The dreaded question...

[tjv]

So... Today I received in the mail a brochure / magazine from Hasselblad. In it there is a test comparing what seems to be (matching specs and lens used) a 1Ds MKIII with 50mm f1.2L and a H3DII31.
Here is a link to the online comparison: http://www.hasselblad.com/media/1664050/thebiggerthebetter.pdf

So, my totally stupid and mundane questions is this: Is the difference really that dramatic? The 1dsIII shot looks terrible, really smeared detail and CA through the roof. The lens used is not exactly known to be a stellar performer, in technical terms at least, so I'm sure that has something to do with the poor showing, but really? I'm pretty sure I get better files out of my D700.

Stupid question end... :sleep006:

 

[Dale Allyn]

I'll offer a knee-jerk reaction... having viewed the linked document... I'd be embarrassed if I were a Hasselblad rep. Now mind you, I fully appreciate the superiority of MF over 35mm for certain jobs, including the type presented here, but the obvious bias in treatment is... well... ridiculous. Or more accurately, "marketing".

In my opinion, many of the weaknesses seen in the 1Ds image could have been avoided if a bias was not present with regard to desired outcome. Come on, we're looking at a PDF file... on line!... in which differences should be nearly nil if properly executed. Look at the upper-left area of the Canon image. That's garbage.

To be clear, I know that the Hasselblad kit will trump the Canon kit in this comparison. My 22MP Phase One/Mamiya kit trumps the Canon in this type of comparison (except for moire' ). But still... the initial image from the Canon is absurd. One needs to address files with a strong AA filter differently than those without such a filter. And let's be sure to pick an image with obvious CA in the highlights to emphasize our point. Hasselblad's job is to sell Hasselblads, but this comparison is lame IMO. Sadly (but realistically) this brochure shows little respect for its audience.

 

[carstenw]

The dreaded question, part II:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39318

Now this guy (Christopher Barrett; I forget if he is a member here) didn't try to get the same image, but the same pixel-level, to compare the performance of the pixels. Still, a little stitching, and voila, comparable image.

The question here is what would happen in the shadows if he exposed higher and pulled the shadows up, or if he used tungsten lighting, but to be honest, he pulled a really decent file out of the D3. Yair found the blue channel in the D3 file to be at the limit, so there isn't much flexibility left, but the image stands as it is.

 

[Dale Allyn]

Carsten: I read the thread on LL (Chris is a member here too) and found it rather different from the marketing bit in the PDF file linked above.

Chris' comparison wasn't scientific in nature, but showed one perspective. The Nikon file hosed the draperies and showed "more difficult" contrast in the yarn balls IMO, but again, we were looking at online JPEGs. Yair's observations were meaningful, but that's still off-topic here. Chris didn't "sabotage" his Nikon files, but we have all seen pros deliver the goods with the 1Ds mk-X, and Hasselblad didn't really offer a bias-neutral comparison. (To be clear, I'm not saying the Canon is equal.)

IMO these comparisons are not only "dreaded", but stupid. (sorry to be so blunt) Marketing has its purpose, but in so many cases there is just too little fact and integrity attached. When we shoot it we can see it. The exaggerated differences are nonsense (and disrespectful IMO).

 

[tjv]

Agreed, they are stupid. This one seemed so stupid I was sure I was missing something! I've never shot a 1DS MKIII but I was positive this comparison was tripe. I've yet to see a real meaningful comparison between a high res 35mm system and a 31mp MF back (or any other MF back for that matter.) Ie, the same scene, same lighting, same framing etc with proper post processing instead of the usual stupid "exact same settings in C1" nonsense.

 

[Christopher]

Well I can asure you that a 1DsMk3 does better as does my 5Dmk2, but why should hassi admit that, they don't want to help canon they want to sell their stuff.

 

[s.agar]

Christopher,

I couldn't understand. Do you mean that 1DSMk3 and 5DII takes better (whatever it means) photos than a H3DII, or do you mean that the Canon takes better photos than the ones in the Hassy site.

Seyhun

Well I can asure you that a 1DsMk3 does better as does my 5Dmk2, but why should hassi admit that, they don't want to help canon they want to sell their stuff.

 

[Christopher]

Well yes my sentence wasn't fully completed. I meant does better than what shown by hassi.

 

[s.agar]

agreed. thanks

 

[gogopix]

This big difference is in res up or res down. If you take a hassey and res down to canon size, MAYBE a little sharper. If you resup the canon, no different than going to 120 or 130% zoom-always obvious, esp when you are 1:1 for pixels (after 100% there is NO new info, so there is an IQ cliff.
The images seem exactly what I expect

so is the text! LOL

Regards
Victor

PS If you now stitch say 4 canon shots (say to 60-70 MP equivalent) , and resup the hassey, as Carsten says, the hassey will look worse.
Then there's the LENSES. There, I will give it to Hasselblad.

 

[Jack]

One other thing, "flipping" an image horizontally introduces artifacts -- interesting they chose to flip the 1Ds3 file and not the Hassy file...

 

[John Black]

About 2 weeks ago I borrowed a H3DII-31 and shot it side by side with a 1Ds Mark III. The 1Ds Mark III of good lenses such as the new Canon 100L Macro, 135L, 85L II, Zeiss 28/2 ZE and Canon 50mm F2.5 Macro. Pixel for pixel the 1Ds3 and H3DII-31 were quite similar. For outdoor shooting the H3DII-31 had nice color, tone and DR, but lost overall due to the weight (it's a heavy SOB) and the max shutter speed of 1/800. There were number of times where the H had to be stopped down to F11 to get the shutter speeds down. In the studio for catalog shots, somewhat to the H3DII-31's owner's dismay, we were getting better images from the 1Ds3. In post production the 1Ds3 files via C1 were starting out closer to a finished product. The H3DII-31 had the resolution edge via its 31 MP vs the 1Ds3's 21 MP. Though, I was surprised to still see false color and moire artifacts; I thought the micro lenses would make that a non-issue. Having shot with many different 22 MP backs, I'm hyper-sensitive about moire and false color artifacts. I'll assume that those can be managed in post, but all the same, I was surprised to see it at the raw level.

Long story short, the H3DII-31 owner is planning to sell his H3DII-31 and buy a 1Ds Mark III. We agreed the H3DII-31 had lovely quality, but it lacked flexibility and ease of a dSLR. For his catalog work he could see advantages in using the H3DII-31, though, he was skeptical about the differences being relevant after the CMYK separation/printing. The deciding factor (IMO) for him was cost of ownership. He could (and is) selling the H3DII-31 with the same dollars can buy a used 1Ds3, 85LII, 100L, 24-105L, 50mm Macro and still have money left over.

My opinion on the H3DII-31 was great looking files, but I didn't now like the H3DII-31 body - specifically the weight and top shutter speed. If I was buying that sensor, a 645AFDx body and Phase One P30+ would be my choice. I think Hasselblad has a very good engine in the H3DII-31. If they could squeeze that package down to a S2 sized camera with a focal plane shutter, I'd be quite interested. They'd also need light lenses too. The HC lenses were significantly heavier than the L lenses.

As a side note, we also compared the ZD and H3DII-31. IMO the ZD can go head to head with the H3DII-31 at base ISO. The ZD's 22 MP were competitive with the H3DII-31 MP - which were as crisp (at a pixel) due to the micro lenses. The H3DII-31 has very good ISO - even 800. Whereas the ZD doesn't.

It was an interesting week. I like Kodak's 31 MP sensor - very flexible. It just needs the "right" body. That sensor in a ZD "II" would be my S2.

One comment - I've read time and time again the H bodies feel cheap and plastic'y. The outside is metal - the thing felt very strong and was creak free. there are a couple plastic trim pieces, but everything is metal including the lens barrel and hood. Downside was the weight. I could not imagine carrying the H for personal use. Very nice camera, just not the right one my needs.

 

[tjv]

Interesting. You don't by any chance have any of the files to post do you? I'd be interest to see them side by side, 100% without upresing etc.

 

[John Black]

It's not my H3DII-31. Before loaning the camera, he made it clear the files were not to be distributed.

I wouldn't choose a 1Ds3 / H3DII-31 based on file quality. My decision is based on shutter speeds, lens options, system weight, portable flash, LCD, ergonomics, etc. If you're seriously considering an H system and haven't handled/used one in person, I highly suggest investing the time to find a local dealer where you can spend 30 minutes handling H3DII camera.

 

[Don Libby]

When are we going to stop this nonsense of comparing different platforms? In "most" cases a 1DSIII will look better than say a G9 or G10 just as "most" any medium format will look better. I think the proper comparison should be made with the same platform; apples to apples and not apples to watermelons.

I'll also admit that I didn't take the time to read the link since as soon as I read it was a comparison of cross-platforms I immediately lost all interest.

One other comment is that I'd give a hell of a lot more weight to an independent doing a comparison and reporting on it rather than a manufacture since the independent in most cases won't have a dog in the fight as far as sales goes.

This has been my knee-jerk reaction and my 2¢. I'd also like to add that I'm always put off whenever a company bad-mouths a competitor....


Don

 

[mark1958]

I remember a number of years ago --- there were two medium format platforms being compared-- Leaf and I think Phaseone. There were two pamphlets -- one i got online and one i got from a dealer-- both were published by the respective manufacturer --- as expected both came to the opposite conclusion... with lots of visual examples.

 

[Don Libby]

-- both were published by the respective manufacturer --- as expected both came to the opposite conclusion... with lots of visual examples.

My point exactly!:thumbup:

At least it wasn't a cross-platform comparison....

 

[gogopix]

It's not my H3DII-31. Before loaning the camera, he made it clear the files were not to be distributed.

.

That seems strange. I wouldn't think it mattered - they should be YOUR files (unless he claimed copyright as camera owner.

is he a Hasselblad dealer? Even Leica is letting people keep and distribute their S2 files...

 

[tjv]

I think in the age of such rapidly developing technology it's good to know how much closer or further the gap has become between the technologies. Most agree MF is still better at lower ISO's and for certain slower work, and everyone agrees there are strengths and weaknesses with 35mm and MF systems, but hardly anyone has actually illustrated the technical end points effectively. For someone like me who chooses to work slower, MF has always been my film format of choice. Going the digital MF way wouldn't be a change in shooting methods for me. Problem is that while I could go out and shoot a 1ds MKIII within ten minutes, I'd have to fly to the opposite side of the country to try a digital 'Blad or Phase system. I'm genuinely interested in how a MF digital of 31 - 39mp performs, in technical end image, compared to the high end 35mm systems with the best lenses attached. And I'd love to see images to illustrate it. In the end, I know nothing beats hands on experience so at some point I'll need to get on that plane, but in the mean time I'd like someone to point me in the right direction on the net so I have some light bed time reading!! :ROTFL:

When are we going to stop this nonsense of comparing different platforms? In "most" cases a 1DSIII will look better than say a G9 or G10 just as "most" any medium format will look better. I think the proper comparison should be made with the same platform; apples to apples and not apples to watermelons.

I'll also admit that I didn't take the time to read the link since as soon as I read it was a comparison of cross-platforms I immediately lost all interest.

One other comment is that I'd give a hell of a lot more weight to an independent doing a comparison and reporting on it rather than a manufacture since the independent in most cases won't have a dog in the fight as far as sales goes.

This has been my knee-jerk reaction and my 2¢. I'd also like to add that I'm always put off whenever a company bad-mouths a competitor....


Don

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Where are you located.