Image Quality of the Hasselblad H3DII-31 compared to Nikon D3..

[MattBeardsley]

Hello LL,

I just posted the third and final part of my H3DII-31 review, an in-depth discussion of image quality, with a bit of comparison between the Hassy and my trusty D3.  I know the difference in resolution and price makes it an unfair contest, but the contrasts are really interesting I think.  Certainly each camera system has its strengths.  Thanks for reading!  thoughts?

http://photoartsmonthly.com/blog/2010/08/26/image-quality-and-the-hasselblad-h3dii-31/

[Jan. 2011 Update: I've scaled my blog up to a more serious Web-based magazine and updated the above link.  Thanks for taking a look!  Matt]

[Dustbak]

Pretty much supports what most people using MF already concluded I think? I did notice you consistently have your focus point slightly behind where one would expect it to be on the H3D images? This sets the H3D even at a bit of a disadvantage compared to the D3 shots which are where you would expect focus to be (all but the 2nd which is also just a tad behind).

I would normally not bother with this at all since I prefer the general look and expression of an image over the precise place of focus but for comparisons it is a different thing IMO.

[David Grover / Capture One]

Hello LL,

I just posted the third and final part of my H3DII-31 review, an in-depth discussion of image quality, with a bit of comparison between the Hassy and my trusty D3.  I know the difference in resolution and price makes it an unfair contest, but the contrasts are really interesting I think.  Certainly each camera system has its strengths.  Thanks for reading!  thoughts?

http://mattbeardsleyblog.com/2010/08/26/image-quality-and-the-hasselblad-h3dii-31/

Thanks Matt again for the very well rounded review.

By the way.  Our software is spelt Phocus with a 'Ph'!

David

[gazwas]

It must be worrying times for MF manufacturers when you look at results like this and see how close the IQ is between the two systems, especially considering purchase cost.  

It will be very interesting to see the next generation of Canon 1Ds and Nikon D4X cameras especially when the rumours suggest that Canon, while obviously increasing pixel count are concentrating on per pixel sharpness and dynamic range in its new camera....

MFD is still king of the hill......... but for how much longer?

[John R Smith]

It must be worrying times for MF manufacturers when you look at results like this and see how close the IQ is between the two systems, especially considering purchase cost.  

MFD is still king of the hill......... but for how much longer?

The fact is, 35mm DSLRs and MFD systems are both the result of legacy lens systems and entrenched habits from the days of film. As are the Leica M8 and M9, of course. If the manufacturers had been able to start with a clean sheet of paper then we would probably not have ended up with any of these systems. There is absolutely no inherent need for digital cameras to conform to any of the previous film formats or lens designs at all. Other than digital point-and shoot and compact examples, there have been very few attempts to design a high-end system from scratch, without any reference to a prior film paradigm. The only one which springs to mind recently is the Leica S2.

John

[AldoMurillo]

It will be very interesting to see the next generation of Canon 1Ds and Nikon D4X cameras especially when the rumours suggest that Canon, while obviously increasing pixel count are concentrating on per pixel sharpness and dynamic range in its new camera....

It will be very interesting to see the next generation of Phase One and Hasselblad cameras too

[gazwas]

It will be very interesting to see the next generation of Phase One and Hasselblad cameras too

I thought we'd just had them? HD4 and P40/P65.

[Dustbak]

So, you are now comparing existing MF equipment with something that isn't even out yet?

Furthermore, selective reading at its best. Consider using an iPhone and think about how close its quality comes to the Nikon D3. Especially considering purchase cost...

[MattBeardsley]

Thanks Matt again for the very well rounded review.

By the way.  Our software is spelt Phocus with a 'Ph'!

David

David, Thanks for catching the spelling error!  I should have remembered that...  I love PHocus!

[JoeKitchen]

First, who cares about quality comparisons?  To me, it is about the camera body and working with something that flows with what I do.  

The fact is, 35mm DSLRs and MFD systems are both the result of legacy lens systems and entrenched habits from the days of film. As are the Leica M8 and M9, of course. If the manufacturers had been able to start with a clean sheet of paper then we would probably not have ended up with any of these systems. There is absolutely no inherent need for digital cameras to conform to any of the previous film formats or lens designs at all. Other than digital point-and shoot and compact examples, there have been very few attempts to design a high-end system from scratch, without any reference to a prior film paradigm. The only one which springs to mind recently is the Leica S2.

John

And I do not understand this post.  Film records light, as does a digital sensor.  How do you physically change the design from once device (film) to another that practically does the same thing?  Why would you ignore all of the advancements made in camera tech over the century?  

Please give a specific example. 

[gazwas]

So, you are now comparing existing MF equipment with something that isn't even out yet?

Furthermore, selective reading at its best. Consider using an iPhone and think about how close its quality comes to the Nikon D3. Especially considering purchase cost...

A rather blinkered way of thinking as one is a phone and the other a professional camera..... 

It is of my opinion that the camera does not have the final word when it comes to the final image quality. I'm sure most would agree the photographers skill and lighting technique will have more an impact but when topics such as this highlight the pretty small diferences between the two formats compare is all we can do.

[John R Smith]

And I do not understand this post.  Film records light, as does a digital sensor.  How do you physically change the design from once device (film) to another that practically does the same thing?  Why would you ignore all of the advancements made in camera tech over the century?  

Joe

I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. Which was, that high-end digital cameras have thus far been based on a previous film paradigm in terms of film width (35mm or 120) which determines the size and shape of the camera box and also the set of lens focal lengths which accompanies it (based on the old film diagonal). This makes sense, of course, where the end user has (like me) a collection of very expensive legacy glass which can be re-used in a digital context.

But if you were starting with a clean sheet, it would be best to determine an optimal sensor size, specification and pixel density for high-end photography, and then design a camera system around that with a set of accompanying lenses of suitable focal length (whatever that happened to be). It might turn out to be neither "35mm" or "MF" but something rather different. Sounds a bit like the Leica S2, doesn't it?

John

[JoeKitchen]

Joe

I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. Which was, that high-end digital cameras have thus far been based on a previous film paradigm in terms of film width (35mm or 120) which determines the size and shape of the camera box and also the set of lens focal lengths which accompanies it (based on the old film diagonal). This makes sense, of course, where the end user has (like me) a collection of very expensive legacy glass which can be re-used in a digital context.

But if you were starting with a clean sheet, it would be best to determine an optimal sensor size, specification and pixel density for high-end photography, and then design a camera system around that with a set of accompanying lenses of suitable focal length (whatever that happened to be). It might turn out to be neither "35mm" or "MF" but something rather different. Sounds a bit like the Leica S2, doesn't it?

John

Ok, now I see your point. 

[uaiomex]

Actually I think that FF (35mm) has proven so far to be the best compromise between IQ, funcionality and price. Imho that is a godsend.
Eduardo

Joe

I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. Which was, that high-end digital cameras have thus far been based on a previous film paradigm in terms of film width (35mm or 120) which determines the size and shape of the camera box and also the set of lens focal lengths which accompanies it (based on the old film diagonal). This makes sense, of course, where the end user has (like me) a collection of very expensive legacy glass which can be re-used in a digital context.

But if you were starting with a clean sheet, it would be best to determine an optimal sensor size, specification and pixel density for high-end photography, and then design a camera system around that with a set of accompanying lenses of suitable focal length (whatever that happened to be). It might turn out to be neither "35mm" or "MF" but something rather different. Sounds a bit like the Leica S2, doesn't it?

John

[EricWHiss]

Hi Matt,
Thanks for your work here, but to be honest my first impression is that better IQ can be had by both cameras and perhaps some in the conversions too. 

[AldoMurillo]

Mark, nice review and blog by the way.  I've found the same "issues" with the hasselblad imaging workflow.  I miss lightroom catalog capabilities in Phocus, but I'm loving how Phocus process the files, so I'm often duplicating files too. 

Somebody would say the comparison it's no fair (nikon $4,500 vs a $11,995 camera, 2.6x in price tag) but we all know in life we always pay a premium for that "little differences" (models, cars, wine, the location of a house etc etc)  Well, even in the 35mm DSLR market we pay a premium. If not, why would you buy a Canon 1Ds Mark III over a 5d Mark II? (2.4x in price tag)
Why would you buy a Nikon D3s over a Nikon D700? (2.1x in price tag)
Why would you buy a Nikon D3x over a Sony Alpha A850? (3.6 in price tag)
Why would you buy a H4D-40 over a Nikon D3x? (2.4x in price tag)

Well, first, we want the best IQ we can get TODAY and if I can afford it why not?  I often hear "I wish I could take again all my porfolio images with my new X camera"  Well, I wish I could take again all my D700 images with the H4D-40 I have today
Second, we ALWAYS want that "little differences". Call it FF sensor, high ISO, fast FPS, better IQ, ergonomics etc etc...

If somebody thinks 35mm is getting closer to MFD they should look a d3x file vs a P65+ one... there's no comparison.

[BrendanStewart]

I won't go over the same points everyone makes, but i'm coming from a long lineage of Canon 5D and 5DMKII's. I love them to death and they are our workhorse cameras. I recently purchased the H3DII-31 and i was astounded, even after expecting the quality difference, at just how much of a difference there is.

However, i'm of the camp that he viewfinder isn't as bright and big as i was expecting. Maybe because i was coming from the 5DMKII which is fairly decent to begin with.

I was at Focal Point yesterday in Boston, and i had the chance to shoot the H4D-50 and i feel as though there is even a difference in files from the 31 to the 50. Visible difference that is.

In any case, the point i wanted to touch on may be a rather obvious one, but i rarely see it mentioned alone.

Retouching. If you do heavy retouching, it's obvious Hasselblad's are for you. But since we do a lot of weddings and don't have the luxury of having models with decent to good skin in front of our cameras, and so retouching is a very important aspect to us. Having the extra resolution to copy/clone or create texture that is believable is very important to us.

I think people often overlook this aspect to the resolution factor. Sure it's more pixels, but what does that actually mean for the everyday shooter that does a lot of retouching? No AA filter coupled with all that extra pixels leaves a lot of room for retouchers to really work a file and deliver beautiful and believable results.

That along with 1/800th sync speeds while outdoors in full sunlight and strobes is another huge point which i don't feel gets enough press. You can overcome certain technical limitations with leaf shutters that require a lot of extra work with 35 FP systems.

.02

[MattBeardsley]

Hey Everyone,

Thanks for the comments and input on the review.  I've enjoyed writing about the Hasselblads.  I really loved getting to know the H4D-40.  Compared to my Nikons, it takes extra attention to technique to get ideal results, but pays off with amazingly clear and flexible files.  Also, oddly enough, Phocus, Hasselblad's Lightroom-like software, has really grown on me.  I think they've given the program, and digital work flow in general, a lot of creative thought.  I wrote a brief introduction to it here:

http://photoartsmonthly.com/blog/2010/11/01/hasselblad-phocus-workflow-software/

Have a great day, guys... Thanks for taking a look at the blog and offering so many points of view on the comparison of 35mm and 645!

Matt

[Jan. 2011 Update: I've scaled my blog up to a more serious Web-based magazine and updated the above link.  Thanks for taking a look!  Matt]