Hasselblad H1-P30 vs Sony A900

[jonoslack]

Hi There
at the risk of being slung out on my ear I thought that I might post this here. It might be more appropriate on the 'other cameras' forum, and I will post it there too, but I rather doubt if any of the MF crew hang out in 'other cameras'!

Like Douglas, I don't think any other comments are really required - and of course resolution isn't anything, I was intrigued that a 35mm camera with a decent sensor could come so close . . .

HD3/A900 test
:bugeyes:

 

[Paratom]

Hi There
at the risk of being slung out on my ear I thought that I might post this here. It might be more appropriate on the 'other cameras' forum, and I will post it there too, but I rather doubt if any of the MF crew hang out in 'other cameras'!

Like Douglas, I don't think any other comments are really required - and of course resolution isn't anything, I was intrigued that a 35mm camera with a decent sensor could come so close . . .

HD3/A900 test
:bugeyes:

I agree with other answers in the original thread: I think there is something wring with the Hassy-shot. Either shake or focus or something else.
Shots from my ZD at 100% allready look sharper than this Hassy shots- so I would expect a propper Hassy shot to look at least as sharp.

 

[Dale Allyn]

I did not read the comment thread, but as a P25+ shooter with Mamiya glass, I do not think that the Hasselblad P30 sample (ISO 100) is particularly accurate as an example. I have not shot Hasselblad in many years, and then only with film, but based on my P25+ experience I suspect that the sample is less than perfect.

I'm not saying that the Sony A900 is not a terrific camera for those who are drawn to it. I really have no idea. And for me, ability to push and pull the files made from a large sensor around is appealing and features like that don't often get factored into pixel peeping comparisons.

It sounds like Douglas found something that he wants to work with for awhile and that's a good thing.

 

[luant16]

at f5.6, MF just lack of DOF. It showed in comparison that LL did as well, even at f/11, the DOF in MF still cannot match G10 at f/3.5

 

[Greg Seitz]

Hi Jono,

I was also intrigued by the comparison. I took the raw files and equalized them in terms of exposure and tone and came up with the following crops.

Unfortunately the exposure of the originals did not match up (the P30 was about 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop brighter) so I wasn't able to get a complete sense of the ability to push the files around but even there I see very little difference with the Sony being noisier in the shadows but able to recover as much or more highlights. Certainly nowhere near what I've heard in the past as to the dramatic differences one would have expected.

Regarding sharpness, hard to say if the test was flawed or not but the results certainly speak for themselves. I'd love to see more data points with other comparisons from those that have both...

Greg

 

[jonoslack]

Excellent Greg . . . but which is which! Maybe if I'm asking . . . . . .

My impression of the A900 files is that you have infinite headroom with overexposure, but that noise appears faster in the shadows.

 

[fotografz]

Something is wrong with this test. The P30 is a great back, and performs quite well even at higher ISOs ... and, trust me, the Hassey resolves much better than what is being demonstrated here @ 100%.

I did the same test Between a Canon 1DsMK-III with Leica optics and a H3D-II/31 (which uses the same 31 meg Kodak sensor as Phase), and as a result sold the Canon.

The Sony looks like a winner, but get real man

 

[carstenw]

Regarding sharpness, hard to say if the test was flawed or not but the results certainly speak for themselves.

Well, no, they don't! Not until we find out what went wrong with those Hassie shots.

The A900 results look good, and if someone needs nothing more than what they see here, then I guess they can buy one. But this was not a comparison between anything, just good shots from the A900 and nothing else.

 

[jonoslack]

Something is wrong with this test. The P30 is a great back, and performs quite well even at higher ISOs ... and, trust me, the Hassey resolves much better than what is being demonstrated here @ 100%.

I did the same test Between a Canon 1DsMK-III with Leica optics and a H3D-II/31 (which uses the same 31 meg Kodak sensor as Phase), and as a result sold the Canon.

The Sony looks like a winner, but get real man

Hi Marc
Fair enough - bad test . . . but it's hard to see what he did wrong - have you any ideas? He doesn't seem to have an axe to grind, he owns both cameras (and if you look at previous threads it's clear he only bought the Sony as a decent lightweight backup, not as a replacement). The setup looks pretty okay as well.

As for your test between the 1DsMkIII - well, that isn't the A900, which, as far as I can see has considerably better 'per pixel' sharpness (possibly a lighter AA filter).

The A900 results look good, and if someone needs nothing more than what they see here, then I guess they can buy one.

Hmm - scathing stuff my friend. But nobody was suggesting that the A900 was a replacement for medium format (at least, nobody here).
However, if you want something which shoots 5 frames a second at that kind of resolution, which is small and light, which costs less than £2,000, which uses some excellent Zeiss glass, which has a battery life of around 600 shots, which has moisture sealing and spectacularly good ergonomics . . . then I guess they can buy one!

I'm absolutely willing to believe the test was flawed (although I can't see where) - did you look at the RAW files?

 

[Paratom]

Jono,
dpreview writes that the pixel sharpness of the 1dsIII was better than that of the A900 , because he thinks the A900 had a stronger AA-filter.
I dont know if this is true though.
Regards, Thomas

 

[carstenw]

Hmm - scathing stuff my friend. But nobody was suggesting that the A900 was a replacement for medium format (at least, nobody here).

No, no, I meant that only in the best possible way Really, if the very nice results of the A900 are sufficient, then why wouldn't someone get it? If the results are good enough, there is no reason to go for a more expensive, less convenient camera. I wish the A900 and all its fans all the best.

did you look at the RAW files?

To be honest, no. The sharpness in the Hassie pics was so far off that I didn't think there would be any point. These sensors don't use AA filters and the sharpness wouldn't be that bad unless someone did it on purpose. Perhaps the guy left his Softar on after a portrait session? I have no idea, but the shots need to be redone, and if the same thing happens, the camera and lens (and maybe back) need to be sent in for adjustment.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Excellent Greg . . . but which is which! Maybe if I'm asking . . . . . .

My impression of the A900 files is that you have infinite headroom with overexposure, but that noise appears faster in the shadows.

Forgot that little detail... The first is the P30 and the second is the Sony.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,
dpreview writes that the pixel sharpness of the 1dsIII was better than that of the A900 , because he thinks the A900 had a stronger AA-filter.
I dont know if this is true though.
Regards, Thomas

HI Thomas
The results they got are really odd - much softer than I'm seeing. I think it's probably because they checked by either:
1. using jpg (euch)
2. using ACR - which does a really bad job on the A900 files - both in terms of noise and sharpness.

I sent Amin some raw files, and he agreed with me about the lighter AA filter - i.e. quite the opposite to the dpreview results.

 

[jonoslack]

To be honest, no. The sharpness in the Hassie pics was so far off that I didn't think there would be any point. These sensors don't use AA filters and the sharpness wouldn't be that bad unless someone did it on purpose. Perhaps the guy left his Softar on after a portrait session? I have no idea, but the shots need to be redone, and if the same thing happens, the camera and lens (and maybe back) need to be sent in for adjustment.

Hi Carsten
No worries. He had actually done the test 3 times on different occasions with different lenses and settings . . . . so maybe there's something wrong with it.

 

[Greg Seitz]

No, no, I meant that only in the best possible way Really, if the very nice results of the A900 are sufficient, then why wouldn't someone get it? If the results are good enough, there is no reason to go for a more expensive, less convenient camera. I wish the A900 and all its fans all the best.



To be honest, no. The sharpness in the Hassie pics was so far off that I didn't think there would be any point. These sensors don't use AA filters and the sharpness wouldn't be that bad unless someone did it on purpose. Perhaps the guy left his Softar on after a portrait session? I have no idea, but the shots need to be redone, and if the same thing happens, the camera and lens (and maybe back) need to be sent in for adjustment.

Really... I'm seeing single pixel wide level detail in both shots. The Sony definitely had the advantage as he tried to match the width of the shot and not the height giving the nod to the 2x3 format of the Sony. Even there he was off a bit. But, it just so happened that the two shots line up almost perfectly at the pixel level and frankly I see very little advantage in the P30 shot.

Here's an 800% crop of the P30 showing details down to the pixel level.

 

[Paratom]

HI Thomas
The results they got are really odd - much softer than I'm seeing. I think it's probably because they checked by either:
1. using jpg (euch)
2. using ACR - which does a really bad job on the A900 files - both in terms of noise and sharpness.

I sent Amin some raw files, and he agreed with me about the lighter AA filter - i.e. quite the opposite to the dpreview results.

Well,
if this is the case and with the great DR, and the Zeiss glass the A900 sounds really appealing.

 

[carstenw]

Ah, this is a different shot! Right, they could look equivalent here, detail-wise. Perhaps the famous H1 apparently earthquake-like mirror slap was at fault in the original image.

Perhaps there isn't much point in the P30 over the A900 (one would have to do a much more rigorous test to really determine that). For test shots like this, the battle is probably already lost...

However, this is only a comparison of pixel-level detail, and the P30 is far from the most impressive back you can get. Compare to a P65+ if you just want raw resolution. I doubt that DSLRs will ever reach that resolution. Even the A900 has very visible noise starting at around ISO 400, probably significantly worse than the P30+, so there is a limitation to consider.

But there are many other reasons to go to MF, not just resolution. Sure, if you stick to around 24MP backs, the A900 may be compelling to some. But there is the option of putting the back on a view camera, the at least one stop greater dynamic range, the possibility of more subtlety in tones (16 bits instead of 12), especially under significant editing which could yield posterization with the A900, etc.

If the guy is not impressed with his P30, he should sell it. However, this does not mean that we should all suddenly sell our MF equipment and buy A900s. Not that anyone is saying that outright, but it is being implied as a real option here. That is just silly.

 

[jonoslack]

Well,
if this is the case and with the great DR, and the Zeiss glass the A900 sounds really appealing.

That was what caught me - Unfortunately I can no longer do the comparison, but I was lent an A900 by the dealer, and I did lots of comparisons with the D700 - the pixel level detail was much better on the A900 (mind you, the D3/D700 does have quite a heavy AA filter). Of course, that leads to much larger prints being possible with the A900 as there are more pixels . The per-pixel sharpness is obviously not quite as good as the M8 (with no AA filter), but it is close.

I also thought that at the 200 base ISO the Dynamic range and colour were better on the A900 (bit subjective of course). The Nikon files take more bashing about in post processing without getting noisy, and of course it's in a different league at high ISO.

 

[Paratom]

That was what caught me - Unfortunately I can no longer do the comparison, but I was lent an A900 by the dealer, and I did lots of comparisons with the D700 - the pixel level detail was much better on the A900 (mind you, the D3/D700 does have quite a heavy AA filter). Of course, that leads to much larger prints being possible with the A900 as there are more pixels . The per-pixel sharpness is obviously not quite as good as the M8 (with no AA filter), but it is close.

I also thought that at the 200 base ISO the Dynamic range and colour were better on the A900 (bit subjective of course). The Nikon files take more bashing about in post processing without getting noisy, and of course it's in a different league at high ISO.

Jono,
did you also compare prints between D700 and A900?
Do you feel that the stronger AA-filter of the Nikon also leads to a visible loss in detail in smaller prints?
Cheers, Tom

 

[jonoslack]

But there are many other reasons to go to MF, not just resolution. Sure, if you stick to around 24MP backs, the A900 may be compelling to some. But there is the option of putting the back on a view camera, the one stop great dynamic range, the possibility of more subtlety in tones (16 bit instead of 12), especially under significant editing which could yield posterization with the A900, etc.

If the guy is not impressed with his P30, he should sell it. However, this does not mean that we should all suddenly sell our MF equipment and buy A900s. That is just silly.

Hi Carsten
Of course - nobody is suggesting it. But if there is an equivalence at that level, then it's certainly worth knowing about.