Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: sperera on January 09, 2009, 06:30:59 am
-
Hi there....I'm debating (big time) whether to get a 2nd hand Hasselblad H3D-31 and 50-110mm lens or a Nikon full-frame (either D700, D3 or D3x as I have access to good prices) to supplement the Nikon D300 Im not getting rid of.
I've owned Hassy before....Hasselblad 503CW with a Zeiss 80mm lens - and I was hoping for opinions on actually living with a H3D-31....
I mean whats it like to work with as I have to give up 51-point autofocusing etc....is the difference in focusing something thats too annoying to use again or do you just get used to it......
for example...you're doing a fashion shoot......you want that face and eyes in focus.....is the fact you have to focus on a person's eye and then move the camera with the finger on the button etc not to lose the focus on the eye too annoying????? know what I mean.....
-
Hi there....I'm debating (big time) whether to get a 2nd hand Hasselblad H3D-31 and 50-110mm lens or a Nikon full-frame (either D700, D3 or D3x as I have access to good prices) to supplement the Nikon D300 Im not getting rid of.
I've owned Hassy before....Hasselblad 503CW with a Zeiss 80mm lens - and I was hoping for opinions on actually living with a H3D-31....
I mean whats it like to work with as I have to give up 51-point autofocusing etc....is the difference in focusing something thats too annoying to use again or do you just get used to it......
for example...you're doing a fashion shoot......you want that face and eyes in focus.....is the fact you have to focus on a person's eye and then move the camera with the finger on the button etc not to lose the focus on the eye too annoying????? know what I mean.....
Hi,
I shoot with both D3's and H3D 31, I mainly shot people and always use centre AF on the D3 and find the AF on the H3D to be pretty good. Of course it is different and you need to allow for this with your shooting style. I found the H3D to be one of the fastest MF focus.
Rodney
-
I'm not a fashion shooter, but a photo artist. I have a H3DII-31 beside Nikon D3, D90, D2x ... And in 99,99 % I use only the center AF field. Therefore working with the AF of the H3DII was
not a loss of flexibility for my work. Usually I have time to manual focus or use AF, check again, and re-frame the shot.
What I miss on the Hassy is the good display of the newer Nikons.
-
thanks guys, this is exactly the feedback i wanted.....anymore welcome
-
I shoot fashion, product (fashion) & catalogue.
I use H2F and Nikon. Now to compare autofocus between these two is comparing a Ferrari with a Volkswagen. Having said that the Hasselblad is not bad but since I rarely have the focus in the center I usually focus in the center and recompose. This doesn't work really well but I find the DoF of the Hasselblad is so shallow I most often work with a bit smaller aperture than I would have with my Nikon.
Weird enough is that some people state that focussing, recomposing puts the sharpness at the wrong place. My experience is that focussing and recomposing generates the best results with my H. I would like to hear the experiences of the other H users with that?
I do suggest you place the autofocus on either the AE-L or User button. Than you don't have to keep your finger on the release button and use that solely to expose for an image.
I find the autofocus of the H a huge improvement over my 503CW. If that is your reference you will be pleasantly surprised. If your reference is the Nikon you will be kind of annoyed
-
i use the H3DII 50 on the tripod often and really miss multi-point AF. recomposing on the tripod is a real hassle.
peter
I shoot fashion, product (fashion) & catalogue.
I use H2F and Nikon. Now to compare autofocus between these two is comparing a Ferrari with a Volkswagen. Having said that the Hasselblad is not bad but since I rarely have the focus in the center I usually focus in the center and recompose. This doesn't work really well but I find the DoF of the Hasselblad is so shallow I most often work with a bit smaller aperture than I would have with my Nikon.
Weird enough is that some people state that focussing, recomposing puts the sharpness at the wrong place. My experience is that focussing and recomposing generates the best results with my H. I would like to hear the experiences of the other H users with that?
I do suggest you place the autofocus on either the AE-L or User button. Than you don't have to keep your finger on the release button and use that solely to expose for an image.
I find the autofocus of the H a huge improvement over my 503CW. If that is your reference you will be pleasantly surprised. If your reference is the Nikon you will be kind of annoyed
-
I agree, on the tripod that would not be convenient. I use the H quite often on the tripod but virtually never use AF in that case so I didn't really think about that
Going slightly off-topic here, how is your experience with the 50? (especially compared to the 39).
-
I use a H3d with the older lenses via adapter. Manual focusing is easy with the big and clear viewfinder.
No need for fuddly AF.
-
any regrets from anyone moving away from Nikons etc to Hssy?
-
Euh... no. But I didn't move away from the Nikon. I have kept the Nikons alongside the Hasselblad. I use the Nikons far less than the Hasselblad (at least commercially). I need both systems and will be adding a D700 as soon as my bank account has recovered from all the other investments I have done last year
-
any regrets from anyone moving away from Nikons etc to Hssy?
The best rule is to use what works for your specific look or genre. these comparisons break my brain. No medium format camera (even with film) will work as fast and hand hold as well as a 35mm camera. No 35mm camera has the perceived detail and resolution of a semi modern digital back.
No medium format workflow is a fast as 35mm, it's just the way it is.
The dslrs have gotten better (not just file size) but with better colors, lcd's and in the Nikons case much more accurate focus, but they all can have a place.
I believe what has hurt medium format sales, (excluding the economy) is the last round of annoucements (other than Sinar) did little to address what most people were asking for which was better lcds, higher iso, or at least more moveable iso and camera platforms and software that were out on the shelves with everything in place everything working.
But even with the new 31mpx Sinar for most of us it would require a complete platform change of back, body and lenses and given the state of the used market, dumping your phase or Hasselblad systems means your going to take quite a financial hit, for a camera that is still using the same sensor.
I have two backs, one 18mpx one 31mpx and nothing that has been announced has moved me to think about a change. Going from a 1.24 crop to a 1.04 to 1.14
crop was not an earth shattering format change, it was just another small incremental move with the same sensor technology.
When I use the backs I need them, but to lock myself down and say I must shoot everything either medium format or 35mm would not do much for my work and actually have a negative effect on my business.
Now had medium format come out with real camera to device wi-fi, or an lcd preview that matched the nikons, 800 real iso that didn't smudge the shadows or show track noise and software that was really bullet proof and multi platform I might have seen it differently.
If I was a digital tech, I'd probalby get a 50 or 60 mpx back because so many of their "customers" don't really know the difference between any digital file so they say either give me the biggest or the fastest, usually thinking they get both.
Actually I doubt if the rent by the day photographer has ever lined up a Nikon, Canon and a medium format back, shot the same scene and then looked at the image for which one has the desired look, not which one has sharper eyelash detail. At least not compared them through a year of production to really know what the difference is. All of these cameras and sensors react differently depending on the lighting, the scene, the ambient color and the movement.
If I worked everyday in a NY studio on white I'd probably only shoot medium format, but once outside of the studio, it would be damn difficult to shoot what I do with just one format of camera.
Still, use what works for you and what you believe satisfies your client demands. Also be clear that if you are a photographer and your selling technology over the art and the production that is pretty much a downward spiral as just about anybody can buy a camera.
-
I agree, on the tripod that would not be convenient. I use the H quite often on the tripod but virtually never use AF in that case so I didn't really think about that
Going slightly off-topic here, how is your experience with the 50? (especially compared to the 39).
i have not done scientific comparisms but it seems a big step up in tonality gradation (i should say that i can only compare with H1 + P45 and H1 +A75) and you can see the resolution difference,
particularly compared to the 33mpx A75. but actually, i just bought it in order to make use of hasselblad's upgrade offer to the 60mpx sensor model. i am only a bit worried about whether it is a
good idea now to buy the two HCD lenses or not. seesm that hasselblad has not yet fully engineerd the HCD lens- H3DII60 interaction.
peter
ps: i do like phocus. the HC 35mm was not all that great with P45 and A75, but it behaves nicely (even in the corners) on the H3DII50 with the phocus software.
-
Hi there....I'm debating (big time) whether to get a 2nd hand Hasselblad H3D-31 and 50-110mm lens or a Nikon full-frame (either D700, D3 or D3x as I have access to good prices) to supplement the Nikon D300 Im not getting rid of.
I've owned Hassy before....Hasselblad 503CW with a Zeiss 80mm lens - and I was hoping for opinions on actually living with a H3D-31....
I mean whats it like to work with as I have to give up 51-point autofocusing etc....is the difference in focusing something thats too annoying to use again or do you just get used to it......
for example...you're doing a fashion shoot......you want that face and eyes in focus.....is the fact you have to focus on a person's eye and then move the camera with the finger on the button etc not to lose the focus on the eye too annoying????? know what I mean.....
I use H1 and D3
Like everyone else I use exactly the same method for static subjects with both cameras
Centre focus recompose
no different
The nikon AF is too close spaced to be really useful
For movement that is fire and hope on the nikon, and a no go on the blad
S
-
any regrets from anyone moving away from Nikons etc to Hssy?
Completely different animals.
You will miss the spontaneity of the AF from the 35 dslr, also, the time lag. However, that would have been the same with analog.
Kevin
-
Hi there....I'm debating (big time) whether to get a 2nd hand Hasselblad H3D-31 and 50-110mm lens or a Nikon full-frame (either D700, D3 or D3x as I have access to good prices) to supplement the Nikon D300 Im not getting rid of.
You seem to be assuming that the HD3-31 will feature an image quality which is significantly better than that of the D3x, and would justify the price if you could afford it.
Considering that the sensor of the HD3-31 uses micro-lenses just like the D3x, but is 3 years old technology, chances are that the D3x sensor is extremely close in detail and DR.
My guess is that the difference will be impossible to tell at any print size.
I would suggest that you do a serious comparison yourself.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You seem to be assuming that the HD3-31 will feature an image quality which is significantly better than that of the D3x, and would justify the price if you could afford it.
Considering that the sensor of the HD3-31 uses micro-lenses just like the D3x, but is 3 years old technology, chances are that the D3x sensor is extremely close in detail and DR.
My guess is that the difference will be impossible to tell at any print size.
I would suggest that you do a serious comparison yourself.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks for all your continued comments.....all very useful.....what would have been the deal-breaker was Hasselblad not having to go through Phocus (didnt they shoot DNG files straight off before and thus no need for Phocus or Flexcolor?) just as I feel Nikon has to go through Capture NX2 to come up with its best RAW conversions.....speaking to Hasselblad they said - case to point being Lightroom - that Adobe had not done what was needed to get their .fff files looking their best......
My workflow with Nikon is as follows....shoot - load em all up and organize in Lightroom - process in Capture NX - post-process in Photoshop if need be....
Bernard, as a D3x owner how's it looking for you the more you use it....Ive been reading your posts.....yes, ideally doing those comparisons is the way to go but I cant get hold of either for testing myself.....I'd be very surprised if he gap between them in perceived 'quality' was substantial if at all noticeable......
the issue for me is enlargement quality.....ideally need the 24mp minimum to make the desired leap to bigger prints.....at the moment, with a D300 I'm at the limit going to around 50cm.....in my opinion, without losing that fine quality reproduction that 300dpi at actual size gives me.....
the issue is the Nikon D3x is overpriced in my opinion, lacks a few 'opttions' I'd like to have seen on it (but then so do all kits!) and I feel Nikon is being arrogant in its pricing.....Nikon UK is upping prices as we speak and that's the market i compare to and normally buy from....
-
as stated depends how you work. I doubt you'll be able to handhold the H zoom for long and manual focus while dealing with the weight doesn't work. I can handhold a canon w/ a big zoom all day and dont have to manual focus b/c focus points and focus is good.
that said, H3 w/ 80mm I can hand hold all day. set AF to user button focus and recompose, I rarely miss a shot...
the nikon w/ 3 lenses (2 zooms, 1 fast prime) will be 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the H w/ 3 lenses (80, zoom, wide?) and will be more versatile. i wouldn't really dream of shooting fast action on the H - but then again, I never do, so...
Bernard makes a very good point on the prints - do a comparo.
-
with a zoom you will get tired with a hasselblad system. Honestly, the AF is somewhat rudimentary after using a dslr, but the file quality can be worth it at times. When it comes down to it, you have to look at what size you'd like to print and find a way to get there. if you find the d3x high in price, wait a year for it to come down, it has to. I think the main reason to do medium format is the optics and the tonal gradations. The workflow is sometimes daunting and you have to alter how you shoot. But once you get used to it, it can be rewarding. The times I've used the H bodies and digital backs (mostly a p30 on an h2) I've found the files way more pliable and print amazingly. BUT I print about 1/8th of my work bigger than a magazine page. I guess you really need to try both and see how you FEEL shooting. It sounds kinda lame, but how you act behind the camera with people or feel when you're shooting a location is key to how the images turn out. Its much more important to love your process than to fight the process to create compelling work. Good luck with your search.
-
You seem to be assuming that the HD3-31 will feature an image quality which is significantly better than that of the D3x, and would justify the price if you could afford it.
Considering that the sensor of the HD3-31 uses micro-lenses just like the D3x, but is 3 years old technology, chances are that the D3x sensor is extremely close in detail and DR.
My guess is that the difference will be impossible to tell at any print size.
Of course it depends on what you see as 'significant'. At least the H3D-31(II) has no anti aliasing filter AFAIK. Compared to the D3 I have too, the H3DII-31 is not only better in resolution (sure it is), e.g. shadow detail is exceptional in comparison, H3DII-31 files scale up beautifully. For me the Hassy is a different tool and will be so even when I probably add a D3x. The most important differences I see in favor of the D3(x) are handling, fun of usage (ergonomics), high ISO capabilities and flexibility of the whole system. Have you ever shot a H3DII on your own subjects and had a look at the quality?
-
I guess you really need to try both and see how you FEEL shooting. It sounds kinda lame, but how you act behind the camera with people or feel when you're shooting a location is key to how the images turn out. Its much more important to love your process than to fight the process to create compelling work. Good luck with your search.
Amen to that.
-
I totally agree as well. I bought my H2/P30+ thinking that it would replace my Canons in almost all shoots. I now use it exclusively in the studio, where it excels, and use my Canons on location. I quickly found that I was not completely comfortable with H2 on location -- the equipment got in the way of the process. Go with what feels right, and don't try to justify using something based on price/perceived quality alone.
Good luck.
-
Of course it depends on what you see as 'significant'. At least the H3D-31(II) has no anti aliasing filter AFAIK. Compared to the D3 I have too, the H3DII-31 is not only better in resolution (sure it is), e.g. shadow detail is exceptional in comparison, H3DII-31 files scale up beautifully. For me the Hassy is a different tool and will be so even when I probably add a D3x. The most important differences I see in favor of the D3(x) are handling, fun of usage (ergonomics), high ISO capabilities and flexibility of the whole system. Have you ever shot a H3DII on your own subjects and had a look at the quality?
thas the thing i cant get hold of one and see what I feel....im going by what people in forums feel....I took some test shots with a D3x yesterday actually.....feels and handles like a D3 as expected and the files are clean in Capture NX2 as expected.....shot with a 24-70mm 2.8 Nikkor.....the issue will be can I live with stepping back in time to usign a camera slower and how big i want to print up in the end....i know it.....plus the price difference of course
-
I went through this exact process a few months ago and ended up with a D3x. I'm VERY happy with its resolution, dynamic range and tonal range (which are big jumps over other DSLRs I've used - my subjective results from looking at prints match the DxOmark tests pretty well). I wasn't able to get test shots of the same subject from the D3x and the H3DII/31, but I looked at big prints from the Hasselblad, and am now making big prints from the D3x that stand up darned well. From what I've seen, the D3x (especially if treated like a MF camera - tripod, low ISO, etc...) puts a big dent in the rationale for lower-end MF. It doesn't dent the rationale for the H3DII/50 and above at all (those cameras will still have much more detail, due to the huge jump in resolution), but you need to decide whether you need all that resolution? I can print 24x36 inches from the D3x, and have it look awfully good, even from 8 inches away. If you own (or will buy) a 44 inch printer, and intend to regularly make prints over 24x36, consider the H3DII/50 or 60 strongly (compare them with the D3x at your largest print size). Otherwise, the D3x has a lot of advantages, ranging from being less than half the price to its AF, handling and ruggedness.
-Dan
-
Hi there....I'm debating (big time) whether to get a 2nd hand Hasselblad H3D-31 and 50-110mm lens or a Nikon full-frame (either D700, D3 or D3x as I have access to good prices) to supplement the Nikon D300 Im not getting rid of.
For what is is worth, I just found this post that might be of interest for you:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30695991 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30695991)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For what is is worth, I just found this post that might be of interest for you:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30695991 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30695991)
Cheers,
Bernard
thanks for that Bernard, appreciate it.....so....more time with the D3x....any more conclusions??????
-
thanks for that Bernard, appreciate it.....so....more time with the D3x....any more conclusions??????
If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to give a look at the 100% sample linked below (click on "all sizes" on top of the image, then select the "original" size on the right):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3198276391/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3198276391/)
This was shot with a Zeiss ZF 100mm f2.0... handheld...
- Very close pixel level detail and shaprness compared to backs
- Near total lack of moire
- Clean shadows and good DR (C1 is the best converter from this standpoint)
- More DoF when needed/Less DoF when needed
On top of that, what I could confirm is:
- Great battery life in cold weather - I got 850 shots from one battery shooting 10 hours in a row at temperatures going from -15C to -7C while using MLU on most shots and doing a lot of image checking (not no all images though since I was shooting panos with no detailed check on all the images in a given pano series).
- Same overall performance as the D3 for AF,...
On the downside:
- The D3 is IMHO a ISO100 camera. The backs are the same, but you get a lot less image quality when raising the ISO. This being said the gap between the D3x and MFDBs probably increases as the ISO goes up,
- Critical focus is difficult to achieve with MF wider lenses without life view
- I don't like Nikon's implementation of life view since it is not possible to combine it elegantly with MLU -> I end up switching back and forth between life view and MLU modes.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
- The D3 is IMHO a ISO100 camera. The backs are the same, but you get a lot less image quality when raising the ISO. This being said the gap between the D3x and MFDBs probably increases as the ISO goes up,
- Critical focus is difficult to achieve with MF wider lenses without life view
- I don't like Nikon's implementation of life view since it is not possible to combine it elegantly with MLU -> I end up switching back and forth between life view and MLU modes.
Cheers,
Bernard
thanks for that Bernard....you're a gem.....but can you explain one things a sec.....The backs are the same, but you get a lot less image quality when raising the ISO. This being said the gap between the D3x and MFDBs probably increases as the ISO goes up.......less quality from the Nikon when you raise the ISO or the backs? and what gap? the Nikon is better as the ISO goes up???????????
i also dislike the Live View implementation as i take it still the same on D3x as other Nikonz
-
Both qualities go down as the ISO goes up (the Nikon goes from extraordinary at ISO 100 to merely very good at ISO 400-800), but the back might lose more. Another difference to note that influenced my choice of the D3x is that the Hasselblad EATS batteries - most folks say that they get 200? shots from one of the $250 battery grips before having to recharge it. The D3x gets about 1000 out of a $119 battery, even in the Vermont winter. I own 2 D3x batteries (and one charger, which can hold two batteries), but would have had to buy and carry 4-6 bulkier Hasselblad batteries, along with multiple chargers (the Hasselblad charger is only a single-battery device).
-Dan
-
Both qualities go down as the ISO goes up (the Nikon goes from extraordinary at ISO 100 to merely very good at ISO 400-800), but the back might lose more.
Thanks Dan.
Yes, that's what I meant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Having read this post and the other you've got going about strobes, I have to ask, Why do you want to shoot medium format?
If you want to travel light and get great AF, then small format is clearly the winner. MF is slow, heavy, the AF sucks and high iso sucks. The main reason I shoot MF is because the H1 gives me a high sync speed. I also like the MF "look," but I don't need it to create great images.
I use MF in controlled situations (like fashion shoots). I don't use it during weddings or even family portraits because it's just too slow. I wouldn't use it for anything where there's movement or action because there's too many shots that will be missed. If you don't have a full frame small format camera, I'd get one and see how you like it. They're dirt cheap compared to even a used MFDB kit. If you still feel like you need more, then you can look at a used kit plus you'll have a decent backup.
John
-
I cant comment on the Hassy but on the Hy6 and while I rella like the Hy6 system the AF is just not comparable to a 35mm camera like the D3.
Compared to some other posters I do quit often use non center AF points when shooting with the D3, and find this extremly usefull to for example focus constantly on the eye (which is not in the center) instead of having to focus recompose-focus etc etc specially if the subject is moving.
On the other side the big and bright viewfinder of the Hy6 makes it much easier to manual focus.
SO far I think that if its about maximun IQ use MF, if its about maximum speed and flexibility 35mm DSLR. IMO there is not yet a solution which offfers the optimum of both-speed and image quality
-
SO far I think that if its about maximun IQ use MF, if its about maximum speed and flexibility 35mm DSLR. IMO there is not yet a solution which offfers the optimum of both-speed and image quality
My view is a bit different:
- Max IQ from single frame -> MF
- Max IQ based on stitching -> 35 mm
Cheers,
Bernard
-
- Max IQ from single frame -> MF
- Max IQ based on stitching -> 35 mm
What would you call 'stitched MF shots' then?