Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: johnnycash on December 06, 2015, 05:38:18 pm
-
Hi all,
I'll be grateful for your feedback on the following:
I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user. I'm very demanding and concerned about image quality. My main photography field is classical landscape and cityscapes. Sometimes portraits, however I don't own any strobes yet. Sometimes I print big but I'm not a commercial photographer, just a hobbyist.
The latest MF (IQ 250 last year and XF+new IQ backs) or Hasselblads have been our of reach for me until now, the current promotion for H5D-50c priced at $14,500USD is way too tempting. I have scheduled a hands-on demo the next week so I guess that will tell me almost everything but I want to listen to you, guys more experienced who are shooting MF systems already.
- How do you feel about the future of Hasselblad?
- Does buying a H5D-50c mean I will get stuck with a dinosaur soon?
I think I’m aware of the drawbacks of a MF system and I’m willing to sacrifice speed, weight and its shooting envelope for image quality, dynamic & colour range and pixel acuity.
-
Before you jump, try the Pentax 645z. Same chip, half the price. I love the Hass, but if leaf shutter lenses aren't critical to your work - which it doesn't seem - the Pentax will give you all that detail with a much lower price point. Will you be replacing your Canon gear or just adding to it?
Hasselblad as a system is fine, there's lots of use out there, it just seems stagnant as MF as a whole hasn't done much and 35mm is advancing pretty quickly. I don't see them folding as Contax and Rollie did, mostly due to the size of the user base and the rental market. The -50c wifi back has some great features, in ISO, color and pixel detail.
Don't purchase if you're worried about dinosaur status, folks still shoot Contax and love it, even though they shut down a decade ago. If you're going to use it, it'll be fine. If you're gonna drop $14.5k on a camera back and body (you still need a lens), you can get into a used Hass or Phase back or a technical camera setup. Don't focus on the money, focus on process and output of your work. I've put enough shots on my Hass I figure it's a $1 a click, and I've broke even at this point.
-Joe
-
For landscape and cityscapes, technical cameras such as Alpa, Arca Swiss and Cambo are better fits (did you try tilt/shift ?). In these fields, you don't need to care about the AF and speed too much . Those DSLR-like MF cameras, such as XF, DF, and H5D, are more useful for fashion/wedding photography because of the integrated system with AF and the convenient operations. But of course, if you are more comfortable with the DSLR experience, there is nothing preventing you using them for landscape and cityscapes. I don't know the futures of Hasselblad, but I really like the Classic Hasselblad V systems, especially SWC.
-
I have none of these gear but I have an opinion (everybody does :). The Canon-Otus is latest state of the art gear close to its limits but not quite yet. The Hass combo must have an edge in IQ over the the Canon combo, it just ought to. But the big price difference makes it for me not worth it. On the other hand, I'm sure soon the smallest of MF sensors will be a thing of the past. Not only MF has to come down in price in order to survive but the sensors have to be true Ff 645 in size or at least far away from 35FF dimensions.
Eduardo
-
I have none of these gear but I have an opinion (everybody does :). The Canon-Otus is latest state of the art gear close to its limits but not quite yet. The Hass combo must have an edge in IQ over the the Canon combo, it just ought to. But the big price difference makes it for me not worth it. On the other hand, I'm sure soon the smallest of MF sensors will be a thing of the past. Not only MF has to come down in price in order to survive but the sensors have to be true Ff 645 in size or at least far away from 35FF dimensions.
Eduardo
One advantage of the Hassy is its tilt shift adapter.
The camera will likely be complemented by one with a slightly larger chip, but will stay on as an entry model: photographers seem to like it.
Edmund
-
Hi all,
I'll be grateful for your feedback on the following:
I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user. I'm very demanding and concerned about image quality. My main photography field is classical landscape and cityscapes. Sometimes portraits, however I don't own any strobes yet. Sometimes I print big but I'm not a commercial photographer, just a hobbyist.
The latest MF (IQ 250 last year and XF+new IQ backs) or Hasselblads have been our of reach for me until now, the current promotion for H5D-50c priced at $14,500USD is way too tempting. I have scheduled a hands-on demo the next week so I guess that will tell me almost everything but I want to listen to you, guys more experienced who are shooting MF systems already.
- How do you feel about the future of Hasselblad?
- Does buying a H5D-50c mean I will get stuck with a dinosaur soon?
I think I’m aware of the drawbacks of a MF system and I’m willing to sacrifice speed, weight and its shooting envelope for image quality, dynamic & colour range and pixel acuity.
If money is an issue I would just stick with the Canon or if you are just looking for a much better sensor in regards to dynamic range check out a Nikon D810 or even a Sony A7RII (a tad behind the D810 in ultimate low iso image quality but better in high iso). The sensor in the 645Z and the Hasselblad 50c is better (MUCH better than the one in the Canon but only slightly better than the one in the D810) but lens selection is much more limited specially in the wide angle end, never mind the cost (in size/weight and $). The Pentax 28-45 is a really good lens but it is a beast and costs 5 large.
The biggest issue with the Canon is the lack of high dynamic range. The Sony CMOS sensors are just much better in that regard. If that is not an issue you are not going to find a significant gain in resolution with other systems unless you spend a LOT more money (think a tech camera system) and even then the difference is not going to be huge and while you do gain a LOT of capability with tilt and shifts possible you loose speed and convenience.
I find the Medium Format SLRs a bit clunky for landscapes. I own one, a Hasselblad H1 (love it for studio and portraits) and a Phase IQ160 back and I MUCH prefer to use the back with my tech camera whenever I am photographing landscapes. The setup is lighter, more compact and much more versatile.
With great live view the Credo50/IQ150/250/350 are amazing with a tech camera even though wide angle lens performance needs a bit of help from the software (color, not sharpness!, look up other threads on this or call a dealer).
-
Bias alert: I work at DT. We are Phase One's largest dealer, but choose not to sell Hasselblad, so must be considered biased.
Have you looked into tech cameras?
https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-systems-main
For what you describe as your main use they seem ideal.
-
When selecting a system you should consider foremost available lenses (quality and variety). I am happy with H5D50c and with the flexibility of available Hasselblad lenses/accessories (for landscape, macro, ..). Most of time I work with H5D, Nikon 810 and Leica M. I like most images from Hasselblad, then Leica, then Nikon. But I use Nikon the most :-).
I am also happy that Hasselblad offers body upgrades as technology advances.
-
If more detail is what you are looking for, the only real way is stitching and that will cost very little.
No, it doesn't apply to all situations but is too good to be ignored.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If more detail is what you are looking for, the only real way is stitching and that will cost very little.
No, it doesn't apply to all situations but is too good to be ignored.
Of course more pixels of higher quality make stitching less often neccessary and much simpler (e.g. 2-shot stitch rather than 9-shot stitch). :)
-
If more detail is what you are looking for, the only real way is stitching
but, for example, superresolution (photoacute) is not stitching... plus once ricoh/pentax finally deliver FF dSLR you might count for a multi-shot, using their IBIS, 36-42mp sensor in it... you can mount F-mount Otus on it.
-
but, for example, superresolution (photoacute) is not stitching... plus once ricoh/pentax finally deliver FF dSLR you might count for a multi-shot, using their IBIS, 36-42mp sensor in it... you can mount F-mount Otus on it.
Yes, that is indeed true. But the range of subject you can address with those is much more limited that those adressable with stitching.
As a Betterlight owner, I have first hand experience with the challenges resulting from non simultaneous exposure of RGB channels. ;)
Super-resolution is still a different beast obviously, but it doesn't seem to like subject movement too much either. I do own a photoacute license, but have never been that impressed by the results with DSLR images. It always seemed me that the intent was more to get decent quality from average capturing devices rather than to get great quality from good capturing devices. Have they made progress recently?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Of course more pixels of higher quality make stitching less often neccessary and much simpler (e.g. 2-shot stitch rather than 9-shot stitch). :)
Yes, that is true Doug, but the difference isn't going to be 9:2 when comparing a 50mp 5Ds to a 50mp H5D50c, especially when the lens on the DSLR is an Otus that is at least as good as MF glass. 9:8 perhaps?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user. I'm very demanding and concerned about image quality. My main photography field is classical landscape and cityscapes. Sometimes portraits, however I don't own any strobes yet. Sometimes I print big but I'm not a commercial photographer, just a hobbyist.
As far as lenses go, the Otus 55mm will give better results than the HC 80mm on the H5D-50c under f/8 about. This is due to lens design.
As far as lenses go, the HC 50mm II and HCD 28mm will be much better than anything that can be mounted on a 5DSR. So, if you need wide-angles that would be an advantage.
-
Many tend to get a bit too occupied with image quality and forget about compositional flexibility. Having just two or three fixed lenses without tilt and shift would make me insane, even if those lenses are great :)
I think you should at least consider the digital view camera case, Arca-Swiss F-Universalis and Cambo Actus are the cheapest to get new, but since you are a hobbyist and may not require around-the-clock support from a local dealer you may consider looking into ebay/for sale forums and make a great deal. It's a highly active second hand market for lenses, cameras and digital backs.
Considering the H50D-50c and 5Ds, the obvious advantage in terms of sensor is that you get a bit better DR, but Canon is not too bad these days so it's personal if you think the DR improvement is meaningful or not.
On the wide end Canon's TS-E 17 and 24 II impresses a lot, assuming you got a good copy. If you like to make large shifts I doubt Hassy's teleconverter+tilt-shift adapters will match.
If you don't think you will appreciate the movements of a tech camera I still think you should consider having shift capable lenses on the wide end, it's in the wide end the "leaning trees and buildings" are most evident (sure you can perspective correct, but you lose field of view and I think it's a less pleasing shooting process to leave composition to post-processing). The Hassy tilt-shift adapter is elegant, but very costly indeed, and as said I'm not sure it's really up to Canon's 17 and 24 anyway.
High resolving power is still quite new in the 135 format, but the interest from the market is large and we've already seen some new high resolution lenses like the Otus and Sigma Art range, plus Canon has been doing updates. There's a risk that if you go for the Hassy and has a lot of focus on image quality and value for money you will feel "hunted" by the progress in the smaller formats. If you get an interest in tech format for the reason of compositional flexibility (it's basically shooting with a large format view camera, but without having to mess with film) rather than only high resolution I think you can get more "peace".
Concerning the future of Hasselblad, it's anybody's guess. They've had bad economy for many years, but still they manage to survive. I wouldn't be surprised if they're out of business in five years, although I think it's more likely that they will make it, and actually I think the arrival of CMOS can become a success story. Even if they go out of business the camera would not instantly become worthless (or useless), just look at Contax, so I would not worry about the stability of Hasselblad as a company.
If I were you I would probably continue use the Canon for a couple of more years. Not only is high res genre new in 135 formats, but CMOS is new in medium format, so I think we can have some interesting technology progress in both format in the immediate years. Full-frame 645 (54x41mm) CMOS is likely to happen in both Phase One and Hasselblad in the next few years, just as Canon updates of the longer TS-E lenses (45/90). I also think medium format digital will become less expensive, I think the price level seen in the current drive of the Hassys will be permanent in the next years, for two reasons. One is that competition from the smaller formats is toughening (similar image quality for a lot less money), the other is that CMOS is making the MFD cameras more all around and easier to sell to a larger group of people than before, making it possible with lower prices.
I can say one thing for sure, if you are not pleased with the resolving power you get from your current system, a H5D-50c will not make you much happier, the difference is too small. I think you'll need a 80 megapixel sensor and tech cam lenses to make any significant improvement there.
And of course, as some people already have mentioned, if you just want the 44x33mm Sony sensor, which many consider to be the best sensor available today, you should look at the Pentax 645z too.
-
Hi,
I would mostly agree to the postings by Ken R and Anders Torger.
What I would add is that some T&S capability can be added to 135 systems with the Mirex T&S adapter and MF lenses when using DSLRs. On the Sony A7xx the HCam Master TSII can also be used, and that device offer +/- 15 mm shift and 10 degrees of tilt, with any lens - of course depending on the image circle.
Here is a description I have posted: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/56810-hcam-master-tsii-sony-a7rii.html?highlight=HCam+Master+TS
It is very much usable with the Canon 11-24/4 lens, it seems: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/54571-hcam-master-ts-11-24mm.html?highlight=HCam+Master+TS
Personally, I use is with a bunch of Hasselblad lenses, 40/4, 60/3.5, 100/3.5, 120/4 and possibly 180/4. Right now I am testing it with the Canon 16-35/4 L zoom.
Regarding the image quality, I have been shooting with a V-series Hasselblad and a P45+ back. With the Sony A7rII cropped a tiny bit both give the same resolution in megapixels. I have just a few comparable shoots, and I would say the P45+ may have a tiny, barely observable, advantage in some cases. I am pretty sure that advantage would not be visible in prints.
The 50 MP CMOS backs are probably a bit better in DR and image noise compared Nikon D810/Sony A7rII. So they would have something 0.7 EV advantage. like being able to shoot 320 ISO instead of 200 ISO, with the same image quality.
(http://www.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=114256&d=1447712626)
(http://www.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=114257&d=1447712658&thumb=1)
Best regards
Erik
Going
Many tend to get a bit too occupied with image quality and forget about compositional flexibility. Having just two or three fixed lenses without tilt and shift would make me insane, even if those lenses are great :)
I think you should at least consider the digital view camera case, Arca-Swiss F-Universalis and Cambo Actus are the cheapest to get new, but since you are a hobbyist and may not require around-the-clock support from a local dealer you may consider looking into ebay/for sale forums and make a great deal. It's a highly active second hand market for lenses, cameras and digital backs.
Considering the H50D-50c and 5Ds, the obvious advantage in terms of sensor is that you get a bit better DR, but Canon is not too bad these days so it's personal if you think the DR improvement is meaningful or not.
On the wide end Canon's TS-E 17 and 24 II impresses a lot, assuming you got a good copy. If you like to make large shifts I doubt Hassy's teleconverter+tilt-shift adapters will match.
If you don't think you will appreciate the movements of a tech camera I still think you should consider having shift capable lenses on the wide end, it's in the wide end the "leaning trees and buildings" are most evident (sure you can perspective correct, but you lose field of view and I think it's a less pleasing shooting process to leave composition to post-processing). The Hassy tilt-shift adapter is elegant, but very costly indeed, and as said I'm not sure it's really up to Canon's 17 and 24 anyway.
High resolving power is still quite new in the 135 format, but the interest from the market is large and we've already seen some new high resolution lenses like the Otus and Sigma Art range, plus Canon has been doing updates. There's a risk that if you go for the Hassy and has a lot of focus on image quality and value for money you will feel "hunted" by the progress in the smaller formats. If you get an interest in tech format for the reason of compositional flexibility (it's basically shooting with a large format view camera, but without having to mess with film) rather than only high resolution I think you can get more "peace".
Concerning the future of Hasselblad, it's anybody's guess. They've had bad economy for many years, but still they manage to survive. I wouldn't be surprised if they're out of business in five years, although I think it's more likely that they will make it, and actually I think the arrival of CMOS can become a success story. Even if they go out of business the camera would not instantly become worthless (or useless), just look at Contax, so I would not worry about the stability of Hasselblad as a company.
If I were you I would probably continue use the Canon for a couple of more years. Not only is high res genre new in 135 formats, but CMOS is new in medium format, so I think we can have some interesting technology progress in both format in the immediate years. Full-frame 645 (54x41mm) CMOS is likely to happen in both Phase One and Hasselblad in the next few years, just as Canon updates of the longer TS-E lenses (45/90). I also think medium format digital will become less expensive, I think the price level seen in the current drive of the Hassys will be permanent in the next years, for two reasons. One is that competition from the smaller formats is toughening (similar image quality for a lot less money), the other is that CMOS is making the MFD cameras more all around and easier to sell to a larger group of people than before, making it possible with lower prices.
I can say one thing for sure, if you are not pleased with the resolving power you get from your current system, a H5D-50c will not make you much happier, the difference is too small. I think you'll need a 80 megapixel sensor and tech cam lenses to make any significant improvement there.
And of course, as some people already have mentioned, if you just want the 44x33mm Sony sensor, which many consider to be the best sensor available today, you should look at the Pentax 645z too.
-
Yes, that is indeed true. But the range of subject you can address with those is much more limited that those adressable with stitching.
As a Betterlight owner, I have first hand experience with the challenges resulting from non simultaneous exposure of RGB channels. ;)
Super-resolution is still a different beast obviously, but it doesn't seem to like subject movement too much either. I do own a photoacute license, but have never been that impressed by the results with DSLR images. It always seemed me that the intent was more to get decent quality from average capturing devices rather than to get great quality from good capturing devices. Have they made progress recently?
Cheers,
Bernard
you are not stating that superresolution makes the output worse than just a single shot from your best camera + lens combo, are you ?
-
On the wide end Canon's TS-E 17 and 24 II impresses a lot, assuming you got a good copy. If you like to make large shifts I doubt Hassy's teleconverter+tilt-shift adapters will match.
There is not equivalent to the TS-E 17 capabilities in MF land. As to the 24II, its equivalent for Hasselblad would be the HCD24 and HTS. That combination works very well, even with large shifts.
-
I've shot the 5dsr with Canon 24TSEII, next to the Credo with the SK43 on the RM3di
The Credo still blows the Canon out of the water...it's the glass.
I'm still yet to put the Pentax 645z with the 28-45 next to these. I'm hoping for a good sunny day the next week or so, and I'll do this as a comparison.
The Pentax is a wonderful camera and I'm finding it complementing the 5dsr very very well when I'm on assignment. It's for shooting details and really low light images that I want to work hard in post. The files are really malleable. Lovely camera to work with.
-
There is not equivalent to the TS-E 17 capabilities in MF land. As to the 24II, its equivalent for Hasselblad would be the HCD24 and HTS. That combination works very well, even with large shifts.
To compare with 135 let's cut the sensor to 32x24mm so we get 4:3 there too, then the diagonal is 40mm. The H5D-50c is 44x33 so we get 55mm, 1.375 difference. The HTS is 1.5 so the 24mm becomes 36, which with a 44x33 sensor it becomes 26.2mm FoV so a little bit narrower, but close enough I guess.
As the HTS is a tele converter it really needs to prove itself and I think pixel-peep comparisons would be nice. There's a TS-E 24 + 5Ds II pixel peep thread here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106011.0
It would be nice to see how the H5D-50c + 24+HTS compares to that.
The Canon combo makes my tech cam H4D-50 + Schneider Digitar 35mm combo bite the dust for movements larger than about 10mm (~7mm on 135). That doesn't make me want to sell my Linhof as it's more to a camera than wide angle resolving power and shift range, but it does show that 135 development has not stood still.
-
I've shot the 5dsr with Canon 24TSEII, next to the Credo with the SK43 on the RM3di
The Credo still blows the Canon out of the water...it's the glass.
If you're comparing a 43 to a 24 you should ideally have ~72mm sensor diagonal, but I guess full-frame 645 is enough (68mm).
Then the next question is how much did you shift? In center the no doubt the 43mm shall be considerably sharper. But then make a 10mm shift on the canon, which becomes 18mm on the 43mm. Did you compare that? Possibly the SK43 may still win, but it should be closer. The Rodenstock 40mm is a closer match focal length-wise and a better performer AFAIK, but then the image circle is only 90mm, the SK43 has 110mm.
Generally speaking the strength of the Canon wide angle combos is that they have a lot of shift range, but their peak sharpness is weaker. What is more important depends on your shooting style. I don't really use that much shift range myself on wides so I'm fine, but if you shoot architecture you may like having more.
-
What I would add is that some T&S capability can be added to 135 systems with the Mirex T&S adapter and MF lenses when using DSLRs. On the Sony A7xx the HCam Master TSII can also be used, and that device offer +/- 15 mm shift and 10 degrees of tilt, with any lens - of course depending on the image circle.
Thanks for pointing that out. Tilt-shift developments via adapters with the mirrorless Sonys is among the most interesting things that have happened in technical photography recently (together with the Cambo Actus and F-Universalis). I haven't myself had the time to analyze what these systems can do. It will be up to the lenses, and it will be toughest on the wide side. Before a 135 system can be attractive alternative to me I need 24, 35, 50, and say 90mm tilt-shift focal lengths of very high quality. If that does appear, and it does 50+ megapixels well, then I will seriously consider it for the next upgrade, but I don't think we are there yet.
-
As the HTS is a tele converter it really needs to prove itself and I think pixel-peep comparisons would be nice. There's a TS-E 24 + 5Ds II pixel peep thread here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106011.0
It would be nice to see how the H5D-50c + 24+HTS compares to that.
I rented it for a project and found the combination close to perfect. How much is that is due to Phocus, I don't know, but it worked very well. I can't post pictures of that project I rented the HTS for, but there is one in another forum here:
http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php/topic,1441.msg16959.html#new (http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php/topic,1441.msg16959.html#new). You'll need to click the picture to see it bigger.
-
You'll also need to be a member :)
Note that Phocus uses the tilt and shift values (along with lens type aperture and focus distance) to calculate corrections when using the HTS. As far as I know this is the only T/S system that does that.
Nick-T
-
Yes AFAIK it's the only tilt-shift that does lens corrections automatically, and that's great of course.
If you're an enthusiast photographer you generally want to own the gear though, not just rent for a particular job/project. The HTS is €4500+VAT or so, and the HCD24mm is as much, €9000 is a pretty expensive tilt-shift lens, even in medium format terms.
-
Yes AFAIK it's the only tilt-shift that does lens corrections automatically, and that's great of course.
If you're an enthusiast photographer you generally want to own the gear though, not just rent for a particular job/project. The HTS is €4500+VAT or so, and the HCD24mm is as much, €9000 is a pretty expensive tilt-shift lens, even in medium format terms.
A Hassy with that lens is probably still cheaper than a Phase one back with a body.
Edmund
-
Hi all,
I'll be grateful for your feedback on the following:
I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user.
I haven't used the hasselblad, but I do own a 645z which has the same sensor - so I imagine it's similar. I've compared the 645z with a friends 5dsr and it wasn't even close, the pentax pounded it.
That said I'm assuming you are using zeiss 15mm or 21mm and they are pretty wide. So check the focal lengths you want are available on whatever MF system to jump to.
-
I haven't used the hasselblad, but I do own a 645z which has the same sensor - so I imagine it's similar. I've compared the 645z with a friends 5dsr and it wasn't even close, the pentax pounded it.
That said I'm assuming you are using zeiss 15mm or 21mm and they are pretty wide. So check the focal lengths you want are available on whatever MF system to jump to.
From what I have seen resolution wise its pretty close between the Canon and the Pentax (with equally good technique both and the best wide angle glass available) but the 645Z files are MUCH nicer, smoother, less noise an MUCH more dynamic range and better color. That said the D810 files are quite close to the 645Z files in depth just have a tad less resolution. Like you said, no point in choosing one camera if the lenses you want / need are not available for it or can't be used on it. With more lens selection (wider high quality wide angle primes) the 645Z would be a great choice for wide angle landscape work. But in Photography the Lens is a HUGE part of any system.
Of the current Medium Format Digital SLRs the Leica S probably has the best lens line (outstanding 24mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses) with the Hasselblad H close by (nice 24 and 28mm wides) and then the PhaseOne system (the new 35mm is stunning but there are no high quality wider angle choices, the 28 is so so). The Pentax is in-between the last two thanks to the nice 28-45mm lens and the 25mm (which is nice but has issues). Keep in mind with the Leica S you can use the Hasselblad H lenses and Contax 645 lenses.
I have yet to see files from the Canon 5DSR with the new Otus 28mm f1.4 lens which I hear is stunning.
I did not mention the A7RII because while it is an awesome camera it has a limited native lens line and while one can use a huge range of lenses via adapters the performance varies wildly with other lenses.
-
From what I have seen resolution wise its pretty close between the Canon and the Pentax (with equally good technique both and the best wide angle glass available)
Hi Ken,
In our little test it was a 24-70mk2 on the canon @ f/11 versus my very old 35/3.5 on the pentax. Wasn't even close. The detail the old 35 pulls out is incredible.
Would agree the zeiss 28mm would even things up a lot. Don't know anyone with one unfortunately. I'm very glad I have the 645z though at times I do miss the dizzying amount of lens options in canon world.
-
I would be surprised if the Sony has considerably better color than the Canon. In my profiling work I've looked at some Canons and even more Sonys and my conclusion is that I prefer Canon's color response. Sony's sensors often have an over-sensitive blue (Pentax 645z, Sony A7r etc) which makes it sort of impossible to make a realistic blue if you want it to work well for high saturation colors, while Canon is more balanced. I think it's easier to get color where you want with the Canon. But sure, run with Adobe Lightroom or Capture One and the color can be anything. These days I only use custom profiles.
That the DR of the Sony is larger is undeniable though, but the 5Ds does provide an improvement compared to the previous Canon's, gone are the large pattern noise issues. The DR is about the same as Kodak-based MFD backs, like my own H4D-50. Sure if shadow-pushing is your thing, that may be a problem, but it depends on shooting/artistic style.
The largest problem with the 135 range when it comes to high resolution photography is that lens choice is a mine field. While in the Hassy/Phamiya range any lens you get is either very good or great, with the 135 (and indeed Pentax 645z) there are both bad and good ones, and I imagine (not sure though) that there is a larger problem with out-of-spec lenses in 135 than in MF. (It should be said that tech cam lens choice is a mine field too though, from a compatibility perspective.) I think it should be possible to get good lenses in the Canon range, but you need to choose carefully, and then verify you got a good copy. For the pixel peepers I think the digital picture's review site gives a great overview.
If we should believe the forums like Lula and GetDPI I think the clear winner for landscape photography is a Sony mirrorless with adapters or Cambo Actus. But then it's all about the sensor, and in that much about DR. Considering ergonomics and all-aroundness the Canon feels way more solid.
The original poster is on a budget. I would therefore consider one of the following:
- Do you want to investigate "large format style" photography, that is using movements?
If no:
- keep Canon, Pentax 645z, second hand Hassy H3D-39 with the intention to upgrade later on
If yes:
- keep Canon get TS-E 24 II, Sony mirrorless with adapters and good lenses, second hand MFD with field view camera sliding back and compatible lenses, Hassy with HTS
The strongest reason to switch from Canon I think would be if 1) you really think DR is limiting, and 2) there are too few tilt-shift lenses with high quality.
The Hassy track is good if you intend to spend a lot in the longer term. You can start cheap with a second hand H3DII-39 and start build lens collection. The lens collection will be costly, even second hand, and the HTS is incredibly expensive.
I don't think Phase One XF is a great option as it's harder to get good starter deals and the system lacks attractive tilt shift options.
-
I think one important reason that people get MF is to get something different, something that it's not so common. I must confess that's one reason I have my Linhof, I enjoy that it's not a standard DSLR.
My Linhof Techno is like a 4x5" field view camera, with the difference that all movements are geared and you don't have to mess with film. You focus on the ground glass, the lenses have the same properties as large format lenses (simple lightweight symmetric small aperture with the characteristic foggy bokeh), tilt, swing rise, fall shift is available on all focal lengths. It's nice. In the analog era I would surely be a large format photographer.
Tech cams are unfortunately moving rapidly towards becoming the same as a Sony mirrorless, just with higher resolving power. With the best lenses you can already today say that 135 matches 4x5" film quality. Shooting high end MFD is rivaling 8x10" quality.
Personally I'm satisfied with 4x5" image quality. I wouldn't say no to 8x10" quality, but then weight, flexibility and price becomes increasingly important factors. I generally don't just drive to a Yosemite parking lot and unload the camera from the trunk and shoot a picture. I carry around all my gear, sometimes for long distances. That the gear is compatible with the way I want to make pictures is important. Ironically my system with 7 lenses is probably lighter than a 135 system would be with the same type of quality, as those lenses are huge. Lightweight large format digital lenses are becoming history though, now when Schneider is leaving the business - however it will exist in second hand market for 10+ years.
I bought my H4D-50 second hand from a professional Swedish landscape photographer. He switched to Pentax 645z. Although he enjoyed the improved DR, the main reason seemed to be that he wanted the better weather proofing. Such things can also be a factor. I've solved weather proofing with an umbrella, that works for me :), but it wouldn't if I would shoot a lot of hand-held.
-
Hi Ken,
In our little test it was a 24-70mk2 on the canon @ f/11 versus my very old 35/3.5 on the pentax. Wasn't even close. The detail the old 35 pulls out is incredible.
Would agree the zeiss 28mm would even things up a lot. Don't know anyone with one unfortunately. I'm very glad I have the 645z though at times I do miss the dizzying amount of lens options in canon world.
I still have the Pentax 35 A and it is indeed a gem of a lens. I got both the A and FA version at the same time and sold the FA after a quick test. At longer focus distances and infinity the A was just much better edge to edge.
Put one of the best primes on the Canon and things will be much more even resolution wise.
That said my Rodenstock 40mm HR-W puts any SLR lens to shame. It is not close.
-
I don't think it's a wise time to buy into a new platform or brand unless you are absolutely certain you need something particular. There is so much going on in the industry from almost every brand that it's hard to get a clear picture of the future. I think it's best to wait to Photokina and see what happens.
I've been using a Hasselblad H5D with a Phase One IQ160. The new camera is definitely an improvement in most ways but next to the Phase One XF it's quite dated, IMO, and Hasselblad has a lot of catching up to do but I don't think they are financially well placed to do so. That leaves them in a dangerous position, IMO.
It is going to be interesting to see how Medium Format responds to the rapid advancements of small formats. Can they keep up and continue to differentiate at a level that makes it worthwhile? I'm not so sure any more. The reason there are soooooo many Medium Format backs on ebay these days at very low prices is because so many owners of these systems (that I personally know of) have moved on from Medium Format altogether and are happy with their change.
Here is a video that paints a reasonably good picture of small v large formats. (sony v phase). The differences are there but the gap is closing - I never thought I'd say that being a long time MFD shooter.
https://vimeo.com/147356982
-
I don't think it's a wise time to buy into a new platform or brand unless you are absolutely certain you need something particular. There is so much going on in the industry from almost every brand that it's hard to get a clear picture of the future. I think it's best to wait to Photokina and see what happens.
I've been using a Hasselblad H5D with a Phase One IQ160. The new camera is definitely an improvement in most ways but next to the Phase One XF it's quite dated, IMO, and Hasselblad has a lot of catching up to do but I don't think they are financially well placed to do so. That leaves them in a dangerous position, IMO.
It is going to be interesting to see how Medium Format responds to the rapid advancements of small formats. Can they keep up and continue to differentiate at a level that makes it worthwhile? I'm not so sure any more. The reason there are soooooo many Medium Format backs on ebay these days at very low prices is because so many owners of these systems (that I personally know of) have moved on from Medium Format altogether and are happy with their change.
Here is a video that paints a reasonably good picture of small v large formats. (sony v phase). The differences are there but the gap is closing - I never thought I'd say that being a long time MFD shooter.
https://vimeo.com/147356982
When using longer lenses the smaller formats can compete no question but when using wide angles, specially tech wide angle lenses the larger formats offer MUCH higher image quality potential. I mean, the A7RII performs pretty poorly when you combine wide angle coverage and lens/camera movements. Even adapted Canon TS-E lenses can offer sub-par performance on the A7RII as you get closer to the edges of the frame (the sensor stack or cover glass might contribute some to this). Right now for wide angle landscapes there is just no higher quality alternative to the large sensor digital backs (yes even ones with the Kodak 50mp sensor, the KAF-50100?) and tech camera wide angles (down to the stunning 23mm HR-W, which is about a 15mm equiv.). There just isn't. We are talking about the ultimate image quality achievable.
For macro type studio setups like the one in the video? well I can think of about 20 camera lens combinations that can perform similarly in such a scenario.
-
Even adapted Canon TS-E lenses can offer sub-par performance on the A7RII as you get closer to the edges of the frame (the sensor stack or cover glass might contribute some to this). Right now for wide angle landscapes there is just no higher quality alternative to the large sensor digital backs (yes even ones with the Kodak 50mp sensor, the KAF-50100?) and tech camera wide angles (down to the stunning 23mm HR-W, which is about a 15mm equiv.). There just isn't. We are talking about the ultimate image quality achievable.
I advise you to look for the crops in this thread:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106011.msg871920#msg871920
Like Marc Aurel points out you need a good copy, he posted tests before with a bad copy and I think many base their judgment on that. And if you have the TS-E II is not bad, not bad at all. When it comes to large shifts it's actually currently the other way around, the tech cams offer no competition because they simply don't have the shift range, image circles are too small in relation to sensor size.
I have the KAF-50100 + SK35, same FoV and pixel count as Canon 5Ds TS-E 24 II. My combo is a bit sharper close to center, but it simply can't do the same amount of shifts like the Canon combo. A Digaron-S 35mm would be sharper, but the 70mm image circle make movements even more limited than on the SK35. The Rodenstock 32mm is there (which is the widest with a 90mm image circle, unless you count the SK28XL which just isn't compatible with current sensors), and then it's a win, except on shift range, and relative shift range reduces further with a full-frame 645 sensor. With the Digaron-S 28 and 23 you only have a few mm of shift range on a full-frame 645. There's nothing there to meet the TS-E 17mm II shift range and FoV.
Tech cams also have lens compatibility issues, when you get close to the edges you often get color fidelity issues due to crosstalk, which many tech cam users choose to ignore (it was always easier to pixel peep than to evaluate color), but it's there. The reason is that the lenses are not retrofocus enough for the available sensors, especially the CMOS ones, but IQ180 show issues on the Rodenstock, also the 60MP Dalsas but it's mostly recoverable. The Rodies also have that hard-edge image circle causing penumbra problems in some situations which means you don't want to get too close to the image circle. Center filters give the similar effect with a penumbra, and I get that on my SK35 but it doesn't matter as only 75mm of the 90mm image circle is any good on that lens anyway.
If you want the smaller formats win a wide angle comparison, then you get a good lens copy and employ large shifts. If you want tech cams to win out you employ small shifts, or ironically employ movements on longer lenses -- if we look at the Canon system there's still only the 17 and 24 that's great, there are no longer tilt-shift lenses and that's actually a show-stopper for me personally. It's not the TS-E 24 II quality that's stopping me from using the Canon for my landscape photography, it's the lack of high quality longer lenses with tilt-shift, where there of course are plenty in the tech cam space.
I'm not saying the small formats are better -- if the tech MFD systems is allowed to perform in their ideal range they're obviously producing higher resolution, but there are overlaps and the situation on the wide angles is very complex as sensor compatibility is a mess. For my own shooting style I don't think the relatively small shift range on the wides is a huge problem, as I don't like the stretched perspectives. But say if I would shoot lots of architecture or cloud formations in skies or aurora etc, I wouldn't say no to a TS-E II 17 with large shift range.
With the current tech lens line I will probably not strive for a full-frame 645. I think the 90mm image circle is a little bit smallish for 54x41mm (too small shift range), the 48x36mm like I have now is the ideal tradeoff but that format is history. For the future 44x33 size seems more suitable, a little bit overkill with 90mm (it's about the same relative shift as you get on the Canon), and a little bit oversized for 70mm, but acceptable on wides for me. To me having a tech camera with strong limitations on shift just takes away the creative joy that was the reason I got one in the first place, I want something more than a resolution machine.
-
Even adapted Canon TS-E lenses can offer sub-par performance on the A7RII as you get closer to the edges of the frame
Hmm... that has not been my experience at all. For several years, my wide angle architecture setup was the SK35 on a 60mp back (P65+ and then IQ260). I found that the 24TS-EII on the A7r easily outperformed the MF rig. It could shift further while holding better edge sharpness and color shifting wasn't nearly the issue it was with the Schneider.
I've been really surprised to read criticisms here of the 24TS-EII. It's easily one of the sharpest lenses I've owned... at least my copy is.
-
There is a sample variation issue with the TS-E 24 II, that's why judgments are all over the map.
-
There is a sample variation issue with the TS-E 24 II, that's why judgments are all over the map.
Sadly, is seems this statement is true for all brands, i.e. sample variation. I have seen it in Sigma, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Phase One, even the highly esteemed Rodenstock 32mm HR-W.
Paul C
-
Sadly, is seems this statement is true for all brands, i.e. sample variation. I have seen it in Sigma, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Phase One, even the highly esteemed Rodenstock 32mm HR-W.
Paul C
So true...... I would like to add my short lived ownership of a Rody HR-W 90mm one of their flagship lenses. My copy was so bad that I couldn't believe it. When shifted to the left the left side focus point went far with crisp detail and when shifted to the right the right focus point came very near and the right side went very soft.
Victor
-
I must have really good 24mm TS-E II as well. I use it on a Canon 5D3 though so the limiting factor is the sensor.
I have seen really good results from people using the Canon TS-E II lenses on digital backs (with an ALPA FPS), that is also a great alternative.
Regarding tech lenses at least my copy of the Rodenstock 40mm HR-W lens is stunning up to the edge of the image circle (90mm) which has a hard edge due to the internal disc/mask.
The Canon 24mm TS-E II has an image circle of about 70mm (maybe a hair less) at f11 with really good quality almost to the edge. The IC of the 17mm TS-E II is a bit less but looses quality earlier. Both should work great with the Sony 50mp sensor and offer 6-8mm of movement easily while retaining image quality. That probably is the best wide angle system setup available right now (with Harblei or ALPA FPS body (or a ArcaSwiss FP in the future as well)) combining an outstanding sensor with great optics.
The Rodenstock 23mm HR-W is similar (70mm I.C.) to the 24mm TS-E II, maybe a bit sharper but it does have issues with several sensors.
-
Then the SK60XL with its 110mm image circle is a great alternative one step up (right there at 35mm FoV 135-equivalent, a key FoV with very beautiful perspective which work in a wide range of movements if you ask me), but it has too much color fidelity issues in the outer range on an IQ180, I haven't seen how the outer range behaves on the 60MP backs, hopefully much better. With Schneider doing its last production run as we speak there's no Rodenstock lens to replace it.
Here is a test showing it's behavior with 50, 60, and 80mp digital backs:
https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq250-tech-camera-testing
Another seemingly minor, but quite consequential note: Rodenstock tends to cite the useable/sharp image circle while Schneider tends to cite the area of illumination. In other words in the real world you can add a mm or two to Rodenstocks numbers and subtract several mm from the Schneider numbers.
-
In other words in the real world you can add a mm or two to Rodenstocks numbers and subtract several mm from the Schneider numbers.
Good point! For landscape the shifted top can be things like sky with clouds etc so there it's manageable if it's fuzzy, while of course if you make a architectural shot you may need critical sharpness corner to corner.
For my personal shooting style I'm okay if the outer range is a bit fuzzy, as long as the good range manages the 1/3 of short edge shift range. My SK60XL turned out to be decentered when I did a recent test, so I'm sending it in for fixing. When fixed I'm sure it does 90mm IC with high quality, and then the range up to 110-115 can be seen as an outer extended range, kind of use-it-at-your-own-risk. I rather have a fuzzy outer range like this, than have a hard-cut sharp-to-the-edge smaller image circle, especially since there's often a penumbra-risk when getting close to a hard edge.
-
Since Rodenstock puts the IC indicator in the lens, i.e. at the edge of the IC, doesn't that preclude using the lens past the IC? i.e in the case of the 32 and 40mm HR-W the IC being 90mm. Once you it the edge of the IC, you hit the hard vignette of the indicator which ruins anything beyond that point, in fact it can do some damage before by the creating of a white band in front of the dark. Only effect's solid shots, blue sky, dark wall etc. But the C1 LCC will not remove it. It is seemingly more pronounced on the 70mm IC lenses, 28HR etc. Where as Schneider, with no IC indicator allows the photographer go past the edge of the IC, and make the decision on image quality themselves. Thus the reason the 60XL can go to much bigger shifting, it's not just the larger IC of the lens.
When I owned my 28HR, it could easily have made 10mm of shift in many instanced, but by past 5mm, the upper and lower corners were ruined by the dark vignette of the IC indicator. I guess you can go beyond the limit of the indicator i.e 90mm on a 32mm or 40mm if you are willing to crop massively into your shot, but then you may as well used the 60XL?
The 40 HR-W could easily make 20mm with very little image quality fall off, which is well beyond the 90mm IC, but you hit the wall so to speak at 16mm on a full frame back, wall being the IC indicator. The cropped sensor backs can get maybe 18 before you hit it.
If you add rise to the this, then the IC indicator really kills the shot, example a 40 HR-W shifted to 15mm with say 10mm of rise. The entire upper left corner on the 15mm L or R shift with rise is pretty much ruined by a massive amount of black due to the IC indicator. In my test, this was all sky, net, it really didn't matter how good the image quality was, it's sky. But the black vignette just kills the shot and makes 9 part movements with the 40 HR-W pretty much worthless, even 5mm of rise shows this.
Just basing this on my experience with these lenses on IQ160, IQ150 and IQ260.
Net Rodenstock may claim you can go beyond the 90mm of the IC, but the fact that you hit such a hard wall pretty much makes such movement a moot point to me.
I have attached an example from C1, 8mm rise, 15mm L shift IQ260. You can clearly see the effect of the IC indicator, and if you look closely you can also see the destruction the indicator has on the part of the file right before the hard edge of the indicator.
Paul C
-
Since Rodenstock puts the IC indicator in the lens, i.e. at the edge of the IC, doesn't that preclude using the lens past the IC? i.e in the case of the 32 and 40mm HR-W the IC being 90mm. Once you it the edge of the IC, you hit the hard vignette of the indicator which ruins anything beyond that point, in fact it can do some damage before by the creating of a white band in front of the dark. Only effect's solid shots, blue sky, dark wall etc. But the C1 LCC will not remove it. It is seemingly more pronounced on the 70mm IC lenses, 28HR etc. Where as Schneider, with no IC indicator allows the photographer go past the edge of the IC, and make the decision on image quality themselves. Thus the reason the 60XL can go to much bigger shifting, it's not just the larger IC of the lens.
When I owned my 28HR, it could easily have made 10mm of shift in many instanced, but by past 5mm, the upper and lower corners were ruined by the dark vignette of the IC indicator. I guess you can go beyond the limit of the indicator i.e 90mm on a 32mm or 40mm if you are willing to crop massively into your shot, but then you may as well used the 60XL?
The 40 HR-W could easily make 20mm with very little image quality fall off, which is well beyond the 90mm IC, but you hit the wall so to speak at 16mm on a full frame back, wall being the IC indicator. The cropped sensor backs can get maybe 18 before you hit it.
If you add rise to the this, then the IC indicator really kills the shot, example a 40 HR-W shifted to 15mm with say 10mm of rise. The entire upper left corner on the 15mm L or R shift with rise is pretty much ruined by a massive amount of black due to the IC indicator. In my test, this was all sky, net, it really didn't matter how good the image quality was, it's sky. But the black vignette just kills the shot and makes 9 part movements with the 40 HR-W pretty much worthless, even 5mm of rise shows this.
Just basing this on my experience with these lenses on IQ160, IQ150 and IQ260.
Net Rodenstock may claim you can go beyond the 90mm of the IC, but the fact that you hit such a hard wall pretty much makes such movement a moot point to me.
I have attached an example from C1, 8mm rise, 15mm L shift IQ260. You can clearly see the effect of the IC indicator, and if you look closely you can also see the destruction the indicator has on the part of the file right before the hard edge of the indicator.
Paul C
Correct. You can't go much beyond the image circle stated by Rodenstock before you hit the hard edge, and including the hard edge is not usually recommended (it could, for instance, be okay if its occluding a cloudless blue sky which you can fix in post).
According to our visualizer the LCC you posted is many mm outside the image circle. At a rise of 8mm that lens should only support 8mm of shift, not 15mm.
https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-visualizers
My comment that you can go a mm or two past the stated image circle in many/most Rodenstock lenses was meant to be taken quite literally. As in, you can go one or two mm past the stated image circle prior to seeing a hard edged disk.
With Schneider the useful image circle is often 5-10mm inside the image circle that they state.
-
Agree, I was outside of the "recommended" shift for that amount of rise, however for only 8mm of shift to get 8mm of rise, a photographer has to ask, is it worth it? 8mm of shift is just not enough, neither for a short pano or trying to create a 9 x 9 shifted very high resolution image, there is just not enough "new" image captured to justify it. At least to me.
My main point is that if Rodenstock was to allow the same lens, without the IC indicator, (totally worthless to me) then you could possibly get to what I showed. Again it's sky in this situation, and you don't need as much perfect resolution. But you begin to suffer with anything past 15mm of shift with the 40HR-W as the IC indicator creates a lighter, but just as damaging shadow before it creates the hard vignette. As you pointed out, if that part of the file is not a pure solid, the shadow part can possibly be worked in C1, but where the hard vignette begins, this is not true as even C1 can't correct for solid black.
At least for those on a P45+ or Credo 40 etc, older leaf back, the Schneider gave you a full range of shift without the hard vignette. On the higher MP backs the Schneider wides just are too problematic unless just shot for center frames.
Paul C
-
Removed a previous message with some bad maths :-), Doug's visualizer is a much better tool than my lousy calculations:
https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-visualizers
Anyway, there you see that it's not so fun having 645 full-frame in a 70mm image circle, you don't get much movement, it becomes mostly center frame lenses (which is fine for some applications). I think the 44x33mm is acceptable for wides (but tight), with 48x36/49x37 it's too tight. I regularly do 10mm sometimes up to 15mm on my SK35 and that wouldn't fit.
The fullframe 645 on 90mm IC is okay, more relative range than 44x33 on 70mm IC, but I think 48x36/49x37 on 90mm is the ultimate tradeoff, and indeed many of the 90mm IC lenses were designed when 49x37mm was the high end format.
There's color (crosstalk), noise (LCC-corrected vignetting) and sharpness falloff to consider too though, so the range of usable image circle vary depending on sensor+lens combination and your personal acceptance of these issues. I think I'm more concerned with color and less with sharpness compared to many others.
Building a modern tech camera one would really want to use the CMOS backs to get live view, but you still have to do some significant tradeoffs on the wide end. So the "best" I still think is IQx60 with Digaron-W lenses, but you should be glad to not see the amount of sensor artifact correction that's required by Capture One's LCC algorithm to make the shifted wides look good... there's an obvious disconnect between sensor capabilities and requirements put on them by the tech lenses. Schneider sort of disqualified themselves by just being too incompatible with the most popular backs (the SK28XL release is a mystery), and while software could patch up most incompatibility with the Rodenstocks, there's now some serious struggle with the CMOS, not just crosstalk there's some bad low frequency rippling too. I hope the next CMOS generation will be designed with some decent angular response so we can get back on track. If not, Rodenstock should design some new wides, because I don't think CCD will survive in new products for many more years, the CMOS advantages are just too many.
-
Hasselblad has a lot of catching up to do but I don't think they are financially well placed to do so. That leaves them in a dangerous position, IMO.
Just FYI This statement is completely inaccurate. Exciting times!
-
Just FYI This statement is completely inaccurate. Exciting times!
Hasselblad has a good product, certainly competitive and superior in some ways but not all to P1, and at a lower price point.
Edmund
-
Hi,
If you happen to have any good news on Hasselblad's financial state, please share!
Regarding catching up, I would say that Hasselblad has a lot of very good lenses. What they don't have are 80 MP backs.
We have a lot of high quality lenses coming Sigma and Zeiss. Otuses 28, 55 and 85. The 135/2.0 APO, the Sigma Arts. Canon and Nikon also make some great lenses. Zeiss even offers AF lenses for Sony FA-mount.
With Canon and Sony offering 42-50 MP and probably joined by Nikon soon enough, competition is getting a bit stiffer.
That said, I would guess that the 50 MP Sony MF sensors have a size advantage over the 24x36 sensors, albeit they probably share much of the technology.
That advantage in size would convert to something like 6-7 DxO-mark points would anyone be interested, that may correspond to say 4-5 years of sensor development.
Best sensor 2009: Nikon D3x at 88
Best sensor 2016: Sony A7rII at at 98
10 points in 7 years -> 1.4 points/year
Best regards
Erik
Just FYI This statement is completely inaccurate. Exciting times!
-
If you happen to have any good news on Hasselblad's financial state, please share!
Hasselblad's financial health isn't as bad as people say. Looks like they will be profitable in the 2015 (let's wait for that, it'll be soon available) plus they have sold a minority stake to DJI which means a very dynamic new company is helping them run the operations, strategically, by selling the stake they have secured another sales funnel for aerial cameras and most importantly, Hasselblad got the cash injection they needed.
Maybe they are pivoting their business model and will try to get to or even create a new market. Maybe their new pricing strategy will work and more people will get into their ecosystem. I believe their pricing strategy is nothing but testing the market in real time and it is working out for them.
Once you are hooked as a user, it's certain you'll spend more and every user acquired by Hasselblad means no user for PhaseOne.
Now the numbers:
http://www.proff.dk/firma/hasselblad-as/.. (http://www.proff.dk/firma/hasselblad-as/frederiksberg/engroshandel-med-andre-maskiner-og-andet-udstyr/13477703-1/)
(https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AADiNJJJWWsQhQCIx078P9ZaWhSs55gODqdFVrs5hpzeQA/12/51591352/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Screenshot%202015-12-08%2023.03.31.jpg/EMqV3CcY004gAigC/25PyPo7PAif8ctTI5u3k8F6GMubIgBxEvpr4qmIBdeg?size=1280x960&size_mode=3)
To be fair, let's include PhaseOne financials for comparison.
http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/.. (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstilling-af-optiske-instrumenter-og-fotografisk-udstyr/13477705-2/)
(https://photos-1.dropbox.com/t/2/AAA-RLQGTPrlXob_AI7eb4CU5Z-iTMba05GLeLlLBJ1J4A/12/51591352/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Screenshot%202015-12-08%2022.53.21.jpg/EMqV3CcYz04gAigC/ZBMH1Dsn61vj9e5UsNml9xCsEVtQ8CPGHq2MRY7ma0M?size=1280x960&size_mode=3)
-
Thanks for the Hasselblad financial info. Much improvement over 2013, it seems.
Best regards
Erik
Hasselblad's financial health isn't as bad as people say. Looks like they will be profitable in the 2015 (let's wait for that, it'll be soon available) plus they have sold a minority stake to DJI which means a very dynamic new company is helping them run the operations, strategically, by selling the stake they have secured another sales funnel for aerial cameras and most importantly, Hasselblad got the cash injection they needed.
Maybe they are pivoting their business model and will try to get to or even create a new market. Maybe their new pricing strategy will work and more people will get into their ecosystem. I believe their pricing strategy is nothing but testing the market in real time and it is working out for them.
Once you are hooked as a user, it's certain you'll spend more and every user acquired by Hasselblad means no user for PhaseOne.
Now the numbers:
http://www.proff.dk/firma/hasselblad-as/.. (http://www.proff.dk/firma/hasselblad-as/frederiksberg/engroshandel-med-andre-maskiner-og-andet-udstyr/13477703-1/)
(https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AADiNJJJWWsQhQCIx078P9ZaWhSs55gODqdFVrs5hpzeQA/12/51591352/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Screenshot%202015-12-08%2023.03.31.jpg/EMqV3CcY004gAigC/25PyPo7PAif8ctTI5u3k8F6GMubIgBxEvpr4qmIBdeg?size=1280x960&size_mode=3)
To be fair, let's include PhaseOne financials for comparison.
http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/.. (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstilling-af-optiske-instrumenter-og-fotografisk-udstyr/13477705-2/)
(https://photos-1.dropbox.com/t/2/AAA-RLQGTPrlXob_AI7eb4CU5Z-iTMba05GLeLlLBJ1J4A/12/51591352/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Screenshot%202015-12-08%2022.53.21.jpg/EMqV3CcYz04gAigC/ZBMH1Dsn61vj9e5UsNml9xCsEVtQ8CPGHq2MRY7ma0M?size=1280x960&size_mode=3)
-
One hot budget alternative to MFDB tech cam is a Sony A7r-II with adapters or Sony A7r-II with Cambo Actus or F-Universalis. It would be interesting to put together "example" systems with those with the intention to compete as well as possible with the MFDB alternative in terms of quality and flexibility.
One would need a ~24, ~35, ~50 and one or two longer lenses with shift/tilt capability and very high optical quality.
For the 24 I guess it's the TS-E 24 II that's the best alternative, although I guess you might even run a Hassy HCD 24mm via some adapter? Cambo and Arca-Swiss has adapters for the Canon lens coming (with aperture control). I don't really know about the 35 and 50 and longer. I don't think the old Canon TS-E (45 and 90) has the quality. You can use Digaron lenses too of course, Digaron-S probably best, which may be a nice alternative for the longer lenses but probably flange distance and cast issues with the shorter focal lengths. Or can you even run a Digaron-S 23mm on the A7r? I would guess that it's sharper than Canon's TS-E 24 II which has about the same image circle.
As the Actus and F-Universalis lets you pick lenses from all sorts of systems you could come up with some pretty creative mix of lenses... Is it possible today to make a 42 MP A7r-II-based system as pixel-peep sharp as yesterday's 39MP P45+ based tech cam system, and with the same tilt-shift flexibility over a wide range of focal lengths? That would be pretty amazing, although I would guess that it's actually considerably cheaper to buy that yesterday's tech cam system on the second hand market than putting together a new tech cam system with the A7r-II....
When there's live view (no ground glass) I don't think sensor size is that important, it's the result that matters. The smaller size can make camera body parallelism and lens mounting precision become a larger problem, but I don't know if 36x24 vs 44x33 is any meaningful difference in that regard.
-
I think Hasselblad sees that there's possibility to sell in much larger volumes than what they traditionally expected. Pro market might be shrinking here and there, but that's compensated by an increased number of enthusiasts, and with lower prices and more attractive and all-around feature set (=CMOS) you get more interest from the enthusiasts. The CFV-50c seems to be a huge hit among enthusiasts, and the $10k rather than $15k price makes a real difference in that segment.
A problem now seems to be that the factory capacity is designed for the traditional low sales high price model, so they can't deliver at the same pace as the demand is. The CFV-50c seems constantly back-ordered.
This December price offer is temporary, but I think that in the coming years there will be lower cost to get MFD gear, and if they play their cards right it will become easier to buy Hassy gear from less specialized dealers. Put in basket in the web shops. With CMOS tech the camera can work like any other camera and then you don't really need a dealer that educates you how to make the best use of a camera crippled by the CCD limitations, that is you can make more anonymous sales in larger volumes. Making the system more commonplace I think is the right way to battle the competition from the smaller systems. However, the easy way out is to go the opposite direction of course, to make it a luxury product only. There's probably plenty room for expansion in the Asian markets for that.
The recent low prices in Hassy's products makes me hope for that their idea for the future is to make the system more accessible rather than less...
-
......... This December price offer is temporary, .........
No it's not... The price reduction started four months ago and it improves gradually by the time... In fact it will improve further as they clearly move the 50c as to replace the 40 for their entry level product in the line.... They clearly don't want to sell the CDD sensors at all and they keep them in their catalog only for "prestige" purposes... Clearly there are new (Cmos) larger sensors coming soon (that's why the new pricing policy) and they are making space for them....
Never the less, the S/H market pricing seems to have been affected considerably as if one can buy a CFV-50 (which is also priced very attractively) or a 50c new for those prices (and even slightly cheaper soon), then why buy a S/H CCD sensor back at all? ...after all, the Sony sensor backs (out of all makers) are claimed to be (by most) superior for Image Quality than the FF sensor backs and at that price and they seem to have the vast percentage of current sales. The only drawback that is claimed for the Sony sensor backs is the sensor's dimensions, but one can add a 24-25mm lens as to overcome the sensor size disadvantage...
-
The only drawback that is claimed for the Sony sensor backs is the sensor's dimensions, but one can add a 24-25mm lens as to overcome the sensor size disadvantage...
One can use a HCD24 lens on the 50 mpix CCD back.
-
Contributors here and on GetDPI have been pleading for this for years. Good to see they're at least trying this new business model. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of P1 following in their footsteps.
Dealers who sell P1 will obviously prefer to do a high margin expensive sale to a cheap low margin sale. As a result, a product that gets sold "cheaper" through those dealers ends up being both too expensive and not getting any sales. So maybe hassy should just give up on the dealers and go straight for the traditional pro sales houses like B&H.
Edmund
-
Dealers who sell P1 will obviously prefer to do a high margin expensive sale to a cheap low margin sale. As a result, a product that gets sold "cheaper" through those dealers ends up being both too expensive and not getting any sales. So maybe hassy should just give up on the dealers and go straight for the traditional pro sales houses like B&H.
Edmund
The problem is finding the customer that is prepared to spend three times as much, yet buying a product that is performing and specified much the same...
-
I cannot help wonder how many IQ250 Phaseone still manages to sell with this price difference.
The only measurable advantage it probably still has pretty much boils down to C1 pro support. Is that worth 20,000 US$ that buys you a whole lens line up?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I cannot help wonder how many IQ250 Phaseone still manages to sell with this price difference.
The only measurable advantage it probably still has pretty much boils down to C1 pro support. Is that worth 20,000 US$ that buys you a whole lens line up?
Cheers,
Bernard
If you are someone of low digital competence, employed at a well-funded cultural institution, then having someone on call to help you get your job done is worth a lot of the money which others are paying ...
-
So maybe hassy should just give up on the dealers and go straight for the traditional pro sales houses like B&H.
B&H sells H
-
The problem is finding the customer that is prepared to spend three times as much, yet buying a product that is performing and specified much the same...
Theodoros: you've used a Credo 50, IQ150, IQ250, IQ350 on an XF and an H5D-50c so that you compare how they perform in the real world? That's great, please share this hands on experience with us.
I apologize as I was under the mistaken impression that you've not used any modern Phase One back or body.
-
Dealers who sell P1 will obviously prefer to do a high margin expensive sale to a cheap low margin sale. As a result, a product that gets sold "cheaper" through those dealers ends up being both too expensive and not getting any sales. So maybe hassy should just give up on the dealers and go straight for the traditional pro sales houses like B&H.
B&H sells H
This is an old myth. The dealer channel does not add much to the total cost of the system. Our margins are not that high and we handle the marketing, support, service, and local presence that the manufacturer would have to pick up when they go direct.
As a real world example of this, call up B+H (who sell Leaf) and ask them for pricing on a Credo 50. Then call us and get pricing on a Credo 50. Guess who wins (hint: it's not the big box store for whom the Credo is a fraction of a sliver of a percent of their revenue, it's the company that lives, breaths, and knows the Credo inside and out).
Then ask them a medium-level technical question about the back that can't be answered by looking at the spec sheet. Then ask us.
-
I cannot help wonder how many IQ250 Phaseone still manages to sell with this price difference.
The only measurable advantage it probably still has pretty much boils down to C1 pro support. Is that worth 20,000 US$ that buys you a whole lens line up?
A few advantages of the XF + IQ350 that you missed (most of which also apply to the IQ150 and IQ250)...
- Digital Body Platform built in 2015 rather than 2002*
- Digital Back Interface built in 2011 rather than 2004*
- Faster Autofocus
- Improved Ergonomics
- Built in Profoto Air Transmitter***
- 1/1600 sync instead of 1/800
- Blue Ring Lens line which is a step above the build quality of any previous Hassy or Phase lens
- Option to use focal plane lenses up to 1/4000th of a sec (H body only accepts leaf shutter lenses), including some random/exotic lenses like the Contax 80/2 (remounted) or Schneider 130mm IMAX Cinelux (see see here (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/fast-portrait-lens-phase-one))
- 5 year warranty, including unlimited loaners on any back/body/lens that requires service**
- Metering when using Waist Level Viewfinder
- Focus Mask
- Customizable Exposure Warning
- Customizable Clipping Warning
- Exposure Heat Map
- Customizable Grids and Guides including option to drag a guide to a custom location
- Buttons which are easy to use with thick gloves on (when touchscreen isn't usable)
- Built-in Perspective Correction and Horizon Correction when using Capture One
- Complete duplication of the camera interface on the digital back, in the case that the top of the camera is not easily viewable
- Complete duplication of the camera interface, including camera preferences like button assignment, from Capture One
- Super fast transfer times when shooting tethered due to use of USB3 rather than the legacy FW800 spec****
- Support for USB3 1.2BC which allows you to power the back and body from supported USB hubs
- Direct setting of aperture from a hard dial (also can be disabled if you want to lock one ISO in)
- Vibration Capture mode which delays capture until the built in Seismograph shows no meaningful vibration
- Simple UI option which only displays Shutter/Aperture/ISO; for minimalists
- Excellent integration with technical cameras, where you'll find, by far, the best wide angle lenses made, and the option for rise/fall/shift on every lens, with no change in focal length or additional glass elements
- Industry leading dark-frame calibration for the cleanest long exposures (we've tested to 1-hour, but it should do fine much longer; we just don't have the patience to test several 2-hour exposures)
- Fastest and most feature-full wireless option (Capture Pilot)
- Dual battery power sharing, so when one starts to run low you can keep shooting without changing batteries, and when changing batteries the body/back both remain on using the other battery (no reboot of camera or reconnect to computer required).
- Strong legacy of good upgrade offers for upgrading to future backs
- Strong legacy of continued repair/service long after the product has been discontinued. LightPhase from 1998 is still supported in Capture One v9 in El Capitan; P20 (non plus) released in 2004 is still repairable and will be for several more years - compare this to the list of Hasselblad products which are no longer serviced.
- Professional support from expert dealers; for instance we (DT) have four full-time support people on staff covering three time zones, in addition to the four support people Phase One has at their US office. People usually default to thinking about "repairs" here, but the reality is 95% of our calls are about something other than a repair (questions about Capture One, needing help understanding a camera setting, a problem they are experiencing which they assume is a camera malfunction but is actually user error or a bad accessory like a bad 3rd party USB cable); getting someone on the phone who can straight away tell you the answer to an obscure question can come in handy!
And yes... as you say, Capture One support, which given how far of a lead Capture One 9 has now, is no small matter.
And the price difference is not as big as you think. There are four 50mp CMOS options from Team Phase One (Credo 50, IQ150, IQ250, IQ350) which covers a large range of potential budget (of course Hassy will only make the comparison to the flagship IQ350 when discussing pricing) and the list price is not the same as the street price from a good dealer. We're working with a client right now considering an IQ150 + XF + three Blue Ring lenses or an H5D-50C and we're getting him in the same range of pricing.
There are a few advantages to the H5D as well, such as the HTS system and True Focus (especially nice when shooting static subjects with wider lenses wide open with large recompositions). Some 20% or so of our new clients buying new bodies are going for H5X bodies with Phase One backs; but 80%+ are going for the XF. This is true at the lower price points (e.g. IQ150) as well as the higher price points (IQ380), so seems not to be purely a pricing issue.
*H1 released in 2002 is the basis for the H5. True focus and some increased focus speed being two of the only meaningful improvements since then. H1D released in 2004, the interface of which is still the basis of the H5D with incremental improvements.
**You can pick up from us same-day or have it couriered to you if in NYC or LA. Overnight delivery anywhere else in the country.
***Can be used with any brand of lighting, just add a Profoto Air Receiver to the light
****IQ series also has FW800 though in case you prefer it, for instance, because of the availability of 30' cables
-
Doug,
There is one detail which needs repeating: all dealers do not offer Doug Peterson support. The value of concierge service depends on the concierge, and being in his geographical zone.
Apart from that one can pick apart your list, and decide what the claims are really worth - for instance I would start at the top with item 3, "faster autofocus". You stand by the claim that the XF will focus faster than an H5D, with a modeling lamp as sole lighting, and say an 80mm? I think we could test that :)
Let's face it, P1 does not slaughter the competition out there in the field although the new body does give as good as it gets.
Edmund
A few advantages of the XF + IQ350 that you missed (most of which also apply to the IQ150 and IQ250)...
- Digital Body Platform built in 2015 rather than 2002*
- Digital Back Interface built in 2011 rather than 2004*
- Faster Autofocus
- Improved Ergonomics
- Built in Profoto Air Transmitter***
- 1/1600 sync instead of 1/800
- Blue Ring Lens line which is a step above the build quality of any previous Hassy or Phase lens
- Option to use focal plane lenses up to 1/4000th of a sec (H body only accepts leaf shutter lenses), including some random/exotic lenses like the Contax 80/2 (remounted) or Schneider 130mm IMAX Cinelux (see see here (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/fast-portrait-lens-phase-one))
- 5 year warranty, including unlimited loaners on any back/body/lens that requires service**
- Metering when using Waist Level Viewfinder
- Focus Mask
- Customizable Exposure Warning
- Customizable Clipping Warning
- Exposure Heat Map
- Customizable Grids and Guides including option to drag a guide to a custom location
- Buttons which are easy to use with thick gloves on (when touchscreen isn't usable)
- Built-in Perspective Correction and Horizon Correction when using Capture One
- Complete duplication of the camera interface on the digital back, in the case that the top of the camera is not easily viewable
- Complete duplication of the camera interface, including camera preferences like button assignment, from Capture One
- Super fast transfer times when shooting tethered due to use of USB3 rather than the legacy FW800 spec****
- Support for USB3 1.2BC which allows you to power the back and body from supported USB hubs
- Direct setting of aperture from a hard dial (also can be disabled if you want to lock one ISO in)
- Vibration Capture mode which delays capture until the built in Seismograph shows no meaningful vibration
- Simple UI option which only displays Shutter/Aperture/ISO; for minimalists
- Excellent integration with technical cameras, where you'll find, by far, the best wide angle lenses made, and the option for rise/fall/shift on every lens, with no change in focal length or additional glass elements
- Industry leading dark-frame calibration for the cleanest long exposures (we've tested to 1-hour, but it should do fine much longer; we just don't have the patience to test several 2-hour exposures)
- Fastest and most feature-full wireless option (Capture Pilot)
- Dual battery power sharing, so when one starts to run low you can keep shooting without changing batteries, and when changing batteries the body/back both remain on using the other battery (no reboot of camera or reconnect to computer required).
- Strong legacy of good upgrade offers for upgrading to future backs
- Strong legacy of continued repair/service long after the product has been discontinued. LightPhase from 1998 is still supported in Capture One v9 in El Capitan; P20 (non plus) released in 2004 is still repairable and will be for several more years - compare this to the list of Hasselblad products which are no longer serviced.
- Professional support from expert dealers; for instance we (DT) have four full-time support people on staff covering three time zones, in addition to the four support people Phase One has at their US office. People usually default to thinking about "repairs" here, but the reality is 95% of our calls are about something other than a repair (questions about Capture One, needing help understanding a camera setting, a problem they are experiencing which they assume is a camera malfunction but is actually user error or a bad accessory like a bad 3rd party USB cable); getting someone on the phone who can straight away tell you the answer to an obscure question can come in handy!
And yes... as you say, Capture One support, which given how far of a lead Capture One 9 has now, is no small matter.
And the price difference is not as big as you think. There are four 50mp CMOS options from Team Phase One (Credo 50, IQ150, IQ250, IQ350) which covers a large range of potential budget (of course Hassy will only make the comparison to the flagship IQ350 when discussing pricing) and the list price is not the same as the street price from a good dealer. We're working with a client right now considering an IQ150 + XF + three Blue Ring lenses or an H5D-50C and we're getting him in the same range of pricing.
There are a few advantages to the H5D as well, such as the HTS system and True Focus (especially nice when shooting static subjects with wider lenses wide open with large recompositions). Some 20% or so of our new clients buying new bodies are going for H5X bodies with Phase One backs; but 80%+ are going for the XF. This is true at the lower price points (e.g. IQ150) as well as the higher price points (IQ380), so seems not to be purely a pricing issue.
*H1 released in 2002 is the basis for the H5. True focus and some increased focus speed being two of the only meaningful improvements since then. H1D released in 2004, the interface of which is still the basis of the H5D with incremental improvements.
**You can pick up from us same-day or have it couriered to you if in NYC or LA. Overnight delivery anywhere else in the country.
***Can be used with any brand of lighting, just add a Profoto Air Receiver to the light
****IQ series also has FW800 though in case you prefer it, for instance, because of the availability of 30' cables
-
Thanks for the list Doug.
You are correct that listing C1 Pro 9 as the only differentiator was an over simplification.
I am not denying that these things add up to deliver a better experience and a wider set of adressable usage patterns, but as far as I am concerned, they would perhaps justify a price premium of 3,000-4,000 US$, not more.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
the list price is not the same as the street price from a good dealer. We're working with a client right now considering an IQ150 + XF + three Blue Ring lenses or an H5D-50C and we're getting him in the same range of pricing.
What you are effectively saying here is that Phase One official prices are inflated so as to allow the dealers to offer large discounts. I don't think forcing the customer to haggle is a healthy commercial practice.
Just to be clear: I am not criticising you, I am criticising Phase One policies. I understand that, as a dealer, you cannot influence that policy and are prohibited to disclose prices and rebates.
-
Hi,
Getting back to the original posting a little bit. The OP is obviously tempted by the Hasselblad offering because of it's reasonable costs.
There are couple of points I would add to the discussion.
- The Otus, in all it's greatness has it's best advantage at large apertures, once you stop down it may have little benefit as it will be limited by diffraction like any other lens.
- The linear size of the Sony 50MP CMOS sensor is 27% larger than 24x36, so the Otus should have a 27% advantage in resolution to compensate. It would not achieve it at f/11.
- Canon Sensors have a lot of readout noise, so they cannot match a Sony sensor at low ISO.
- In real life, accurate work is needed to extract maximum performance. Here vibrations from shutter and mirror play a great role and so does focusing accuracy.
So, I would expect the 50 MP CMOS cameras to have a tiny advantage in sharpness over the Canon 5DsR and Otus combo, at least at medium to small apertures.
Most Hasselblad lenses are quite good, they are designed by Hasselblad and built by Fujinon. Hasselblad publishes measured MTF data for all their lenses. I wouldn't bet on the Phase One lenses being better.
The great uncertainty seems to the economical position of Hasselblad, but from the latest financial data published here it may seem that they are in calm water after some stormy years.
Best regards
Erik
-
The biggest difference in the DMF line up are the lenses imho. H-lenses aka Fuji lenses are a little bit softer than PhaseONE lenses. Some PhaseONE lenses are even too sharp for portraits for me. Leica S lenses probably being the best in here. Don't get the advantage of the HTS. It's expensive, doesn't have 0 point and you cannot go really wide to the 1.5 crop. The one photog I know who uses it, changed to Cambo.
The other big difference is user interface where hands down PhaseONE rules. Another big point is the software where PhaseONE rules again.
For me it doesn't matter if I spent another 5k on a expensive system, because if I spent that much money I wanna have that system that makes me happy 100%. If you brake it down with real offers from dealers with lenses and all the other stuff you need, they all cost almost the same. In the end you are billing that system down to your client anyway.
All systems have there pro and cons. What might be important to someone won't be important to the other one. Test it and go with the system that makes you happy. The cheapest is the Pentax system, but the body doesn't do it for me, neither the lenses or the software. So price shouldn't be the biggest factor in buying a DMF.
-
H-lenses aka Fuji lenses are a little bit softer than PhaseONE lenses.
I would not say that as a general rule. The H 24, 28, 50-II and 120-II are among the best lenses I know.
Don't get the advantage of the HTS. It's expensive, doesn't have 0 point and you cannot go really wide to the 1.5 crop.
The main advantage of the HTS is that it simply works. One does not need to fumble with grey cards, distortion corrections, etc... everything is automatic. Besides, it has 0 points, you just need to check the digital readouts. And with the 24mm on it, you get a 35mm equivalent, which is as wide as the tech cam lenses one can actually shift.
-
The Rodenstock Digaron-32W with a 60 MP 54x41mm back is wider than 24 HCD + HTS and shifting works in a quite large range. You need LCC though.
If you have a 44x33mm sensor you get decent shift range on the Digaron-S 23mm, depending on how well the sensor in question can handle the color cast...
The HTS is elegant though due to it's automatic handling in software, I still don't consider a teleconverter extension as an ideal solution for high resolution photography.
-
The Rodenstock Digaron-32W with a 60 MP 54x41mm back is wider than 24 HCD + HTS and shifting works in a quite large range. You need LCC though.
Indeed, I forgot about that lens, which is a bit wider than the HTS+24mm. Still: people complain about the HTS system not being "wide enough", but I find that the 24mm changed the deal there.
The HTS is elegant though due to it's automatic handling in software, I still don't consider a teleconverter extension as an ideal solution for high resolution photography.
I rented one and the results were perfect on a 50 mpix back. For me that makes it fit for "high resolution photography". Personally, I would have more problems with the large edge fall-off of symmetrical lenses and the high shadow noise that often results from the associated corrections. This being said, I think it really is a question of choice and that either system has its advantages and drawbacks.
-
A few advantages of the XF + IQ350 that you missed (most of which also apply to the IQ150 and IQ250)...
- Digital Body Platform built in 2015 rather than 2002*
SNIP
*H1 released in 2002 is the basis for the H5. True focus and some increased focus speed being two of the only meaningful improvements since
Actually I take that as an advantage, it means I get to run my P45+ on a dirt cheap body, H1, easily and cheaply replaced if necessary, with firmware that is updated still.
-
Yes the age of a camera platform doesn't necessarily mean anything, you need to look at its current usability. A camera shouldn't change much, evolution rather than revolution. As a photographer you get used to how a camera works, where the buttons sit the ergonomics etc.
Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I'm not particularly fond of the iPhone look and touch screens of the Phase, it feels a bit... gimmicky. The Hasselblad looks more like a camera should look, although I thought it looked like an alien space ship when I first saw it. The Pentax 645z may be the ugliest camera ever created (well no, that's the Konica AiBORG (http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Konica_AiBORG)), but it looks serious.
-
Yes the age of a camera platform doesn't necessarily mean anything, you need to look at its current usability. A camera shouldn't change much, evolution rather than revolution. As a photographer you get used to how a camera works, where the buttons sit the ergonomics etc.
Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I'm not particularly fond of the iPhone look and touch screens of the Phase, it feels a bit... gimmicky. The Hasselblad looks more like a camera should look, although I thought it looked like an alien space ship when I first saw it. The Pentax 645z may be the ugliest camera ever created (well no, that's the Konica AiBORG (http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Konica_AiBORG)), but it looks serious.
LOL.... well said! The Contax 645 is all the platform one needs... AF performance is rarely the case with MF equipment!
-
The Hasselblad looks more like a camera should look, although I thought it looked like an alien space ship when I first saw it.
I would agree that the H5D is the best looking MF camera at the moment.
Not that I think that the looks of a camera is at all relevant to photography. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would agree that the H5D is the best looking MF camera at the moment.
Not that I think that the looks of a camera is at all relevant to photography. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
It is good looking alright.... but more beautiful than the Contax? ....no way! ;D
-
I would agree that the H5D is the best looking MF camera at the moment.
Not that I think that the looks of a camera is at all relevant to photography. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
To me the XF IQ is the nicest looking cam. A cam needs to be black and not silver and those straight simple lines with a touch of the future (or present). Actually design wise I think it's a mix between the Contax and the Hasselblad 500 series. 2 sexy cameras :-)
-
Not that I think that the looks of a camera is at all relevant to photography. ;)
Wouldn't it make sense that visual artists would like to use beautiful looking tools? 8)
-
Thanks for the Hasselblad financial info. Much improvement over 2013, it seems.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
it is an improvement. However, it would be great if someone (anyone here affiliated to Hasselblad reading this? Silence doesn't help) could chime in and provide us also with the Swedish Hasselblad financial data as it could clarify the whole situation even further and probably shine a different light on the overall situation.
What we know so far:
- Hasselblad received some cash from DJI http://www.dji.com (http://www.dji.com) in exchange for a minority stake and formed a strategic partnership with this aggressive new (2006) aerial technology company
- That means Hasselblad could become a stronger player than PhaseOne in the Aerial industry
- Hasselblad in Denmark either lost some employees or let them go due to insufficient funds
- Hasselblad's development team has left and works for PhaseOne
- Hasselblad in Denmark is consolidating and relocating its operations to Sweden
- Hasselblad in Sweden is hiring people
- Hasselblad is losing customers who are moving towards the PhaseOne system
As we know, leveraging the Hasselblad's goodwill/brand can only work up to a certain limited degree, let their "exclusive" overpriced consumer PTS cameras serve as an example.
According to Hasselblad, the current Christmas promotion price is only valid until Dec 24th, then the price will raise. It's supposed to create a scarcity feeling and a sense of urgency. However, this makes no sense from a strategic and a longterm value standpoint and it more than anything hurts customers confidence in the brand.
Individual, dealer based sales promotion are fine and boost customer confidence.
Global and unpredictable pricing strategies along with the of communication hurt customer confidence.
-
Erik,
it is an improvement. However, it would be great if someone (anyone here affiliated to Hasselblad reading this? Silence doesn't help) could chime in and provide us also with the Swedish Hasselblad financial data as it could clarify the whole situation even further and probably shine a different light on the overall situation.
What we know so far:
- .......That means Hasselblad could become a stronger player than PhaseOne in the Aerial industry.......
- .......Hasselblad is losing customers who are moving towards the PhaseOne system.......
..........According to Hasselblad, the current Christmas promotion price is only valid until Dec 24th, then the price will raise.......
Did it ever occurred to you that shelling some shares only means access to technology and to profits?
Did it ever occurred to you that the new pricing policy results on P1 loosing customers to Blad?
Did it ever occurred to you that after the 24th of December will be another, even more aggressive pricing policy as it happens for the later four months where when one promotion ends, it is followed by a better one and the fact that Hasselblad is moving H5D-50 as to be their entry level product?
The H5D-50 costs for them to make less than the H5D-40 and thus it's by far more profitable if they can sell it in much larger numbers and more expensive than the H5D-40... It takes no Einstein thinking to conclude simple math....
-
...However, this makes no sense from a strategic and a longterm value standpoint and it more than anything hurts customers confidence in the brand...
Had the same feeling and it also feels at hasselblad needs cash urgent, as I assume the margin is gone in an 40% price drop.
-
Had the same feeling and it also feels at hasselblad needs cash urgent, as I assume the margin is gone in an 40% price drop.
Contrary to Phase, Hassy has a fully amortized cheap and dumb body; the smarts are in the back and the shutter is in the lens, where the customer pays for it. Now the back price is falling because Sony is lowering prices.
Expect the Pentax 645Z to fall too ...Phase will hang on to the luxury pricing ss long as they ca, at least in public.
Edmund
-
Did it ever occurred to you that shelling some shares only means access to technology and to profits?
Did it ever occurred to you that the new pricing policy results on P1 loosing customers to Blad?
Did it ever occurred to you that after the 24th of December will be another, even more aggressive pricing policy as it happens for the later four months where when one promotion ends, it is followed by a better one and the fact that Hasselblad is moving H5D-50 as to be their entry level product?
The H5D-50 costs for them to make less than the H5D-40 and thus it's by far more profitable if they can sell it in much larger numbers and more expensive than the H5D-40... It takes no Einstein thinking to conclude simple math....
"shelling some shares only means access to technology and to profits" .. hmm this statement is so generic it can mean anything. I think your opinion is not based on anything, not even your own experience (have you ever "shelled" shares of your own company with this outcome?)
As for your other points, all of them are somewhat easy to deduct from the current situation. However, without hard facts, these are just assumptions.
You are saying H5D-50 costs less to make than H5D-40. What are the costs? I don't see the simple math here, please elaborate on the subject.
-
Dealers who sell P1 will obviously prefer to do a high margin expensive sale to a cheap low margin sale. As a result, a product that gets sold "cheaper" through those dealers ends up being both too expensive and not getting any sales. So maybe hassy should just give up on the dealers and go straight for the traditional pro sales houses like B&H.
Edmund
Interesting point.
-
- The Otus, in all it's greatness has it's best advantage at large apertures, once you stop down it may have little benefit as it will be limited by diffraction like any other lens.
Erik, please rent/borrow Otus and test it out yourself before posting conclusions online. There's more to the overall result than sharpness and stopped down Otus will always yield better results than any other stopped down lens regardless of the diffraction limit.
-
Wouldn't it make sense that visual artists would like to use beautiful looking tools? 8)
Fair point. To some extend it does, I would of course go for the better looking device among 2 with equal performance.
We probably all differ in our ability to perform creatively and also in terms of how influenced we are by our environment, including the tools we use.
I feel that I am able to isolate myself to a high degree from the tool and focus on the creative intend of a given assignment, as long as the tool doesn't come in the way. Which is what I meant, I favour performance (including UI of course) much more than looks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Before you jump, try the Pentax 645z. Same chip, half the price. I love the Hass, but if leaf shutter lenses aren't critical to your work - which it doesn't seem - the Pentax will give you all that detail with a much lower price point. Will you be replacing your Canon gear or just adding to it?
Hasselblad as a system is fine, there's lots of use out there, it just seems stagnant as MF as a whole hasn't done much and 35mm is advancing pretty quickly. I don't see them folding as Contax and Rollie did, mostly due to the size of the user base and the rental market. The -50c wifi back has some great features, in ISO, color and pixel detail.
Don't purchase if you're worried about dinosaur status, folks still shoot Contax and love it, even though they shut down a decade ago. If you're going to use it, it'll be fine. If you're gonna drop $14.5k on a camera back and body (you still need a lens), you can get into a used Hass or Phase back or a technical camera setup. Don't focus on the money, focus on process and output of your work. I've put enough shots on my Hass I figure it's a $1 a click, and I've broke even at this point.
-Joe
Joe,
thank you for your opinion.
To me, the best system is the one I can use exclusively, that means selling my Canon gear somewhere down the line.
I have tried the Pentax 645z and it offers a great price/performance. I just can't seem to get over the current lens offer, lack of future-proofness and unrefined ergonomics.
I like your approach of seeing the value instead of money.
-
Joe,
thank you for your opinion.
To me, the best system is the one I can use exclusively, that means selling my Canon gear somewhere down the line.
I have tried the Pentax 645z and it offers a great price/performance. I just can't seem to get over the current lens offer, lack of future-proofness and unrefined ergonomics.
I like your approach of seeing the value instead of money.
Johnny,
Unfortunately getting rid of Canon completely is unrealistic. Apart from the Phase dealer, I think we all agree about that sad fact: MF wins on quality, but 35mm systems fight back with huge flexibility which MF lacks.
Edmund
-
Joe,
thank you for your opinion.
To me, the best system is the one I can use exclusively, that means selling my Canon gear somewhere down the line.
I have tried the Pentax 645z and it offers a great price/performance. I just can't seem to get over the current lens offer, lack of future-proofness and unrefined ergonomics.
I like your approach of seeing the value instead of money.
Personally I can't imagine anything in MF world keeping up with the ergonomics of the latest and greatest dslr's.
I use a 645z and a 1Dx - I can't imagine ever tossing the Canon out as much as I prefer the 645z files.
The 645 is pretty clunky compared to the Canon but you get used to it. I think I'd say that also if I had a blad or a P1 (from the limited time i've played with them).
-
Hi,
Not that easy here in Sweden.
If you have good examples, please post.
I also feel you take my statement out of context. The OP's question is weather the 5DsR/Otus combo can match the H5D-50c. That camera has a format advantage and some pretty good lenses. I am not partial against the Otus, but I don't need f/1.4 lenses.
A German periodical (C't Foto) has compared high res DSLRs using Otus lenses with MFD a few times, and the MFDs always came out on top. But that is at pixel peeping magnifications.
As the MFD needs significantly less magnification compared to a DSLR, the DSLR needs to have a significant advantage in sharpness to compensate for that.
Another point that may have some importance is that there are only tree Otus lenses. I would also add the 135/2 APO, which is in the same division as the Otuses, I think.
My take on the issue is that buy the camera you want and buy decent lenses and learn to make best use of them.
Personally, I am pretty sure my V-series Hasselblad will see little use, albeit it is a bit sharper than my A7rII. The A7rII just gives more flexibility, for instance tilt capability with a lot of lenses. Practical things matter. Still I keep the "Blad", I enjoy using it.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, please rent/borrow Otus and test it out yourself before posting conclusions online. There's more to the overall result than sharpness and stopped down Otus will always yield better results than any other stopped down lens regardless of the diffraction limit.
-
Hi,
Not that easy here in Sweden.
If you have good examples, please post.
I also feel you take my statement out of context. The OP's question is weather the 5DsR/Otus combo can match the H5D-50c. That camera has a format advantage and some pretty good lenses. I am not partial against the Otus, but I don't need f/1.4 lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I was reacting to your conclusions based on theoretical DxO sharpness data. Whether you personally need fast lens or not is not relevant here. Peace and please, let's put this discussion aside unless you get your hand on Otus and test it in real world. Forget DxO.
As you are saying now and I agree, the point is, can the 5DSR + Otus combo match the H5D-50c? I got the answer and got comparison photos + raw files to prove it.
Before I post a comparison post, I want to make sure this comparison is fair, I process the files correctly and most importantly, the overall results are presented in the right context.
Thank you,
J.
-
Its likely fair in one or 2 perspectives...just post it
-
What is the point of this thread? What is the point the OP trying to understand?
Let's back up, it started with
Hi all,
I'll be grateful for your feedback on the following:
I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user. I'm very demanding and concerned about image quality. My main photography field is classical landscape and cityscapes. Sometimes portraits, however I don't own any strobes yet. Sometimes I print big but I'm not a commercial photographer, just a hobbyist.
The latest MF (IQ 250 last year and XF+new IQ backs) or Hasselblads have been our of reach for me until now, the current promotion for H5D-50c priced at $14,500USD is way too tempting. I have scheduled a hands-on demo the next week so I guess that will tell me almost everything but I want to listen to you, guys more experienced who are shooting MF systems already.
- How do you feel about the future of Hasselblad?
- Does buying a H5D-50c mean I will get stuck with a dinosaur soon?
I think I’m aware of the drawbacks of a MF system and I’m willing to sacrifice speed, weight and its shooting envelope for image quality, dynamic & colour range and pixel acuity.
.....
From that we have had some pixel peepers comparing the Otus, to trashing multiple companies pricing policies or any specials being run. Turn that into deep dives into the financial stability of firms whom are owned by Venture Capital companies, and expecting some magic reply. I don't get it.
There is no such thing as a magic 'perfect for everything camera' in either the 35mm or MF world. It doesn't exist. I don't see 600mm plus autofocus lenses for medium format, but you can get a number of different ones for 35mm. We just got 50mp on 35mm gear, but the H3DII-50 came out in Jan 2009! There is no future-proof gear. There is no necessity to owning medium format gear. If you worry about your lens mount or back, stick with EF - it's been around a long time, some 100 million lenses, not to mention all the 3rd party or adaptable lenses. Any of the Medium Format vendors could be gone in 3 years - we just don't know (and neither do they).
Go into your demo with an open mind of 'here is something different'. Shoot the scene with your Otus, and shoot it with the Hassy. Take both files and go process them to your hearts content. Print them, small and large. Use the gear as much as you can, and ask a lot of questions - it's easier some times in person. Treat the sales person really well - and make sure you buy something substantial from them.
Know that the Hassy with a lens or two plus a few additional accessories like a second battery, a few new bags and you're out over $20k. Find a local source for renting HC/HCD lenses - if you don't have one, it's going to suck.
Have fun, shoot a lot, learn a lot and print more. It's just money, and medium format either works for you or it doesn't.
-Joe
-
I have tried the Pentax 645z and it offers a great price/performance. I just can't seem to get over the current lens offer, lack of future-proofness and unrefined ergonomics.
There are others, like the owner of this site, that say the 645z ergonomics is very refined indeed. The body looks about the same as the old analog versions of it, so it's not exactly a new untried ergonomic concept. But as with all camera ergonomics its a matter of taste, and the size of your hands etc, and not the least what you're used to.
That it lacks future proofness sounds interesting, what do you mean by that?
Personally I've given up on future proofness, and in MFD I don't think you should look so much into the future, and why do that anyway? You buy a camera to use now and for a few years, and when it's time to upgrade you either do exactly that, or sell off and buy a new system.
Tech cams like is my MFD is the worst in future proofness. The shutters I'm using ceased manufacturing a couple of years ago, Schneider make their last production run as we speak. I'm not worried though, just look how long Contax survived after end of production. I could be shooting the same system in ten years if I like, and that's enough future for me.
-
As you are saying now and I agree, the point is, can the 5DSR + Otus combo match the H5D-50c? I got the answer and got comparison photos + raw files to prove it.
Hi,
From a sensor point of view, the outcome is predictable. As long as the lens projected image gets sampled at the same density (number of discrete samples), the limiting resolution will be the same (if we stay far enough away from diffraction dominating apertures).
However, a physically larger sensor array will require a larger lens magnification factor to cover the sensor area with a larger image circle, a longer focal length for the same field of view. The larger magnification factor will result in lower cycles/mm for the same subject features, and a lower cy/mm will have a higher MTF.
Using the same OTUS focal length on two sensors with different physical dimensions will produce different fields of view, and complicate a real comparison. The magnification factor will be the same, but the sampling density will differ. Different sampling densities will have different limiting resolutions (Nyquist frequency), and higher sampling densties will produce a higher system (optical x sensor) MTF.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The images coming out of the Pentax are nice. The lens line is weak though and the camera has no appeal to me what so ever. It's ugly as sin. I would not choose it over the Hasselblad. But I think it looks like Pentax are getting back to what they once were and it will be interesting to see how they develop. The Pentax 67 is still one of the better Medium Format cameras and still favoured by many who shoot film. It would have be great to have seen a 645 version of this, something like the size of the Leica S.
-
I agree that Pentax is an outdated design that I would never consider... Other than the unbalanced body, the camera has the longest mount among all MFDB cameras, which is almost 7mm longer than the Contax 645, 8mm than the M645 bodies and almost 10mm than Hasselblad bodies! OTOH, I think that it would be difficult for it to enter the MFDB market if it was based on a new design... Pentax, clearly made the choice as to use the available base of old customers that where using the camera from the film days... In reality the body is as long as modern 6x6 cameras should be and only uses a 44x33mm sensor on a body that looks a "white elephant" for the purpose.
-
This is a pretty good example of a thread here.
Someone asks about Hasselblad vs Canon. (I've shot both and IMO the Hasselblad has a slight edge but it's marginal)
A Phase one dealer launches into an extensive sales pitch for the Phase system. (Great system but expensive and not what the OP asked about)
Someone who doesn't own an HTS tells us that it's no good. (I love my HTS and use it when shooting pizzas in studio and the client wants them sharp front to back from a 3/4 angle)
Someone talks about Hasselblad's perceived financial problems. (The truth is quite the opposite but I cannot say more as I'm NDA'd)
All in all a pretty typical LL thread :)
-
Hi,
Thanks for sharing! That is some good news!
Best regards
Erik
Someone talks about Hasselblad's perceived financial problems. (The truth is quite the opposite but I cannot say more as I'm NDA'd)
-
This is a pretty good example of a thread here.
Someone asks about Hasselblad vs Canon. (I've shot both and IMO the Hasselblad has a slight edge but it's marginal)
A Phase one dealer launches into an extensive sales pitch for the Phase system. (Great system but expensive and not what the OP asked about)
Someone who doesn't own an HTS tells us that it's no good. (I love my HTS and use it when shooting pizzas in studio and the client wants them sharp front to back from a 3/4 angle)
Someone talks about Hasselblad's perceived financial problems. (The truth is quite the opposite but I cannot say more as I'm NDA'd)
All in all a pretty typical LL thread :)
Yes, and the constant repetitions of the same arguments is getting quite annoying. I would even say that for someone like me using Hasselblad cameras, the value of this forum is getting lower and lower. Unfortunately, there is not much alternative.
-
Hi,
If we go back to the original posting, this is what the OP is asking:
Hi all,
I'll be grateful for your feedback on the following:
I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user. I'm very demanding and concerned about image quality. My main photography field is classical landscape and cityscapes. Sometimes portraits, however I don't own any strobes yet. Sometimes I print big but I'm not a commercial photographer, just a hobbyist.
The latest MF (IQ 250 last year and XF+new IQ backs) or Hasselblads have been our of reach for me until now, the current promotion for H5D-50c priced at $14,500USD is way too tempting. I have scheduled a hands-on demo the next week so I guess that will tell me almost everything but I want to listen to you, guys more experienced who are shooting MF systems already.
How do you feel about the future of Hasselblad?
Does buying a H5D-50c mean I will get stuck with a dinosaur soon?
I think I’m aware of the drawbacks of a MF system and I’m willing to sacrifice speed, weight and its shooting envelope for image quality, dynamic & colour range and pixel acuity.
So he wants to learn about the benefits of the Hasselblad over the Canon/Otus combo. You say that there is an advantage to the Hasselblad but it is not a great benefit? This is exactly what the OP is asking for.
The OP is also worried about the future of Hasselblad. In that case there have been very little good news. Admittedly no bad news either. So I can see some folks are worried. You have some good news, that is really great.
Personally, I hope that Hasselblad stays around. To me it seems that Hasselblad builds a great professional camera system. The classical Hasselblad was about tools and not "bling". I would also add that I like the fact that Hasselblad designs their lenses, even if Fujinon finalises the designs. Also, Hasselblad publishes measured MTF data for all their lenses. Neither of these facts are really essential, but I feel both are positives for the Blad.
I think we have interesting times ahead. Some old MFD users are switching over to Sony FE-mount as this gives them the option to rig a small system with shift and tilts. I am using such a solution myself, and find it far more practical than using my P45+ on the Flexbody.
Regarding the HTS, it is a good example of Hasselblad thinking out of the box. I don't know if it is the perfect solution. Perhaps Hasselblad will develop something like Flexbody but optimised for the CMOS based backs. If you can use a short flange distance it would be possible use tilt and shift without extender?
Best regards
Erik
This is a pretty good example of a thread here.
Someone asks about Hasselblad vs Canon. (I've shot both and IMO the Hasselblad has a slight edge but it's marginal)
A Phase one dealer launches into an extensive sales pitch for the Phase system. (Great system but expensive and not what the OP asked about)
Someone who doesn't own an HTS tells us that it's no good. (I love my HTS and use it when shooting pizzas in studio and the client wants them sharp front to back from a 3/4 angle)
Someone talks about Hasselblad's perceived financial problems. (The truth is quite the opposite but I cannot say more as I'm NDA'd)
All in all a pretty typical LL thread :)
-
Amen to that.
This is a pretty good example of a thread here.
Someone asks about Hasselblad vs Canon. (I've shot both and IMO the Hasselblad has a slight edge but it's marginal)
A Phase one dealer launches into an extensive sales pitch for the Phase system. (Great system but expensive and not what the OP asked about)
Someone who doesn't own an HTS tells us that it's no good. (I love my HTS and use it when shooting pizzas in studio and the client wants them sharp front to back from a 3/4 angle)
Someone talks about Hasselblad's perceived financial problems. (The truth is quite the opposite but I cannot say more as I'm NDA'd)
All in all a pretty typical LL thread :)
-
maybe our friendly phase dealer can, for a change, shed some light on a Hassy topic :)
Edmund
This is a pretty good example of a thread here.
Someone talks about Hasselblad's perceived financial problems. (The truth is quite the opposite but I cannot say more as I'm NDA'd)
All in all a pretty typical LL thread :)
-
Few if any user owns all systems and have done side by side testing, which of course is what would be ideal. Quite many of us has seen results from a wide range of systems though, including the HTS. The HTS is fine, but its €4000 needs to be combined with €4000 lens and then together with the (automatic) lens corrections it almost reaches the quality of an SK35XL (ie not bad, but not Rodenstock Digaron-W sharpness), that was the impression I got last time I saw a result from the HTS+HCD24 combo.
I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison with the HTS+HCD24 H5D-50c with Canon 5Ds+TS-E 24 II. I don't know what the result would be, but I think they would be pretty close actually, with the HTS having an edge due to it's automatic lens corrections, and the Canon having larger shift range.
-
Hi,
Just to say, I bought the 24/3.5TSE LII as a high quality alternative to my wide angle zooms. My A7rII was quite a bit late, but I had the opportunity to try it on my friends EOS 5DIII. We also shot his brand new 16-35/4 in parallel, and we found that the 16-35 may have been marginally better.
Since than, I got my A7rII and the 24/3.5 TSE was one of the lenses I have used most and mostly to my satisfaction. That said, the weaknesses I observed were still there on the A7rII, but they did matter very little.
My sample of the TSE is brand new, but it may be a less than optimal sample. Roger Cicala and Brandon Dube over at Lensrentals have a discussion about sample variation on wide angles and there is a lot, but I don't think the TSE II is worse than others: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurements-for-wide-angle-lenses
Best regards
Erik
Hmm... that has not been my experience at all. For several years, my wide angle architecture setup was the SK35 on a 60mp back (P65+ and then IQ260). I found that the 24TS-EII on the A7r easily outperformed the MF rig. It could shift further while holding better edge sharpness and color shifting wasn't nearly the issue it was with the Schneider.
I've been really surprised to read criticisms here of the 24TS-EII. It's easily one of the sharpest lenses I've owned... at least my copy is.
-
One advantage of the Hassy is its tilt shift adapter.
The camera will likely be complemented by one with a slightly larger chip, but will stay on as an entry model: photographers seem to like it.
Edmund
And the other is the dynamic range of the Sony Sensor. It's seems that the sensor is very good (reviewers, images).
If the following information tests reach confirmation it will be "outstanding" sensor.
http://photorumors.com/2015/12/23/pentax-645z-scored-101-at-dxomark/
Best regards,
-
Hi,
It is a Sony sensor of pretty late generation, so it should perform like other Sony sensors, and those are all near of top at DxO. Having 1.7 times the sensor area should move it to the top of the list. So >100 figure was pretty much expected.
Which camera is the best performer may depend on your needs, but I would expect them to be pretty close in the resolution case. I don't think you would see differences in print, at any size, at least not assuming good samples of each lens.
The Hassy sensor will give cleaner shadows at least at base ISO.
There are only three Otus-lenses, but Canon is revamping the lens line, with quite a few truly excellent performers and there are excellent performers from Sigma, too.
Attached below is a shot taken with a Hasselblad 555/ELD using the 120/4 Macro Planar at f/11 and one shot with Sony A7rII using the Sony 90/2.8G at f/8. I won't say both images are optimal, best focus differs and image stabilisation was set on the Sony lens. But what I see is that:
- Both lenses outresolve the sensor
- The images are pretty close in quality
Now, both the A7rII and the P45+ are a snap below the 50 MP cameras. The Hasselblad uses an old lens and the new HC-lens line is generally sharper than the older Zeiss line.
Let's not forget that raw processing plays a major role.
Would anyone be interested, the raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/P45+_vs_A7rII/
Best regards
Erik
And the other is the dynamic range of the Sony Sensor. It's seems that the sensor is very good (reviewers, images).
If the following information tests reach confirmation it will be "outstanding" sensor.
http://photorumors.com/2015/12/23/pentax-645z-scored-101-at-dxomark/
Best regards,
-
Is there a reason for the blue/cyan bias on the Sony A7RII images? I have seen it not just in Erik's samples but in many other's as well.
Would be cool to compare a tech camera lens with the Otus/Canon combination. In the case of the Otus 28mm a 40mm on a tech cam and a sensor like the 60 or 80 mp phase1 should be a pretty good focal length match.
-
Hi,
In this case it is in part a white balance issue, but also about colour conversion in C1. The attachment below is from LR 6 conversion, here the Sony image is on the left. Would be interesting to hear other views on that issue. Anders Torger, who developed a profiling tool for both DNG Color Profiles and Capture one found that profiles play a far more important role than sensors.
One reflection may be that Sony users are accustomed to Sony's auto white balance, which is a bit colder than WB off a grey card.
This part of the image is essentially sky illuminated and with some sunlight coming from the back side, so that part of the image is green but without a lot of yellow. The more sunlit parts are more yellowish green.
I would agree that an 80MP, Rodenstock HR vs Otus comparison would be interesting, but it is not what the OP is asking about. I would also say that OP's question makes a lot of sense, as both systems are 50 MP.
Best regards
Erik
Is there a reason for the blue/cyan bias on the Sony A7RII images? I have seen it not just in Erik's samples but in many other's as well.
Would be cool to compare a tech camera lens with the Otus/Canon combination. In the case of the Otus 28mm a 40mm on a tech cam and a sensor like the 60 or 80 mp phase1 should be a pretty good focal length match.
-
Hi,
In this case it is in part a white balance issue, but also about colour conversion in C1. The attachment below is from LR 6 conversion, here the Sony image is on the left. Would be interesting to hear other views on that issue. Anders Torger, who developed a profiling tool for both DNG Color Profiles and Capture one found that profiles play a far more important role than sensors.
This part of the image is essentially sky illuminated and with some sunlight coming from the back side.
I would agree that an 80MP, Rodenstock HR vs Otus comparison would be interesting, but it is not what the OP is asking about. I would also say that OP's question makes a lot of sense, as both systems are 50 MP.
Best regards
Erik
One can compare the H5D-50c with the Hasselblad 35mm lens and the back with a tech cam and the 32mm HR-W against the Otus 28mm. Three way! comparison.
Yes, there must be something with the A7RII profiles (several) because the blue/cyan bias is everywhere. Some people do not like the skintones coming out of the Sony and that might be it.
-
One can compare the H5D-50c with the Hasselblad 35mm lens and the back with a tech cam and the 32mm HR-W against the Otus 28mm. Three way! comparison.
Yes, there must be something with the A7RII profiles (several) because the blue/cyan bias is everywhere. Some people do not like the skintones coming out of the Sony and that might be it.
It's not the profiles, I believe, rather the CFA. The A7IIR has color discrimination issues in the greens.
Edmund
-
Hi Ken,
The OP asked about H5D-50C vs Canon 5DSR w/Otus.
I would think that the Hasselblad 120 macro would be a step up from the Macro Planar 120, but the P45+ sensor is larger than the 50c sensor. And the Sony A7rII is no 5DsR and nor is the Sony 90/2.8G an Otus.
But I think this comparison is the only one posted on this thread? And it even includes the raw files.
Best regards
Erik
One can compare the H5D-50c with the Hasselblad 35mm lens and the back with a tech cam and the 32mm HR-W against the Otus 28mm. Three way! comparison.
-
Hi all,
I'll be grateful for your feedback on the following:
I'm a 5DSR + Otus Distagon user. I'm very demanding and concerned about image quality. My main photography field is classical landscape and cityscapes. Sometimes portraits, however I don't own any strobes yet. Sometimes I print big but I'm not a commercial photographer, just a hobbyist.
The latest MF (IQ 250 last year and XF+new IQ backs) or Hasselblads have been our of reach for me until now, the current promotion for H5D-50c priced at $14,500USD is way too tempting. I have scheduled a hands-on demo the next week so I guess that will tell me almost everything but I want to listen to you, guys more experienced who are shooting MF systems already.
- How do you feel about the future of Hasselblad?
- Does buying a H5D-50c mean I will get stuck with a dinosaur soon?
I think I’m aware of the drawbacks of a MF system and I’m willing to sacrifice speed, weight and its shooting envelope for image quality, dynamic & colour range and pixel acuity.
As a Credo 50 and A7RII user, I would like to suggest the most important difference between the 5DSR and H5D-50c is how you plan to use them and not purely their differences in image quality. Using a digital back on a view camera or technical camera or MF system on a tripod will change how you interact with your subject. The tilt and swing capabilities of a view camera or technical camera with a digital back will offer controls that a DSLR or mirrorless camera can't match, unless used on a view camera. You will likely have have fewer lens choices using a MF system and certainly using a view camera than what is available for your Canon, which again may change how you interact with your subject matter.
If you agree that pixel peeping and the last bit of dynamic range don't ultimately make our photos more interesting, then I would carefully consider how the ergonomics of each system will impact your shooting as a primary concern for evaluating the benefit of each to your photography.
Drew Harty
-
Hi,
It is quite possible to use the Sony A7rII with T&S. Personally I use a HCam Master TSII with a bunch of Hasselblad V-series lenses and also a Canon 16-35/4L zoom. The HCam gives something like 12 mm of shift with Hasselblad lenses and also allows 11 degrees of tilt. (*)
Here is a thread on that combo: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/56810-hcam-master-tsii-sony-a7rii.html
The HCam has no geared adjustments, but on the plus side the HCam/Sony A7rII has peaking, which is very helpful in finding the plane of sharpness and pin point accurate focusing is easy with 12.5X magnified live view. Being able to use T&S was the major reason I switched over to the Sony A7rII.
I also have a Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII.
I sort of think that the camera is an imaging device and it is the photographer who decides how he/she interacts with the subject.
This illustrates maximum tilt:
(http://www.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=114256&d=1447712626&thumb=1)
And this one maximal shift:
(http://www.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=114257&d=1447712658&thumb=1)
The enclosed image shows the HCam Master TSII with a Novoflex Canon EF to Hasselblad V adapter in my bag.
I happen to have a bunch of Hasselblad lenses, which is fortunate. But, Hasselblad lenses are abundant and quite affordable. Obviously not as good as a Rodenstock HR, but if we are not pixel peeping to mutch, they will do fine.
Best regards
Erik
(*) According to Stefan Steib (maker of the HCam) the Canon 11-24/4 gives generous amount of shift on the HCam. The 16-35/4 mm gives just a few mm at 16 and quite a bit more at > 20 mm. The HCam does not control aperture, so the lens needs to be stopped down before mounting on HCam.
Shift and tilt are orthogonal on the HCam. Some photographers use the HCam with an extra Kipon or Mirex T&S adapter to allow tilt and shift in the same direction.
Technical cameras with full geared movements are clearly more ergonomic, but the HCam actually fits easily in lens size slot in the backpack and costs around 800€.
As a Credo 50 and A7RII user, I would like to suggest the most important difference between the 5DSR and H5D-50c is how you plan to use them and not purely their differences in image quality. Using a digital back on a view camera or technical camera or MF system on a tripod will change how you interact with your subject. The tilt and swing capabilities of a view camera or technical camera with a digital back will offer controls that a DSLR or mirrorless camera can't match, unless used on a view camera. You will likely have have fewer lens choices using a MF system and certainly using a view camera than what is available for your Canon, which again may change how you interact with your subject matter.
If you agree that pixel peeping and the last bit of dynamic range don't ultimately make our photos more interesting, then I would carefully consider how the ergonomics of each system will impact your shooting as a primary concern for evaluating the benefit of each to your photography.
Drew Harty
-
Hi,
But the OP is shooting Canon. Canon has some T&S lenses like 17/4, 24/3.5 (and also 45 and 90 mm). Would that no be enough, Schneider also makes some T&S lenses. Hartblei.DE also make a set of T&S lenses based on the same lens groups as used by the Hasselblad 40/4 CFE IF, Planar 80/CFE and Planar 120/4 CFE.
It is also possible to Hasselblad V, Mamiya and Zencanon lenses with a Mirex or Kipon T&S adapter. But, it is not possible to stack two T&S adapters on the Canon.
Anyway, Canon users don't need to switch system for T&S options…
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
It is quite possible to use the Sony A7rII with T&S. Personally I use a HCam Master TSII with a bunch of Hasselblad V-series lenses and also a Canon 16-35/4L zoom. The HCam gives something like 12 mm of shift with Hasselblad lenses and also allows 11 degrees of tilt. (*)
...