The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Can the H4D 40 replace an A900

Jeffg53

Member
I have an H4D 60 on order, but the new 40 has got me wondering. I have an H3D II 39 now and the 60 is a because I can thing rather than any necessity. I also have an A900 with Zeiss glass which I use mostly for people shots, particularly grandchildren.

While having time to ponder before the 60 arrives, it appears that the 40 has a lot to offer. It can do 4 minutes, good ISO 800, and with a 100 could probably beat the A900 with an 85 hands down.

I can buy the 40 for a bit more than the 60 upgrade so I would then have one body that can do long exposures and high ISO and another that would produce better image quality with less flexibility. I would then be able to sell the A900 and end up with a single system, and a backup body.

I have yet to touch a 40 but the image quality looks great at high ISO. I would welcome your thoughts.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I can't speak for the Hassy 40 but for the Phase 40+ with DF I eliminated anymore thoughts of a 35mm. At full res i get awesome 800 just like the Hassy will give you. Also I get the speed of camera and AF from the DF. Let's assume the Hassy HD4 is right there in the same category than that dividing line starts getting very blurred. Obviously this will depend on the work you do. I will shoot anything that pays from events to full blown ad campaigns than stage work. I simply have eliminated 35mm in my workflow. I would think given what I have read and know from my system the Hassy should be very close in speed and such. Serious improvements have been made to these new sensors and new bodies
 

Jeffg53

Member
Thanks Guy. I agree that the lines have become very blurred. I will try to get my hands on a 40. Every time I use the A900, I know that I am going to be disappointed because I am used to the H3D files, and the Sony is a long way from that quality. Interesting times!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I have an H4D 60 on order, but the new 40 has got me wondering. I have an H3D II 39 now and the 60 is a because I can thing rather than any necessity. I also have an A900 with Zeiss glass which I use mostly for people shots, particularly grandchildren.

While having time to ponder before the 60 arrives, it appears that the 40 has a lot to offer. It can do 4 minutes, good ISO 800, and with a 100 could probably beat the A900 with an 85 hands down.

I can buy the 40 for a bit more than the 60 upgrade so I would then have one body that can do long exposures and high ISO and another that would produce better image quality with less flexibility. I would then be able to sell the A900 and end up with a single system, and a backup body.

I have yet to touch a 40 but the image quality looks great at high ISO. I would welcome your thoughts.
EXACTLY the thought process I am going through right now Jeff. Moving from a H3D-II/39 to a H4D/60 ... and eyeballing the H4D/40.

The unknown factor is just how much better the AF of the H4D is compared to the H3D-II/31 it replaces. Apparently, they have improved the focus assist light on the 4 which could help in lower light ... especially with the HC100/2.2. And the True Focus is something I have to experience to see how quickly you can implement it compared to moving the focus point around in the A900 viewfinder.

Now assuming the new Phase One camera and the H4 are close in AF abilities, we can take a hint from Guy as he has offed all 35mm DSLR gear and has concentrated on just MFD 40 meg capture ... and he shoots some pretty diversified types of work. Maybe he'll chime in here with a thought or two about AF speed and handling. I think Jack has recently done the same with his Canon DSLR gear now gone, and his focus on the P65+ kit.

Bet a dollar to a donut that the H4D/40 will shoot pretty good ISO 1600 with a bit of help from Nik Define 2 ... print size to print size ... as good as, or possibly better, than the A900 I'd wager.

However, the A900 is lighter even with a 85/1.4 ... and the 24-70 is pretty convenient.

BTW, check with your dealer, I'm pretty sure you can get a H4D/40 sans the 80/2.8 lens for some savings. My quote for the H4D was a bit less than the 60 trade.

-Marc

P.S., I see Guy already weighed in while I was typing. :wtf: Either he never went to sleep or he is up VERY early :ROTFL:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I slept a little. In Palm Springs getting ready to go scout for the workshops at the Salton Sea. I having bag nightmares this morning.I have like 6 bags in my room for shooting and can't decide what I want to play with today. LOL

Glad I am not a women with 200 pairs of shoes, what stress that must be.LOL

Certainly in Jacks and my case was the DF how much the improvement is in real life not the paper specs. The AF got much faster , shutter lag is basically gone and shooting speed of the backs got so much better and also our backs can do much better higher ISO than say your H39, P45+ backs so if your just short of doing sports work than you really have to wonder about 35mm and frankly if your still holding on for kids and personal get a little M4/3 system which have more gismos on them than a space ship. It came down to weighing your real needs and if I need a 35mm system I'm basically 10 minute drive time from renting and a hell of a lot cheaper to rent a 5DII and a few lenses than a MF system

I just shot this 3 days ago corporate meeting stuff than a reception all at ISO 800. It's BS work but it's money
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
This stuff is the 35mm world. Now that has been elevated to MF. Do i need this type of file , hell no but I don't need another system and that is more my point. I can still get this stuff done than turn around and shoot the real work that I need a 40 mpx system. These are sensor plus but even so a bigger file to deal with on the Hassy these have gotten faster to process this stuff. Phocus 2 I hear is pretty good
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Similar thoughts from my side as a A900 plus Zeiss glass owner. And an owner of a H3D39.

Even with the H3D39 I am already thinking of getting rid of my A900 system. Simply never used it since I have the Hasselblad. And I could imagine that the H4D40 is much faster and also gives reasonably good higher ISO, for sure comparable to A900 higher ISO.

As "always with me" camera I have now the EP2 and I was wondering if I should sell my A900 system and stay only with Hasselblad and M43 or even add a kind of APSC DSLR like the new Nikon D300s with a single lens like the 18-200 VR, which would give me a handy but cheap but also very capable and fast DSLR system. And maybe - if really needed for wildlife photography - I could add another relatively cheap longer telezoom, even the Sigma's are pretty good today and for the number of times I use it more than enough.

But I guess with those new generations of MF systems a high end DSLR becomes more and more unnecessary. Or other way around, a high end DSLR could also replace a MF system if handled right. Now my decision was clearly towards a MF system, so why keep a high end DSLR system?

Another thought - if you have a Leica M system (like I do) I could also use the M9 as a high end DSLR replacement, but a compact one. Not the fastest system I admit, but for my purposes a good one.

There are definitely many options today ;)
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
IMO MF and manual focus works pretty well for many things.
You can shoot kids with a M9 and I took many great images.
However a fast SLR with good servo AF allows you to take action and spontanious shots which are difficult to take with other cameras.

The other thing is higher ISO- 800 ISO are fine today from many backs (including my 75LV) but still MF has less DOF, so a MF camera is still not an available light camera IMO.

Third point is the flexibility of zooms and the use of tele lenses, MF just doesnt offer this flexibility.

IMO today one can shoot many things with MF and I see the advantage (simplicity) of using just one system for everything.
However I believe one needs to accept that certain things are nearly imposible with MF.
Now I m sure it depends a lot what you photograph mainly.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
EXACTLY the thought process I am going through right now Jeff. Moving from a H3D-II/39 to a H4D/60 ... and eyeballing the H4D/40.

The unknown factor is just how much better the AF of the H4D is compared to the H3D-II/31 it replaces. Apparently, they have improved the focus assist light on the 4 which could help in lower light ....
Now assuming the new Phase One camera and the H4 are close in AF abilities, we can take a hint from Guy as he has offed all 35mm DSLR gear and has concentrated on just MFD 40 meg capture ... and he shoots some pretty diversified types of work. Maybe he'll chime in here with a thought or two about AF speed and handling. I think Jack has recently done the same with his Canon DSLR gear now gone, and his focus on the P65+ kit.

....

-Marc
Marc,

My bet is that the H4 will be pretty close in AF ability that the new Phase DF is---I just don't see one camera platform really cleaning the others clock right now. I tried the 645DF in the Basilica at the Carmel Mission, which is a dark beautiful venue for weddings. The 645DF locked on in very dimly lit areas, where my 5DII (center focus point only) would have hunted for a bit. I'd say AF on the 645DF was just a bit behind what my 1DS Mark III would do. Now just a bit of a disclaimer---I used the 80mm Schneider LS and the Phase 150mm D f/2.8. These lenses are smoking fast to lock focus. Frankly, I was surprised at how good the AF is on the 645DF---quite a leap over the 645AF.

The smaller files of the Sensor + can be an advantage. Low light, higher iso, and better AF capabilities make these later generation MFDB systems much more flexible and capable, but if shooting a lot of weddings and events, I'd still hang onto a good DSLR system as being better suited. If I didn't shoot weddings, I would be following the exact path that Jack is with his P65+....

ken
 

Jeffg53

Member
Thanks for all the feedback, folks. I think the A900 is for the shove. I could never get the hang of the Leica M8. It just didn't do it for me, and no AF is a real challenge for old folks like me.

The 40 is very appealing. I will get my hands on one, if I can only stop travelling every week. I think the 40 is a real game changer. I suspect that I will soon only own Hasselblads and my DLux 3.

I really value this forum. I think that is the only place around these days where questions like this can get straight, civil answers with no BS. Thanks Guy and Jack. Long may you prosper.
 

jecxz

Active member
Jeff, it's my understanding that you won't get long exposure with the H4D60. The 40, as you note, does up to 4 minutes. You will be very happy with the results as well. And there is no dark calibration shot required, so a 4 minute exposure is just 4 minutes.

Kind regards,
Derek
 

Jeffg53

Member
That's the conclusion that I am coming to, Derek. I must have died and gone to heaven, and there's even high iso. I wonder if auto-iso will ever happen?
 
Last edited:

jecxz

Active member
That's the conclusion that I am coming to, Derek. I must have died and gone to heaven, and there's even high iso. I wonder if auto-iso will ever happen?
You haven't died but if this is heaven, it's not the change I had counted on (a US joke).

What cost are you looking at for the trade in?

I also agree, this forum is very good for straight answers and nice guys - no BS.

Kind regards,
Derek
 

Jeffg53

Member
Derek,

I can't remember at the moment but, from memory, it looks like the 40 would be a few k more than the trade to a 60. The two body solution would give me long enough exposure, and great high ISO. There don't seem to be a lot of negatives. I can forgo the extra MP for the other advantages. I would also pick up some extra cash by selling my A900 and Zeiss glass.
 

tjv

Active member
Man I envy you guys getting these new beast MF systems. I'm sitting here spotting and colour correcting 54 LF and MF scans and the process is driving me bananas.

If only Mamiya would release a digital Mamiya 7 type camera. Then my Mastercard would really be in trouble!
 

jecxz

Active member
Derek,

I can't remember at the moment but, from memory, it looks like the 40 would be a few k more than the trade to a 60. The two body solution would give me long enough exposure, and great high ISO. There don't seem to be a lot of negatives. I can forgo the extra MP for the other advantages. I would also pick up some extra cash by selling my A900 and Zeiss glass.
I too would want the 60mp but I tried to subtly hint to you over at Nick's that you won't get the long exposure [with the 60] that you have wanted. I'm quite satisfied with the 39mp and my large prints on the 9800 are good enough for my customers, so a 60mp is vanity for me right now. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't feel shorted by the fewer mp's - unless you're printing larger. It's a good upgrade.

Kind regards,
Derek
 

fotografz

Well-known member
IMO MF and manual focus works pretty well for many things.
You can shoot kids with a M9 and I took many great images.
However a fast SLR with good servo AF allows you to take action and spontaneous shots which are difficult to take with other cameras.

The other thing is higher ISO- 800 ISO are fine today from many backs (including my 75LV) but still MF has less DOF, so a MF camera is still not an available light camera IMO.

Third point is the flexibility of zooms and the use of tele lenses, MF just doesn't offer this flexibility.

IMO today one can shoot many things with MF and I see the advantage (simplicity) of using just one system for everything.
However I believe one needs to accept that certain things are nearly impossible with MF.
Now I m sure it depends a lot what you photograph mainly.
As I was preparing new wedding images for a website makeover ... I studied them to determine if I could jettison my 35MM DSLR kit and just use a H4D/40 and Leica M9.

For some of my fast and spontaneous style of shooting ... I think not.

Probably still need a DSLR and at least a 24-70 ... I also use a 70-200 + 1.4X when in the church and relegated to the rear or a balcony (but rarely use it after that and leave it in the SUV).

But for some of the shots that I like to be ready for, even an updated MFD may not cut it ...

like the "Bouquet Beat-Down" tryptic attached ... "Let's get ready to Rumble!" :ROTFL:

(absolutely nothing left of the flowers)

-Marc
 

Dale Allyn

New member
That's hilarious, Marc. A lot of guys would have missed those shots and just order another pitcher of beer. ;)

Nice composure in getting the shots. I'll bet the participants and guests loved them.
 
Top