The MF kit...ideas and reasons...

[David Klepacki]

First, I ended up criticizing the H3D in an unintentional manner, so I apologize for how that came out. I did not mean to imply that it was inferior. I only meant to share my reasons for choosing what I did. When I had dedicated backs, I always felt somewhat limited. The deciding factor for me moving to the Sinarback is really the additional flexibility and freedom to choose different tools for different jobs. As I mentioned earlier, I think all the MF systems do such an incredible job with image quality in general, we are probably nit-picking here.

Victor, save your money. I really appreciate you sending me some of your own P45+ files, so I will save you a lot of time and perhaps expense. In terms of raw resolution, the P45+ cannot be beat (and the H3DII is most likely in the same league). Most of the time, the color differences are very very subtle, and mostly in the red end of the spectrum. In fact, the biggest color discrepancy that I have seen was actually posted by Capture Integration on their website. I am not sure it is there any more (the one shooting the "red" brick wall with fence in front).

After being such a long time Phase user, I think you will not be happy going to the Sinarback, unless you wish to use more than one camera system. The reason I say this is that the Sinar philosophy is much different than Phase in the handling of their raw files. Sinar gives you the pure unadulterated raw image data (well ... as pure as possible). So, you must develop your own "styles" for handling noise, contrast, and tone curve. In the beginning, it is somewhat time consuming and perhaps frustrating, but that's what happens when you are given total freedom over the image data.

On the other hand, Phase (and again, like Hasselblad) makes it so easy to get a perfect image with minimal processing, sometimes only a few mouse clicks and you are done. They seem to take a different approach, knowing that you will have to clean up the noise and improve contrast anyway, so they do some processing of the raw image data before actually presenting it to you (and it also seems like there is hidden metadata in the images which C1 can use, that Lightroom cannot see).

For me, I had to spend a lot of time working with the Sinar images. Initially I was frustrated after coming from C1 and the P30+, but then once I was able to work with the sinar files, I don't mind the extra work, and I have a little more creative control over the images.

So, bottom line, if you just enjoy getting your images ready to print/display as quickly as possible, AND you are happy with a single back/camera system, then you should stay with the P45+. In fact, like you, I am a huge Contax/Zeiss fan, and if I could stick with just one camera and back, it would be the Contax 645 and either the P30+ or P45+.

Once I got the Sinarback, I added a Hy6 to my aresenal, basically for the Zeiss and Schneider leaf shutter lenses so that I could use higher flash sync. I also added a Hasselblad body because manually stopping down the Zeiss V lenses on the Contax became a chore, which I could eliminate by just shooting them on a genuine Hasselblad body. And, with the Hasselblad interface, I can pretty much use most view cameras with a digital back now (Horseman, Arca, Linhof, etc.). So this choice of back gives me so much freedom.

BTW, if I can figure out how to upload an image here, I can show you a sample from the Hy6 and e75LV, which hopefully conveys its look and feel.

 

[gogopix]

First, I ended up criticizing the H3D in an unintentional manner, so I apologize for how that came out. I did not mean to imply that it was inferior. I only meant to share my reasons for choosing what I did. When I had dedicated backs, I always felt somewhat limited. The deciding factor for me moving to the Sinarback is really the additional flexibility and freedom to choose different tools for different jobs. As I mentioned earlier, I think all the MF systems do such an incredible job with image quality in general, we are probably nit-picking here.

Victor, save your money. I really appreciate you sending me some of your own P45+ files, so I will save you a lot of time and perhaps expense. In terms of raw resolution, the P45+ cannot be beat (and the H3DII is most likely in the same league). Most of the time, the color differences are very very subtle, and mostly in the red end of the spectrum. In fact, the biggest color discrepancy that I have seen was actually posted by Capture Integration on their website. I am not sure it is there any more (the one shooting the "red" brick wall with fence in front).

After being such a long time Phase user, I think you will not be happy going to the Sinarback, unless you wish to use more than one camera system. The reason I say this is that the Sinar philosophy is much different than Phase in the handling of their raw files. Sinar gives you the pure unadulterated raw image data (well ... as pure as possible). So, you must develop your own "styles" for handling noise, contrast, and tone curve. In the beginning, it is somewhat time consuming and perhaps frustrating, but that's what happens when you are given total freedom over the image data.

On the other hand, Phase (and again, like Hasselblad) makes it so easy to get a perfect image with minimal processing, sometimes only a few mouse clicks and you are done. They seem to take a different approach, knowing that you will have to clean up the noise and improve contrast anyway, so they do some processing of the raw image data before actually presenting it to you (and it also seems like there is hidden metadata in the images which C1 can use, that Lightroom cannot see).

For me, I had to spend a lot of time working with the Sinar images. Initially I was frustrated after coming from C1 and the P30+, but then once I was able to work with the sinar files, I don't mind the extra work, and I have a little more creative control over the images.

So, bottom line, if you just enjoy getting your images ready to print/display as quickly as possible, AND you are happy with a single back/camera system, then you should stay with the P45+. In fact, like you, I am a huge Contax/Zeiss fan, and if I could stick with just one camera and back, it would be the Contax 645 and either the P30+ or P45+.

Once I got the Sinarback, I added a Hy6 to my aresenal, basically for the Zeiss and Schneider leaf shutter lenses so that I could use higher flash sync. I also added a Hasselblad body because manually stopping down the Zeiss V lenses on the Contax became a chore, which I could eliminate by just shooting them on a genuine Hasselblad body. And, with the Hasselblad interface, I can pretty much use most view cameras with a digital back now (Horseman, Arca, Linhof, etc.). So this choice of back gives me so much freedom.

BTW, if I can figure out how to upload an image here, I can show you a sample from the Hy6 and e75LV, which hopefully conveys its look and feel.

David
Thank you for your frankness. I try always to be open minded, but as may may sense, I also am slow to change; then, I add rather than swap. That said, There are interesting prospects in the future to add to the context platform,; I am esp interested in you experience (and files, if you have one to share) as I have been asked several times for my Contax setup. It is quite a collection. I did consider swapping several times, but backed off, as the incremental benefit was not there-yet! what I wonder is what happens when the eyes and reflexes get too slow; the contax AF is 'very ok' if you know what I mean.
It will be interesting to see where the whole 'backs' crowd go. Will pase move to higher ISO/ or 60MP. I am already frustrated by having 6 TB of Lacie just for the damn raw files (pared only 1/2, need to blow up more!) and the devoped files, wow, only 4 images per GB!)
The group here seems to be exploring different approaches, and are quite thoughtful, and parochial only to a point. Maybe the MF crowd is just a tad more sophisticated :toocoolwatch out guys for the small nuclear weapon lobbed here when one of the 35mm crowd reads THAT!)

:angel:

regards
Victor

 

[LJL]

David (Klepacki),
Thanks for sharing your impressions and experiences here. I was getting this same impression from Thierry, but it is also good to hear it directly from a user. (No offense, Thierry.....I was not challenging your comments. It is just nice to hear how others see it and their experiences.) I use several different RAW converters, depending upon what I want to achieve or which camera I am using, so the learning curves and setting up some profiles does take time, but the flexibility is really nice also.

This is creating a bit of optioning that I was thinking about, but was not quite sure the best route to take. There are some pluses to having some flexibility with something like the Sinar backs, and just adding a different body if needed for something more specific. My concerns here are around the H3DII system that does not permit that. The H3D would be the option, but is there anything that has been handicapped on that, or seriously missing compared to the H3DII that would cause one to pause a bit?

Hasselblad has some great older lenses, and the newer Fuji glass also looks outstanding. (Marc's shots with the 300/4 and 110/2.2 posted in the other thread are awesome. Not seeing any problems with his captures at all!) I was thinking about the newer HCD 28/4 that is only for H3D(II) cameras. Anybody used this one yet and have impressions?

It would also be nice to see a couple of straight up shots on the e75LV back compared to the P45+, shot with similar rigs, if possible. I am sure we will be struggling to see any differences, but maybe not ;-)

This is a very informative discussion, and I really appreciate folks contributing. Hope others are getting some value also.

LJ

 

[LJL]

David

It will be interesting to see where the whole 'backs' crowd go. Will pase move to higher ISO/ or 60MP.
regards
Victor

Victor,
This is something else that caused me to think a bit more also. Hasselblad talks about "full frame" as a future, and that is 48x48, while Sinar has hinted/suggested or whatever, that their backs are designed for 56x56 as a possible "full frame". (Thierry, please correct me if I have misread this someplace.)

Honestly, those sizes would be staggering either way, and neither sensor yet exists in anything other than closely guarded testing or planning right now, so the issue is not one to worry about in the nearest future.....or is it?

LJ

 

[thsinar]

Dear Victor,

I will try to make a Sinar DNG available: will a landscape image be alright? Let me some days, since am in Seoul right now and for the rest of the week until monday.

Please also find all Sinar dealers under following link:

http://swpp.co.uk/trade/goto/rd.cgi?redir=http://www.sinarbron.com

Our main and exclusive distributor is SBI (Sinarbron) and one can contact as well Greg King there and speak with him ([email protected])

Best regards,
Thierry

Dear David,
Short renting a sinar back is there any source of raw images? Phase and leaf users have offered but I have not yet seen an offer of raw from a sinar.

(and BTW, THierry, is there a place in the washington DC area to rent a sinar back, preferably the 33MP, with Contax adapter?)

regards
Victor

 

[thsinar]

I fully agree with your comments and findings, David.

Best regards,
Thierry

... the Sinar philosophy is much different than Phase in the handling of their raw files. Sinar gives you the pure unadulterated raw image data (well ... as pure as possible). So, you must develop your own "styles" for handling noise, contrast, and tone curve. In the beginning, it is somewhat time consuming and perhaps frustrating, but that's what happens when you are given total freedom over the image data.

For me, I had to spend a lot of time working with the Sinar images. Initially I was frustrated after coming from C1 and the P30+, but then once I was able to work with the sinar files, I don't mind the extra work, and I have a little more creative control over the images.

BTW, if I can figure out how to upload an image here, I can show you a sample from the Hy6 and e75LV, which hopefully conveys its look and feel.

 

[fotografz]

David (Klepacki),
Thanks for sharing your impressions and experiences here. I was getting this same impression from Thierry, but it is also good to hear it directly from a user. (No offense, Thierry.....I was not challenging your comments. It is just nice to hear how others see it and their experiences.) I use several different RAW converters, depending upon what I want to achieve or which camera I am using, so the learning curves and setting up some profiles does take time, but the flexibility is really nice also.

This is creating a bit of optioning that I was thinking about, but was not quite sure the best route to take. There are some pluses to having some flexibility with something like the Sinar backs, and just adding a different body if needed for something more specific. My concerns here are around the H3DII system that does not permit that. The H3D would be the option, but is there anything that has been handicapped on that, or seriously missing compared to the H3DII that would cause one to pause a bit?

Hasselblad has some great older lenses, and the newer Fuji glass also looks outstanding. (Marc's shots with the 300/4 and 110/2.2 posted in the other thread are awesome. Not seeing any problems with his captures at all!) I was thinking about the newer HCD 28/4 that is only for H3D(II) cameras. Anybody used this one yet and have impressions?

It would also be nice to see a couple of straight up shots on the e75LV back compared to the P45+, shot with similar rigs, if possible. I am sure we will be struggling to see any differences, but maybe not ;-)

This is a very informative discussion, and I really appreciate folks contributing. Hope others are getting some value also.

LJ

The HCD 28 is wonderful ... partly because of the DAC corrections applied in Flexcolor and now Phocus.

I do not want to come across as defending Hasselblad or any other brand. They are all stunning image makers and I've either used all of them, or have owned them. The least amount of experience has been with Sinar, the most with Hasselblad. So my information is naturally going to gravitate to clarifying statements counter to those experiences.

Sinar is NOT the only maker that offer backs that will fit a number of camera platforms. The Hasselblad CF and CF Multi Shot line of backs uses iAdapters to mount on most MF cameras. Even the new H2F film camera accepts CF backs and provides the ability to use the HCD 28.

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/133781/uk_cf_datasheet_v2.pdf

The versatility of the Hasselblad "integrated" H3 series is also greater than implied. I use the H/C lenses for AF work, and by means of the fully automatic CF adapter can use every Zeiss C,CF,CFi and CFE ever made from fisheye to 500mm. The CFE lenses with the data bus contacts communicate with the camera automatically ... all others are selected in the grip menu LCD. Since I had an extensive collection of Zeiss leaf shutter lenses it was a no brainer decision to select the more integrated H3 system verses their CF system. It wasn't the different camera I wanted access to ... it was the huge range of Zeiss lens choices. I also use the same back on a Rollei Xact-II for a third set of digitally corrected optics.

Personally, that's enough for me ... at least for now ... LOL.

 

[David Klepacki]

I should have clarified the primary difference with the multiple adapter systems. Hasselblad also offers a line of "open" backs to support other cameras. Ironically, they do not support their own 200 series cameras, and their excellent and fast FE lenses. On the other hand, Sinar DOES support the Hasselblad 200 series. For example, with the 203FE, you can shoot every Hasselblad V lens ever made, both leaf shutter C/CF/CFi/CFE and F/FE lenses using its 1/2000 focal plane shutter (and with a spot meter!). This is not possible with the Hasselblad digital backs or their H system cameras.

The lack of a high speed focal plane shutter ability from Hasselblad was a serious limitation for me.

 

[LJL]

The HCD 28 is wonderful ... partly because of the DAC corrections applied in Flexcolor and now Phocus.

I do not want to come across as defending Hasselblad or any other brand. They are all stunning image makers and I've either used all of them, or have owned them.

Personally, that's enough for me ... at least for now ... LOL.

Thanks, Marc. Never thought you were defending or disparaging any line or system.

Quick follow-up on the HCD 28/4..... You mention its wonderful performance partly due to the DAC and Phocus software. I can understand that in the Hasselblad line, and it fits with the things we have been discussing. Do you or anybody else have an impression of the lens's performance on any other camera/back combo? I am assuming it is possible, but thought to ask. Just curious how it looks without corrections. It is a very interesting lens, and could have a lot of application for things I am thinking about at some point.

LJ

 

[David Klepacki]

OK, Here is a sample shot that (hopefully) shows the tonality and low contrast portraiture that the Hy6/e75LV is capable.

 

[David Klepacki]

Quick follow-up on the HCD 28/4..... You mention its wonderful performance partly due to the DAC and Phocus software. I can understand that in the Hasselblad line, and it fits with the things we have been discussing. Do you or anybody else have an impression of the lens's performance on any other camera/back combo? I am assuming it is possible, but thought to ask. Just curious how it looks without corrections. It is a very interesting lens, and could have a lot of application for things I am thinking about at some point.

LJ

The HCD 28/4 lens can only be used on the Hasselblad H3D series cameras.

If you need 28mm D lens in a MF SLR, then your only other option right now is the Phase or Mamiya 645 AFD. The fundamental difference of this lens compared to the Hasselblad lens is that it is full frame, and so it can be used with film backs as well as digital. The Mamiya lens also does not use a leaf shutter, and so can be used with shutter speeds up to 1/4000 with the Mamiya (or now Phase) bodies.

If you need wider than 28mm, you will have to go to a rangefinder or LF system (like Alpa, Cambo, Horseman, etc.)

 

[LJL]

The HCD 28/4 lens can only be used on the Hasselblad H3D series cameras.

If you need 28mm D lens in a MF SLR, then your only other option right now is the Phase or Mamiya 645 AFD. The fundamental difference of this lens compared to the Hasselblad lens is that it is full frame, and so it can be used with film backs as well as digital. The Mamiya lens also does not use a leaf shutter, and so can be used with shutter speeds up to 1/4000 with the Mamiya (or now Phase) bodies.

If you need wider than 28mm, you will have to go to a rangefinder or LF system (like Alpa, Cambo, Horseman, etc.)

Thanks, David. This was something that I was suspecting. (By way of comparison, it is a bit like the "digital" lenses that were developed for the 35mm crop sensor cameras, but now in MF.) Well, the H3D is still a possible contender in my book, and it does have some flexibility in backs uses, unlike the H3DII which only takes the Hasselblad backs, and not even film.

LJ

 

[fotografz]

Thanks, Marc. Never thought you were defending or disparaging any line or system.

Quick follow-up on the HCD 28/4..... You mention its wonderful performance partly due to the DAC and Phocus software. I can understand that in the Hasselblad line, and it fits with the things we have been discussing. Do you or anybody else have an impression of the lens's performance on any other camera/back combo? I am assuming it is possible, but thought to ask. Just curious how it looks without corrections. It is a very interesting lens, and could have a lot of application for things I am thinking about at some point.

LJ

The H/C 28 is a digital only leaf shutter lens for Hasselblad H3D, and H3D-II cameras... and contrary to David's post also can be used on the H2F camera in support of any and all CF and CFH digital backs ever made, past and present.

I have no knowledge of any adapter that allows application on another camera. If I were looking for a 28mm for multiple camera applications via adapters, the new Mamiya 28 full frame coverage lens would be a candidate. At $5000. it's a bit pricy.

 

[fotografz]

I should have clarified the primary difference with the multiple adapter systems. Hasselblad also offers a line of "open" backs to support other cameras. Ironically, they do not support their own 200 series cameras, and their excellent and fast FE lenses. On the other hand, Sinar DOES support the Hasselblad 200 series. For example, with the 203FE, you can shoot every Hasselblad V lens ever made, both leaf shutter C/CF/CFi/CFE and F/FE lenses using its 1/2000 focal plane shutter (and with a spot meter!). This is not possible with the Hasselblad digital backs or their H system cameras.

The lack of a high speed focal plane shutter ability from Hasselblad was a serious limitation for me.

Hope this doesn't sound like a pissing contest, but I'm just trying to keep it real.

David, Hasselblad does indeed make a digital back for the discontinued 200 series focal plane cameras, the CFV, and it is the only fully portable back shooting to a CF card that doesn't require sync cords, complex triggering devices, or being tethering to a computer.

People keep saying that the Sinar backs will work on my 203FE, which is of great interest to me since I own an extensive 200 system ... but the published information on the Sinar web site indicates that only the non-portable tethered backs will work, the portable ones using untethered CF card capture clearly do NOT list the 200 series ... only the Hasselblad 500 series leaf shutter system ... which most every manufacturer supports.

Even tethered digital operation on a 200 series camera is not a Sinar exclusive, in fact it is a limitation compared to the use of a Imacon or Hasselblad CF back with a V mount iAdapter on a 200 series camera. Devices such as the Kapture Group One Shot Cable Release (Cat#-HA-001) allow use of those backs tethered or untethered while shooting to a CF card. The limitation is that the camera would have to be tripod mounted for cable release type shooting ... but the CF back need not be tethered to a computer for field work.

In fact, this is the solution I am currently considering, one CF back for use on a H2F, my 500 series cameras, and 200 series cameras. The only pause I have is to continue supporting aging, non integrated MF platforms.

 

[fotografz]

with all due respect to Phase One and Leaf, as well as to you, Victor:

I do not agree with your claim "phase a little cooler but more accurate": one should definitively and eventually come away from those believes like "more accurate, "more this" or "more that".

All is a question of the RAWs produced and how much they are modified (I would say twicked) from the very original RAW, by default and by the manufacturer, BEFORE they come out on your screen: for example, one can apply tonal curves (affecting only the shadows, or only the highlights, or ...), one can clip the highlights, one can apply some sharpening, one can apply profiles, one can apply noise reduction filters or other artifacts filters, etc ... All this without the user even noticing it, but all of these having a tremendous influence on the look of the produced files.

From that, the question is then to ask ourselves what is the most natural/original "look". From this perspective, the Sinar files (since they have not been mentioned) have among the most natural "look" or visual impression: nothing much is done/applied to the files, they come out with a linear tonal curve which looks flat and un-contrasty but is exactly what is captured by the sensor. Also, no noise reduction filtering or whatsoever, no sharpening or other twicking applied to those produced raw images.

It leaves the user with the full freedom to create his own "look", with his own profiles (depending on the subject and light conditions), to apply his own tonal/contrast curves (again depending on the subject and light conditions), to make color corrections in PP, to apply sharpening (depending on output size and subject) by his own wish and need.

Therefore the term "more accurate" is very relative, IMO: basically, you can create the same accuracy and the same look with any file, coming from the same sensor(s). It is the way how you get it and the choices and freedom of choices to achieve it which makes the differences.

Best regards,
Thierry

I have to support Thierry on this point. While I own and operated Hasselblad gear, my main job is as an Advertising Creative Director doing print and TV for national ads. My extensive experience shooting with professional still photographers is that the Phase One backs are the most prolific backs out there ... so I've seen them in action quite a bit. How backs render color is far more a function of how the software preferences and color profiles are set up. The objective of every digital technician I've ever worked with in professional studios is to accomplish a neutral color base. It is then up to the photographer and Art Director to determine any variance in the degree of warmth or coolness in the capture.

 

[fotografz]

David,
This is kind of the thinking I had starting this thread. As Peter and others point out, and most of us should be aware, the gear is not going to make one a better photog. However, the selection of that gear, how it works with other pieces, software, etc., can have an impact on one's work, I believe. When I am shooting polo, I know that I can get some very good shots for publication use with any of my gear, but if I want something more outstanding, I know to press the 1DsMkII and 400mm f2.8L IS into service more, and then I also change processing for better conversion.

That is sort of my carryover thinking about some aspects of MF....all sensors and all lenses and all bodies are capable of delivering great output, especially in the hands of someone skilled at their use. But some lenses, bodies and backs may be able to work better in concert for certain kinds of shooting to permit more flexibility, or get out of your way, or actually help the composition and capture process. Maybe my thinking is wrong here, but my other experiences suggest that there are some tools that are better suited for some kinds of jobs. That was sort of the thinking going into asking folks to think about the Target Use part, and back it up with thoughts and reasons for the choices.

This is good to think about....some folks build from the back, others from the glass, others from the handling of the body. My thoughts were to explore some of the how and whys of those selection choices that seem to work more for specific kinds of shooting situations.

LJ

Here's a thought or two to consider.

Many people bring their habits and preferences from 35mm DSLR work to MFD capture. The idea that with MF Digital capture, you build from the lens backwards is one I would dispute (but only to some degree.) By far, the digital back will be the most expensive choice you'll have to make. Directly connected to that is how well that back works with the camera, and in turn how well the software from that system enables you to realize the digital backs' potential.

All those things being equal, I would offer that most folks would be hard pressed to distinguish any makers APO or Digital spec lenses from one another. Yes, there are certain characteristics and aspects we grow fond of from certain lenses, but a sober study of the array available from most popular manufacturers provides outstanding solutions from all of them. Some manufacturers are playing catch-up ... like Mamiya with their new digital lenses, but that is a less expensive proposition than swapping MF digital back and camera solutions.

We want to drag our old prejudices into MF Digital, but I'd offer that many of those prejudices are baseless in reality. I dragged the Zeiss prejudice with me to the H camera system, and still suffer from it to some degree. But a rational in-studio test we did between the HC 120/4 Macro and the Zeiss 120/4 CFE shattered those preconceptions. In every area of performance one looks for in a Macro lens, the H/C Macro was visibly superior.

What's fast becoming apparent, and some folks are loath to accept, is that the MF digital landscape is changing because of firmware and software solutions as much as what sensor you use or what lens you slap up front. If you'll take note, the prime activity in the MFD arena has been firmware and software development. The fact is that the existing backs and sensors have NOT yet reached their maximum potential. IMO, Phase's C1 set the drum beat here, and the other back makers were playing catch up.
But the new software from Sinar looks promising, Leaf has made quantum leaps forward with Capture 11 (or what ever number they are on now), and I can tell you from direct experience that Phocus from Hasselblad is a whole new ball game.

 

[fotografz]

This is the current state of my journey...I am a Sinar user now. The flexibility of the back to accommodate different cameras is a big plus for me.

Like DavidK, I end up remaining loyal to my glass, as they are what primarily determines the look of an image that I want. I view the camera body itself more or less like an adapter that simply connects the lens to the back.

This way, I am free to use the strengths of the different lenses and bodies from Hasselblad, Contax, Rollei, and Mamiya. With Sinar, you are not locked into one camera line or a single lens lineup.

The key to managing these different systems is to base your workflow on the standard DNG file format. That way, once your images are in DNG, you can have a common workflow for them.

David, does the Sinar software corrections you make migrate with the file to be applied to the DNG file for use in other post processing programs?

My experience has been that the manufacturer's Processing programs are maximized for their backs. Leaf Capture, and Hasselblad Flexcolor/Phocus offer DNG conversions (don't know if Phase C1 does.) ... but all the other RAW processing programs pale in comparison to what can be extracted from the native software.

 

[LJL]

Marc,
Your last couple of posts get me back to some thinking that I have been wondering about. Let's go with the idea that the Kodak and Dalsa sensors have not yet been fully exploited, and that all of the MF backs may have capabilities that will continue to be realized with improving software. That IS a bit different than the present 35mm DSLR world to some degree, though folks will argue that the software created by the camera manufacturer outperforms other RAW conversions, since there is access to some "secret sauce" information in the RAW file. Not really wanting to debate that part, but one can see great conversions with Canon's DPP that does not quite come out with some other conversions, unless one creates custom camera profiles and tweaks the heck out of things. Same can be said for Nikon. Only issue really becomes that the OEM software generally sucks with respect to workflow and processing performance. Big downside when shooting a lot and having to do all that processing. That is why other conversions have become successful to some degree....ACR comes with PS, and creates workflow opportunities that others generally do not (Aperture and Lightroom excepted). Problem is that ACR, though good, still kinds sucks with some files and conversions. So that takes some of us back to alternative workflows and processing options, in order to get better RAW conversion.

Holding that thread a minute, and shifting back to the MF world, it seems like there is a similar struggle brewing around backs and software, but here it may make a lot more difference. (The DAC stuff for the Hasselblad HCD lenses comes to mind.) So, though MF backs may all be about the same in what they capture, and some may be more adaptable to more body platforms, one should be considering how the RAW files are able to be converted. This gets to your question to David about what happens with the generation of DNG files (maybe more universal format for conversion) from Sinar, and what data is contained and usable. (You may recall that this was a huge discussion when Adobe created DNG, and the OEMs keep fighting it by limiting or handicapping how data gets written to or accessed in files, Nikon in particular, but all raised questions.)

This is getting back to some of my original questions/requests about creating some "dream kits" for folks to consider. I expressly wanted to keep the software discussion to the side, but that may not be so possible, given some of the recent advances in gear and how software is being used to better exploit those. After reading a lot of stuff, and especially the further discussions here, I started to think in my own mind that a Sinar back might be a preferred choice, as it seems to allow the greatest flexibility to connect to lots of other bodies/systems through adapters (expensive adapters, but it beats the dedicated design, unless one only has a single body). My thoughts there were that something like the Hy6 body would offer good options, and if needed, an H3D body could be brought into play and still use that Sinar back, but have access to the HC lenses, like the HCD 28/4 (just an example here.....not married to the concept). That is sounding like it might work, BUT (and this is the question to ponder) will that combo be able to really exploit the lenses with the back, IF there is so much riding on the software part?

We were getting wound up a bit about the image look from the Phase v Sinar backs, and Thierry kept us on track with Sinar's philosophy of delivering a perfectly (as best as possible) neutral file that allows greatest utility. My question now shifts to whether that file will best exploit the other parts of things? If I placed a Sinar back on an H3D body with that HCD 28/4 lens, would I get or be able to use the same kinds of corrections and exploitation as if I used a Hasselblad back instead?

Is this the new direction that we will have to start thinking about, rather than JUST the labyrinth of which lenses/bodies/backs/adapters/cables work together and under what conditions?

LJ

P.S. Really not trying to overanalyze this, but since all of the gear has some hefty price tags associated with it, one's choices may need more careful consideration, unless there is a closet full of older gear and folks are just trying to rearrange things for use. Even for folks like me that will be shopping new and used, trying to figure out a workable set of things is looking a bit more complicated, based upon what I would want to be shooting. This does get back to my original thoughts about the Target Use, what gear and why. The assumption that all things are about the same with respect to backs and bodies and lenses may need some further thought if software and its ability to exploit the gear plays a bigger role. Make sense?

 

[David K]

This is a great thread... lots of good information from knowledgeable people who don't have an ax to grind. I can't help but think how daunting a task it must be for someone contemplating getting into an MFDB to absorb all of this and make an informed decision. Choosing which 35mm DSLR to buy is a piece of cake compared to this.

 

[David Klepacki]

The H/C 28 is a digital only leaf shutter lens for Hasselblad H3D, and H3D-II cameras... and contrary to David's post also can be used on the H2F camera in support of any and all CF and CFH digital backs ever made, past and present.

I have no knowledge of any adapter that allows application on another camera. If I were looking for a 28mm for multiple camera applications via adapters, the new Mamiya 28 full frame coverage lens would be a candidate. At $5000. it's a bit pricy.

Yes, I stand corrected on this matter. It turns out that the Hasselblad HC28 will indeed work with the H2F.

Again, the trade-off to consider is whether you need to use such a lens at higher shutter speeds and on different bodies via adapters.