Hasselblad H6D-100c LCD screen: the worst ever made

[razrblck]

I never expect color reproduction to be accurate on such a small screen, but the high contrast is worrying as it makes judging an exposure quite difficult. Reminds me of the screen on my 2005 vintage D200.

[Tarkowsky]

Hasselblad display is almost useless for judging the quality of a picture. One has only to rely on histogram. [/font][/size]

[/font][/size]

[/font][/size]
As to the reference of the Histogram, I have mention this to a Hasselblad tech and consulted several people regarding two main issues with my H6D 100 C [/font][/size]
The histogram does not correctly show the real clipping of the raw image in either R,G or B channels...it's at least 1 1/2 stops lower in many exposures. You can only trust the histogram when the word overexposure high appears.[/font][/size]
Secondly the Green channel is out of control in high DR exposures and in Low Light exposures, as of this point Hasselblad does not see it as a priority to allow a custom option for a non balanced raw histogram. When it was supposided ask to the factory the response was that's the first request they have ever had for it.[/font][/size]
I might be able to get by with AWB but my respect for capturing images with the current H6D 100 and it's current firmware proves high DR and or Low Light images won't balance out in the raw capture. I have resorted to a CC40M filter to solve this.[/font][/size]
My point is if I wanted to shoot tethered to Phocus at all times the correction is available.[/font][/size]

The camera histogram doesn't show the real untouched R,G,B raw channels as RawDigger can do but it shows the raw channels through the eye of a raw converter (Phocus in this case).
Hasselblad assumes that you will process the raw file with Phocus which will applies some conversions to the original raw file.
So what you see in the camera it's nothing else that the histogram you'll see when Phocus open the raw file.
As you may know when Phocus open a raw file it applies some default conversion to it , conversion which is  unique to each raw converter.
Adobe Camera RAW will perform a totally different conversion.
Attached there is a picture that according to RawDigger Histogram has no highlights clipped values  but the H6D-100c in camera histogram show that the Blue channel has been clipped.Same clipping happens in Phocus (most of the sky is clipped).
But if one opens the same raw file in ACR there  is no clipping at all and the histogram is more similar to  RawDigger histogram situation.
Phocus in its conversion must have stretched the highlights to the limit.
So with very high DR image I would give ACR a try and drop Phocus.

[Tarkowsky]

Wow, that's some major blue haze on that sky and mountains.
Seems like the real world had some issues as well that day, just like the LCD. 

Or maybe it was just inaccurate White Balance.

Don't get distracted by the blue haze cause what really matters here are the histograms and the highlights clipping applied by Phocus.

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

It must be too much to ask.  Look at all the screens on the previous medium format up to today.  When the P65+ was brand new and the screen came from a 1991 cell phone...what was the excuse?  When IQ series came out and the screen was only a fraction better.  Leaf gave us a pda screen up until recently.  Hassy screens haven't been any better.  I think this was a giant step forward.  We might have gotten finally up to about 2005 technology.   

I don't mind if you want to buy another camera to shoot serious video and maybe another external display just to look at the photo previews.
You're missing the point.
I am not asking for perfection but only for a decent display which any other camera can provide.
Is that too much for $32,995.00?

[razrblck]

We might have gotten finally up to about 2005 technology.   

It only gets better from there!

[BernardLanguillier]

Guys,

I'd be with you if there was nothing else to complain about... I'll give Hasselblad the benefit of the doubt for now and will wait for their soon to be released firmware update.

This being said, I love many things about the H6D-100c, starting by the touch UI that works perfect and is smooth, stable and efficient, the image quality, the wonderful lenses, the ergonomics,... it is a very healthy platform that needs more polishing.

Still, as of the current firmware I am somehow relieved to have to shoot with my D5/D500 today. These cameras still feel like much more refined tools. The difference btwn a mature product and a beta release IMHO. And I am not speaking about the intrinsic technogical differences such as AF where the Nikons are so incredibly superior it isn't even funny. The reality being tat a 20mp D5 often delivers more real world detail than a 100mp MF camera thanks to more accurate focus. But I knew this all along and have accepted this reality.

Overall, it is funny that no more users are commenting out loud, just like nobody is/was complaining in the open about the IQ3's little issues. I guess that many owners of these MF cameras feel like they must protect "their" brand by avoiding spreading negative feedbacks that could hurt sales and the brand's "survival". The relationship with dealers and average age of owners contribute to this of course.

The X1D has IMHO removed this need for Hasselblad. They have the potential now to have the bandwidth to release polished products. I am fully aligned with the need and value to tell things the way they are.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Christopher]

Sorry Bernard, but I cannot find many faults with my IQ3100 and XF / Arca combination.

It has well over 35k of images in a year now and the quality I get from it is just amazing. It blows anything else out of the water by a big margin. I really have difficulty with the GFX (and X1D, while testing it) that they just don't stand up.

However, I am still owning my IQ180 as well, which still produces great images.

The only thing I might say about the XF system is that one really has to actually work with it to learn how to handle it and even more importantly carefully do stuff like lens focus calibration.


So I find it really sad that with the Hassi system you "prefer" to use the Nikon system. For me I'm happy it's the other way around. Even when hiking or on longer trips I nearly always take the IQ back as I really enjoy using it and the results way more than any camera before that.

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[FelixWu]

Sorry Bernard, but I cannot find many faults with my IQ3100 and XF / Arca combination.

It has well over 35k of images in a year now and the quality I get from it is just amazing. It blows anything else out of the water by a big margin. I really have difficulty with the GFX (and X1D, while testing it) that they just don't stand up.

However, I am still owning my IQ180 as well, which still produces great images.

The only thing I might say about the XF system is that one really has to actually work with it to learn how to handle it and even more importantly carefully do stuff like lens focus calibration.


So I find it really sad that with the Hassi system you "prefer" to use the Nikon system. For me I'm happy it's the other way around. Even when hiking or on longer trips I nearly always take the IQ back as I really enjoy using it and the results way more than any camera before that.

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Sounds like Phase is a way better system after all...It's expensive for a reason. haha.
Just out of curiosity, who made the screen for the latest Hasselblad?

[BernardLanguillier]

So I find it really sad that with the Hassi system you "prefer" to use the Nikon system. For me I'm happy it's the other way around. Even when hiking or on longer trips I nearly always take the IQ back as I really enjoy using it and the results way more than any camera before that.

Great to read that you like you IQ back Christopher. One example of the little issues I had in mind is the recent report that it takes a significant time to zoom to 100% in live view and that switching to live takes time also. I would personally find that very irritating, but we all have different perceptions I guess. I was personnally also very un-impressed by the mirror slap of the XF, although this may not have any impact on image quality, it does for sure feel un-refined to me.

As I said, there is a lot to like about the H6D-100c as well (all the important things are lovely, starting from the image quality and the lenses), but there are still many annoying little things that IMHO should be improved. But then again, not much comes close to a D5 from that standpoint, it is significantly ahead of anything else Nikon has done in the past from a user experience standpoint.

Cheers,
Bernard

[cgarnerhome]

Bernard
I find your comments a little puzzling and perhaps biased.   I’m a long-time user of Nikon and still use my D810 – mostly as a backup to my XF100.  I certainly agree Nikon is very easy to use given my years of experience with it.  My experience with the XF100 has been exceptional and the support I get from my dealer is also exceptional.  Not sure why you think I would hesitate to criticize either the XF100 or my dealer and I certainly have no need to protect the brand.

[Tarkowsky]

Today I had the opportunity to compare Hasselblad H6D-100c and Phase one XF 100 screen.
I was not impressed by the XF screen (maybe I was expecting too much) but it outperformed the Hassy's in term of neutral color.
XF screen has a slight pinkish cast which is more pleasing than the terrible Hassy strong yellow-green cast.
I didn't measure it but it seems that Hasselblad screen is a bit bigger than XF.
Here down a photo comparing the screens color cast.
As usual I measured the scene color temperature with an i1Pro and set the internal camera WB accordingly so any color inaccuracy is due to screen calibration.

[razrblck]

I didn't measure it but it seems that Hasselblad screen is a bit bigger than XF.

The IQ3 screen is slightly larger (16:9) but the H6D one is taller (4:3). Surface area is probably very close, although you can view images full screen without black borders nor cropping on the H6D while you can't on the IQ3. I checked with overlays in Photoshop, so it's not extremely accurate (the XF seems to be slightly farther from the camera, which can make it look smaller).

The color is certainly different, but so is contrast. The H6D on the grayscale goes very quickly from white to black, while on the IQ3 you can see more shades of gray.

[Doug Peterson]

Although you can view images full screen without black borders nor cropping on the H6D while you can't on the IQ3.

Correct. The IQ was designed with a wide-aspect ratio screen to allow tools/analytics to appear next to an uncropped image. I am not aware of any other camera that makes this design choice, and while I'm highly biased, I think this is absolutely brilliant.

For me the primary purpose of the back screen of any modern pro digital camera is to provide fast access to analyze the technical merits of the image. A few inch screen is not suitable to analyze the artistic/content merits of the image beyond the most cursory level. If you want a large image to review for artistic merit there is wifi, usb, firewire, and HDMI to access larger screens from a small iPhone up to an Eizo to a large-screen TV. The small screen should really focus on the technical.

The wide-aspect screen really helps with that technical analysis. You can have a full histogram, an exposure warning, a clipping warning, and metadata (aperture/shutter/iso) on the screen at the same time alongside with a full uncropped image that isn't reduced in size.

On a related tangent of image review in-camera. It still defies logic to me that Phase One is the only company (that I'm aware of; if I've missed someone please let me know) that provides access to a clipping/overexposure indication based on the modern definition of overexposure (clipped data on more than one color channel in the original raw data; not on some histogram with curves/color-space already applied). It's so easy and so helpful!

[eronald]

This thread is about a calibration issue of the screen, it's software, and I'm sure Hassy could dealmwith it with a firmware update to allow the user to adjust screen wb, and even input a profile ...

It's just a matter of what's at the top of their bug list. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Edmund

Correct. The IQ was designed with a wide-aspect ratio screen to allow tools/analytics to appear next to an uncropped image. I am not aware of any other camera that makes this design choice, and while I'm highly biased, I think this is absolutely brilliant.

For me the primary purpose of the back screen of any modern pro digital camera is to provide fast access to analyze the technical merits of the image. A few inch screen is not suitable to analyze the artistic/content merits of the image beyond the most cursory level. If you want a large image to review for artistic merit there is wifi, usb, firewire, and HDMI to access larger screens from a small iPhone up to an Eizo to a large-screen TV. The small screen should really focus on the technical.

The wide-aspect screen really helps with that technical analysis. You can have a full histogram, an exposure warning, a clipping warning, and metadata (aperture/shutter/iso) on the screen at the same time alongside with a full uncropped image that isn't reduced in size.

On a related tangent of image review in-camera. It still defies logic to me that Phase One is the only company (that I'm aware of; if I've missed someone please let me know) that provides access to a clipping/overexposure indication based on the modern definition of overexposure (clipped data on more than one color channel in the original raw data; not on some histogram with curves/color-space already applied). It's so easy and so helpful!

[Tarkowsky]

..........
On a related tangent of image review in-camera. It still defies logic to me that Phase One is the only company (that I'm aware of; if I've missed someone please let me know) that provides access to a clipping/overexposure indication based on the modern definition of overexposure (clipped data on more than one color channel in the original raw data; not on some histogram with curves/color-space already applied). It's so easy and so helpful!

Yes I totally agree with you.
I wish Hasselblad did the same but alas they made another choice.
The histogram is not based on the original virgin raw file but on some already Phocus like processed raw data as I have shown previously.
As for the XF screen I once asked a tech guy at Phase One about the color temperature the screen was calibrated at and he told me that it was  set as usual at 6500K.
Well what I measured with my i1Pro tells me that the white point is set around 5500k very similar to Hasselblad.
Duv=-0.0029 is still acceptable though the CRI Ra=71 is quite low comparing to the Nikon D800 excellent 92 but still better than Hasselblad 67.
But as many have pointed out we are not asking for perfect color accuracy but for a decent one which means that what really counts is the Duv value which determine the color cast of the screen and in that regard XF screen passes the test and Hasselblad doesn't.

[eronald]

Unless Hassy designed in a really inferior backlight/screen it's all software.

there really is no excuse for bad screens these days, since every medium price chinese Android phone has a halfways decent screen and Hassy have privileged access to the suppliers via their mothership DJI.

Edmund

Yes I totally agree with you.
I wish Hasselblad did the same but alas they made another choice.
The histogram is not based on the original virgin raw file but on some already Phocus like processed raw data as I have shown previously.
As for the XF screen I once asked a tech guy at Phase One about the color temperature the screen was calibrated at and he told me that it was  set as usual at 6500K.
Well what I measured with my i1Pro tells me that the white point is set around 5500k very similar to Hasselblad.
Duv=-0.0029 is still acceptable though the CRI Ra=71 is quite low comparing to the Nikon D800 excellent 92 but still better than Hasselblad 67.
But as many have pointed out we are not asking for perfect color accuracy but for a decent one which means that what really counts is the Duv value which determine the color cast of the screen and in that regard XF screen pass the test and Hasselblad doesn't.

[BernardLanguillier]

I find your comments a little puzzling and perhaps biased.   I’m a long-time user of Nikon and still use my D810 – mostly as a backup to my XF100.  I certainly agree Nikon is very easy to use given my years of experience with it.  My experience with the XF100 has been exceptional and the support I get from my dealer is also exceptional.  Not sure why you think I would hesitate to criticize either the XF100 or my dealer and I certainly have no need to protect the brand.

I frankly couldn't care less about the P1 vs Hasselblad debate. I am fully convinced that the IQ3-100 is a great product and was very close to buying one myself not that long ago as a contributor to these pages could confirm. If anything, pricing is the main reason why I didn't. But based on what I know about the IQ3-100 and XF camera, I would personally be complaining about some aspects (examples added above) and am just surprised that nobody else (besides Paul recently) has mentioned these.

So, out of curiosity, are you happy about the time it takes to zoom to 100% in live view on your IQ3? It is a genuine question, we all have different expectations in terms of user experience based on our previous references.

Cheers,
Bernard

[cgarnerhome]

There is no question live view could/should be improved.  I would also like to have a higher resolution display.  While I'm at it, I would like to see a better AWB as it is vastly inferior to the D810.  Another improvement I would like to see is the ability to turn off the dark frame subtraction.  It should be an option.

[Christopher]

Bernard, in complete honesty and as I know best, actually both is absolutely fine and fast enough. In the year shooting with it these to points were certainly no aspects I thought twice about. It works great.

One thing that could be faster is playback and write speed to the card. But still nothing that bothered me during my last 35k images or so.

Another thing that would bother me is a great 55lens that is missing in the line up. However, that has little to do with the camera. 

I could go on about a few things I dislike and things I would never want to miss again. But it's correct it's not a Phase topic it was about screens, so I Stopp here.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[dchew]

I too do not have a problem with how quickly the IQ100 zooms into 100%. Seems very fast to me.

I do think Canon still implements the best Liveview. The IQ100 screen lacks something, either sharpness in the rendered image or sharpness of the screen itself. I also wish I could enter a default f-stop like f/11, instead of having to scroll through them from f/4 or whatever every time (technical camera).

I think the size of the screen is fine. The level feature is terribly inaccurate. Constantly recalibating mine to the point I've given up using it.

Dave