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!

If you had the choice

fotom

New member
Today I have a serious question:

If you had the choice between a

Hasselblad H3DII-50 and a Hasselblad H4D-31

what camera would you take?

I have an offer from my dealer for a used H3DII50 and a HC50-110 for all 10.500 Euro. It has around 15.000 clicks (both, camera and body). A second handgrip is included.

A new H4D-31 would be at 8.999 Euro (special offer, body only), but I found an offer for a HC80/2,8 for about 700 Euro (pre owned).

I have the H3DII50 for a few days and could bring it back to my dealer.

What I think about most is the technical advantages at the H4D and that it comes with a guarantee and maximum 100 clicks.

The H3DII has the "bigger" Digiback. I am not running for the MP, but in some situation size matters. I had some pictures taken with the H3DII already and the resolution is amazing. No moire issues or other problems.

So to come to the main point: Is the H3DII50 the better offer or the H4D?

Thank you for some information and your opts...
 

Stan ROX

Member
Today I have a serious question:

If you had the choice between a

Hasselblad H3DII-50 and a Hasselblad H4D-31

what camera would you take?

I have an offer from my dealer for a used H3DII50 and a HC50-110 for all 10.500 Euro. It has around 15.000 clicks (both, camera and body). A second handgrip is included.

A new H4D-31 would be at 8.999 Euro (special offer, body only), but I found an offer for a HC80/2,8 for about 700 Euro (pre owned).

I have the H3DII50 for a few days and could bring it back to my dealer.

What I think about most is the technical advantages at the H4D and that it comes with a guarantee and maximum 100 clicks.

The H3DII has the "bigger" Digiback. I am not running for the MP, but in some situation size matters. I had some pictures taken with the H3DII already and the resolution is amazing. No moire issues or other problems.

So to come to the main point: Is the H3DII50 the better offer or the H4D?

Thank you for some information and your opts...
Fotom,

this is for sure a hard question. And there is for sure not an easy answer.

The H4D has TrueFocus.
If you need TrueFocus (and you'll love it for your People, Portrait, Lifestyle, work etc.) - you should go with the H4D.

And you should definitely consider the BIG SIZE of 50 MPix. If you don't really NEED those big files, it may be much easier with the lower pixel count.

Remember: You can not turn down to a lower pixel count as on a Canon or Nikon. You beautiful swedish gem will always deliver maximum quality.

But I definitely have to emphasize about the TrueFocus. Maybe there are different opinions, but I would go with the newer H4D, the slightly smaller file sizes (except if you really need them).

Maybe you want to download sample files from the Hasselblad Website to see the differences in File Size & Precision:

Landscape Samples

H4D-31: 65 MB TIFF
H4D-50: 101 MB TIFF

IF you are into long exposure, there may be a difference in the durantion these backs are able to capture.

Hope this helps.

Stan ROX
 

gazwas

Active member
Not shot the H3 but have used the H4D-50 and thought it was one great sensor. As far as I know it is the same chip and without even thinking about it I'd want the bigger (size) sensor.

True focus supposedly works well but never felt I ever needed it and we've all gone for years shooting sharp pictures without it.

Hard drive space is cheap, who cares any longer how big the RAW files are?
 

Stan ROX

Member
Not shot the H3 but have used the H4D-50 and thought it was one great sensor. As far as I know it is the same chip and without even thinking about it I'd want the bigger (size) sensor.

True focus supposedly works well but never felt I ever needed it and we've all gone for years shooting sharp pictures without it.

Hard drive space is cheap, who cares any longer how big the RAW files are?
As long as ya have to load them into Photoshop, Lightroom or whatsoever.

But I'm pretty sure, I'd opt for a H4D-50 also :LOL:
 

MaxKißler

New member
As far as I know, the H4D-31 has "only" a 44x33 sensor as opposed to the 48x36 of the H3dII-50. Therefore I'd opt for the H3D. Sensor size regardless of pixel resolution is, at least to me, more important than true focus. This is just my personal preference and I'm not even a Hasselblad user. The benefits of the H3D are: Less crop in the viewfinder, better use of wide angles, more resolution and to phrase it extremely simple you can make use of shallower depth of field.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Since I've owned and used them all ... except the H3D-II/50 which my best friend owns and uses, so I know that camera well also ... maybe I can help?

It all comes down to what and how you shoot. Cliche' perhaps, but 100% true.

The H4D/31 is a more spontaneous camera experience. With True Focus and an ISO range from 100 to 1600, it's great for hand-held, or mono-pod shooting especially of people. True Focus works, and is great for off-center subjects especially when shooting closer with the lens wide open for shallow DOF, or if using a wide-angle lens. The 31 meg sensor has been in the Hasselblad line-up since the H3D: Hasselblad launches the H3D-31). However, it is capable of excellent images, and I used a H3D-31 and H3D-II-31 successfully for many years, and it was one of my favorite cameras for what and how I shoot. The first 4 shots on my portrait site are examples of the H3D-II/31 sensor used spontaneously on a commercial shoot.

Fotografz Portrait Photography - Franklin Michigan

The H3D-II/50 is a bit more of a studied camera, and while it can most certainly also be used spontaneously, it excels at rock solid shooting on a tripod at ISO-50, and the Kodak sensor is one generation ahead of the Kodak sensor of the H4D/31. It is especially suited to studio work with strobes.

If your comparison was between the H4D/40 and a H3D-II/50, it would be an easy recommendation to go with the H4D/40 which has the latest Kodak designed 40 meg sensor.

Hope this helps,

-Marc

OH! One other thing to check ... not long ago Hasselblad instituted a firmware update that doubled the resolution of the LCD. I'd ask if this LCD firmware works on either of these cameras ... it may be one thing that's added in favor of one or the other.
 
Last edited:

alan_w_george

New member
IMO, the only reason to use MFD SLR is horsepower (i.e. megapixels) and to a lesser extent perhaps, color fidelity and file depth (i.e. malleability). You give up a hell of a lot considering today's top end 35mm SLR equipment, for these. In just about every other category, 35mm will beat the socks off MFD SLR (high ISO, frame rates, lens selection, focusing systems, COST!, just to name just a few). So if 31 MP would be sufficient and a camera body with a sexy list of features is a desire, then if I where you I would look hard at Canon or Nikon. Just sayin'
 

fotografz

Well-known member
IMO, the only reason to use MFD SLR is horsepower (i.e. megapixels) and to a lesser extent perhaps, color fidelity and file depth (i.e. malleability). You give up a hell of a lot considering today's top end 35mm SLR equipment, for these. In just about every other category, 35mm will beat the socks off MFD SLR (high ISO, frame rates, lens selection, focusing systems, COST!, just to name just a few). So if 31 MP would be sufficient and a camera body with a sexy list of features is a desire, then if I where you I would look hard at Canon or Nikon. Just sayin'
That is all true IF you believe that 35mm looks the same as Medium Format. Which I do not.

And if it IS true that there is no difference in look and feel from a smaller sensor, then the APSC high meg, high ISO cameras are even smaller, and even less expensive than 35mm ... so why not get one of those?

-Marc
 
I would get the H4D-31 hands down, unless you needed 50 mpx...I'm pretty sure the sensor in that is the same as my P30+. I think its a great size file. I shoot it on the H4x and love true focus. It's one of the best AF advances in a very long time. I have a D800E as well and it's great for what it is, but it's not the same as MF. You also might consider a used 100 2.2 rather than an 80mm. I use the 100 80% of the time with the other 15% only when I shoot wide with the 35mm and the 80 maybe 5%. The 50-110 lens was not made very well and i have heard of several that have fallen apart under normal shooting conditions. Having a warranty is very nice. You also may be able to find a used H4D-40 for not much more. Hope this helps.
 
for the price you are looking at... buy a Phase One back... :) and a hasselblad body if you like the hasselblad bodies. I've compared hasselblad and Phase One backs with hasselblad lenses, and to me the Phase files were better in every aspect.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The OP hasn't responded since posting the question. So, we may be debating amongst ourselves :rolleyes:

Tit for tat ...

I also either tested, or used, or been on set with Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad backs on various cameras ... and other than the added functionality of the very expensive IQ DBs or use on a tech camera on location, I found the Hasselblad integrated body/back/lens solution from the H3D-II thru the H4 (H5) to be more reliable and better in every respect (whatever that lack of specificity actually means :rolleyes:). Personal opinion, "Eye of the Beholder" and all that I guess. :)

Since the absent OP asked about Hasselblad, my recommendation is the H4D/40 if a demo or clean used one can be found ... IMO and experience, it strikes the perfect balance between that MFD look and feel, good higher ISO performance without binning, and superb file quality ... as such, it covers a lot of bases if you do not specialize in some application that would warrant 50+ meg, or a multi-shot camera/back.

-Marc
 

malmac

Member
This is obviously a subject quite a few of us are interested in. I guess we have chosen Hasselblad or Phase One or another option, or we are thinking of which way to go. I know I read this forum for some time before I bought into Phase One.

Would I make the same decision if I was making the decision again?

Maybe, maybe not, but for me it would not be any easier the second time round. I think the True Focus on H cameras, it seems to work well, would be a major consideration for me as I find the Phase One 645Df camera's auto focus very basic.

It was suggested to me when I bought my Phase One camera system that a new camera was on the way and unlike Hasselblad, I would be able to upgrade the camera without upgrading the back (the expensive part and the part which suffers the high depreciation) well I am still waiting and while I love the image quality from my IQ back the 645DF is the weak link in the chain.

Oh well back to work.


Mal
 

Professional

Active member
Honestly speaking, i was using H3DII-39 then upgraded to H4D-60, if i neglect about mp or file size, i will say H4D is a significant improvement over H3D, True focus and high ISO, i can shoot with ISO 800 by H4D and it will look better than ISO 200/400 on H3D, that may help me sometimes for low light, so i will go with H4D31 over H3D models, try to see H4D40 if you can afford it.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
MFD upgrade equals computer upgrade, not just hard drive space, but processing power too. TF is very cool, and unless you print really, really big photographs, you probably won't know the difference. Save the $ and get some glass with the H4.
 
A

ashdown

Guest
Did anybody ask the OP what he was going to use the camera for? I made a similar decision between an H4D-31 and H3DII-39. The 39 won because I shoot cars and products. If I shot people the 31 would have been better because of the TrueFocus.
 

alan_w_george

New member
IMO, the only reason to use MFD SLR is horsepower (i.e. megapixels) and to a lesser extent perhaps, color fidelity and file depth (i.e. malleability). You give up a hell of a lot considering today's top end 35mm SLR equipment, for these. In just about every other category, 35mm will beat the socks off MFD SLR (high ISO, frame rates, lens selection, focusing systems, COST!, just to name just a few). So if 31 MP would be sufficient and a camera body with a sexy list of features is a desire, then if I where you I would look hard at Canon or Nikon. Just sayin'
That is all true IF you believe that 35mm looks the same as Medium Format. Which I do not.

-Marc
Ah, I forgot about the unquantifiable, undefendable Medium Format magic. "MF just looks better", right! BS.

It just my opinion, but given the choice between a cropped 31 MP Hasselblad MF SLR for $12000 and an 36 MP Nikon D800E SLR for $3200, well lets just say that "magic" is pretty damn expensive both in terms of $$ and loss of features on the MF SLR compared to the 35mm. And not believing in magic, it's pretty hard to swallow.

Anyway my original point was to go with the 50MP back. I could not understand why you would want sacrifice MF's only real advantage, resolution, for a few SLR features (Hasselblad H3DII-50 versus a Hasselblad H4D-31). Given that line of thinking, I thought the OP might be better served by a top end 35mm SLR. Again, just my opinion.
 

fotom

New member
Hello,

I thank you all for sharing your opinion and try to help me to find a solution. You did a good work! I will stay with the H3DII-50.

Well, what will I use it for most? I have done a lot of landscape and skyline in the last time, so I believe the 50MP back might be the better option because of the higher resolution and the better crop (due to the different sensor size). For the first shots I used ISO50 and did not miss higher speed at all.

If I need more ISO for other things I will use my D3s anyway. That I still have with my two f2,8 zooms. But that camera I have for different usage and different jobs. I do like it for studio work as well, but only, if I need a fast result in low resolution.

Maybe there will be a situation to use the H3D for studio work as well. But I think that will be only sometimes. And I believe, all the other guys not having True Focus can shoot all that studio stuff as well with good results. So I will have to learn how to do it, too.

Today I talked to another Hasselblad photographer and he said, that at that prize the H3DII-50 with the HC50-110 is a pretty good offer and I should go for it.

I found another offer for the H3DII- 50 without a lens and that was some 500 Euro more expensive than my one with the HC50-110. This photographer also told me, that the zoom is one of the best found on the marked. Is that so? In that case I would add the 120/4 Makro for stills and product work.

Then I will save some money and try to get an H4D-31 next.

Why Hasselblad anyway?

I looked at the PhaseOne backs as well and I like them, too. But usually they are sold with Mamiya bodys. I went to Calumet and got one in my hand. A PhaseOne back (I do not remember the type) on a 645AFD Mamiya with battery grip and I believe a Profoto remote sync system integrated, a battery on the bottom of the back and a 80mm lens. It was a huge construction I could not even hold in my hands for a lot of money (more expensive than my Hassi or even an H4D-40). I tried to shoot some pictures on my own CF card but the results had been not worth to mention.

Then I went to a local dealer and took a close look at Hasselblad. They had a H4D-40 and let me try it with a 100/2,2. That was a nice combination, easy to use and I could handle it very easy in my hands. Unfortunately my son was with me and he was very impatient that I took so long at that place.

The dealer I usually buy my stuff had "my" H3DII-50 and he lend it to me for a weekend. The handling is like any H- Camera I believe and I like the results. I will post an example later.

I used to have a Nikon D800. I traded it for a D3x. The D800 is nice. But I was disappointed about the results.

The first impression of the results is great. Nice colored pictures with a good sharpness.

For example take a look here.

But the sharpness was fading when printed in large format (I did it in DIN A0 and couldn´t believe my eyes!). Same result in DINA2.

I believe it was a focus problem with my lenses, but they all worked fine with my D3s and later on the D3x. I used the 14-24/2,8G, the 24-70/2,8G and the 70-200/2,8VRII. I then had the 85/1,4G, the 105/2,8VR Macro, but the worst results I had with my 50/1,4G. No sharp pictures at all from f1,4 to f3,5. All pictures were out of focus. But with the D3s the 85/1,4 was as sharp as a razor blade.

I gave the D800 and the 50/1,4 to service and got it back well. But the 50 didn´t work with my D3s any more. So I didn´t want to take that risk that all lenses will not work with my D3s any more.

After I had the D3x the situation improved. But it not got perfect. The results were a lot better even with less resolution. The sharpness was quite good in bigger prints. But still sometimes the focus problems occurred.

Then I met the H3D.

The D3x and all lenses except the two 2,8 Zooms (24-70-200) were sold.

The difference between MF and FX Format is obviously. At least in my eyes.
 
Top