Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torchiam on May 31, 2011, 08:07:27 am
-
hi everyone,i am a new guy here and need your help.
i am going to set up a studio soon,focus on commercial portraits,basically magazine covers,fashion,or maybe weddings later.my camera options are hassblade h4d-60 and phase one iq180
i asked some retailers,some of them mentioned,as i quote,although iq180 wins on the pixes,but when you really enlarge the image,hasseblade gives you more feeling of the texture.
i understand that the lens effects the result a lot,just like the CCD dose.so i am going to ask the question base on the whole system but not only the back. did anyone here try both cameras? what do you think?is one of them really stands out or both of them are good?
thanks in advance!
-
Hi Torchiam and welcome,
I am hoping existing H4D60 owners will chime in here and give you their perspective. They have of course used the cameras in commercial applications.
In terms of why I think Hasselblad is a system very much worth considering Ill condense into a list...
• 11 High performance lenses – all with lens shutter and in-built AF motors
• Fully automatic digital lens corrections for all H lenses – no manual lens selection. Uses actual capture conditions reported automatically by the lens to correct for Distortion, Vignetting and Chromatic Abberation
• Instant manual focus override – no need for manual switching of focus mode
• HTS 1.5 Tilt/Shift converter with 5 lenses including automatic digital lens correction
• CF lens adapter for Carl Zeiss C/CF lenses with full lens shutter operation
• Digital lens correction (as above) for all Carl Zeiss lenses too
• Advanced auto-focus system including gyro based True Focus
• Interchangeable viewfinders
• Larger and brighter viewfinder image
• Excellent ergonomics
• Camera mirror-up mode, for zero vibration captures. Mirror remains UP between captures.
• 4 User programmable buttons, for short-cuts to the most used functions
• 7 user profiles storing complete camera set-up, for fast and safe access to different modes of operation
• Convenient single battery solution – only one battery type and charger required
• DC Power Grip, for powering the camera from mains power
• Full camera remote control via Phocus and Phocus Mobile for iPad and iPhone. Remote camera control includes focussing via control of the AF motor
• Fully user upgradeable camera firmware for viewfinder, camera and lenses. No need to return to the service centre
• GPS accessory
• Multi-shot functionality option
• Rollei- and Schneider electronic shutter control for View Camera use
• Single color profile delivering outstanding colors – no need for profile selection depending on the subject.
Any questions - please ask!
David
-
hi everyone,i am a new guy here and need your help.
i am going to set up a studio soon,focus on commercial portraits,basically magazine covers,fashion,or maybe weddings later.my camera options are hassblade h4d-60 and phase one iq180
For this kind of work - H4D40 will be better for you. You don't need 60 or 80 Mpix... Hight ISO will be welcome if you want to shoot weddings.
For differences in price, you buy your lenses :-) Of course, any dealer will tell you that you need a 60 Mpix, check yourself whether you really need it.
-
hi David,thanks for the fast and detailed response!!
your ID tells me you are on the hasseblade side ;D so please allow me to ask a little more here.
is h4d is still capable to connect with film magazine?
and if personally compare the uniqueness of image quality of iq 180 and h4d-60 what will you say?i mean not about the operation of the camera body.
-
to design_freak
thank you for mentioning the budget aspect.
although i am buying a camera as a tool,but i myself is also quite of camera enthusiasm.and since it is a long time investment,i really want to get the top of the line.i am also thinking about h4d-200ms because of future products shoot business.and also that is why i am not looking at iq160.one reason is i heard rumor that iq160 is a repacked P65.the iq180 is the one really makes difference.the only question is how much difference it really makes.
thanks again!
-
No problem!
H4D is no longer compatible with the film magazine.
Image quality from any MF product these days will blow you away, regardless of manufacturer. Be wary of those who tell you different!
What I believe, where I strengths lie, is a very accurate, natural pleasing colour rendition of the H4D60 (and other H4D cameras). We don't rely purely on ICC profiles to deliver good colours from the H4D. Therefore in Phocus (our software) you will not find different ICC profile options for Product, Portrait, Daylight, Flash etc. We are confident that our colour engine produces what the photographer wants to see regardless of lighting type and subject - in particular a wide variety of skin tones.
I realise that is a bold claim(!) but your own tests I think would confirm that if you took an H4D60 for a spin.
Indeed a H4D40 might be a better choice if you are more concerned with flexibility than outright mega pixels. Think about what you really want from the camera.
David
-
Torchiam,
If you get an opportunity--actually, let me rephrase--you *should* create an opportunity to test drive the H4D and the IQ180 (I assume on the Phase/Mamiya camera). (Between those two cameras, I would recommend the Hasselblad, hands down.) The IQ180 looks like a terrific back, but I would think you will want to test drive the cameras, to see which is your cup of tea.
-
to David
i think you answered all my questions i can ask.thanks a lot for the help.i assume you work for hasseblade.and i bet i am right ;D
so i have one more little question.is there a 60mp back version of the stainless h4d,or it only provides with 40mp back.
thanks!
-
to David
i think you answered all my questions i can ask.thanks a lot for the help.i assume you work for hasseblade.and i bet i am right ;D
so i have one more little question.is there a 60mp back version of the stainless h4d,or it only provides with 40mp back.
thanks!
Absolutely I do! ;)
At the moment the stainless in only available in the 40 configuration.
D
-
to bradleygibson
you are right!a lot of people mention the difference of the camera operation to me.i tried the 645DF once,not really touched every button.but it seems all fine to me.i am going to find a h4d to play a little bit to find out the difference.
thanks for the help!
-
to design_freak
thank you for mentioning the budget aspect.
although i am buying a camera as a tool,but i myself is also quite of camera enthusiasm.and since it is a long time investment,i really want to get the top of the line.i am also thinking about h4d-200ms because of future products shoot business.and also that is why i am not looking at iq160.one reason is i heard rumor that iq160 is a repacked P65.the iq180 is the one really makes difference.the only question is how much difference it really makes.
thanks again!
h4d-200: Consider well, if you want to use it for fashion. This is an excellent camera, but unfortunately it is not very ergonomic because of too short a viewfinder. A small thing, but it will annoy you terribly.
-
to design_freak
oh yes,i think i read about it here.it is funny.i actually downloaded the pictures of 40 and 200ms to compare.it is dramatic,the viewfinder hardly reaches out.i guess when you shoot still objects,you just turn the mirror up and wait the camera takes its 6 shots,no problem here.but when you try to get a frame of a fashion model it definitely stick to your face all the time.
on the other hand,to reach out that about 2cm more will surely make the camera big and .....may i say ugly.....
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
on the other hand,to reach out that about 2cm more will surely make the camera big and .....may i say ugly.....
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
As you said, it's a tool. Perhaps it will look more massive, but it certainly will be more ergonomically. But remember that Scandinavian design is of a very high level. I think they will manage this problem. I am confident that this too will be the new viewfinder. (I hope that this will be an opportunity to resign from the flash)
-
Hands down H4D-40 for any and all of the stuff you mentioned above.
Wedding and portraits on a 60 or 80MP camera, you must be sadistic! :o
Seriously I'd hate to imagine working my way through hundreds of 60/80MP files on any computer and enjoying the experience. Then to only output the images at A4 99% of the time never mind the technical challenges involved in actually capturing a sharp image in the first place with an 80MP sensor during a wedding.
I really think you need a reality check as to what you actually need in a camera rather than what the enthusiast in you wants (lusts) for. ;)
-
to gazwas
this is a good point.i think different works needs different tools.i was working with Volkswagen and coco cola and other commercial projects.the standard is there.although not all the pictures have been made will be printed big to hang on a tower ,some of them only get on internet page or A4 size magazine.the logic is you always get the best for the client.and when you need to go small,you just change the menu or resize the file.but when want to go big,the menu and resize will not do.
and i do really want to have a piece of that business ,though i do not have it now.
-
i asked some retailers,some of them mentioned,as i quote,although iq180 wins on the pixes,but when you really enlarge the image,hasseblade gives you more feeling of the texture.
Please please please either contact a dealer for each and download some sample raw files or ideally shoot some of your own to test this statement. To me (a very biased source of info to be sure) this statement is utter non-sense - I think if you ask David Grover to reply directly to this image he will say something very similar to what he said re: "Image quality from any MF product these days will blow you away, regardless of manufacturer. Be wary of those who tell you different!"
is h4d is still capable to connect with film magazine?
A Phase One IQ180 can be used on a Phase One DF or Phase One AF body. While the DF cannot use a film magazine the AF body can. This would provide a relatively inexpensive way to use any of the focal plane lenses with film. An AF body (as a backup and for use with the film magazine) can be purchased for around $1100 refurbished with a warranty (though availability varies from month to month) and does not have to be "coupled" to a particular back since Phase One's system is open to any back on any body.
and if personally compare the uniqueness of image quality of iq 180 and h4d-60 what will you say?
I'd likewise agree with David that IQ at low ISO and for short exposures will be excellent with both cameras. That's not to say the same, but to be very clear they will both perform extremely well. If you get a chance to compare I'd look for differences in higher ISOs, longer exposures (10 seconds +), and in tough dynamic range situations (e.g. lifting shadows and recovering highlights).
What I believe, where I strengths lie, is a very accurate, natural pleasing colour rendition of the H4D60 (and other H4D cameras). We don't rely purely on ICC profiles to deliver good colours from the H4D. Therefore in Phocus (our software) you will not find different ICC profile options for Product, Portrait, Daylight, Flash etc. We are confident that our colour engine produces what the photographer wants to see regardless of lighting type and subject - in particular a wide variety of skin tones.
I realise that is a bold claim(!) but your own tests I think would confirm that if you took an H4D60 for a spin.
IMO there is no such thing as a camera that has "natural pleasing colour" for every application. As a simple example a camera which has "good skin tones" with it's default ICC profile (assuming it has more than one) will have very poor red discrimination for product/landscape/still-life applications. This is because one of the elements of "good skin tones" is reducing the cameras sensitivities to subtle variations of red. That is why Leaf and Phase One provide multiple ICC profiles which can be applied at capture or after the fact (since it's always a raw file) to allow very very easy application of color response which is better suited to a particular application. In addition Capture One features what I would strongly say is the most powerful color editor available in any raw processing software (including features that aren't even available in photoshop). So while I would argue the IQ180 also has "natural pleasing colour" for most situations using the default (zero effort) ICC profile I think it's a strong advantage that you can select another ICC profile specifically for "portrait" or "outdoor daylite" or "flash".
i really want to get the top of the line.i am also thinking about h4d-200ms because of future products shoot business.and also that is why i am not looking at iq160.one reason is i heard rumor that iq160 is a repacked P65.the iq180 is the one really makes difference.the only question is how much difference it really makes.
Saying the IQ160 is a "repackaged P65+" is I think grossly unfair. It is using the same sensor as the P65+ but every other component has been swapped out for a far more modern pipeline, chassis, and user interface.
The H4D-60, P65+, and IQ160 all use the same Dalsa 60mp sensor. That is now one generation old - though to be clear - still an exceptional sensor. The new top-of-the-line is the Dalsa 80mp sensor, exclusive to the IQ180 and Leaf Aptus II 12. The H4D-200 is a multishot back, and we (Capture Integration) do not comment negatively on any product we do not sell, so I would simply encourage you to make sure you actually get a multishot back in your hand and do a multi-shot shoot so you understand the positives and negatives of that process; it is a very different workflow than any other camera you've used (which would all be single shot backs). The IQ180 does have greater dynamic range and better long exposures than the 65+ but the differences are subtle when compared to the leap of either back over 35mm dSLRs.
Seriously I'd hate to imagine working my way through hundreds of 60/80MP files on any computer and enjoying the experience. Then to only output the images at A4 99% of the time never mind the technical challenges involved in actually capturing a sharp image in the first place with an 80MP sensor during a wedding.
I must be mis-reading as this seems like the perfect argument to use a Phase One IQ180! ;D
Phase One realized this fact of life several years ago: many applications will not require the highest resolution and using higher resolution than needed means slower workflow.
That's why they worked with Dalsa to produce the only (current) pixel-binning sensor technology which works at the pre-raw level. The technology is called Sensor+ and allows the IQ180 to shoot an 80mp raw file with ISO 32 to 800, or a 20mp raw file with ISO140 to ISO3200. The quality of the sensor+ files is the same as the full raw file, but with 1/4th the resolution, and two full stops of native ISO gain. This means you can carry one camera with one set of lenses/batteries/chargers and switch between the world's highest resolution single-shot capture (tied with the Aptus II 12) or a faster 20mp camera with captures up to ISO3200.
Lastly, not often fully considered by first time purchasers is the software. You will be spending a lot of time in either Phocus or Capture One. Capture One is an industry favorite for tethered capture and raw processing even for Nikon and Canon shooters. These non-phase-one users are opting to use Capture One not because it's their only option but because they've done their own testing and found it to be faster and produce better image quality than their other alternatives. It has an extensive set of tools to allow you to get as much done at the raw stage as possible (which is a faster and better quality workflow than moving the file immediately to PS). Google "digital tech" for your area and call up the first few names you find and ask which medium format back they prefer to assist for and use the software of.
My strong suggestion would be to get your hands on both sets of cameras and do a real-world shoot with each including setup, tethered and untethered shooting, editing through the raws, adjusting the raws as much as possible in-raw, processing and retouching in photoshop.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
and i do really want to have a piece of that business ,though i do not have it now.
I cn see your thinking.... Get the biggest and best now for the clients your aiming for. In reality though my perception is clients are wanting smaller and smaller now. The only time I get asked for large files is for packaging jobs or recently for vehicle (lorry) graphics. Most clients want jpegs via a download link.
IMO the big MP cameras are for the people who want maximum detail in a single capture like landscape and architectural photographers. In other sectors like your interests mentioned in your original post, too much detail can be a bad thing.
-
I'll just add my 3 cents,
There is no ideal equipment for everything. That does not exist.
Fashion photographs: H4D40 / IQ140 with DF Body (H4D40 my opinion is better)
Product Photos / Landscapes: P1 IQ180 or Leaf Aptus II 12 R / Arca Swiss / Alpa
That should look a set for every occasion
I would urge you to plunge test before buying :-)
-
IMO there is no such thing as a camera that has "natural pleasing colour" for every application. As a simple example a camera which has "good skin tones" with it's default ICC profile (assuming it has more than one) will have very poor red discrimination for product/landscape/still-life applications. This is because one of the elements of "good skin tones" is reducing the cameras sensitivities to subtle variations of red. That is why Leaf and Phase One provide multiple ICC profiles which can be applied at capture or after the fact (since it's always a raw file) to allow very very easy application of color response which is better suited to a particular application. In addition Capture One features what I would strongly say is the most powerful color editor available in any raw processing software (including features that aren't even available in photoshop). So while I would argue the IQ180 also has "natural pleasing colour" for most situations using the default (zero effort) ICC profile I think it's a strong advantage that you can select another ICC profile specifically for "portrait" or "outdoor daylite" or "flash".
I guess we are just that good Doug.
What if your shot is a model holding a Coke Can? Wouldn't the "Portrait" profile then screw up your product colours?
Yes, you could use your skin tone editor and colour editor, but I would prefer it to be correct out of the box, saving post production time. Wouldn't you?
David
-
David,
From a certain level, it does not matter anyway. Photographer takes pictures, retoucher (post-production) deals with such aspects as color, sharpen, etc.
-
And one more thing :-)
Doug is right. Capture One is better for these purposes (post-production) change colors, etc. This software is more appropriate tools for the more advanced processing
-
I guess we are just that good Doug.
What if your shot is a model holding a Coke Can? Wouldn't the "Portrait" profile then screw up your product colours?
Yes, you could use your skin tone editor and colour editor, but I would prefer it to be correct out of the box, saving post production time.
What if your shot is a model holding a Coke Can? Wouldn't the "Portrait" profile then screw up your product colours?
Yes, you could use your skin tone editor and colour editor, but I would prefer it to be correct out of the box, saving post production time. Wouldn't you?
Coke cans are highly saturated. So the Portrait ICC profile would handle both very well.
David, in 2+ years we have very rarely disagreed about a fundamental truth. You know I have great respect for Hassy gear and am happy to agree on many of your stated advantages such as the availability of 11 leaf shutter lenses for those for whom high flash sync speed is a day-in day-out necessity on all lenses. As I'm sure you would be happy to acknowledge the myriad of advantages an IQ180 would have over an H4D-60. But I'm really shocked to see you argue this point about ICC profiles. You seem to be saying that more flexibility and a larger selection of image editing tools is a bad thing - a fundamental point I've never see you tend towards.
If you want to stick with "Hasselblad produces better color out of the box" as your main point then I of course cannot say you're "wrong" - only that I disagree. I personally think Leaf has generally produced the best skintones "out of the box" and Phase has produced the most overall-pleasing color "out of the box", but color is very subjective. Which was a "better" color pallette, Astia, Velvia, or EG100? Which color response is better Canon 5D2 or Nikon D3? These questions have only opinions not absolute answers. So every photographer will have to make up their own mind on that.
Now you could have said "what if she's modeling slightly purple light red shoes". THAT would be a tough case. Actually in that case no camera or software in the world could render BOTH pleasant skintones AND an accurate product color on the skin-like purplish light-red shoes. However because of the extensive tools available in C1 I could quickly paint a mask on the shoes and tweak the shoes back to their proper slightly purple color. I could then copy-paste that to similar shots, tweaking the mask if/where needed. Maybe you could tell me what you'd do in Phocus where the tools for color editing are not as extensive, there is only one ICC profile provided, and there are no local adjustments possible.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
From a certain level, it does not matter anyway. Photographer takes pictures, retoucher (post-production) deals with such aspects as color, sharpen, etc.
In my experience that describes a minority of our current user base. Even at the higher-end many of our customers are doing more and more of their own post work, especially basics like delivering files with good exposure, skin tone, and local dodge/burns as needed.
Certainly there are many photographers who never touch the software and only ever shoot the camera. And there are photographers who do 100% of the work themselves. And most photographers fall somewhere between.
Even those that do heavily rely on a post-production person/team for their commercial work often do not have the budget or desire to offload processing/tweaking/retouching personal work.
So having a fully featured raw processor is clearly an advantage to almost all photographers.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
If you want to stick with "Hasselblad produces better color out of the box" as your main point then I of course cannot say you're "wrong" - only that I disagree.
Fine with me.
Actually you have pointed out the flaw of relying on using ICC profiles for managing the colour. All I am saying is that we have found a better solution that avoids the needs for multiple profiles.
-
Fine with me.
Actually you have pointed out the flaw of relying on using ICC profiles for managing the colour. All I am saying is that we have found a better solution that avoids the needs for multiple profiles.
O. Ok, so Hasselblad has developed magic? But no details on what it is or how it works. Just that it produces great color in all situations for all needs, all subject matter, and all priorities.
Perhaps you could elaborate.
How would Phocus handle a scene with skintone and a purplish-red shoe (assuming the color of the shoe was important for advertising/marketing/client-needs purposes).
-
In my experience that describes a minority of our current user base. Even at the higher-end many of our customers are doing more and more of their own post work, especially basics like delivering files with good exposure, skin tone, and local dodge/burns as needed.
Certainly there are many photographers who never touch the software and only ever shoot the camera. And there are photographers who do 100% of the work themselves. And most photographers fall somewhere between.
Even those that do heavily rely on a post-production person/team for their commercial work often do not have the budget or desire to offload processing/tweaking/retouching personal work.
So having a fully featured raw processor is clearly an advantage to almost all photographers.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
In that case, quite difficult and sad times have come. We can not be the best in several areas. To be a photographer and retoucher. You'll always be a better photographer or a better retoucher. For both, you have to work for years. So the best results are when you focus on that what you're best. I know, customers do not want to pay for it. Therefore, the photographer is forced to do everything. Anyway,
Capture One is a better tool for this type of fun with the files. Phocus is simple, but does not allow such editing capabilities. It is meant more for the amateur.
-
Hey Doug
I can't comment on the Phase colour rendering but I can say the way Hasselblad handles colour does actually work. When they first created 'Natural Colour" (it seems everything has to have a name these days) I spent a fair bit of time in Denmark testing how colours were rendered and was very impressed. I'm pretty colour critical and have good colour perception (I was a beta reader/tester for Dan Margulis' 'Professional Photoshop") so I'm pretty confident that I can tell good colour from bad, the Hasselblad solution works and works very well.
Nick-T
-
I agree with Doug. There is often retouching after I hand off files but I always want to hand off accurate colour/looks.
Nick-T
-
Phocus might be, and is, simpliest in its structure than C1 but Phocus is probably, at least for me, giving the exact amount of performance I need at that stage. We always end in PS with zillions of layers anyway, and more the software keeps simplicity on the raw stage more I'm happy. The only thing I ask a Raw dev is to take full advantage of the equipment involved and deliver the best neutral possible file without distractions of any means or fancy features that will be done better in a dedicated post-prod unit and wich only effect is more distracting than anything else.
I think Hasselblad understands perfectly the needs of their clients and what really matters in a raw dev. The tether task is seriously implemented, the software is able to give the full potential of the camera without hassles. Less is more.
-
... without distractions of any means or fancy features that will be done better in a dedicated post-prod unit and wich only effect is more distracting than anything else.
you can remove all the tools you find distracting and save this as "fred's workspace" in C1... no problem ;-)
(http://www7.pic-upload.de/01.06.11/6i4dmrbekgpk.jpg)
-
Right on the money tho_mas, that is exactly what I did a long time ago!
As I run both, C1 is optimized like Phocus. And the workspace is truly call "fred".
But, one of the 2 softwares is free.
It comes from my assistance. You never really know if you gona end with a Phase or Hassy file. The surprise of the Chef. (ultimately I ended 99,99999999% with Canon's files anyway)
That way I have a similar workspace for both and don't have to mentally adapt. For the Canons I use ACR because they are never tethered.
-
But, one of the 2 softwares is free.
Both are free if you own the correct equipment. ;)
-
Both are free if you own the correct equipment. ;)
Correct, but I don't so not free for me. Here 90% of the commercial photography is Hasselblad in the MF configuration. In the US it might be another story. If there is one camera you have to know in Europe (at least in my area) is the Blad system. I like C1 anyway, use it less than before but spended long time with it.
But the fact is that today, helping in a normal retouching day like yesterday...like the day before... and on one hand the phone with the couture...this part of the dress needs to be softened, call from client...could you get rid-off that lamp on background...too much wrinkles on the man's trouser that has to be corrected, this that and the other blablabla....
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--IBjEhulqAo/TZ4GtuwDKqI/AAAAAAAAAB4/ZBQBZ-7nxNc/s1600/ben-hur-rameur.jpg)
24 layers after and 2 gigabites you don't really care wich software has the best features, if C1 does the coffee and light your cigar. All you want is PS to work properlly.
Thank god I'm more and more away from that and turned step by step on motion. At least with the render's times I go to the bar or on the terrasse taking the sun.
-
to dougpetersonci
first,thank you Doug for spending time to clarify all the issues there
and i guess the gentlemen here make this thread a good user guide for new buyers.since the topic goes so wide,would you please comment on the hasse lenses and the new phase one Schneider lenses.i know that hasse has a very mature line of about 11 lenes.and Schneider only puts out 3 so far,55mm,80mm,110mm.so let skip the question who has more lenes and just talk about the build quality and the glasses.
thanks!
-
Hi Torchiam,
I have both a H3-50 and two P65+ backs and I am in the process of upgrading to the IQ-180's. As a commercial photographer the most important difference between both platforms for me is the software. Here C1 Pro wins hands down. In my experience (and in the experience of most digital techs I work with) Phocus is still a very unstable piece of software which crashes on pretty much every system that we have tried it on including the current Mac Pros, iMacs and Macbook pros. Capture One is really stable and because of this I switched at great expense from Hasselblad to Phase Backs about a 18 months ago. At the time I had three Hasselblad backs including a multishot back, the most recent back I had was less than one year old. I traded in one and kept the multishot and the H3-50 hoping that Phocus would eventually become stable and that I would be able to use the HTS 1.5 tilt shift and various lens that I had bought. The H3-50/ Phocus combination crashed multiple times on every shoot that I used it on for almost a year. It was a completely untenable situation. Not only that but it would also crash during processing but it creates empty shell files so you have to go back into all the folders to see which files were processed and which were not !!! I have tested Phocus every six months since and it is still not stable enough for the way I shoot. Someone at Hasselblad told me that I shot too fast so this is probably my fault as I do shoot a lot !. I do not have these problems with my Phase backs and C1 Pro.
In terms of quality I would say that Hasselblad had a slight edge compared to C1 Pro 5 but with C1 Pro 6 that is gone. Finally C1 Pro processed to Tiff about three times faster than Hasselblad in my last test (also Phocus crashed during the processing of about 400 files and C1 pro did not !). This was on a brand new Mac Book Pro with a clean system.
Thanks, Vincent
vincentdixon.com
-
to vindixon
it is great to hear from a professional who own backs from both sides!
the software has not come to my mind so far.one funny thing occurs to me is i heard people mention C1 pro 98% of the time.seems no one talks about phocus.
i guess this is going to be a big thing when my studio is ready to open.
and also,would you please comment on the lenses?
thank you for the heads up!
-
Currently I have a hat trick of MF backs... Phase, Leaf, and Hasselblad, I prefer C1 software, but that's were it ends. if you want to talk about service then there is only one company that has truly been excellent in my experience and that is Hasselblad. This is a company that understands service and support. Right now I wish I could say the same for Leaf but sadly can not. You may wish to figure that into your purchase decisions, because your dealer can only do so much. My dealer says he's put in calls to Leaf and Phase every day, but they don't get back to him.
-
Currently I have a hat trick of MF backs... Phase, Leaf, and Hasselblad, I prefer C1 software, but that's were it ends. if you want to talk about service then there is only one company that has truly been excellent in my experience and that is Hasselblad. This is a company that understands service and support. Right now I wish I could say the same for Leaf but sadly can not. You may wish to figure that into your purchase decisions, because your dealer can only do so much. My dealer says he's put in calls to Leaf and Phase every day, but they don't get back to him.
I agree that Hasselblad has provided good customer service, at least in my experience of selling many of their products. Not every support issue I put in front of Hasselblad was initially received with open arms. There were times I had to impose my will. Nothing wrong with that - none of these companies are perfect. They generally try and do their best.
But without making any judgement on your dealer Eric, I would have to say that if your dealer puts calls into Leaf and/or Phase One every day and does not get a return call, there is a lot more to this story.
I can guarantee you - guarantee you, this has never been the prevailing situation in my experience. From time to time every manufacturer (and dealer as well) can drop a ball. I have had experience with every medium format manufacturer in the industry - Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad, Sinar, even Jenoptik. I have had good experiences with all and some bad as well. I won't post any dirty laundry so if someone wants a real world opinion of how each of these companies has handled hundreds of my clients, feel free to PM me and I'll tell you. I have high volume sample data on each of these companies, not just an individual here or there. And my own personal experience on what the process behind the scenes has been like as well with each of these companies.
Steve Hendrix
-
Hi Torchiam,
From what I have heard the Hasselblad lenses are made by Fuji and the Phase One/Mamiya lenses a made by Mamiya and Schneider.
Simon
-
But without making any judgement on your dealer Eric, I would have to say that if your dealer puts calls into Leaf and/or Phase One every day and does not get a return call, there is a lot more to this story.
Steve Hendrix
Yes, Steve there could be more going on the Phase/Leaf side that I or my dealer hasn't heard, however considering the silence I can't imagine any of it could be motivated by good business decisions.
-
to HarperPhotos
hi there.i learned that too .i am a chinese,here in china people give a lot credits to german lens.and i play with leica a lot.i am kind like believe in European optics too.but i do know Fuji made excellent glasses.so that is why i come to this forum to ask professionals for help.
what i want to say is that photo is a kind of visual creative art.it is not about those lenses analysis data.it is all about the output,the look.so my question gose to is the new Schneider lens really stands out?and are they going to made more?like wider than 55 and longer than 110?
thanks?
-
O. Ok, so Hasselblad has developed magic? But no details on what it is or how it works. Just that it produces great color in all situations for all needs, all subject matter, and all priorities.
Perhaps you could elaborate.
How would Phocus handle a scene with skintone and a purplish-red shoe (assuming the color of the shoe was important for advertising/marketing/client-needs purposes).
Thanks Doug, you have described it perfectly.
As I said, relying on ICC profiles to deliver good colour we believe is flawed, and results in the need for multiple profiles which don't necessarily suit perfectly all elements in the scene.
Therefore our colour rendering is dynamic, changing shot to shot based on content.
We have only two modes. "Normal" and "Reproduction".
Reproduction is only used for Art repro work (or similar) where a more linear curve response is given. There are some colour rendering changes too.
Last time I went head to head on colour was with Leaf at a European Art Institution. The H4D50 gave a better colour response compared to a Leaf Aptus after it had been custom calibrated. This was measured by an independent expert, not myself.
Doug, we simply have to disagree and let photographers make up their own minds about what they prefer.
It is not so bad if Hasselblad does something better. ;)
David
-
One question David, and this is not an attack. Because I love it when there is real progress because one day it will also drip through to the other brands.......
Let's say I shoot a catalogue for red shoes and those same shoes are worn by 3 different models in three different outfits against 3 different backgrounds or locations.
When I shoot that now I will use a color checker and make a custom profile in the end the shoes will look exactly the same in all shots.
When I use software that uses "magic" I will always end up with a "better" avarage, in other words IF the shots look better than a color checker created profile it will look better in shots compared head to head, but not in the series that have to be equal.
I have the same problem with the phase one "magic" skin tone corrector.
All these "magic" features are in my PERSONAL opinion all aimed at confusing the customer who doesn't understand the matter and let him/her believe that the problems we all face can be magically solved by some enhanced voodoo while in reality all they need is a proper understanding of color management and a good color checker ?
Again don't read this as an attack I love all MF manufacturers and the better they do, the more they have to push the other ones and we all benefit from this, but I'm rather into the technical stuff and sometimes I read stuff that I would love to hear more about but often don't get a response that is correct and is more aimed at keeping the readers in the mist thinking it's really the best solution for their problems ;)
-
Frank,
In Phocus you can select the reproduction mode, and then use your custom profile.
Eric
-
i didnt read all the posts, so sorry if someones already mentioned this-
if you are wanting to shoot people, more important than any amount of pixels, is capturing a decent expression. I have had a H1 with a p25, and now have a p40+, and it shoots way faster than either system you are considering, but its still too slow often. I do use the p40+ for people, but when time is critical, the speed of a canon guarantees a shot more often. subtle expressions can only last for a split second, you dont want to miss that expression waiting between shots.
the hassy shoots only 1.4 sec per frame, the phase .7 frames a sec (i guess that works out the same).
my p40+ shoots 1.2 frames a sec. resolution has never been questioned by any retoucher with my 40mp, and ive shot many international campaigns, often with the shots blown up on very large wall areas.
so, my opinion is get something that gets you a better hit rate for shots, than completely obsessing on every pixel. and as far as a "look" of the back, you can make many of these files look identical with a tweak in CS5. Ive shot campaigns that hasn't allowed me to shoot the whole think on the same digital back, and ive had to use an A22 along side a P25, or a 5d file alongside a P40+, with some careful tweaking the shots look like they are shot identically.
paul
-
One question David, and this is not an attack. Because I love it when there is real progress because one day it will also drip through to the other brands.......
Let's say I shoot a catalogue for red shoes and those same shoes are worn by 3 different models in three different outfits against 3 different backgrounds or locations.
When I shoot that now I will use a color checker and make a custom profile in the end the shoes will look exactly the same in all shots.
When I use software that uses "magic" I will always end up with a "better" avarage, in other words IF the shots look better than a color checker created profile it will look better in shots compared head to head, but not in the series that have to be equal.
I have the same problem with the phase one "magic" skin tone corrector.
All these "magic" features are in my PERSONAL opinion all aimed at confusing the customer who doesn't understand the matter and let him/her believe that the problems we all face can be magically solved by some enhanced voodoo while in reality all they need is a proper understanding of color management and a good color checker ?
Again don't read this as an attack I love all MF manufacturers and the better they do, the more they have to push the other ones and we all benefit from this, but I'm rather into the technical stuff and sometimes I read stuff that I would love to hear more about but often don't get a response that is correct and is more aimed at keeping the readers in the mist thinking it's really the best solution for their problems ;)
As a person who does this pretty often I can assure you that it will be different. Color is not something that lives in a vacuum. Hues vary with type of light, angle of light, surroundings, etc.. (pretty sure you know this too). If your goal is to get these shoes to show the exact same hue & brightness under different circumstances you have to tweak. BTW, not even profiling your camera will give you the exact same results simply because the color of these shoes will actually be different! There is no magic button or profile that will solve this. You can only measure and apply corrections.
The problem all too often is that your client has no idea how color works but only has a strong perception on how it should look like, my experience is that he will be happy if you can live up to this expectation (unfortunately most of them have crappy monitors and printers :(, try explaining that something is wrong there).
So, yeah. Hasselblad colors often works but the times I need to tweak with X-rite cards, scan materials with Color munki, correct certain colors are numerous. There are many factors that can play a role in this. The type of light I use (hard or soft light on silk makes a big difference), the angle, the material itself, etc.. Out of the box, being perfect? Point me to a device that will give me that. Sofar I have never came across one.
After that, please.... point me to clients that perceive, view and understand color in the same perfect way (or teach me a way to be perfectly successful in coaching them towards that) because without that is it pointless.
-
@Dustbak,
that's what I meant.
I will shoot in this case all images with the colorchecker in the image and get a very good and solid series.
When the software will "magically" select the best color this will vary a lot.
@Paul,
I found that shooting with anything between 0.7-1.5 frames per second for fashion works just fine.
Only the Aptus12 I find slowing down after 10 frames which makes it a bit too slow for me, but I love the speed of the AptusII7 for fashion, for some more freeform sessions just put it on continues shooting, the strobes have enough time to recycle (on 230V) and the model can choose different poses easily.
@Eric,
I know, but when this is possible why market a "magic" option that will give "better" color ?
When the color is profiled with a colorchecker (done correctly) there is no need for "magic" because the color is good.
When shooting MF I think we are out of the realm of P&S shooters that would really sometimes benefit from "magic".
On the other hand, again I'm a technical shooter, although I always play with my color in the end results :D
-
Frank,
You will be amazed how many people buy MF and don't even want to know anything about colors. They just want to use the thing, make images and these need to come out looking pretty. For that the Hasselblad solution works pretty well actually.
It also happened fairly often I measured colors and delivered 'good color' and the client did not like it. Today, I know I often deliver images which are too contrasty and have too much saturation but the clients love them (even in print). I sometimes get 'forced' to deliver them too yellow to compensate for the crappy office screens. Even when I explain it will look like shit in print, they reply they don't care because it is solely being used on the web and most people have crappy screens (how can you argue with that ???).
-
Yes, the hasselblad colors out of the box are really very good. I'm not shot the leaf enough to know how I like that, but certainly its going to take me some time to walk through all the different choices - should I pick Portrait 4, 5, 4HS, 5HS, what's the y one or ??? To many damn choices and possible combinations - why so many? For critical stuff like art repo, you have the choice to roll your own but actually I almost always just use theirs. It's really simple.
-
to HarperPhotos
hi there.i learned that too .i am a chinese,here in china people give a lot credits to german lens.and i play with leica a lot.i am kind like believe in European optics too.but i do know Fuji made excellent glasses.so that is why i come to this forum to ask professionals for help.
what i want to say is that photo is a kind of visual creative art.it is not about those lenses analysis data.it is all about the output,the look.so my question gose to is the new Schneider lens really stands out?and are they going to made more?like wider than 55 and longer than 110?
thanks?
Hi Torchiam,
To be honest Hasselblad lenses (and I say Hasselblad, not Fuji) are no less European than their Mamiya / Schneider counterparts.
We have our own lens designer, Per Nordland, who constructs the optical design of our lenses. We also design and manufacture the central lens shutter that we have in every lens. Fujifilm are the responsible for the manufacture. So it is very much a collaboration between us. We have the final say on how the lens will be produced, not Fujifilm.
So in that respect I don't think we are any different to what Mamiya / Schneider can offer.
Except for that all our lenses have central shutters, internal AF drives and the ability to switch from AF to MF without the need for a mechanical switch - instantover ride.
David
-
Anyway, back to the initial question. IMO, you can get excellent results with everything. It is much more important you find something that fits your way of working and makes you feel comfortable doing your work.
What point there is to get an IQ180/H4D60 if your style is doing lots of images, fast shooting with moving objects? You would probably be better served with a faster back or maybe even DSLR.
I think you are working the wrong way around. Better first establish the way you work and find the right equipment for that instead of first getting equipment and finding out how to change your way of working to get to the best results. That might work too but you are in for an expensive lesson...
-
Anyway, back to the initial question. IMO, you can get excellent results with everything. It is much more important you find something that fits your way of working and makes you feel comfortable doing your work.
What point there is to get an IQ180/H4D60 if your style is doing lots of images, fast shooting with moving objects? You would probably be better served with a faster back or maybe even DSLR.
I think you are working the wrong way around. Better first establish the way you work and find the right equipment for that instead of first getting equipment and finding out how to change your way of working to get to the best results. That might work too but you are in for an expensive lesson...
Exactly
As I have already written. The camera is a tool. For every job we choose the appropriate tool. There are no universal tools. Should be chosen according to their type of work appropriate tool. (such that will help us.) Sculptor chisels adjusts to the material, his technique, etc. Photographer should do the same.
-
to David
;D you are the best hasseblade representative !!
i believe the hasseblade will maintain the European quality,because it is hasseblade,the reputation speaks for itself.
-
to Dustbak
i think you said the truth.and i think it works both ways.find the right camera to serve the job best,and try explore the camera in your hand as much as possible.some time people think the camera is not right is only because they do not use it right.
-
i didnt read all the posts, so sorry if someones already mentioned this-
if you are wanting to shoot people, more important than any amount of pixels, is capturing a decent expression. I have had a H1 with a p25, and now have a p40+, and it shoots way faster than either system you are considering, but its still too slow often. I do use the p40+ for people, but when time is critical, the speed of a canon guarantees a shot more often. subtle expressions can only last for a split second, you dont want to miss that expression waiting between shots.
the hassy shoots only 1.4 sec per frame, the phase .7 frames a sec (i guess that works out the same).
my p40+ shoots 1.2 frames a sec. resolution has never been questioned by any retoucher with my 40mp, and ive shot many international campaigns, often with the shots blown up on very large wall areas.
so, my opinion is get something that gets you a better hit rate for shots, than completely obsessing on every pixel. and as far as a "look" of the back, you can make many of these files look identical with a tweak in CS5. Ive shot campaigns that hasn't allowed me to shoot the whole think on the same digital back, and ive had to use an A22 along side a P25, or a 5d file alongside a P40+, with some careful tweaking the shots look like they are shot identically.
paul
If the shots can always be made to look identical (not my experience) why not just use the 5D2?
Edmund
-
Can everyone just get over the whole Fuji / Hasselblad / Fuji-blad thing? It's tiresome, and I don't even own a Hasselblad. Lots of people making good images out there regardless of brand name / country of origin / designer's nationality / ultimate holding company / megapixel count / format size / etc.
Trolls, the lot of you.
-
One question David, and this is not an attack. Because I love it when there is real progress because one day it will also drip through to the other brands.......
Let's say I shoot a catalogue for red shoes and those same shoes are worn by 3 different models in three different outfits against 3 different backgrounds or locations.
When I shoot that now I will use a color checker and make a custom profile in the end the shoes will look exactly the same in all shots.
When I use software that uses "magic" I will always end up with a "better" avarage, in other words IF the shots look better than a color checker created profile it will look better in shots compared head to head, but not in the series that have to be equal.
I have the same problem with the phase one "magic" skin tone corrector.
All these "magic" features are in my PERSONAL opinion all aimed at confusing the customer who doesn't understand the matter and let him/her believe that the problems we all face can be magically solved by some enhanced voodoo while in reality all they need is a proper understanding of color management and a good color checker ?
Again don't read this as an attack I love all MF manufacturers and the better they do, the more they have to push the other ones and we all benefit from this, but I'm rather into the technical stuff and sometimes I read stuff that I would love to hear more about but often don't get a response that is correct and is more aimed at keeping the readers in the mist thinking it's really the best solution for their problems ;)
Hey Frank,
Don't worry! I have known you long enough to know that you don't attack. ;)
I am glad that a few others have chipped in to say that they are getting good results from our solution.
Going back a bit to the Imacon days when the ixpress was launched, you can certainly say we didn't have a great default colour in some situations. We were adamant that we didn't want to go down the route of multiple colour profiles as we couldn't get our heads round to thinking that this was a slick a solution it could be.
It puts another step in the workflow that we wanted to remove. Also, as I stated earlier, what do you do if you have mixed lighting or a mixed situation? We thought it was our responsibility to deliver the best and accurate colours we could out of the box without the need for multiple profiles. It took about two years to develop with a lot of work from R&D.
I remember the final testing where we invited about ten models to the factory of all different skin types and nationalities (I remember we had more complaints in the early ixpress days from the USA as at the time the models tended to be more tanned as our pasty European counterparts!). Anyway, we presented the results to our dealers at the time and it spoke for itself really. Great results on a variety of skin tones out the box. Yes, its a big claim but I think our customers are happy with what they are getting from the H4D and Phocus without the need for skin editor tools and multiple profiles.
I believe the one of the reasons why the skin editor tool exists in C1 is to compensate against issues with multiple profiles - otherwise, why have it?
Frank, you are lucky that you are capable enough to manage creating custom profiles and using them correctly. Remember that many people have less experience of this or also do not wish to follow that path so we need to think of all our customer base. But I don't doubt you are getting great results with your system :). As I said before, it is hard NOT to be impressed by any MF camera.
Different brands in different industries have always existed alongside each other. This is our way of doing it which we believe is the preferential solution. Others (Doug!) may disagree.
David
-
If the shots can always be made to look identical (not my experience) why not just use the 5D2?
Actually agree with mostly everything you say, but when I stopped obsessing about image quality I realized that a D3x was giving me more good shots more easily than the heavy pain-to-use MF equipment, and I started using the D3x for everything. Don't get perfect shots but get pretty good shots.
Last not least, I find it is actually the lens which is responsible for much of the "look" of a shot, at least as much as the sensor after a certain level has been reached and you are flying up there in the best equipment stratosphere.
Edmund
-
As for the color. In most cases, the primary tool during the session is a MacBook Pro. (without an additional monitor) In this case there is no question about his work on color. The horror, repeatedly met with a case where the photographer was not happy with the color you see on the monitor (Eizo High-End calibrated) - where the colors were put faithfully. On the glossy screen is more saturated - have not been faithfully handed. Not to mention the detail in the shadows. An analogous situation to the early years - Light Table-slides look fabulously (after scanning a lot of losing.) But this is a topic for a new thread.
We have to realize for whom they are addressed cameras. Hasselblad aims at users who use high-end 35mm DSLR. Partly to amateurs, because the software must be very simple. ONE color profile - from a marketing point of view, perfectly fit the target. Amateur would be horrified to see these all the tools that do not know what they are. I can not attach to the color you get from this system, but some other more sophisticated tools would be appreciated.
I can not agree with David that the Hasselblad system is better in this respect( one color profile) , it really everyone has their own pros and cons, depending on who is using this system.For now, Phase One has a better tool for the job.
David: Add some tools to Phocus, and the situation will change dramatically.
It is also worth reading suggestions from users ...
-
Can everyone just get over the whole Fuji / Hasselblad / Fuji-blad thing? It's tiresome, and I don't even own a Hasselblad. Lots of people making good images out there regardless of brand name / country of origin / designer's nationality / ultimate holding company / megapixel count / format size / etc.
Trolls, the lot of you.
LOL. Thankyou.
Its true. There probably isn't one technical product out there these days that can truly claim it is British / German / French / Japanese etc etc.
This MacBookPro I am typing on is made in China, and I really can't fault the build of it. I imagine it is full of parts from 100's of suppliers.
A product will speak for itself regardless who screwed it together.
-
to David
;D you are the best hasseblade representative !!
i believe the hasseblade will maintain the European quality,because it is hasseblade,the reputation speaks for itself.
My pleasure. ;D
-
i believe the hasseblade will maintain the European quality,because it is hasseblade,the reputation speaks for itself.
Dangerous words!
No company, especially MF manufacturers should rely on their reputation to sell cameras. Brand should be the least important item on your shopping list. ;)
-
to cng
i come here to ask the things i do not know and appreciate helps with respect.if you are not ok with it,move to other threads,ask your own questions or reply with something productive.
thank you very much.
-
to gazwas
:D man ,i know what you are talking about
but the truth is ,you do not want to walk in a restaurant with no customers in there.and when there is a restaurant full of business and people line up out front to wait to get in,you konw they have good food served,right?
-
I never understood this Hasselblad natural color thingy and I'm quite a technically inclined person.
Maybe David could give a technical explanation or a pointer to a tech paper where the solution is explained and not only raved about?
-
I never understood this Hasselblad natural color thingy and I'm quite a technically inclined person.
Maybe David could give a technical explanation or a pointer to a tech paper where the solution is explained and not only raved about?
Hi Christoph,
That would require me having to write one. ;)
But I agree, we need it and I will try to make it happen.
David
-
but the truth is ,you do not want to walk in a restaurant with no customers in there.and when there is a restaurant full of business and people line up out front to wait to get in,you konw they have good food served,right?
Just as long as everyone waiting is not there just because the person at the front of the line is telling everyone its great!
Everyones tastes and needs are different so never assume because everyone else likes something its the best for you and only a good demo will help. So forget what everyone else uses (most pro's in your market are probably using 5DII, 1DsIII and DX3 anyway) and go with the best fit system.
-
Hi Christoph,
That would require me having to write one. ;)
But I agree, we need it and I will try to make it happen.
David
The only article I ever found which got a bit into details about HNCS was this one:
http://press.hasselblad.com/media-library/background-articles/hasselblad-natural-color-solution.aspx
After reading this article, which basically states H was using photographers to create some sort of unified profile I still feel unsatisfied.
Is it just a better generic profile ? H claims that HNCS is not a generic profile.
So - is the real color transformed differently each time depending on image content?
If yes - by which rationale?
If not - what would be the differences to the principle of a generic profile?
Again I feel I have more questions than answers.
Oh - and yes, David - do write something better than the article above ... :P
Because - in the moment HNCS appears to me just as being a cleverly designed generic profile ... but this contradicts the claim stated in the mentioned paper - so I still see a contradicton.
-
i come here to ask the things i do not know and appreciate helps with respect.if you are not ok with it,move to other threads,ask your own questions or reply with something productive.
What are you talking about? My comment may have been blunt but I thought it was worth pointing out the constant undeserved mindless criticising of Hasselblad purely for having lenses that aren't "Swedish" enough. It's pointlessly damaging, stupid and borderline racist.
My comment wasn't even directed at you, so I don't know why you seem so offended by it. ::)
You want some "productive" tips?
– Relevant to your consideration of an IQ180 is another myth spreading recently on the glorious internet that you only get Capture One DB with your new IQ back. Not true. You receive a full license for Capture One Pro (at least I did).
– Find good, trustworthy dealer(s) and test these systems out for yourself. Two reasons: 1. The ergonomics and useability of a system (lens / body / back / software) is more important than how many lp/mm the lenses can resolve. You will only find this out by testing and shooting with your usual subjects and workflow. At the risk of being flamed, all these systems are more than good enough. The human element, less so. 2. You will need a good dealer in the event (and it happens to everyone) something goes belly up – i.e. a good dealer providing excellent backup service to you, and a good dealer with excellent relationships with the manufacturers so that problems can be resolved quickly.
-
I'm following this thread, in wich there are some pros I respect, and frankly...most of you are teasing in the coffee-corner, no?
It's soon summertime and everybody needs a break.
I hear things like C1 is more professional than Phocus, or about the magic properties of the blad colors etc...
All I know, is that as professionals, we have to resolve. Whatever the camera, software involved and there is nothing such as the holy equipment and never will be.
As professionals, we have to be able to resolve whatever chalenge with any equipment and you know as well as I do that the path, the how, never matters.
IMO, when we start to questioned the equipment, resolution, magic colors, criticizing the naughty Canon's horrible files, C1 being better than Phocus, raw developers that think they are PS, dynamic f.....g range and its mother in law, we are in amateur café discution.
Ok, you're teasing.
-
Hi Fredjeang,
My professional experience might differ from yours but I have certainly found C1 to be much better than Phocus for my work and I have several backs from both companies. If expressing this is an "amateur cafe discussion" then I do not understand this thread. If I was about to spend more than $ 50 000 on a camera system I would like to know how people who have used it for years have found it. I find most professional reviews of medium format backs useless because while they look at the specs they never test the cameras under real world shooting conditions, pushing the equipment the way we do. Having to deal with not stop freezes and crashes are not the type of problems I like to have to resolve on a photo shoot, I prefer creative problems. The last year I used Hasselblad/Phocus not stop I almost had a nervous breakdown from the continual problems I had, crashes, freezes, rebooting everything, finding that all the files were not developed, having to process everything just so that I could edit in Lightroom...moving to Phase was so great after all that . So maybe there is no holy equipment/software combination out there but some equipment is clearly a lot better than others and that was what I was trying to express.
Thanks,
vincentdixon.com
-
Vincent,
My post was not aimed to anyone in particular but a kind of reaction to some general ideas that have been regularly sprayed in this forum year after year, like for example that C1 is a "more professional" software than Phocus.
It appears to me perfectly fine and desirable that each photographer had a preference in building a system and particular workflow and feel more orientated in using a particular equipment. Testing gear in personal configuration, trying softwares etc...to find what's-best-for-me is part of equation and there is nothing to discuss about it. Now...the use of "professional"
My experience in photography is 90% assisting, in low and high-end and I do know this: you arrive in the studio and they are computers wich characteristics aren't under your control. Generally underpowered and not updated softwares. The session was normally a Canon's but the boss decided to use a Blad also. There is Phocus and C1, Phocus will be used. Nothing to say. IF there is a crash, we can't say, "hey that's bloody phocus wich is not a good program". We simply have to resolve. In my professional experience, I think that not once that I remember I've heard serious complains about a camera or a particular software except in the forums. People are payed (photographer included) to acheive a goal, regardless of the limitations of the equipment.
We can't come with excuses, cameras-softwares-hardwares complains, or not knowing how to solve an issue. It has to be done. If not, they won't call you back.
I've seen that each time in the past I was barking against an equipment it was mostly because of my lack of mastering it, knowledge issue, not equipment issue.
I did that, we all do it, but I think there is a time with experience that the equipment becomes very very relative if not irrelevant.
I can make mistakes, but I can't not solving my mistakes and point an external reason by any means.
It's like those endless discussions about how bad the 5d2 files are compared to the MF back...I'm not saying that the MF equipment is not "superior" in many aspect of the IQ but again, in my experience, all I see are people choosing the right equipment for the right purpose. If it has to be a 5D2 it will be a 5D2. In the end, not one client cares about that, all they care is about the final image-cost. If it was done with a 1000$ Pentax APS, developped in Silkipix but the imagery is top, it's OK. You will be taken more seriously than shooting brickwalls with a 180 back.(not targeting anyone in particular here but a general idea)
I've never saw a single photographer built his reputation because of the equipment involved, except the workshopers because it is part of their equation, and there are very few equipment on this planet that really make a difference in one's reputation. Nodody knows or cares in cine if this director used an ARRI or a RED or his gran'ma camera. And ARRI and RED are precisely among the very little exceptions where the brand can have a commercial impact. Any file in this digital world will pass by so many softwares and-or hands before the delivery that all those considerations aren't relevant to me. Today, most if not all cameras and systems are capable to deliver great IQ with a great amount of reliability.
I never had a single crash with Phocus except once at home the very first moment I upgraded, re-boot the computer and it was all fine.
C1 is known to had issues when previous versions where installed and they clearly recommend to desinstall previous versions. I didn't have any crash with C1 either but know some people experienced it. So it is not a Phocus exclusive, it is digital imagery in general and the experiences can be very diverse in that aspect.
I realised that many people can be easily impressed by rather primitive softwares specs, a little bit of filters here, a more complete color correction controls there is enough...the fact that C1 is a more complete and "complex" program than Phocus often makes think that it is a more professional software. I don't buy that. It sounds to me a typical amateur statement as I pointed, amateur means in my mind someone how does not earn money with...not someone who is a complete stupid. But it is up to the pro to follow and know the wikenesses of the equipment and been preapared for that.
I spend quite a lot of time in collecting informations about how others have resolved a specific issue. I frankly would prefer to use this time for the fun but in my understanding, it's part of the professional attitude. Every system that I know has wicknesses. I've been complaining on Apple's politics recently about a complex ProRes issue, but in the end I must admit that my complain araised because I was not preapared enough technically. The issue really exists but then my point was irrelevant as a professional. Right or wrong, I just have to deal with it and more importantly, find the way to solve it. At the time I write, I haven't find a satisfactory way to solve the problem, more a DIY solution, but I will because I never give-up.
Testino's team to take an example uses Phocus, and it works, and works perfectly fine. In fact, most of the heavy weights here in Europe use Blad combined with Phocus and another point: it is not rare in the shooting sessions that the PS task is started right live in the session to gain time and money... a raw developper is in the end a simple software but the heavy stuff is PS and I think that if a Phase back is used, C1 should be used, if a blad is used, Phocus should be used; and then, layers, wich is where the heavy work starts.
IMO, if Hasselblad has not filled its Rawdev with zillion options except the srtictly necessaries it is not because they can't but probably they know their market and clients expectations.
Cheers.
-
I have tried both, Phocus and C1 (64 bit) and I have seen crashes with both.
And my system is generally rock solid stable.
(Quad Core Intel, 8 Gigs RAM, Windows 7 64 bit, Quality ASUS Board).
-
I have tried both, Phocus and C1 (64 bit) and I have seen crashes with both.
And my system is generally rock solid stable.
(Quad Core Intel, 8 Gigs RAM, Windows 7 64 bit, Quality ASUS Board).
LOL
You have answered your question ::)
-
my system is generally rock solid stable.
(Quad Core Intel, 8 Gigs RAM, Windows 7 64 bit, Quality ASUS Board).
.... windows ? rock solid ? ;D
-
since windows 7 64 bits I think I need to clean the dust on the Macs Pros in the studio.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/workstations/precision-r5500/pd.aspx?refid=precision-r5500&cs=555&s=biz
-
.... windows ? rock solid ? ;D
Yes. It is possible.
I have seen many Macs crash - mostly from people trying to proof Macs are the greatest awesomest nerdiest systems evah ...
The most stable system I have ever experienced was a Solaris machine.
-
Red Hat is also still very present in the cine industry
-
i believe the hasseblade will maintain the European quality,because it is hasseblade,the reputation speaks for itself.
It reminds me of a Scandinavian company. Also believed that they are the best, that their position in the market is not threatened. ALSO not endure criticism. The best of the best. Market leader. Today the company is in serious trouble. Speech about the Nokia company. I wish that history is not repeated.
-
it is very interesting to me to see what some people trying to prove here
so what i heard here is when some one tell you something is good,something is with good reputation,you people just give a poker face and start to talk about nokia and tell people:yeah,you know they are going to be bad,every good thing eventually is going to be bad,do not hear whatever people tell you,reputation is a lie.
;D ;D ;D ;D great!! this feels like reading <Tous les hommers soul motels>
tell you what,according to my experience,reputation speaks most of it.
-
it is very interesting to me to see some professionals,social experienced people to keep trying to prove that they are smarter than others,and they try so hard.
Well informed professionals know better, poorly informed ones are as wrong as the rest in their assumptions, perhaps even worse because they should know better ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well informed professionals know better, poorly informed ones are as wrong as the rest in their assumptions, perhaps even worse because they should know better ...
Cheers,
Bart
Well said !!! I agree with you.
Here you do not need to be a scientist to conclude that the viewfinder is inappropriate for this particular model. " H4D200MS is like three Hasselblad cameras in one ..." The product is not complete from the perspective of a customer who has to spend 32 thousand euro. It's a lot of money, but pardon is not a Ferrari, which is hard and rough - but that is exactly what we expect. The camera is a tool and a tool that should be accessible to us. Not vice versa. So if anyone thinks that I'm trying to be smarter than the other he is right. In this particular case I'm right
-
Well said !!! I agree with you.
Here you do not need to be a scientist to conclude that the viewfinder is inappropriate for this particular model. " H4D200MS is like three Hasselblad cameras in one ..." The product is not complete from the perspective of a customer who has to spend 32 thousand euro. It's a lot of money, but pardon is not a Ferrari, which is hard and rough - but that is exactly what we expect. The camera is a tool and a tool that should be accessible to us. Not vice versa. So if anyone thinks that I'm trying to be smarter than the other he is right. In this particular case I'm right
design_freak,
I believe we all get now that you don't like the viewfinder of the H4D-200MS. You probably mentioned it about 10 or 20 times over the past days. Similar for the name of the camera, the H extension tubes, etc. There have been a few posts that suggested you might have a personal score to settle with Hasselblad and given your continuous Hasselblad bashing I quite frankly see very little reason to question those posts. I only wish you would do it outside of this forum.
thanks, Joris.
-
design_freak,
I believe we all get now that you don't like the viewfinder of the H4D-200MS. You probably mentioned it about 10 or 20 times over the past days. Similar for the name of the camera, the H extension tubes, etc. There have been a few posts that suggested you might have a personal score to settle with Hasselblad and given your continuous Hasselblad bashing I quite frankly see very little reason to question those posts. I only wish you would do it outside of this forum.
thanks, Joris.
I can write it again: I don't have any personal score to settle with Hasselblad.
Actually, I don't really cares what you people write about me. That happens when you do not have arguments. Then someone tries to discredit, to reduce the rank of such person. Intelligent people would draw the conclusions. I believe that Hasselblad has a great products such as H4D40. System V, scanners. Even H4D200MS. You can read it in my answers. I have a right to talk about issues with this equipment. In the hope that someone will remove these defects. Likewise, I have the right to disagree with the policy of marketing. Do you like it or not I am part of this forum. Of course, already I'm tired of this. Dear colleagues from Hasselblad: your circus, your monkey
-
Actually, I don't really cares what you people write about me.
I believe its better you would.
As far as I can judge from what I saw on the LuLa forums over the time is, that an opposing opinion, presented in a civilized and reasonable manner usually is respected. There are two sides on this coin, and in the meantime I have the impression you are not a just victim of the Hasselblads forum blackops but have your share in this.
-
...I have a right to talk about issues with this equipment. In the hope that someone will remove these defects...
A modern version of Don Quixote, fighting the windmills of people without arguments, and this only for the higher noble cause of improving the Hasselblad product!
Sorry mate, but you will have to come up with something better and more credible...
-
If someone is offended, I apologize. I have a specific way of being, but I'm just so. I tend to not change. No one will force me to change my views.
I do not consider to be their victim. I do not like they're attacking me instead of talking about substance.
-
A modern version of Don Quixote, fighting the windmills of people without arguments, and this only for the higher noble cause of improving the Hasselblad product!
Sorry mate, but you will have to come up with something better and more credible...
Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but true. I would like that these tools were perfect. And I am convinced that they are close to perfection. Need only a lot of work and humility.
-
can not believe this thread could go this far.
maybe go back on track?
anyone here experienced the iq180 can tell more story about it?
-
can not believe this thread could go this far.
maybe go back on track?
anyone here experienced the iq180 can tell more story about it?
I agree :-)
What type of information do you need?
I had the pleasure to use the IQ180 and Aptus II 12R. As for the IQ180, the first feeling is indescribable. I can compare it to the first contact with the iPhone. The display is phenomenal. Just like interface. Some say it's just an unnecessary gadget. But the gadget that changes the current concept of functionality. (Maybe one of the producers will get the idea of applying the "iPad" as the display). As regards the quality of the device - a high-quality materials make a good impression. I've used 'IQ180' with Arca, it creates a perfect combo. (Quality at the same level). As for image quality - once again knocks - "ISO 35" provides an incredible dynamic range. Very pleasantly surprised by the battery. In my opinion, the perfect equipment for product photography, architecture. If only they added a system of rotation of sensor from the Aptus II 12R 8)
Not saying that it is not suitable for shooting people. I just never had a chance to try out for such applications.
I'll give you good advice. Do not waste your time on the forum. Go and test the equipment yourself. Then you will be 100% sure that you buy what you need. Are you sure you want IQ180 and not just Aptus II 12