Hi,
I am the OP…
I bought the Hasselblad/P45+ plus combo out of curiosity. I actually enjoy shooting with it, about 1/3 of my exposures this year was made with it. I tend to make more exposures on MFD than on DSLR so I think the keeper ratio is a bit lower than 1/3.
The other side of the equation is that there is no real advantage in image quality, except in resolution, compared to the Sony DSLRs I have. The major advantage of the Sonys is live view which is very helpful in achieving accurate focus and the accurate light meter. Also the Sonys have a significant advantage in DR. Another strength of the Sonys is white balance. It could be argued that it is impressive that a back introduced 2007 can keep up with 2014 CMOS technology, but that argument is not entirely true.
To begin with it cannot keep up, except under benign conditions. Also, the P45+ is AFAIK updated to latest firmware, so things like white balance calculations may have been subject to upgrade. Also, let's not forget the sensor has twice the area of the Sony sensor. Also the P45+ back sells for about 10k$, you can get two A7r-s and a couple of Zeiss lenses for the price of a used back alone.
What I like with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo is:
- Shooting with a classical camera
- Simplicity. Just focusing, shutter speed and aperture. No settings, no lightmeter. Just to say, Sony's presets give me some simplicity, too.
- The P45+ back is well made and very functional for a 2007 generation sensor
- The 49x37 aspect ratio is fine. I didn't know when I bought it but I appreciate it.
- I also have a Flexbody, an fine example of Hasselblad thinking out of the box.
Getting back to the video you referred to. The photographers still stick to their Hasselblad, but they admit the Nikon was impressive. They see great benefits of the Hasselblad on skin tone, and tethering. So Hasselblad may be worthwhile for that kind of shooting. But, I also guess some of the issues are manageable.
Now, time does not stand still. There is a rapid development in DSLR/mirrorless, but MFD doesn't exactly stand still.
What I may feel that MFD is very expensive for limited benefits and I don't think those benefits are always there.
So I am somewhat skeptical to MFD, especially regarding claims to image quality. Now, with the new Sony sensor in the latest backs from Phase One and Hasselblad MFD has a recent generation CMOS sensor with a much better image quality, but limitations in crop factor and T&S on technical cameras. Pentax even have an affordable DSLR with the new Sony MF sensor in an almost up to date DSLR body. (Why not up to date? Big and slow FP shutter and very small AF area.)
My guess is that DSLR/mirrorless technology is good for "the rest of us", and I would expect a lot of great developments in the near future, like the new 'Art' series lenses from Sigma and the Otus lenses from Zeiss in addition to all more or less excellent lenses from Canon and Nikon.
Best regards
Erik
After watching this video comparing 35mm to medium format, Im convinced that medium format is such a
WASTE OF MONEY!!!!!
Sounds like the OP learned the hard way.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
It's amusing watching people strain to see what they want to see. But hey, if you got the dough, knock yourself out.