Hasselblad vs Phase One

[fotografz]

This is very trite.
In many studios, the asset base runs to multiple backs and multiple bodies, all of which need to be interchangeable. I won't even start on the need to run backs on multiple camera types......
I once ran a business which had 39 MF backs across our studios. No way I could consider Blad in that mix.
I can't help but wonder what the major rental studios' equipment managers are thinking as H2 stocks dry up. If you have 20 backs sitting on your shelf and each one has to be paired to a single body, that's a pretty hairy logistical nightmare. Oh, that's right, you want them to order 2 bodies with each back....
Even in a small single-photographer business like mine, there are 3 backs capable of running on the 5 camera platforms (Alpa, Arca, Fuji, Horseman and Phase) that populate my equipment cupboard.
Yes, it's pretty cool what Blad is doing re: the fine focus adjustment where the camera/lens/back integration is essential.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, tens of thousands of photographers are producing razor sharp images every day with cameras from Mamiya, Rollei, Contax, Phase One and lots more, all of which can mount their back of choice.
No matter how you spin it, the loss of choice which is the price of buying into the Hasselblad closed system is too high for the purported benefits. In relation to the AF benefits so loudly touted, they are in the eyes of many, a fantastic solution to a non-existant problem.

A different perspective:

I think you missed the point, and perhaps then spun off into anecdotal triteness yourself. The 2nd matched body answer was intended for those individual photographers who have ONE MFD system in a versatile mix of various formats, and want a back-up body. IMO, nothing less or more implied other than it is available to those who feel the need for one tight system of camera/back/body/lenses, not 30 interchangeable MFD cameras.

As to the commercial place MFD occupies, which in the isolation of forums like this seems to imply a growing need for such gear ... that is the opposite of the real world you are fond of quoting. With the enormous shift in media type and placements, and use of CGI, on a global scale, the general need for MFD in the general commercial world is shrinking exponentially.

I can quote a number of major studios that no longer have multiple MF platforms and/or various MFD backs because it is a flat out waste of money for a majority of today's end use ... if any, they have one MFD for the times they need it, usually bought with a hot-swap warranty ... or they rent if located in a major metro area. NOT saying there are no studios running multiple MFD cameras/backs, just that they are swiftly going the way of the Dodo as the media shifts more and more each year. In my city, a city where major studios with multiple MFD systems were once on every street corner, NONE are here today. Zero. Large, high volume production studios still exist here, but the need/use of MFD is getting more and more rare.

If today's studios or institutions need MFD it tends to be with an eye to highly specialized digital capture that, more often than not, is done on a specialized camera system, a view camera tethered to a computer, or a tethered MFD camera manually focused ... so in the case of view cameras, the MFD body isn't even part of the equation, and if a MFD camera, neither is AF and all the other amenities. Generally, for this application, ANY digital back works, whether it came with an integrated body or not.

On the other hand, those looking for a more versatility, speed, and cross-over double duty compared to today's 35mm DSLRs, which does include AF abilities, the MFD makers have offered solutions ... and IMO, Hasselblad's is by far the best AF solution to date. Every poll, discussion of improvements we'd like to see, or question on forums related to expanding the versatile use of MFD, has brought up the poor AF performance of MFD choices ... so your implication that such an improvement delivers "a purported benefit" flies in the face of what the new breed of users seem to be demanding from a more versatile use MFD system.

IMO, the only TRUE open system available today is offered by Hasselblad and Sinar. I can mount my CF/39MS on every MF camera platform made ... by myself in minutes. And the H2F camera I use with it offers most of the features and software corrections of a HD camera ... and I could buy 30 of them if I so choose, or 30 H1s or H2s ... or 30 Contax 645s or Mamiya 645s, or RZs. That these obvious Open Application backs are not more popular is testimony to the fact that more and more studios and individual users no longer desire to support multiple camera systems and all the expense of costly lens systems and accessories that go with it.

My 2¢ about mega cost gear and the state of the real world now, not yesterday.

-Marc

BTW, as unpopular as I may be for saying it, but mark my words ... I'd speculate that should a maker such as Canon decide to enter the fray with a larger coverage 36 X 36 sensor, what is left of the general commercial application for MFD will evaporate overnight. MFD will be relegated to institutions with highly specialized needs, a few high-end studios, and well heeled iconoclastic enthusiasts such as those on this forum.

 

[Jack]

A different perspective:

MFD will be relegated to institutions with highly specialized needs, a few high-end studios, and well heeled iconoclastic enthusiasts such as those on this forum.[/I]

Wow, surprised to hear this from you... As a landscape shooter and not particularly well-heeled -- certainly not as well heeled as you are with your operational PAIR of H backs and H bodies -- I think high-res MF capture does make a difference for MY type of landscape shooting. So I guess that makes me iconoclastic? I find that a somewhat petty point of view and offensive comment, especially coming from you. It almost sounds like sour grapes

 

[fotografz]

Wow, surprised to hear this from you... As a landscape shooter and not particularly well-heeled -- certainly not as well heeled as you are with your operational PAIR of H backs and H bodies -- I think high-res MF capture does make a difference for MY type of landscape shooting. So I guess that makes me iconoclastic? I find that a somewhat petty point of view and offensive comment, especially coming from you. It almost sounds like sour grapes

Well, Jack ... please don't take my words out of context ... the reference point was commercial studio photography in answer to Siebel's post ... not landscape work.

I've repeatedly mentioned that this forum is somewhat landscape oriented as far as MFD is concerned, and tends to reflect the opinions and needs of shooters such as yourself and those who post here frequently. However, landscape work isn't production studio work, which has changed drastically. While this MFD forum and those similar to it, are highly visible to its membership, it represents a microcosm of photography at large. To the average photographer, working pro or enthusiast, a P65+ is the domain of those with the means, and not a practical choice for many, if not most ... nor even a need given the drastic change in the complexion of commercial photography. This fact is more real world, and I think the direction MFD has been moving as far as features and abilities to make MFD more versatile and appealing to a wider audience.

BTW, you are incorrect ... I do not have a pair of H cameras and backs ... that time has passed. I now have one modular MFD kit that does the work I have left requiring it. It cost me $17K body and back, which is hardly a Phase One D camera with a P65+ back I already had the lenses.

Admittedly, I am "well heeled" enough to get most anything I want at this stage of life, (short of justifiable homicide on the part of my wife ). So, I could, and did, get an entire Leica S2 kit that is far better suited to the work that now dominates my creative output. Personally, I think those sour grapes taste pretty good :ROTFL:

As to the term Iconoclastic being petty and offensive ... I apologize ... I meant it as a compliment since the word in context to a creative endeavor means to overthrow traditional ideas and institutions ... the very attitude and energy that fuels new ideas ... or, at the very least, to buck trends. I hope to be more iconclastic myself in future. That is simply a work in progress.

-Marc

 

[goesbang]

Marc, we've had spirited disagreements before and I'm pretty sure your worldview is contrary to mine in regard to MFD and it's future.

I would caution against using the level of discussions on forums to base your
case against MFD. It is VERY rare to find a high-end pro populating these discussions. As such, the comment is very prone to biased sampling.

If MFD is in it's death throes, why did Phase One have their best year ever last year? I'm guessing Hasselblad isn't doing too badly either. In fact, the market outlook is so bad that not one, but two brands have entered the fray, though admittedly Leica's and Pentax's offerings lack the product maturity to claim high-end status. In short, the pie is getting bigger, not smaller.

It is folly to base predictions of what a marketplace is doing based on what the middle players are experiencing. I agree with you that the middle of the road shooters have no need to use MFD. That's a given. The shooters at the bleeding edge are not only buying this level of gear, they are demanding continued innovation. The argument that DSLR's will "catch up" is nonsensical as it assumes that MFD manufacturers are sitting around resting on their laurels.

The cost of these systems is often raised as a major negative. It is only a problem if you are not entrepreneurial enough to find new business opportunities offered by the tech. Back in 1995 when I paid 50k for a Leaf DCB1 system running on a Fuji Gx680, there were ripples of laughter in my town and predictions of the demise of my business. We had a plan and we worked at evolving it. Over the next 3 years, that system earned our studio over 2 million dollars. Not a bad return on investment.

This is the reason I am so harsh with my responses to the price whingers. If your business model can't sustain the investment, you can stay where you are or you can evolve your business.

You are right that the traditional revenue streams in our industry are changing. I left advertising as an industry as I feel the current business model is broken. I didn't complain. I took my assets - my gear, my knowledge and the real value in my business, which is the wierd stuff that goes on in my head, and moved countries, industries and started from scratch. Now I don't work in advertising. I work in construction. And yes, I use MF gear.

I'm certain my story is not unique. Business is about innovation. There are plenty enough photographic innovators out there to give me a lot of confidence in the future. I am not one of those who yearns for "how it used to be". I am excited by what the next innovation is going to allow me to do with my imagemaking. Thankfully, I am not alone.

 

[cunim]

Sadly, I agree with Marc's "resistance is futile" view of pro requirements into the near future. However, I take hope in boards such as this one. There are enough WHIEs or PShAWs (poorly shod artistic workers) to create longer term markets for superior kit. Leica is all about that. Phase and Hassi know it is coming and we are seeing them respond with gear that has very little to do with shooting weddings or models or cars. Great stuff.

 

[Dustbak]

Siebel,

Various of your posts I totally (or partially) disagreed with but your last one I can only say I completely agree.

Succeed in the combination of construction & photography in this moment in time? Kudos to you

 

[fotografz]

Marc, we've had spirited disagreements before and I'm pretty sure your worldview is contrary to mine in regard to MFD and it's future.

I would caution against using the level of discussions on forums to base your
case against MFD. It is VERY rare to find a high-end pro populating these discussions. As such, the comment is very prone to biased sampling.

If MFD is in it's death throes, why did Phase One have their best year ever last year? I'm guessing Hasselblad isn't doing too badly either. In fact, the market outlook is so bad that not one, but two brands have entered the fray, though admittedly Leica's and Pentax's offerings lack the product maturity to claim high-end status. In short, the pie is getting bigger, not smaller.

It is folly to base predictions of what a marketplace is doing based on what the middle players are experiencing. I agree with you that the middle of the road shooters have no need to use MFD. That's a given. The shooters at the bleeding edge are not only buying this level of gear, they are demanding continued innovation. The argument that DSLR's will "catch up" is nonsensical as it assumes that MFD manufacturers are sitting around resting on their laurels.

The cost of these systems is often raised as a major negative. It is only a problem if you are not entrepreneurial enough to find new business opportunities offered by the tech. Back in 1995 when I paid 50k for a Leaf DCB1 system running on a Fuji Gx680, there were ripples of laughter in my town and predictions of the demise of my business. We had a plan and we worked at evolving it. Over the next 3 years, that system earned our studio over 2 million dollars. Not a bad return on investment.

This is the reason I am so harsh with my responses to the price whingers. If your business model can't sustain the investment, you can stay where you are or you can evolve your business.

You are right that the traditional revenue streams in our industry are changing. I left advertising as an industry as I feel the current business model is broken. I didn't complain. I took my assets - my gear, my knowledge and the real value in my business, which is the wierd stuff that goes on in my head, and moved countries, industries and started from scratch. Now I don't work in advertising. I work in construction. And yes, I use MF gear.

I'm certain my story is not unique. Business is about innovation. There are plenty enough photographic innovators out there to give me a lot of confidence in the future. I am not one of those who yearns for "how it used to be". I am excited by what the next innovation is going to allow me to do with my imagemaking. Thankfully, I am not alone.

Not sure how I came across as signaling the death of MFD ... :ROTFL: I am and always have been an advocate, and probably responsible for getting people into MFD as much as anyone.

My world view is based on buying photography and being in the advertising world not necessarily shooting it. And, I agree with you that the business model is broken and in a state of flux ... which is why I finally retireed from it. The handwriting was on the wall, and rather than going into all the boring statistics, just Google "The Death of Print" ... media dollars are what overwhelmingly funded still photography in the commercial world ... and the media ain't what it used to be. Paperless is the watchword, and Electronic media is where it is all going and it didn't take long either. Reminds me of the diehards who resisted computers in art studios or type setters and printers. Gone. History.

I just met the studio head of the agency that snatched ALL the FORD collateral work from JWT some years ago, and now it is the lion's share of media other than TV. They have their own studio and it doesn't consist of 30 MFD kits ... it lives and dies on incredibly responsive and immediate ideas, not megapixels.

Bleeding edge photographers may well keep the MFD industry alive, as well as institutions with incredibly refined needs, time will tell. A good dose of art photographers and Landscape artists doesn't hurt

And, I agree with you, I do not believe that 35mm DSLRs will catch up ... ever ... and never said or implied they will ... however, as far as a vast majority of commercial work, they won't have to.

I'm sure you are successful ... for every one of you there are a 100 that no longer exist. Congratulations on your talent, vision and perseverance :thumbup: However, how many jolts and lost demands does it take before it becomes very difficult to sustain momentum? Hats off to the MFD companies that have defied some of these evaporating MFD outlets ... and I actually do believe that it is the enthusiasts that played a decent role in keeping things moving.

-Marc

 

[ptomsu]

Already the title of this thread is something like odd.

Both are absolutely great systems, delivering stunning results. While Phase in my eyes is kind of the technology leader, Hasselblad in my eyes has still the more complete system.

So all these discussions are somehow ..... I am better out and shoot - sigh!

 

[goesbang]

Siebel,

Various of your posts I totally (or partially) disagreed with but your last one I can only say I completely agree.

Succeed in the combination of construction & photography in this moment in time? Kudos to you

It's one of the things I love about this forum. We can express intensely opposite views in respectful ways without the flaming so common elsewhere.

Cheers!

 

[Nick-T]

Me personally I just find "Open" as a much more positive term...Imagine running to the corner shop in the rain at 10pm to get some milk and biscuits...the kettle's on, DVD is warmed up with the latest RomCom and then the (switched off) sign on the door says "CLOSED"...

YMMV...

You are right Yair, "closed" is such a negative word which is why Phase keep saying it about Hasselblad.

I will never buy a Leaf AFi because it is a closed platform.

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

This is very trite.
In many studios, the asset base runs to multiple backs and multiple bodies,

Trite? Charming.

"Many Studios"?

Absolutely not a majority in world wide market terms.

 

[PeterA]

I have made a lot of money shorting companies associated with engineering and construction projects in Dubai - it is a nice place to visit and for sure the first class Emirates lounge is one of the better places to hangout whilst waiting for transfer flights.

Last time I was there - about 6 months ago, I had a camera in my bag as usual - an M9. My travel kit is a 21/50 combination - wouldnt think of carrying all that bulk from Phase or Hasselblad on a carry on luggage business trip across three continents in a week. So 'real world' in this instance - means none of these dinasaurs get a ticket to the show.

Point is 'real world' is relative to its inhabitants. I dont live in a pro photographers world. What pro photographers think is important may or may not be applicable to my world ( and vica verca of course)

The truth is that both these companies are tiny and if forced to palce a bet - woudl say that one or both wont be around five years from now. However I cant place a bet - they aren't listed so shorting is out of the question.

As soon as the world went digital - the world pretty much embraced constant change - people make up all sorts of fancy middle or dying market words for this process. the reality is that in the battle for eye ball time - photography is losing ground as technology allows moving images to replace still images.

So companies should understand that the eccentric hobbyist will become more and more important (at the margin) to their business models and sexy pro shooters with entourages and all that stuff - will occupy a smalller and smaller space every year.

Depreciation rates and schedules for pro shooters earnign income will provide no sustainable source of high pricing power for companies protected by imaginary moats.

So lets all enjoy this stuff whilst the party lasts.

You see when Phase says no IQ back for an Hy6 - it just reminds the eccentric who bought an Hy6 - that these companies run their own agendas - and their words - don't really mean much.

Open platform? I dont think so...

Pete

 

[fotografz]

Tee Heee

Or... imagine you are in the middle of a major shoot, your camera body fails (a bummer, but it happens), you think "it's ok, I have several other bodies in my cupboard".

Then (cue bass drums), you remove your back, walk to the cupboard, look at the Fuji GX 680, Alpa, Arca and Horseman bodies that could have completed the job, then slowly, painfully, realise that the very expensive 60MP back in your hand just became a paper weight because it wears the badge of that closed platform.......:ROTFL:

See, this is the overly dramatized misinformation that is so odd it is hard to not challenge it. Using the same scenario and back-up cameras that could have finished the job ...

You walk to the cupboard with your Phase One Mamiya mount back from the Phamamiya camera that just failed in the middle of an important shoot with a client standing there ... it is a Mamiya mount so it doesn't fit that Fuji GX 680 because it is a closed mount back (unless there is an adapter for it, in which case it could be an H adapter) ... and you have a $44,000 paper weight in your hand. The view cameras are the misinformation part ...

H backs of any flavor will fit any view camera equipped with an H mount. So the Alpa, Arca, Horseman, Sinar or Rollie Xact cameras in the cupboard will work.

Now, my scenario:

Should MY Hasselblad H2F fail while shooting my Hasselblad CF/39MS ... Unlike the closed mount Phase One back, I can mount my back on another H2F ... or my Mamiya RZ, any view camera with ANY mount, or a Contax 645, Mamiya 645, V mount, Fuji ... by swapping my iAdapter from the set I have. I can stock various cameras with different capabilities and versatility ... because my CF back is an OPEN systems digital back.:thumbs: Not everyone's cup of tea, but I like the choice.

Hasselblad doesn't force you to buy an integrated system. Unlike Phase One or Leaf, you still have a choice ... including providing the current production H2F camera which includes all the current software/firmware enhancements and full use of the entire line of HC and HCD lenses ... or any CF, CFi, CFE Zeiss lens made ... with one button DAC corrections for those Zeiss lenses in Phocus.



Marc

 

[fotografz]

I for sure never had any problems using my 31Mp back on my H3d-39 body or my 39 back on my 22Mp H3dII body. Also i can not get the point why backs need to be interchangeable between more camera bodies( 645AF bodies). I use my backs on a Sinar P2, a Hartbleicam, a Linhof 647cc, a H3dII and have used the 50Mp on a self made pinhole-alike camera.
The Phase one system is in reality exact as closed as Hasselblad. A Phase back does the same thing as my Hassie H3dII backs. And yes, there are two lenses not available for the Phase users and Yes i cannot use the closed Leaf AFI system with my Hasselblad backs or lenses....
But honestly, i have been in many, many studios that use Hasselblad equipment and never ever had anybody complaining about a system being closed or that they were not able to use other than Hasselblad backs on their cameras. I think it is a rather extreme small user group, that mostly does not use a digital back at all who is complaining about these things.
IMHO.

I agree ... as an ad guy, I've been on shoots for hundreds of ads, billboards, catalog images, murals, etc. using both Phase One and Hasselblad ... and NO ONE uttered the word closed or open ... ever. It's marketing spin ... and I know marketing spin when I hear it ... :ROTFL:

=Marc

 

[TimothyHyde]

I'm afraid the picture of Seibel standing on his camera---even though he has bins full of them to spare--has ruined my ability to follow this thread.

 

[Jack]

Well, Jack ... please don't take my words out of context ... the reference point was commercial studio photography in answer to Siebel's post ... not landscape work.

Apologies Marc, I misunderstood and thought it was a global comment -- which seemed totally out of character for you and why I expressed surprise.

Cheers,

 

[ajoyroy]

Hi everyone,

I am interested in upgrading my equipment to Medium Format (MF) also I have a good budget to buy any type of MF camera and I’m not sure which MF camera to go for.
Can anyone tell me which is better camera of two above (camera body and lenses) overall, also I need to get a feedback whose have a good experience or someone who attended to workshops about Digital Back for (H4D vs P65+ vs IQ180) which is the best as I know I can put Phase One digital back into Hasselblad H4D camera or vice versa.
If anyone know that there is a comparison through the forums or website please tell me because I didn’t found any clear comparison test.
I know this may be a personal thing but anyone’s thoughts will be very welcome.

First of all you should be aware of the differences
1. With MFDB you have to work with the RAW processing software. I do not think that you will get ready to view image of the DB. Hence you will have to invest money (which in your case is no problem) and a lot of time in learning the software and processing images.
2. For most of the time 40MP+ cameras require a tripod and FAT Light for optimum image. That means that point and shoot style in low light is out.
3. With the cost of the back being so high, you can view the camera as "free" part of the system, it is the back followed by lenses that would be major investment.
4. Dealer support is essential for most people venturing into MFDB. Be it training , adjustment (if and when required) or warranty support, MFDB demands more compared to DSLR.

With that said, the best bet for you would be to
1. Visit dealers in your area to evaluate the offerings
2. Visit users who have the Phase and Hasselblad system and get their feedback of the feel and support
3. If possible rent each system and use them for a week. That would clearly demonstrate what you like and what you do not.

In case you do not need the high resolution, in my opinion a 40MP system is best as compromise between resolution, speed, and hand held shooting. The systems in this range are Leica S2, Hasselblad HD40, and Phase P40+. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Guy uses his P40+ for day to day shooting, and there are lot of photographers who use S2 in fashion. May be I am biased, but my personal choice is the Hasselblad HD40 with its true focus and leaf shutter lenses.

I would have liked the Leaf AFi but its future is still uncertain, though Leaf has the 80MP back for it.

 

[goesbang]

Sadek, I thought it might be a good idea to go back and re-read the question you originally asked.
I have been shooting MF digital professionally since '95 and have owned, tested and used so many I have lost count. My gear cupboard currently has a P40+,P45+, P65+ and Aptus 12. I have just ordered an IQ180.
If I set aside the passionate views that this topic always ignites, my professional view is that for the person to whom the cost part of the decision is not so important, there is one back that is so far ahead of the current state of the art that it is the only real contender - The Phase One IQ180. On almost every criteria I can asses it on, it is the class leader. I have yet to see an opinion that disagrees with this from someone who has actually shot with it. It's not perfect. It's just so much better than everything else.

On the cameras & lenses part of your question, in all honesty, you should buy the camera brand you like. If you prefer Blad, buy a H2 (I believe you can still get them new) and hang your IQ180 off that. Unless Blad decide (or are told by a court) that they have to let other companys' products fit their H3 and H4 cameras, these cameras remain a trap if you want to use the best backs available. A shame, but that seems to be where we sit.
The thing is, whilst there is always passionate argument when the Phase vs Blad debate comes up, the real impact of the differences between these two systems on the camera & lens side of things is relatively small when you compare this to the differences between the respective backs. Whichever camera you choose, the quality of image delivered to the surface of your sensor is going to be very, very high.
If you want the best beyond that point, then you have 3 choices - Phase One IQ180, Phase One IQ180, Phase One IQ180.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

You guys are just too funny. :thumbs:

I do love the spirit around here.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

First of all you should be aware of the differences
1. With MFDB you have to work with the RAW processing software. I do not think that you will get ready to view image of the DB. Hence you will have to invest money (which in your case is no problem) and a lot of time in learning the software and processing images.
2. For most of the time 40MP+ cameras require a tripod and FAT Light for optimum image. That means that point and shoot style in low light is out.
3. With the cost of the back being so high, you can view the camera as "free" part of the system, it is the back followed by lenses that would be major investment.
4. Dealer support is essential for most people venturing into MFDB. Be it training , adjustment (if and when required) or warranty support, MFDB demands more compared to DSLR.

With that said, the best bet for you would be to
1. Visit dealers in your area to evaluate the offerings
2. Visit users who have the Phase and Hasselblad system and get their feedback of the feel and support
3. If possible rent each system and use them for a week. That would clearly demonstrate what you like and what you do not.

In case you do not need the high resolution, in my opinion a 40MP system is best as compromise between resolution, speed, and hand held shooting. The systems in this range are Leica S2, Hasselblad HD40, and Phase P40+. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Guy uses his P40+ for day to day shooting, and there are lot of photographers who use S2 in fashion. May be I am biased, but my personal choice is the Hasselblad HD40 with its true focus and leaf shutter lenses.

I would have liked the Leaf AFi but its future is still uncertain, though Leaf has the 80MP back for it.

Well said
I think it comes down to 4 main items and finding the best compromises on each system that work for you.
Back
Body
Lenses
Software

If you can get that decision down to those four with the least amount of compromise than you found your system that works for you.

This does take in function, workflow, form and support on all of them as well