Hello,
I'm coming from many years with Hasselblad and Sinar (film), moved 2004 to Canon digital. At the moment I work with EOS 1DsMkII and my main lenses are TS-E 24/45 and 24-70/2.8L, EF 85/1.2. I do mainly architecture and people. I decided against Alpa, Hy6, Sinar and Mamiya already! I could live with Canon. But I want to solve some issues:
- Every image taken with the TS-E's and the 24-70L need a lot of post production: PTLens, lens correction, noise reduction, stiching for higher resolution.
- For architecture jobs that means a lot of time in front of the computer and I would like to reduce that time.
Here are my questions:
- Who has experience in using the Hasselblad for architecture? Is postproduction (almost) just RAW conversion and does DAC do the trick?
- Can you compare the look of the HC 2.2/100@2.8 to the one of the EF 85/1.2@1.4?
- Is it so that the Hasselblad lenses geometrically well corrected? Resolution is not so much my point. I'm looking for undistorted images without CA - in architecture and people photography.
Any real experience is welcome.
Thank you,
Johannes
I use them all but the HTS 1.5, which is not out yet, I believe. The Canon TS-E lenses are OK, soft corners, and when shifted, visible poorer quality and very soft, with more raw processing it can get better, but not close to the regular fixed lenses, but when you have to work fast and not requiring super big image, the TS-E is an acceptable solution for some works, it is a subjective issue. The 24-70L is quite sharp, but distortion towards 70mm is not good, for portrait, avoid the face too close to the corner.
On the other hand, the H3D-39 and the lenses you mentioned are interesting, combine with the Phocus, they are in deed very good. The HCD 28 is quite sharp and compact, much smaller and lighter than the HC 35 and the DAC improve all the distortion control except the really close focus area. Since the HCD 28 is significant wider than the TSE-24, and of higher pixel counts when using with H3D-39, you can level the HCD28 for the shoot, and crop the image so it can get the perspective corrected look similar to that you try to get from the Canon and TSE-24 and without doubt, much sharper from corner to corner and visibly better final image. Of course, not much people may like the idea to shot a 39mp camera to get a file size similar to 16mp camera, but within the lines of your question, this is one alternative, and a very good one.
When DAC applied, you can see the very responsive correction in work, distortion and field curvature will be mostly corrected, I don't find fringe to be an issue even without DAC but I don't see why to disable the DAC. The 100/2.2 is a very good lens, with the soft focus area very close the feel like the 85/1.2 and both are very sharp. You can of course see the file produce from HC 100/2.2 + H3D-39 visibly sharper, but the 85/1.2 is perhaps just as sharp but may be the particular Canon CMOS design not able bring out the best result of this lens. I am also using 85/1.2L with 1Ds MK3, and it is among some lenses from the Canon line to hold up very well with the 22mp sensor.
Todays raw converter is so good that no longer the character of each lens has so much to do on the final image as they used to on films, so as the contrast of the lenses. I have never tried the HC lenses on film and I typically just enable all the DAC corrections on the Phocus so may be all the little flaws of the lenses were well corrected. Todays digital camera system come as a total package that is from the lens, camera, and software, and we may start to see the benefit of total integration system form Hasselblad, which if the HTS 1.5 is as good as Hasselblad claimed, may in deed be a very competitive system.
On the other hand, I also use and shot many images from varies systems, P45+ on Contax 645 and Sinar eMotion 75LV/Hy6, even they don't have the DAC, but the result is just as good. Beautiful images! At the end of the day, may be it needs to see beyond the 645/6X6 system itself, of course if you will be needing it, there are benefits that a digital backs has its choice to settle on which camera you like, or vice versa. Hasselblad's total integration system has its merit and the result of final image is nothing to critique. The Sinar system is most flexible, they go to varies camera systems within the same house, and accept broader accessories.
