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!

H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

torger

Active member
I've read the test, and the purpose was to look at what popular second hand alternatives can perform compared to a D800. An H3D-39 can be had second hand at a similar price point as a new D800 system with pro lenses. The test was aimed at price-sensitive amateur users, such as myself.

I think it's a really great initiative, usually MFD reviews is about looking at $50K systems which very few landscape amateurs will afford. There's a growing amateur interest in MFD and it's actually a quite good market today for getting into MFD second hand, you can get great image quality for reasonable prices. This tests is a brief look into how good it is.

The article also looks into possibilities of using the digital back on a tech camera, which I personally think is the way to go. I would never have bought my digital back if I was going to use it on a H or 645DF camera and it was about image quality alone, but with my tech camera I would enjoy a 22 megapixel back more than a D800, just because the tech camera is so different and fun to shoot.

For me it was not important that the digital back would deliver better image quality than the best DSLR, just adequate quality to a reasonable price. This test certainly shows that the H3D-39 despite its age still delivers competitive image quality. It's about showing amateurs that the MFD is today not necessarily only reserved for working professionals and the super-rich, but at the same time not bring inflated expectations (the format wars tend to exaggerate the capabilities of a particular format). I think the articles succeed quite well in being neutral, ie neither being a DSLR or an MFD fanboy, which is kind of refreshing...

When I help out with gear recommendations to other amateurs I generally focus on the camera, how fun it is to work with and how well it fits the desired shooting style. If you just want a DSLR with better image quality you're generally in for disappointment, or a very big hole in your pocket...
 
Last edited:

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
For landscape photography, the only difference between professionals and serious amateurs is that serious amateurs only do photography for passion. Some amateurs I know of having more knowledge in photography than most professionals. I don’t talk about Jack, Guy, Bob, Dan or Ed here.

You don’t need to be super rich to have MFDB nowsday, there are plenty of opportunities in a second hand market. If you don’t eat out too frequent, don’t buy a new car every few years and just stick with your old woman etc, you still can buy a MFDB.

Some people are very religious about view or tech cameras but to me it is not the only factor to buy MFDB. Only DSLR with MFDB alone is a good reason to buy a MFDB. I still get sharper prints than Galen Rowell although sharp image is not everything, isn’t it? Photography is about the final result, not only a sharp image or great DOF. To me, super sharp from 2 feet to infinity is not natural to my eyes.

Taking photography is about pleasure. Whatever you use, 16, 22, 36, 40, 60, 80 mp, it doesn’t matter, just have fun and don’t loan to buy equipments if you are not professionals. Your kids’ college comes first.

Happy weekend!
Pramote
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
Pramote, +1

I have to agree that the color "test" is meaningless--it actually shows nothing. And since we have no idea what the original scene actually was, we cannot even decide if the camera did produce pleasing color, let alone accurate ones. It makes no sense choosing another camera as a reference when we don't even know how that reproduces color.
 
Last edited:

kdphotography

Well-known member
....
You don’t need to be super rich to have MFDB nowsday, there are plenty of opportunities in a second hand market. .... just stick with your old woman etc, you still can buy a MFDB.

....
Pramote

Please, please, please, Pramote! You're setting up a lot of guys here for a serious hurting....:eek:

:ROTFL:
 

torger

Active member
I have to agree that the color "test" is meaningless--it actually shows nothing.
I think it helps looking at a previous test done by the onlandscape team:

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

There one can see that the IQ180, Sony A900, and even portra and velvia looks kind of similar, but P45+ has a green color of its own. I'm guessing that Tim had this test in the back of his head (I'm quite sure he did not like the P45+ colors, but I hope he'll comment later on) when he did this and did not really present as much of the background as he would have needed this time around.

I'm a bit skeptical about the color of the KAF-39000 sensor, as pleasing greens is important to me. Maybe custom color profiling can fix it, but if there's metamerism issues it's not so sure. I'm glad that I chose a back with a Dalsa 33 megapixel sensor which have competitive color accuracy even with today's standards.

Had I got a great deal on a KAF-39000-equipped back or so I could live with it, it's not thaaaat important with accuracy for me. But would I choose between for example long exposure support and very accurate colors I think I'd choose colors. I think it's nice starting off with an as realistic rendition as possible when starting to tweak in post, rather than having to tweak to get to a realistic starting position.
 
Last edited:

RVB

Member
To my eye's the Blad is far superior and what 60mm hasselblad lens was used as there is no HC-60....
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I think it helps looking at a previous test done by the onlandscape team:

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

There one can see that the IQ180, Sony A900, and even portra and velvia looks kind of similar, but P45+ has a green color of its own. I'm guessing that Tim had this test in the back of his head (I'm quite sure he did not like the P45+ colors, but I hope he'll comment later on) when he did this and did not really present as much of the background as he would have needed this time around.

I'm a bit skeptical about the color of the KAF-39000 sensor, as pleasing greens is important to me. Maybe custom color profiling can fix it, but if there's metamerism issues it's not so sure. I'm glad that I chose a back with a Dalsa 33 megapixel sensor which have competitive color accuracy even with today's standards.

Had I got a great deal on a KAF-39000-equipped back or so I could live with it, it's not thaaaat important with accuracy for me. But would I choose between for example long exposure support and very accurate colors I think I'd choose colors. I think it's nice starting off with an as realistic rendition as possible when starting to tweak in post, rather than having to tweak to get to a realistic starting position.
Actually, that test does not answer anything. All you have is a personal perception of an image, but you still have no idea about the color. None of the so-called color tests really test for color. Especially since we do not know what the original scene was, we have no better idea of the results. All you can say is a camera can make a seemingly accurate real color image, but can't go beyond that. And since every camera can make a relatively accurate real color image, the choice is simply random.

Cameras do not suffer from metamerism and in fact has nothing to do with camera profiles or how a camera reproduces stuff. Metamerism is about two different materials that appear the same color under one light source, but no longer match under another.
 
Last edited:

torger

Active member
Actually, that test does not answer anything. All you have is a personal perception of an image, but you still have no idea about the color. None of the so-called color tests really test for color. Especially since we do not know what the original scene was, we have no better idea of the results. All you can say is a camera can make a seemingly accurate real color image, but can't go beyond that. And since every camera can make a relatively accurate real color image, the choice is simply random.

Cameras do not suffer from metamerism and in fact has nothing to do with camera profiles or how a camera reproduces stuff. Metamerism is about two different materials that appear the same color under one light source, but no longer match under another.
Well cameras do suffer from sensitivity metamerism, there's even a standardized way to measure this, ISO17321. DxoMark has measured this and not surprisingly the KAF-39000 backs is a little bit behind on this, and the Sony camera is one of the best (IQ180 is extremely good too, all Dalsa-based backs are great in that respect, and that's also what I've seen many user opinions, Dalsa more accurate, some still prefer Kodak look).

I'm no expert on this, so I borrowed an explanation: "the underlying physics is that a sensor can distinguish exactly the same colors as the average human eye, if and only if the spectral responses of the sensor can be obtained by a linear combination of the eye cone responses. These conditions are called Luther-Ives conditions, and in practice, these never occur. There are objects that a sensor sees as having certain colors, while the eye sees the same objects differently, and the reverse is also true."

Anyway, when the tester's in the review text claim to see with his eyes (being at the scene) the same as scientific measurements show, and images from the scene show that one is significantly different from the others I think everything point towards the same thing: KAF-39000 and greens is a bit tricky... if it's a problem is up to you though.

It's not a test intended to be pro or against MF, it's a test intended to give some good input to an amateur that probably owns and uses a DSLR and considers getting into MF by buying older generation second hand gear.

But anyway, I'm not the one that should defend this test, I hope Tim jump in and comment. Not publishing the full text when linking to it here was probably not that wise, as I think the full text is required to appreciate what the review is about.
 

timparkin

Member
Tim, I have no idea what you're test is all about as your article is a paid subscription only (?) and can only go off your very brief comments here but I just don't understand what your goal is with this sort of test.
The goal was to look at the H3D39 as a stepping stone into the world of medium format digital cameras in the context of people who are already familiar with DSLRs and also in the context of landscape photography. We also looked at the way that this first step is also into the world of digital technical view camera systems.


In all the years I've had a keen interest in photography I have never used a capture medium (neg, trans, digital) that renders all colours 100% accurate. Film was chosen on it colour characteristic, shadow or highlight rendering or resolution (grain structure) and I don't think there existed a film that was good at everything. Digital is just the same so nothing has changed apart from its the camera's that dictate the colour rather than the film we put in them today.
Correct - so choosing a camera that has an intrinsic rendering that matches the way you see the landscape is important.


Today, if I photograph something with my P65, 1Ds3 or iPhone the colours are infinitely adjustable to the desired level so why absolute capture accuracy is so important I have no idea. After all, we are not talking about one camera seeing green as red etc. And what is accurate colour in a landscape photograph?
Wrong - all sensors see colour differently from human vision. The fact that most cameras 'get away with it' just means they are close enough - not perfect.

One example is the way Leica M8 reacted to infra red but the other classic example for me is the way that the P45 and hence the Hasselblad H3D39 react to greens. As Anders Torger has said, we showed this in the free to access article "Big Camera Comparison" where nearly all of the sensors agreed within certain bounds but for greens the P45 was way off.


If you were conducting a test for use in a repro environment and you custom profiled the cameras to your lighting and one camera registered red as a brown then there might be some basis for discussion but in landscape my idea of a good green is probably not yours and ultimately it's probably not a value that should be measured for accuracy.
[/QUOTE]

Got to disagree and this is not just about getting a "good" green but about having enough colour separation in colours that are important in order to be able to separate them in post processing. For instane, Velvia 50 doesn't record accurately but provides a huge amount of colour separation and hence for certain renderings of the landscape this can't be emulated in digital to any great extent (most people just add saturation instead).

Tim
 

timparkin

Member
For me it was not important that the digital back would deliver better image quality than the best DSLR, just adequate quality to a reasonable price. This test certainly shows that the H3D-39 despite its age still delivers competitive image quality. It's about showing amateurs that the MFD is today not necessarily only reserved for working professionals and the super-rich, but at the same time not bring inflated expectations (the format wars tend to exaggerate the capabilities of a particular format). I think the articles succeed quite well in being neutral, ie neither being a DSLR or an MFD fanboy, which is kind of refreshing...
Glad you got the intention of the article - the idea is to show that an entry level MFDB is 'in the same ballpark' as the D800 and it brings you a whole new level of lenses and the possibility of using it as a technical camera. On top of a beautiful MF DSLR camera..

Tim
 

timparkin

Member
Actually, that test does not answer anything. All you have is a personal perception of an image, but you still have no idea about the color. None of the so-called color tests really test for color. Especially since we do not know what the original scene was, we have no better idea of the results. All you can say is a camera can make a seemingly accurate real color image, but can't go beyond that. And since every camera can make a relatively accurate real color image, the choice is simply random.

Cameras do not suffer from metamerism and in fact has nothing to do with camera profiles or how a camera reproduces stuff. Metamerism is about two different materials that appear the same color under one light source, but no longer match under another.
Ermm... if you think every camera can make a seemingly accurate colour image then you have the dubious privilege of being happy with any camera. I for one am not..

And cameras do suffer from metamerism.. take a look at this picture and explain the colours in another way ..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/comparison.jpg

Your definition of metamerism is only partially correct and refers to "illuminant metameric failure". "Observer metameric failure" is where the observer systems produce different results and is relevant to digital sensors as much as colour blindness in human vision systems.

Tim
 

timparkin

Member
I have to agree that the color "test" is meaningless--it actually shows nothing. And since we have no idea what the original scene actually was, we cannot even decide if the camera did produce pleasing color, let alone accurate ones. It makes no sense choosing another camera as a reference when we don't even know how that reproduces color.
Well if we look at the Big Camera Comparison, we have a result where the IQ180, Sony A900, Velvia and Portra all produce similarish colour relationships. However the Phase P45 showed quite a different colour.

Now we can either conclude that the IQ180, Portra, Velvia and Sony are all showing something coincidentally similar and incorrect or that that have all got within a certain tolerance of accurate colour.

Statistically and heuristically speaking the former is very unlikely.

as the P45 showed a different colour we can be reasonably assured that the colour is 'incorrect' in some way.

Or if we're P45 owners we can assume that Portra, Velvia, the IQ180 and the Sony are all crap :)

Tim
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Ermm... if you think every camera can make a seemingly accurate colour image then you have the dubious privilege of being happy with any camera. I for one am not..

And cameras do suffer from metamerism.. take a look at this picture and explain the colours in another way ..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/comparison.jpg

Your definition of metamerism is only partially correct and refers to "illuminant metameric failure". "Observer metameric failure" is where the observer systems produce different results and is relevant to digital sensors as much as colour blindness in human vision systems.

Tim
Here Tim, this is an article about metamerism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color))

It has to do with objects and human observers, not cameras. Cameras, unlike humans, have the same spectral response. And it still come down to observing two different objects that appear to have the same color. It is not that the observer sees them as the same, but the colors match. It has nothing to do with color accuracy or whether two observers see the same color. Your example is easy to explain--two different color profiles.

As for you being pleased by one camera and not another, purely subjective. You still cannot claim that one is better than the other, at least with what you have shown.

I also prefer color from some cameras over others, but I don't claim my personal preference as anything more than preference. It also take me some time to understand how the camera reproduces color. A few test images are not enough. And as soon as you start processing, color starts changing.

...then you have the dubious privilege of being happy with any camera. I for one am not...
BTW, you don't have to be so condescending towards me. Perhaps I understand the complexities of color and so understand the arbitrary nature of your tests.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Well if we look at the Big Camera Comparison, we have a result where the IQ180, Sony A900, Velvia and Portra all produce similarish colour relationships. However the Phase P45 showed quite a different colour.

Now we can either conclude that the IQ180, Portra, Velvia and Sony are all showing something coincidentally similar and incorrect or that that have all got within a certain tolerance of accurate colour.

Statistically and heuristically speaking the former is very unlikely.

as the P45 showed a different colour we can be reasonably assured that the colour is 'incorrect' in some way.

Or if we're P45 owners we can assume that Portra, Velvia, the IQ180 and the Sony are all crap :)

Tim
I'm not one to question your observations which in the end spur subjective debate. However, it does make me wonder.

In all the years that these backs with that Kodak sensor were in use for so many critical applications, this is the first I've read of such a color inaccuracy. Interesting that it is coming to light only now.

Like some others have observed here, my personal encounter with the 39 meg backs didn't seem to reveal results in keeping with your observations. Over the years, I used the H3D/39 being discussed, a CF39 in both one shot and Multishot modes mounted to a H2F camera, and the H3D-II/39 ... all using that same sensor. I never used the P45, so cannot comment.

The context of use was mostly commercial product photography, jewelry, glass products, food, including even critical color fabric swatches for General Motors; some car work; other work ranging from outdoor product demos to ground's photos of a memorial park that were as close to landscape as I get; all the way to industrial and corporate portraiture.

I still question which lens was used. Using a Zeiss CFi-60/3.5 would require a CF adapter on the Hasselblad H camera to enable cocking of the leaf shutter, and that lens could also be used on a 35mm DSLR because it has a mechanical aperture control ... however, no Hasselblad HC or HCD can be mounted on any 35mm DSLR because they are leaf-shutter lenses with a fully electronic interface including aperture control. The only fully electronic interface adapter allowing an HC or HCD lens on another camera is the Leica H to S adapter for the S2/S2P and S camera.

I also wonder what software was used and the skill level of the user on that software? It is well established lore that Professional users of Hasselblad products consider FlexColor and subsequently Phocus as producing the truest color renderings, especially for color critical commercial works ... a proprietary aspect that Hasselblad has appropriately named "True Color".

Just a few thoughts.

-Marc
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Well if we look at the Big Camera Comparison, we have a result where the IQ180, Sony A900, Velvia and Portra all produce similarish colour relationships. However the Phase P45 showed quite a different colour.

Now we can either conclude that the IQ180, Portra, Velvia and Sony are all showing something coincidentally similar and incorrect or that that have all got within a certain tolerance of accurate colour.

Statistically and heuristically speaking the former is very unlikely.

as the P45 showed a different colour we can be reasonably assured that the colour is 'incorrect' in some way.

Or if we're P45 owners we can assume that Portra, Velvia, the IQ180 and the Sony are all crap :)

Tim
So, you have shown that most have a "similar" color rendering and one does not. We have no idea about the quality of the rendering of any of them. We also don't know why one is the outlier--you don't have enough data points to say the cause and so the outlier could be down to human error for all we know. We could do a little research and find out if there are an unusual number of complaints about the color from the p45+. If your "test" is actually showing it is an outlier, then there should be plenty of evidence. If not, that points back to a flaw in your test.
 

timparkin

Member
I'm not one to question your observations which in the end spur subjective debate. However, it does make me wonder.

In all the years that these backs with that Kodak sensor were in use for so many critical applications, this is the first I've read of such a color inaccuracy. Interesting that it is coming to light only now.

[/QUOTE]

Well I can either ignore the evidence of my own eyes and kowtow to your communication of everybody elses experience or believe my own eyes - as a scientist I tend to do the later (with a dose of doubt).

Like some others have observed here, my personal encounter with the 39 meg backs didn't seem to reveal results in keeping with your observations. Over the years, I used the H3D/39 being discussed, a CF39 in both one shot and Multishot modes mounted to a H2F camera, and the H3D-II/39 ... all using that same sensor. I never used the P45, so cannot comment.

The context of use was mostly commercial product photography, jewelry, glass products, food, including even critical color fabric swatches for General Motors; some car work; other work ranging from outdoor product demos to ground's photos of a memorial park that were as close to landscape as I get; all the way to industrial and corporate portraiture.
Same thing again - perhaps you didnt' photograph anything that strongly triggered the metameric shifts discussed or when you did you didn't notice? Did you ever notice any shifts in colour relationships of objects under different light sources? I only ask as illuminant metameric failure does exist and it's only noticed now and again.

I still question which lens was used. Using a Zeiss CFi-60/3.5 would require a CF adapter on the Hasselblad H camera to enable cocking of the leaf shutter, and that lens could also be used on a 35mm DSLR because it has a mechanical aperture control ... however, no Hasselblad HC or HCD can be mounted on any 35mm DSLR because they are leaf-shutter lenses with a fully electronic interface including aperture control. The only fully electronic interface adapter allowing an HC or HCD lens on another camera is the Leica H to S adapter for the S2/S2P and S camera.
It was a Zeiss 60mm then..

I also wonder what software was used and the skill level of the user on that software? It is well established lore that Professional users of Hasselblad products consider FlexColor and subsequently Phocus as producing the truest color renderings, especially for color critical commercial works ... a proprietary aspect that Hasselblad has appropriately named "True Color".
Andrew Nadolski whose H3D39 we used processed the images in both Phocus and lightroom.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Same thing again - perhaps you didnt' photograph anything that strongly triggered the metameric shifts discussed or when you did you didn't notice? Did you ever notice any shifts in colour relationships of objects under different light sources? I only ask as illuminant metameric failure does exist and it's only noticed now and again.
Can you post some evidence of illuminant metamerism? So far you have posted nothing that shows this. If it the image you used in your reply to me, that is not metamerism.
 
Top