of an error.
So, it's not about shooting the messenger, just providing the correct information that the messenger failed to convey so that buyers considering the reviewed product can make an informed decision.
Steve Hendrix
-
Stewart
Apology not accepted because it really isn't necessary, although appreciated. There is nothing like a good robust debate just so long as we don't start swearing at each other.
Having watched the march of digital over the past few years I am still thunderstruck as to how photography as a whole threw its arms out to embrace the technology without any serious questions being asked of its workability, quality or desirability. We need look no further than the question of dynamic range to illustrate just how blind we have been to the vices of the medium. We are now told that it's almost as good as colour neg film. Ehh....!! So why the hell have we been putting up with something so much less over the past decade? Mainly because we have been 'sold to' with a ferocity that was completely unknown to us before. Well that and the big 'C', convenience.
Digital has been one large marketing exercise as far he manufacturers are concerned. Look at the position of Canon now, is their exalted status due the quality of the product or simply that they had the best sales team? Nikon who were always recognised as having the better kit have been left behind and as for the likes of Pentax and Olympus their demise is but a sorry tale. I have one 35mm camera, a Pentax ESII from the seventies, I can still rely on it to produce a better picture than my Canon 30D from last year.
Hasselblad are not immune to this need for the hard sell and letting the customer do the development work. However, the fact that they are willing to refund the money 18 months later is a real feather in their cap. Try that with any dSLR maker and you'll soon be told where to park your b*m. As an aside I am greatly amused by those eagerly awaiting a semi pro Sony mode. Let's get this straight, Sony are only there to sell an experience to the masses, not pander to the professional photographer. The flagship model will be manufactured for the sole purpose of convincing the less enlightened that Sony can cut it with the best, whether it's true or not.
Basically I am fed up with this attitude of the marketing men and being treated as just a knuckle dragging consuming unit, which goes to explain the frustration expressed in my posting.
BTW. There is only one photo on www.justinseye.com that is taken with film. I'll let you try and work out which, and if you think that this is a cynical attempt to up my Google ranking then, err.. you're right.
Justin.
-
No, I don't blame Lloyd - he's not paid for reviewing that I know of. But regardless of a reviewers intentions, reviews of a product that paint either an inaccurate or incomplete picture do not help end users determine if that product is right for them to spend $20,000 - $30,000 on. And when I see those reviews, I feel compelled to correct them because anyone who would consider that product may not consider it for all the wrong reasons after reading that review.
These are very important purchases for many reasons, the high cost involved, the nature in which it will be used, etc. "Winging it" with regard to how much you know about a product before spending $30,000 is not a great way to spend your money, and reviews can sometimes produce the same result if they're inaccurate or incomplete, as most are.
That said, reviewing a product is very difficult, especially when you get a limited amount of time with it (and limited involvement from the manufacturer). I like reviews. I'd like to see more of them. It's more the fault of the manufacturer than the reviewer for an inaccurate review. Sometimes it's not practical, but I would send a manufacturers representative to spend the time with the reviewer while they review the product to help produce an accurate review. Even a positive review can have inaccurate information in it that may erroneously expose the one thing that is a deal breaker for someone, when it actually is not a deal breaker. And so they buy their (in reality) 2nd choice because of an error.
So, it's not about shooting the messenger, just providing the correct information that the messenger failed to convey so that buyers considering the reviewed product can make an informed decision.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steve,
Be realistic.
Nobody that is in the market for a medium format system is going to look at photos of a sky or a 1 bedroom house with a "ladder" attached (though in Palo Alto this is probably 1.5m) and make their fnal decision.
I actually found a lot of his comments to be unbiased and truthful, especially in regards to the market hype of "full frame" which I think really was one of the dumbest marketing moves of all time. I also think that he is reacting to a camera that is not really Hasselblad anymore. It's Imacon, Fuji with a little Hasselblad mix.
Holding a v series then using an H series really isn't a Rolls vs. Bently, it's Jaguar vs. Toyota.
Maybe I'm being a traditionalist (I don't think so), but I even find it strange to see the name Hasselblad without a Zeiss lens. Heck even Sony handicams have Zeiss lenses.
Regardless, anybody with any sense is going to compare these cameras in the genre in which they work, which is probably tethered to a computer or on a tripod, shoot a thousand files, process a thousand files, etc. etc., but in a way I think this guy probably did test it in the way he works, hence his reaction.
As far as the neutral settings of the hasselblad let's don't get too dreamy over this because nearly everybody's file can be set to linear where you can roll your own everything.
I do agree with you that real world reviews on these cameras are hard to come by. A few hours or a day, tell you nothing. Shooting with strobe in a dealers showroom tells you nothing.
Working with anxious clients and a deadline tells you a lot and it's only under that kind of pressure can I tell if a system will hold up or fall down.
JR
-
Steve Hendrix wrote-
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are not getting the message. When you spend such an amount of money you obviously should know what you are doing. I for one would not like to be limited because the flow is already pushing me into a certain direction.
The Hasselblad file is kind of a blank file that can be pushed into any direction from a neutral starting position. The other files already have some direction on them (with the expection apparently of the Sinar). It is simply another approach which has nothing to do with the quality of the product or the end result.
What do you dislike about starting with a file that has no sharpening, linear curve (flat without contrast), etc..?
Aside that, I am kind of trying to ignore the marketing BS that apparently has to accompany everything nowadays. I have not found any brand that has a perfect solution sofar or a perfect way of handling its (potential) customers. Which is naturally no excuse not to remain critical.
-
Yes, that was Sinar's philosophy since the beginning and with our first backs, to get the files out as raw as possible, when others were sharpening or applying contrast curves. I do not criticize either approach, although sharpening before knowing the final output seems weird for me (as well as applying the same default sharpening to all kind of images): there are some who prefer to be conducted through the process, others who wish to have it more under their own control.
Thierry
The Hasselblad file is kind of a blank file that can be pushed into any direction from a neutral starting position. The other files already have some direction on them (with the expection apparently of the Sinar). It is simply another appraoch which has nothing to do with the quality of the product or the end result.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I actually found a lot of his comments to be unbiased and truthful, especially in regards to the market hype of "full frame" which I think really was one of the dumbest marketing moves of all time. I also think that he is reacting to a camera that is not really Hasselblad anymore. It's Imacon, Fuji with a little Hasselblad mix.
Holding a v series then using an H series really isn't a Rolls vs. Bently, it's Jaguar vs. Toyota.
Maybe I'm being a traditionalist (I don't think so), but I even find it strange to see the name Hasselblad without a Zeiss lens. Heck even Sony handicams have Zeiss lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're right, compared to you, he's not biased.
-
You are not getting the message. When you spend such an amount of money you obviously should know what you are doing. I for one would not like to be limited because the flow is already pushing me into a certain direction.
The Hasselblad file is kind of a blank file that can be pushed into any direction from a neutral starting position. The other files already have some direction on them (with the expection apparently of the Sinar). It is simply another approach which has nothing to do with the quality of the product or the end result.
What do you dislike about starting with a file that has no sharpening, linear curve (flat without contrast), etc..?
Aside that, I am kind of trying to ignore the marketing BS that apparently has to accompany everything nowadays. I have not found any brand that has a perfect solution sofar or a perfect way of handling its (potential) customers. Which is naturally no excuse not to remain critical.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I really don't think it's the user that's missing the message, I believe it's some of the manufacturers that fail to understand how as small business people we have to weigh each expenditure seriously.
Nothing is worse than spending a lot of money on a new camera, pulling it out on a pressured job and something doesn't work, or the file is challanged or the first image on the screen is not WOW pretty, just hmm, I guess we'll fix it in post pretty.
Honestly I don't understand a lot of this announce then wait sceanrio of medium format. I've heard the word "phocus" (I think that's a pretty funny name for software, especially if you drop the o) for about a year, but I can't imagine being a blad owner, knowing your one full stop of iso behind the competition and also knowing your waiting a year for "phocus" to get there.
At that point you do drop the o.
What's the deal with digital photography? There is always a rumor or a wait and see annoucement hagning out there and if photographers have any fault it's that we actually believe it's going to come out as annouced.
If I had a nickle for every annoucement and promise followed by every firmware, software, hardware update and a dollar for every maker missed deadline, I could hang out with Brad and Angelina and spend my off time adopting kids, or cats or whatever those silly people do.
Right now on this and probably 10,000,000 other forums and blogs there are rumors of larger Leicas, square sensors, new lenses, bigger viewfinders, updated software, new software, newer backwards compatiable software, etc. etc. etc.
I've been down that road where I'm holding a $30,000 product that didn't perform anywhere close to the maker's pdf's and website described, but by the time the maker got around to even semi-addressing the first product, they had annouced 4 new products.
It didn't really piss me off that they didn't give me what I had hoped for, it pissed me off that rather than spend ALL of their resources making it right, they just kept pumping out new stuff to keep the buzz going.
Some of the medium format makers are more guilty than others but they all do it.
So really can you blame Digital Lloyd? BTW: What a name, I think he should step up to at least the nineties and change it to D-Boy-Lloyd or something with a better ring to it).
After all D-Boy did what most people do. He walked into a big camera store and tried the most expensive camera on the shelf and after looking at the lcd went "huh, what's this all about?"
Of course the big camera store won't have the very latest, most expensive camera with the bigger lcd, because in the medium format world walking into a traditional camera store and just picking up the latest is as likely as finding the phone number of the person that get's you into that hidden A list restauant that's buried in West Hollywood between a parking lot a plumbing company and a telecine suite.
If you go onto every medium format maker's website you'd think that buyng thier product would change your life and make you 4 inches taller, but just try to buy their product, today, right now, at the real price, not the I was the stupid guy price.
All these websites have retouched "black' cameras, all have a video showing some guy hoisting his kids in the car while he leaves the camera on the trunk of an Opel, on his way to a "big" shoot, or a celebrty photographer talking about how he could never have got the shot of Jessica Simpson if his trusty RS_12_95S, hadn't been able to record every pore that will be retouched off.
All of them say version whatever is NOW ready for "beta" download, but none of them show what my real world is like which is 10 nervous paying customers staring at screen hoping that photo get's them a raise, or at least doesn't get them fired.
I'm not amazed by D-boy's review, I am amazed that he actually walked into a traditional camera store and found any medium format digial camera that had a charged battery, regardless of make or vintage.
JR
-
ALL of us are strongly opinionated.
-
Having bought my H3D towards the end of 2007 I can confirm that dealing with their raw files isn´t something you learn in a day or two. I was totally frustrated during the first weeks (maybe months) and wished I had bought another LEAF back, because with my first one I got along from the very first moment. After half a year now I´m just beginning to see the light with Flexcolor.
I accept that because my camera personally gives me some things I don´t so easily find with the other brand, (integration, which was unique at that time, DAC ...).
When I bought my first apple computer in 2000 I didn´t expect to learn everything in a week. But I downloaded a lot of tryout versions like Indesign and Freehand and said to me: with your computer you could do all those great things. Mostly I started the program once, looked at all those tools without understanding whatever they might be good for, then closed the programm and never would open it again, except Photoshop, which was the one I would need for my profession.
So why does someone expect to understand a highly specialized tool like an H3D and its files within two hours?
There were wealthy people who bought one and sold it half a year later because there was no printed manual in the box ... For real, it´s not a product of my phantasy.
Bernd
-
ALL of us are strongly opinionated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course I'm bias. My experience is only based on what I've owned and used in the way I use it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do hear a lot of off the record conversation about what works and what doesn't and you'd be surprised of the number of photographers that would never go public and mention than brand x or y doesn't work because they don't want that by their name in the public domain, or they're afraid that if they do speak out they'll be put on the back of the list for repairs.
I'm not saying that happpens, because I;ve never heard of manufacturer retribution, but that doesn't mean the fear doesn't exist.
I don't care that this stuff isn't perfect, because nothing's perfect. I just am suprised that in the world of expensive cameras, medium format is always talking about the size of their market being small, but doesn't really seem to address how to get their product in front of a larger audience with a positive result.
Steve's right. Digital Lloyd should have had a rep on hand to show him how to work the camera and do it in a way the camera is made.
Still, regardless of the brand of equipment I own today, if it stops working or becomes time challanged I'll change it in a heartbeat.
JR
P.S. If it makes anyone feel any better I think the blad shoots a pretty file, especially skin tone rendering. The camera is not my cup-o-tea, but I use cameras that require e-bay lenses, so that doesn't mean anything. Actually, I am somewhat jealous of the H owners that they can actually walk into a store and probably buy a new lens.
-
Steve,
Be realistic.
Nobody that is in the market for a medium format system is going to look at photos of a sky or a 1 bedroom house with a "ladder" attached (though in Palo Alto this is probably 1.5m) and make their fnal decision.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'd be surprised...
Steve Hendrix
-
James,
I think we are talking about different things while being in agreement about most. I agree that the manufacturers sometimes (or a lot of times) appear to not realize that we have to earn all this stuff back and more. I have the feeling that they sometimes are quite far away from their end-customers or think we are all famous and making fortunes
But in the case of having a 'flat file', I believe that is a chosen route with which you can agree or not but which is not an imperfection of the product or its implementation.
I agree it is crazy the announcements and than having to wait. I believe the manufacturers are not doing the MF market a favor with these but also other things. It is not just Hasselblad that is guilty of doing so as you mentioned. When I was still a Leaf customer it seemed like we were waiting forever for Capture 11 or the Windows version. Phocus is no different. I believe the Phase owners were waiting forever for version 4? etc...
I dislike the fact that we (and the manufacturers) are so depending on a dealer system that many don't like, that doesn't work in many cases. Sure it is good to have it when it works but there is no alternative which I find ridiculous and is bordering at illegal in Europe (dealers that refuse to deal with people that are not in their assigned region because they are forbidden to do so).
It is foolish not to be critical about something that is so expensive and from which we are so dependant. It is even more foolish to try to force people to shut up by means of intimidation or by putting them at a disadvantage. If that is truly happening I really hope those people will speak up and let it be known.
I am not biased, IMO, towards any product. I think the 2 brands I have used sofar both have a product that can be used very effectively. I am sure the other 2 can be used equally effective. All have their specific ins & outs which you better know to get the most out of them or to avoid disappointments. I have no more loyalty towards any brand than that brand has to me.
I will go for whatever does the job and gets me there in the cheapest and least painful or most pleasureable (is that a word?) way.
-
Stewart
Digital has been one large marketing exercise as far he manufacturers are concerned. Look at the position of Canon now, is their exalted status due the quality of the product or simply that they had the best sales team?
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon's position is due to fact that they had a chip fab line of their own, while Nikon had to get their electronics elsewhere. So Canon could experiment at will, and market their fullframe chip. The fact that Canon had fullframe for two generations when Nikon didn't carried the market. Canon delivered, while Nikon tried to convince people that "crop-frame" was inherently superior
Edmund
-
Hi!
My local phase one rep traded in a 3 month old h3d 39mpix for a p45+.
He earlier used a phase one p25 then switched to the h3d and his printer called him up and asked wtf he had done to the files. Earlier they didn't have to touch his files now they had to adjust all sorts of things.
I came across this review: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/ (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/)
In short (jumping to conclusion of the article), image quality per pixel does not deliver perfection. In particular, colored specs and lack of "pop" (liveness) to the image.
Can anyone confirm if HD3II has same issues ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi!
My local phase one rep traded in a 3 month old h3d 39mpix for a p45+.
He earlier used a phase one p25 then switched to the h3d and his printer called him up and asked wtf he had done to the files. Earlier they didn't have to touch his files now they had to adjust all sorts of things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
His printer didn't "have" to do anything. He provided files that were apparently not print ready. It is his fault for not providing files that were properly prepared.
Wait...did you say your Phase One REP? Why would a P1 rep own a Hasselblad?
Steve Hendrix
-
or most pleasureable (is that a word?) way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
pleasurable without the e is a word though I am not sure it applies to the experience of the prospective medium format buyer (like myself)
Good discussion though. Things are much more complicated and expensive these days at the top end. It is about much more than the lenses, bodies, viewfinder and usability of the cameras: it is almost as much about the software interfaces, programs and workflow. And then about how future proof your camera and back is. To me it is beyond daunting, its scary.
The desire to work with an aesthetically pleasing tool, of which there seemed to be so many available in the film days, has been radically reduced in the medium format world, to 3 (reflex) cameras. The Contax, rest its soul, was an aesthetic beauty. For me the Hasselblad is a meh, the Mamiya a meh, the HY6 has got something to it. Plus I just love the look down abstraction of a ground glass as an option.
About the softwares: For the most part I can only read about others opinions
-
...I have the feeling that they sometimes are quite far away from their end-customers...
Snip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let me see: Thierry is in Thailand and Yair is in Israel. Does that tell you something?
-
Let me see: Thierry is in Thailand and Yair is in Israel. Does that tell you something?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think we need to clone some more of those Cylons in Atlanta and send them out into the world
Edmund
PS. Been watching to much Battlestar Galactica since I discovered P2P
-
Let me see: Thierry is in Thailand and Yair is in Israel. Does that tell you something?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can only speak for myself here...
I would not mind being in Israel and I do not think Israel is more "far from the end user" than let's say Cupertino or Seattle are from their end users in Berlin or in Hong-Kong, however I am based in London (and have been for the last 5.5 years) and several members (not only UK based) here can vouch for me being fairly close to them.
Regarding reviews: This is a complicated issue and at least for me personally as someone who often spends hours and days with reviewers across Europe (or in one case, spending 4 days in Whistler, Canada with Michael R.) and then leaving them with a full kit for a week or two only to find a double page spread with 1,500 words and two 4X6 images (off which one is a product shot that I provided) saying that the camera is "truly fantastic" is to say the least, frustrating.
But it is hard and not fair to only blame the mags or the reviewers or the manufacturers. Sadly, our industry is not as rich as let's say the car industry. These magazines are not selling millions of copies and their budgets are fairly limited. The reviewers themselves don't often own more than a D200 with 40X Micro-Drives, a G4 Titanium and Photoshop CS1 and they don't get to drive the reviewed Porsche to Chamonix and back so they can write about the handling or the quality of the sound system, while staying in posh chalets and dining in Michelin-starred restaurants a-la TopGear...
We do not fly business class and do not stay in 5 star hotels, we do not wear suits (OK I'll admit I have one suit that I wore ONCE at a pre-press trade-show 2 yrs ago) and an M&S sandwich is considered quality lunch in many cases.
As James (hope it's OK I picked your name James since you are one that I know and met personally) and others can testify, it can take anything from 2 weeks to 2 years to make oneself comfortable with the equipment to a level that you trust it and that you know it gets you where you want. This is not necessarily because "it is not perfect out of the box" but more likely because "it is not perfect for YOUR NEEDS out of the box".
Bare in mind that there are still many coming from film where they never had to deal with post production...they did the lighting, edited the trannies and sometimes told the lab to push or pull half a stop before handing the selects to the client. So from knowing iso, f-stop, wafer, C-stand and gels to knowing OSX, Win64, Photoshop, LR, Aperture, C1, LC, FlexColor, RAID, FW800, ICC profiles, html, CMYK and even posting on LL can sometimes get one's head (and pocket) into a never ending spin.
The internet, being a fast moving medium, often adds fire by helping turning rumours to facts before the first C++ line is written or the first DXF file is saved.
Again this isn't unique to our industry. You will be amazed how much of it exists in industries that are far less charged with emotions, egos (not in the bad sense of egos) and outright talent compared to our industry.
This is not to remove any blame from any of the parties involved. This is more for shedding some light on the "other side" of the equation.
Sorry for the long blurb
Yair
-
With all due respect, this is a stupid answer!
And by the way, just 2 precisions:
- Thierry is responsible for Asia
- Yair IS NOT in Israel, but in the UK, responsible for this market (sorry for speaking for you, Yair).
And we both do not make the whole company by our own.
Best regards,
Thierry
Let me see: Thierry is in Thailand and Yair is in Israel. Does that tell you something?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yair,
though you are speaking only for yourself, I do fully subscribe to your words below: well said.
Thierry
I can only speak for myself here...
I would not mind being in Israel and I do not think Israel is more "far from the end user" than let's say Cupertino or Seattle are from their end users in Berlin or in Hong-Kong, however I am based in London (and have been for the last 5.5 years) and several members (not only UK based) here can vouch for me being fairly close to them.
Regarding reviews: This is a complicated issue and at least for me personally as someone who often spends hours and days with reviewers across Europe (or in one case, spending 4 days in Whistler, Canada with Michael R.) and then leaving them with a full kit for a week or two only to find a double page spread with 1,500 words and two 4X6 images (off which one is a product shot that I provided) saying that the camera is "truly fantastic" is to say the least, frustrating.
But it is hard and not fair to only blame the mags or the reviewers or the manufacturers. Sadly, our industry is not as rich as let's say the car industry. These magazines are not selling millions of copies and their budgets are fairly limited. The reviewers themselves don't often own more than a D200 with 40X Micro-Drives, a G4 Titanium and Photoshop CS1 and they don't get to drive the reviewed Porsche to Chamonix and back so they can write about the handling or the quality of the sound system, while staying in posh chalets and dining in Michelin-starred restaurants a-la TopGear...
We do not fly business class and do not stay in 5 star hotels, we do not wear suits (OK I'll admit I have one suit that I wore ONCE at a pre-press trade-show 2 yrs ago) and an M&S sandwich is considered quality lunch in many cases.
As James (hope it's OK I picked your name James since you are one that I know and met personally) and others can testify, it can take anything from 2 weeks to 2 years to make oneself comfortable with the equipment to a level that you trust it and that you know it gets you where you want. This is not necessarily because "it is not perfect out of the box" but more likely because "it is not perfect for YOUR NEEDS out of the box".
Bare in mind that there are still many coming from film where they never had to deal with post production...they did the lighting, edited the trannies and sometimes told the lab to push or pull half a stop before handing the selects to the client. So from knowing iso, f-stop, wafer, C-stand and gels to knowing OSX, Win64, Photoshop, LR, Aperture, C1, LC, FlexColor, RAID, FW800, ICC profiles, html, CMYK and even posting on LL can sometimes get one's head (and pocket) into a never ending spin.
The internet, being a fast moving medium, often adds fire by helping turning rumours to facts before the first C++ line is written or the first DXF file is saved.
Again this isn't unique to our industry. You will be amazed how much of it exists in industries that are far less charged with emotions, egos (not in the bad sense of egos) and outright talent compared to our industry.
This is not to remove any blame from any of the parties involved. This is more for shedding some light on the "other side" of the equation.
Sorry for the long blurb
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I can only speak for myself here...
I would not mind being in Israel and I do not think Israel is more "far from the end user" than let's say Cupertino or Seattle are from their end users in Berlin or in Hong-Kong, however I am based in London (and have been for the last 5.5 years) and several members (not only UK based) here can vouch for me being fairly close to them.
Regarding reviews: This is a complicated issue and at least for me personally as someone who often spends hours and days with reviewers across Europe (or in one case, spending 4 days in Whistler, Canada with Michael R.) and then leaving them with a full kit for a week or two only to find a double page spread with 1,500 words and two 4X6 images (off which one is a product shot that I provided) saying that the camera is "truly fantastic" is to say the least, frustrating.
But it is hard and not fair to only blame the mags or the reviewers or the manufacturers. Sadly, our industry is not as rich as let's say the car industry. These magazines are not selling millions of copies and their budgets are fairly limited. The reviewers themselves don't often own more than a D200 with 40X Micro-Drives, a G4 Titanium and Photoshop CS1 and they don't get to drive the reviewed Porsche to Chamonix and back so they can write about the handling or the quality of the sound system, while staying in posh chalets and dining in Michelin-starred restaurants a-la TopGear...
We do not fly business class and do not stay in 5 star hotels, we do not wear suits (OK I'll admit I have one suit that I wore ONCE at a pre-press trade-show 2 yrs ago) and an M&S sandwich is considered quality lunch in many cases.
As James (hope it's OK I picked your name James since you are one that I know and met personally) and others can testify, it can take anything from 2 weeks to 2 years to make oneself comfortable with the equipment to a level that you trust it and that you know it gets you where you want. This is not necessarily because "it is not perfect out of the box" but more likely because "it is not perfect for YOUR NEEDS out of the box".
Bare in mind that there are still many coming from film where they never had to deal with post production...they did the lighting, edited the trannies and sometimes told the lab to push or pull half a stop before handing the selects to the client. So from knowing iso, f-stop, wafer, C-stand and gels to knowing OSX, Win64, Photoshop, LR, Aperture, C1, LC, FlexColor, RAID, FW800, ICC profiles, html, CMYK and even posting on LL can sometimes get one's head (and pocket) into a never ending spin.
The internet, being a fast moving medium, often adds fire by helping turning rumours to facts before the first C++ line is written or the first DXF file is saved.
Again this isn't unique to our industry. You will be amazed how much of it exists in industries that are far less charged with emotions, egos (not in the bad sense of egos) and outright talent compared to our industry.
This is not to remove any blame from any of the parties involved. This is more for shedding some light on the "other side" of the equation.
Sorry for the long blurb
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yair,
There is not a single thing you say I don't agree with.
Especially the time it takes to learn, master and work through one of these cameras and though the dslrs may be easier on the capture end, they take just as much work to make exceptional imagery on the back end, (usuall more work) so there is no free lunch.
I also have to admit the reason you and Theirry take more heat because you come on these forums and I have a lot of respect for that. Same with the dealers, especially the Atlanta dealers.
And I have to say up front just because I had issues with Leaf, doesn't mean it doesn't work, doesn't mean it's not vastly improved and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered.
As you know you can never label any of this equipment as black or white, there is always a circumstance and each day all of the companies improve, each day one company gains ground on the other and the cycle continues.
Even though Leaf and makers of mfd are small companies in comparision to Canon or Nikon you're usually selling to individuals who knows each purchase is important.
My point, if I have a point on this is I still don't think medium format gets there message out to enough potential users and does so in an easy way.
Sure you can call Steve, Dave or any good dealer and get an intelligent response but as you know you can also flip that to the next call and get anything but an intelligent response.
To me that is where the maker's website makes the difference. Sure it needs to be visually dynamic, the cameras look exciting the sales message should be strong, but it also needs real world information and on a previous thread I mentioned the Red Camera site because it does address the complete use of the camera, the fixes, the non fixes, the issues.
That form of transparency shows that the maker is aware of the issues so consequently they should be working on it.
At least Red gives that impression. I'll let you know after I buy one.
JR
-
Canon's position is due to fact that they had a chip fab line of their own, while Nikon had to get their electronics elsewhere. So Canon could experiment at will, and market their fullframe chip. The fact that Canon had fullframe for two generations when Nikon didn't carried the market. Canon delivered, while Nikon tried to convince people that "crop-frame" was inherently superior smile.gif
But even so they were still selling the vast majority of their cameras as half frames. The market was in these cheaper models and yet they still trumped Nikon. I stepped into the dSLR market with a Canon and have recorded elsewhere on this forum my distinct dissatisfaction with their products. Have Nikon had issues with sensor alignment or autofocus? Canon may have been leading the market but with a product that wasn't really ready, that was marketing triumphing over manufacture and MF makers are caught in the same vice of fearing that if they are not constantly crying out for attention then their ship will sink.
Justin.
-
Especially the time it takes to learn, master and work through one of these cameras and though the dslrs may be easier on the capture end, they take just as much work to make exceptional imagery on the back end, (usuall more work) so there is no free lunch.
Sadly James I find myself in disagreement here. I found my dSLR a monster of complexity compared with aDMF which seems so straightforward. I sometimes suspect that the former are designed to appeal to camera nuts in the enthusiasts market rather than photographers who just want to get a picture rather than feel good about mastering the blinkin' box with a hole in the front. But then again, the complexity is often needed to make up for digital's shortcomings.
Justin.
-
Have Nikon had issues with sensor alignment or autofocus? Canon may have been leading the market but with a product that wasn't really ready, that was marketing triumphing over manufacture and MF makers are caught in the same vice of fearing that if they are not constantly crying out for attention then their ship will sink.
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes Nikon had problems too. The D1x flagship had severe focus problems due to wear of the mirror box.
We've got to the stage where the compact cameras and consumer dSLRs seem to work out of the box. Give it two or three years and the MF units will be similarly mature - one or two generations of body design to get some alignment aids in there, one or two generations of silicon and a sensor will only cost $100 and the bad ones will be junked at manufacture rather than corrected with software.
Edmund
-
Hey I live in Palo Alto... and you are close to right.. !!!!
What an interesting thread.. I do have to say that I like to take control and prefer the default really being set to zero as Hasselblad has done.
Steve,
Be realistic.
Nobody that is in the market for a medium format system is going to look at photos of a sky or a 1 bedroom house with a "ladder" attached (though in Palo Alto this is probably 1.5m) and make their fnal decision.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Interesting thread.
In my part of the world (Ireland) the same dealer has the agency for both Hasselblad and Phase. Only today, I was told that customers (particularly institutional and industrial clients who are buying for in-house photographers) are moving to Phase in droves because the perception (rightly or wrongly) is that Hassie just can't get their sh1t together, as we say around here.
That said, I am still waiting for my H3Dll MS. Will it ever arrive? Who knows!? Meanwhile I am using a loan H2D. And when you get used to Flexcolour (after ACR with my beloved Mk3 Canon, it's like using a jackhammer instead of a scalpel) it's bloody marvellous!
D.
-
In my part of the world (Ireland) the same dealer has the agency for both Hasselblad and Phase. Only today, I was told that customers (particularly institutional and industrial clients who are buying for in-house photographers) are moving to Phase in droves because the perception (rightly or wrongly) is that Hassie just can't get their sh1t together, as we say around here.
That said, I am still waiting for my H3Dll MS. Will it ever arrive? Who knows!? Meanwhile I am using a loan H2D. And when you get used to Flexcolour (after ACR with my beloved Mk3 Canon, it's like using a jackhammer instead of a scalpel) it's bloody marvellous!
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dinarius, If you could, please define:
"same dealer" = actual name?
"in droves" = quantity, or, how many is a in a drove, i.e. 5,10,15,50,100?
"their sh1t" = what? hardware, software, service, all of the above, explain please, can you?
Thanks in advance and be well.
-
jecxz,
Here's the dealer........
http://www.dml.ie/ (http://www.dml.ie/)
They didn't quantify numbers when speaking to me and I didn't ask for clarification. As I explained, my loyalty is to Hasselblad either way, so Phase outselling Hasselblad (if that is the case) doesn't concern me. The market here is tiny, in any case, and could in no way be construed as a reflection of the broader market.
So, feel free to contact them yourself if you'd like to know more.
Hasselblad's failure to get its act together was simply a reference to the endless delays in the launch of the MS backs and Phocus. I would have thought that was obvious. I was promised mine end of January - and I know from private conversations with others who have contributed to this thread that they were too.
D.
-
Dinarius
You might as well have said the only pro dealer in Ireland, certainly the other fellow up near the Red Cow is hardly the most ambitious when it comes to shifting units. However, I've heard that DML are also picking up a Canon Pro dealership and will be shifting Phase One hardware, AKA Mamiya, when the time comes. It's Just a shame that Paddy Barker doesn't do cameras as having just the one choice is never healthy and, as highly as I regard DML and appreciate that their main competition is less than an hours flight away over the water, it would be nice to have a second supplier on home turf. It will be interesting to see how they reconcile this apparent conflict in stocking two major competitors, will J. and M. (Trev's taking himself out of the equation) be at each other with hurlies over every new customer that mounts the stairs or will it be the usual amicable muddle between all parties. I know where I'd put my money.
BTW. Dou you know what's happening to Alan downstairs when the great move comes?
Justin.
-
Dinarius and Justin is any of you going to the PhotoFest this year?
-
I certainly hope to get there.
Justin
-
jecxz,
Here's the dealer........
http://www.dml.ie/ (http://www.dml.ie/)
They didn't quantify numbers when speaking to me and I didn't ask for clarification. As I explained, my loyalty is to Hasselblad either way, so Phase outselling Hasselblad (if that is the case) doesn't concern me. The market here is tiny, in any case, and could in no way be construed as a reflection of the broader market.
So, feel free to contact them yourself if you'd like to know more.
Hasselblad's failure to get its act together was simply a reference to the endless delays in the launch of the MS backs and Phocus. I would have thought that was obvious. I was promised mine end of January - and I know from private conversations with others who have contributed to this thread that they were too.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dinarius,
I was promised a bump to 1 minute exposure (important for me) by January when I purchased the H3DII39 (in December). I've also reported minor quirks and I'm told they are 140% on Phocus and nothing else. I'm PC, so who knows when I'll get Phocus. I think they need to address the growing frustration with their customers, like you and I. Thanks and be well.
-
Jecxz,
I also hope that at least two issues are addressed:
In my line of work I use mirror up/self-timer about 99.9% of the time. On the Mk3, this can be set using one of Canon's fab Custom Functions. You then simply press the shutter button, the mirror is raised and the shutter fires two (or ten) seconds later. Brilliant!
On the Hassie, you have to move you finger to a button hidden behind the grip and press it twice in quick succession! This raises the mirror. You then press the shutter button and the shutter fires two seconds later. Crazy! Even worse, you have to do this EVERY time. You cannot, as far as I know, set it as an action as on on the Canon.
In addition, I have discovered on my loan H3D 39 that if I raise the mirror and fire the shutter via Flexcolor (i.e. click on Capture) the back seizes and has to be removed from the body and restarted. I must press the shutter button - when Flexcolor does load the image.
Hassie must enter the wonderful world of custom functions. There are six menu items (with a few sub-menus) on the Hassie, there are dozens on a Canon.
Another thing..........1/3 increments for both shutter speed and f/stop are mandatory in this day and age.
You're probably wondering why I'm bothering with Hasselblad? I want the MS, which I believe to be Hasselblad's (and Sinar's) USP. Thierry, if only you had a screen on your MS backs. I would definitely have considered them then. And speaking of screens, my mobile phone has a better screen than the H3D.
OK, I'll shut up now.
D.
ps. YaYa, I don't even know what PhotoFest is. Excuse my ignorance.
-
Dinarius, the mirror up you can route towards either the AE-L button or the user button (as long as the H3 works the same way as the H2). At these buttons it is so much easier to acces MUP
I totally understand what you mean, this is a true annoyance in my eyes as well. MUP should also be a function that can be invoked by Flex or later Phocus.
I can tell you that with multishot, the mirror goes up first and than the shots are taken after which the mirror comes down again. Enough time between mirror movements and the shutter actions. (at least that is the way it works with the 384).
The error with Flexcolor is weird. I have shot thousands of shots with the camera 10feet in the air, mirror up and firing via Flexcolor. Maybe something weird of the H3.
I am still sometimes so glad I use the CF.
BTW, I find the screen on the H3DII a lot better! At least the screen on a friends H3DII31 I found a big improvement (though still no D300 type of screen).
-
Dinarius,
I'm 100% using mirror up, with a 3 second timer. But I read your post elsewhere about the crash when tethered--I think I saw this myself when experimenting. Sorry about that.
If you don't use the User button, set that button to Mirror Up!
On my bodies I have the Mirror up button reconfigured to Self-Timer on/off.
FYI: You'd love the new LCD on the H3DII - just beautiful.
-
I use my H3D 39 11 every day & love the flat neutral non-punchy images that it delivers thus allowing me to enhance to my hearts content in Flexcolor & PS.
I am curious, what kind of enhancements can be made ? Are we talking about emphasizing a certain color, or adding sharpening effects or something else entirely ?
-
I am curious, what kind of enhancements can be made ? Are we talking about emphasizing a certain color, or adding sharpening effects or something else entirely ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dennis:
You have complete control over -
*curves - including individual RGB/CMYK curves, you can click a point anywhere in the image and the pixel value of that click will then appear as a editable point on your curve. And curve points do respond to arrow keys, so very precise adjustments can be made.
*histogram/levels - with mid-tone and endpoint controls, viewable in f-stops, RGB values, input/output values, and per individual color channel.
*color correction - global saturation and (somewhat) selective color editing control. The selective control works great for blues and greens, not so selectively for yellows/browns/reds. However, if skin tone is paramount and totally accurate colors outside of the skin tone aren't important, it's great for custom tweaking of skin tones. The selective color is not in the current Phocus beta, but I'm told it will be back and improved in a future version.
*sharpening - standard sharpening tools similar to photoshop's unsharp mask. But you can also limit shadow sharpening and you can customize sharpening amounts per individual RGB channel.
All of these functions are combinable and savable as a "recipe" which can be batch applied, or individual settings can be saved and selectively batch applied. They can also be applied on imported imags automatically on the fly as they import as well as when shooting tethered.
There are also controls for color temperature/tint, exposure, and a selective shadow masking tool (the shadow mask tool is not in Phocus - I am hoping they include it in a future version release.)
Steve Hendrix
-
Those are the enhancements you can do with Flex. What I like about the flat file is that you can do any enhancement you like either with Flex or PS. Most enhancements will increase contrast either by its own function or because you have to up contrast slightly to mask negative side effects.
Global or selective color adjustments will enhance contrast, curves, levels, color blending, all of these and more will give your image more contrast.
If your starting point is an already contrasty/punchy file you are definitely limited in the amount of adjustments you can do.
-
If your starting point is an already contrasty/punchy file you are definitely limited in the amount of adjustments you can do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No.
The default enhancement in C1 is just a film curve, which can simply be deselected and replaced by a linear curve. This is true for C1. The same in ACR/Lightroom or RD. I bet it's the same for Leaf. There are also some preselects for saturation and color and sharpness.
If you disagree with the default choices, just set other defaults.
WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN OF A RAW PROCESSOR IS NOT THE FILE, IT IS WHAT YOU WILL GET IF YOU PROCESS THE FILE WITH THE CURRENT PARAMETERS.
The best investment you can make if you don't get that is to find a dealer who will explain it to you or take a course.
If you cannot set the defaults it most likely means you are not very good at operating software, or the software is hard to set up, rather than meaning the camera or software is functionally incapable of giving you the defaults you want. I'l make an exception for Photoshop's ACR and LR which have foobarred color models but hopefully this will get fixed soon.
I do agree there are differences between backs and software.I do agree that if you can buy something that works for you out of the box that is definitely what you should buy. But don't suppose they are really that different under the skin, they are not. The sensors are similar, the usage constraints and linearisation are similar, it follows that the files are actually very similar.
Edmund
-
you are not very good at operating software,
Perhaps here is the wrong place to mention it but this is me all over. I'm hopeless with matters IT, does this mean that I am a bad photographer in today's brave new digital world? Am I to be denied the chance to express myself as fully as I wish because I prefer photography to messing with binary logic?
It is easy to become so absorbed in the mechanism that we forget the function.
Justin.
-
No.
The default enhancement in C1 is just a film curve, which can simply be deselected and replaced by a linear curve. This is true for C1. The same in ACR/Lightroom or RD. I bet it's the same for Leaf. There are also some preselects for saturation and color and sharpness.
If you disagree with the default choices, just set other defaults.
WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN OF A RAW PROCESSOR IS NOT THE FILE, IT IS WHAT YOU WILL GET IF YOU PROCESS THE FILE WITH THE CURRENT PARAMETERS.
The best investment you can make if you don't get that is to find a dealer who will explain it to you or take a course.
If you cannot set the defaults it most likely means you are not very good at operating software, or the software is hard to set up, rather than meaning the camera or software is functionally incapable of giving you the defaults you want. I'l make an exception for Photoshop's ACR and LR which have foobarred color models but hopefully this will get fixed soon.
I do agree there are differences between backs and software.I do agree that if you can buy something that works for you out of the box that is definitely what you should buy. But don't suppose they are really that different under the skin, they are not. The sensors are similar, the usage constraints and linearisation are similar, it follows that the files are actually very similar.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Euh.... Edmund this is exactly what I have been saying. Flexcolor starts default with a linear file where some others don't. Naturally you can set it to linear and do the same thing. We are talking about where most developers start.
When you would process a file through a raw developer that at default already applies stuff you are limited in your additional 'enhancements'. Maybe that word choice is more appropriate or clearer?
-
Justin,
Nobody would want to deny you the right to be and remain a photographer. It is like everywhere in life, things change and evolve. If you want to walk with these changes, then you have to be ready to see things differently and be open to learn a few new things.
Digital photography is not the "absorbing monster" which takes away your freedom of shooting, in the contrary, it does open you so many new opportunities.
There are in fact very little basic things to learn and know, when it comes to digital. It starts with a software to capture your raw files: this can be learned in a couple of days. The rest is basically the same as in analog photography, the optical rules have not changed, and there is little "old" theory which does not apply to digital as well.
That is my opinion.
Best regards,
Thierry
Perhaps here is the wrong place to mention it but this is me all over. I'm hopeless with matters IT, does this mean that I am a bad photographer in today's brave new digital world? Am I to be denied the chance to express myself as fully as I wish because I prefer photography to messing with binary logic?
It is easy to become so absorbed in the mechanism that we forget the function.
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
In my line of work I use mirror up/self-timer about 99.9% of the time. On the Mk3, this can be set using one of Canon's fab Custom Functions. You then simply press the shutter button, the mirror is raised and the shutter fires two (or ten) seconds later. Brilliant!
On the Hassie, you have to move you finger to a button hidden behind the grip and press it twice in quick succession! This raises the mirror. You then press the shutter button and the shutter fires two seconds later. Crazy! Even worse, you have to do this EVERY time. You cannot, as far as I know, set it as an action as on on the Canon.
Hassie must enter the wonderful world of custom functions. There are six menu items (with a few sub-menus) on the Hassie, there are dozens on a Canon.
Another thing..........1/3 increments for both shutter speed and f/stop are mandatory in this day and age.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps you should enter the wonderful world of instruction manuals?
Everything you mention can be done on the H3D in the ....wait for it.... Custom Functions menu!
Including the 1/3 stop increments. (Custom Option 2)
For the self timer you can also set it to remain ON after exposure so you don't have to reset it. (Custom Option 22)
In the Self Timer menu you can also ask the mirror to stay up after exposure... or go down... actually everything you ask.
Easy eh.
Or, why don't you lock the mirror and simply use a cable release?
Jo S.x
-
Jo,
Thanks for the advice.
But, can you set the shutter button to SIMULTANEOUSLY raise the mirror, followed by firing the shutter two seconds later? i.e. Turn what is now three actions into one?
Many thanks.
D.
-
Photography is a technical art form. I believe painters usually have to learn to draw and use paints, can take them some time to become good at it.
Edmund
Perhaps here is the wrong place to mention it but this is me all over. I'm hopeless with matters IT, does this mean that I am a bad photographer in today's brave new digital world? Am I to be denied the chance to express myself as fully as I wish because I prefer photography to messing with binary logic?
It is easy to become so absorbed in the mechanism that we forget the function.
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Edmund,
I've seen you have used the word "foobarr" a couple times on LL. I can't seem to find the definition of it, although I've only looked in the Apple dictionary.
I can guess at it by the context but could you give me a better definition?
Thanks
Paul
-
I believe foobar is an acronym based on the verb foo, Fooed Up Beyond All Recognition.
Wikipedia lists this as FUBAR, but in my day hackers used foobar, I believe.
I use it as a transitive verb eg. "to foobar exposure"; I guess the passive should then be "foobarred", as "foobared" sounds even stranger.
Or maybe it's just my english that is strange, as I mostly talk to myself, here in Paris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR)
Wikipepdia says hackers don't use the term for its primary meaning, I diagree, I do
Usually you start with a function f, revise it to ""foo", then you mod it to foobar" and after another mod it is so convoluted that it doesn't deserve a name anymore
Edmund
Edmund,
I've seen you have used the word "foobarr" a couple times on LL. I can't seem to find the definition of it, although I've only looked in the Apple dictionary.
I can guess at it by the context but could you give me a better definition?
Thanks
Paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Got it. I looked up in Wiki but used the double r that came up with nothing.
Thanks
-
Actually, I always understood Fubar (proper spelling) as a military term, meaning "F_cked Up Beyond All Recognition". I don't know if it originated in the military, but it is commonly used there, as in discussing orders from the CO in the tent way behind the front line:
"They want us to just charge right in there with no cover at all? Man, that is FUBAR."
A number of historical books on military campaigns will bear this out. It was certainly in use at least by WWII in the American military.
Steve Hendrix
-
Trust the military to sex up their language
Edmund
Actually, I always understood Fubar (proper spelling) as a military term, meaning "F_cked Up Beyond All Recognition". I don't know if it originated in the military, but it is commonly used there, as in discussing orders from the CO in the tent way behind the front line:
"They want us to just charge right in there with no cover at all? Man, that is FUBAR."
A number of historical books on military campaigns will bear this out. It was certainly in use at least by WWII in the American military.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188254\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Actually, I always understood Fubar (proper spelling) as a military term, meaning "F_cked Up Beyond All Recognition". I don't know if it originated in the military, but it is commonly used there, as in discussing orders from the CO in the tent way behind the front line:
"They want us to just charge right in there with no cover at all? Man, that is FUBAR."
A number of historical books on military campaigns will bear this out. It was certainly in use at least by WWII in the American military.
It's still in common use in the US Army in exactly that form, especially in male-only front-line units (infantry, tanks, artillery, etc.). Support and training units (which commonly include females) tend to be a bit more PC in their choice of terms in common usage.
-
Jo,
Thanks for the advice.
But, can you set the shutter button to SIMULTANEOUSLY raise the mirror, followed by firing the shutter two seconds later? i.e. Turn what is now three actions into one?
Many thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think so. I reckon if you told the Self timer to stay active (Custom Function) and then set the self timer to MIRROR UP then DELAY (Self Timer Menu) then that should do it!
Jo S.x