Menu
What's new
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!

Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

T

torger

Active member
jerome_m said:
Actually, the Hasselblad converter (Phocus) will apply corrections even when the lenses are shifted using the HTS system. For this to work, the tilt and **** values are stored in the exifs.




Not as much as one would think for the H lenses, chromatic aberrations are actually very small. What Phocus mostly corrects is distortion, which is not low enough for reproduction work without digital correction.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that info, I based my own observations on a 645DF 28mm wide angle where corner chromatic abberation is pretty large, but cleans up very well with lens corrections. I've also heard an interview with a Hasselblad designer that they have as strategy to correct some abberations in software rather than making overly complex optical designs, but I never looked into how big those abberations actually are.

In any case I would expect abberations be much larger on the widest angles, on longer lenses simple designs will perform well.

The HTS system is interesting, haven't seen any actual results of it but I've assumed that it's not that competitive with tech cam results as it's based on a teleconverter. The widest lens would be 1.5x24mm = 36mm, wide enough for me, it would be interesting to see how that performs with lens corrections and all. Could be difficult to focus it seems, as it becomes f/7.5 with the HTS on.

Edit: found a user-contributed review here at GetDPI:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/10566-hasselblad-hts-1-5-a.html
the summary unsurprisingly being that HTS is not the answer to the pixel peeper.
 
Last edited:
jerome_m

jerome_m

Member
torger said:
In any case I would expect abberations be much larger on the widest angles, on longer lenses simple designs will perform well.
Click to expand...
I checked on the HCD28, chromatic aberrations stays quite small.

The HTS system is interesting, haven't seen any actual results of it but I've assumed that it's not that competitive with tech cam results as it's based on a teleconverter.
Click to expand...
The main limitation for landscape or architecture work is that the relative orientation of shift and tilt is fixed. The teleconverter is quite well corrected, actually.
 
T

torger

Active member
Center sharpness is not the criticism with the Hasselblad HTS, it's sharpness in corners after shifting. In that metric it's difficult to compete with the Rodenstock Digarons. It's of course subjective how important that is, tech users is usually pretty manic about it :)

If one already has a Hasselblad system and like the handling adding an HTS can be a good idea, but another scenario could be that you only have longer lenses for your 'blad and have to choose between adding Hasselblad wides + HTS or buy a wide angle tech camera to cover your wide angle work. If sharpness is really important to you, I think most would prefer the latter. I would not say that choosing the HTS would be a bad choice, it depends on your shooting style and how much you like to pixel peep.

If you happen to have any of the blads with 50 megapixel CCDs you have great tech wide compatibility and can use the lower cost Schneider Digitar with fine results, even the SK28. The SK35 is not super-sharp in corners when shifted large amounts (the Digarons are better) but I would still expect it to be sharper than the HCD 24 + HTS. The first costs about ~$3k on a lens board, and the second combo costs ~$12k.
 
jerome_m

jerome_m

Member
torger said:
Center sharpness is not the criticism with the Hasselblad HTS, it's sharpness in corners after shifting.
Click to expand...
Possibly. If you intend to do shifted panoramas, the HTS is not the best tool. But then, neither is a technical cam. The ultimate pixel peeper uses this.

The first costs about ~$3k on a lens board, and the second combo costs ~$12k.
Click to expand...
You are omitting the price of the technical cam.

Besides, this discussion is not what the o.p. asked. The o.p. wanted something with better corner sharpness than the Nikon 14-24 for landscape. Either a tech cam or the HCD 28 will do (or, I suppose, the Phase One equivalent lens).
 
Bryan Stephens

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
I have shot both the Phase 28 on my DF+ and the Rodie 40HR on my Tech and the corner sharpness on the 40HR is better, to what magnitude, I really cannot say.
In saying that, the ultimate deciding factor will be how large of a print you will finally wish to produce as obviously the larger the image, the more sharpness you are going to want.

I have made 24x36 prints and I have been extremely satisfied by the IQ of my Rodie 40.
 
jerome_m

jerome_m

Member
You probably misread my sentence. I meant: it is not surprising that the 40mm is better than the 28mm. The wider a lens, the more difficult it is to correct.
 
T

torger

Active member
narikin said:
Torger, can you remind us which backs use this Kodak sensor, in Phase and Hassy lineups?

thanks.
Click to expand...
Phase One abadoned Kodak after the P45+, so they never used the KAF-51000, unfortunately. A P50+ would have been great.

Hasselblad is the only MF company using this sensor, you find it in: H3DII-50, H3DII-50MS, H4D-50, H4D-50MS, H4D-200MS, CFV-50, H5D-50, H5D-50MS, H5D-200MS. The CFV-50 is V-mount and battery on board, the others H-mount. H3D and H4D needs external battery feed (Silvestri has one, there are others too), while H5D has a battery adapter for self-powered operation. Hasselblad's screens are a bit of a weakness so if you want to do focus check you won't be happy. It may be possible to do on H4D-50 (if it's a real one, there are upgraded H3DII-50s around too) and H5D which has a bit better screen. I have not been able to evaluate this myself though, I'm a bit of an expert of interpreting bad screens so I won't say focus check is impossible until I've tried it myself.

The only current product is H5D-50, and it's most likely the last that with this sensor. The multishot versions of H5D-50 are being replaced by the CMOS H5D-50c multishot versions.

This sensor is old technology and in "DxO-style" measurements it loses with some margin to the Dalsa and Sony CMOS. Dynamic range is not everything though and Hasselblad seems to have succeeded well with it. Only recently I became aware of how well it works with symmetrical wide angles compared to the others. There's no tiling, no microlens ripples and negligible levels of crosstalk even on the SK28. With the SK28 there is some amount of pixel vignetting though which may lead to dynamic range issues in some scenes so you might need to bracket at times.

I think it's unfortunate that they discontinued the CFV-50 which had great value, and combine that with say an MF-two or Techno with Schneider Digitar range and you get really good performance and great movement flexibility at a much lower price than the typical tech setup (like IQ260 + Alpa + Rodenstock Digarons). It won't be quite as sharp but not far from it.
 
T

torger

Active member
A price example:

Hasselblad CFV-50 back (if you manage to find one left): $15k
Linhof Techno with the usual accessories (sliding back etc): $11k
Schneider Digitar lens line with lens boards and center filters where applicable 28, 35, 47, 60, 72, 90, 120, 150, 180: $21k
Total cost: $47k, round it up to $50k and you should get a good tripod and head too.

The Linhof Techno body is quite expensive, the Arca-Swiss MF-two would be cheaper, I prefer the Techno though as it's easier to pack and faster to set up. The more lenses you have, the more you gain from having a lens-board-based solution, both in terms of cost and weight. I still lack the 28 and the 150 in my lens lineup but have the others. The 43 is a bit sharper than the 47, but I find the 47 to be a more suitable focal length between 35 and 60.

I very much prefer having the right focal length ahead of stitching or cropping, I find it to be a more pleasing way to work. There's a special type of satisfaction seeing the finished composition on the ground glass, just slide in the back press the shutter once and have the finished picture. Having many focal lengths also emphasizes the flexibility of a tech system compared to a 135 system where you have perhaps only four tilt-shift lenses, of which only two are really good.

The above system and philosophy behind it is pretty untypical though, much more common is say IQ260 and Alpa body and three lenses, say Rodenstock 32, 50 and 70. That will win out on sharpness, but not on creative flexibility, and well not on price either. It's $21k for those three lenses, a bit more if you want HPF focus rings (you should) and more if you want tilt capability, $8k for body with some shift and minimal accessories, and digital back $40k, landing at ~$70k.

There's a lot of options and choices to make in tech cam land :)
 
T

torger

Active member
jerome_m said:
That reminds me that I have an H3DII-50 that I want to sell. How much would that be worth (in Europe)?
Click to expand...
Body + back, well it depends... actually despite that the CFV-50 was cheaper new it can be the opposite in the second hand market, ie the CFV-50 can be more expensive than the H3DII-50. The V backs with matching look has a special attraction in the amateur space, while the H system seems to be a bit harder to sell. With the V system you can build a cheap system when you have the back, the back is also good for tech cameras and legacy cameras, while the H system is more expensive, and due to it's external battery requirement it's not as hot for tech cam use. I think also the H system suffers from a bit of FUD, "closed system" etc, and many are not even aware that you can use the H back on a tech cam.

There's a H3DII-50 out now at Lula for $6.8k, but I think you can get more for it if you find the right buyer, I'd think $8k is reasonable, which is similar to what you'd expect for a second hand CFV-50.

The right buyer being someone that actually wants to use the body and build on an H system. Someone like me that would use the back on a tech cam and leave the body on the shelf would pay less for a H3DII-50 than a CFV-50.
 
S

Stuart Richardson

Active member
If you are thinking of this purchase in the same mindset as an iphone, you are going to get hammered.
Here are two things I can promise you:

1. If you buy it new and resell it after a year or more, you will lose thousands, and possibly tens of thousands of dollars.

2. 35mm sensor technology and features will be ahead of the sensor technology and features of medium format.

If you can honestly sit down and say the following things, then you should pursue a test shoot with the equipment.
1. It is worth it to me or my business to spend tens of thousands of dollars more for a moderate gain in image quality and resolution, and I am prepared to dramatically change my workflow and workflow options to achieve it.
2. I am willing to give up the ability to easily and inexpensively upgrade to the latest technology in exchange for that image quality, even though 35mm may come quite close or even surpass it during the time in which I own the camera.

That's the crux of the issue. None of the changes in technology are going to diminish the quality of what you are able to achieve with the camera you end up with, but medium format does not progress at the rate of 35mm. It is exponentially more expensive and slower to change. From reading your posts, it seems to me that you are asking the wrong questions. Rather than asking about the life cycles of the cameras and lenses, you should be thinking more about what is required by your photography and how best to achieve it. You are selling your new camera in your head before you even bought it! If this is the mindset you are in, you are going to be much better off sticking with 35mm...the quality will certainly keep improving and your ability to keep pace with it will be a lot better.
 
S

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Hi Doug,
No, only Schneider glass. But I have owned two medium format digital systems and shot with a few more. In my job as a printer I have printed for several more at that, as well as pretty much every 35mm digital camera system that professionals use. I don't think that the fact I haven't shot Rodenstock glass takes away from my statement, as it was not about medium format not being inferior or having low quality glass. On the contrary, it IS better. But cost of entry, cost of staying up to date and the degree to which it is better is a moving target, and it is very important to understand that fully before jumping in with both feet.

If we are asking leading questions though, have you ever been on the other side of the counter purchasing a medium format digital system for your business? You may well have, and if you have been you would realize that it is not something to do lightly. You yourself said the best thing to do is to buy based on what is available today rather than what might be released and not to get too bogged down in comparing specs between sensors. I agree with that completely. But I also think if the OP is set in that mindset, switching to MF is going to be a rude awakening. That's just my take on it based on being in that situation myself. I still shoot medium format digital and I am very happy I do, but the economics do not make sense for the vast majority of photographers.
 
D

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Stuart Richardson said:
Hi Doug,
No, only Schneider glass. But I have owned two medium format digital systems and shot with a few more. In my job as a printer I have printed for several more at that, as well as pretty much every 35mm digital camera system that professionals use. I don't think that the fact I haven't shot Rodenstock glass takes away from my statement, as it was not about medium format not being inferior or having low quality glass. On the contrary, it IS better. But cost of entry, cost of staying up to date and the degree to which it is better is a moving target, and it is very important to understand that fully before jumping in with both feet.

If we are asking leading questions though, have you ever been on the other side of the counter purchasing a medium format digital system for your business? You may well have, and if you have been you would realize that it is not something to do lightly. You yourself said the best thing to do is to buy based on what is available today rather than what might be released and not to get too bogged down in comparing specs between sensors. I agree with that completely. But I also think if the OP is set in that mindset, switching to MF is going to be a rude awakening. That's just my take on it based on being in that situation myself. I still shoot medium format digital and I am very happy I do, but the economics do not make sense for the vast majority of photographers.
Click to expand...
My main point was not to question any of that. It was to point out that sensor technology in 35mm world can do whatever it wants in the next five years, and it will still be limited by the glass available and the format itself. Working the knobs on a Canon 24TS compared to using the rise/fall knob on an Arca Swiss R with a 32HR is real eye opener, especially when you see the quality put out by that 32HR.

But otherwise I agree with everything you're saying - Medium Format is expensive and you should go into it with open eyes to that cost, and thoroughly consider and evaluate all options (including "do nothing") before making a move. I have 2500 posts here, and you'll be hard pressed to find me ever saying something like "to heck with evaluation, buy the thing!". :)
 
jerome_m

jerome_m

Member
Stuart Richardson said:
If we are asking leading questions though, have you ever been on the other side of the counter purchasing a medium format digital system for your business? You may well have, and if you have been you would realize that it is not something to do lightly. You yourself said the best thing to do is to buy based on what is available today rather than what might be released and not to get too bogged down in comparing specs between sensors. I agree with that completely. But I also think if the OP is set in that mindset, switching to MF is going to be a rude awakening. That's just my take on it based on being in that situation myself. I still shoot medium format digital and I am very happy I do, but the economics do not make sense for the vast majority of photographers.
Click to expand...
It is not entirely clear to me that the o.p. is a professional and needs a financial return on his investment. When you are an amateur, the decision to buy a MF system is not taken on the same criteria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top