Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Ken R on March 23, 2013, 09:56:29 am
-
Hi!
I currently in the market for a MF Digital system and was looking into the Hasselblads but I could not find out info about the sensors they use.
Does the H5D-40 have the same sensor as the H4D-40? How about the 50's (H3D-II-50 -> H4D-50 -> H5D-50)? How about the 60 also although I don't see a H5D-60?
Which one has the cleanest shadows and largest dynamic range? Which one is best for long exposures (up to 1-2min.)?
I want the camera to pull double duty as landscape and advertising/architecture. The 24mm and the TS adapter look (on paper at least) as awesome tools to have for working quickly on interior/arch jobs.
I am leaning towards the H5D's due to the better battery and weather sealing. For advertising the true focus is almost a must since focus/recompose is the order of the day in fast paced shoots.
-
I want the camera to pull double duty as landscape and advertising/architecture. The 24mm and the TS adapter look (on paper at least) as awesome tools to have for working quickly on interior/arch jobs.
I am leaning towards the H5D's due to the better battery and weather sealing.
I believe you will be very happy with the 24mm and the HTS, I posted some samples at GetDPI. On a side note, I think Hasselblad under markets the HTS and fails to realize how much of a creative tool it is. Do a demo and check it out.
The newer batteries will work on earlier H cameras with a firmware update. Regarding the weather sealing, remember the lenses aren't sealed.
Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
www.jecxz.com
-
The H4D-40 allows a 4 minutes exposures. I believe the H5D-40 supports same time.
Shutters in the 50 and 60 models can remain open only for a few tens of seconds.
Evgeny
-
Ken,
It is my understanding that the H4D-40 and 50 sensors are the same as the corresponding sensors of the H5D. I'm not sure about the H4D-60 and H5D-60. The H4D-40 and H5D-40 have maximum shutter speeds of 256 seconds, the 50 Mpixel maximum shutter speeds are 128 seconds and the maximum shutter speeds of the 60 Mpixel models are 32 seconds.
You should be able to find a PDF spec sheet here: http://www.hasselblad.com/media/4234787/45714-h5d_brochure_eng_print%284.7%29.pdf
Good luck on you search,
Ed
-
Thx. Im leaning towards the H4D-40. Im playing with some files and they are awesome. I know its a cliche but they look quite film like but with a lot resolution at 100%. Very different from any DSLR I have used. I pulled up some shadows and the dynamic range its great. The D800e is quite good at this also. (I know, kinda a hot topic comparing the Nikon to MF).
I planning on buying it with the kit lens and the 24mm. (I can use the Cokin X pro filter system since it has 95mm front thread) Maybe add the 120 macro and TS adapter later ($10G's!)
The Phase SLR system looks ok but seems more limited in wide angle and AF.
-
The 40 and 50 sensors are currently the same.
-
Does anyone here with an h4d 40 or h5d have any experience tethering with the latest MacBook Pro, especially under heavy, heavy production?
Is the software stable?
Also has anyone had experience tethering with Lightroom, using the Hasselblad plug in?
Thanks
BC
-
Ken,
I too am enamored with the "look" of the H4D files and feel as you do in that they have a look more like film. I also use a D800, and the files are just a bit too plasticky for my liking. I do believe that it's the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors, as I really preferred the rendering from my early D1H and D1X which have CCD sensors. There may be others who will jump in at this point and want to debate that issue, but to my eyes, I like the rendering that a CCD provides.
IMHO, I don't believe you will be disappointed with the H4D series. Keep us posted.
BC,
I regularly tether to a two-year old MacBook Pro via Firewire 800 using Phocus and under my type of production, have not had any issues and that also includes a remote bluetooth connection to an iPhone and iPad. However, "heavy, heavy" may mean something else to you than me. From what I have seen of your work on here, you probably have a little more energy.
Ed
-
My friend has an H4D-50 that he successfully tethers using the latest iMac 27" running Phocus software.
My H4D-40 has never been tethered.
-
Before taking the plunge I do want to try the Phase One DF+ with one of their backs.
If I were going for a tech camera the choice is MUCH easier, Phase One back. But I want to use the back for more than just landscape so I need an effective SLR system.
-
Does anyone here with an h4d 40 or h5d have any experience tethering with the latest MacBook Pro, especially under heavy, heavy production?
Is the software stable?
Also has anyone had experience tethering with Lightroom, using the Hasselblad plug in?
Thanks
BC
I have a H4D60 which I use with one of the latest MBP's via a TB/FW adapter. I remember a conversation we had several years ago about the ideal tethering situation, eg. Being able to shoot and not having to worry abut running into buffers. I believe we are there now. Even with the 60 I can shoot, say bursts of 20 to 30 images and they will be in a few seconds after I put down the camera. I have shot days with over 1500 images without issues where shooting felt really fluid. The weak part of the H4 is still the firewire port connection, it is not really snug and with a lesser quality cable (often a thinner cable which is more comfortable to handle) you will sometimes experience disconnects when you do not use a tetherlock. Allegedly this has been resolved with the H5. The H4D60 is BTW slower than the H4D40.
Tethering with LR is a no go if you need speed.
-
It's very much appreciated, everybody.
Thank You.
BC
-
Thx. Im leaning towards the H4D-40. Im playing with some files and they are awesome. I know its a cliche but they look quite film like but with a lot resolution at 100%. Very different from any DSLR I have used. I pulled up some shadows and the dynamic range its great. The D800e is quite good at this also. (I know, kinda a hot topic comparing the Nikon to MF).
I planning on buying it with the kit lens and the 24mm. (I can use the Cokin X pro filter system since it has 95mm front thread) Maybe add the 120 macro and TS adapter later ($10G's!)
The Phase SLR system looks ok but seems more limited in wide angle and AF.
Wide angles.
Both Hasselblad and and Phase one wide angles are excellent (with the exception of the Phase One 55mm LS... good but not as good as the others)
However usability will be quite different on the two cameras. If you want to shoot shallow depth of field with moderate wide angles the Hasselblad
with true focus will make a significant. It will also improve subject sharpness when stopped down as the subject will most likely have spot on focus.
However for this advantage to be at it's best care has to be taken in how you recompose.
Focus recompose test with Phase one DF.
Here is a composite to show the extent of the recomposition.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8204/8191340559_b8777a9847_c.jpg)
Here is a crop (@50%) of the center:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8198/8192427466_9b737be72e_c.jpg)
Here is a crop of the recomposed image.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8480/8192427420_b071c0c524_c.jpg)
Regarding the files form a 40MP hasselblad and a 36MP nikon sensor there is really not any significant difference.
The Nikon has significantly more dynamic range and slightly better color depth than the HD3II-50.
Today's Hasselblad sensors have not really changed.
The whole CCD vs CMOS debate is had it's roots in the lead MF had quality wise about 10 years ago.
This has totally changed and I think that a very clear example of this is Leica's choice to go with CMOS sensors
in their new cameras.
Much of it also has to do with how people are processing their files. IF you make accurate camera profiles for both the Hasselblad sensor and the Nikon sensor
there really is no difference.
Here is a side by side test with the files processed with calibrated profile make for each camera. D800e vs H4D40
Photogy article here:
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/ (http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/)
Full frame
(http://www.photigy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Nikon-d800e-test-review-sample-image.jpg)
Crops
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)
Anyway the point I want to make is that in choosing an MF camera to complement a top of the line 35mm DSLR I think that sensor size
of the MF camera is important. The 40MP sensors are sub 33x44... you might as well remain with a d800.
Really is rather pointless to "upgrade" to a crop sensor MFD especially when using wide angles that lose angle of view due to the crop.
Especially for wide angle use an larger sensor will give you more coverage, but watch out for color casts on some larger sensors.
-
Fred,
With all due respect, butt out! The OP's question is "Question regarding Hasselblad Sensors," so let's not make it another one of your diatribes about how much you like the Nikon D800 and how much better it is. You've posted the same images over and over again and you've made your points abundantly clear, many, many, many times. So, again, for once, give it a break - please!
Regarding the CCD vs. CMOS. That's not a debate for me. At this point in time, I prefer the look of the CCD sensors in my D1H and D1X and my H4D more than the look of images from my D3, D300 and D800. But hey, that's me and MHO. So, please remember, other people have opinions and preferences too and if you prefer the look from a CMOS better than CCD, I respect that, but just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so for everyone.
Now, can we please stay on topic of, "Question regarding Hasselblad Sensors?"
Ed
-
It is amazing how much mis information is on this thread
The poster wrote that he was impressed with true focus-1st reply was regarding HTS that does not allow true focus
The next reply regarded mis info on the time exposure range of the HD50-it is 124 seconds
The fourth poster claimed the sensor for the HD40 and HD 50 are the same-I don't think that is correct
stanley
-
Indeed the sensor for the 40 is different than the one in the 50. The size is different, 50= 37*49 and the 40 is 33*44. The 40 had microlenses giving it a stop more in possible exposure time as well as ISO (256sec for the 40, 128 sec for the 50, base ISO 50 for the 50 and 100 for the 40). They are simply different sensors.
TF works like a charm but not with the HTS, no AF at all with the HTS.
-
Fred,
With all due respect, butt out! The OP's question is "Question regarding Hasselblad Sensors," so let's not make it another one of your diatribes about how much you like the Nikon D800 and how much better it is. You've posted the same images over and over again and you've made your points abundantly clear, many, many, many times. So, again, for once, give it a break - please!
Regarding the CCD vs. CMOS. That's not a debate for me. At this point in time, I prefer the look of the CCD sensors in my D1H and D1X and my H4D more than the look of images from my D3, D300 and D800. But hey, that's me and MHO. So, please remember, other people have opinions and preferences too and if you prefer the look from a CMOS better than CCD, I respect that, but just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so for everyone.
Now, can we please stay on topic of, "Question regarding Hasselblad Sensors?"
Ed
First of all you are the one in the thread to bring up the comparison:
I too am enamored with the "look" of the H4D files and feel as you do in that they have a look more like film. I also use a D800, and the files are just a bit too plasticky for my liking. I do believe that it's the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors, as I really preferred the rendering from my early D1H and D1X which have CCD sensors. There may be others who will jump in at this point and want to debate that issue, but to my eyes, I like the rendering that a CCD provides.
Ed
Second where have I ever said I prefer the look of a CCD to a CMOS. I'm saying that they are substantially the same when comparing the latest sony/nikonsensors
so please do not misrepresent what I wrote.
You state ed your opinion and I stated mine as well as following it up with a clear high res example. There is a saying ... an image is worth a thousand words.
I also find it interesting while MF manufacturers repeatedly claim superiority over 35mm DSLR they don't publish comparisons.
Regarding the choice of Hasselblad MF sensor I think I gave some useful advice pointing out that the larger of the Hasselblad sensors would be a significant advantage for wide
angle photography over the 33x44 sensor.
-
It is amazing how much mis information is on this thread
The poster wrote that he was impressed with true focus-1st reply was regarding HTS that does not allow true focus
The next reply regarded mis info on the time exposure range of the HD50-it is 124 seconds
The fourth poster claimed the sensor for the HD40 and HD 50 are the same-I don't think that is correct
stanley
I think he said the corresponding sensors of the 40 and 50 were the same from the H4D to the H5D. I don't see anyone saying the 40 and 50 sensors are the same, only that they haven't changed from the H4D to the H5D series.
Ben
-
TF works like a charm but not with the HTS, no AF at all with the HTS.
Tilt shift with the HTS has some significant limitations. In trying it out I fount it particularly tricky to focus with.
This is due to the 1.3 stop brightness reduction and the light from the lens hitting the focusing screen at a different angle.
Another thing to be considered is that it significantly reduces the angle of view. For example it turns a 4.8 24mm into a 7.5 36mm.
A 35mm becomes a 52mm.
This is a significant limitation for indoor architectural photography.
Also close focus is reduced somewhat limiting the use of tilt shift for small object photography where tilt shift is so useful.
The reduction is more with wider angle lenses.
-
I believe you will be very happy with the 24mm and the HTS, I posted some samples at GetDPI. On a side note, I think Hasselblad under markets the HTS and fails to realize how much of a creative tool it is. Do a demo and check it out.
Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
www.jecxz.com
However the 24mm becomes a 36mm when used with the HTS.
I agree that tilt shift is a very useful and creative tool. I love using to tweak shallow depth of field photography
allowing me to focus on two models faces even if they are on a different plane.
Look at this video for some nifty tilt lens fun...
http://youtu.be/XboAeIjcs2E (http://youtu.be/XboAeIjcs2E)
-
First of all you are the one in the thread to bring up the comparison:
Ken R. made a comment about a "film" look to the Hasselblad files that he observed. I stated that I felt the same way and believed it to be the difference between CCD and CMOS, so read the entire post and don't mispresent what I wrote.
I also find it interesting while MF manufacturers repeatedly claim superiority over 35mm DSLR they don't publish comparisons.
What does that have to do with the OP's question. This statement is just your way of diverting the topic. You don't do your own tests, but keep linking to one person's images over and over again.
C'mon, Fred, stay on topic.
Ed
-
It is amazing how much mis information is on this thread
The poster wrote that he was impressed with true focus-1st reply was regarding HTS that does not allow true focus
The next reply regarded mis info on the time exposure range of the HD50-it is 124 seconds
The fourth poster claimed the sensor for the HD40 and HD 50 are the same-I don't think that is correct
stanley
Well, not quite, Stanley. The maximum exposure range for the H4D-50 is 128 seconds according to Hasselblad. (I have a 31 and 40, but not a 50 so I am relying on Hasselblad for the time) And what I said about the sensors was this, "the H4D-40 and 50 sensors are the same as the corresponding sensors of the H5D". I was referring to the 40 and 50 being the same on both the H4D series as the H5D series, not that the 40 is the same size as the 50.
Ed
-
Wide angles.
Both Hasselblad and and Phase one wide angles are excellent (with the exception of the Phase One 55mm LS... good but not as good as the others)
....
Is this from your own personal experience with the Phase SK 55mm LS? I mean really owning and shooting this lens---not just a few test shots. And, "good but not as good as the others"?? Is this your own experience with the 55mm LS against "the others" as in the 45mm D, 35mm D, or 28mm D/LS? Sorry but I've had this lens for quite a while and my experience seems to echo that of other 55mm LS owners that this is an excellent lens. 45mm D better? I don't think so. 35mm D better? I don't think so. 28mm>, eh, okay, I might give the edge to the 28mm D except on the edges; dunno about the LS version. Yeah, I know, you'll probably have all these graphs to post again, but that's really not what actual experience is about... And no, that wouldn't be a fair comparison to the tech cam wides.
I think this is another one for the mis-information pile.
-
Hi, I downloaded a few Raw files from the Pentax 645D, the Hasselblad H4D-40 and the IQ160. So far I have been VERY impressed with the Pentax at higher iso and also on a 20sec exposure (200 iso). All the 645D files I got were made using the 55mm Pentax lens (the new one). It is tack sharp. Some of the H4D files were really nice also but at high Iso I think the Pentax is better. The IQ160 files have lots of detail but the I dont think the shadows were as clean on the higher iso and longer exposures. I am looking for more samples. I really liked how the Hasselblad renders the ski tones. Don't know how the others stack up.
I am very tempted by the Pentax and what the future holds for that system. It seems not to get much buzz around here but at least from the files ive been able to get its a more than worthy contender. At least on the lower end of the MFD market.
I know its a closed system but if the next body is $10k and has nice improvements I wouldnt mind the expense. Even with an open system like Phase One the body is the cheap part. Upgrading from one of their backs to another is usually way more than $10k anyway.
-
...I am very tempted by the Pentax and what the future holds for that system. It seems not to get much buzz around here...
Ken, I believe that is mostly due to the fact that B&H only lists 2 lenses for the system.
If there were more lenses available in US stores (like in the rest of the world) I am sure it would be more popular.
It sounds like it is every bit as good as other MF solutions and significantly cheaper.
-
Hi,
Fred's assumption is what I understand based on MTF data published by Schneider. It has a drop of MTF at 60 lp/mm around 22 mm of axis.
Optical behavior like that was quite common on older "Distagon type" lenses. Modern designs seem to have much less of a drop off.
The problem with the 55 LS is probably that the field is not flat, it is wavy. My guess is that the field curvature corresponds to 7.5 cm shift of focal plane at 2m (judged on the MTF curves). If you are shooting in studio, I would assume that only small part of the image would be in exact focus. If important detail would fall on the 22mm radius it would be possible to achieve optimal focus in that area.
The effect would probably be visible mostly on distant landscape, where often everything is in focus.
I don't think the loss of sharpness would be very visible. If you made two large prints (say 54"x72") side by side I'm not sure the difference would be noticeable.
MTF curves don't lie, but you need to interpret what they say. Also, lens designers probably evaluate 100s of MTF curves for a lens but publish just a few. At short distances there will be a very short DoF with "absolute sharpness", so how the lens draws on slightly out of focus detail matters a lot.
The LS55 is said to be intended for studio work.
This article by Hubert Nasse of Zeiss may give some insight: http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf
Best regards
Erik
Is this from your own personal experience with the Phase SK 55mm LS? I mean really owning and shooting this lens---not just a few test shots. And, "good but not as good as the others"?? Is this your own experience with the 55mm LS against "the others" as in the 45mm D, 35mm D, or 28mm D/LS? Sorry but I've had this lens for quite a while and my experience seems to echo that of other 55mm LS owners that this is an excellent lens. 45mm D better? I don't think so. 35mm D better? I don't think so. 28mm>, eh, okay, I might give the edge to the 28mm D except on the edges; dunno about the LS version. Yeah, I know, you'll probably have all these graphs to post again, but that's really not what actual experience is about... And no, that wouldn't be a fair comparison to the tech cam wides.
I think this is another one for the mis-information pile.
-
Tilt shift with the HTS has some significant limitations. In trying it out I fount it particularly tricky to focus with.
This is due to the 1.3 stop brightness reduction and the light from the lens hitting the focusing screen at a different angle.
Another thing to be considered is that it significantly reduces the angle of view. For example it turns a 4.8 24mm into a 7.5 36mm.
A 35mm becomes a 52mm.
This is a significant limitation for indoor architectural photography.
Also close focus is reduced somewhat limiting the use of tilt shift for small object photography where tilt shift is so useful.
The reduction is more with wider angle lenses.
It is called HTS1.5 meaning it also acts like a converter with a factor 1.5. So yes, your angle of view is reduced.
I have a HTS which I did not try out once but I use it several times a week for the last 3 years. The reduction of close focus is not something I have noticed in which case it probably is no biggie for me. On the contrary, my HC100 becomes a HC150 with the close focussing capabilities of the HC100 (well almost, If you would be right). In that case I can focus closer with the HTS than with the corresponding single lens... I use the HTS + HC100 and now the macro adapter (or the 13/26mm ring) quite often for small object and find it ideal.
Yes, it is tricky to focus (initially), but than again I am able to focus it even handheld and get it right most of the time. A matter of getting the hang of it, as it is with all tools that you use seriously. You have to get familiar with it to get the best out of it, IMO. Trying out is nice but it doesn't make you sufficient on using something and getting the best results let alone become an authority on its usage.
-
Hi,
.......
The problem with the 55 LS is probably that the field is not flat, it is wavy. My guess is that the field curvature corresponds to 7.5 cm shift of focal plane at 2m (judged on the MTF curves). If you are shooting in studio, I would assume that only small part of the image would be in exact focus. If important detail would fall on the 22mm radius it would be possible to achieve optimal focus in that area.....
The LS55 is said to be intended for studio work.
Best regards
Erik
[/quote]
Quote from the Phase One website:
55mm LS f/2.8
A preferred choice for on location fashion photographers using fill-in flash.
With its extreme fast flash sync capabilities this lens makes it easy to balance flash and daylight and let's you create stunning images.
Quote from the Mamiya Leaf website
MAMIYA SEKOR AF 55MM F2.8 LS D
Flash sync up to 1/1600th of a second.*
Minimal distortion wide angle design, provides a normal look,
great for editorial portraits and on location lifestyle photography.
Fast aperture, shallow depth of field.
Wide viewing angle.
Easily balance daylight and flash.
If the problem of the 55LS is due to it not having a flat field but wavy that would be quite a problem for what it is recommended for.
Shallow depth of field combined with focus and recompose and a non flat field would be a nasty thing to deal with.
-
Remember the far-too-long thread where Fred gave an analysis of the 55LS based only on charts? You know, the one where everyone who has used the 55LS lens to take pictures chimed in that it's an excellent lens. The thread where I posted sample images showing it's excellent performance?
Apparently Fred doesn't.
Fred, can you please post a photo that you have taken with the 55LS to show us what you are referring to when you say it is anything less than excellent?
-
While you're at it Fred show us some of the stuff you've done with the HTS. How long have you owned it for? I've had mine for a few years now...
-
It is called HTS1.5 meaning it also acts like a converter with a factor 1.5. So yes, your angle of view is reduced.
I have a HTS which I did not try out once but I use it several times a week for the last 3 years. The reduction of close focus is not something I have noticed in which case it probably is no biggie for me. On the contrary, my HC100 becomes a HC150 with the close focussing capabilities of the HC100 (well almost, If you would be right). In that case I can focus closer with the HTS than with the corresponding single lens... I use the HTS + HC100 and now the macro adapter (or the 13/26mm ring) quite often for small object and find it ideal.
Yes, it is tricky to focus (initially), but than again I am able to focus it even handheld and get it right most of the time. A matter of getting the hang of it, as it is with all tools that you use seriously. You have to get familiar with it to get the best out of it, IMO. Trying out is nice but it doesn't make you sufficient on using something and getting the best results let alone become an authority on its usage.
Don't get me wrong... The HTS is a very handy tool. I have shot for years with the Fuji gx680 that has system wide tilt shift and it know how useful tilt shift is.
The HTS is also a relatively compact device that adds TS to quite a few lenses. I just wanted to point out to the OP that while it is a good tool it has some limitations
that are good to know about. Another is that if I recall correctly tilt and shift are rotatable, but not independently. Same limitation of Nikon compared to Canon.
However one really nice feature is that it records the tilt and shift data and software correction can be made using that info. This is very useful as tilt shift
always introduces some optical limitations.
-
While you're at it Fred show us some of the stuff you've done with the HTS. How long have you owned it for? I've had mine for a few years now...
I tried it out and preferred to stick with my Fuji gx680 as it has independent rise/fall. tilt, swing and shift on all lenses from 50mm to 500mm
and a high magnification waist level finder for easier focusing.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/FujiGX680III_3.JPG)
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6160/6239328568_28ba0eac56_z.jpg)
Here is an example with a digital back
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/7025845503_a7fae6fd81_o.jpg)
Crop
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7085/6879750742_b035d71f41_o.jpg)
And an couple of examples with film
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6035/6241416169_392cc83b6b_b.jpg)
with tilt+swing both heads in focus and shot wide open
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6109/6241931326_d0b22d3466_b.jpg)
with no tilt or swing only lady in focus shot wide open
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6168/6241351155_3ceef9d332_b.jpg)
with tilt+swing both heads in focus and shot wide open
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6118/6241351131_aa6f1963ec_b.jpg)
with no tilt or swing only lady in front in focus shot wide open
There were shot on location in New Orleans and with only two lights at ISO 800
so focusing is a bit of a challenge. Big waist level finder makes a big difference and being a rotating back waist level finder
is usable for vertical and horizontal.
However I did like the micro adjustments with the Hasselblad HTS.
The Fuji has to be adjusted directly by hand. IT has locks, but adjustment is not geared.
Many times I've used @#&*@ language when making a small adjustment I slip and wasn't even close anymore.
Also I use vertical shift very very often with portraits. It's very nice to shoot slightly from below with a relatively short lens
It gives a very nice perspective and intimate feel with nice proportions.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5180/5458121808_279291c8e8_b.jpg)
-
Thanks for the clarification Fred.
I was confused because you made it sound like you had used an HTS extensively just like you have with medium format digital.
-
Well I've certainly seen all those pictures before.
Does this mean no photos with the HTS?
Does this mean no photos taken with the Phase SK 55mm LS?
(And of course, I mean your own photographic work with the HTS or 55LS)
;)
-
Why is it that every MFD thread over the last eight or nine months gets hijacked with the same old set of images under the guise of being helpful? It would seem to me that if someone wants to rave about, well say, Nikon's D800, then start a new thread. Or, perhaps the benefits of the tilt and shift capabilities of a Fuji GX680 could be touted in a thread by that title.
Wouldn't that be the intelligent thing to do and truly helpful?
Ed
-
to the sensors:
Hasselblad-Imacon dont produce sensors, only Kodak and Dalsa. The kamera update has nothing to do with the sensor, it does no matter if you get H3d50, H4d50 or H5d 50- you will allways get the same sensor and the same picture quality. Only same camera functions are added,
if you really need it is allways the question.
-
Why is it that every MFD thread over the last eight or nine months gets hijacked with the same old set of images under the guise of being helpful? It would seem to me that if someone wants to rave about, well say, Nikon's D800, then start a new thread. Or, perhaps the benefits of the tilt and shift capabilities of a Fuji GX680 could be touted in a thread by that title.
Wouldn't that be the intelligent thing to do and truly helpful?
Ed
Ed .... I'm not sure what your problem is, I brought up the Fuji to say why in some ways I find the HTS a bit limiting, but in some ways better.
No one else mentioned that tilt and shift on the HTS are locked together or that it changes aperture and focal length.
I think it's useful to the OP to know that. I don't see why that should upset anyone.
If anything I wrote about the HTS is technically wrong feel free to point it out.
-
Ed .... I'm not sure what your problem is, I brought up the Fuji to say why in some ways I find the HTS a bit limiting, but in some ways better.
No one else mentioned that tilt and shift on the HTS are locked together or that it changes aperture and focal length.
I think it's useful to the OP to know that. I don't see why that should upset anyone.
Gees, Fred, what do you mean, my problem? Gosh, there no need to attack me!
I just made what I thought was a useful comment for the betterment of the forum. I guess I was just thinking that when someone asks a question about certain equipment, the best responses come from those with extensive, hands-on experience with that type of equipment or process.
For example, if someone queried the forum about a Fuji GX680, I'd be the last one to speak up because I've only read about it and watched a fellow pro use one twice. Any comment from me on that subject would not be well informed and could only be thought of as self serving. However, your comments in a thread on that camera would be valuable and particularly useful.
Ed
-
Gees, Fred, what do you mean, my problem? Gosh, there no need to attack me!
Ed, even though FredBGG can be, let us say "very persistent" in stating and arguing for certain opinions, it is a bit hypocritical to complain about being attacked after making what was clearly an attack on him. Words like "hijacked", "guise" and "rave" are not quite neutral, helpful language.
-
Perhaps it would be simply better if someone who never uses the gear not to post as if he does. It's actually an attack on the visitors who come to Lula for good, sound information.
And I hardly think Ed is "attacking" Fred.
Thank you,
Jeffery
-
Getting back to the technical discussion one should also
consider the image quality impact of using the HTS1.5
Being a tele-converter and having to work with a range of lenses
it cannot be optimized for them all.
Also we all know that a tele-converter impacts both resolution and to a lesser extent contrast.
Here is the difference in quality between the HC100 and the HC100 with the HTS.
This is the graphs from Hasselblad, so they are comparable as they are made by the same company.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8522/8590696953_0db84d4b7c_o.gif)
There is a significant drop in quality.
The drop in quality will be even more apparent due to shifting bringing in the lower quality
part of the image circle.
Considering the price of the combination of the HTS and lens
it way be a better choice to go with a tech camera if an SLR viewfinder is not a necessity.
Lenses designed specifically from the ground up as tilt shift lenses will
have better quality than a normal lens retrofitted with an adapter.
-
Hi,
Well, Fred's information may be good and perfectly valid, even if the information is not what the OP has asked for.
Also, the Hasselblad / Nikon comparison he refers to is quite valid. Not often a guy gets two cameras and makes a really good comparison shots and posts raw images for evaluation. Obviously, the OP was asking about Hasselblad backs, but still, pointing to an alternative at a fifth of the price would be seen as worthwhile.
I also would say it's OK to discuss the working of TS and OK to mention the Fuji as an alternative.
Some posters appreciate Fred's writing, and he quite often offers good advice.
Best regards
Erik
Perhaps it would be simply better if someone who never uses the gear not to post as if he does. It's actually an attack on the visitors who come to Lula for good, sound information.
And I hardly think Ed is "attacking" Fred.
Thank you,
Jeffery
-
I also would say it's OK to discuss the working of TS and OK to mention the Fuji as an alternative.
Erik what makes you think the Fuji is an worthy alternative for the OP?
Have you tried it outdoors with a digital back? Do you know what the widest lens on it is with a DB? Can it be compared to a Hasselblad with a 24mm and 1.5x converter? Are there any MTF charts of it available, also when shifted? How is the weather sealing on it? (Or was that another thread...they all get mixed up these days....)
-
The Hasselblad TS-adapter is kind of cool, enlarge the image circle using a tele-converter and then use it for tilting and shifting. However it comes at a price of image quality, which perhaps is not so fun to pay when invested in medium format. I'm not sure exactly how large this image quality hit is though, haven't seen any samples.
The famous Swedish landscape photographer Hans Strand has used the TS adapter a lot in his work, so it cannot be too bad. (He uses a D800E quite a lot these days too as it's a practical camera, although he still thinks the 'blad has superior image quality.)
To be able to do everything with one system can be valuable, but when having a digital back I would myself look into the option to have a technical camera for the landscape and architecture work, the image quality of the lenses of the Schneider Digitars or Rodenstock Digarons is just better for this kind of work, and I think it's great fun to use a tech cam compared to an SLR type of camera. It would be more expensive with an additional system though, so starting off with a TS adapter could be the best choice.
-
Erik what makes you think the Fuji is an worthy alternative for the OP?
Have you tried it outdoors with a digital back? Do you know what the widest lens on it is with a DB? Can it be compared to a Hasselblad with a 24mm and 1.5x converter? Are there any MTF charts of it available, also when shifted? How is the weather sealing on it? (Or was that another thread...they all get mixed up these days....)
LEt me point out that I did not recommend the Fuji gx680 as an alternative for the OP. I brought it up to explain why I found the HTS limited in some ways.
Anyway to answer your questions...
Have you tried it outdoors with a digital back?
It is usable on location with a digital back. The kapture group control box runs on a 9v battery.
The whole lot is significantly heavier than modern MFD cameras.
Do you know what the widest lens on it is with a DB?
The widest lens is the 50mm 5.6. With the HTS the 24mm becomes a 36mm 7.4.
However the Fuji can be used with the kapture group stitch back and a digital back giving it a wider angle of view
than the hasselblad 's 36mm with the HTS. However shifting is a bit limited on the Fuji with the 50mm compared to the 65mm.
How is the weather sealing on it?
No weather sealing claims are made by Fuji for the gx680. However the lenses are pretty much sealed as they do not have a focusing mechanism.
The focusing is on the body.
Are there any MTF charts of it available, also when shifted?
No MTF graphs that I know of. However here is an example of a full vertical shift with the 250mm.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5250/5356464560_f46a54d63a.jpg)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5142/5738647019_08d35d415e_z.jpg)
(Focus is on the tip of the nose.)
Readers should keep in mind that this is from a full frame.
Also to be considered is that with the Kapture group stitch adapter but shooting single frame one can obtain more shift than with the HTS 1.5 or the Schneider for Mamiya Phase.
Price wise the Fuji GX680 can be found at very good prices. About $1,200 would buy a 65mm and body.
The icing on the cake is that it also shoots 6x8 film for those that still like film.
-
Hi,
So you think it is not OK diskuss the working of TS and it is not OK to mention the Fuji as an alternative?
I don't think the information is not valid, as long as you can mount a digital back on the Fuji, which I suppose you can?
There will naturally be a crop factor, but that will also be the case with the HTC. The MTF curves he shows are probably coming from Hasselblad.
If the OP does not find the information interesting he or she can just skip.
I have seen quite a few posts appreciating Fred's postings. He points to another side of the coin. Would he violate forum rules to much he would be excluded, but it seems no need is seen for that.
Also, Fred is an experienced photographer and he has quite a few useful postings. It seems that he decided not to buy MFD although he states to use rental equipment.
Regarding the Fuji I have not checked widest angle available nor MTF, but it depends on the intended use. If you need tilt/shift on wide angles a technical camera seems to make the most sense to me.
Best regards
Erik
I also would say it's OK to discuss the working of TS and OK to mention the Fuji as an alternative.
Erik what makes you think the Fuji is an worthy alternative for the OP?
Have you tried it outdoors with a digital back? Do you know what the widest lens on it is with a DB? Can it be compared to a Hasselblad with a 24mm and 1.5x converter? Are there any MTF charts of it available, also when shifted? How is the weather sealing on it? (Or was that another thread...they all get mixed up these days....)
-
to the sensors:
Hasselblad-Imacon dont produce sensors, only Kodak and Dalsa. The kamera update has nothing to do with the sensor, it does no matter if you get H3d50, H4d50 or H5d 50- you will allways get the same sensor and the same picture quality. Only same camera functions are added,
if you really need it is allways the question.
Thanks. So basically the 40MP Sensor in the 645D, the H4D-40 and the H5D-40 is the same KAF-40000 made my TrueSense (Kodak). The Leica S2 has a modified version of this sensor right? And the H4D-50 and the H5D-50 use the KAF-50100. I guess the components around the sensor on each camera can be upgraded and change the performance of the camera bit.
Also, seems Phase One almost works exclusively with Dalsa sensors now. The detail of the IQ180 and now the iQ260 is stunning. But at nearly $40k each they are way out of my price range.
I do want to make 40x60in prints (or 40x50) (used to use 6x7 film for that) and I did some test prints with raw files from the 645D and they looked real nice. The color in the shadow areas was super smooth with little noise and with good detail. The h4D-40 files were similar but had a touch more noise in the shadows and at longer exposures (and/or higher iso's). The 645D looked like a better performer as the exposure time and iso increases. I tested the Nikon D800E with the best wide angles I could find (Zeiss 15mm zf.2, 14-24mm Nikon and the 24mm PC-E) and image quality was really good also. The 645D images seemed that they had a touch smoother gradations and a hair higher res, they seemed less harsh and easier to make big. Its close though. (link to my test of the D800E: LINK (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1199128)
-
Also, seems Phase One almost works exclusively with Dalsa sensors now. The detail of the IQ180 and now the iQ260 is stunning. But at nearly $40k each they are way out of my price range.
I do want to make 40x60in prints (or 40x50) (used to use 6x7 film for that) and I did some test prints with raw files from the 645D and they looked real nice.
Print quality is often very much a relative game. That is, the first 40mp large print I ever saw was the best digital print I'd ever seen and it blew me away. After seeing an 80mp large print the 40mp immediately looked less impressive (though obviously still very good, and far ahead of 22mp prints from before it).
One could take several equally-valid conclusions from this:
- don't ever look at a very sharp 80mp image; you won't know what you're missing and you'll be happier for it
- look into a tech camera where you can do a very easy two-shot stitch inside the image circle (lens static, back shifted left/right or up/down) resulting in a flat file of around 1.8x the resolution while maintaining the ability to compose in the field. This turns a 40mp back into a 70mp back (or higher if you don't mind doing, and your situation allows, three or four frame stitches which are supported on some of the large-image-circle lenses like the Schneider 60XL)
- the 40mp print looks great when viewed by itself, so why worry??
Notably the Leaf Aptus II 12 (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/mamiya-leaf) and Phase One P65+ (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/phase-one-plus-series) are 60mp and 80mp and share sensors with the IQ160 and IQ180 at a fraction of the price. They are also relatively common in pre-owned digital (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/used-digital-backs) back inventories with warranty and sometimes even very low shot-count/use (we have one with less than 1k shots in nearly new condition which was loaned to an IQ160 purchaser while waiting for their IQ to be delivered).
-
Thanks. So basically the 40MP Sensor in the 645D, the H4D-40 and the H5D-40 is the same KAF-40000 made my TrueSense (Kodak). The Leica S2 has a modified version of this sensor right? And the H4D-50 and the H5D-50 use the KAF-50100. I guess the components around the sensor on each camera can be upgraded and change the performance of the camera bit.
Also, seems Phase One almost works exclusively with Dalsa sensors now. The detail of the IQ180 and now the iQ260 is stunning. But at nearly $40k each they are way out of my price range.
I do want to make 40x60in prints (or 40x50) (used to use 6x7 film for that) and I did some test prints with raw files from the 645D and they looked real nice. The color in the shadow areas was super smooth with little noise and with good detail. The h4D-40 files were similar but had a touch more noise in the shadows and at longer exposures (and/or higher iso's). The 645D looked like a better performer as the exposure time and iso increases. I tested the Nikon D800E with the best wide angles I could find (Zeiss 15mm zf.2, 14-24mm Nikon and the 24mm PC-E) and image quality was really good also. The 645D images seemed that they had a touch smoother gradations and a hair higher res, they seemed less harsh and easier to make big. Its close though. (link to my test of the D800E: LINK (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1199128)
In Phase anything 39mpx and lower is a Kodak sensor and anything 40 mpx and above is made by Dalsa. Now there are a couple different Dalsa sensors being used today.
Hassy is all Kodak except for the there 60 mpx back which is Dalsa. Going from memory on Hassy
I believe Leica S is the same sensor tech as the H50 back but need to double check that one.
-
- look into a tech camera where you can do a very easy two-shot stitch inside the image circle (lens static, back shifted left/right or up/down) resulting in a flat file of around 1.8x the resolution while maintaining the ability to compose in the field. This turns a 40mp back into a 70mp back (or higher if you don't mind doing, and your situation allows, three or four frame stitches which are supported on some of the large-image-circle lenses like the Schneider 60XL)
- the 40mp print looks great when viewed by itself, so why worry??
Stitching opens up many possibilities.
An interesting option is the new camera from fotodiox using the best 24MP NEX camera as a stitching back.
(http://fotodioxpro.com/RhinoCam_Images/website/vrc-crop-demo-4up.jpg)
(http://fotodioxpro.com/RhinoCam_Images/website/vrc-wrigley-final-zoom.jpg)
It has a ground glass screen for focusing and state of the art live view for fine focus.
Here is a 140MP shot.
http://fotodioxpro.com/RhinoCam_Images/RhinoCam_Wrigley.jpg (http://fotodioxpro.com/RhinoCam_Images/RhinoCam_Wrigley.jpg)
They have one in the works for Nikon and Canon cameras.
-
I do want to make 40x60in prints (or 40x50) (used to use 6x7 film for that) and I did some test prints with raw files from the 645D and they looked real nice. The color in the shadow areas was super smooth with little noise and with good detail. The h4D-40 files were similar but had a touch more noise in the shadows and at longer exposures (and/or higher iso's). The 645D looked like a better performer as the exposure time and iso increases. I tested the Nikon D800E with the best wide angles I could find (Zeiss 15mm zf.2, 14-24mm Nikon and the 24mm PC-E) and image quality was really good also. The 645D images seemed that they had a touch smoother gradations and a hair higher res, they seemed less harsh and easier to make big. Its close though. (link to my test of the D800E: LINK (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1199128)
The difference between D800e and a 40MP MF cameras is as you saw quite small. Pretty much equivalent and if anything it is really quite difficult to see any difference.
Often the differences seen are processing dependent. I have found that the most natural results (less harsh) are obtained using Nikons Raw converter.
Have you seen this test comparing the IQ180 to the D800E
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)
-
Great info! Thx!
Yeah, the P65+ seems like a good value right now and excellent for landscape and architecture. I saw few in use during my visit to a several of the premier landscape locations in Colorado this past fall. I saw one person using a Hasselblad H D series and one using a 645DF I believe with a Phase back. The D800 and D800E were popular but most people were shooting Canon. The scenes I shot really stretch the capabilities of any camera. I was at the limit and past with my Canon 5D3. I dealt with most situations using ND grads and multiple exposures and used Canon's best lenses at optimum apertures and as close to perfect technique as I could do. 2 things I wished more of were, dynamic range / clean deep shadows and resolution (actually not a lot more for 20x30in prints but significantly more for 40x60's). Honestly I think I did as good as you can do with the 5D3.
Here are a few samples (Photo Icon Warning!)
-
The photograph of the stream is very nice.
One thing for sure whatever you end up getting you'll make it shine.
You have a firm grasp of technique. I think you would grasp advanced stitching very well
regardless of the format you use.
I have a friend who took the direction of stitching and single 36MP shots. He does magnificent stitches.
He still shoots with a Canon 7D and does two exposure HDR that he uses subtly and obtains all the dynamic range in the world.
I have seen his 40x120 prints. They are unmatched by any single shot prints.
He only shoots single shots for fast changing light.
Both of the examples you showed could be done with stitching.
-
Thx!
I have done some stitching in the past and I agree, its great for some situations. I prefer single Image capture and need for a lot of things so I need a high quality file. I also like the 4:3 ratio of the MFD sensors. Plus its really nice for doing horizontal stitching. With 35mm DSLR its best to go vertical when stitching, ditto with a Camera like the RED Scarlet/Epic. (Which ive used for motion work and has amazing dynamic range)
-
Hi,
Just to make it clear, I'm just a bystander. I'm shooting Sony Alpha. In a previous life I was shooting Pentax 67, almost exclusively on Velvia. Did consider MFD a couple of times but always decided against it.
What I would like to mention is that my experience is that my Sony Alphas match Pentax 67 for image quality, so I would expect that you should be able to achieve similar image quality from your Canon 5DIII as from Velvia 67.
Michael Reichmann wrote about this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml and my experience is similar:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
An excellent study by Tim Parkins may give different results: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
You obviously feel that a 20+ MP SLR does not fulfill your needs, it would be nice if you shared your experience.
My guess is that 40 MP 645 DSLRs would have a small benefit in sharpness and perhaps in tonality. The larger format makes lesser demand on lens and collect more photons, the latter factor would reduce midtone and highlight noise.
I have made a small write up on MFD, much based on simple physics and sample raws published by some very decent posters on the net. Two owners of IQ 180s and D800E felt that my article was good, and Tim Parkin also found it to be a good read. It is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts
In general, I would consider the needs you have. If you need wide angles, crop factor would be a major concern.
I could mention, that my major interest would probably be a Hartblei HCam, with a Phase One back. Stefan Steib, the man behind Hartblei recommended the P45+, but Hartblei can fit anything to anything. That said, it seems that Hasselblads can be available at attractive prices.
Best regards
Erik
...
I do want to make 40x60in prints (or 40x50) (used to use 6x7 film for that) and I did some test prints with raw files from the 645D and they looked real nice.
....
-
Thx!
I have done some stitching in the past and I agree, its great for some situations. I prefer single Image capture and need for a lot of things so I need a high quality file. I also like the 4:3 ratio of the MFD sensors. Plus its really nice for doing horizontal stitching. With 35mm DSLR its best to go vertical when stitching, ditto with a Camera like the RED Scarlet/Epic. (Which ive used for motion work and has amazing dynamic range)
The clearest case for a P65, IQ160 or IQ180 is the need for single shot high quality and 40x60 prints. Also if you use one of them with this and a 4x5 view camera for rectilinear stitching (really easy stitching) the results are phenomenal
and allow for filtering as well as independent tilt shift.
(http://kapturegroup.com/quad_ana/quad_port_ana.gif)
http://kapturegroup.com/quad/quad.html (http://kapturegroup.com/quad/quad.html)
-
The clearest case for a P65, IQ160 or IQ180 is the need for single shot high quality and 40x60 prints. Also if you use one of them with this and a 4x5 view camera for rectilinear stitching (really easy stitching) the results are phenomenal
and allow for filtering as well as independent tilt shift.
(http://kapturegroup.com/quad_ana/quad_port_ana.gif)
http://kapturegroup.com/quad/quad.html (http://kapturegroup.com/quad/quad.html)
Have you used the Kapture Group Quad Stitch? P65+, IQ160 or IQ180 with the Quadstitch?