Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Here's my take. Both systems are terrific. Both are used by people who I respect and even have some affection for. I'm a Hasselblad shooter but seriously considered moving to Phase this upgrade cycle.
TS options. Don and Marc have done a very good of summarizing the pros and cons here. I own and use the HTS and have owned but sold a Horsemann and a couple to digitars. Viewed 1:1 on screen the digitars are remarkable - but in actual use I found them frustrating: in the field focus and composition are challenging (and corrections for color shifts are good but rarely perfect) and I was not getting the best out of them. I now use the HTS very happily but if you need (as I have at various times) to push for ultimate performance you may not be happy with it. And of course with the HTS you get tilt as well as shift, which is not generally available in the compact technical camera solutions.
Lens selection is important. The HC 35-90 made a big difference for me. With it, the 28, the 100, the 150, the tele-extender and the HTS I'm really ready for anything. The camera + 35-90 is a reasonably light weight travel kit.
One vs. two batteries. Not really that important - we can cope with either.
Software. Both do an outstanding job of conversion, noise reduction, sharpening, color profiling etc. at reasonable speed. In other words basic blocking and tackling. C1 has the edge on user interface and bells and whistles - this was the primary reason that I gave the Phase system a serious look. Neither is a complete solution to all problems - you'll still be using PS for heavy lifting and LR or Aperture for resource management.
Focal plane vs. leaf. For a lot of reasons leaf fits my shooting style best. The availability of the new CZ leaf shutter lenses for Phase neutralizes the H advantage on this issue a bit. This was another reason why I gave Phase a serious look. (I've lost track of delivery dates and reviews/reactions since I don't have a reason to follow them.)
Features. There are all kinds of little differences, but the largest difference is True Focus vs. Sensor Plus. Your choice.
Kodak vs. Dalsa. This really is a matter of taste - shoot both and see which you prefer.
Open vs. closed systems. This is a red herring perpetuated by LL. Both systems are effectively closed. Both permit the use of legacy Hasselblad glass, although if this is important to you Phase is a better solution.
Ergonomics. I find both awkward. But have you ever shot with an 8x10 Deardorff? For a period it was the best tool available to Ansel Adams, so he adapted to it. You'll be able to adapt to either system.
Appearance - This shouldn't matter. It's a dumb criterion, right? The Hasselbad body is lightweight alloy with a stainless steel skin. Really impressive - I've worn the paint off the the corners of mine and it really is steel (except that the hand grip is plastic). But Hasselblad has used a putty/grey finish that makes it look like plastic. No accounting for taste. The Phase is black, as a camera should be.
TS options. Don and Marc have done a very good of summarizing the pros and cons here. I own and use the HTS and have owned but sold a Horsemann and a couple to digitars. Viewed 1:1 on screen the digitars are remarkable - but in actual use I found them frustrating: in the field focus and composition are challenging (and corrections for color shifts are good but rarely perfect) and I was not getting the best out of them. I now use the HTS very happily but if you need (as I have at various times) to push for ultimate performance you may not be happy with it. And of course with the HTS you get tilt as well as shift, which is not generally available in the compact technical camera solutions.
Lens selection is important. The HC 35-90 made a big difference for me. With it, the 28, the 100, the 150, the tele-extender and the HTS I'm really ready for anything. The camera + 35-90 is a reasonably light weight travel kit.
One vs. two batteries. Not really that important - we can cope with either.
Software. Both do an outstanding job of conversion, noise reduction, sharpening, color profiling etc. at reasonable speed. In other words basic blocking and tackling. C1 has the edge on user interface and bells and whistles - this was the primary reason that I gave the Phase system a serious look. Neither is a complete solution to all problems - you'll still be using PS for heavy lifting and LR or Aperture for resource management.
Focal plane vs. leaf. For a lot of reasons leaf fits my shooting style best. The availability of the new CZ leaf shutter lenses for Phase neutralizes the H advantage on this issue a bit. This was another reason why I gave Phase a serious look. (I've lost track of delivery dates and reviews/reactions since I don't have a reason to follow them.)
Features. There are all kinds of little differences, but the largest difference is True Focus vs. Sensor Plus. Your choice.
Kodak vs. Dalsa. This really is a matter of taste - shoot both and see which you prefer.
Open vs. closed systems. This is a red herring perpetuated by LL. Both systems are effectively closed. Both permit the use of legacy Hasselblad glass, although if this is important to you Phase is a better solution.
Ergonomics. I find both awkward. But have you ever shot with an 8x10 Deardorff? For a period it was the best tool available to Ansel Adams, so he adapted to it. You'll be able to adapt to either system.
Appearance - This shouldn't matter. It's a dumb criterion, right? The Hasselbad body is lightweight alloy with a stainless steel skin. Really impressive - I've worn the paint off the the corners of mine and it really is steel (except that the hand grip is plastic). But Hasselblad has used a putty/grey finish that makes it look like plastic. No accounting for taste. The Phase is black, as a camera should be.
Last edited:
