Almost ready to take the plunge..

[Stuart Richardson]

Perhaps I come at this from a different perspective, but for me the overall workflow is more important than the last iota of image quality greater than 90% of the time. This is of course assuming the two programs are quite close in overall results, which has been my experience in the past with Capture One and Lightroom. I think the overall productivity of Lightroom as well as its tools for manipulating multiple images is more intuitive and more flexible than Capture One. It really depends on the type of photography you do. If every file you convert is going to be a 60x70 inch print or needs to be absolutely color matched (artwork reproduction, catalog etc), then I would rather trade the last 5% of ultimate quality than struggle with a more unwieldy interface. These backs and cameras are so good already that sometimes you just want to get a great image without spending your life at the computer, and I think this is the real advantage that a program like Lightroom brings. It gets you from A to B much faster and with less headaches. This is especially true if you are using multiple cameras and systems -- rather than learn to become an expert at C1, NX2, Canon Raw software, etc etc.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Good example of making Guy's point ... without a doubt in my mind what-so-ever, the DMR produced the best results with Imacon's Flexcolor software (as clunky as the workflow was) ... which was no surprise as Imacon was a proprietary player in the DMR hardware.

Personally, I think you can do a decent S2 job with LR3 beta ... yet, for that kind of money and IQ potential one would expect very tuned software to extract all your money's worth NOW, not in the hazy distant future.

-Marc

Ok but what about the m8/M9 . The C1 software was developed to support the Phase Backs. Then if I understand it correctly they worked closely with Leica to support the M8.

I do remember now that the DMR itself was developed as a digital back and to work with the Imacon software. I stand corrected.

Its seems like there are really three possibilities for the software :

1. The software and the sensor/processor are developed together .
(e.g. Phase Backs and C1 ,Nikon D3 and nx2 ).

2. A non proprietary solution (C1) works closely with the sensor/camera mfg to optimize the raw conversion.

3. A non proprietary solution (LR,Aperture etc) incorporates profiles,presets etc into a generic product .


Maybe 2 and 3 are the same but I thought the consensus was that C1 and the M9 was pretty darn good? I have a hard time believing that Adobe will spend any serious time on a limited edition like the S2 . Canon 5D2 yes Leica s2 ..hard to believe.
:deadhorse:

 

[fotografz]

Perhaps I come at this from a different perspective, but for me the overall workflow is more important than the last iota of image quality greater than 90% of the time. This is of course assuming the two programs are quite close in overall results, which has been my experience in the past with Capture One and Lightroom. I think the overall productivity of Lightroom as well as its tools for manipulating multiple images is more intuitive and more flexible than Capture One. It really depends on the type of photography you do. If every file you convert is going to be a 60x70 inch print or needs to be absolutely color matched (artwork reproduction, catalog etc), then I would rather trade the last 5% of ultimate quality than struggle with a more unwieldy interface. These backs and cameras are so good already that sometimes you just want to get a great image without spending your life at the computer, and I think this is the real advantage that a program like Lightroom brings. It gets you from A to B much faster and with less headaches. This is especially true if you are using multiple cameras and systems -- rather than learn to become an expert at C1, NX2, Canon Raw software, etc etc.

That is exactly why I am an avid fan of Lightroom.

Lightroom gave me back part of my life that was spent in front of a computer. Take the time to get a handle on it and it rewards you with being simply faster than anything else out there ... the newer tools added to the ability to selectively move back and forth into PSCS5 ... it sets the standard for workflow.

This is especially true when working with multiple cameras.

However, a good deal of my work with a MFD system is tethered ...

And when I do use a MFD untethered it is for larger reproduction ...

Horses-for-courses applies to software also.

If I didn't do/need the 2 above ... I'd just use the Sony A900 ... which is faster and less headaches anyway.

-Marc

 

[glenerrolrd]

Stuart

I agree with your observations about workflow and I am a very happy user of the LR3 beta. I am also happy with the IQ I get with the M9 and the D3x (my two primary systems) . I have seen best in class processing and without a doubt my skills(lack there of are the weak link). Where to spend a not unlimited amount of computer time? Learning multiple proprietary software products or mastering an integrated solution.

But I think of MF as a commitment to the highest level of IQ. So in that context ..its worth noting that Phase and Hasselblad have a not insignificant advantage with proprietary software (for raw conversions) . Leica started out in a ditch without even reasonable profiles and thus magnified the gap . My probing was really to get at how this gap could be closed(assuming proprietary software isn t an option ) .

Workflow is important its what keeps me in Lr3 even though I know C1 is better for conversions.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Yes and MR is using the most important part of C1 with his P65+ the dedication to that back. Than from there obviously you can tweak the Tif or whatever you need. But he is sucking all that dedication to raw process right off the bat.

Yes time will tell.

Guy

I am agreeing with you on the best approach and the "most important part" as it relates to pure IQ .

But C1 and the M9 is pretty good. Lr3 and the M9 is excellent as well.

The S2 and Lr2 at launch was not so great IMHO.

So while HB and Phase have an advantage ...the S2 has a handicap which can be improved upon from when you tested it. Like I mentioned before if you told me it was C1 and the S2 I wouldn t be concerned.

Software is important ...Ok I agree with MF experts. :ROTFL:

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Also, I should note that my greatest experience with proprietary software is through FlexColor (DMR and X5) and Sinar eXposure (E54LV)...if I could have used Lightroom for those files, I would have in a nanosecond! I realize C1 and Phocus are much better programs, but knowing how unwieldy eXposure and FlexColor can be makes you appreciate how well put together Lightroom, Aperture and the CS series are.

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

Advantages of leaf shutter lenses:
- sync with flash at high shutter speeds
- less shutter bounce***

Disadvantages of leaf shutter lenses:
- larger/heavier physical lens design
- added manufacturing expense
- limited lifetime of each lens
- limited maximum shutter speed
- diffraction is shown at lower f-stops (minor difference)


Doug,

Have you not seen an H leaf shutter? It really is quite small! There is a picture of one in the article below.

You also forgot to add...

- More accurate exposure times and more even over the whole frame.

- I would argue that there is certainly a difference in camera stability when firing the H leaf shutter compared to any focal plane, with the mirror locked.

- As for a larger / heavier lens and the other - points... I would say you are clutching at straws.

Lifetime.. The H leaf shutter has a recommended service interval of 100,000 exposures.

Let say over five years (1825 days), you would need to shoot 55 exposures every single day to reach 100,000. It is extremely rare we ever receive lenses in for shutter servicing, unless they are used in situations like aerial photography.

Also the service life is a safe figure, and it is likely you could get more than 200,000 actuations without issue. If you ran the shutter at 1/800s every single shot(!) then you are closer to 100,000.

In this rather nice article you will also learn more about our leaf shutter (designed and built by us), how we exceed all the ISO standards regarding exposure and a side bar on True Exposure.

http://www.hasselblad.com/media/1664043/shutterathighspeed.pdf

David

 

[markowich]

david, any news on the H4D60? when will it finally be out?
peter

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

I have one with me this week, so will report back soon.

 

[markowich]

I have one with me this week, so will report back soon.

---)))) very curious. peter

 

[dougpeterson]

Have you not seen an H leaf shutter? It really is quite small! There is a picture of one in the article below.
[...]
- As for a larger / heavier lens and the other - points... I would say you are clutching at straws.

Lifetime.. The H leaf shutter has a recommended service interval of 100,000 exposures.

The weight/size of the shutter itself is not really the issue. Designing a lens around a lens-shutter requires a different design that most often ends up more than a little larger and heavier. Take for instance the difference in weight and size between the Phase One systems 80mm lenses: the leaf shutter lens version is 35% heavier and 20% larger.


330g - Phase One 80mm D (f/2.8)
450g - Phase One 80mm D Leaf-Shutter (f/2.8)
475g - Hassy HC 80mm Leaf Shutter (f/2.8)

495g - Phase One 45mm D (f/2.8)
530g - Phase One 55mm D Leaf Shutter (f/2.8)
975g - Hassy HC 50mm Leaf Shutter (f/3.5)

For someone packing a body/back and 3-5 lenses for a landscape backpacking trip these weights can make a very large difference in their overall experience.

[I'm thinking now I'm going to make a chart, so I'll spare the board from 10 more entries like the above]

Actually as far as I can tell of the ten lenses for which there are near-equivalents between Phase/Schneider and Hassy/Fuji the Phase or Schneider lens is less heavy and smaller in almost every case. The 28mm lenses are an exception, but the Hasselblad 28mm does not cover a full-frame sensor/film and lenses for smaller formats are generally smaller.

Let say over five years (1825 days), you would need to shoot 55 exposures every single day to reach 100,000. It is extremely rare we ever receive lenses in for shutter servicing, unless they are used in situations like aerial photography.

We rent a lot of Phase One P30+ and Phase One P40+ on Hasselblad H2 bodies in Miami and I completely agree that the shutter life on these lenses is very good. It would not concern me one iota if I was buying a new HC lens); however, it will impact the used market especially in the long run of system ownership.

Your other points are well taken and a great contribution to the pros and cons to each type of shutter. Having the ability to use either type of shutter in the Phase One DF body has only further exposed me to the benefits of using the right equipment for the right job, and I, like anyone else, am still learning .

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

The weight/size of the shutter itself is not really the issue. Designing a lens around a lens-shutter requires a different design that most often ends up more than a little larger and heavier. Take for instance the difference in weight and size between the Phase One systems 80mm lenses: the leaf shutter lens version is 35% heavier and 20% larger.


330g - Phase One 80mm D (f/2.8)
450g - Phase One 80mm D Leaf-Shutter (f/2.8)
475g - Hassy HC 80mm Leaf Shutter (f/2.8)

495g - Phase One 45mm D (f/2.8)
530g - Phase One 55mm D Leaf Shutter (f/2.8)
975g - Hassy HC 50mm Leaf Shutter (f/3.5)

You know what they say Doug. Plastic is lighter!

 

[dougpeterson]

You know what they say Doug. Plastic is lighter!

Indeed.

All the lenses I referenced are aluminum barreled.

The older Mamiya Non-D lenses were plastic and the Phase One D and Schneider LS D are aluminum.

That's one of the reasons why the Mamiya 80mm Non-D (plastic) is lighter than the Phase One 80mm D (aluminum) and the Mamiya 45mm non-D (plastic) is marginally lighter than the Phase One 45mm D (aluminum).

The plastic casings on the older Mamiya lenses is one of the things I did not like about them and I was glad to see this changed when Phase One and Schneider developed new lenses for the system. For the value hunter the older lenses are fantastically priced given their pretty good performance. The older Mamiya lenses are not as solid feeling, and are not as wickedly sharp as the new Phase One / Schneider lenses but they are also a fraction of the price.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

 

[jlm]

ok david..what's up with the 60?