Diglloyd tests the Rolleiflex Hy6

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Diglloyd is know for his meticulous tests of cameras and lenses, and he is now testing a Rolleiflex Hy6 medium format camera. He is still in early testing.

Diglloyd is mostly a pay site, but I enjoy his analysis enough to subscribe to a few of his web sites. Subscribing to a site is about 50$, little money for anyone considering a major investment in a new system.

His reports are here: http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html#Hy6Mod2

Best regards
Erik

[eronald]

Seems to me that these cameras are now supermodels, you are supposed to pay to look, not to touch ...

Edmund

Hi,

Diglloyd is know for his meticulous tests of cameras and lenses, and he is now testing a Rolleiflex Hy6 medium format camera. He is still in early testing.

Diglloyd is mostly a pay site, but I enjoy his analysis enough to subscribe to a few of his web sites. Subscribing to a site is about 50$, little money for anyone considering a major investment in a new system.

His reports are here: http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html#Hy6Mod2

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Edmund,

I don't really see your point.

Regarding Lloyd's reviews, he is making part of his living by writing about stuff.

Personally, I am in a quite different situation, as I am just having photography as a hobby. So I can share my experience freely (like free beer), but I can only write about stuff I have bought and use daily.

I happen to be interested in technique and I find Diglloyd has some interesting info, so I subscribe to some of his sites now and than. One interesting thing with Diglloyd that he tests pretty much everything and he also has an open mind.

One disadvantage with Diglloyds analysis is that it is pretty much pixel peeping, and I am not really sure about how much that is relevant to real images in a real world. I cannot really see a lot of difference between say APS-C and "full frame" 135 in A2 size prints. So discussing microcontrast at actual pixels may not be relevant, as pictures are seldom viewed at actual pixels. It also seems that empirical reasearch has found that medium frequency detail dominates, with MTF at 20 lp/mm often mentioned, while pixel peeping is more in the 70 - 120 lp/mm range.

Best regards
Erik

Seems to me that these cameras are now supermodels, you are supposed to pay to look, not to touch ...

Edmund

[EricWHiss]

I enjoyed meeting Lloyd, and it was interesting to see his method which is quite different than mine.   I have lots of imatest runs of the lenses at all apertures but not so many sample images available so I am going to put up a bunch over the next weeks.  

Here's a shot with the AFD 180/2.8 lens handheld at f/11 of my daughter with the Hy6 and AFi-ii 12 that you can view and download in full res.    I think the detail is pretty amazing across the frame - check the fabric on the bottom edge.

180mm AFD Sample - Portrait Kids 20140486 by rolleiflexusa, on Flickr

Here's the direct link to the full size view: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rolleiflex-usa/13896220557/sizes/o/

[tjv]

It's no doubt an ok review for its type, but I always find it annoying when people link to his site and refuse to discuss, even in plain terms, the essence of what he "finds". I know it's a pay for view site, but surely if people don't plagiarise its contents it's okay to discuss conclusions? It'd make for a more interesting discussion here, at least.

[eronald]

It's no doubt an ok review for its type, but I always find it annoying when people link to his site and refuse to discuss, even in plain terms, the essence of what he "finds". I know it's a pay for view site, but surely if people don't plagiarise its contents it's okay to discuss conclusions? It'd make for a more interesting discussion here, at least.

Let's be clear: I like Lloyd's work, it is worth paying a subscription generally to see what the trends are. He has a point of view though, and is only competent within it - don't expect insights on the usability of a camera for sports.

As for value for money, the last few guys I sent profiles to on this forum never paid their $25 or so, and in fact I have found photographers generally such bad customers that I have stopped answering emails concerning profiles.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My impression is that he is not done with the review yet. On the other hand, the impression I get from his writing is that he feels that the lenses can not really keep up with the sensor (except in the central region) and that the sensor lacks in DR and colour fidelity compared to latest generation CMOS. But, he may come to other conclusions in a couple of weeks.

My take is that reading Lloyd's article would be a good spending for anyone planning to spend on the combo he tests.

Another point of view may be that a lot is happening in both 135 and MFD (read Pentax 645Z). Especially, 135 digital may go to 54 MP within a year and so, and seems to have the lenses to keep up with 54MP from Zeiss (Otus-line) and Sigma (Art-line).

But, I also gather that the real limitation may be the photographer, rather than sensor and/or lens. Making the best of today's sensors and lenses may be a real challenge!

Best regards
Erik

It's no doubt an ok review for its type, but I always find it annoying when people link to his site and refuse to discuss, even in plain terms, the essence of what he "finds". I know it's a pay for view site, but surely if people don't plagiarise its contents it's okay to discuss conclusions? It'd make for a more interesting discussion here, at least.

[tjv]

As for value for money, the last few guys I sent profiles to on this forum never paid their $25 or so, and in fact I have found photographers generally such bad customers that I have stopped answering emails concerning profiles.

Edmund

That's really bad form, indeed. I would never feed good about taking advantage of people in this way. I guess I'm just saying that speaking in general terms about the review should be fine, although there is definitely a line that when crossed would infringe on copyright.

Hi,

My impression is that he is not done with the review yet. On the other hand, the impression I get from his writing is that he feels that the lenses can not really keep up with the sensor (except in the central region) and that the sensor lacks in DR and colour fidelity compared to latest generation CMOS. But, he may come to other conclusions in a couple of weeks.

My take is that reading Lloyd's article would be a good spending for anyone planning to spend on the combo he tests.

Another point of view may be that a lot is happening in both 135 and MFD (read Pentax 645Z). Especially, 135 digital may go to 54 MP within a year and so, and seems to have the lenses to keep up with 54MP from Zeiss (Otus-line) and Sigma (Art-line).

But, I also gather that the real limitation may be the photographer, rather than sensor and/or lens. Making the best of today's sensors and lenses may be a real challenge!

Best regards
Erik

Thanks, Eric.

I've always had a hunch that the Hy6 was the best, modern digital MF platform. I've never had the pleasure of seeing one in the flesh, but the system options seem second to none. It's a real shame the platform isn't better supported or hasn't become the standard platform for Phase. This is all old ground to re-cover, I know. I just thought I'd say again anyway, for hope that someone high up is listening!

My impression too is that 80mpx is going to push the lenses on all DMF systems. And you are correct, much of the last few ounces of quality in terms of pixel level sharpness is always going to come down to perfect technique at this kind of resolution. More importantly though, for this kind of money you'd better LOVE the way the lenses draw and the system handles. Last thing anyone most people want is a clinical, aesthetically bland but sharp photo. Unless of course you're shooting charts and such.

[BernardLanguillier]

That's the whole thing about this race ahead in MP, mostly meant at keeping some differentiation with smaller formats.

The look of these lenses is indeed probably wonderful, but so is the look of the Otus and many other much cheaper lenses.

If look is more important than technical perfection, then why do you need 80mp in the first place? A 22mp back will do the job perfectly fine, right?

Cheers,
Bernard

[tjv]

Sure, but in such a back it may be possible to have both great aesthetic quality and resolution, where technique is up to it. Otherwise, I agree. A M9 and noctilux produces pretty sweet looking results, too! Just not at 80mpx.

[EricWHiss]

Let's be clear: I like Lloyd's work, it is worth paying a subscription generally to see what the trends are. He has a point of view though, and is only competent within it - don't expect insights on the usability of a camera for sports.

Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable.  Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head.    He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance.  He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane?  Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something.  He was extremely defensive.  He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything.  Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc.  Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before.  Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.

After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree.  I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.  

He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses.   I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue.  We actually talked a bit about that.  He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.  

[Lacunapratum]

Thanks, Eric, for posting this here.  Looks like he might have had preconceived notions and is just testing to confirm them.  He wouldn't be the first.  Has been Rollei's fate for the longest time.  Not that they are perfect either, but nevertheless, they have wrestled with some undeserved bad publicity for a long time.  Looking forward toward your findings. 

[DanielStone]

If you are the one planning to use the camera in question, why can't people do their own subjective testing in real world scenarios? I mean, dealers are there for a reason, and many well comp you the rental fee(s) for the borrowed equipment if you purchase it from them within a certain timeframe...

Kinda like having someone else test-drive a car for you, but you're going to be the one driving it everyday.

[EricWHiss]

If you are the one planning to use the camera in question, why can't people do their own subjective testing in real world scenarios? I mean, dealers are there for a reason, and many well comp you the rental fee(s) for the borrowed equipment if you purchase it from them within a certain timeframe...

Kinda like having someone else test-drive a car for you, but you're going to be the one driving it everyday.

+1
Absolutely agree with this.  For anyone with interest in the Hy6, I have a demo kit available (with film back only sorry) but can meet anyone near the SF bay area with my own digital back for testing.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just as a comment, Lloyd has tested several MF cameras, but I got the impression that he found focusing problematic on most of them, with the Hasselblad H4 (?) being a possible exception. He very clearly had focusing issues on both the Pentax 645D and the Leica-S2, AF is just not exact enough and live AF did not work well enough on the backs he tested. The IQ-250 has excellent live view, it seems from the reports.

Lloyd is shooting with a few of the best lenses ever built for 135 format, the Coastal Optics 60/4 and the Zeiss Otus 50/1.4, both diffraction limited at f/5.6 or so and essentially without any colour aberration, so he has a very solid reference ground.

On the other hand, I am pretty sure that a very good lens with an IQ-2xx will outperform even an Otus on a 36 MP 135 format camera.

Something I would mention is that I think that we all do pixel peep a bit to much. Pictures are normally either shown on screen (which really only has 2MP resolution) or in print. Large prints viewed at very close are close to pixel peeping, but looking at pictures at 1:1 view on screen is very critical, because of the large pixel pitch on most monitors (a 4K monitor at 24" inch would be a better match for visual evaluation).

Next issue is that if you look at two systems of different resolution at actual pixels the system with higher resolution is always at disadvantage. Something I do is to up-res both images to print size. Say, if I print at 70x100 (cm) I would up-res to 200 PPI (because that is what my lab uses), than I would compare the pictures side by side at actual pixels. Still looking at that file on screen would correspond to 140x200 cm (as pixel pitch on screens is normally 100PPI or so.

In general, I got the impression that from my experience is that the more controlled the experiment is the more similar the results would be. For instance, shooting a colour checker for WB and adjusting exposure to match can reduce differences between systems quite a lot. Build a colour profile for both and they will become even more similar. Personally, I shoot P45+ and Sony Alpha 99 and I cannot tell the two apart in A2 (16"x23") prints, but I am pretty sure I could see a difference in large prints.

The enclosed screen dumps may illustrate the matter a bit. They show a crop from DPreview's test images at actual pixels in the first image and the second shows the A7r image upsized to IQ-180 short dimension. In the first image the Schneider 80/2.8 LS lens on the IQ-180 shows some weakness while the 85/1.4 ZA-Sonnar on the A7r is essentially sharp. The second picture shows that the up-rezzed image from the A7r falling apart. The third one is a screen dump at 1:2 size, which would correspond more to 200 PPI viewed on print. As a side note, 20/20 vision resolves high contrast detail at around 180 PPI when viewed at
50 cm. So the third image is close to what an observer with 20/20 vision would see in a 145x109 cm (57"x43") print viewed at 0.5 m distance.

Sorry for not using my own images, but I don't have neither an IQ-180 nor an A7r. Would I use my own images there would be a lot of blaming of my technique. The images are available in raw form from DPReview for anyone. I feel this is proper use demonstrating some aspects of testing.

Best regards
Erik

I've always had a hunch that the Hy6 was the best, modern digital MF platform. I've never had the pleasure of seeing one in the flesh, but the system options seem second to none. It's a real shame the platform isn't better supported or hasn't become the standard platform for Phase. This is all old ground to re-cover, I know. I just thought I'd say again anyway, for hope that someone high up is listening!

My impression too is that 80mpx is going to push the lenses on all DMF systems. And you are correct, much of the last few ounces of quality in terms of pixel level sharpness is always going to come down to perfect technique at this kind of resolution. More importantly though, for this kind of money you'd better LOVE the way the lenses draw and the system handles. Last thing anyone most people want is a clinical, aesthetically bland but sharp photo. Unless of course you're shooting charts and such.

[ErikKaffehr]

Well,

I actually don't agree. A test drive will not really give you a lot of info, you drive/shoot for an hour or so. A tester has the stuff a much longer time, a car tester may be able to compare with different cars and even may have the option to drive it on the track.

But, folks are different. Myself, I try to read up as much as possible before committing to something. Get as much information as possible and match to my economy and needs. I have not bought any photo equipment I was able to hold before buying since 2008 (that happened to be a Velbon 630 tripod).

Best regards
Erik

If you are the one planning to use the camera in question, why can't people do their own subjective testing in real world scenarios? I mean, dealers are there for a reason, and many well comp you the rental fee(s) for the borrowed equipment if you purchase it from them within a certain timeframe...

Kinda like having someone else test-drive a car for you, but you're going to be the one driving it everyday.

[Ken R]

Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable.  Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head.    He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance.  He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane?  Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something.  He was extremely defensive.  He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything.  Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc.  Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before.  Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.

After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree.  I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.  

He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses.   I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue.  We actually talked a bit about that.  He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.  

Thanks for the insight.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The issue with A7r shutter vibration has been reported by Lloyd first, but confirmed by others.

One reason that it is observed by some photographers but not by others is probably that it depends quite a bit on camera/lens/pivot point combination. Another is that it is most visible in on tripod shots with very acute details (like test charts). It is not really visible as camera shake. It would not affect handheld shooting, as it would be dampened by hand holding.

Jim Kasson has published a lot of info on the vibration issue, this is just an entry point: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4713

One of Jim's observations is the A7, which has electronic first curtain, doesn't have the problem and it is very hard to achieve the same level of sharpness on the A7r as on the A7 in a limited shutter speed range (like 1/12 to 1/160 s).

Personally, I am quite interested in the A7 series, but I felt that the A7r was rushed out. The A7 has a newer sensor, with on sensor phase detecting AF and electronic first curtain. Also, the A7 designation indicates that it is not top of the line, I guess an A9 may be around to Photokina or later. That one may be more interesting for me.

Another reservation I have is the lens program. It seems that some lenses are really good, and there may be coming some really nice lenses.

Interestingly, the 24-70/4 Zeiss got very bad critics at Photozone and SLR-gear and pretty good one at DxO. Tim Ashley, who went trough a lot of stuff recently was enthusiastic about that lens, so he decided to sell of his Leica stuff and go Sony only: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/3/the-sony-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-24-70mm-f4-za-oss-hallelujah

I am not really a believer in testing stuff in a couple of hours. I have had my P45+ for 10 months now and I still don't feel I have a clear opinion on it. But I am only an occasional shooter.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

A few observations, Lloyd discusses viewfinder options in his article and he also discusses ergonomics. Now, ergonomics is also a bit of taste. He also discusses short shutter times and the low level shutter vibration from the leaf shutter.

He was not happy with live view (or lack thereof), and the screen on the back, which was not up to his standard, and he prefers electronic viewfinders.

It seems that he located the best focus in his images, even if you miss focus, something is going to be in focus. That spot sharpens up nicely when stopping down, indicating there is no problem with camera shake.

There are some colour demosaic artifacts that indicate proper focus, as it means that some point in the picture is just detected on a single pixel.

Also, he notes some colour fringing that goes away when stopping down. A bit to much, could be said. An Otus, Sigma Art or Coastal Optics lens would not have visible fringing even fully open.

Best regards
Erik

Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable.  Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head.    He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance.  He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane?  Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something.  He was extremely defensive.  He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything.  Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc.  Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before.  Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.

After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree.  I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.  

He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses.   I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue.  We actually talked a bit about that.  He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.  
We actually talked a bit about that.  He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.

Thanks for the insight.

[Manoli]

Jim Kasson has published a lot of info on the vibration issue, this is just an entry point: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4713

One of Jim's observations is the A7, which has electronic first curtain, doesn't have the problem and it is very hard to achieve the same level of sharpness on the A7r as on the A7 in a limited shutter speed range (like 1/12 to 1/160 s).

Hi Erik,

Slightly off-topic in this thread, but just for the record .. Jim Kasson has indeed tested the A7 series at length and amongst the blog posts you've linked to, he published a 4-part series entitled 'COMPARING SONY A7 AND A7R SHARPNESS'. His conclusion was

'My conclusion is that even at the camera’s worst shutter speed, the a7R images have higher resolution and micro-contrast than the a7 images. Therefore if you’re shooting in landscape orientation at focal lengths of 135 mm and shorter, and are willing to go to a little trouble to mount your gear carefully, then you’ll get better IQ with the a7R than with the a7 at all shutter speeds.'

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5080

M


Edit:
He also wrote an interesting post on the A7 v the Leica M240, http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5073, " Bottom line, I wouldn’t worry about the AA filter on the Sony alpha 7."