Name the best medium format system for both film and digital

[EinstStein]

What medium format system is the best that can shoot film and digital?

[hasselbladfan]

H5 or H6.

[Steve Hendrix]

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

[pschefz]

is this new hasselblad shipping yet? 

[EinstStein]

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.

[Gigi]

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?

[douglevy]

Wait, Steve the H6X takes the 150mp Phase?

[Steve Hendrix]

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

[douglevy]

And here you had me all excited...damn

[BobShaw]

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.

[EinstStein]

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.

[nazdravanul]

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.

[Steve Hendrix]

How did this turn into a debate over megapixel counts?


Steve Hendrix/CI

[EinstStein]

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.

[Joe Towner]

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.

[EricWHiss]

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.

[Eric Brody]

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.

[EinstStein]

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.

[D Fuller]

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.

[Steve Hendrix]

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