Hasselblad 39MP verse 50MP - anyone compare for Landscape work?

[Lust4Life]

Has anyone doing Landscape work upgrade from the 39MP to 50MP Hasselblad, and if so, did you find the premium in cost REALLY  worth it?  Would you do it again?

Thanks,
Jack

[Dick Roadnight]

Has anyone doing Landscape work upgrade from the 39MP to 50MP Hasselblad, and if so, did you find the premium in cost REALLY  worth it?  Would you do it again? Thanks, Jack

Are you using a Hasselblad body or the DCU on a view camera?

I am thinking of upgrading to the 60Mpx, for 24 * 36" @ 360 ppi, but with the Silvestri sliding stitching back I can get enough res.

I think that the way to annihilate the Nikon/Canon competition is to produce work and order of magnitude better.

[Lust4Life]

I'm currently shooting the H3DII with the Hasselblad 39MP back.  Constantly making use of the 28mm lens, but alsos have the 80 and 150.

I've been pondering the HTS and I'm waiting to see if my dealer can get me one to try out.  If that gives me the DOF I miss from my 4x5 days, then my money is spent.  If it doesn't, then I'll take a look at the Arca RM3d unit - just hate having to invest in all the Arca lenses when I have all this money tied up in Hassie glass.

But back to my question.  Since Hasselblad has abandoned those of us with 39MP cameras  by not offering the historical upgrade pricing(and yet they offer a 50MP to 60MP upgrade path), and they were recently offering "demo" 39MP rigs for around $16K with a 6 month warranty, we're now forced into the resale market to get rid of our current rigs AND faced with a severe dollar loss (at least for those of us who bought in at the near retail price of $22K).  Considering the financial loss we'll take, is the improvement in image quality really worth it?  

Just how much better of an image will you get verse the 39MP using the best of up-resing software?
I'm seeking someone shooting landscape that has actually evaluated this question and has reached an opinion.

Jack

PS:  Base of the issue:  Is 39MP so good compared to what we had with film, that it's "good enough" to remove the justification to spend cash in these economic times to "upgrade" to 50 or 60MP?  Who has actually tested it and found out?

Are you using a Hasselblad body or the DCU on a view camera?

I am thinking of upgrading to the 60Mpx, for 24 * 36" @ 360 ppi, but with the Silvestri sliding stitching back I can get enough res.

I think that the way to annihilate the Nikon/Canon competition is to produce work and order of magnitude better.

[Dustbak]

In response to your base question

I have not compared my 39MP images to 50MP images. but for me the 39MP is more than adequate but I can understand for a landscape photographer big enough doesn't exist. I have no other reason than self-indulgence to upgrade one of my 39MP backs to 50MP. I admit I have a bit easier decision because there currently is nothing beyond the CF39(MS) that I use. With the 39MP equipment I make images used on the web up to panels 4m x 2m (which looked awesome).

I have already decided to get the HTS because even if it cannot completely replace my Rollei X-Act it will certainly be adequate for about 75% of everything I do with the X-Act. For landscape you use a fairly minimal amount of tilt don't you? In that case I see no reason why the HTS couldn't be used...

[Dick Roadnight]

I'm currently shooting the H3DII with the Hasselblad 39MP back.  Constantly making use of the 28mm lens, but alsos have the 80 and 150.

I've been pondering the HTS and I'm waiting to see if my dealer can get me one to try out.  If that gives me the DOF I miss from my 4x5 days, then my money is spent.  If it doesn't, then I'll take a look at the Arca RM3d unit - just hate having to invest in all the Arca lenses when I have all this money tied up in Hassie glass.

You could get movements and (more than) double the res by going for a view camera and sliding stitching back, but not without buying more lenses.

[Peter Bur]

I'm currently shooting the H3DII with the Hasselblad 39MP back.  Constantly making use of the 28mm lens, but alsos have the 80 and 150.

I've been pondering the HTS and I'm waiting to see if my dealer can get me one to try out.  If that gives me the DOF I miss from my 4x5 days, then my money is spent.  If it doesn't, then I'll take a look at the Arca RM3d unit - just hate having to invest in all the Arca lenses when I have all this money tied up in Hassie glass.

But back to my question.  Since Hasselblad has abandoned those of us with 39MP cameras  by not offering the historical upgrade pricing(and yet they offer a 50MP to 60MP upgrade path), and they were recently offering "demo" 39MP rigs for around $16K with a 6 month warranty, we're now forced into the resale market to get rid of our current rigs AND faced with a severe dollar loss (at least for those of us who bought in at the near retail price of $22K).  Considering the financial loss we'll take, is the improvement in image quality really worth it?  

Just how much better of an image will you get verse the 39MP using the best of up-resing software?
I'm seeking someone shooting landscape that has actually evaluated this question and has reached an opinion.

Jack

PS:  Base of the issue:  Is 39MP so good compared to what we had with film, that it's "good enough" to remove the justification to spend cash in these economic times to "upgrade" to 50 or 60MP?  Who has actually tested it and found out?

Jack,

I am going through a similar process for landscapes images and have just started to try out Helicon Focus software using stacked images from my H3D. Looks quite promising but much more work needed to get the technique right, worth a trial download before buying more kit.  

Peter.

[BernardLanguillier]

I think that the way to annihilate the Nikon/Canon competition is to produce work and order of magnitude better.

You'd better start stitching if "annihilate the Nikon/Canon competition" in terms of resolution is your goal...

This does of course not apply to all type of images, but it very clearly does for landscape.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Lust4Life]

Hi Peter - Yes, I've also been experimenting with Helicon Focus.
Getting the right "secret handshake" to give me images that have the finished look of those on their web site is still a work in progress.
Good idea for another topic/thread - Best technique for Helicon Focus.

Jack

Jack,

I am going through a similar process for landscapes images and have just started to try out Helicon Focus software using stacked images from my H3D. Looks quite promising but much more work needed to get the technique right, worth a trial download before buying more kit.  

Peter.

[hubell]

Hi Peter - Yes, I've also been experimenting with Helicon Focus.
Getting the right "secret handshake" to give me images that have the finished look of those on their web site is still a work in progress.
Good idea for another topic/thread - Best technique for Helicon Focus.

Jack

Jack, have a look at Joseph Holmes' website. He has an excellent writeup about Helicon Focus with some very useful tips.

[vjbelle]

Has anyone doing Landscape work upgrade from the 39MP to 50MP Hasselblad, and if so, did you find the premium in cost REALLY  worth it?  Would you do it again?

Thanks,
Jack

The only real way you are going to answer this question is to shoot with both backs and compare prints.  I shoot landscapes with a P45 and would never consider the 50MP.    

A 39MP back will produce a 'Beautiful' 30 inch 360PPI print.  I really should say 'Stunning' since it really is.  All sorts of fine detail - this assumes you have a very good work-flow.  Dealers  have talked me out of the 60MP back - there just isn't enough bang for the buck.  If you own a 39MP now then shoot and be happy.  No matter what, shoot your 39MP against whatever you think will be better and print the results.  That's the only way you'll know.

[BobDavid]

The only real way you are going to answer this question is to shoot with both backs and compare prints.  I shoot landscapes with a P45 and would never consider the 50MP.    

A 39MP back will produce a 'Beautiful' 30 inch 360PPI print.  I really should say 'Stunning' since it really is.  All sorts of fine detail - this assumes you have a very good work-flow.  Dealers  have talked me out of the 60MP back - there just isn't enough bang for the buck.  If you own a 39MP now then shoot and be happy.  No matter what, shoot your 39MP against whatever you think will be better and print the results.  That's the only way you'll know.

Of course, Michael R. says there's a big difference between 39MP and 60MP. But, I can't see what he's talking about by looking at the samples he's posted on the web. I'm sure there's an appreciable difference if you put your nose up to the prints. However, I wouldn't be surprised if a 39MP back with a Digitar produced a result comparable to a 60MP back exposed through Mamiya glass.  A 39MP back will certainly render wide dynamic range, excellent color, and a robust file that will stand up to a beating in Photoshop. Finally, I really think that the most significant thing is content. I've seen a lot of boring photos shot with 22, 39, and 60MP backs. There are some good deals to be had with used P45s and H3D-39s.

[MichaelAlanBielat]

You'd better start stitching if "annihilate the Nikon/Canon competition" in terms of resolution is your goal...

This does of course not apply to all type of images, but it very clearly does for landscape.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ehhh... Gonna have to disagree with you on this one a bit Bernard. The only thing Nikon and Canon have in competition with a company like Hasselblad is that they sell more and are cheaper to buy...

If you get a Hassy, you are not just getting the resolution but so much more. I was a total doubter myself, I thought what does this $20,000+  camera have that my Nikon's don't? Then I demoed one and tried it out. It is really night and day really. Sure Canon and Nikon have 24mp-ish bodies but that is where the comparison stops in my eyes. I was juggling between the Nikon D3X and the Hasselblad H3DII-31. I'm an NPS member so I had one shipped to me to try out. It was awesome. I could use my Nikon lenses and all was well... Then I demoed a Hasselblad. From that point on, there was no such thing as a D3X. You really have to see it to believe it and compare the images side by side and weight the bells and whistles.

For starters, Hasselblad and their Phocus software automatically corrects for lens distortion, APO correction, vignetting, moire and so on with the click of a checkbox. That makes for a much, much easier set of images for stitching (or just one image). Plus don't even get me started on the Hasselblad colorspace...

I don't want it to sound like a Hassy commercial. All in all, there really isn't much comparison between the Canon/Nikon brands and Hasselblad other than the resolution numbers being close to one another... I was a doubter but this shinny Hassy sitting at my desk means that I saw the difference and never looked back. I still have my Nikon equipment because it is still convenient to have and they still serve a purpose to me.

I did try out the 39 and 50mp backs as well... They are killer and yes you can see the difference between the three! I picked the 31 because of the extra ISO stop. To me that was very important for a majority of my needs (weddings and portraits). The only bummer with the 31mp back is the 1.3x crop factor while the 39 and 50mp have a 1.1x crop factor. It would be nice for my wide angle to be a bit more wide you know?

[Lust4Life]

Michael,

I have to agree with your comments and would like to add that there is a dramatic difference in the color ramp between the 14 bit of the Nikon and the 16 bit of the Hassie.

Jack

Ehhh... Gonna have to disagree with you on this one a bit Bernard. The only thing Nikon and Canon have in competition with a company like Hasselblad is that they sell more and are cheaper to buy...

If you get a Hassy, you are not just getting the resolution but so much more. I was a total doubter myself, I thought what does this $20,000+  camera have that my Nikon's don't? Then I demoed one and tried it out. It is really night and day really. Sure Canon and Nikon have 24mp-ish bodies but that is where the comparison stops in my eyes. I was juggling between the Nikon D3X and the Hasselblad H3DII-31. I'm an NPS member so I had one shipped to me to try out. It was awesome. I could use my Nikon lenses and all was well... Then I demoed a Hasselblad. From that point on, there was no such thing as a D3X. You really have to see it to believe it and compare the images side by side and weight the bells and whistles.

For starters, Hasselblad and their Phocus software automatically corrects for lens distortion, APO correction, vignetting, moire and so on with the click of a checkbox. That makes for a much, much easier set of images for stitching (or just one image). Plus don't even get me started on the Hasselblad colorspace...

I don't want it to sound like a Hassy commercial. All in all, there really isn't much comparison between the Canon/Nikon brands and Hasselblad other than the resolution numbers being close to one another... I was a doubter but this shinny Hassy sitting at my desk means that I saw the difference and never looked back. I still have my Nikon equipment because it is still convenient to have and they still serve a purpose to me.

I did try out the 39 and 50mp backs as well... They are killer and yes you can see the difference between the three! I picked the 31 because of the extra ISO stop. To me that was very important for a majority of my needs (weddings and portraits). The only bummer with the 31mp back is the 1.3x crop factor while the 39 and 50mp have a 1.1x crop factor. It would be nice for my wide angle to be a bit more wide you know?

[Dick Roadnight]

Ehhh... Gonna have to disagree with you on this one a bit Bernard. The only thing Nikon and Canon have in competition with a company like Hasselblad is that they sell more and are cheaper to buy...

If you get a Hassy, you are not just getting the resolution but so much more.

I Think we are in agreement - I was talking about shift and stitch with a Hasselblad DCU/view camera/stitching back, not pan and stitch with a Nikon in an attempt to produce quality.

[BernardLanguillier]

If you get a Hassy, you are not just getting the resolution but so much more. I was a total doubter myself, I thought what does this $20,000+  camera have that my Nikon's don't? Then I demoed one and tried it out. It is really night and day really. Sure Canon and Nikon have 24mp-ish bodies but that is where the comparison stops in my eyes. I was juggling between the Nikon D3X and the Hasselblad H3DII-31.

For starters, Hasselblad and their Phocus software automatically corrects for lens distortion, APO correction, vignetting, moire and so on with the click of a checkbox. That makes for a much, much easier set of images for stitching (or just one image). Plus don't even get me started on the Hasselblad colorspace...

Glad your Hassy set up works for you.

DxO does the same for 35 mm bodies if you need this, but I have never had any problem stitching with regular C1 Pro conversions from the D3x. The whole thing is to use the right lens, in my case mostly a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 macro.

I'll be a believer about the Hassy difference as a stitching platform the day I'll see a difference in print, and so far I have not seen any. The very slight advantage the Hassy has in terms of reslution and sharpness per pixel (smaller for stitching since the amount of pixels on the long end matters) is quickly compensated by the amount of images stitched and there is no looking back beyond that. For a variety of obvious reasons, it is a lot easier to shoot many frames with a D3x.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Michael,

I have to agree with your comments and would like to add that there is a dramatic difference in the color ramp between the 14 bit of the Nikon and the 16 bit of the Hassie.

I would love to see this because the people on this forum who have actually analyzed the recent MFDB files claim that they contain in fact no more than 14 bits of information.

Could you post an example shot in the same conditions showing this difference?

Cheers,
Bernard

[tho_mas]

The very slight advantage the Hassy has in terms of reslution and sharpness per pixel (smaller for stitching since the amount of pixels on the long end matters) is quickly compensated by the amount of images stitched and there is no looking back beyond that. For a variety of obvious reasons, it is a lot easier to shoot many frames with a D3x.

but you are aware that one can stitch with the Hassy or any DB as well? With the Contax 4/120 macro or even the Contax 2/80 it's no problem. You just shoot much less frames than with the DSLR... therefore it's much faster and much less postproduction.
However stitching is not the answer to all questions...

[vjbelle]

I'll be a believer about the Hassy difference as a stitching platform the day I'll see a difference in print, and so far I have not seen any. The very slight advantage the Hassy has in terms of reslution and sharpness per pixel (smaller for stitching since the amount of pixels on the long end matters) is quickly compensated by the amount of images stitched and there is no looking back beyond that. For a variety of obvious reasons, it is a lot easier to shoot many frames with a D3x.

Cheers,
Bernard

This is really all about printing, right?  I think some of the comments about DX3 or similar resolution DSLR's are really not very well founded.  I shoot with both a digital back and DSLR so I feel that I can comment about both.  If you are going to print 30 inches in the long direction from a single image then you may need 39MP.  There is a slight visual difference between 21-24 and 39MP - but you gotta really be looking close!  If you are printing to 24 inches in the long direction from a single image then, from my point of view, 39MP and the associated costs are complete over kill and simply not worth it.  

I took a trip to Yosemite a month ago with both of my systems (P45/5DII) and never took the Hassy out.  I shot mostly three and four shot flat pano's with my Canon 100mm Macro (killer lens) and 200L 2.8.  These lenses are tack sharp and produced images that are stunning.  I printed two images out to 40 inches and there is lots and lots of fine detail.  

Granted there are other considerations that could include lens selections (especially wide angle) and technical cameras that would, then, limit what is available in the 35mm world as compared to the digital back world.  But, if its just pixels it boils down to what size are you printing.  

Happy shooting......

[BlasR]

This is really all about printing, right?  I think some of the comments about DX3 or similar resolution DSLR's are really not very well founded.  I shoot with both a digital back and DSLR so I feel that I can comment about both.  If you are going to print 30 inches in the long direction from a single image then you may need 39MP.  There is a slight visual difference between 21-24 and 39MP - but you gotta really be looking close!  If you are printing to 24 inches in the long direction from a single image then, from my point of view, 39MP and the associated costs are complete over kill and simply not worth it.  

I took a trip to Yosemite a month ago with both of my systems (P45/5DII) and never took the Hassy out.  I shot mostly three and four shot flat pano's with my Canon 100mm Macro (killer lens) and 200L 2.8.  These lenses are tack sharp and produced images that are stunning.  I printed two images out to 40 inches and there is lots and lots of fine detail.  

Granted there are other considerations that could include lens selections (especially wide angle) and technical cameras that would, then, limit what is available in the 35mm world as compared to the digital back world.  But, if its just pixels it boils down to what size are you printing.  

Happy shooting......

Wow,

so you like more the 5d2?

I have the h3d-50 and the 5d2 and I took the photo with both,

I deleted the one from the 5d2, is like a night in day looking at then.

now why you don't sale your 39?  the 5d2 is better no

congrat to you


BlasR

[BernardLanguillier]

but you are aware that one can stitch with the Hassy or any DB as well? With the Contax 4/120 macro or even the Contax 2/80 it's no problem. You just shoot much less frames than with the DSLR... therefore it's much faster and much less postproduction.
However stitching is not the answer to all questions...

I did that with a ZD long enough to be fully aware that it can be done... but that it is a lot less efficient than with a DSLR...

- the setups tend to be heavier,
- the buffer and shooting speed are lower
- you have less DoF and this multiplies the frames that need to be shot at each pano position or need to shoot longer exposures with poses problems with skies
- you have poor long exposure image quality and dark frame kicks in quicker which again poses problems with dusk and dawn shots
- you have less reach which really limits the potential for real high resolution panos and less wide which makes it harder to shooter really wide panos quickly
- you have less integration with robotic heads
- you have less light fall off issues in the corners
- the need to check for moire issues on really high resolution images can be very time consuming
- ...

As far as being able to stich fewer frames, yes to some extend, but the 35 mm format being less square the need to shoot multiple rows is in fact not reduced that much.

But if I were to stitch with a MFDB I would for sure go for a Leaf 56 and nothing else because that could really help me reducing the need for multi-row panos.

Cheers,
Bernard