Sony A900 compared to Hasselblad H3DII-39

[douglasboyd]

All,

I know this is an old story, but for many of us these older cameras are becoming affordable for the first time.  The Pentax 645D and the Hasselblad H4D series have contributed to a price drop of older Hassey digital models on the used market.   Recently I was able to afford the H3DII-39 and acquired one. Naturally I conducted some test to try and determine when this new camera should be used as compared to my trusty Sony A900 system.

I shot comparison photo's with each camera at nearly the same time on my rear patio and posted the comparison here:  https://picasaweb.google.com/DouglasPBoyd/ComparisonOfSonyA900ToHasselbladH3DII39?feat=directlink

Three years ago I had acquired a Hasselblad H1 with Phase One P30 back and tested it in a similar but more careful way.  I posted the comparison results here:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29778684 and here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29852201 and here:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29934382 .  In the end I could find no advantage of H1-P30 over A900 so sold my H1-P30 system.  In some of the threads at dpreview, people commented that I would see a difference had I used a newer and higher megapixel model like the H3DII-39.  So now I have it, and am testing.

For my new test, I simply shot hand-held and used the "normal" lens for each camera at a high shutter speed.  Indded, with this simple test I could see a slight resolution advantage to the Hasselblad.  This resolution advantage is most noticeable if you plan to print at 4:3 in the Hassy native format rather than 3:2 for the A900.  On the other hand, if you crop the Hasselblad to 3:2 much of the pixel advantage is lost.

I could see no advantage in image noise, dynamic range, or any other subjective measure in the comparison of these two cameras.  Obviously the A900 goes to much higher ISOs and is very usable at ISO1600 as long as you open the raw images in Lightroom 3.3 or higher.  Several months back Adobe finally fixed the bugs in their A900 de-mosaic routine.

I can see a narrow range of applications for this new (for me) camera H3DII-39:
1.  Use outdoors for portraits with fill light at wide apertures exploiting the advantage of 1/800th sync.  Even the built in flash is helpful for fill.
2.  Use for landscapes when large prints (30x40) are needed especially at 4:3 aspect ratio.  In this case there are nearly 2X more pixels in the image.

Other than these two applications, the A900 wins even though the H3DII user interface is greatly improved.  The A900 has a wider selection of great lenses, has high ISO, shoots faster, and is easier to carry.

That's how I see it for now.

==Doug

[feppe]

Oh dear, here we go...

[amsp]

[Dennis Carbo]

oh no......

[uaiomex]

Doug: I just saw your samples. Not taking into account we are looking at jpegs over the internet, dynamic range and noise look similar, but resolution-wise the Hasselblad wins hands down.
Cheers
Eduardo

[BernardLanguillier]

Hum... would this mean that the DR of MFDB does decrease as sensors age?

They were 6 stops better 2 years ago, two recent owners have commented that no difference in DR could be seen... did the Japanese tsunami have a butterfly effect on the sensels of backs in the US, does that hint at the possibility of a major quake in California? 

Cheers,
Bernard

[Frank Doorhof]

Totally useless, as usual
As soon as the sensor size is equal you can do a real comparison.
Also "horses for courses" remark is important, I know off no professional photographer (who is earning his money with it) that only uses one camera system.

In the end it's not about this or that megapixel, it's about getting the shot, and getting the story. I couldn't care less if I used my canon or my leaf for that.

And still I'm using a MF system, even an RZ67proII so go figure

There has been a lot of MF vs DSLR threads and indeed the DSLR is great, I LOVE my 5DKMII, But when I shoot from the same position the two are completely different and give me other creative solutions. As long as that doesn't change it's like comparing a very good point and shoot to a DSLR there are too many differences in "look" and behavior.

Choose what you need to get the shot, sometimes DSLR is the choice, sometimes MF, sometimes my P&S or iPhone, I really couldn't care less

[tsjanik]

Priceless

[BobDavid]

Goofy test/methodology. Too many short-comings to list. I have a Sony a850 and a Blad H2F with a CF39 MS back. The Sony is an outstanding insttrument. The Blad is an outstanding instrument. Sometimes the Sony produces better files in a particular situation, sometimes the Blad produces better files in a particular situation. It all boils down to choosing the best tool for a given assignment.

[LesPalenik]

Other than these two applications, the A900 wins even though the H3DII user interface is greatly improved.  The A900 has a wider selection of great lenses, has high ISO, shoots faster, and is easier to carry.

That's how I see it for now.

I really wish the A900 would win. Thanks for pointing out that the Sony is easier to carry.
Also, both sample images demonstrate clearly the advantages of shooting at high ISO and faster speed.
But through my tired eyes, it seems that the HD39 is not only noticeably sharper, but the colors are so much nicer. Do you think, is it the camera or the lens? 

[douglasboyd]

Thanks for all the comments.

To Feppe, Amsp, and Dennis: Sorry to post this boring thread that merely confirms the findings in the most popular thread in the Forum: 645D vs. D3X.  But to me this closes the story on my earlier findings from 2-3 years ago.  I realize that MFDB has now moved to 60 and 80mpix.  However on eBay there are some 16 HxD cameras for sale right now, and most of them advertise very low activations (meaning they weren't used much).  Are people buying these because they think an expensive camera will give better pictures?  Or are they buying them because they read glowing accounts about "high dynamic range", "improved tonality", or "3D effect", on these pages or others?

To Frank, Bob, and Les:  Yes, the Hasselblad does have a very noticeable advantage in resolution due to the higher pixel count.  And I really appreciate this resolution improvement and plan to use it a lot.  Of course now I wish I had 50, 60, or 80mpix.

==Doug

[eronald]

I think the test shows  that your Hasselblad can focus and has a decent lens.
Actually, I would have expected a slightly better showing from the Sony. Maybe the Nikon *is* better.

Peace.

Edmund

[Frank Doorhof]

Doug, I for one never talked about resolution
I talked about sensor Size, HUGE difference.
I couldn't care less about resolution, I've shot with the 80mp but own the 33mp which for me is perfect.

The weird thing about these comparisons is that they are made with the wrong testing methods, actually they can't be made. Let's say that you use a full frame camera and a crop camera, both will give you different "looks" and can't really be compared as one makes the other absolete. Both have different appliances and when they have the same pixel count per inch you are actually always better off with the full frame because you can crop on the FF to the look of the crop, but you can never add stuff on the crop camera to match the look of the full frame
Same with MF

Yes high iso is better, yes they carry more easily, yes they are faster.
But who cares if you shoot with strobes and don't need 4 frames per second (90% of my work).
And as mentioned before I use both, and wouldn't want to sell one of them, but there is a VERY clear difference between both cameras when shooting the same scene in LOOK not in resolution, and even if you leave out color they simply look so different that choosing for MF is more a creative choice than a "technical" one

So comparing both is like comparing a point and shoot with small sensor to a full frame DSLR.
The PS can be faster (50 frames per second, no mirror) can be great in quality (time will tell) and can have different lenses.... But your still stuck with that tiny sensor

[eronald]

So comparing both is like comparing a point and shoot with small sensor to a full frame DSLR.
The PS can be faster (50 frames per second, no mirror) can be great in quality (time will tell) and can have different lenses.... But your still stuck with that tiny sensor

The MF camera may have a bigger sensor, but you are still stuck with a camera body which is 10 years behind the times, and lenses which each cost more than a 5DII.

I'm not saying MF is outclassed by the 35mm offerings, I'm saying that MF is like a truck with bad supension, no air conditioning or heater or windscreen wipers or radio or GPS or power steering. It can certainly carry loads the car cannot, but you really need a reason to use it.

The MF guys need to improve their hardware; at least Leica and Hassy are trying. I *know* the images are mostly better, but getting them is a pain - of course if you are setting up heavy lights and tethering etc - something of which you are a master, then the slow frame rate, crappy focus, and yucky back screens really don't matter to you at the time of the shoot.

Edmund

[EricWHiss]

Edmund,
When you compare the MF bodies to an outdated truck, I'm sure you mean the mamiya 645 and phamiya DF bodies, because the H4 and Hy6 are pretty advanced cameras.  You should check them out. 
Eric

[fredjeang]

The MF camera may have a bigger sensor, but you are still stuck with a camera body which is 10 years behind the times, and lenses which each cost more than a 5DII.

I'm not saying MF is outclassed by the 35mm offerings, I'm saying that MF is like a truck with bad supension, no air conditioning or heater or windscreen wipers or radio or GPS or power steering. It can certainly carry loads the car cannot, but you really need a reason to use it.

The MF guys need to improve their hardware; at least Leica and Hassy are trying. I *know* the images are mostly better, but getting them is a pain - of course if you are setting up heavy lights and tethering etc - something of which you are a master, then the slow frame rate, crappy focus, and yucky back screens really don't matter to you at the time of the shoot.

Edmund

Edmund, I think that when you say 10 years, you are very diplomatic. All they did is implemented electronics in 50's bodies.

But to be fair, that's also the case for dslrs. I don't really find any difference between when I was shooting with the Nikon F4 and a D3. Same container, same handling, same weight, same feeling. Absolutly nothing growndbreaking except live-view.

Cameras aren't using the potential of digital and are stucked into old designs like our politicians are stucked with their old ideas and models.

[John R Smith]

Same container, same handling, same weight, same feeling. Absolutly nothing growndbreaking except live-view.
Cameras aren't using the potential of digital and are stucked into old designs like our politicians are stucked with their old ideas and models.

Well, Fred, some of us weird old fogeys actually like that. Hence the Leica M9 and the Fuji X-100.

But we are dying out, so that's OK, really 

John

[Erick Boileau]

Edmund, I think that when you say 10 years, you are very diplomatic. All they did is implemented electronics in 50's bodies.

But to be fair, that's also the case for dslrs. I don't really find any difference between when I was shooting with the Nikon F4 and a D3. Same container, same handling, same weight, same feeling. Absolutly nothing growndbreaking except live-view.

Cameras aren't using the potential of digital and are stucked into old designs like our politicians are stucked with their old ideas and models.

first of all they must remove the mirror for EVF   ...

[Frank Doorhof]

Well I work with the Phase One DF and the Mamiya RZ67PRoII.
Well ok the RZ is old.... but the DF is more accurate with it's focus than my 5DMKII but slower that's true.

In the end I really don't care about the age of the machine, if the images are good why more "flash".
Apple understands, kill flash  (yeah that was a joke, or at least a try)

Maybe I'm a weird guy but I love the RZ, and the DF is a beast of a camera which I also love to handle.
And to be honest I don't think the DF is 10 years behind the DSLR, it's a different system but it's VERY accurate when compared to my 5D but much slower, that's true but in my work speed is relative.

One thing you might not think about but I can shoot in continues mode (app 1 frame a second) and my strobes keep up, the model keeps up and the HDD keeps up, or in other words I have a great workflow to push my model to perform better. With the 5DMKII I will have to focus recompose (or use manual focus) because the frame rate is to high to get a model in the groove and my strobes to keep up for a minute or so.
At the end of a set we always do a few frames (up to a minute) of continues moves, with the 5DMKII my buffer is full after 20-30 frames, my MF is going till my HDD is full

Again, horses for course, love both, use both, can't miss either one.
But for me TOTALLY different systems which can't be compared like some people do.

[eronald]

Well I work with the Phase One DF and the Mamiya RZ67PRoII.
Well ok the RZ is old.... but the DF is more accurate with it's focus than my 5DMKII but slower that's true.

In the end I really don't care about the age of the machine, if the images are good why more "flash".
Apple understands, kill flash  (yeah that was a joke, or at least a try)

Maybe I'm a weird guy but I love the RZ, and the DF is a beast of a camera which I also love to handle.
And to be honest I don't think the DF is 10 years behind the DSLR, it's a different system but it's VERY accurate when compared to my 5D but much slower, that's true but in my work speed is relative.

One thing you might not think about but I can shoot in continues mode (app 1 frame a second) and my strobes keep up, the model keeps up and the HDD keeps up, or in other words I have a great workflow to push my model to perform better. With the 5DMKII I will have to focus recompose (or use manual focus) because the frame rate is to high to get a model in the groove and my strobes to keep up for a minute or so.
At the end of a set we always do a few frames (up to a minute) of continues moves, with the 5DMKII my buffer is full after 20-30 frames, my MF is going till my HDD is full

Again, horses for course, love both, use both, can't miss either one.
But for me TOTALLY different systems which can't be compared like some people do.

Our Breakfast Cooter would just switch his RED on at the beginning of the session

Edmund