Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: The View on December 01, 2017, 11:08:03 pm
-
I'm in the market for a medium format camera and my key target is the H4D-60.
I'm also considering the H3D II-39 or 50 as it basically costs half of what the H4D costs.
And it's easier to get a second body as a backup for a decent price.
I have two concerns about the H3D II
1. No true focus - I guess this would make getting the right areas sharp much harder or even impossible as the focus would not be correct after reframing
2. 1.1 Crop factor. It's not much but it pushes the 80mm lens just into the too long area and makes the 35mm a bit less of a wide angle.
What do you think about these points?
Are there any other concerns I haven't listed? I feel the H4D is still a relatively up to date camera, but I'm not sure if the H3D II isn't outdated.
How about tethering with any of those two? Any differences?
-
Another difference which may have no impact on your decision is that the H4D series does not support the HM16-32 film magazine even with the software/firmware version that enabled it on other bodies.
-
It is well worth getting an H4D for Truefocus alone. Extremely useful handheld with studio lighting. I preferred the images from the H4D-50 over the 60.
You can get a guaranteed used one here:
http://www.procentre.co.uk/sales-secondhand-hasselblad-h-system.php
Pro Centre is owned by Hasselblad.
-
It is well worth getting an H4D for Truefocus alone. Extremely useful handheld with studio lighting. I preferred the images from the H4D-50 over the 60.
You can get a guaranteed used one here:
http://www.procentre.co.uk/sales-secondhand-hasselblad-h-system.php
Pro Centre is owned by Hasselblad.
Why do you prefer the images of the H4D-50 over the H5D-60.
Isn't the only difference megapixels and 1.0 crop factor? Or is there a perceptible difference in quality?
-
Another difference which may have no impact on your decision is that the H4D series does not support the HM16-32 film magazine even with the software/firmware version that enabled it on other bodies.
Neither does the H3DII, only the H3D (first version) supports the film back. Also the H5 and H6.
-
Neither does the H3DII, only the H3D (first version) supports the film back. Also the H5 and H6.
Indeed , thank you for the correction, but given the "almost free" price of a H1 if film is required that will cover. (£250)
-
Thanks for the comments I am also debating which to get :o
-
It‘s also a different sensor brand in the H4D50 and H4D60.
-
It‘s also a different sensor brand in the H4D50 and H4D60.
Who does the 50 and who does the 60?
-
Who does the 50 and who does the 60?
Kodak the 50, Dalsa the 60
-
Kodak the 50, Dalsa the 60
The 40 has Kodak+microlenses, the 50 is one stop slower, Kodak no microlenses.
-
I have the H3DII-31 and H3DII-39 and after learning here that an H4D body supports an H3 back I bought an H4D body and now use that with the back.
I would say that true focus is definitely nice, but I could probably live without it. They are both good bodies.
Sure I would like more megapixels. Who wouldn't. But 39 is still a lot more than the 20 I had on my Canon with which could shoot a metre wide, and gives a much better image.
-
I have the H3DII-31 and H3DII-39 and after learning here that an H4D body supports an H3 back I bought an H4D body and now use that with the back.
I would say that true focus is definitely nice, but I could probably live without it. They are both good bodies.
Sure I would like more megapixels. Who wouldn't. But 39 is still a lot more than the 20 I had on my Canon with which could shoot a metre wide, and gives a much better image.
Bob, how does one calibrate the AF to match the back alignment?
Edmund
-
Bob, how does one calibrate the AF to match the back alignment?
Edmund
I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be a problem.
In past times it used to give an error if there was a mismatch.
Something to check out.
-
Kodak the 50, Dalsa the 60
Isn't this the sensor all the Phase One people are excited about?
What would be the key difference?
I'd like to get a full frame sensor for a 1.0 crop factor.
In regards to TrueFocus, as I shoot fashion and portrait it's worth it for me and I'm going for the H4D. It's more expensive, but with the shallow depth of field it's simply a great thing to have. And I heard it really works very very well and every time. It's not a gadget.
-
Bob, how does one calibrate the AF to match the back alignment?
Edmund
Perhaps, like the 16 bit files, this was more marketing than reality ?
-
I have an H1, H5x and Credo 60. Truefocus is HUGE. Without it, I don't trust myself or the camera to shoot wider than 5.6, and even then I feel like I'm living on the edge.
-
I have an H1, H5x and Credo 60. Truefocus is HUGE. Without it, I don't trust myself or the camera to shoot wider than 5.6, and even then I feel like I'm living on the edge.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Has the Credo 60 the same sensor as the hasselblad H4d-60?
What made you pick h5x and Credo over Hasselblad H5d?
-
No idea re:sensor. I picked the Credo because at the time, the Credo 40 was on sale (I obviously later upgraded), I preferred the skin tones, and (most importantly) Capture One.
-
Does anybody know the dynamic range of the h4d50 and 60 sensor?
Could 12.7 f stops be right?
-
From another perspective.
I've shot portrait, both domestic and corporate, and fashion, for 35 years. Previously with MF film.
Nowadays I have true focus on an H5d and whilst it works well if timing is not a priority, I have found any MF autofocus a bit too slow to capture the 'fleeting moment'!
I tried auto focus/true focus for a few months and I began to see a pattern while going through the images after a shoot, I noticed that my best shots/facial expressions were often slightly out of focus.
I realised that this was because, seeing the right expression on the face of a client, I grabbed the shot before it had auto focused, the subsequent image was usually sharp, but the moment had gone and the expression was often not as good.
I haven't used AF on MF for a year.
Yes, my images can be very slightly out of focus, we're talking half the length of an eyelash here, but I'd rather have a great expression that is slightly soft, than a sharp mediocre one. For any autofocus, including true focus, to lock in and recompose means the moment may have already gone. At least it is with my clients.
I'm not shooting at f11 in the sunshine either. Usually f5.6 1/2 with a dark f4 120mm lens in a studio with modelling lamps, flash with no tripod. I only have one eye and my sight is not great either.
Of course, you do have to re-hone your manual focusing skills so that your focusing hand is constantly adjusting, and your modelling lamps have to be reasonably bright if you are studioing. But we are professionals aren't we. We can teach our hands to constantly focus without conscious thought.
Being able to focus manually with a big, beautiful viewfinder ground glass, was one of two reasons I switched in to digital MF.
The camera is always focused and ready for the trigger finger the moment the subject is ready.
What was the other reason? Files with uniformity, colour and substance to die for.
-
From another perspective.
I've shot portrait, both domestic and corporate, and fashion, for 35 years. Previously with MF film.
Nowadays I have true focus on an H5d and whilst it works well if timing is not a priority, I have found any MF autofocus a bit too slow to capture the 'fleeting moment'!
I tried auto focus/true focus for a few months and I began to see a pattern while going through the images after a shoot, I noticed that my best shots/facial expressions were often slightly out of focus.
I realised that this was because, seeing the right expression on the face of a client, I grabbed the shot before it had auto focused, the subsequent image was usually sharp, but the moment had gone and the expression was often not as good.
I haven't used AF on MF for a year.
Yes, my images can be very slightly out of focus, we're talking half the length of an eyelash here, but I'd rather have a great expression that is slightly soft, than a sharp mediocre one. For any autofocus, including true focus, to lock in and recompose means the moment may have already gone. At least it is with my clients.
I'm not shooting at f11 in the sunshine either. Usually f5.6 1/2 with a dark f4 120mm lens in a studio with modelling lamps, flash with no tripod. I only have one eye and my sight is not great either.
Of course, you do have to re-hone your manual focusing skills so that your focusing hand is constantly adjusting, and your modelling lamps have to be reasonably bright if you are studioing. But we are professionals aren't we. We can teach our hands to constantly focus without conscious thought.
Being able to focus manually with a big, beautiful viewfinder ground glass, was one of two reasons I switched in to digital MF.
The camera is always focused and ready for the trigger finger the moment the subject is ready.
What was the other reason? Files with uniformity, colour and substance to die for.
One way to get the right moment is to cock the autofocus before the person you are photographing hits the special moment.
As one's own actions trigger the reactions of the photographed you can control this process.
Of course, the target can move out of the idea plane but that's part of the game.
-
One way to get the right moment is to cock the autofocus before the person you are photographing hits the special moment.
As one's own actions trigger the reactions of the photographed you can control this process.
Of course, the target can move out of the idea plane but that's part of the game.
Yes, that's the method I used, and the only reaction from the subject was a look of 'hurry up and take the shot' as I discovered the 'pre-focus' was now 'out of focus'. As you say, the subject moves after the focus has set and I have also. I found it so much easier, less distracting and more reliable to simply do what I had done for 35 years, focus on the closest eyelash base manually. It's just so much less hassle.
Having said all that, true focus is spot on for less dynamic focusing circumstances, and also most portrait/fashion photography. My style tends to be about capturing fleeting expressions.