I am preparing a couple of reports on the 36 Megapixel Sony A7r, using Leica M lenses, and also the Hasselblad H5D-60. I've been shooting with both systems here in Mexico and will continue to do so for the rest of the winter.
I'm going to write below a rough draft of a section of what will be in the Hasselblad report, though it likely will be somewhat different after editing. This is just a first pass at my thoughts on the matter.
Can You See The Difference?
Chris Sanderson and I, along with our friend photographer Lars Svanstrom recently spent two days shooting landscape and cultural photography in the isolated mountains of Eastern Queretero called the Sierra Gorda.
I was shooting with the new Sony A7r, on loan for long term testing by Sony Canada, and a half dozen of my own Leica M lenses via a Novaflex adaptor. I will detail in my test report how well these lenses match up with the A7r, but in brief, any lenses of 35mm or longer works flawlessly, and wider lenses either don't work well at all, but most do, with most just needing some post processing attention to fix vignetting and lens cast correction. Full details in my test report.
The other camera I am using is a Hasselblad H5D-60, which Hasselblad has kindly loaned my for a couple of months of testing. Again, my report will appear here, likely in January.
On this two day shoot, the first time with both cameras, shooting the same subjects, I was more focused on getting the best images I could than in doing any comparisons. When I got back home I did find that I had enough shots of the same subject at the same time with matching focal length lenses that comparisons can be made.
What started off the comparisons, was that Chris had spent some time looking over my shoulder the next day as I worked on my Sony files. I had not yet downloaded the Hasselblad's CF card because I had misplaced my card reader. We chatted about the Sony images, composition, aesthetics of the shots, and also did a little 100% pixel peeping, commenting on how sharp and lovely the Sony / Leica images were.
Later that day I found the CF reader and loaded the Hasselblad files. I had not touched any yet, just had thumbnails on my laptop's screen in Lightroom, and a random full size image of one of the files on the 27" screen. Just then Chris walked into my office to chat about something. His first comment, standing in the doorway 12 feet from the monitor was, "That's from the Hasselblad, isn't it?"
Thus began an hour or so of serious pixel peeping. We put up shot after shot from both cameras, doing full screen and side by side comparisons, many at 100% magnification.
What was fascinating (yet something that knowledgable medium format owners have taken for granted for many years – myself included) is that the Hasselblad images were "more appealing" on screen and in prints (I'm using an Epson 3880 with Baryta paper). Does "more appealing" mean sharper? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it due to the shallower DOF? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it colour rendition, acuity, tonal smoothness?
The answer is it's all of the above, and not necessarily any of the above.
We find ourselves in the same situation as audiophiles with high-end sound systems. Some electronics and speakers just sound sweeter. Spec sheets and test reports have little to do with it. It's just how it sounds. The same applies here. It's the overall look of the image.
I'll have more to say on this in my review, but I urge anyone considering an MF system purchase to borrow or rent one from a dealer and do your own testing and comparisons. Again I urge, forget technical specs and random pictures of people's cats and flowers. If you're going to spend $50,000 to buy a new BMW, you won't rely on sometone else telling you how it drives. You'll damn well take it for a test drive yourself.
Same thing with a MF back or camera. All that matters is what you see. Oh yes, and the other important factor is the current state of your Visa card balance. Again, something that no one else can take into consideration for you.
Michael