Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: EinstStein on January 15, 2020, 11:21:11 am
-
What medium format system is the best that can shoot film and digital?
-
H5 or H6.
-
What medium format system is the best that can shoot film and digital?
If you mean currently available options, there are only 2:
Hasselblad H6D (with Hasselblad 100mp digital back)
Hasselblad H6X (with Phase One 100mp digital back)
There are no other medium format SLR cameras that are currently being manufacturered that accept both film and digital backs.
Naturally if you consider legacy bodies, there are many more to choose from.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
is this new hasselblad (https://www.hasselblad.com/cfv-ii-50c-907x/) shipping yet?
-
I see your point is around its 100mp.
Personally I think the pixel count is one of the least important factor. I own a HB-H system but not so much impressed by its lens and user interface. I much prefer the HB-V system for the flexible format, the Zeise. Glass , the robustness and the overall user interface. Alas the digital back is hard to get consistent focusing.
-
If you mean currently available options, there are only 2:
Hasselblad H6D (with Hasselblad 100mp digital back)
Hasselblad H6X (with Phase One 100mp/150mp digital back)
There are no other medium format SLR cameras that are currently being manufacturered that accept both film and digital backs.
Naturally if you consider legacy bodies, there are many more to choose from.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Alpa?
-
Wait, Steve the H6X takes the 150mp Phase?
-
Wait, Steve the H6X takes the 150mp Phase?
Ah, Doug, you're correct. I'll have to edit that.
For the others, I specifically stated "SLR" cameras, knowing that otherwise most view cameras/tech cameras could qualify, but sensing that was not what the OP had in mind.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
And here you had me all excited...damn
-
What medium format system is the best that can shoot film and digital?
I would say none.
Why do you want it? To me only useful for the occasional IR shot or something unless you are interested in very long exposures.
The hybrid system was sort of a transition up to the H3D then they brought it back for H5 and H6 but that is a serious digital camera that they have allowed film back to be resurrected on.
If you want to shoot film then why restrict to 645? Go say 6x6 or even RZ67 with a decent size negative for probably less money than a film back and have another camera.
-
Film has its own beauty, not a transition. Is painting a transition to photography?
And it's preferred to carry only one system that can do both film and digital.
150mp? nay, can someone show me the difference from a 24mp? no, I don't have an IMAX screen.
I would say none.
Why do you want it? To me only useful for the occasional IR shot or something unless you are interested in very long exposures.
The hybrid system was sort of a transition up to the H3D then they brought it back for H5 and H6 but that is a serious digital camera that they have allowed film back to be resurrected on.
If you want to shoot film then why restrict to 645? Go say 6x6 or even RZ67 with a decent size negative for probably less money than a film back and have another camera.
-
Film has its own beauty, not a transition. Is painting a transition to photography?
And it's preferred to carry only one system that can do both film and digital.
150mp? nay, can someone show me the difference from a 24mp? no, I don't have an IMAX screen.
If you don't print big for gallery viewing standards and / or you don't pixel peep, there may not be a significant difference to speak of.
Otherwise, for example in 1meters prints, at 20cm to 1m viewing distance, the differences will stare you in the face - and nobody can or should even convince you about anything until you do your own testing, for your final output and viewing distance.
Online images, with their small sizes and the social media / forums compression algorithms may not be able to tell you a very meaningful story, and you'll just end up stirring the same meaningless megapixel and format internet wars, over and over again. With little added value.
-
How did this turn into a debate over megapixel counts?
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
It shouldn't. PIXEL count is normally most interested among spec readers. More advanced spec readers might also pay attention to the number of bits in ADC, etc.
I often see Leica fans carrying two Leica M bodies, M9 or M10 or M240,.etc. for digital, M3 or M6 etc. for film. I wonder what would be the choice for medium format.
Hasselblad and Contax come immediately to my mind, but I am curious what other choices and why.
I just don't think this should focus only on the digital back, at least not about the paper numbers in the specs.
-
The issue is you put out there 'current' as in able to purchase new. At this time the only option is the H based setup with a 100mp sensor to match the frame size of film. If you wanted to deal with used gear, there are lots of options, but the sensor won't be the same size as the film exposed. The Hasselblad V setup would be fairly close, but you can't purchase a new 503cw, but the CFV II 50c or using an adapter with the V lenses on a X1D/GFX is possible. Going with a CCD back would get you closer to the film size, but the price just went up.
The Leica setup doesn't translate to the MF world. There are lots of cool MF film cameras, rangefinders included, that don't have a digital mate.
-
I'm totally biased but I still think the Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod2 is the best film and digital camera out there. Real shame that nobody makes digital backs for them anymore but you can find used backs and the cameras are still available new.
-
Is there some compelling reason to want to do both with a single camera? Given the price of the Hasselblad H6 100MP cameras, I suspect it would be a lot cheaper to compromise and use a Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X1D for digital and obtain a relatively inexpensive film camera, eg a Mamiya RB or Hasselblad V for film. Sadly these superb film bodies and their lenses are quite inexpensive these days.
-
Tried the new Fuji and hasselblad digital， personally I much more prefer the lasso all Zeiss glass.
Cannot say the digital dedicated glasses are worse, but certainly they have different taste.
So Even if I am willing to take two different systems, the two systems you mentioned do not have the heat attraction.
-
I'm totally biased but I still think the Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod2 is the best film and digital camera out there. Real shame that nobody makes digital backs for them anymore but you can find used backs and the cameras are still available new.
I’m partial to the Contax 645. I think that Leaf still makes backs in Contax mount. If not, and used is acceptable Phase made Contax backs through IQ 280.
-
I’m partial to the Contax 645. I think that Leaf still makes backs in Contax mount. If not, and used is acceptable Phase made Contax backs through IQ 280.
Unfortunately, Leaf no longer makes any digital backs, and Phase One digital backs are no longer offered in Contax mount.
The second hand market is the place to find Contax-mount digital backs, though they are increasingly rare. The last Contax back I sold was a Phase One IQ180 that went to one of my wedding shooting clients last May.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Tried the new Fuji and hasselblad digital， personally I much more prefer the lasso all Zeiss glass.
Cannot say the digital dedicated glasses are worse, but certainly they have different taste.
So Even if I am willing to take two different systems, the two systems you mentioned do not have the heat attraction.
if 50mpix is enough and you love the Hasselblad V system then this hasselblad (https://www.hasselblad.com/cfv-ii-50c-907x/) is perfect for you....should be shipping in 02/2020
use with existing V cameras and lenses or with the new X lenses....all in one truly modern package (internal battery, SD cards, usb C,....) at a decent price....
-
if 50mpix is enough and you love the Hasselblad V system then this hasselblad (https://www.hasselblad.com/cfv-ii-50c-907x/) is perfect for you....should be shipping in 02/2020
use with existing V cameras and lenses or with the new X lenses....all in one truly modern package (internal battery, SD cards, usb C,....) at a decent price....
The resemblance to the Hasselblad V system is solely cosmetic, so is that why you recommend the 907x with CVF II 50D over the functionally almost equivalent X1D II 50C? (V lenses via adaptor and with heavy crop either way.)
-
The resemblance to the Hasselblad V system is solely cosmetic, so is that why you recommend the 907x with CVF II 50D over the functionally almost equivalent X1D II 50C? (V lenses via adaptor and with heavy crop either way.)
the 907x is the body, the CVF II50D is the back which can be used on V bodies...
I used to shoot phase backs on mamiya 645 and 67 and rollei 6008 so I am painfully aware of the crop in the actual chimney finder and how hard it is to focus...I think the flip up lcd of the CVF II will make things easier... although it is only 3inch compared to the 3.6 of the X1DII...
I still think it might be a fun solution....and the switch between film and digital back is just that....
-
The best digital backs are still the CCD. Hasselblad CF39 are still easy to find which can fit many MF systems, including Contax, Hasselblad, etc., even Fujifilm GX680. The Contax 645 back adapter is harder find. If found the digital back with Contax mount, I would go for it without thinking.
-
Hasselblad XCD lenses are made by Japanese company Nittos, not that it is an inferior maker , but it has never been a top list of preferred Known brand names.
-
the 907x is the body, the CVF II50D is the back which can be used on V bodies...
OK: so it’s mainly the back that interests you, for the sake using the same V body and lenses with either film or digital backs. It might be a better match to work with 645 film format and lenses, but those options seem to be dwindling
-
OK: so it’s mainly the back that interests you, for the sake using the same V body and lenses with either film or digital backs. It might be a better match to work with 645 film format and lenses, but those options seem to be dwindling
Personally I feel Hasselblad XCD format is too much cropped. It starts to be too close to the full frame 35mm. It is a waste to use the 645 or 6x6 format lens (use 6x7 format lens? OMG!)
I would expect the film/digital exchangeable to be 645. Cropping it to 49x37 is already evil but barely acceptable . Further reduced is criminal!
-
I would expect the film/digital exchangeable to be 645. Cropping it to 49x37 is already evil but barely acceptable.
I can accept that desire to avoid all but a slight crop. But it means that the first two responses in this thread state the only (in production) options; otherwise you are into the second hand market for Contax or Mamiya 645 gear and compatible digital backs; a super-abundance of pixels are an unavoidable side-effect.
And if as you suggest, 24MP is enough for you (and I can very much go along with that too), a far less bulk and costly option is separate kits; a 645 (or 6x6, or even 6x7) film system and whatever digital system inspires you.
-
I can accept that desire to avoid all but a slight crop. But it means that the first two responses in this thread state the only (in production) options; otherwise you are into the second hand market for Contax or Mamiya 645 gear and compatible digital backs; a super-abundance of pixels are an unavoidable side-effect.
And if as you suggest, 24MP is enough for you (and I can very much go along with that too), a far less bulk and costly option is separate kits; a 645 (or 6x6, or even 6x7) film system and whatever digital system inspires you.
There are plenty of 22mP 645 digital back. There are also plenty of 39mp .
I do not reject high MP digital back, I just don’t see much benefit compare to good optical glass.
It is a shame Zeiss is no longer active in making MF glasses. That sweet classical image rendering lenses is hard to find in the high MP digital computing centric systems.
-
There are plenty of 22mP 645 digital back. There are also plenty of 39mp .
I do not reject high MP digital back, I just don’t see much benefit compare to good optical glass.
It is a shame Zeiss is no longer active in making MF glasses. That sweet classical image rendering lenses is hard to find in the high MP digital computing centric systems.
Indeed there are old 22MP and 39MP 49x37mm CCD backs around; that goes with my thought that "second-hand Contax 645 gear and compatible digital backs" is the best fit for you, now that you have stated all your preferences. (I now narrow it to Contax 645 system, for the sake of its Zeiss lenses that you apparently prefer.)
I am just skeptical that those older lens designs and obsolete CCD sensors with far more noise and less dynamic range (even per pixel, before the dithering benefit of being able to print at higher PPI with a higher pixel count sensor) still have an IQ advantage over more recent MF systems, or even over the best current 35mm format sensors and lenses.
-
You are right I am leaning toward Hasselblad V and Contax. I am also fond of Rollei but I think it an be covered by the first two . I am not so much interested in Hasselblad as it is basically Fuji glass.
The digital sensor noise you are concerned is not much of a problem to me. I am an electronic engineer, the physical law did not Chang much in the resent years . When the semiconductor technology moves into deeper and deeper sub micron, it is the software computing that helps the high ISO .In the base ISO I found the digital backs you mentioned are actual more pleasing to my taste, especially the CCD . If I may , I would call it classical . It is in line with the old Seiss glass.
I do not see much improvement in glasses except in dealing with the digital sensor. But even so I still prefer the half century old Leica M lenses than the modern ones in many cases. This is exactly what I feel comparing the Hasselblad Zeiss. And the Hasselblad Nittoh
I helieve many Leica M players may share the similar view.
If I were to compromise the deep cropped MF , I would SimplyCamino choose Leica S or 35mm FF. That is an easy choice.
-
You are right I am leaning toward Hasselblad V and Contax. I am also fond of Rollei but I think it an be covered by the first two . I am not so much interested in Hasselblad as it is basically Fuji glass.
I definitely second your opinion on the H glass. We came back to RZ after shooting the H for some time, never liked the look and hated the CA. Still love the RZ glass, what a pity Phase decided to kill the line.
-
The digital sensor noise you are concerned is not much of a problem to me. I am an electronic engineer, the physical law did not Chang much in the resent years . When the semiconductor technology moves into deeper and deeper sub micron, it is the software computing that helps the high ISO .In the base ISO I found the digital backs you mentioned are actual more pleasing to my taste, especially the CCD
My understanding is that one big factor is the way that active pixel sensor design (so-called CMOS sensors) greatly reduce the noise floor, from over 10e- 16e- in those Kodak CCDs to about 2e- or less; this in part by applying amplification early in a direct signal transfer from photosite to sensor edge, as opposed to the unamplified charge transfer by hopping through successive photosites en route to the corner of the CCD.
-
Hi,
I happened to do an absolutely unscientific poll on a couple of images shot with a modern era mirrorless camera and a classical MFD.
- Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ back and Distagon 60/3.5, probably or f/11 or f/8. This is classical Zeiss with 39 MP CCD
- Sony A7rII with a Sigma 24-105/4 lens at 46 mm and f/7.1. This is a modern CMOS camera with a modern zoom lens.
For best comparison f/8 would be needed on the Hasselblad, but I mostly use it at f/11. This case could be f/8. I don't know.
- Processing was done in Lightroom, using color profiles made with LumaRiver Profile Designer.
- WB was set on a darker part of the white clouds. That was the best compromise I could find.
- Other processing parameters are the same
Analyzing exposure in post with RawDigger, the P45+ image is essentially exposed to the right, with highlights very close to clipping. The Sony image is around one EV from ETTR, so highlights are 1EV from saturation.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63578554
Here is a link to the images: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/WhichIs_MFD/
Just comparing two images doesn't tell a full story, but it may be interesting. Or it may not.
Best regards
Erik
-
You are right I am leaning toward Hasselblad V and Contax. I am also fond of Rollei but I think it an be covered by the first two . I am not so much interested in Hasselblad as it is basically Fuji glass.
Hi,
The H-lenses are in part designed by Hasselblad, with Hasselblad doing basic design and Fujifilm doing final design. Proportions between Hasselblad and Fujifilm efforts vary from lens to lens.
I wouldn't discount the H-lenses as 'Fuji glass', Fujifilm is know as a maker of excellent lenses.
I have used most of the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad 555/ELD, so I am bit familiar with them. I have also used Pentax 67 lenses, but only with film.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
The H-lenses are in part designed by Hasselblad, with Hasselblad doing basic design and Fujifilm doing final design. Proportions between Hasselblad and Fujifilm efforts vary from lens to lens.
I wouldn't discount the H-lenses as 'Fuji glass', Fujifilm is know as a maker of excellent lenses.
I have used most of the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad 555/ELD, so I am bit familiar with them. I have also used Pentax 67 lenses, but only with film.
Best regards
Erik
I actual like the Fuji GX680 It is fantastic with film, but not so with digital. I also had a GW690, but although it has 6x9 image size on film, I found Hasselblad 6x6 prints better on paper. Once adds the portability, 6x6 or 645 is the limit in size.
What you said about Hasselblad’s efforts in the H system and the relationship with Fujifilm may be better described by Hasselblad’s own words, they said the H system is produced by Fujifilm according to Hasselblad’s spec. I think what you mean that Hasselblad did the high level design may be just create the requirement. Of course there is nothing wrong. In the end of the day, in terms of competent , or the “DNA”, H is still a Fujifilm. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just like that BMW is BMW, Hyundai is Hyundai, both are good, it is up to the user’s taste.
-
My understanding is that one big factor is the way that active pixel sensor design (so-called CMOS sensors) greatly reduce the noise floor, from over 10e- 16e- in those Kodak CCDs to about 2e- or less; this in part by applying amplification early in a direct signal transfer from photosite to sensor edge, as opposed to the unamplified charge transfer by hopping through successive photosites en route to the corner of the CCD.
Noise is only one of the imaging factor. CMOS also has the advantages in speed, cost, power, and voltage mode image sensing.
As far as I know, CCD has wider and less distorted light spectrum response. This translate to color rendering, It is also change mode sensing. I think for those people strongly favor the CCD (over CMOS) are affected (but may not aware) by these factors. Most notable are perhaps the Leica M9 vs. the newer Leica Ms.
-
I actual like the Fuji GX680 It is fantastic with film, but not so with digital. I also had a GW690, but although it has 6x9 image size on film, I found Hasselblad 6x6 prints better on paper. Once adds the portability, 6x6 or 645 is the limit in size.
What you said about Hasselblad’s efforts in the H system and the relationship with Fujifilm may be better described by Hasselblad’s own words, they said the H system is produced by Fujifilm according to Hasselblad’s spec. I think what you mean that Hasselblad did the high level design may be just create the requirement. Of course there is nothing wrong. In the end of the day, in terms of competent , or the “DNA”, H is still a Fujifilm. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just like that BMW is BMW, Hyundai is Hyundai, both are good, it is up to the user’s taste.
No,
I actually had contact with the guy doing the lens design, Per Nordlund. Hasselblad does part of the lens design, using lens design programs like Zemax. The Hasselblad 2X extender was fully designed by Per Nordlund. With the rest it varies. Sometimes they do a large part of the design and some times a smaller part of the design.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/HB.PNG)
From this article: https://static.hasselblad.com/2015/02/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf
Best regards
Erik
-
Hasselblad XCD lenses are made by Japanese company Nittos, not that it is an inferior maker , but it has never been a top list of preferred Known brand names.
https://www.nittohkogaku.co.jp/en/
It is a manufacturer, not a lens brand.
Best regards
Erik
-
Noise is only one of the imaging factor. CMOS also has the advantages in speed, cost, power, and voltage mode image sensing.
As far as I know, CCD has wider and less distorted light spectrum response.
AFAIK, "light spectrum response" comes down to the choice of color filter array characteristics. It seemed that the large Kodak and Dalsa CCDs mostly highly prioritized color accuracy (at the cost of lower sensitivity; lower quantum efficiency) by having narrower spectral response in their color filters. Sensors for compact cameras went the opposite way, with substantially higher QE (60% vs 30-40% in some cases) but probably worse color accuracy. If I recall, CCDs for early DSLRs were in between on QE, and probably also in between on color accuracy. Of course, it could also have been related to Kodak and Dalsa having the best color science back then.
I have not kept up on how color accuracy and QE trends have gone since then.