Jumping into MF digital

[Greg Whitaker]

Hi Folks,
Thanks for such a useful and educational forum.
I am a commercial advertising shooter, specializing in lifestyle images w'people on location.
I am a long time Hasselbad user, always shot color or B&W neg and scanned. In the last two years I have rented the H2D system as well as the H2 w/P45 back.
Enjoyed them both, but both were for controlled studio shoots. Normally I use alot of natural light and shoot at ISO 400 or 640 when possible.
Looking at the tests and reviews here, it seems that the P33+ or P45+ will be the ticket with higher usable ISO and wireless capability but I wanted to ask the panel what the general opinion was between the H3D and an H2D w/P45+ (though it's not out yet)?
A few other notes: I really love and creatively need the waist level finder that I've always used on my hassy V systems, I understand that there is now a waist level finder available for the H2 and H3-
Also, am I to understand that the H3D may have a firmware update coming that would allow a higher usable ISO- Does this mean lower noise? Is this achievable with firmware or is this really a chip issue?
I know that I could do a P45+ with a v system hassy, but I thought I could use the f/2.8 lenses as opposed to f/4 of the leaf shutter lenses.
Thanks for any help or opinions.
Greg

[paul_jones]

Hi Folks,
Thanks for such a useful and educational forum.
I am a commercial advertising shooter, specializing in lifestyle images w'people on location.
I am a long time Hasselbad user, always shot color or B&W neg and scanned. In the last two years I have rented the H2D system as well as the H2 w/P45 back.
Enjoyed them both, but both were for controlled studio shoots. Normally I use alot of natural light and shoot at ISO 400 or 640 when possible.
Looking at the tests and reviews here, it seems that the P33+ or P45+ will be the ticket with higher usable ISO and wireless capability but I wanted to ask the panel what the general opinion was between the H3D and an H2D w/P45+ (though it's not out yet)?
A few other notes: I really love and creatively need the waist level finder that I've always used on my hassy V systems, I understand that there is now a waist level finder available for the H2 and H3-
Also, am I to understand that the H3D may have a firmware update coming that would allow a higher usable ISO- Does this mean lower noise? Is this achievable with firmware or is this really a chip issue?
I know that I could do a P45+ with a v system hassy, but I thought I could use the f/2.8 lenses as opposed to f/4 of the leaf shutter lenses.
Thanks for any help or opinions.
Greg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

there is only two fast H lenses , 80 2.8 and the 100 2.2. they dont have a very nice blur, not nearly as nice as the contax (my previous camera) or canon 1.2 85.

there are many nice things about the h1, its the most advanced medium format camera around.
bright finder, fast focus, nice shape to hold (if a bit plasticy), lots of options.

but just as many issues with it. for example, my h1 body, 80mm lens, and zoom have all been into repair already- i think ive only probably shot 2000 shots. the zoom is still at hasselsblad, sounds like the shutter may have gone. the zoom has only 800 shots on it- and i have no warranty as i bought it used. i havnt had the quote, but it could cost 1500 to repair.
many people have errors on the camera, but i havnt had hardly any at all (except the zoom giving errors when it was needing repair).

paul

[MarkKay]

I have an  H2 and Aptus 65. I would not consider the H2D since it is a discountinued system.  If going with hasselblad I would get an H2 and 3rd party back or the H3D.  I had some incompatibility error messages at first but it turned out there was a bad circuit on the digital back and now it works almost flawlessly. I rarely if ever get an error message now. The important thing is to make sure the firmware is the most recent.

I think the blur on the 100 2.2 is decent.  I just got this lens and like it. It is clearly better than the 80mm for bokeh.  In regards to image sharpness it is very close.  For close up shots, the 120mm macro shots give nice bokeh but  the optics do not hold up as well at shots that I have taken from about 10 feet back or further  i have not compared enough to say where the true transistion zone is but others have suggested 6 feet. I have considered the 150mm 3.2 HC but I am not sure how much better the background blur might look compared with the 100mm 2.2 with similar framing of the subject.

i think there are a lot of different viewpoints related to the Hassy HC lenses. I actually like them. THey are so sharp-- some say sterile but this is a matter of taste.  Hasselblad lacks a tilt shift option which is my major issue.

there is only two fast H lenses , 80 2.8 and the 100 2.2. they dont have a very nice blur, not nearly as nice as the contax (my previous camera) or canon 1.2 85.

there are many nice things about the h1, its the most advanced medium format camera around.
bright finder, fast focus, nice shape to hold (if a bit plasticy), lots of options.

but just as many issues with it. for example, my h1 body, 80mm lens, and zoom have all been into repair already- i think ive only probably shot 2000 shots. the zoom is still at hasselsblad, sounds like the shutter may have gone. the zoom has only 800 shots on it- and i have no warranty as i bought it used. i havnt had the quote, but it could cost 1500 to repair.
many people have errors on the camera, but i havnt had hardly any at all (except the zoom giving errors when it was needing repair).

paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[David McCaughan]

We are currently shooting editorial interiors using RZs and film. We will be transitioning to a MFDB? kicking and screaming. Our clients are very happy with the product we are producing now, so ideally the digital images will be as close to MF film as possible. Our current thinking is Phase P25/45+, we tested with a FF Canon, but there was way too much DOF! Everything I've read concentrates on maximizing DOF, we want to get less! We usually shoot @ f/5.6-11 with the RZ, on the Canon f/4 looked like f/11-16! (Same spot, equivalent lens) A living room with everything tack sharp looks terrible, even with great light.
Anyone out there experiencing the same frustrations? Successful solutions?

Dave

[stefan marquardt]

"A living room with everything tack sharp looks terrible, even with great light.
Anyone out there experiencing the same frustrations? Successful solutions?"

hi david,
I mostly photopgraph interiors too and have just migrated from canon to mamiya zd - and one of the major differences is the lack of dof with the mamiya. sometimes with interior, you (or more likely the client) want everything sharp then the canon is easier. with the mamiya you then often have to go into the 10 second area (and thereby getting close to max time!). with the canon there is just no max exposuretime. so its easy to get everything sharp.
BUT when you need out of focus areas, the mamiya (or any mfback) is much better. the 1.9/80mm or the 2.8/110mm provide you with less dof than you need! and even the 4/50mm shift lens at 8 leaves some areas out of focus.
and apart from that, the colors, the dynamic range and the contrast are just much better (to the eye of the photographer anyway - i doubt very much, that most clients will ever notice that difference).

stefan

[Dave Gallagher]

Guys,

We have a customer's test of a 1ds MII, a P30, and a P45 (both on Contax).

They are of my tech guy sitting in our studio's kitchen.

The 1ds MII file looks great by itself but placed by the P30 or the P45 it pales in comparison.

http://www.captureintegration.com/comparis...vs-1DSMkII.html

Again, completely unbiased test done by a shooter who was trying to justify the purchase of a MFDB vs. his existing canon.  

You can download the raws and process them yourselves if you would like.

[Prakash Patel]

We are currently shooting editorial interiors using RZs and film. We will be transitioning to a MFDB? kicking and screaming. Our clients are very happy with the product we are producing now, so ideally the digital images will be as close to MF film as possible. Our current thinking is Phase P25/45+, we tested with a FF Canon, but there was way too much DOF! Everything I've read concentrates on maximizing DOF, we want to get less! We usually shoot @ f/5.6-11 with the RZ, on the Canon f/4 looked like f/11-16! (Same spot, equivalent lens) A living room with everything tack sharp looks terrible, even with great light.
Anyone out there experiencing the same frustrations? Successful solutions?

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree that focus as a compositional element is important...........it appears that there is too much emphasis and discussion on technical issues as they relate to digital imaging. It seems that these conversations are inadvertently designed by the manufacturers by producing PDF's of features and technical data. We as photographers have a voracious appetite for this kind of information and this  forum is a perfect incubator for this kind of information. Pretty soon, this sort of cartesian thinking of problem solving and data analysis has manufacturers in quest to design the perfect or perfected digital back/camera solutions.............Hassy H3,hy6-Afi-Rollie for example.

Every manufacturer of MFDB has proprietary solutions of either hardware and software or the integration of both. I am not convinced that this kind of "product differentiation"
helps mature or evolve the MFDB market. By programming exclusion into the design of the product you negate many possibilities..........

For example, with regard to DOF or selective focus, if you were to consider  the current state of technology solutiions like h3 or the upcoming rollie/sinar/leaf solution. These solutions should provide very sharp images using software tweaks to enhance optical performance. However, if you are interested in using focus as an element in your visual vocabulary ( in addition to fast optics), you may want to be able to put your back on the following systems: Fuji 680, Hasselbald arcbody, hasselblad flexbody.

Ideally, you would like to be able to broaden the visual vocabulary by incorporating both new and older camera designs. When you are spending between 30K to 80K it is very reasonable request to be able to use a digital back on multiple optical platforms without running into proprietary mounting or software issues.


I am glad to hear you kicking and screaming............when you are swimming in the pond many decisions have been made. You are on the bank thinking of jumping in..........your kicking and screaming is heard very clearly by the manufacturers of these various products. Its the screaming
that makes you ask why the new cameras have slower lenses than some of their predecessors.
Why shooting rates and wireless transmissions are more important than refining the software workflow...

[Robin Casady]

Why shooting rates and wireless transmissions are more important than refining the software workflow...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Isn't wireless transmission an aspect of the software workflow? Not having to have wires between the camera and a computer would seem to be very helpful in many situations.

Regards,
Robin Casady
[a href=\"http://www.robincasady.com]http://www.robincasady.com[/url]

[godtfred]

Also, am I to understand that the H3D may have a firmware update coming that would allow a higher usable ISO- Does this mean lower noise? Is this achievable with firmware or is this really a chip issue?

Greg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think its a chip issue, as Kodak has made no statement about new 39 mpix chips with higher sensitivity? (To my knowledge...) The old one is named KAF-39000 and there is no mention of a new one on Kodak's website.

To my knowledge the Phase One products and Hasselblad products of the same pixel number use the same chips as supplied by Kodak.

[paul_jones]

We are currently shooting editorial interiors using RZs and film. We will be transitioning to a MFDB? kicking and screaming. Our clients are very happy with the product we are producing now, so ideally the digital images will be as close to MF film as possible. Our current thinking is Phase P25/45+, we tested with a FF Canon, but there was way too much DOF! Everything I've read concentrates on maximizing DOF, we want to get less! We usually shoot @ f/5.6-11 with the RZ, on the Canon f/4 looked like f/11-16! (Same spot, equivalent lens) A living room with everything tack sharp looks terrible, even with great light.
Anyone out there experiencing the same frustrations? Successful solutions?

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i have compared my canon with the 1.2 85 with my contax 645 with the 80 both wide open. they are very similar with the look and amount of blur- a very cinematic look. but you will need canons very fast lenses to get this look. also the canon has the option of shooting very fast long lenses that you would find it hard to replicate the look on a medium format, ie the f2.0 200 and 2.8 400. i would love to try a mamiya M645 300 2.8, or hassy 300 2.8.
the main hassle with the canon with a fast lens is trying to get studio stobes low enough with power settings.
f1.2 in the studio suits continuous lighting

paul

[Graham Mitchell]

A living room with everything tack sharp looks terrible, even with great light.
Anyone out there experiencing the same frustrations? Successful solutions?

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I had the same frustrations with Canon but now I can shoot with flash and still achieve a shallow DOF. This test shot taken with a Sinar eMotion22 digital back, Rollei 6008 and Schneider 180mm @f2.8, ISO 25:

[howiesmith]

the main hassle with the canon with a fast lens is trying to get studio stobes low enough with power settings.
f1.2 in the studio suits continuous lighting

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try neutral density filters, on stobe or camera or both.  Same as reducing strobe power, stop for stop.

Maybe move the lights back some.  May change light quality too.

Try a lower ISO.  Like ND filters.

Lots of solutions.

[paul_jones]

Try neutral density filters, on stobe or camera or both.  Same as reducing strobe power, stop for stop.

Maybe move the lights back some.  May change light quality too.

Try a lower ISO.  Like ND filters.

Lots of solutions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i shoot with acute 1200s with two heads on low (i wish i had 1200 d4s with the low settings), and with a 4x nd, any darker than that and you cant see to focus, neither can the canon. its works with a light far away, but a lot of nice lighting requires the lights very close. 50 iso on the canon isnt very nice.
but im shooting with h1 now with the 2.2 100 when i want a similar type of shot- good 50 iso, and the lens is a stop darker open.

paul

[howiesmith]

i shoot with acute 1200s with two heads on low (i wish i had 1200 d4s with the low settings), and with a 4x nd, any darker than that and you cant see to focus, neither can the canon. its works with a light far away, but a lot of nice lighting requires the lights very close. 50 iso on the canon isnt very nice.
but im shooting with h1 now with the 2.2 100 when i want a similar type of shot- good 50 iso, and the lens is a stop darker open.

paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try focusing and framing and then put the ND on.  You can use much more than 4x that way.  Put some ND on the lights.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Another solution is to simply use a lower-powered flash. You can get a bracket to mount a battery-powered shoe-mount flash to a lightstand, with a PC jack for triggering the flash via a remote switch or Pocket Wizard, from B&H or any of the better online photo supply places. Any shoe-mount flash with manual power control can be used, without having to ND anything. Or you can shoot with just the modeling lights in your studio strobes. I've even mixed studio strobes and shoe-mount battery flashes when I needed just a little fill light in some corner and all my studio strobes were already in use. As Howard said, there are many viable options available if you care to apply a bit of creativity. It's only a problem if you make it one.

[Graham Mitchell]

Using ND filters just isn't going to work with people shooting, so that rules it out for me.

Using lower power flash can work in some situations, but not where you are balancing with natural light, and have hit the flash sync shutter speed limit.

[paul_jones]

Using ND filters just isn't going to work with people shooting, so that rules it out for me.

Using lower power flash can work in some situations, but not where you are balancing with natural light, and have hit the flash sync shutter speed limit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

im not saying its at all impossible, just a bit of a hassle. nds work to a point till they get too dark, and you cant keep taking the nd on and off. and a "on camera flash" wouldnt keep up with the volume of shots and fit modifiers. the best solution is getting a pack like a d4 that goes down in power even more.
my original point is im shooting medium format, so its hardly a problem now.

paul

[doncody]

Yes I had the same frustrations with Canon but now I can shoot with flash and still achieve a shallow DOF. This test shot taken with a Sinar eMotion22 digital back, Rollei 6008 and Schneider 180mm @f2.8, ISO 25:


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm new to the forum.  This is a great thread.  I have been a 6008 and HassyV user, but yet to go digital.  One of the main reasons I went to 2 1/4 was for the shallow DOF, but the light bulb went off reading this forum.  Just as in 35mm digital where a 50mm lens becomes a 75mm because of sensor size, will I have the same issues in MF?  For example a 180 becomes ??  Or in other words will I be losing my shallow DOF? Thx

[rueyloon]

hi david,
I mostly photopgraph interiors too and have just migrated from canon to mamiya zd - and one of the major differences is the lack of dof with the mamiya. sometimes with interior, you (or more .......


stefan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

stefan, I'm interested how you get across the problem of the lack of wide angle and shift lenses for the ZD ?

cheer

[stefan marquardt]

stefan, I'm interested how you get across the problem of the lack of wide angle and shift lenses for the ZD ?


haven´t realy found a perfect solution either, I am afraid. the 50mm shift is a good lens. quite sharp and no distortion. for interiors it´s my fist choise. (at least there is a good shiftlens - as far as i know, there is no proper shift lens for hasselblad, contax..)
 I was going to try the zörk shiftadapter that lets you use pentax 67 lenses on the mamiya. I have (and still use) mr. zörkendorfers shiftadapter on a 5D  it´s a realy good solution (when you use the new pentax lenses).
The pentax (67) 45mm lens should give a good angle on the ZD. I just have my doubts about the resolution power of the old pentax 67 lenses. maybe somebody here knows.  I think James Russell is using pentax 67 lenses (but probably more tele lenses -  and probably not for their sharpness).
Mr. Zörkendorfer has no pentax 67 to mamiya shift-adapters on stock at present. He wants to wait till he ha a few oders for it and then is going to prodce a small series.

To get shift with lenses above 50mm you could get an mamiya-hasselblad adapter and use a pc-mutar and the 50, 80, 100mm lenses from hasselblad. don´t know, how much that pc-mutar cost´s resolution.

Alternatively I am trying to figure out, if there is way to adapt the pentax 35mm af lens to the mamiya. registerwise (distance from sensor to lens (I think)) it could fit. I spoke to Mr. zörkendorfer, who tried himself, but he didnt have a ready solution.
It would be a perfect combo - allthough with no shift ability.

I have not tried the 35mm af mamiya - if the af version is as bad as my manual 35mm version, than its just no good. But I did see some realy sharp looking images from Quentin of a Thames-view. So maybe the af version is OK?

then - of course - I am waiting for the new 28mm lens from mamiya. hopefully its sharp and not to bad distortionswise. I wonder, when it´s going to be in the shops?


sorry not to have any better answers.

stefan