Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Niels Van Iperen on December 28, 2009, 06:45:47 pm
-
After posting on one of the forums about this a while ago I finally got around to posting some of the results of the test for people interested.
Complete results of the test (with RAW files) can be found at http://niels.com/tests/phase-vs-hasselblad.html (http://niels.com/tests/phase-vs-hasselblad.html)
A short summary:
We did a test setup where we put a Phase One P65+ and a Hasselblad 50MS side by side. Various medium format photographers were invited and their observations are noted below.
Cameras used:
Phase One P65+ on Phase One (Mamiya 645) body with Mamiya 80mm f/2.8 lens (Dalsa 60MP sensor)
Hasselblad H3DII-50MS with Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 lens (Kodak 50MP sensor used in single and multishot mode)
Setup: (see attachment total.jpg)
Shots were taken at 1/125s - f/22. Phase One photos were processed with Capture One Pro 5.0.1, Hasselblad photos with Phocus 2.0.
Gray balance was applied to the neutral gray on the test chart in the photo, all other settings (sharpen, saturation, etc) were on zero or switched off in both programs.
Observations while shooting were that the viewfinder of the Phase One camera shows a very small picture compared to the Hasselblad H3DII, it feels like looking through a 35mm camera and it is difficult to focus. Also, autofocus on the Phase is slower and can't be intervened.
Flash sync on the Mamiya does not go up from 1/125s where Hasselblad goes to 1/800s. However Phase One has promised this will change.
The display on the Phase One back is tiny. As far as design goes, most people liked the Hasselblad better, although the MS is heavier because of the Multishot mechanism.
Observing the images there were quite a lot of differences:
Sharpness: The Hasselblad lens is a little sharper than the Mamiya, but the difference is not that big. There is however a huge difference from the Single Shot to the Multishot file, almost as big as when comparing 35mm to medium format.
Noise: The Dalsa (Phase) sensor produces quite a lot of noise compared to the Kodak (Hasselblad), especially in dark colors.
Dynamic range: Especially in the highlights the Phase loses detail before the HB does, even in single shot mode. Again, multishot makes a big difference.
Color: The Kodak sensor produces more saturated colors, although the difference is not so big. Color interpretation is quite different.
Tones: Gradients on the HB are much more subtle, Phase makes 'jumps' on gradients where HB tonality is more continuous.
Sensitivity: The Phase was about a third stop lighter than the Hasselblad, both at ISO 50 and f/22.
High ISO: Phase's ISO+ makes a huge improvement at ISO 800, where it leaves HB in the dust. Higher ISO speeds are such bad quality that they are basically obsolete. At speeds of ISO 50-200 Phase is noisier, at ISO 400 they are just about the same.
Our main conclusion was that the optical difference is not the bottleneck of the performance in medium format (as it is in 35mm), it is still the sensor. Not the number of pixels, but the way they are interpreted. The Multishot files show a degree of color accuracy and sharpness that a single shot sensor (any single shot sensor) does not even get close to. Too bad for those of us who like to shoot subjects that move...
~Niels
-
Thanks for sharing - quite interesting!
May I ask why you shot at f22 (diffraction...)?
-
Niels:
Can you please note which version Mamiya camera and which version Mamiya lens you used?
Will you have raw files available for download?
You are the Hasselblad distributor for Columbia, is this correct?
Thank you,
Steve Hendrix
-
Interesting test, but I question the conclusions.
At 1/125 unless you used sandbags, mirror lock and an optical bench, I would bet the P65+ vs Hassey 50 would swing in P65+ favor (say with Contax lenses, and mirror lock, or on Hassey V with a comparable lens)
I am NOT saying that Zeiss lenses are better than Mamyia older (but I'll bet they are!) but that you are at a range of size where ANY softness of lens and ANY movement will destroy sensor differences.
The multishot is also a 50-200MP (you pick it) Foveon claims 3x resolution (ludicrous) I would rather claim any Bayer sensor needs to be discounted by 20-40% depending on color.
So your P65+ is a 40MP? and the hassey is 30MP say? and the MS is a true 50MP?
The multishot advantage, seems clear, and even 4 shots gets you "coherent processing" that will
effectively look sharper and have more detail. No .argument there
However, at 100% I think what you have shown is that the Phamyia at 1/125 is not going to hack it with a 60MP back.
I doubt that the P65+ is less detailed than the 50MP Bayer Kodak on Hassey, which the images SEEM to show.
But, I have been know to be wrong.
Just want to offer an alternative explanation for what you see.
regards
Victor
-
May I ask why you shot at f22 (diffraction...)?
Simply because we did not want the focus to be influenced by depth-of-field issues - we were not really testing lenses, and both have the same disadvantage at f/22.
-
Simply because we did not want the focus to be influenced by depth-of-field issues - we were not really testing lenses, and both have the same disadvantage at f/22.
but the advantage of mulit shot would be less obvious at f8, no?
-
Can you please note which version Mamiya camera and which version Mamiya lens you used?
Will you have raw files available for download?
You are the Hasselblad distributor for Colombia, is this correct?
Hi Steve,
The test was performed with the 645AF with the standard 80mm f/2.8 Mamiya lens - as far as I am aware the 'standard package' of the P65+.
Raw files are available at http://niels.com/tests/phase-vs-hasselblad.html (http://niels.com/tests/phase-vs-hasselblad.html)
And yes, you are correct, we distribute Hasselblad and Profoto in Colombia. The reason we had the opportunity to do the test was that we had a trade-in P65+ in the shop for a couple of days which gave us the opportunity to invite some local photo freaks and do some experimenting ;-)
Thanks,
Niels
-
but the advantage of mulit shot would be less obvious at f8, no?
No, it's same at any f/stop. The difference is that the Multishot makes 4 exposures (R/G/B/G), but it does so at the same diafragm.
-
At 1/125 unless you used sandbags, mirror lock and an optical bench, I would bet the P65+ vs Hassey 50 would swing in P65+ favor
I doubt that the P65+ is less detailed than the 50MP Bayer Kodak on Hassey, which the images SEEM to show.
With both cameras at 1/125 they both would have the same disadvantage (camera shake). However the shortness of the duration of the flash eliminates this issue.
-
Hi Steve,
The test was performed with the 645AF with the standard 80mm f/2.8 Mamiya lens - as far as I am aware the 'standard package' of the P65+.
Raw files are available at http://niels.com/tests/phase-vs-hasselblad.html (http://niels.com/tests/phase-vs-hasselblad.html)
And yes, you are correct, we distribute Hasselblad and Profoto in Colombia. The reason we had the opportunity to do the test was that we had a trade-in P65+ in the shop for a couple of days which gave us the opportunity to invite some local photo freaks and do some experimenting ;-)
Thanks,
Niels
Niels:
Thank you for posting the raw files.
Steve Hendrix
-
Niels:
I've tried downloading the Hasselblad single shot file and it only downloads a 9MB file that seems corrupted or will not unzip?
Steve Hendrix
-
Niels:
Thank you for posting the raw files.
Steve Hendrix
I'd like to hear any additional findings you might have. I am not trying to do a HB promo, just interested in a clear comparison...
-
Hmm, I don't quite get what is the purpose of such test? It's not a comparison of two digital backs since different bodies/lenses were used for both backs and it's not a comparison of cameras since different backs were used, so uhm.. what is the purpose? hasselblad kit vs phamiya P65+ kit? And if so, then why the topic is called "Phase one P65+ vs Hasselblad 50MS"? Shouldn't it be more like Phamiya P65+ vs Hasselblad 50MS? It's definitely not a digital back test. I'm confused.. And as someone smart once said- if you don't know what something is about, it's about money In my humble opinion dealers and people associated in any way with producers of the equipment shouldn't be running such tests because it's always biased. There's always a catch, there's always a manipulation.. sigh
And it's quite interesting that your only 'observations' are related to mamiya's deficiencies and disadvantages.
I'm not biased, I want a system which delivers and is relevant to what I want to do so I don't care about the brand, but I don't like to read stuff like that from people related to any company about products of a different company. Even if you're connection to HB is insignificant.. Hopefully there are HB-related guys here which you can give credit.
-
There's always a catch, there's always a manipulation.. sigh
The cameras were side-by-side, I posted the RAW files, about 15 photographers (many of whom are Phase users) did their own testing. It is very difficult for someone not in the industry to get their hands on these 2 cameras, that's why I thought it would be a valid thing to share...
-
It is very interesting to see what a multi shot back can do... even if I can't use it.
Looking at those file, I have hard time to understand Phase One price point for their P65+ compare to the H3DII-50.
-
what is the purpose? hasselblad kit vs phamiya P65+ kit? And if so, then why the topic is called "Phase one P65+ vs Hasselblad 50MS"? Shouldn't it be more like Phamiya P65+ vs Hasselblad 50MS?
I think it is merely a comparison between two top digital camera systems, both bundled as a set, the Hasselblad with the Hasselblad H3DII camera and the Phase One with the Phase One 645AF camera.
-
Whilst I would expect a multi-shot back to yield better colors as well as being sharper, I believe the P65+ shots were not in perfect focus, probably due to AF inaccuracy of the body. Furthermore, at f/22 diffraction is a problem. Still, thanks for sharing your efforts.
-
Thank you for posting this
BTW I also can't download/open the file for the single shot H3D2-50
thanks
am
-
Useless test at F22.
There would be major diffraction happening.
Why not test at F11?
-
Useless test at F22.
There would be major diffraction happening.
Why not test at F11?
I agree this test is useless at f22. The diffraction limit is around f8 for these digital backs with small pixel size.
-
Why is it so hard for people to understand any multishotcamera, even a Hasselblad 384 16Mp or an Eyelike22 precission will outperform any oneshot back even a P65+ when it comes to pure quality. Nowedays you can buy MS back's for ridiculous prices, and for non moving, still life, reproduction every MS back will beat any other back.
-
Why is it so hard for people to understand any multishotcamera, even a Hasselblad 384 16Mp or an Eyelike22 precission will outperform any oneshot back even a P65+ when it comes to pure quality. Nowedays you can buy MS back's for ridiculous prices, and for non moving, still life, reproduction every MS back will beat any other back.
Raf's right. Multishot can be really impressive - even more so than the test shots posted here. To me the crops of the phase p65 looked to be not taken at the apex of focus and probably that back/camera combo could look better, but also the multishot samples could also show better too.
-
Simply because we did not want the focus to be influenced by depth-of-field issues - we were not really testing lenses, and both have the same disadvantage at f/22.
Not necessarily. Lenses act very differently at small apertures. Since there are many confounding factors here, the only sensible thing to do would have been to find the sweet spot for both systems, probably f/8 or so, and then shoot them that way. That would have at least matched what people do in the real world.
The way it was done it is not known whether the apparent superior resolution of the Hasselblad is due to a lens or sensor issue. The only remaining valid conclusions are about noise and colour. The slight extra noise of the Phase at low ISO is not an issue, I would think, but the better ISO 800 of the Phase is a huge difference. ISO 1600 and up look useless, but I suppose there is Sensor+.
Speaking of colour, what is going on in the shadow of the orange on the Phase P65+? There is a strange red cast and some posterization there. I don't have Capture One to examine the raw.
-
I read this. And it's correct. Mamiya lenses are not so good. I use both P65+ and H3DII 50 but P65+ with hasselblad body. It's true Hasselblad is better in 50-200 iso range. But it was design to work in the studio where we use 50-100 ISO.
Ok Phase is better in 400-800 but when we use sensor plus. But in this situation we get only 15mpix files. In my opinion it;s better to buy Nikon d3s if you want use higher iso. It's cheap and more useable.
Multishot camera are always better then single shot.
In my opinion Hasselblad is much much better than Phase, Because they have whole system. Working system. Sorry to said that but Phase One camera have still "children syndrom"
Best regards,
Design Freak
-
f22 isn´t useless. At least it is not for me.
It is much to often the only way to go with medium format studio photography.
-
f22 isn´t useless. At least it is not for me.
It is much to often the only way to go with medium format studio photography.
Right, but it is not the right place to compare resolution, since lenses differ in their diffraction.
-
A short summary:
We did a test setup where we put a Phase One P65+ and a Hasselblad 50MS side by side. Various medium format photographers were invited and their observations are noted below.
~Niels
One relevant question is ...
¿Will the H4D-60 be like the P65+ if it uses the same Dalsa sensor?
-
When choosing between single-shot and multi-shot solutions, the workflow, for some, weighs more than the absolute result:
File size: For a given output size, a RAW file from multi-shot weighs 4-6 times more than a single-shot file, takes 4 times longer to capture and 2-3 times longer to process. If you do repro work and capture 20 originals per day, this typically means 100 GB extra storage space per month, only for the selected RAW files.
Shutters and lights wear: Not necessarily a big issue but is worth mentioning.
In the linked samples, I have to say that the multi-shot 50MP images ARE NOT 5 times better than the single shot 60MP ones, if at all...
Perhaps at f11 we would be able to see a bigger difference, perhaps not...
-
Useless test at F22.
There would be major diffraction happening.
Why not test at F11?
+1
-
To state it is totally useless at f22 is going to far IMO. It is a pity it was not done at f11 which would have made more sense (including making sure there is proper focus). It is nice to see a comparison, thank you for that!
Every comparison can be made just so that one of the contestants shines and stands out. In this situation the multishot back isn't even used where it would have totally wiped the floor with both single shots cameras. If you would have a lot of fabric, garments in the composition the difference would have been much more dramatic. The differences between single and multishot can be dramatic but used on certain materials it can also be much less. Honestly, when I shoot multishot for several days I feel single shot delivers blurry and shitty results. Fortunately this will fade away after days of single shot shooting.
Yair is right. Multishot doesn't always fit in someones workflow. It cannot be used always. If it can and you are willing to take the extra effort it will reward you with stunning results.
Comparing P1/Hasselblad (or Leaf for that matter) in single shot mode, for me that is becoming kind of futile at the moment. I am pretty sure I can get the results I want with either one. A bit like the Canon vs Nikon story. Yes one might be better in this and the other in that but all in all in general I would not give a damn.
I am happy sofar with Hasselblad. My only gripe is the dreaded dealer system which is something I have always been complaining about, even when I was still working with Leaf. There are simply too many of them that underperform and are mere obstacles for which we even have to pay! I will applaud for the first of the manufacturers that comes with a factory delivered system and with all communications directly with the company.
-
Every comparison can be made just so that one of the contestants shines and stands out.
yes, seems so: http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/comparisons/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/comparisons/)
-
Nils - Thanks for the test and the post.
I can't tell you how many calls we get and have to tell people to open up, turn down their power packs or adjust their shutter speed. It's good to see some people know this. So he shot at 22, both were done at 22. I'm sure you guys can do your own test at the parameters of your choosing, as dealers we would all be happy to help you do a test of your own.
I think the test with the supplied "kit" bodies is reasonable. They each put their name on a body and sell systems as a "kit" so why not test as is. Any differences might show why one system is better to choose over another for a individual user. If the outcome shows that the Hasselblad H3D - H4D system is better then it might also show someone was right when they developed a new "system" where they could provide better quality. However you need to test and see for yourself and actually see what is the best "fit" for what you do.
Since we are providing full disclosure, I have worked for a dealer in NYC for the last 12 years and 7 years with Sinar Bron before that. We sell Hasselblad, Leaf, Leica, Sinar, Canon, Nikon, and waiting the addition of Phase to our rental department.
Best,
Rich Andres
Foto Care
NY, NY
-
"I am happy sofar with Hasselblad. My only gripe is the dreaded dealer system which is something I have always been complaining about, even when I was still working with Leaf. There are simply too many of them that underperform and are mere obstacles for which we even have to pay! I will applaud for the first of the manufacturers that comes with a factory delivered system and with all communications directly with the company.
[/quote]"
Dustbak I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a dealer.
I guess you have never worked with Phase One or tried getting support from them directly? It's all about the support you get from the dealer.
It's too bad you're not from the US, for here in the states there are many dealers who provide the local support and sometimes even a loaner system when you can't resolve the problem on set with your back. Name a manufacture that can do that for you. As an example John Williams at Hot Shots?in Atlanta for Hasselblad, Dave, Steve, & Doug at Capture Integration in Atlanta for Phase, John Popp at Dodds in Ohio/Chicago -supports all systems, Foto Care in NYC. There's also Niels in Columbia who started this post, and Ben at Peartree in the UK. I apologize to any dealer not mentioned who takes taking care of the customer their number one priority.
Rich Andres
-
"I am happy sofar with Hasselblad. My only gripe is the dreaded dealer system which is something I have always been complaining about, even when I was still working with Leaf. There are simply too many of them that underperform and are mere obstacles for which we even have to pay! I will applaud for the first of the manufacturers that comes with a factory delivered system and with all communications directly with the company.
"
Dustbak I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a dealer.
I guess you have never worked with Phase One or tried getting support from them directly? It's all about the support you get from the dealer.
It's too bad you're not from the US, for here in the states there are many dealers who provide the local support and sometimes even a loaner system when you can't resolve the problem on set with your back. Name a manufacture that can do that for you. As an example John Williams at Hot Shots?in Atlanta for Hasselblad, Dave, Steve, & Doug at Capture Integration in Atlanta for Phase, John Popp at Dodds in Ohio/Chicago -supports all systems, Foto Care in NYC. There's also Niels in Columbia who started this post, and Ben at Peartree in the UK. I apologize to any dealer not mentioned who takes taking care of the customer their number one priority.
Rich Andres
Sure Rich,
I understand you. I have not had a bad experience with a dealer. I have had nothing but bad experiences, they have been utterly useless for me. The only dealer that was usefull went bankrupt last year. The others either never respond to the simplest of questions, feel too good to return requests for quotes, take forever to get stuff that you have ordered, don't even get back to you when you ask for their banking details to transfer money. Dealers only respond once you are in front of them in person which is not what I prefer because it takes up my time and in 90% of the cases they need to order what I want anyway. I never need a loaner since I own and use 2 of everything. Repairs go to the manufacturer directly if I cannot fix it. I know more about the software and many of the other things of the system I use than the dealer.
The only helpful dealers I have found besides DigiCare were located in the US.
My experience with the people at both Leaf as well as Hasselblad were totally different. I have never waited longer than a day for an answer on any question I placed at either one of these companies, in many cases I got problems resolved and answers received in a couple of hours.
I have to work very hard to make my living. My margins are thin, I get very frustrated when there is something in between the chain that is, at least in my experience, nothing but an obstacle and certainly of no use to me.
-
I agree this test is useless at f22. The diffraction limit is around f8 for these digital backs with small pixel size.
IMHO a Multi Shot camera is not very useful for a portrait photographer. It is directed exclusively to product photographers. Product photographers will be shooting much more often in the 16-32 range than in the 5.6-11 range. So it is relevant that a system performs well at f/22.
-
I believe the P65+ shots were not in perfect focus, probably due to AF inaccuracy of the body.
Various photographers tried to get a better result, both in MF and AF modes. Nobody got a sharper picture. One of them actually checked whether I had smudged the lens or the sensor ;-)
-
The Multishot files show a degree of color accuracy and sharpness that a single shot sensor (any single shot sensor) does not even get close to. Too bad for those of us who like to shoot subjects that move...
I am "killing myself" to repeat these since ages.
Even when taking "only" a 22 MPx sensor for the multi vs single shot comparison, still none of any available single shot back would come close to it. It doesn't need a 50 MPx back.
Thierry
-
but the advantage of mulit shot would be less obvious at f8, no?
Not so, in the contrary.
Thierry
-
Not so, in the contrary.
okay, thanks!
I only thought the difference from sharp to uber-sharp is less obvious than from soft to sharp (like in the samples above) ...
-
File size: For a given output size, a RAW file from multi-shot weighs 4-6 times more than a single-shot file, takes 4 times longer to capture and 2-3 times longer to process.
A Sinar multishot files takes (much) less to process (to open) than a single shot one, simply because ALL the information is there, true colour information and it therefore DOES NOT need to be extrapolated in the develop process. It might be a 4 times heavier file, but that does only influence the capture process/time.
Thierry
-
okay, thanks!
I only thought the difference from sharp to uber-sharp is less obvious than from soft to sharp (like in the samples above) ...
may be, BUT: the difference WITHIN the sharp zone or in the DoF is more obvious, and that's what counts, since multishot photographers are mainly studio/products/stills photographers often using view cameras to define and choose their sharpness plane at the right place (where it imports to be sharp), and when you can have more details and true colours there it is a win situation.
Am not selling multishot vs single, and Yair is absolutely right, the workflow and the use of such multishot backs is very different.
Thierry
-
Worth noting that in these samples the extra 10.5MP on the P65+ were used for capturing the black cloth on the left, mostly...
Moving the camera closer to the scene to get the exact same frame might have changed things, or not...
-
I've now successfully downloaded all of the files - thank you Niels.
After running the H3D-50MS single shot raw file through Phocus 2.0 and the P65+ raw file through Capture One 5.1 at complete default (just import, process as 8 bit tiff), the results appear quite different than the post you attached earlier Niels, and appears much more like what I would expect to see from these two products at those settings having sold each.
The same files that you posted appear to have some sharpening added to the Hasselblad file and some softening added to the Phase One file. Not saying how, just saying that is what my educated eye sees.
Otherwise, the lack of highlight detail in the P65+ in comparison to the H3D-50MS is obviously due to the default tone curve of Capture One, which has more contrast than the Phocus default curve.
-
I've now successfully downloaded all of the files - thank you Niels.
After running the H3D-50MS single shot raw file through Phocus 2.0 and the P65+ raw file through Capture One 5.1 at complete default (just import, process as 8 bit tiff), the results appear quite different than the post you attached earlier Niels, and appears much more like what I would expect to see from these two products at those settings having sold each.
The same files that you posted appear to have some sharpening added to the Hasselblad file and some softening added to the Phase One file. Not saying how, just saying that is what my educated eye sees.
Otherwise, the lack of highlight detail in the P65+ in comparison to the H3D-50MS is obviously due to the default tone curve of Capture One, which has more contrast than the Phocus default curve.
Steve,
Did you spend a lot of time with phase files in little with H3D-50?
or can I believe in any sale person, the they will do the best for the customer no just for the sale?
or this is like a car dealer, my car is better because I can give you the tire lock, first oil change in so on?
-
There still looks to be a little posterization in the apple on the P65+. Less evident on the Hasselblad. I think it's just all splitting hairs nowadays.
I've looked at a lot of files from the top Sony, Canon, Nikon DSLRs and after a while I say, who cares, any of the current crop of pro cameras make superb files. It's just the user's job to make superb photographs.
Anecdotally, I would buy the Hasselblad if I needed and/or could afford the system. It's less cost and appears to 'match' in quality. The Hassy 800 ISO looks usable and is really all that's needed with that size file. Otherwise a DSLR is just a wiser choice, low light necessitates a better AF system anyway.
All these companies need to start selling this gear with other methods than resolution. Those days are gone. Workflow is where it is now and unless shooting a MFDB is as easy as using a 5DII in every aspect, I have no desire to re-enter the realm. I'll watch from the sidelines and do my thang.
I agree with regard to tests, John. I think the P65+ was a first step towards addressing workflow by offering the ability to reduce resolution while utilizing the same full 645 sensor size (which has been asked for repeatedly in the past, larger sensor, less resolution) while also offering a 2 stop sensitivity advantage over other large sensors. The funny thing I hear is photographers asking for higher ISO with medium format, then when it is delivered, saying they don't need it because of their DSLR. And I understand higher ISO is a small step, and more usability in the vein of 35mm DSLR is desired, and I believe medium format will continue to work towards that.
FYI - the H3D-50 does cost less than the P65+ (and a P45+ costs less than the H3D-50), but the P65+ decked out with a DF camera and Schneider 80mm LS lens costs exactly the same as the proposed price for the H4D-60. There is not less cost with a Hasselblad system.
Steve Hendrix
-
Steve,
Did you spend a lot of time with phase files in little with H3D-50?
or can I believe in any sale person, the they will do the best for the customer no just for the sale?
or this is like a car dealer, my car is better because I can give you the tire lock, first oil change in so on?
Blas:
I don't blame anyone being skeptical of a dealer one bit.
On the other hand, there are few users who have the amount of experience with comparative products, and especially as they have developed over generations.
I have over 10 years experience with Hasselblad/Imacon products and software, including early versions of Flexcolor, 6 megabyte Carnival backs through Phocus and H3DII camera systems.
The two raw files I downloaded were imported through Phocus 2.0 and C1 5.01 and exported as tiff. No adjustments made whatsoever. And those are the results I got. Clearly the results that were posted had been adjusted in some way, in Haselblad's favor, for some reason...
But the files are still there, and you can download yourself and see the same thing I did.
Providing the raws is one way of (at least a little) keeping things honest.
Steve Hendrix
-
Steve,
Did you spend a lot of time with phase files in little with H3D-50?
or can I believe in any sale person, the they will do the best for the customer no just for the sale?
or this is like a car dealer, my car is better because I can give you the tire lock, first oil change in so on?
What I would personally like to see is each dealer develop the photos from their own camera, and post them against each other, with directions of how the results were achieved and the raw files. Then we could expect to see the best each system is capable of.
-
The two raw files I downloaded were imported through Phocus 2.0 and C1 5.01 and exported as tiff. No adjustments made whatsoever. And those are the results I got. Clearly the results that were posted had been adjusted in some way, in Haselblad's favor, for some reason...
finally I just download the P65+ file and want to confirm that. My result with defaults look the same as Steve's.
And @ John-S - there is absolutely no posterization in the apple. That's just clipping in the sRGB color space and/or on the Monitor color space (even on my wide gamut display). The actual file has absolutely clean and smooth transitions in all the 3 color chanels.
Those "comparisions" leave an unpleasant aftertase...
-
There still looks to be a little posterization in the apple on the P65+.
Agree with tho_mas: I see zero posterization in the raw files of either the Hassy or Phase.
Doug
-
I didn't want to cause an argument which would be of no value to anyone so I didn't write it earlier but my first impression when I read the post was that the author of this 'test' was out of line making subjective remarks about competition's product (not to mention little word game here and there which I detest- for instance the name of the topic which suggests that it's digital back test, not camera systems test). And running such test can only be done by someone who has a profound knowledge of both products (with some personal experience), so that such things like these faulty results don't occur. That is if the person running the test intentions are to be fair and square about it and provide unbiased, objective results..
-
The two raw files I downloaded were imported through Phocus 2.0 and C1 5.01 and exported as tiff. No adjustments made whatsoever. And those are the results I got. Clearly the results that were posted had been adjusted in some way, in Haselblad's favor, for some reason...
I have a lot of experience with Phocus, none with Capture One. Just installed it, put everything in zeros, and that's the result I got. Is there a way to export your settings in Capture One to prove it? In Phocus, all adjustments were on zeros (including sharpen). Only lens corrections were on in both cases because they are an integral part of the system. No focus adjustments in favor of Hasselblad, no soft focus filter for Phase...
Several Phase photographers did their own testing, and nobody noticed anything 'funny' about the software settings...
I do not know how your Phocus file got a grey-blueish cast in the highlights. Never seen that before... Here's a snapshot of what my settings looked like. Show me yours?
-
I have a lot of experience with Phocus, none with Capture One. Just installed it, put everything in zeros, and that's the result I got. Is there a way to export your settings in Capture One to prove it? In Phocus, all adjustments were on zeros (including sharpen). Only lens corrections were on in both cases because they are an integral part of the system. No focus adjustments in favor of Hasselblad, no soft focus filter for Phase...
Several Phase photographers did their own testing, and nobody noticed anything 'funny' about the software settings...
I do not know how your Phocus file got a grey-blueish cast in the highlights. Never seen that before... Here's a snapshot of what my settings looked like. Show me yours?
Neils:
There's no way to practically show all settings as screen shots in Capture One and it wouldn't prove anything. I have to say that I did actually click a grey patch with the white balance tool, because the file came into Capture One blue (perhaps it was set to the wrong white balance to begin with?). I didn't make any white balance adjustment to the Hasselblad file because it already appeared balanced.
I can tell you Niels that the files as I presented them are the expected quality from these two products. I know both products extremely well. Hasselblad files are known for coming in more linear looking than Phase One files. This is due to how each program handles defaults, they do so very differently, and either case has its advocates.
But the default look of each file is indicative not just of what these two individual digital backs produce, but in fact for what Hasselblad and Phase One digital backs in general produce on default with each of their own applications. If you had said these were files from a P45+ and an H3DII-39 or a P30+ and an H3DII-31 I would have assumed the same discrepancy had occurred.
The files that you posted did not look to me like what I would expect to see from these products at their default, based on my (very vaild if I do say so) experience. That is why I was interested in looking at the raw files myself.
Steve Hendrix
-
I have no horse in the race, so see or don't see what you want.
But the sample Steve shows clearly presents less subtle color gradients in the P65+ apple than the Hasselblad. I called that posterization because that is what it looks like, as if the tones are skipping shades whereas the Hassy doesn't.
yes. Because the P65+ has higher saturated colors in these gradiants - and they are clipped by the color profile of Steve's screenshot (~sRGB).
Now if we judge about $$$$$ equipment based laptop (or iMac) screenshots then there's something wrong....
-
I must say the file from p65+ look very poor, nothing like what is should be,and, hasseblad files look like what is should be.
I had p25 and p45+ the files from then look much better then the one neils, posted.
Untruthful, post can give bad taste to anyone.
People accused Michael Reichmann, of being untruthful, when it's come hasselblad and be an favor of phase one, but maybe I have problem with my eyes reading it, because I didn't see it yet.
Now we have this post about p65+ to me, this is delivered, to get customer for hasselblad.
I like phase one( I don't have it anymore) but I love hasselblad, special the customer service.
I only hear go things about Steve and Doug, and if I ever go back to phase, I will be contacting then.
Steve, I ask you, because sale person(sometimes) do things just to make the others look bad, in I was thinking you posted the file of p65+ after you work in it and want to
make shore neils get nail. now the I download it my self I can see i was wrong asking you that.
from the minutes I saw the file of phase didn't look ok to me.
Sorry Neils, I got bad taste about you now, maybe you don't care about it but I do.(i'm a hasseblad user)
an apology from you, for non be truthful about working with one file in not the other will be accepted, we all make a mistake in our life.
Happy new year to all
-
this is a funny thread
-
I downloaded the raw files
above you were referring to Steve's image. So I thought you draw your conclusions from that screenshot.
On my monitor I see what you mean with "posterization". But still... that's just an isse of the monitor's color space (blue and green chanels are clipped... slightly). But the modulation in the file is there.
Still I agree that the Hasselblad file looks more pleasent (to my taste).
-
There's no way to practically show all settings as screen shots in Capture One and it wouldn't prove anything.
Steve,
Without wanting to make this thread into a useless DID-DID NOT discussion I would like you to take a look at this: I just repeated the Capture One Process exactly as the first time and the results came out exactly the same as in my first test. This time though I did take snapshots of all the settings in the program. Being new to the Capture One software I would like to know where the setting is that make things go wrong (I am sure that would be useful to other new users as well). So I did capture all the settings that I used - as in my previous post with Phocus - and I am very curious to the difference with your settings. Also in regard to the blue/grey cast in the HB file.
Thanks,
Niels
-
above you were referring to Steve's image. So I thought you draw your conclusions from that screenshot.
On my monitor I see what you mean with "posterization". But still... that's just an isse of the monitor's color space (blue and green chanels are clipped... slightly). But the modulation in the file is there.
Still I agree that the Hasselblad file looks more pleasent (to my taste).
I will say that this is a good subject matter (the fabric) to see issues with digital files and there are issues with both files. From the standpoint of the P65+ I would say that since it was processed with default settings in Capture One, to attain a more natural film-like look, I would choose no sharpening and reduce contrast to achieve that. This also has the effect of reducing posterization in areas where it might appear. Naturally, a more aggressive processing would enhance that in subtle gradations.
Steve Hendrix
-
Steve,
Without wanting to make this thread into a useless DID-DID NOT discussion I would like you to take a look at this: I just repeated the Capture One Process exactly as the first time and the results came out exactly the same as in my first test. This time though I did take snapshots of all the settings in the program. Being new to the Capture One software I would like to know where the setting is that make things go wrong (I am sure that would be useful to other new users as well). So I did capture all the settings that I used - as in my previous post with Phocus - and I am very curious to the difference with your settings. Also in regard to the blue/grey cast in the HB file.
Thanks,
Niels
You know, it's late, the Cavs are playing the Hawks at Phillips, Eye yi...
I don't see your sharpening tool.
I need to get to Fedex before they close, then get home, and maybe I'll try and throw up the screen shots.
But it doesn't matter Niels. I know my files are right. I don't have any idea what happened with your files and I'm not saying there was anything intentional, something is wrong with your files. But mine are right, I know they're right, and anyone familiar with Phase One and Hassleblad files and how they compare knows they're right.
Steve Hendrix
-
I will say that this is a good subject matter (the fabric) to see issues with digital files and there are issues with both files. From the standpoint of the P65+ I would say that since it was processed with default settings in Capture One, to attain a more natural film-like look, I would choose no sharpening and reduce contrast to achieve that.
I'd probably start with the "linear filmcurve" and make my own curve aftwards. I am finding the "film standard" curve quite steep.
This also has the effect of reducing posterization in areas where it might appear.
maybe. In this case if you process to AdobeRGB it will be lost. You have to process to the camera profile here and fine tune in Photoshop (or prior to processing with the Color Editor).
IMHO...
-
Phase should rethink defaults.
Note that Capture One allows you to set your own custom defaults. Not everyone's opinion on noise reduction and sharpening will be the same so this allows a large diversity of opinions to all have a fast and easy workflow using their own desired settings.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
I don't see your sharpening tool.
Steve Hendrix
Both gentlemen could be right:
Niels is developing the RAW files at setting set to 0 (zero), knowing that Hasselblad will perform better with this setup (at 0 setting there will still be a lot of processing being done behind the scenes).
Steve is processing the RAW files at default setting (not zero), knowing that Phase will perform better with this setup.
Both gentlemen being pro dealers should know exactly what they are doing.
The OP state that he does not know C1, I am not sure if I believe him:
A. This is correct info, he is btw an expert in Phocus. This is a little unfair being a dealer and publishing such a test not knowing how to get the other brand (phase) to perform. But knowing that so much is done in RAW processing that you can get any result of your liking.
B. My feeling is that he knows exactly what he is doing (not publishing the sharpening setting window). This is even worse and he will come out a little less of a gentleman.
Worth noting that in these samples the extra 10.5MP on the P65+ were used for capturing the black cloth on the left, mostly...
Moving the camera closer to the scene to get the exact same frame might have changed things, or not...
Another favor to Hasselblad by the dealer.
Simply because we did not want the focus to be influenced by depth-of-field issues - we were not really testing lenses, and both have the same disadvantage at f/22.
Perhaps, but we don’t know, lenses do perform different at small apertures.
For all we know test might have been run at different apertures, and found the Hasselblad lenses performing better at f22 and Mamyia lenses better at f11, hence publishing test shot at f22 (diffraction).
Only lens corrections were on in both cases because they are an integral part of the system. No focus adjustments in favor of Hasselblad, no soft focus filter for Phase...
Hmm, Perhaps Phocus does a better lens correcting job (and diffraction sharpening included). Interesting why this is the only setting in Phocus not at 0.
I have to say that I did actually click a grey patch with the white balance tool, because the file came into Capture One blue (perhaps it was set to the wrong white balance to begin with?). I didn't make any white balance adjustment to the Hasselblad file because it already appeared balanced.
Hmm, perhaps another "little" favor to Hasselblad from the dealer ?
--------
I think too many questions can be asked, and the more I look into the test, the less valid it seems.
This is the reason why I don’t believe in test done by dealers with an agenda.
TES
-
Note that Capture One allows you to set your own custom defaults. Not everyone's opinion on noise reduction and sharpening will be the same so this allows a large diversity of opinions to all have a fast and easy workflow using their own desired settings.
True. But a useless preset is ... useless. Why then define any preset at all?
Especially lum.NR is a detail killer par excellence (my default is lum.NR: 0 | col.NR: 12 for my DBs).
At least for someone who is new to the software - like Niels - a better preset would be useful.
-
IMHO a Multi Shot camera is not very useful for a portrait photographer. It is directed exclusively to product photographers. Product photographers will be shooting much more often in the 16-32 range than in the 5.6-11 range. So it is relevant that a system performs well at f/22.
What a stupid argument.
99% of my professionnal work is made in 4 shots and 16 shots modes. I'm allways triyng to use the best aperture for each lense, to have the best image quality. And f22 is never the best aperture ! Why would I use f22 to capture a painting ? To have less details ?
I think that the best comparative test is done with the same platform and the same lens.
PdF
-
Both gentlemen could be right:
Niels is developing the RAW files at setting set to 0 (zero), knowing that Hasselblad will perform better with this setup (at 0 setting there will still be a lot of processing being done behind the scenes).
Steve is processing the RAW files at default setting (not zero), knowing that Phase will perform better with this setup.
Both gentlemen being pro dealers should know exactly what they are doing.
The OP state that he does not know C1, I am not sure if I believe him:
A. This is correct info, he is btw an expert in Phocus. This is a little unfair being a dealer and publishing such a test not knowing how to get the other brand (phase) to perform. But knowing that so much is done in RAW processing that you can get any result of your liking.
B. My feeling is that he knows exactly what he is doing (not publishing the sharpening setting window). This is even worse and he will come out a little less of a gentleman.
Another favor to Hasselblad by the dealer.
Perhaps, but we don’t know, lenses do perform different at small apertures.
For all we know test might have been run at different apertures, and found the Hasselblad lenses performing better at f22 and Mamyia lenses better at f11, hence publishing test shot at f22 (diffraction).
Hmm, Perhaps Phocus does a better lens correcting job (and diffraction sharpening included). Interesting why this is the only setting in Phocus not at 0.
Hmm, perhaps another "little" favor to Hasselblad from the dealer ?
--------
I think too many questions can be asked, and the more I look into the test, the less valid it seems.
This is the reason why I don’t believe in test done by dealers with an agenda.
TES
TES
I don't blame you for not believing in tests done by dealers. Frankly, the only test I really recommend is the one where the buyer spends some time with the product and uses it in the way he would normally use it. A test is a very very limited-eye view of a products performance. I also agree that it is hard to imagine a dealer who produces a test of competitive products that would publish the results if the test performed showed a disadvantage to the product they sell.
But I will also say that, as a dealer, it is our charter to try and provide information about the products we sell as much as possible. We do this for our own educational purposes as well.
So tests like these should be taken with a grain of salt. It is just one very narrow look at a product's performance. We'll continue doing our own testings and in fact have discussed recently ways to improve the tests, make them more real-world and interesting, and more objective, to the extent that we can. And despite the controversy over tests, comparative tests are hugely popular with users. I wish more users could perform tests also, but when I do see end user tests, they are usually not completely knowledgable about the products as they are usually performed by non-owners.
I am going to disagree 100% regarding your assertation that I processed the files at default knowing this would favor the Phase file. In fact several have stated they prefer the Hasselblad default look. And I have to say that I did so assuming Niels was attempting default settings with both programs and I knew from looking at the files they were not at default settings. And in fact, I have to say that after re-reading Niels original post, that he did say "zero out or switched off", which is something quite different than default. I assumed he meant default when he said "zeroed out/switched off". I didn't realize that he literally meant zero out, even though he did not zero out all settings, which led to the more contrasted look of the Phase file and other inconsistencies. Now that I realize that, I would probably amend my posts to discuss what happens with Hasselblad and Phase One files at default and what happens when you zero out certain settings. That might be more useful than the tests themselves.
Steve Hendrix
-
well, I for one did not know the original poster was a dealer.
This thread likely demonstrates that the forum can be 'self policing!"
Re: multi-shot advantage: Score "1" (most seem to agree test was ok and results valid)
Re: Phase vs Hasselblad: Score "0" (most see big flaws in test, interpretation and conclusions)
But it did raise interesting comments....
-
well, I for one did not know the original poster was a dealer.
To me, it shows the desperation in the MF marketplace, that so many dealers are now on these forums. Fishing, fishing, for new customers, anywhere. If you thought it was bad here, with members sniping at each other, just wait until the dealers are the only ones reading this forum, and it's just them sniping at each other. You know that feeling when you're trying to buy a new car, and you pull into the dealership, and before you ever get out of your car, you look out your windshield and their are four different salesmen walking toward your car, all with a little drool slipping out of the corner of their mouth?
* The guy clearly should have identified himself as a distributor initially, with a vested interest in Hasselblad.
* If the guy truly knew Hasselblad, he'd know that the HC are beyond horrible at f22; in fact, f22 should not even have been included as an option on any of those HC lenses, to maintain the high quality Hasselblad reputation. And for the record, I have done the extensive testing, with my own HC lenses, so I speak from direct experience. So that's Strike Two on him.
* You had to beat it out of him, that he did not know CaptureOne. That's Strike Three right there.
Separate from this Colombian distributor, it also makes you wonder why a dealer like Capture Integration does not do their own extensive testing, side by side, with strobe on tripod at about f8 or 11, in their offices, with ALL the brands that they sell, (even including Canon). Would simply showing the truth simply be too threatening?
I agree with other multiple comments here: At this point, in 2010, it's about The Workflow. And now that I've sold off my Phase back, I just look back and wonder why I beat myself up with that Workflow, compared to the utter simplicity of DPP/EOS Utility of Canon. Yes, for landscape in low volume, the Phase back was nice, but if you're using this stuff for high-volume commerce, the 35 approach is very hard to beat. Everyone wants it tomorrow, (whether it sits on their desk for three days or not).
-
sorry,
it seems I've asked this question a bit too late....
the battle seems over already, and everyone's going home, wounded, bruised, and torn up.....
"Wouldn't the best way to test a digital back(say in this case Hassy vs P1), to put them on the SAME platform, with the SAME lens(say a m/f view camera), and shoot them the exact same way?"
to me, this seems to be the best way.... and being that you can't get the H3d/H4d to mate with a V-series body, albeit the P1 can, you can't just mount a different back, refocus, and re-shoot.
but, since I'm new to the digital arena, having been/still am a film shooter primarily, I understand what some of you are feeling in regards to WORKFLOW. I'm a photo major(i.e. still in school), and don't have a lot of money for fancy computer equipment with all the bells and whistles, YET .
but from my dealings with some smatterings of limited usage of a friend's P45+(see 8x10 vs MFDB thread), and other friends D5II's and D3x's, the file processing times are significantly shorter for the DSLR files, just due to raw file size.
I'm NOT trying to stoke the fire here any more than it already is, but wouldn't testing both backs on the SAME camera and lens be the best way to determine what does what, and what looks like what?
knowing that personal side-by-side testing is the best way to see the differences, I'm just interested right now in seeing how things REALLY would be that different in the end.
with each software left at its DEFAULT processing settings?
-Dan
-
To me, it shows the desperation in the MF marketplace, that so many dealers are now on these forums. Fishing, fishing, for new customers, anywhere. If you thought it was bad here, with members sniping at each other, just wait until the dealers are the only ones reading this forum, and it's just them sniping at each other. You know that feeling when you're trying to buy a new car, and you pull into the dealership, and before you ever get out of your car, you look out your windshield and their are four different salesmen walking toward your car, all with a little drool slipping out of the corner of their mouth?
* The guy clearly should have identified himself as a distributor initially, with a vested interest in Hasselblad.
* If the guy truly knew Hasselblad, he'd know that the HC are beyond horrible at f22; in fact, f22 should not even have been included as an option on any of those HC lenses, to maintain the high quality Hasselblad reputation. And for the record, I have done the extensive testing, with my own HC lenses, so I speak from direct experience. So that's Strike Two on him.
* You had to beat it out of him, that he did not know CaptureOne. That's Strike Three right there.
Separate from this Colombian distributor, it also makes you wonder why a dealer like Capture Integration does not do their own extensive testing, side by side, with strobe on tripod at about f8 or 11, in their offices, with ALL the brands that they sell, (even including Canon). Would simply showing the truth simply be too threatening?
I agree with other multiple comments here: At this point, in 2010, it's about The Workflow. And now that I've sold off my Phase back, I just look back and wonder why I beat myself up with that Workflow, compared to the utter simplicity of DPP/EOS Utility of Canon. Yes, for landscape in low volume, the Phase back was nice, but if you're using this stuff for high-volume commerce, the 35 approach is very hard to beat. Everyone wants it tomorrow, (whether it sits on their desk for three days or not).
I'd have to disagree with the statement that there's a desperation in the MF marketplace. I started posting to give a alternative option/opinion on a board dominated by Phase and other dealers. After 12 years working here at Foto Care I have sold more back systems this year to new customers who were either still shooting film or were shooting 35mm digital. This was partly because of the price point from the manufactures to drive business but also because of other factors. These other factors include perceived professional equipment type, quality level, software availability, etc. You will not see me posting a test here or anywhere. It is my belief that you as the photographer needs to do the test yourself in your shooting situation. I have always argued that you should test everything that is available to find the right solution for the work you're doing no matter type or brand. It's your money and your livelihood isn't it? How many types of film cameras do you own? How many different types of screw drivers, wrenches, hammers, drills, saw's, etc do you own? How many fishing poles or golf clubs do you have? It's the same scenario in digital photography, there is a correct tool for each application. You might see guys like myself as car salesmen but from what I know of guys like Steve & John from Hot Wire Digital, and other PRO dealers is that we're an asset to your business. Why do I believe this, it's from solving problems for customers, it's from helping out clients worldwide on set when they have a problem, it's from providing multiple solutions for you to test.
Sorry as I have posted earlier so what if Niels shot at 22 it was his test right or wrong. He shot with a bunch of pros who could have and possibly did ask to shoot at different apertures. You guys have different requirements and 22 sometimes is the right solution. I have often had to tell working professional photographers to open up, change power on their packs or shutter speed, and the image will be sharper. Oh don't have enough depth of field, get a view camera or tilt/shift adapter. I think it was great that Niels posted a possible alternative for someone to consider when purchasing a higher end digital back system no matter how his test was performed.
I don't think Steve or any of the other dealers or manufactures are afraid of the results of a cross platform test. It all gets back to finding the right solution for you and the best quality for you.
Rich Andres
Foto Care
41 West 21st Street
NY, NY 10010
212-741-2990
-
You guys have different requirements and 22 sometimes is the right solution.
If your job at hand calls for everything in the photograph to be slightly diffused, and nothing in focus, then certainly, f22 is clearly the best choice of fstops in the HC lens lineup.
I stand corrected.
Since you sell the gear, and since you're advising photographers, I suggest that you do the test -- it might surprise you. I know for sure that I was surprised. Just because it's got a Hasselblad logo on it doesnt mean it's tack sharp at every fstop. Diffraction is not your friend. I'll never shoot another frame with an HC lens (or most any lens) at an fstop smaller than f13 now, (unless that job is a portrait of Barbara Walters or anyone else that calls for a Softar II).
-
sorry,
it seems I've asked this question a bit too late....
the battle seems over already, and everyone's going home, wounded, bruised, and torn up.....
"Wouldn't the best way to test a digital back(say in this case Hassy vs P1), to put them on the SAME platform, with the SAME lens(say a m/f view camera), and shoot them the exact same way?"
-Dan
That was the first thing I wrote and in respone author said that it's simply a test of CAMERA SYSTEMS, ie CAMERA KITS (sic!), because in fact that's what he was testing. That's what everyone wishes for when getting a $40k back- a not top of the line version of 80mm lens. The only thing which may be insightful in this test is the single / MS shot comparison of HB shots, but that's a well known truth and you could see the samples at the hasselblad site from the moment they released their first multishot back as far as I remember.
-
If your job at hand calls for everything in the photograph to be slightly diffused, and nothing in focus, then certainly, f22 is clearly the best choice of fstops in the HC lens lineup.
I stand corrected.
Since you sell the gear, and since you're advising photographers, I suggest that you do the test -- it might surprise you. I know for sure that I was surprised. Just because it's got a Hasselblad logo on it doesnt mean it's tack sharp at every fstop. Diffraction is not your friend. I'll never shoot another frame with an HC lens (or most any lens) at an fstop smaller than f13 now, (unless that job is a portrait of Barbara Walters or anyone else that calls for a Softar II).
So I'll quote myself;
"I have often had to tell working professional photographers to open up, change power on their packs or shutter speed, and the image will be sharper."
So yes, we tested three lenses that were easy to grab, used lenses, the HC50mm, HC80mm, and HC150mm. No surprises since we advocate shooting at the sharpest f stop if possible. It was always fun when I worked at Sinar Bron showing customers what that funny little scale on the fine focusing knob was on the Sinar view cameras. Stop down to 45, 64 no watch what you get at 22 or 32. then right down the line with the other formats, people would be amazed - working pros. So yes we tested, "nothing in focus" is a strong statement, and not something I'm sorry that I would agree with. Would I advocate shooting at 22, no not necessarily, but I'm also not going to tell you what to do or criticize any one for doing so.
-
So I'll quote myself;
"I have often had to tell working professional photographers to open up, change power on their packs or shutter speed, and the image will be sharper."
Rich,
I understand now. Honestly, I didn't really know what you were talking about with that sentence; now I see that you were in fact referring to diffraction. Yes, I have been shooting thirty years, and boy did it take me back when, several months ago, I took the time to test these HC lenses. It came about because I rented a 120HC Macro on a still life job, and I shot the final file at f32. But when I ran the file, it just did not look sharp to me. I even sent the RAW to the digital tech and asked what he thought. Then I began to think about that Diffraction thing. (Yes, sometimes you DO learn something from the LabCoat Guys!) My whole life, I always thought, "Well hell, if f16 is sharp, can you imagine how sharp that f22 will be? And then imagine how much sharper that f32 will be after that?" When, in truth, the inverse is true -- once you stop down past f13, the whole file begins to fall apart dramatically.
Next, after that, I now bring up the subject of "Sensor Bloom", as the LabCoatBoys like to call it. I suggest anyone that uses a Phase back, that shoots anything on a white cove, in the studio, to really watch out for this. So yes, I guess this is me again, "attacking the precious Golden Child medium format", but if you've ever tried to retouch Sensor Bloom in post, you'll pull your hair out.
But will you ever get a Warning Letter from your "MF Dealer, who's your partner in the large investment", about watching out for Sensor Bloom? No, I doubt you will. Yet, if you show them a file, they'll say, "Yeah, that's Sensor Bloom. Don't shoot anything with hard horizontal lines against a white blown-out cyc wall". And then I think, "Wow, thanks for the warning. I'm glad you knew about this, but didn't pass it on".
I'm not bitching -- I'm just talking Real World, and Real Jobs, and Real Situations, (where your reputation is at stake). Yeah, it's Personal.
Edit: The reason I read this forum is to learn about The Bad Stuff. I know the cameras are good; all of them. But I read this forum to identify the Snakes In The Grass, that are waiting to bite me in the ass, and ruin a job. Be it Error Messages on an H body, or Mirror Slap, or Sensor Bloom, or Diffraction -- with digital, there's always a snake lying in the grass. And very seldom, if ever, (like Rainer says) will you ever hear it from one of the dealers or manufacturers. They'll gladly come on here when there's an Upgrade Special or New Model, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen them come on here and announce, say, a problem with Leaf Capture 10, or that the new Capture One is (still) crashing. You've almost got to beat it out of them, if there's anything negative (that could threaten your paying job). That's why I get mad. And like that TMARK guy said one day, I'd hate it if some young kid came on here, thinking that a new Hasselblad camera was going to change his life, or put him on the map overnight, and all he got was hype, (like that www.hassynyc.com site), and not a balanced picture of the whole equation. Because I was that kid one day, many years ago, and my money was hard-earned; I would have appeciated it if someone spoke up.
-
License to have spoken: Versed in the real world in Hasselblad 500; Hasselblad 200; Mamiya 6; Fuji 680; Phase P25, P21, P30, P45; Contax 645; H2; GraflexSuperD; Linhof; Ebony; GowlandFlex; Deardorff.
is this the table of content for the once promised animated GIF?
-
This sure seems like one of those tests where one could easily walk away with the wrong impression. If I were the original poster, I'd think about redoing the tests with more attention to focus and framing with either f/8 or f/11.
- as an aside the higher pixel count backs seem to fair much worse with the small apertures like f/22 than the older backs like the ixpress 528c or P20, p25. If you need f/22 and can't focus stack, then maybe an older back with lower pixel count would be a better option.
-
Just my 2 cents from a user of a P65 - I have some fff-files so I have a certain experience with Phocus 2 - but much more with Capture One 5.01.
Thanks for the RAW files. I have developped them and compared the areas discussed in this forum. Attached you will find my screenshots.
I think we should not mix up dynamic range and standard profiles. We can easily get all information which is seen the highlights of the fabric discussed in this thread from the P65 file. It is not visible with a standard procedure - but the information is in the file and can be recovered using the HDR-function. So it is not an issue of the back but merely of the profile/curve being used. Standard values in the Phase workflow may work better for other situations.
Sharpness/resolution is not really an issue with the P65 in this file (I am using sharpening values of 140/0.6/0.8 and NR values of 5/28) - it is very interesting however that these lenses still work rather nicely at f22 - I very rarely use them above f11...
The MS file is very clean and crisp - which was to be expected of course - but it is remarkable that the P65 gets a similar amount of details. I have developped the single shot Hassi file using both no sharpening and slight sharpening as set in the standards of Phocus 2. Both files do not get the same amount of details as the P65. And - if looking at the full frame - we deal with different measures. The P65 shows a much bigger frame of the whole scene than the others. So as for absolute resolution this is another pair of shoes as well...
The color issue of the apple reminds me of a mirroring of the green color of the chart in the background...
I would be very happy if these backs - which are on a really high level - all of them - will be compared with profound knowledge and from biased people. However if somebody wants to buy such gear, it is probably a good advise renting both equipments, try to get as much information as possible for how to use these software packages and try for himself. In the end it is also an important question what the use of the gear will be - and how you can get around with it.
Just my 2 cents - as I said in the beginning
Markus
-
Just my 2 cents from a user of a P65 - I have some fff-files so I have a certain experience with Phocus 2 - but much more with Capture One 5.01.
Thanks for the RAW files. I have developped them and compared the areas discussed in this forum. Attached you will find my screenshots.
I think we should not mix up dynamic range and standard profiles. We can easily get all information which is seen the highlights of the fabric discussed in this thread from the P65 file. It is not visible with a standard procedure - but the information is in the file and can be recovered using the HDR-function. So it is not an issue of the back but merely of the profile/curve being used. Standard values in the Phase workflow may work better for other situations.
Sharpness/resolution is not really an issue with the P65 in this file (I am using sharpening values of 140/0.6/0.8 and NR values of 5/28) - it is very interesting however that these lenses still work rather nicely at f22 - I very rarely use them above f11...
The MS file is very clean and crisp - which was to be expected of course - but it is remarkable that the P65 gets a similar amount of details. I have developped the single shot Hassi file using both no sharpening and slight sharpening as set in the standards of Phocus 2. Both files do not get the same amount of details as the P65. And - if looking at the full frame - we deal with different measures. The P65 shows a much bigger frame of the whole scene than the others. So as for absolute resolution this is another pair of shoes as well...
The color issue of the apple reminds me of a mirroring of the green color of the chart in the background...
I would be very happy if these backs - which are on a really high level - all of them - will be compared with profound knowledge and from biased people. However if somebody wants to buy such gear, it is probably a good advise renting both equipments, try to get as much information as possible for how to use these software packages and try for himself. In the end it is also an important question what the use of the gear will be - and how you can get around with it.
Just my 2 cents - as I said in the beginning
Markus
Ya you didn't good job either.
It's now 2010 in everyone like to make money.
So here is the solution to all vendor.Well hasselblad and Phase one)
Phase one or hasselblad get together each other at the same place same time.
each of them shot the same product, or what ever at the same iso F what ever.
they go home or what ever place they can work and develop the best file they have and show it.
then people can see what they got.
Now I giving the info, I like to get pay for me passing it to you,(wow)
Here is the end.
Please do not post more, lets it end right here.
Amen.
-
shame cannot be tested against Rodenstock HR lens with both backs. As this will actually test the back "interpretation" rather than using their own respectively lenses via C1 and Phocus software, which IMHO, both lenses "may" not be up to the task against such high resolution back both @ 6 micron pixel vs their respective lens design of 9 micron (? I think - but please correct me). Rodenstock HR is of 5 micron. However, it was an interesting test and thanks for sharing!
-
Sorry, but he OP's samples have my BS meter pegged. I downloaded the raw files and opened the P65+ file in Lightroom 3 Beta, did a quick white balance and turned off all noise reduction. Consider the following three screenshots viewing the file at 100%:
1. Lightroom 3 Beta's default sharpening setting:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4256663143_eea785ed98_o.jpg)
2. Sharpening reduced to ZERO:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4257421934_b33a34cb16_o.jpg)
3. Sharpening increased to 50:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2785/4257423308_6a2e9c3149_o.jpg)
The screenshots were saved as TIFFs and saved for Web as jpegs at quality level 80.
So I really have no idea why the OP's P65+ samples are so soft, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
Does Lightroom support Hasselblad files? I can't open the downloaded file in Lightroom to see how it compares...
-
No Lightroom does not support .FFF files. The single/multishot .FFF files are only supported by Phocus or Flexcolor (as long as they are not generated in Phocus).
-
What a stupid argument.
99% of my professionnal work is made in 4 shots and 16 shots modes. I'm allways triyng to use the best aperture for each lense, to have the best image quality. And f22 is never the best aperture ! Why would I use f22 to capture a painting ? To have less details ?
I think that the best comparative test is done with the same platform and the same lens.
PdF
You gave a stupid answer.
A paint is practically flat. Instead a pair of sunglasses or a bottle of perfume is not, therefore the f22.
Photographers do shoot a lot at f22. Not only objets but also people.
Just think of beauty cosmetics photos. if you want to have the tip of the nose and the ears in focus with a 150mm lens on MF back, we need f22, because f11 or 16 will not make it.
-
Hillarious thread!
I use a H3Dll 39Mp MS, almost exclusively in 4 shot mode. I love it and that's all that matters.
99.9% of professional work is reproduced at A4 or smaller.
This site is tradionally peopled by obsessive, pixle peeping, landscape shooters and this thread (accepting that there are many pros and dealers contributing) is typical of that mentality.
It doesn't matter a damn "if mine is bigger than yours". All that matters is that mine does exactly what *I* want it to do.
Multi-shot blows away single shot pixel for pixel. So, the only relevant comparison, in my opinion, would be single shot vs. single shot using the *same* lens, as someone correctly suggests above.
D.
-
Hillarious thread!
I use a H3Dll 39Mp MS, almost exclusively in 4 shot mode. I love it and that's all that matters.
It doesn't matter a damn "if mine is bigger than yours". All that matters is that mine does exactly what *I* want it to do.
If you are trying to earn a living from photography, surely it matters if you customers are happy with the results and prepared to pay for them?
99.9% of professional work is reproduced at A4 or smaller.
I think that many of us here target that .1 % of the market - partly as anyone can do much of the 99.9% "adequately" with a sub £500 camera.
This site is tradionally peopled by obsessive, pixel peeping, landscape shooters and this thread (accepting that there are many pros and dealers contributing) is typical of that mentality.
I admit to being an obsessive IQ conscious landscape shooter... does that make me mental?
If you are not IQ conscious, why do you use a 40Mpx back in 4 shot mode?
Multi-shot blows away single shot pixel for pixel. So, the only relevant comparison, in my opinion, would be single shot vs. single shot using the *same* lens, as someone correctly suggests above.
D.
Are you comparing to MFD single-shot or Canikon AA work?
4 shot might be OK for studio, but for landscapes with thing moving, a 60 Mpx MFDVC is better, with or without shift-and-stitch.
When I get my H4D-60, I will invite P65+ users to come to Warwickshire so that we can use different backs on the same view camera with apo-digitars.
-
Why is it that all camera can't do multishot? What is it in the hardware that enables it?
-
Why is it that all camera can't do multishot?
Cost
Most people use single shot most of the time to avoid have to use a tripod
What is it in the hardware that enables it?
The sensor moves between shots.
The pixels you get are "full value" pixels rather than Bayer effective pixels.
-
So even on 4 shot the sensor moves? I knew for a 16 shot it moved, but not 4 shot.
Cost
Most people use single shot most of the time to avoid have to use a tripod
The sensor moves between shots.
The pixels you get are "full value" pixels rather than Bayer effective pixels.
-
So even on 4 shot the sensor moves? I knew for a 16 shot it moved, but not 4 shot.
For a 4-shot the sensor moves by exactly 1 pixel for each shot:
- 1st shot = initial position, then moves right by 1 pixel
- 2nd shot, then moves down by 1 pixel
- 3rd shot, then moves left by 1 pixel
- 4th shot then moves up by one pixel, to the initial position
The 4-shot captures 2 times the green, 1 time the red and 1 time the blue colour information.
for a 16-shot it moves by 1/2 a pixel each time: 4 times initial position in the left direction , 4 times down, 4 times left, 4 times up to initial position, capturing each 4x4 steps 2 times the green, 1 time the red and 1 time the blue colour information
Thierry
-
Thanks for the info.
For a 4-shot the sensor moves by exactly 1 pixel for each shot:
- 1st shot = initial position, then moves right by 1 pixel
- 2nd shot, then moves down by 1 pixel
- 3rd shot, then moves left by 1 pixel
- 4th shot then moves up by one pixel, to the initial position
The 4-shot captures 2 times the green, 1 time the red and 1 time the blue colour information.
for a 16-shot it moves by 1/2 a pixel each time: 4 times initial position in the left direction , 4 times down, 4 times left, 4 times up to initial position, capturing each 4x4 steps 2 times the green, 1 time the red and 1 time the blue colour information
Thierry
-
Attended event at Fotocare (http://www.fotocare.com/html/page.asp?gId=125) last week where H3DII-50ms (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50ms.aspx) was demonstrated at length.
LOVED the combination of Live Video + the ability to manual focus via arrow controls within Phocus software.
PERFECT for focus bracketing + Helicon Focus software achieving extended depth of field.
VERY impressed.
Billy