Hasselblad h4d-40 compared to h3dii-39

[pjtn]

I tried a h4d out this week and absolutely love it. I'm curious what the image quality of a h3dii-39 would be like to the h4d-40, does anyone have experience on this front? I'm guessing they'll be much the same...

Other than image quality what other advantages are there of the h4d-40 over the h3dii-39? I can think of:

- Longer exposures up to 256 seconds compared to 64 seconds
- Higher resolution screen
- True focus (not sure if this is really relevant in landscape photography though)

Advantages of the h3dii-39 are:

- Larger sensor (I live the focal lengths more with this sensor)
- Considerably cheaper s/h units available (half the cost)

I'm doing long exposure black and white landscapes. My intention will be to use exposure stacking so the h4d-40's longer exposure capability might not even matter.

I'd be very curious to hear what people think.

[Kitty]

I have never compare H3D-39 with H4D-40.
But I am using P45+39MP and P65+60MP.
I could give rough idea about the chip character.

P65+ Dalsa chip
Pros : High color accuracy, smooth graduation, faster capture rate
Cons : Hot temperature (not good for hot outdoor), Noisy at high iso, shorter exposure (not sure how long)

P45+ Kodak chip
Pros : Less noise at high iso, working in hot temperature better, long exposure (60 mins.?)
Cons : less exposure latitude, less color accuracy

Two different beast. You should try both and see yourself which one you prefer.

sorry just know it is both Kodak chip.

[Dustbak]

Both H3DII39 as well as the H4D40 have a Kodak sensor...

You pretty much summed up the differences. In general the 40 has a sensor that is a few years younger which shows. I would rather take pano's to overcome the crop factor of the 40 than do exposure stacking to overcome the long exposure limit of the 39.

[pjtn]

Unfortunately I have no opportunity to test the h3dii-39 or the h4d-40, that would certainly make it easier if I could.

I'm going to be shooting square photographs so pano's are not really of interest. Also my exposures will last too long that the light will change substantially between shots.

Essentially I should be able to purchase the h3dii-39 from Europe second hand for around $11,000 and the h4d-40 is about $24,000 here. My intentions were to print up to 40" x 40" but after getting in contact with my printer and framer he doesn't have matte sizes that large so I've decided to drop the size.

So now my largest size will be 30" x 30" and I'm trying to find reasons the h4d-40 would be so much better as to justify the price. With the ability to shoot 64 seconds photos on the h3d-39 and then stacking them I should be able to create, in effect, the motion of a exposure far longer and hopefully reduce any noise in the process.

[ondebanks]

The differences between the KAF-39000 and KAF-40000 sensors can be summed up as:

- 24% larger sensor area in the '39
- 0.2 stop more dynamic range in the '39
- close to 1 stop more sensitivity (Q.E.) in the '40, due to microlenses, hence its 2x higher base ISO and max ISO
- 5 times lower dark current per pixel in the '40 [at 20 degrees C sensor temperature; the factor increases a bit at lower temperatures and decreases at higher temperatures, since they don't have the same dark-doubling temperature step]

For long exposures, I would definitely want the '40. You seem to be thinking that stacking 4x 1-minute exposures with the '39 will give you the same results as a single 4-minute exposure with the '40. From the point of view of subject movement, yes (although there will be gaps between the 4x 1-minute shots, so for some subjects like star or traffic trails, it won't be quite the same). But the signal to noise will be very different:

- 4x readouts means 2x more readout noise in the '39

- 5x dark current means 2.2x more dark noise in the '39

- Half the Q.E. means nearly 2x less signal in the '39 (not fully 2x, since the pixels are a little bigger)

The combined signal to noise hit in the '39, when I run this through my noise model, is a massive 4x in the deep shadows, improving to 2x in the mid-tones and 1.3x for anything bright enough in the scene to nearly saturate the '40 sensor (the '40 will saturate before the '39, both because it is more sensitive and because the exposure per frame is longer).

To put this in perspective, a signal to noise drop of 4x is like an underexposure by 4 stops on an ideal/noiseless sensor. Ouch! It's like underexposing the mid-tones by 2 stops and the highlights by almost 1 stop. The reason it varies with tone brightness is that at higher signal levels, 2 of the 3 noise sources (readout & dark) are proportionately a smaller contribution to overall noise.

You also lose 3.5 stops of DR due to dark current with both sensors. Can't be helped.

Ray

[markymarkrb]

If you are set on buying a Hasselblad, contact Jeff Payne at Hasselblad and get a used Certified Pre Owned H4d-40. His contact info can be found on the H and H store website.  He quoted me this back in September 2011. 


"  H3DII-50    $17,996.00
> H4D-50       $23,196.00
> H4D-40        $15,996.00
>
> Both H4D's come with a full one year warranty and an HC80mm f/2.8 lens.  The H3DII-50 has a 6 month warranty on the body and a full year warranty on the lens. "

I don't think you can go wrong with the latest technology if you can afford it.  I am not sure if these prices are still relevant 7 months later but I am sure that they are close.  This gets you a lot closer to the price range you are looking at. 

Mark

[David Watson]

Having owned  a 22, 31, 39, 50 and 60 I would definitely go for an ex demo or late used H4D-40 for one simple reason (in addition to all the others mentioned above) and that is the LCD screen.  The screen on the 39 is barely adequate and certainly not for focus checking.  The one on the 40 is much better and, whilst not perfect, is still very useful.

[pjtn]

I'm quite aware that the exposures will not be equal when stacking, it's purely the movement that I'm after. When using the h4d-40 I would use a Lee 10 stop filter whereas the h3d-39 I could get away with no filter at all or maybe a 3 stop. However I would probably just end up stacking on the h4d-40 anyway because it's easier to judge the shorter exposures, image quality will be better and I can shoot in more varied levels of light and still achieve the same effect.

Having gaps between exposures shouldn't be a problem, the moving subjects will only be water and sky mainly.

I would have thought much of the h3dii-39 noise would be averaged out due to the exposure stacking? Are you saying the h3dii-39 image quality would be unusable for exposures up to 1 minute?

A second hand h4d-40 would be terrific, I wish we could get them in Australia. By the time I've imported a camera at $15,996 in Australia it will cost $17,500 roughly. Still a nice saving though.

Not sure if the screen will be my biggest worry, nice to have but not sure if it's worth $11,000.

[Doug Peterson]

I'm quite aware that the exposures will not be equal when stacking, it's purely the movement that I'm after. When using the h4d-40 I would use a Lee 10 stop filter whereas the h3d-39 I could get away with no filter at all or maybe a 3 stop. However I would probably just end up stacking on the h4d-40 anyway because it's easier to judge the shorter exposures, image quality will be better and I can shoot in more varied levels of light and still achieve the same effect.

Having gaps between exposures shouldn't be a problem, the moving subjects will only be water and sky mainly.

I would have thought much of the h3dii-39 noise would be averaged out due to the exposure stacking? Are you saying the h3dii-39 image quality would be unusable for exposures up to 1 minute?

A second hand h4d-40 would be terrific, I wish we could get them in Australia. By the time I've imported a camera at $15,996 in Australia it will cost $17,500 roughly. Still a nice saving though.

Not sure if the screen will be my biggest worry, nice to have but not sure if it's worth $11,000.

What kills long exposures is build up of heat on the sensor (somewhat of an oversimplification but fine for brevity). Sequential long exposures without much time between them will heat up the sensor.  So for instance if you take five one-minute exposures in a row without letting the sensor cool down between exposures the fifth exposure will have the noise characteristics (roughly) of a five-minute exposure.

If motion-by-long-exposure is your goal then I'd suggest a back capable of capturing that motion in a single frame is a much more elegant solution. You don't have to worry about long exposure limits and you spend a lot less time in post. You say your images have mostly sky and water so maybe it's not a big of a deal, but I've seen plenty of photographers try to stack multiple long exposures together and end up having to spend considerable time in post to avoid artifacts of a brighter subject on a darker background which moved between frames, like a really slow motion stroboscopic effect.

A Phase One P30+ or P45+ could both easily handle any such exposures as they are spec'd for max exposures of 1 hour at 62F. They require a dark frame afterwards, which slows you down a bit, but you can ramp up the ISO for a test frame to judge exposure (or use a point and shoot with manual controls like a G10 plus some math).

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

[pjtn]

I'd love to know what back Michael Levin is using for his work because it's similar to what I want to do. I only know that he's using a H4D with a Hasselblad back and 35-90mm.

When I tested stacking exposures on my 5D MKII it virtually eliminated the noise. I gave it about 5 to 10 seconds to cool after each exposure. I think there where 14 exposures ranging from 15 seconds to 30 seconds. I also found it considerably easier to meter the scene because changing light levels weren't an issue. Trying to get a 5 minute exposure right can be a total guessing game when the light levels are dropping.

Here's a sample from the test I mentioned. It was shot at ISO 100, the left was a 15 seconds exposure the right is the 14 exposure stack totalling somewhere around 5 minutes:

[Doug Peterson]

When I tested stacking exposures on my 5D MKII it virtually eliminated the noise. I gave it about 5 to 10 seconds to cool after each exposure. I think there where 14 exposures ranging from 15 seconds to 30 seconds. I also found it considerably easier to meter the scene because changing light levels weren't an issue. Trying to get a 5 minute exposure right can be a total guessing game when the light levels are dropping.

In my senior thesis in college I was doing something kind of related. I used a point and shoot during the exposure to get a sense for the amount the light was dropping. Since everything in photography is readily readable in stops it was pretty easy to know how much less each additional minute was adding to the exposure than the first minute. It requires a little bit of mental math (if a train leaves NY for LA and travels the first half at 60mph, the 3rd quarter at 30mph and the fourth quarter at 15mph...) but it's not that hard.

Part of my resistance to it may be I just dislike capturing more than one raw file if it can be done in one raw file. Then again I'm sure your method has merit and it's own advantages as well. Lots of ways to peel a potato!

Regardless, make sure you update the board at the end of the process you're going through along with some IMAGES!

[pjtn]

I certainly see what you're saying, and also do love the idea of one RAW file. Surely the light dropping can't be consistent across multiple days though? Different times of year, clouds in the sky, location in or out of shadow, wouldn't all these things play a large role in the changing light?

I guess what I really need to work out from all this is whether or not the h3dii-39 will be able to produce 30" x 30" prints for me of a good quality, better than my 5D MKII that is, from stacked exposure lasting from 2 to 8 minutes.

Otherwise I may need to bite the bullet and get the h4d-40.

[ondebanks]

I would have thought much of the h3dii-39 noise would be averaged out due to the exposure stacking?

It is - compared to a single frame in the stack. But it still cannot possibly catch up to the signal to noise levels of the H4D-40 sensor which (1) has 5x lower dark noise per second, (2) collects twice as much signal per second, and (3) takes the photo in one readout rather than 4 readouts.

Even if you dropped the 3rd thing, and just got both cameras to take a single 1-minute exposure, the H4D-40 sensor is way ahead in the shadows. Getting the noisier H3Dii-39 to take multiple exposures/readouts, while the H4D-40 does it in a single readout, puts the H3Dii-39 even further behind.

Doug agrees with me - a single long exposure is preferable than a stack of short ones. He doesn't address the S/N theory behind this - but I do and I hope that I have explained it adequately. If it's not clear, ask me for more detail.

Are you saying the h3dii-39 image quality would be unusable for exposures up to 1 minute?

I have no idea if it is unusable. That's a judgement call. It should be ok. I AM saying that for a given total long exposure time, subdivided/stacked or not, it is inferior to the the H4D-40.

Will a donation of $100 million eliminate famine in Darfur? I have no idea. Will a donation of $400 million eliminate it? I still have no idea, but I CAN say that it will go further and feed more people for longer than the $100 million will. (Just trying to get away from the ubiquitous medium-format-as-sports-car analogy here!)

When I tested stacking exposures on my 5D MKII it virtually eliminated the noise. I gave it about 5 to 10 seconds to cool after each exposure. I think there where 14 exposures ranging from 15 seconds to 30 seconds. I also found it considerably easier to meter the scene because changing light levels weren't an issue. Trying to get a 5 minute exposure right can be a total guessing game when the light levels are dropping.

If you are struggling to guesstimate long exposure times because of constantly changing light, then that changes things. No point in having a theoretically lower noise, single, very long exposure, if it turns out saturated because you overcooked the exposure time. In that case, do go for stacking relatively shorter exposures. But again, doing so with a lower noise/higher sensitivity camera is preferable. The H4D-40 beats the H3Dii-39.

I guess what I really need to work out from all this is whether or not the h3dii-39 will be able to produce 30" x 30" prints for me of a good quality, better than my 5D MKII that is, from stacked exposure lasting from 2 to 8 minutes.

Otherwise I may need to bite the bullet and get the h4d-40.

In fact, your 5DII beats both of Hasselblads easily, since Canon CMOS sensors have almost negligible dark noise, and much lower readout noise as well once you pass ISO 200 (I wouldn't use less than ISO 400 on my 5DII - I see you used ISO 100 in your shots above - unless you really need those top 2 stops of DR, that is a needlessly noisy setting to shoot at). But I guess your main concern is not with ultimate S/N but rather ultimate, medium-format levels of detail, and medium-format levels of gorgeous Kodak CCD colour. Then try the H4D-40.

Ray

[pjtn]

Thankfully I've found someone who is selling the h3dii-39 to try a test for me so that I can try stacking the files. If the results seem good to me I'll be very happy to save such a large amount of money.

The base ISO of 50 is actually an advantage for me because it will help me get longer exposures without the use of any filters.

I don't think I mentioned that I'm converting to black and white so colour won't actually be a factor in the decision. Another thing is that I love adding a film grain effect to my files, this of course will hide the noise to a certain degree too.

Both cameras can print at about 180ppi on a 30" x 30" print so assuming long exposure noise is a non issue either camera should be far superior to my 5D MKII