H5D-50c vs Canon 5DSR w/Otus - your opinions

[torger]

I've shot the 5dsr with Canon 24TSEII, next to the Credo with the SK43 on the RM3di

The Credo still blows the Canon out of the water...it's the glass.

If you're comparing a 43 to a 24 you should ideally have ~72mm sensor diagonal, but I guess full-frame 645 is enough (68mm).

Then the next question is how much did you shift? In center the no doubt the 43mm shall be considerably sharper. But then make a 10mm shift on the canon, which becomes 18mm on the 43mm. Did you compare that? Possibly the SK43 may still win, but it should be closer. The Rodenstock 40mm is a closer match focal length-wise and a better performer AFAIK, but then the image circle is only 90mm, the SK43 has 110mm.

Generally speaking the strength of the Canon wide angle combos is that they have a lot of shift range, but their peak sharpness is weaker. What is more important depends on your shooting style. I don't really use that much shift range myself on wides so I'm fine, but if you shoot architecture you may like having more.

[torger]

What I would add is that some T&S capability can be added to 135 systems with the Mirex T&S adapter and MF lenses when using DSLRs. On the Sony A7xx the HCam Master TSII can also be used, and that device offer +/- 15 mm shift and 10 degrees of tilt, with any lens - of course depending on the image circle.

Thanks for pointing that out. Tilt-shift developments via adapters with the mirrorless Sonys is among the most interesting things that have happened in technical photography recently (together with the Cambo Actus and F-Universalis). I haven't myself had the time to analyze what these systems can do. It will be up to the lenses, and it will be toughest on the wide side. Before a 135 system can be attractive alternative to me I need 24, 35, 50, and say 90mm tilt-shift focal lengths of very high quality. If that does appear, and it does 50+ megapixels well, then I will seriously consider it for the next upgrade, but I don't think we are there yet.

[landscapephoto]

As the HTS is a tele converter it really needs to prove itself and I think pixel-peep comparisons would be nice. There's a TS-E 24 + 5Ds II pixel peep thread here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106011.0

It would be nice to see how the H5D-50c + 24+HTS compares to that.

I rented it for a project and found the combination close to perfect. How much is that is due to Phocus, I don't know, but it worked very well. I can't post pictures of that project I rented the HTS for, but there is one in another forum here:
http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php/topic,1441.msg16959.html#new. You'll need to click the picture to see it bigger.

[NickT]

You'll also need to be a member

Note that Phocus uses the tilt and shift values (along with lens type aperture and focus distance) to calculate corrections when using the HTS. As far as I know this is the only T/S system that does that.

Nick-T

[torger]

Yes AFAIK it's the only tilt-shift that does lens corrections automatically, and that's great of course.

If you're an enthusiast photographer you generally want to own the gear though, not just rent for a particular job/project. The HTS is €4500+VAT or so, and the HCD24mm is as much, €9000 is a pretty expensive tilt-shift lens, even in medium format terms.

[eronald]

Yes AFAIK it's the only tilt-shift that does lens corrections automatically, and that's great of course.

If you're an enthusiast photographer you generally want to own the gear though, not just rent for a particular job/project. The HTS is €4500+VAT or so, and the HCD24mm is as much, €9000 is a pretty expensive tilt-shift lens, even in medium format terms.

A Hassy with that lens is probably still cheaper than a Phase one back with a body.

Edmund

[gavincato]

Hi all,

I'll be grateful for your feedback on the following:

I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user.

I haven't used the hasselblad, but I do own a 645z which has the same sensor - so I imagine it's similar. I've compared the 645z with a friends 5dsr and it wasn't even close, the pentax pounded it.

That said I'm assuming you are using zeiss 15mm or 21mm and they are pretty wide. So check the focal lengths you want are available on whatever MF system to jump to.

[Ken R]

I haven't used the hasselblad, but I do own a 645z which has the same sensor - so I imagine it's similar. I've compared the 645z with a friends 5dsr and it wasn't even close, the pentax pounded it.

That said I'm assuming you are using zeiss 15mm or 21mm and they are pretty wide. So check the focal lengths you want are available on whatever MF system to jump to.

From what I have seen resolution wise its pretty close between the Canon and the Pentax (with equally good technique both and the best wide angle glass available) but the 645Z files are MUCH nicer, smoother, less noise an MUCH more dynamic range and better color. That said the D810 files are quite close to the 645Z files in depth just have a tad less resolution. Like you said, no point in choosing one camera if the lenses you want / need are not available for it or can't be used on it. With more lens selection (wider high quality wide angle primes) the 645Z would be a great choice for wide angle landscape work. But in Photography the Lens is a HUGE part of any system.

Of the current Medium Format Digital SLRs the Leica S probably has the best lens line (outstanding 24mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses) with the Hasselblad H close by (nice 24 and 28mm wides) and then the PhaseOne system (the new 35mm is stunning but there are no high quality wider angle choices, the 28 is so so). The Pentax is in-between the last two thanks to the nice 28-45mm lens and the 25mm (which is nice but has issues). Keep in mind with the Leica S you can use the Hasselblad H lenses and Contax 645 lenses.

I have yet to see files from the Canon 5DSR with the new Otus 28mm f1.4 lens which I hear is stunning. 

I did not mention the A7RII because while it is an awesome camera it has a limited native lens line and while one can use a huge range of lenses via adapters the performance varies wildly with other lenses. 

[gavincato]

From what I have seen resolution wise its pretty close between the Canon and the Pentax (with equally good technique both and the best wide angle glass available)

Hi Ken,

In our little test it was a 24-70mk2 on the canon @ f/11 versus my very old 35/3.5 on the pentax. Wasn't even close. The detail the old 35 pulls out is incredible.

Would agree the zeiss 28mm would even things up a lot. Don't know anyone with one unfortunately. I'm very glad I have the 645z though at times I do miss the dizzying amount of lens options in canon world.

[torger]

I would be surprised if the Sony has considerably better color than the Canon. In my profiling work I've looked at some Canons and even more Sonys and my conclusion is that I prefer Canon's color response. Sony's sensors often have an over-sensitive blue (Pentax 645z, Sony A7r etc) which makes it sort of impossible to make a realistic blue if you want it to work well for high saturation colors, while Canon is more balanced. I think it's easier to get color where you want with the Canon. But sure, run with Adobe Lightroom or Capture One and the color can be anything. These days I only use custom profiles.

That the DR of the Sony is larger is undeniable though, but the 5Ds does provide an improvement compared to the previous Canon's, gone are the large pattern noise issues. The DR is about the same as Kodak-based MFD backs, like my own H4D-50. Sure if shadow-pushing is your thing, that may be a problem, but it depends on shooting/artistic style.

The largest problem with the 135 range when it comes to high resolution photography is that lens choice is a mine field. While in the Hassy/Phamiya range any lens you get is either very good or great, with the 135 (and indeed Pentax 645z) there are both bad and good ones, and I imagine (not sure though) that there is a larger problem with out-of-spec lenses in 135 than in MF. (It should be said that tech cam lens choice is a mine field too though, from a compatibility perspective.) I think it should be possible to get good lenses in the Canon range, but you need to choose carefully, and then verify you got a good copy. For the pixel peepers I think the digital picture's review site gives a great overview.

If we should believe the forums like Lula and GetDPI I think the clear winner for landscape photography is a Sony mirrorless with adapters or Cambo Actus. But then it's all about the sensor, and in that much about DR. Considering ergonomics and all-aroundness the Canon feels way more solid.

The original poster is on a budget. I would therefore consider one of the following:

- Do you want to investigate "large format style" photography, that is using movements?

If no:
 - keep Canon, Pentax 645z, second hand Hassy H3D-39 with the intention to upgrade later on
If yes:
 - keep Canon get TS-E 24 II, Sony mirrorless with adapters and good lenses, second hand MFD with field view camera sliding back and compatible lenses, Hassy with HTS

The strongest reason to switch from Canon I think would be if 1) you really think DR is limiting, and 2) there are too few tilt-shift lenses with high quality.

The Hassy track is good if you intend to spend a lot in the longer term. You can start cheap with a second hand H3DII-39 and start build lens collection. The lens collection will be costly, even second hand, and the HTS is incredibly expensive.

I don't think Phase One XF is a great option as it's harder to get good starter deals and the system lacks attractive tilt shift options.

[torger]

I think one important reason that people get MF is to get something different, something that it's not so common. I must confess that's one reason I have my Linhof, I enjoy that it's not a standard DSLR.

My Linhof Techno is like a 4x5" field view camera, with the difference that all movements are geared and you don't have to mess with film. You focus on the ground glass, the lenses have the same properties as large format lenses (simple lightweight symmetric small aperture with the characteristic foggy bokeh), tilt, swing rise, fall shift is available on all focal lengths. It's nice. In the analog era I would surely be a large format photographer.

Tech cams are unfortunately moving rapidly towards becoming the same as a Sony mirrorless, just with higher resolving power. With the best lenses you can already today say that 135 matches 4x5" film quality. Shooting high end MFD is rivaling 8x10" quality.

Personally I'm satisfied with 4x5" image quality. I wouldn't say no to 8x10" quality, but then weight, flexibility and price becomes increasingly important factors. I generally don't just drive to a Yosemite parking lot and unload the camera from the trunk and shoot a picture. I carry around all my gear, sometimes for long distances. That the gear is compatible with the way I want to make pictures is important. Ironically my system with 7 lenses is probably lighter than a 135 system would be with the same type of quality, as those lenses are huge. Lightweight large format digital lenses are becoming history though, now when Schneider is leaving the business - however it will exist in second hand market for 10+ years.

I bought my H4D-50 second hand from a professional Swedish landscape photographer. He switched to Pentax 645z. Although he enjoyed the improved DR, the main reason seemed to be that he wanted the better weather proofing. Such things can also be a factor. I've solved weather proofing with an umbrella, that works for me , but it wouldn't if I would shoot a lot of hand-held.

[Ken R]

Hi Ken,

In our little test it was a 24-70mk2 on the canon @ f/11 versus my very old 35/3.5 on the pentax. Wasn't even close. The detail the old 35 pulls out is incredible.

Would agree the zeiss 28mm would even things up a lot. Don't know anyone with one unfortunately. I'm very glad I have the 645z though at times I do miss the dizzying amount of lens options in canon world.

I still have the Pentax 35 A and it is indeed a gem of a lens. I got both the A and FA version at the same time and sold the FA after a quick test. At longer focus distances and infinity the A was just much better edge to edge.

Put one of the best primes on the Canon and things will be much more even resolution wise.

That said my Rodenstock 40mm HR-W puts any SLR lens to shame. It is not close.
 

[Bo Dez]

I don't think it's a wise time to buy into a new platform or brand unless you are absolutely certain you need something particular. There is so much going on in the industry from almost every brand that it's hard to get a clear picture of the future. I think it's best to wait to Photokina and see what happens.

I've been using a Hasselblad H5D with a Phase One IQ160. The new camera is definitely an improvement in most ways but next to the Phase One XF it's quite dated, IMO, and Hasselblad has a lot of catching up to do but I don't think they are financially well placed to do so. That leaves them in a dangerous position, IMO.

It is going to be interesting to see how Medium Format responds to the rapid advancements of small formats. Can they keep up and continue to differentiate at a level that makes it worthwhile? I'm not so sure any more. The reason there are soooooo many Medium Format backs on ebay these days at very low prices is because so many owners of these systems (that I personally know of) have moved on from Medium Format altogether and are happy with their change.

Here is a video that paints a reasonably good picture of small v large formats. (sony v phase). The differences are there but the gap is closing - I never thought I'd say that being a long time MFD shooter.

[Ken R]

I don't think it's a wise time to buy into a new platform or brand unless you are absolutely certain you need something particular. There is so much going on in the industry from almost every brand that it's hard to get a clear picture of the future. I think it's best to wait to Photokina and see what happens.

I've been using a Hasselblad H5D with a Phase One IQ160. The new camera is definitely an improvement in most ways but next to the Phase One XF it's quite dated, IMO, and Hasselblad has a lot of catching up to do but I don't think they are financially well placed to do so. That leaves them in a dangerous position, IMO.

It is going to be interesting to see how Medium Format responds to the rapid advancements of small formats. Can they keep up and continue to differentiate at a level that makes it worthwhile? I'm not so sure any more. The reason there are soooooo many Medium Format backs on ebay these days at very low prices is because so many owners of these systems (that I personally know of) have moved on from Medium Format altogether and are happy with their change.

Here is a video that paints a reasonably good picture of small v large formats. (sony v phase). The differences are there but the gap is closing - I never thought I'd say that being a long time MFD shooter.

When using longer lenses the smaller formats can compete no question but when using wide angles, specially tech wide angle lenses the larger formats offer MUCH higher image quality potential. I mean, the A7RII performs pretty poorly when you combine wide angle coverage and lens/camera movements. Even adapted Canon TS-E lenses can offer sub-par performance on the A7RII as you get closer to the edges of the frame (the sensor stack or cover glass might contribute some to this). Right now for wide angle landscapes there is just no higher quality alternative to the large sensor digital backs (yes even ones with the Kodak 50mp sensor, the KAF-50100?) and tech camera wide angles (down to the stunning 23mm HR-W, which is about a 15mm equiv.). There just isn't. We are talking about the ultimate image quality achievable.

For macro type studio setups like the one in the video? well I can think of about 20 camera lens combinations that can perform similarly in such a scenario.

[torger]

Even adapted Canon TS-E lenses can offer sub-par performance on the A7RII as you get closer to the edges of the frame (the sensor stack or cover glass might contribute some to this). Right now for wide angle landscapes there is just no higher quality alternative to the large sensor digital backs (yes even ones with the Kodak 50mp sensor, the KAF-50100?) and tech camera wide angles (down to the stunning 23mm HR-W, which is about a 15mm equiv.). There just isn't. We are talking about the ultimate image quality achievable.

I advise you to look for the crops in this thread:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106011.msg871920#msg871920
Like Marc Aurel points out you need a good copy, he posted tests before with a bad copy and I think many base their judgment on that. And if you have the TS-E II is not bad, not bad at all. When it comes to large shifts it's actually currently the other way around, the tech cams offer no competition because they simply don't have the shift range, image circles are too small in relation to sensor size.

I have the KAF-50100 + SK35, same FoV and pixel count as Canon 5Ds TS-E 24 II. My combo is a bit sharper close to center, but it simply can't do the same amount of shifts like the Canon combo. A Digaron-S 35mm would be sharper, but the 70mm image circle make movements even more limited than on the SK35. The Rodenstock 32mm is there (which is the widest with a 90mm image circle, unless you count the SK28XL which just isn't compatible with current sensors), and then it's a win, except on shift range, and relative shift range reduces further with a full-frame 645 sensor. With the Digaron-S 28 and 23 you only have a few mm of shift range on a full-frame 645. There's nothing there to meet the TS-E 17mm II shift range and FoV.

Tech cams also have lens compatibility issues, when you get close to the edges you often get color fidelity issues due to crosstalk, which many tech cam users choose to ignore (it was always easier to pixel peep than to evaluate color), but it's there. The reason is that the lenses are not retrofocus enough for the available sensors, especially the CMOS ones, but IQ180 show issues on the Rodenstock, also the 60MP Dalsas but it's mostly recoverable. The Rodies also have that hard-edge image circle causing penumbra problems in some situations which means you don't want to get too close to the image circle. Center filters give the similar effect with a penumbra, and I get that on my SK35 but it doesn't matter as only 75mm of the 90mm image circle is any good on that lens anyway.

If you want the smaller formats win a wide angle comparison, then you get a good lens copy and employ large shifts. If you want tech cams to win out you employ small shifts, or ironically employ movements on longer lenses -- if we look at the Canon system there's still only the 17 and 24 that's great, there are no longer tilt-shift lenses and that's actually a show-stopper for me personally. It's not the TS-E 24 II quality that's stopping me from using the Canon for my landscape photography, it's the lack of high quality longer lenses with tilt-shift, where there of course are plenty in the tech cam space.

I'm not saying the small formats are better -- if the tech MFD systems is allowed to perform in their ideal range they're obviously producing higher resolution, but there are overlaps and the situation on the wide angles is very complex as sensor compatibility is a mess. For my own shooting style I don't think the relatively small shift range on the wides is a huge problem, as I don't like the stretched perspectives. But say if I would shoot lots of architecture or cloud formations in skies or aurora etc, I wouldn't say no to a TS-E II 17 with large shift range.

With the current tech lens line I will probably not strive for a full-frame 645. I think the 90mm image circle is a little bit smallish for 54x41mm (too small shift range), the 48x36mm like I have now is the ideal tradeoff but that format is history. For the future 44x33 size seems more suitable, a little bit overkill with 90mm (it's about the same relative shift as you get on the Canon), and a little bit oversized for 70mm, but acceptable on wides for me. To me having a tech camera with strong limitations on shift just takes away the creative joy that was the reason I got one in the first place, I want something more than a resolution machine.

[Chris Barrett]

Even adapted Canon TS-E lenses can offer sub-par performance on the A7RII as you get closer to the edges of the frame

Hmm... that has not been my experience at all.  For several years, my wide angle architecture setup was the SK35 on a 60mp back (P65+ and then IQ260).  I found that the 24TS-EII on the A7r easily outperformed the MF rig.  It could shift further while holding better edge sharpness and color shifting wasn't nearly the issue it was with the Schneider.

I've been really surprised to read criticisms here of the 24TS-EII.  It's easily one of the sharpest lenses I've owned... at least my copy is.

[torger]

There is a sample variation issue with the TS-E 24 II, that's why judgments are all over the map.

[Paul2660]

There is a sample variation issue with the TS-E 24 II, that's why judgments are all over the map.

Sadly, is seems this statement is true for all brands, i.e. sample variation.  I have seen it in Sigma, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Phase One, even the highly esteemed Rodenstock 32mm HR-W. 

Paul C

[vjbelle]

Sadly, is seems this statement is true for all brands, i.e. sample variation.  I have seen it in Sigma, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Phase One, even the highly esteemed Rodenstock 32mm HR-W. 

Paul C

So true...... I would like to add my short lived ownership of a Rody HR-W 90mm one of their flagship lenses.  My copy was so bad that I couldn't believe it.  When shifted to the left the left side focus point went far with crisp detail and when shifted to the right the right focus point came very near and the right side went very soft.

Victor

[Ken R]

I must have really good 24mm TS-E II as well. I use it on a Canon 5D3 though so the limiting factor is the sensor.

I have seen really good results from people using the Canon TS-E II lenses on digital backs (with an ALPA FPS), that is also a great alternative.

Regarding tech lenses at least my copy of the Rodenstock 40mm HR-W lens is stunning up to the edge of the image circle (90mm) which has a hard edge due to the internal disc/mask.

The Canon 24mm TS-E II has an image circle of about 70mm (maybe a hair less) at f11 with really good quality almost to the edge. The IC of the 17mm TS-E II is a bit less but looses quality earlier. Both should work great with the Sony 50mp sensor and offer 6-8mm of movement easily while retaining image quality. That probably is the best wide angle system setup available right now (with Harblei or ALPA FPS body (or a ArcaSwiss FP in the future as well)) combining an outstanding sensor with great optics.

The Rodenstock 23mm HR-W is similar (70mm I.C.) to the 24mm TS-E II, maybe a bit sharper but it does have issues with several sensors.