Hasselblad H3D 30mp V Nikon D800E

[hasselbladfan]

My H4D is a purely indulgent purchase for times on holiday when it's just me, the camera and a beautiful vista.

Guys,

This is becoming a bit boring. Since 6-12 months, we get questions now about these 2 cameras (I recommend we should make a separate folder for these discussions - please Michael - help us).

I tried both. IMHO, both are great cameras, but they are so different. The 800E can match the H4D40 if you spend the money on the glass. The 800E performs fantastic in low light, in action shots. But when I work with an H4D40, I just slow down and I make so much better pictures.

Price of H glass has come down, so for the price of a Nikon 200f2, you can get 3 great H lenses. What are you waiting for? With a 28mm, a 50mm and a 100mm, you can do anything.

[FredBGG]

Guys,
Price of H glass has come down, so for the price of a Nikon 200f2, you can get 3 great H lenses. What are you waiting for? With a 28mm, a 50mm and a 100mm, you can do anything.

Except what you can do with a Nikon 200mm f2. Not really a valid comparison.

[BernardLanguillier]

But when I work with an H4D40, I just slow down and I make so much better pictures.

Without commenting on the H4D40 that I have not used, speed is a state of mind that has nothing to do with the gear being used.

Being forced into slowness with some equipment is not an asset, it is at best a learning opportunity whose outcome can be applied to a Canon S110 also.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Using a tripod slows me down.

Best regards
Erik

Without commenting on the H4D40 that I have not used, speed is a state of mind that has nothing to do with the gear being used.

Being forced into slowness with some equipment is not an asset, it is at best a learning opportunity whose outcome can be applied to a Canon S110 also.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The discussion may be less boring if you think about spending your money. I got the impression that the original poster considers if he would buy H3D (which of course is pre owned) or a D800E (probably a new one, with warranty). Please note also that he asks about H3D with a 30MP back.

Here are some facts, as I see it:

The cameras come with different crop factors, Nikon is 3:2 and Hasselblad is 4:3. Cropping either format looses pixels. If you crop Nikon to 4:3 you end up with 32 MP.

The Nikon comes with a workable live view, so exact manual focus is possible.

Nikon has much better high ISO capability and in all probability much cleaner shadows. The Hasselblad probably holds a small advantage in midtone noise.

I don't think that there is any area where it is very obvious that the Hasselblad would be a superior choice.

There are sample variations. Nikon has earned some bad reputation for QC recently. I also guess that there are sample variations on Hasselblads.

Then there are a lot of perceptions. One camera may be nicer to work with. If you enjoy shooting the pictures may be better.

This article may be a good read: http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/photography/mfdb-guide.html

Update:

You want to do 40x60 prints. You mean 40" x 60", that is pretty large?! 40x60 is the same crop ratio you have on the D800E so you would have 36 MP. The Hasselblad has 4:3 crop so you would loose some pixels due to cropping so Hasselblad would have 27MP, not to bad.

Regarding lenses/pixel size it's hard to say. There are quite few very good lenses for Nikon, Zeiss 18/3.5, 21/2.8, 24/2 and 100/2 Macro planar are all famous lenses, although some may have problematic corners. Sigma 35/1.4 is said to be very good and Sigma 70 is a lens that made to "Foto's ten sharpest list".

Lloyd Chambers made a comparison shot with Nikon D800E and Macro Planar 100 vs. Leica S2 and their macro lens. The results were close with the Nikon Zeiss combo having better corners and the Leica having the edge on the center. What Lloyd also noticed that he made 5 series of exposures with the Leica and only two were critically sharp due to problems with focusing. The Nikon he focused using live view manual focus.

Lloyd had also tested the Hasselblad, with a 50 MP back. The impression I got was that he didn't really like the camera. The lens he tested was the 100/2.2 and the old 28/4. He found both lenses lacking. The 28/4 was obviously a bad sample but the 100/2.2 was OK and it did not impress him either. Now, the 100/2.2 is with all probability a very good lens for portraits, but if you are looking for the ultimate sharpness it may not be the ideal lens.

Lloyd's articles are subscription only, unfortunately.

To sum up: I would assume that if sharpness in large prints you are looking for at reasonable cost the Nikon D800E is the way to go, with a couple of very good lenses. Check lens/sensor alignment best you can, focus with live view and expose with MLU and self timer. I forgot to mention, get a decent tripod and a good head.


Best regards
Erik

Guys,

This is becoming a bit boring. Since 6-12 months, we get questions now about these 2 cameras (I recommend we should make a separate folder for these discussions - please Michael - help us).

I tried both. IMHO, both are great cameras, but they are so different. The 800E can match the H4D40 if you spend the money on the glass. The 800E performs fantastic in low light, in action shots. But when I work with an H4D40, I just slow down and I make so much better pictures.

Price of H glass has come down, so for the price of a Nikon 200f2, you can get 3 great H lenses. What are you waiting for? With a 28mm, a 50mm and a 100mm, you can do anything.

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

I’ve just spent most of this Sunday shooting 360 degree panoramas for a client at a new property development and are now putting them together on my home Mac Pro and I am just dumb struck with the resolution and dynamic range this $3,500.00 beast is producing just amazing.

Cheers

Simon

[jerome_m]

If you have mold spots on the sensor glass both inside and out it is highly likely that there are problems in other areas of the camera.
The lens may have problems too.

The lenses were bought from another person. The mould on the sensor IR glass probably come from inappropriate cleaning techniques.

I made a couple of comparisons between Zeiss lenses forSony and non Zeiss and could see little difference.

I have read your article. You would see little difference with the kind of subject. The difference is more apparent outdoors on sunny days and when depth of field is reduced.

Regarding skin tones both Hasselblad and the D800E produce excellent skin tones.

The common mistake that people make is to judge the skin tones on post processing choices made by the default raw conversions.

If the default raw conversion on one camera give good skin tones out of the box and the default raw conversion on another camera need extra work to come to the same result, the first camera is of more value to me.

[bcooter]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.

These threads have gone on for 7 years and yes I'm as crazy as the next guy, because I've participated in way too many of them.

The truth is if you take a potato chip, poke a hole in it, hold a unexposed piece of film in one hand, your thumb over the hole, count to 1 close the hole and if you're proud of the  result . . .

that potato chip just may be the right camera for you.

Now if you shoot for commerce, have the world 6 inches from your back trying to set you ass on fire and you don't own one of these electronic marvels like the Nikon or Canon, then you're probably making a mistake.

On the flip side if you don't explore other alternatives than what everyone else is using, you might be missing something that's hard to quantify on paper or charts.

But whether your shooting with a crew of 20 or on a mountaintop by yourself, then you should enjoy it because whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 hours, that's time your not getting back and enjoying as many seconds as possible is damn important.

We talk about cameras like a crumb of noise is sinful, or anything that doesn't shoot at iso twenty billion is antiquated and sometimes it's true, usually it's not.

We talk about cameras like they really will give us magical talent, or a more accurate eye and that's never true.

A trillion beautiful photographs have been made by cameras and receptors that won't go over 400 asa, require manual focus and shoot about a frame every two seconds at best.   (iso, or asa I don't even know if these are real standards).

A trillion beautiful photographs have been made when the photographer says, hold it, that's beautiful, don't f*****g move because I'm shooting at 1/8th of a second.

A trillion beautiful photographs that haven't been made yet will be taken with all kinds of cameras, hopefully some will do things we can't even imagine.

The last line I have my doubts, because other than pixel count and the ability to shoot in low light, nothing is that much different with cameras today than they were 7 years ago when this discussion started.

The Nikon is a $3,000 wonder, sure I guess, though it wasn't long ago that $3,500 bought a lot better camera than a small Nikon.  The Hasselblad is overpriced.  Maybe, but if price decided value, then BMW wouldn't be rolling in money and GM wouldn't have needed a bailout the size of Ireland's GDP.

This is the running from the bear story.  You know, don't try to be faster than the bear, just be faster than the guy running next to you.

That'll work and you can brag you were faster than a bear,  but that's not true.  You just faster than the poor guy that stubbed his toe.

What you really want to do is be really faster than the bear, because in this context the bear is the final photograph.

No matter how you get there do something your proud of .

Do it the thoughtful, less easy way because even is easy is as good, it's not as rewarding.   

Do it and enjoy it.

Then you've outrun the bear.

This photograph was shot by my friend Melvin Sokolsky with a Canon 1d.  Not 1ds, Not 1dx, but a 5mp 1d.

http://www.sokolsky.com/#/classics/narrative/parker_train_680

Whether he shot it with a 36 million pixel Nikon or a 30 million pixel blad, the difference would be small if at all noticeable

Melvin can outrun the bear.


IMO

BC

[Rob C]

BC

Thanks for the link to your buddy: a new one for the 'favourites' list! I wonder why I forgot to add him right from the start?

One aspect comes to mind, as a reminder of things lost, from even the very brief first look at his site: those 60s covers of magazines were SO much better designed than now: clean, simple and graphic and just works of art in themselves. How friggin' much has been dumped in the modern quest for 'more!' in everything, and the fear of the buyer's three-second interest span.

Thanks again,

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

You are of course right.

On the other hand, the original poster wants to make large prints, 60"x40" (I think) and seems to wants the best option at a reasonable cost.

If you print that large and look close I would think image quality matters, but equipment may matter little unless best use is made of it.

Best regards
Erik

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.

These threads have gone on for 7 years and yes I'm as crazy as the next guy, because I've participated in way too many of them.

The truth is if you take a potato chip, poke a hole in it, hold a unexposed piece of film in one hand, your thumb over the hole, count to 1 close the hole and if you're proud of the  result . . .

that potato chip just may be the right camera for you.

Now if you shoot for commerce, have the world 6 inches from your back trying to set you ass on fire and you don't own one of these electronic marvels like the Nikon or Canon, then you're probably making a mistake.

On the flip side if you don't explore other alternatives than what everyone else is using, you might be missing something that's hard to quantify on paper or charts.

But whether your shooting with a crew of 20 or on a mountaintop by yourself, then you should enjoy it because whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 hours, that's time your not getting back and enjoying as many seconds as possible is damn important.

We talk about cameras like a crumb of noise is sinful, or anything that doesn't shoot at iso twenty billion is antiquated and sometimes it's true, usually it's not.

We talk about cameras like they really will give us magical talent, or a more accurate eye and that's never true.

A trillion beautiful photographs have been made by cameras and receptors that won't go over 400 asa, require manual focus and shoot about a frame every two seconds at best.   (iso, or asa I don't even know if these are real standards).

A trillion beautiful photographs have been made when the photographer says, hold it, that's beautiful, don't f*****g move because I'm shooting at 1/8th of a second.

A trillion beautiful photographs that haven't been made yet will be taken with all kinds of cameras, hopefully some will do things we can't even imagine.

The last line I have my doubts, because other than pixel count and the ability to shoot in low light, nothing is that much different with cameras today than they were 7 years ago when this discussion started.

The Nikon is a $3,000 wonder, sure I guess, though it wasn't long ago that $3,500 bought a lot better camera than a small Nikon.  The Hasselblad is overpriced.  Maybe, but if price decided value, then BMW wouldn't be rolling in money and GM wouldn't have needed a bailout the size of Ireland's GDP.

This is the running from the bear story.  You know, don't try to be faster than the bear, just be faster than the guy running next to you.

That'll work and you can brag you were faster than a bear,  but that's not true.  You just faster than the poor guy that stubbed his toe.

What you really want to do is be really faster than the bear, because in this context the bear is the final photograph.

No matter how you get there do something your proud of .

Do it the thoughtful, less easy way because even is easy is as good, it's not as rewarding.   

Do it and enjoy it.

Then you've outrun the bear.

This photograph was shot by my friend Melvin Sokolsky with a Canon 1d.  Not 1ds, Not 1dx, but a 5mp 1d.

http://www.sokolsky.com/#/classics/narrative/parker_train_680

Whether he shot it with a 36 million pixel Nikon or a 30 million pixel blad, the difference would be small if at all noticeable

Melvin can outrun the bear.


IMO

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What you are saying is that Zeiss lenses perform better at large apertures?

I cannot really comment on that. Two of the Zeiss lenses I tested were zooms and the third one an old but T* coated Sonnar 150/4. The Sonnar 150/4 indeed performed well at full aperture.

I sometimes use the Zeiss zooms at maximum aperture and they are sharp in the center but not really acceptable in the corners. I'm pretty much a zoom shooter. The way I photograph I select the viewpoint and than the focal length to match.

Best regards
Erik

I have read your article. You would see little difference with the kind of subject. The difference is more apparent outdoors on sunny days and when depth of field is reduced.

[jerome_m]

What you are saying is that Zeiss lenses perform better at large apertures?

No, I am not saying that at all. It seems that you are mainly comparing lenses on a single criteria: sharpness. In the centre or at the corner, but still only sharpness. But you can have two equally "sharp" lenses, in the sense that you could see the same level of detail when peeping pixels, but which would still render the same scene very differently. Since you are apparently from a technical background, part of the explanation could come from contrast: what level of contrast is transmitted at various spacial frequencies. Another part of the explanation comes from subtle colour changes. Zeiss lenses, in particular, give the impression that the darker part of high contrast transitions have a slight blue cast. Think about the picture of a resolution test target where the edge of the dark lines would be a bit bluer, depending on their spacing. That could be explained by the multicoating of the lenses, since it has an effect on contrast and its effect depends (a bit) on colour. A third part of the explanation is the rendering of the out of focus parts of the image and the in-focus to out-focus transitions on tridimensional objects, what the Japanese call bokeh. There may be other effects, but I think that these three should be the most important.

All these effects are more notable at large to moderately large apertures. All these effects work together in producing a particular rendering of what is photographed. None of these effects is measured by imatest or even visible on resolution targets. What I was saying is that it is easier to perceive the differences in rendering between a lens from Zeiss and, for example, a lens made by Minolta when taking pictures outdoors on sunny days relatively wide open so that depth of field is reduced. Why? Because that in this situation you have a relatively harsh light (so that contrast is high) with perfect colour content (think about metamerism) and in-focus to out-focus transitions.

[jerome_m]

This photograph was shot by my friend Melvin Sokolsky with a Canon 1d.  Not 1ds, Not 1dx, but a 5mp 1d.

http://www.sokolsky.com/#/classics/narrative/parker_train_680

Whether he shot it with a 36 million pixel Nikon or a 30 million pixel blad, the difference would be small if at all noticeable

Melvin can outrun the bear.

If one is lacking talent and ideas and tries to compete in a market as crowded as landscape photography, there is always a strong temptation to differentiate oneself on technical superiority. Technique can be bought and makes an obvious difference, for example the achievable size of the final prints.

[jerome_m]

If one is lacking talent and ideas then larger and sharper shite ain't going to make the difference.

It is worth a try. Anecdotical evidence seems to indicate that a surprising number of pictures appear to sell themselves on technical prowess.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It is worth a try. Anecdotical evidence seems to indicate that a surprising number of pictures appear to sell themselves on technical prowess.

Indeed, and size also evokes emotion, e.g. this piece of 'work'.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

What nonsense! That's no turd, that's a symbolic KaKa snake, as found in the surrounding grasses of any wooded lay-by on main road networks.

Pfff!

Rob C

[eronald]

Anyway, for years the doomsayers have predicted 35mm with MF resolution would rival MF quality. They didn't predict that the MF guys would stay greedy and dumb and refuse to update their cameras while hanging on to both prices and margins, but that just happened too.

The 5DII was a warning shot, the D800 is a flesh wound. The next Canon will probably hit a vital organ.

The day is here

Edmund

[JV]

They didn't predict that the MF guys would stay greedy and dumb and refuse to update their cameras while hanging on to both prices and margins, but that just happened too.

Interesting that you still choose to hang out with those greedy and dumb MF guys...

[Willow Photography]

+1

Thats what I wonder too.
All this people, not shooting MFDB, not having MFDB, not interested in MFDB,
and still they post over and over again about MFDB and what a waste of money and time
it is shooting with it.

Why not just stick to the DSLR threads and share some experiences there.
Why all this effort to prove that DSLR are equal or better than MFDB??

I my self have had lots of MFDB, from Light Phase to IQ140 and some HXDs and Leafs.
Love retouching the files, but also frustrated how much more difficult it is to
shoot with than DSLR. Especially the bad LCD on the back.

When I bought the D800E, I thought I had got a DSLR that could make me forget
about MFDB.

Not so.

It is a terrific camera and the shadowtweakability :-) is unmatched by any camera, MFDB or DSLR.
Highlight not so much ( still good but... )

Sharpness is almost as good as any MFDB.

BUT.. I want something that I love shooting with ( D800E has no personality ).
And everybody shoots with it.

I always loved Contax 645 and when I stumbled over a package with 6 lenses and
everything in mint condition for a very low price, I bought it and one more house.
Then I bought a P65+ with less than 1000 shots on it for halve the price.

I did not need it for my professional assignments and and the LCD on P65+ sucks.
I doesnt matter.
I will use the LCD for the histogram and make sure I exposure to the right,
because the shadows get very noisy fast if you underexpose a MFDB.

I made this move for the Contax lenses and the share joy of working with
equipment that gives me some excitement and inspiration.

I will keep my Nikon D800E, but I am more happy and excited using my Contax.

And Fred, I also have a Fuji GX680 I will put the P65 on :-).

I really hope all these threads about comparing D800E to MFDB would end,
or just had their own forum :-).

It is just noise and destroy somewhat the MFDB forum.

If you do not like MFDB, stop hijacking this forum and let us, that
still enjoy our MFDBs, share information and experiences without all
this noise.

If you think D800E is the ultimate camera - fine.
You do not have to degrade other equipment to make your point.
Enjoy your D800E, make good pictures and be happy.

IMO

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The original poster asked about image quality in large (60x40) prints and not about the camera having personality or not. This is not a question about D800E being greatest camera ever but giving the poster information the best information so he can spend his hard earned money wisely.

Best regards
Erik

+1

Thats what I wonder too.
All this people, not shooting MFDB, not having MFDB, not interested in MFDB,
and still they post over and over again about MFDB and what a waste of money and time
it is shooting with it.

Why not just stick to the DSLR threads and share some experiences there.
Why all this effort to prove that DSLR are equal or better than MFDB??

I my self have had lots of MFDB, from Light Phase to IQ140 and some HXDs and Leafs.
Love retouching the files, but also frustrated how much more difficult it is to
shoot with than DSLR. Especially the bad LCD on the back.

When I bought the D800E, I thought I had got a DSLR that could make me forget
about MFDB.

Not so.

It is a terrific camera and the shadowtweakability :-) is unmatched by any camera, MFDB or DSLR.
Highlight not so much ( still good but... )

Sharpness is almost as good as any MFDB.

BUT.. I want something that I love shooting with ( D800E has no personality ).
And everybody shoots with it.

I always loved Contax 645 and when I stumbled over a package with 6 lenses and
everything in mint condition for a very low price, I bought it and one more house.
Then I bought a P65+ with less than 1000 shots on it for halve the price.

I did not need it for my professional assignments and and the LCD on P65+ sucks.
I doesnt matter.
I will use the LCD for the histogram and make sure I exposure to the right,
because the shadows get very noisy fast if you underexpose a MFDB.

I made this move for the Contax lenses and the share joy of working with
equipment that gives me some excitement and inspiration.

I will keep my Nikon D800E, but I am more happy and excited using my Contax.

And Fred, I also have a Fuji GX680 I will put the P65 on :-).

I really hope all these threads about comparing D800E to MFDB would end,
or just had their own forum :-).

It is just noise and destroy somewhat the MFDB forum.

If you do not like MFDB, stop hijacking this forum and let us, that
still enjoy our MFDBs, share information and experiences without all
this noise.

If you think D800E is the ultimate camera - fine.
You do not have to degrade other equipment to make your point.
Enjoy your D800E, make good pictures and be happy.

IMO