Hasselblad medium format comparison

[pschefz]

Hasselbblad medium format comparison with videos
for anyone interested....
not sure if this really is something that might make people go and spend 10x more on a system....comparing the X1D would have been a better choice IMO since it is much closer in price, features...but i guess the differences would mostly have been lost in a youtube video....as they are here for the most part.....
the toughest part might be the studio setting where the differences shown are more a matter of difference raw processing....
watching parts of it, it reminded me of something i heard from a very high end editorial shooter....medium format for single page, DSLR for double....seems counter intuitive but makes sense because of the format and framing.....and this was a few years ago and there was no worry about loss in quality then....we can laugh about it now....

[Doug Peterson]

I've been doing comparisons like this for 10 years and I've learned three things:
1) You can't please everyone with any test. There's always something someone can find that they would have done differently.
2) "ideal condition for a real-world shoot" and "ideal conditions for a direct comparison" are rarely the same thing.
3) There is no better test than trying it for yourself.

Since we choose to sell P1 but not Hassy it would be inappropriate for me to criticize any minutia and also see #1 (i.e. there's always nits to pick). Moreover all in all I think they did a very good job.

For those interested in things like this the Massive Still Life Test we did was one of the better tests I've organized to compare sharpness, detail, color, and "tactility/depth/dimensionality/presence/3Dness" between small-format and medium format. All raws free to download and play with.

[delfalex]

Thanks for the link,

Looking at it through to the processing stage, I think comparing the corner sharpness of the HCD28mm with what looks like a (rented) AFS17-35mm zoom is a bit of a naff comparative lens - I mean that that zoom's an old lens that couldn't even fully resolve on the D800, let alone a D850; comparing the HCD28 with a Sigma 20mm Art or at least a prime lens would have been a bit more appropriate no? But then there might not have been such a visible advantage.
As pschefz noted, the 50MP on a 44x33 sensor would be a better example for showing the differences in one's megapixels distributed over a larger sensor area.

[pschefz]

I've been doing comparisons like this for 10 years and I've learned three things:
1) You can't please everyone with any test. There's always something someone can find that they would have done differently.
2) "ideal condition for a real-world shoot" and "ideal conditions for a direct comparison" are rarely the same thing.
3) There is no better test than trying it for yourself.

Since we choose to sell P1 but not Hassy it would be inappropriate for me to criticize any minutia and also see #1 (i.e. there's always nits to pick). Moreover all in all I think they did a very good job.

For those interested in things like this the Massive Still Life Test we did was one of the better tests I've organized to compare sharpness, detail, color, and "tactility/depth/dimensionality/presence/3Dness" between small-format and medium format. All raws free to download and play with.

i totally agree and it gets weird when they talk about tones but we are looking at youtube compression....i would think they should provide the original raws...

[pschefz]

Thanks for the link,

Looking at it through to the processing stage, I think comparing the corner sharpness of the HCD28mm with what looks like a (rented) AFS17-35mm zoom is a bit of a naff comparative lens - I mean that that zoom's an old lens that couldn't even fully resolve on the D800, let alone a D850; comparing the HCD28 with a Sigma 20mm Art or at least a prime lens would have been a bit more appropriate no? But then there might not have been such a visible advantage.
As pschefz noted, the 50MP on a 44x33 sensor would be a better example for showing the differences in one's megapixels distributed over a larger sensor area.

i thought that was odd as well....i would also say that the lens has a major impact on overall detail and sharpness....and it would explain why the studio files look so much closer....
either way: most advantages they find with medium format would be there with X1D (or GFX) anyway....color and tones....

[BobShaw]

It is just a comparison of medium format versus 35mm, nothing more.

I think the 35mm did quite well.
However the Hasselblad was using the compressed raw .3FR format. To expand to the full raw format .FFF would require putting it through Phocus. The full raw from the 35mm comes straight out of the camera. I am not sure how much of a difference that makes.

[Garry Sarre]

It is just a comparison of medium format versus 35mm, nothing more.

I think the 35mm did quite well.
However the Hasselblad was using the compressed raw .3FR format. To expand to the full raw format .FFF would require putting it through Phocus. The full raw from the 35mm comes straight out of the camera. I am not sure how much of a difference that makes.

Exactly Bob. Karl is not saying anything that most of us wouldn't know already, the video is directed at prospective medium format buyers. He did a good job and there will always be people who say that it would be better to do it this way or that. The answer is, get off your behinds and do it your preferred way yourself. Then you can listen to others complain about your test the same way.

Reflecting on comparable film formats... our commercial photography studio had 35mm, 120, 5x4 & 8x10 formats in use. The dark room printed all 4 formats onto Cibachrome, RA chemistry (Col. neg) & B&W.

Basically, and this is from a commercial point of view, 35mm was a pig (except for tranny and some 'arty and grainy B&W), 120 and 5x4 was our standard day to to day stuff, and 8x10 was superb, it printed itself with effortless smooth tonal graduations.

My 'feeling' from using 35mm and MF digital today, is that in comparison to MF, DSLR disappoints in the same way that 120 film did when compared to 5x4. If the advantages of bigger detail gathering real-estate hasn't changed in 4 decades, why would it now?

[BernardLanguillier]

If the advantages of bigger detail gathering real-estate hasn't changed in 4 decades, why would it now?

Because film grains were the same in all formats while sensels differ?

Don't get me wrong, I find the files of my H6D-100c to be superior to those of my D850, but the difference is very far from justifying the cost difference.

H lenses are good, but some Nikon lenses are IMHO better. I prefer both the look and technical quality of my Nikon 105mm f1.4 compared to the latest version of the HC100mm f2.2 for instance.

In terms of wide angles, it is true that the HCD28mm f4 remains best in class.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't expect any unbiased information from from any camera vendor.

But, I got they compare the H6D100c with an unidentified DSLR. I cannot identify the camera in the comparison, but it could be one of the "pro cameras" from Nikon or Canon that are intended for an entirely different scenario from the H6D100c.

Would you do a just comparison, it would be to compare the MFD against the Sony A7rIII or the Nikon D850 that are more general purpose cameras.

Would they compare the H6D100c to say the Nikon D850 or the Sony A7rIII, it would be a defensible approach. Reasonably, the H6D100c would still win, you should get something for 2.56X the sensor area and 15X the price. But comparing H6D100c to a reporter type camera, is just a shame.

Now, shoot a downhill skier at full aperture filling the frame at 100 m with the H6D100c. How many sharp pictures will you get?

I do think MFD marketing is shameful. The BS ratio is extremely right. They should talk about the real world benefits of their systems. But, it could just be that those benefits are hard to advertise on anything intended for a less than 8K 85" screen?

Best regards
Erik

Hasselbblad medium format comparison with videos
for anyone interested....
not sure if this really is something that might make people go and spend 10x more on a system....comparing the X1D would have been a better choice IMO since it is much closer in price, features...but i guess the differences would mostly have been lost in a youtube video....as they are here for the most part.....
the toughest part might be the studio setting where the differences shown are more a matter of difference raw processing....
watching parts of it, it reminded me of something i heard from a very high end editorial shooter....medium format for single page, DSLR for double....seems counter intuitive but makes sense because of the format and framing.....and this was a few years ago and there was no worry about loss in quality then....we can laugh about it now....

[ErikKaffehr]

What 35 mm was that?

- Was it the 45 MP D850?
- Was it the 42 MP Sony A/rII?
- Was it the 30 or so MP Canon's 1DXII with latest generation Canon sensor technology?
- Was it the Nikon 5D with Nikons proprietary technology?

If you don't even say what you compare with, how can you take that comparison seriously?

And, you can still cheat a lot! Shoot both systems at f/16. You don't need to stop down a 24x36 mm camera to f/16. May be that you can't afford an adequate ND filter that allows you to shoot f/11? Hmm, I won't spend 30$k extra for a camera to save 200$ on ND filters.

As it is now, I would wait a few months, until 100 MP arrives on 44x33 mm and than look into buying a nice system built for that format, for perhaps 10k$US.

But, for the moment I don't have the money or the needs.

My estimate is that we will see 100 MP on 44x33 mm at 10k$US in just a few months on systems designed for the 44x33 mm sensor. At that time today's 100 MP 54x41 mm sensors will be essentially history.

Almost all new MFD systems use Sony's  100MP and 50 MP sensors right now. The only exception is like CL. Sony has made it's roadmap public. Next generation is 150 MP on 54x41 mm and 100 MP on 44x33 mm and both announced for 2018, this year.

Having the prospect of 100 MP system designed around a new 100 MP 44x33 mm sensor makes that the value of a 100 MP sensor designed around the 54x41 mm 100 MP sensors at 30k$US essentially zero sense for me.

Best regards
Erik

It is just a comparison of medium format versus 35mm, nothing more.

I think the 35mm did quite well.
However the Hasselblad was using the compressed raw .3FR format. To expand to the full raw format .FFF would require putting it through Phocus. The full raw from the 35mm comes straight out of the camera. I am not sure how much of a difference that makes.

[tcdeveau]

Hi Erik,
It is a D850.  They show the front of the 35mm camera in one of the frames around 2:09.
-Todd

What 35 mm was that?

- Was it the 45 MP D850?
- Was it the 42 MP Sony A/rII?
- Was it the 30 or so MP Canon's 1DXII with latest generation Canon sensor technology?
- Was it the Nikon 5D with Nikons proprietary technology?

If you don't even say what you compare with, how can you take that comparison seriously?

And, you can still cheat a lot! Shoot both systems at f/16. You don't need to stop down a 24x36 mm camera to f/16. May be that you can't afford an adequate ND filter that allows you to shoot f/11? Hmm, I won't spend 30$k extra for a camera to save 200$ on ND filters.

As it is now, I would wait a few months, until 100 MP arrives on 44x33 mm and than look into buying a nice system built for that format, for perhaps 10k$US.

But, for the moment I don't have the money or the needs.

My estimate is that we will see 100 MP on 44x33 mm at 10k$US in just a few months on systems designed for the 44x33 mm sensor. At that time today's 100 MP 54x41 mm sensors will be essentially history.

Almost all new MFD systems use Sony's  100MP and 50 MP sensors right now. The only exception is like CL. Sony has made it's roadmap public. Next generation is 150 MP on 54x41 mm and 100 MP on 44x33 mm and both announced for 2018, this year.

Having the prospect of 100 MP system designed around a new 100 MP 44x33 mm sensor makes that the value of a 100 MP sensor designed around the 54x41 mm 100 MP sensors at 30k$US essentially zero sense for me.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

That is good!

That is the camera I would compare with.

Is that congruent with their other statements? I am a bit skeptical.

It takes a lot of effort to analyze tests with a lot of unconfirmed information. As an example they state that DR on DSLRs is 12EV and MFD is more like 15 EV. What test and which cameras do they refer to?

Yeah, I think that the 100 MP sensor may be around 15 EV. But, 12 EV on DSLR is like very, very old technology. Saying 15 EV vs 14 EV may be OK. More than that seems to be alternate facts.

If you take to much liberty with with facts, your credibility will be in jeopardy. It may be good for the masses, but your credibility with experts will be zero. Being within the realm of feasibility would improve credibility, but not allow for very high pricing.

Best regards
Erik


Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,
It is a D850.  They show the front of the 35mm camera in one of the frames around 2:09.
-Todd

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Erik, the whole thing should be looked at as an infomercial. After all, it is posted on the manufacturer's site. Once you see it that way, it is a pretty interesting infomercial.

[BAB]

Not much of the entire video leaves one with a lot to read into its just facts. I found the contents that Karl provided to be very accurate from my own experience. Curious issue was why the histogram was dead center and not to the right unless he adjusted the incoming raw files. I find LR does a good job with H6D 100 files but not as well as Phocus does in color fidelity, highlight recovery in Phocus needs improvement. Also when Karl pressed the shutter on the outdoor pictures not sure if he used mirror up or self timer?


X1D comparison would have been nice!

[pschefz]

That is good!

That is the camera I would compare with.

Is that congruent with their other statements? I am a bit skeptical.

It takes a lot of effort to analyze tests with a lot of unconfirmed information. As an example they state that DR on DSLRs is 12EV and MFD is more like 15 EV. What test and which cameras do they refer to?

Yeah, I think that the 100 MP sensor may be around 15 EV. But, 12 EV on DSLR is like very, very old technology. Saying 15 EV vs 14 EV may be OK. More than that seems to be alternate facts.

If you take to much liberty with with facts, your credibility will be in jeopardy. It may be good for the masses, but your credibility with experts will be zero. Being within the realm of feasibility would improve credibility, but not allow for very high pricing.

Best regards
Erik


Best regards
Erik

i thought the 12 stop DR quote was strange....we know the DSLR is a nikon 850 with about 14 stops DR....
from my own tests comparing the GFX to the A7RIII and D850, i have to say that overall the DR might be comparable....BUT (and i have no technical knowledge and cant back this up with numbers)...comparing a similar scene like for example, rocks or bushes in dark shadows in a part of the picture underexposed to hold some information in the highlights...i might be able to drag the shadow recovery slider over and "open up" all 3 files to the same degree....but the only the GFX file will show me a result i might actually like to keep...this is not so much about detail or noise but actual color information and not just (for example) blue mush because it is in dark shadow and i am just dragging the slider over....some or most of this might be ok for most things, possibly invisible in prints....but it does allow for some serious post production and opening up of areas incl color correcting and sharpening these areas.....there is a reason why architecture and car shooters still prefer DMF....this does get some mention but is not really expanded on....
again: comparing a 100mpix (larger sensor) with 40mpix (even less after cropping to 3x4) and saying it has more detail does not make much sense to me....and no matter how much we want to talk about skin tone....shooting models in studio makes a lot more sense with a DSLR....even if one does shoot slower and none of the actual advantages of DMF will come through....

I seriously doubt anyone will watch this and go out and get a H6 100 system....it would have been much better to do a X1D vs 850 but i guess they were afraid that few would see the difference in a youtube video....

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Todd,

Thank you, I have not seen that. The label on the prism was typed over, as far as I could see, but the D850 is visible.

The D850 is a proper system to compare with. I still don't think that shooting f/16 on both is not a fair comparison. If you need f/16 for depth of field on the Hassy the Nikon would only need f/10 for the same DoF. F/16 gives noticeable softening both on MFD and 135, but 135 needs less stopping down.

According to Bill Claff's data, the 850D has of 11.63 while the IQ3100MP that has the same sensor 13.06, that kind of difference is quite significant for rendition in the darks.

I also noted that the test was done with a prime on the Hasselblad H6D but using a zoom on the full frame DSLR.

I guess that many photographers use zooms on DSLRs.

A final point to make may be that field curvature on the lenses may be different. It could be that you find an object that is in focus because of field curvature with one lens but not with another.  I have some pretty nifty samples I can share, would any one be interested.

I would expect that a 54x41 mm sensor at 100 MP will always outperform a 24x36 mm sensor at 47MP. The difference may have been a bit less obvious if a high quality prime would be used on the "Full Frame DSLR". But, most folks including my self, probably shoot zooms on 24x36.

My take is really that the new 50 MP EVF designs from Hasselblad and Fuji make a lot of sense, if you print large. With the older MF DSLR designs, I am not so sure. They don't offer a lot more than than the EVF cameras, but at a substantially higher price. I am not sure that makes any sense...

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,
It is a D850.  They show the front of the 35mm camera in one of the frames around 2:09.
-Todd

[BobShaw]

Erik, the whole thing should be looked at as an infomercial. After all, it is posted on the manufacturer's site. Once you see it that way, it is a pretty interesting infomercial.

Exactly.

Regardless of which 35mm DSLR and which medium format DSLR you compare, with a similar capability lens in the medium format the viewfinder will be brighter and you will need less magnification to make a print of the same size.

[pschefz]

there is also this youtube chelsea&tony
lots of fluff but some good points....

[ErikKaffehr]

Well, some of the things Peter says does not make sense, he mixes up linear size and sensor surface quite a bit.

They do not make a lot of statements on image quality.

It also seems that focusing on the X1D is not very consistent.

Tony says that all the lenses are very sharp, I think that is indeed the case.

The portrait samples show better sharpness on the D850, due to more accurate focus. It is quite possible that the X1D lenses are much better near corners, but you would not be able to observe that in a portrait shoot.

One point the Northrups make is that background blur is much better with the 105/1.4 on the Nikon than with the 90/3.2 on the X1D. The leaf shutter limits maximum aperture on the X1D, but I would also think that Hasselblad wanted to keep the lenses small.

One problem with this kinds of tests is poor repeatability. We always make small mistakes. Under "lab conditions" we can go back and reshoot. In real life tests it is often not possible.

Chris Nichols makes some comparisons between the X1D and the Sony A7rII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJSRKsj31bE&t=831s

Just to say Chris doesn't like the X1D, as it seems to have a lot of practical issues, that may have been resolved since the hands on review.

Karl Taylor's test was with H6D100c, which has a much larger sensor than the X1D and that sensor is also of larger size, the advantages of MFD will be clearer with that sensor.

Best regards
Erik

there is also this youtube chelsea&tony
lots of fluff but some good points....

[eronald]

Well, some of the things Peter says does not make sense, he mixes up linear size and sensor surface quite a bit.

They do not make a lot of statements on image quality.

It also seems that focusing on the X1D is not very consistent.

Tony says that all the lenses are very sharp, I think that is indeed the case.

The portrait samples show better sharpness on the D850, due to more accurate focus. It is quite possible that the X1D lenses are much better near corners, but you would not be able to observe that in a portrait shoot.

One point the Northrups make is that background blur is much better with the 105/1.4 on the Nikon than with the 90/3.2 on the X1D. The leaf shutter limits maximum aperture on the X1D, but I would also think that Hasselblad wanted to keep the lenses small.

One problem with this kinds of tests is poor repeatability. We always make small mistakes. Under "lab conditions" we can go back and reshoot. In real life tests it is often not possible.

Chris Nichols makes some comparisons between the X1D and the Sony A7rII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJSRKsj31bE&t=831s

Just to say Chris doesn't like the X1D, as it seems to have a lot of practical issues, that may have been resolved since the hands on review.

Karl Taylor's test was with H6D100c, which has a much larger sensor than the X1D and that sensor is also of larger size, the advantages of MFD will be clearer with that sensor.

Best regards
Erik

Hassy have a 100mm F2.2 fast and nice leaf shutter lens for H. So it can be done.

Everybody in the movie business now uses AF adapter rings for lenses, nobody is stopping people from using fast 35mm or Conrax lenses on the Hassy with or without AF. Due to the huge DR of the sensor, vignetting is not really an issue any more, and the electronic shutter is perfectly sufficient for everyday use.

Edmund