Topic: Change from 1Ds Mark II to H3D 39 (Read 6598 times)

PeterDendrinos · « **on:** July 18, 2007, 08:05:09 pm »

Has anyone made the change to the hassie, or has anyone experience with both? I am thinking of making the change. I am looking for real world advice and opinion.

I shoot landscaps primarly. Moved from 4x5 film to the canon. make and sell prints up to 24x30 or so, and want to get larger. the canon and the scanned 4x5 seem to loose it by then.

I am looking for more information in the file to alow me to go bigger.

Also aside from big, i would like to get the best possible image quality at any size.

Pete

Nick_T · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2007, 08:45:18 pm »

Quote

Has anyone made the change to the hassie, or has anyone experience with both? I am thinking of making the change. I am looking for real world advice and opinion.

I shoot landscaps primarly. Moved from 4x5 film to the canon. make and sell prints up to 24x30 or so, and want to get larger. the canon and the scanned 4x5 seem to loose it by then.

I am looking for more information in the file to alow me to go bigger.

Also aside from big, i would like to get the best possible image quality at any size.

Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You will see a massive difference in quality for sure. The lens corrections that the Hasselblad uses are pretty cool too. You obviously won't have the frame rate of the Canon nor the high ISO (the 'blad only goes to 400 at the moment).

Nick-T

Barry Goyette · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2007, 09:37:01 pm »

I'll be honest. I have very mixed feelings about landscape photography on the Hasselblad. I shoot with a 5d and and H2 Ixpress 132C. And typically I take the 5d with me when it's a landscape shoot.

Here's why. The hasselblad lacks an AA filter which a) makes the image sharper and 2) can cause moire in situations with high frequency detail. In the case of landscapes...the high freequency detail is blades of grass, the texture in rocks....sand...dirt...whatever. My experience is that the artifacts created greatly outway any increase in sharpness you'll get from the hasselblad...and will require at least some post processing to remove...that will inevitably wipe out much of the resolution gain you get from the it. One way around this is to use a Caprock filter or some other diffusion filter...to take the edge off...but again...once you've done this the benefits of the hasselblad start to go away.

Add to this the wider ISO range. Faster shooting. Lens choice...etc...the canon is a real contender.

(that said...because of the AA filter on the canon...fine details in a landscape can have a "smeared" or "noise reduction" look to them...which will be seen when you go to larger prints)

On the other hand....I think the color you'll get from the hasselblad will be vastly superior to what you're used to with the 1ds....and the files should be somewhat more malleable...although my experience with the 5d is that you can pull more than a rabbit out of some pretty dark holes in the Canon files.

I regularly make 20x30 prints from my 5d, and they look great.

One other caveat. The essence of the 39 is that it's nearing the point where "sharpness" and moire artifacts are no longer so strongly associated. The 39 will amaze you at it's utter lack of depth of field....because of this...even stopped down, very little of the frame is truly tack sharp...and thus the areas where moire artifacts might appear are substantially diminished. I've recently purchased the 31 (which has the same pixel pitch as the 39) and while I have been able to make it produce moire artifacts...they are significantly less noticeable than what the 22mp produces.

Barry

Khun_K · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2007, 01:45:32 am »

I use 1Ds MK2 and digital backs, P45 and H3D39. It is difficult to compare the results to be honest. For absolute sharpness, the DB of course is visbly superior than 1Ds MK2, but digital backs on SLR has limited depth of field and they work slower, so if the computer skill is good and with a fast computer, in many situations you can stitch multiple capture on 1Ds MK2 and create a final image that is as good. I don't use my back for ISO above 200, not even 400, I will just use 1Ds MK2, but if more depth of field is needed, and in combination with speed, ISO and so on, the Canon offering is in fact still quite good. Especially there is hard rain, heavy snow or on harsh locations - you might not want to risk DB.
I have also found on H3D39 needs more attention when you apply sharpening. Since it lack of the filter, the raw file appear to be sharper, but the image will became a little grainy look when you over sharpening the image - different from over sharpening the 1Ds MK2 file - which has somewhat digital artifacts, but hard to say which is better, at least for me.
But if single capture is the only way to compare, without question, 25/33/39mp DB is clearly superior, and easily visible, than 1Ds MK2.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2007, 04:55:35 am »

Quote

The 39 will amaze you at it's utter lack of depth of field....because of this...even stopped down, very little of the frame is truly tack sharp...and thus the areas where moire artifacts might appear are substantially diminished. I've recently purchased the 31 (which has the same pixel pitch as the 39) and while I have been able to make it produce moire artifacts...they are significantly less noticeable than what the 22mp produces.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When comparing my D2x and ZD from this standpoint, the gap is all the more obvious. When DoF is important, there is really no beating APS sized sensors.

The good news is that there are now excellent ways to increase DoF digitally.

Cheers,
Bernard

marcwilson · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:10:56 am »

Quote

...I shoot landscaps primarly. Moved from 4x5 film to the canon. make and sell prints up to 24x30 or so, and want to get larger. the canon and the scanned 4x5 seem to loose it by then.

I am looking for more information in the file to alow me to go bigger.

Also aside from big, i would like to get the best possible image quality at any size.

Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really don't get the part about 4x5 scanned film losing quality at 24x30 inch prints.
Prints of this size and much much larger are what 4x5 film are all about...especially with landscape photography.
That said even if you shooot on 10x8 but skimp on the scan you won't get the quality so perhaps that was the problem.

Marc

Dustbak · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:37:10 am »

Quote

When comparing my D2x and ZD from this standpoint, the gap is all the more obvious. When DoF is important, there is really no beating APS sized sensors.

The good news is that there are now excellent ways to increase DoF digitally.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,

Do you increase DoF with stuff like Helicon Focus? If so how does it cope with perspective errors due to focal length change while focussing?

I find this very hard to do in PS, transitions are very hard to disguise.

bob mccarthy · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:57:31 am »

Quote

I shoot landscaps primarly. Moved from 4x5 film to the canon. make and sell prints up to 24x30 or so, and want to get larger. the canon and the scanned 4x5 seem to loose it by then.

I am looking for more information in the file to alow me to go bigger.

Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pete, you gotta dump the Epson and buy a real scanner. 4x5 Fuji sheet film (Velvia, Provia) will enlarge far larger than that w/o breaking up.

Note, that I have been playing with stitching 4 to 6 shots into files that will cover a wall. My Technika has been lonely lately.

Bob

PeterDendrinos · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:44:51 am »

Thank you all for the comments. I sell Black and white images, traditionally i only shot B&W film. When i began going digital, i scanned the negs with a Microtek Scanmaker 1000xl. I thought the results were ok up to 16x20 perhaps even 24x30 or so, but i know i can and should expect more out of the image.

Currently i run my raw canon files through DXO Optics software, and rather like the result. I generally shoot wider angle lenses or short telephoto, like 24mm and 70mm in the 35mm format. I don't need the speed either in the shots per minute or the fast iso. if i can stop the wind movement i am quite happy. The canon at 400 iso is an unusable image anyway. generally 50 or 100 is where i land.

I do however generally aim for good depth of field. typically shooting at around f11. If i want selective focus i aim for 2.8 and really let it fall off.

P

mtomalty · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:52:45 am »

Peter

First off,if your 4x5 prints are falling apart at 24x30 then there's something seriously
wrong with your process to get to the point of printing.

It's really AT about 24x30 that quality large format images start distancing themselves from
prints using a 1Ds Mkll,for example. Up to that point,in my opinion, the Canon files generally
hold their own very well.

As for your main question,I have been in a somewhat similar 'holding' pattern for a couple of
years trying to determine what is the 'proper' time for me to move my workflow to a
digital back.
I currently shoot 1Ds Mkll and 5D as well as incorporating a fairly significant volume of
4x5 and 6x9.

My principal source of income is as a stock photographer but I am growing,with some success,
a print sale business.

For stock,I have been of the opinion that there has been no advantage to me to invest the
not insignificant dollars into a MFDB system,regardless of the quality advantages I see, for a
number of reasons that I won't go into here as it will stray too far off-topic.

As my print business grows,and knowing the markets appetite for large prints,I am now
putting a back purchase at the top of my list.

My 4x5 images (which I scan on my Imacon 848) are no less impressive than they were a day,a month,or a year ago but the reality is that I can no longer,as a small two person business,
produce the volume and dedicate the neccessary time to scan and clean the 4x5's to
sufficiently populate my stock and fine art interests.

Over the past six months,I have logged enough time with each of Leaf,Phase,and
Hasselblads 'largest' backs to know that all will easily fullfill my technical need to eliminate
4x 5 from my workflow and foreseeable print needs.

Prints from each to 30x 40 are flawless and,though i haven't yet done so,I see no reason
to expect they will falter at larger sizes.

I have seen no moire,or other such imaging artifacts, in landscape work as was mentioned
earlier in the thread with Hasselblad files from their H3D-39 camera.Occasionally,moire will be
an issue with manmade content such as window blinds or ventilation grills on buildings,etc
but I have yet to see it in more randomly patterned natural subjects such as sand,rock,etc.

In short,if you've been satisfied with your Canon files (you don't say which camera)
then you will be very satisfied with the files from Hasselblad cameras or backs (and all
equivalent backs for that matter)

MT

ternst · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:58:33 am »

Peter:

I recently moved up to a P-45 Mamiya system from a Nikon D2x and Canon 1Ds Mark II. I was kind of surprised to discover that even small prints like 11x14 look better with the large sensor, and large prints take on new life and meaning - more like what you should be getting with your 4x5 and a good drum scan. I have not found any issues with moire on details, nor any slowed down setup or shooting time, and the post processing time has been cut down to almost nothing - the files are so much better right out of the camera, or should I say right out of Camera Raw. And when I do need to push the pixels around a bit, the Phase One files hold up so much better than either the Nikon or Canon files - not even close. The limited depth of field is somewhat of an issue with the medium format, but just requires a little extra care in shooting, and often I will focus bracket and blend in some sharp foreground elements if needed. If someone would only produce a wide-angle tilt lens for any of these systems it would be all the better...

Tim Ernst in Arkansas
www.Cloudland.net

RicAgu · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2007, 02:17:54 pm »

Peter,

I rarely shoot landscape and do it mainly for myself once a blue moon. But I recently shot a project for a goverment agency where budget was no concern. Being a bit of a gearhead and new equipment geek I decided to look at Betterlight.

http://www.betterlight.com/

So I decided to rent the a Betterlight large format scanning back. I have used Canon, Leaf Aptus 75, Phase One P25 and P45. Since budget was no concern and for shits and giggles, I decided to use this Betterlight stuff I had been hearing about. I tried to locate that crazy medium format panoramic, but no luck.

Shooting on location locked to a laptop and a battery pack can be a bit cumbersome. But if you are a true landscape 4x5 to 11x14 shooter then this will be minimal compared to what I have seen shooters carry in the past.

Shooting this stuff to laptop and then bringing it back to the hotel room to view it on the 30" monitor was insane. I just kept hitting Apple +, Apple + and could not believe the file. It is not someting I do a lot so there is no need for me to have one. But if you only do landscape then there is no better system than a Betterlight. You really have to pack well and know the weight and advantages of the system. There is nothing fast about shooting with a Betterlight and on location with tough elements it makes it really tough on your equipment. But the size of the file will blow your mind. I printed one of the files to an Epson 4800 to 17x22, so I cannot really comment on the way it looks at bigger than that. But as I said if you are strictly a landscape shooter and want the best size at half the cost of the 39mp back, look into Betterlight. Plus if you are still heavily invested into your 4x5 you can continue to use all the stuff and nothing changes your workflow for the loading film back style of shooting.

With moving sujects there may be some issues but my project was all still no movemenet. There are some interesting pictures with movement on the Betterlight site.

Best of luck with your choice, there are a lots of things out there to play with.

Please do let us know what direction you take.

Best of luck,

Ric

PeterDendrinos · « **Reply #12 on:** July 20, 2007, 10:39:08 am »

Ric,

Thanks for the input. Actually it was this very technology from betterlight that started the digital ball rolling with me. I find the scan time far too long for my tastes. I have been sitting around for several years waiting for a faster back, but the nature of that specific technology i guess dictates long capture times.

I would like very much to toss the digital back on my 4x5, and i'll do that with the 39 i guess, and see what comes of it. At least i'll have faster capture times.

P

Quote

Peter,

I rarely shoot landscape and do it mainly for myself once a blue moon. But I recently shot a project for a goverment agency where budget was no concern. Being a bit of a gearhead and new equipment geek I decided to look at Betterlight.

http://www.betterlight.com/

So I decided to rent the a Betterlight large format scanning back. I have used Canon, Leaf Aptus 75, Phase One P25 and P45. Since budget was no concern and for shits and giggles, I decided to use this Betterlight stuff I had been hearing about. I tried to locate that crazy medium format panoramic, but no luck.

Shooting on location locked to a laptop and a battery pack can be a bit cumbersome. But if you are a true landscape 4x5 to 11x14 shooter then this will be minimal compared to what I have seen shooters carry in the past.

Shooting this stuff to laptop and then bringing it back to the hotel room to view it on the 30" monitor was insane. I just kept hitting Apple +, Apple + and could not believe the file. It is not someting I do a lot so there is no need for me to have one. But if you only do landscape then there is no better system than a Betterlight. You really have to pack well and know the weight and advantages of the system. There is nothing fast about shooting with a Betterlight and on location with tough elements it makes it really tough on your equipment. But the size of the file will blow your mind. I printed one of the files to an Epson 4800 to 17x22, so I cannot really comment on the way it looks at bigger than that. But as I said if you are strictly a landscape shooter and want the best size at half the cost of the 39mp back, look into Betterlight. Plus if you are still heavily invested into your 4x5 you can continue to use all the stuff and nothing changes your workflow for the loading film back style of shooting.

With moving sujects there may be some issues but my project was all still no movemenet. There are some interesting pictures with movement on the Betterlight site.

Best of luck with your choice, there are a lots of things out there to play with.

Please do let us know what direction you take.

Best of luck,

Ric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

RicAgu · « **Reply #13 on:** July 20, 2007, 11:12:03 am »

Hey Peter,

You may want to invest into a 22 megapixel back. I don't use any of them on a 4x5 or for that matter anything with tilts and shifts. But I have been advised that anything above 30 megapixes does not handle tilts, shifts and swings well. Some one may want to chime in here as this is not my expertise. When I was in discussion to buy my 39mp digital back coming from the P25 my dealer telling me that he cannot recommend any 30mp digital back for super wide angle or tilts and shifts without having to do a custom white balance shot first and all sorts of color tweaking after the fact in post. So I decided to keep the P25 as a back up and if I have the need to shoot with a 4x5 or 6x9 with tilt, shift, rise, fall or swing.

Best of luck

PeterDendrinos · « **Reply #14 on:** July 20, 2007, 12:20:48 pm »

Interesting, i'll look into that. My primary interest is shooting with the complete hasselblad unit however. i simply thought that if i had the digital back i might be able to take the 4x5 out and play with it using the back..

It would be nice to have a tilt lens for the hassie.

Quote

Hey Peter,

You may want to invest into a 22 megapixel back. I don't use any of them on a 4x5 or for that matter anything with tilts and shifts. But I have been advised that anything above 30 megapixes does not handle tilts, shifts and swings well. Some one may want to chime in here as this is not my expertise. When I was in discussion to buy my 39mp digital back coming from the P25 my dealer telling me that he cannot recommend any 30mp digital back for super wide angle or tilts and shifts without having to do a custom white balance shot first and all sorts of color tweaking after the fact in post. So I decided to keep the P25 as a back up and if I have the need to shoot with a 4x5 or 6x9 with tilt, shift, rise, fall or swing.

Best of luck
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

mtomalty · « **Reply #15 on:** July 20, 2007, 01:11:54 pm »

Quote

It would be nice to have a tilt lens for the hassie.

While it won't give you the degree of movement that a 4x5 will
you have the option to use the Flexbody which uses your existing Hass lenses to get some
usefull tilt or look for a used ArcBody,which uses a limited set of rodenstock lenses,but gets
you as little more movement and some shift in a very compact package.

Using any brand of back on a 4x5 camera will require you to take an additional exposure
with an opaque plexi type affair over the lens.
This exposure is then applied in your backs native software to remove any color shift that
may occur. Very simple process and there is really no way around this step.
The same requirement holds true when shooting with the ArcBody.

Contrary to Rics post,I have not heard anything to suggest that using a 35 or 39 Mp
back will introduce more colorcast issues than a 22Mp back.

Perhaps,there was some misunderstanding when Ric was speaking with his dealer
as the P30 (31Mp) is supposed to be problematic on shift/tilt type cameras

MT

RicAgu · « **Reply #16 on:** July 20, 2007, 01:49:58 pm »

MTomalty,

a 35mp digital back does not exist. My post said "But I have been advised that anything above 30 megapixes does not handle tilts, shifts and swings well"

The is a copy of the email from my dealer

Regarding movements with Dalsa (Leaf) versus Kodak chips (Phase/Hasselblad),
our position is that white shadings or custom gains or LCC's, etc, in other
words, putting a white plexi or other in front of the lens for a capture
with each movement is required on 30+ MP digital backs. In that regard, we
see the Leaf as no worse than any other. This issue could be called color
cast, centerfold or whatever, it still requires a white capture to correct.

In fact, we take the position that there is no digital back on the market at 30+ megapixels which you can use tilt/shift/wide angle with and not experience anomalies, whether they be color casts, centerfolds or whatever. Therefore, we tell every customer who purchases a 30+ megapixel back and intends to use it in that situation that they will be required to capture a Custom White shading, Custom Gain (LCC for Phase) or whatever that particular manufacturer offers to counteract those anomalies. These anomalies vary from sensor to sensor – some have it some don’t, some have more, some have less.

The P30 being a 31mp is known for having a lot of problems with tilt, shift, swing on LF cameras.

It is widely known and has been documented here on LL that many of the landscape architecture shooters had no real issue or minimal at worse with their 22mp backs compared to when they upgraded to 30+ megapixel backs (and the + text next to the 30 doesn't stand for PhaseOne products) It seems I have to clarify my writing as to not start a quible over semantics. The + stands for any back made that has 30 megapixels or more.

Anyway Peter, best of luck with your choice.

Nice work on your site.

Best,

Ric

mtomalty · « **Reply #17 on:** July 20, 2007, 02:27:10 pm »

RicAgu

Quote

a 35mp digital back does not exist.

You're right. Meant to write 33Mp for the Aptus75 /75s

MT

alexjones · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2007, 12:52:34 pm »

I have not seen any issues with artifacting in natural scenes using that 132c. Rendering of grass, sand, rocks, trees has always been great. If you are looking at the difference between a 5D and any medium format back the difference will be pretty great. Color rendition and detail both are greatly improved. Shooting landscapes does not present any challenge in my mind to the back. It will be sharper so you will see more. The AA in the 35 softens enough that much just goes unnoticed. The chip and lens can't resolve it to begin with so there is no "problem" to see.

All the Best

Alex Jones, Digital Tech Pittsburgh

http://www.alexrjones.com/alexrjones/digitaltech.html

Gary Ferguson · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2007, 02:27:26 pm »

I use a Canon 5D, Canon 1Ds MkII, and also a P25 with a Hasselblad Flexbody and with a Linhof M679cs. I've also evaluated the P45+ with the Linhof and was impressed enough to order one. Here's my experiences.

For lens shifts with the P25 and Linhof (using wider Rodenstock Digital lenses) I almost always have to use the perpex sheet to correct for colour shifts. However, I've built up a library of perspex correction shots and even if I forget to take the test shots in the field I can usually find a reasonable match from the library shots. With shifts with the Hasselblad Flexbody and with the Canon shift lenses on the 5D and 1Ds MkII I normally don't need the perspex correction sheet. The only significant Hasselblad exception being the 38mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC/M, where I'll sometimes use the perspex correction sheet even though shifts aren't possible. The obvious conclusion is that retro-focus or long lenses very much reduce the Phase One colour shift issue. I'm not expecting any of this to change with the P45+.

With lens tilts I normally don't find the same requirement for colour correction, it can still be there with the Linhof and the Rodenstock 35mm, 45mm, and 55mm; but it's generally less severe and use of a the perpex correction sheet is a counsel of perfection rather than a practical requirement.

Regarding the AA filter issue, I tend to agree that ultra fine detail with the 5D and 1Ds MkII can sometimes have an artificial, over processed look, so that middle or far distance grass gets rendered as astro-turf!

The moire issue with the P25 is also real, although I've only found it a real problem occasionally and then only with fabrics. On the rare occasions I've encountered moire with architectural details (normally slate roofs or brickwork in the middle distance), it's been easy to treat in post production and because it only affects a small part of the image so I've never lost overall image sharpness because of it. The limited tests I've done with the Phase One 39MP sensor suggests that the moire issue reduces significantly with the finer pixel pitch.

As far as focusing is concerned I completely agree that the biggest practical barrier to realising the astonishing resolution possible with digital backs is limited depth of field. The depth of field scales commonly found on lenses are hopelessly optimistic for our current "big print" culture. I use tilt lenses and tilt cameras, plus digital focus correction tools, but there's always situations where there's no practical alternative to depth of field, and in these circumstances a well stopped down wide-angle with a smaller sensor generally wins the day.

Interestingly the marketing director of Zeiss used to be a regular contributor to Photo.Net forum, and he once stated that all lenses of a specific focal length don't neccessarily have the same real depth of field, and that depth of field tables were an industry convention rather than something computed for individual lenses.

He gave as an example the Zeiss 38mm Biogon within the Hasselblad range, saying it had significantly greater real depth of field than comparable Zeiss 40mm lenses. My practical experience certainly supports this. Furthermore, (as a sweeping generality!) I find some practical depth of field advantage with primes versus zooms at comparable focal lengths, although this may simply be the zoom's greater tendency to introduce artifacts (such as a certain "wireyness" or double images) into the out of focus areas of the image.

Author Topic: Change from 1Ds Mark II to H3D 39 (Read 6598 times)