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!

H4D-50 vs H5D-50c Image Quality

Hi all,

I'm well aware of the advantages of the H5D-50c over the H4D-50 in regards to low light use and capturing moving subjects, but I wonder if there's any noticeable difference in regard to image quality at base ISO under good lighting conditions. I've been using the H4D-50 for a few years now, and the image quality at ISO 50 in good light, of stationary subjects, is outstanding. Is the H5D-50c capable of producing the same quality of photo at its base ISO of 100 as the H4D-50 at ISO 50?

Just interested to know, if any of you have been able to compare their outputs directly.

All the best.

Richard Naismith
 

torger

Active member
There is lot of subjectivity to this. You need to see for yourself and decide. The Kodak CCD is old technology and technically the CMOS has better color separation and lower noise, but look will be different. If you're a portrait photographer I would guess you prefer the CCD.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Anders,

Can you elaborate?

Best regards
Erik


There is lot of subjectivity to this. You need to see for yourself and decide. The Kodak CCD is old technology and technically the CMOS has better color separation and lower noise, but look will be different. If you're a portrait photographer I would guess you prefer the CCD.
 

torger

Active member
Can you elaborate?
Statistics. If you love the image quality of your Kodak-equipped 'blad and shoot portraits, my experience of all opinions I've taken part of is that you're going to prefer that over the CMOS.

The most accepting photographers concerning the CMOS seems to be landscape photographers, but they're more into long exposure, high ISO and high dynamic range than subtle details in the skin tone and skin texture. Some even use Lightroom instead of Phocus and Capture One, just crazy ;)

The only thing I know for sure is that they render differently, colors will not be exactly the same. I don't think the older system will win in any objective measurable aspect, but you might just prefer the look of the older system.

Honestly I think there's some psychological aspect in it too, CMOS has a bad reputation from back in the days when it was not very good, and in later years that MF has been CCD based has become some sort of differentiator, use this more "film-like CCD" in MF rather than the "artificial looking CMOS" in 135. I know this from the HiFi audio work I've done, you hear what you want to hear and I think it's just the same that you see what you want to see. In the very rare blind testing I've seen of web-sized photos with skilled post-processing people just don't seem to be able to differ. That results are different everyone can see, because it's very hard to make two different cameras to look exactly the same, but which one is better...? But evenso, when the photographer works with one file or another he/she may feel that there's more or less struggle to get to a look that is preferred. So regardless if the "superiority" is real or imagined the look has relevance.

Another interesting observation I've made that Leaf and Phase One owners tend to think the Kodak tech is not very capable and MF got just so much better with Dalsa, while the Kodak is working excellently in the Hasselblad camp. The Dalsa is a little better in those classic measurable aspects like DR and tonality, but the truth is that the Kodak is more than adequate in these aspects for most types of photography and then it just comes down to which look you prefer.

I have raw test files both from H3DII-50 and CFV-50 (should be very similar to H4D-50) and H5D-50c, but not shot side by side on the same subject unfortunately. What is really needed here to help Richard is raw files of side by side shots of the type of subjects he's interested in, which he can download and process with his workflow. Anything less than that will just be some other photographer's opinion. Unfortunately it's hard to come by on the net, but we'll see in this thread. Otherwise a Hasselblad dealer should be able to provide this.

If I was working with portraits I would be very careful not to mess with my workflow and look if I was currently very pleased with the results. So just upgrading because it's newer is probably not a good idea, you really need to check out how it renders.
 

Giorgio

Member
I do a lot of location work, on one assignment this past summer I did have a chance to use both the H5D 40 and the H5D 50c side by side.

From my short time shooting the two bodies I (IMHO) saw that the 50c is amazing at high ISO. The 40 starts to show noise at 800 ISO but the 50c is clean up to 1600 ISO.

Otherwise the files from both cameras were very robust and the color especially the skin tones was very nice.

You really need to shoot the cameras to know what you can achieve with them, all MFD cameras have their quirks, its really just a matter of what you are willing to put up with.

The results are worth it for me.
 

jduncan

Active member
There is lot of subjectivity to this. You need to see for yourself and decide. The Kodak CCD is old technology and technically the CMOS has better color separation and lower noise, but look will be different. If you're a portrait photographer I would guess you prefer the CCD.
Color separation is tricky. I will not be surprised if color separation was better on the old CCD backs. Noise at high ISO and dynamic range should be, on the other hand, far better on the new CMOS sensors.

It seems that Hasselblad did a very good work with color (the strength of the CCDs) but we have to see if it matches.

An area where the quality of color separation of the CCD sensors can be seen is in the eyes of people. The MF cameras have some kick to it that is difficult to describe.

Best regards,
 

Chris Giles

New member
I'm in the same boat. Whilst the Cmos version of the blad is out of my reach financially I do own the H4D50.

And what a camera it is.

I mainly use it for my actors headshots and some landscaping. The images are absolutely superb yet what I've seen of the CMOS is that it's 'missing' something.

Despite shooting mainly with a Canon 1DX I last got this feeling when I edited someones D800 files. They looked....artificial.

Maybe the higher number of pixels in CMOS is affording us the ability to see something we couldn't notice before. But it's made me hold off the thought of committing to CMOS Mf backs until a generation or two in.

Or maybe it's just Sony sensors. I just don't know.
 
Thanks to all of you who have responded so far. Some very interesting points, and I appreciate everything you've said very much.

It seems it would be very good to see photos taken with both cameras of the same subjects, taken at the same time in the same place, if that were possible. I've done that with the H4D-50 mentioned above, and a D800E we also own, and it was quite clear that the Hasselblad is a different grade of camera, at least under optimum lighting conditions with stationary subjects. The detail and color were of a higher class.

Any further input would be appreciated.

All the best.

Richard Naismith
 

torger

Active member
I've noted that in the Phase One and Leaf camps users are overall very happy leaving the Kodak sensor behind and jumping on Dalsa instead (P45+ being the last for Phase One and Leaf never(?) had it), claiming better color and tonality and lower noise of the Dalsa. Trash-talking the Kodak (and thus indirectly Hasselblad) is not uncommon. In the Hasselblad camp however many seems very pleased with the Kodak sensors, and indeed the H4D-50 has a 50 megapixel Kodak. So I guess either Phase/Leaf users have some other taste concerning color or Hasselblad has succeeded better in their processing pipeline with these sensors.

Personally I think everything looks good from the test files I've seen :), both Kodak and Dalsa, and also the D800 and the new CMOS backs. I can see that it looks different, but I'm unable to see any advantages/disadvantages, especially if not pixel peeping. It's quite obvious that the eye is more sensitive to skin tones though, and if I had been specializing on portrait rather than landscape (where light conditions and post-processing vary so heavily that a camera signature if present is very weak for sure) I may have had stronger opinions about which system renders better.
 

torger

Active member
Actually the DxoMark measurements of these two backs show that they have the same CFA. The small variation seen is due to limits in measurement precision and sample to sample variation. But there can still be differences, lens can cause some differences and IR filter etc, but again small.

It's not impossible though that different type of CFAs can be applied to the same sensor technology though, it just doesn't seem to be the case here, and I don't know of any such case in the MF world, but maybe there is.

I think if DxO compares the various Sony MF CMOS offers we'll see that the CFA is the same, but processing pipelines are still much different, even between IQ250 and Credo 50 which use different type of ICC processing while sharing raw converter.

Even with a custom CFA you can't make the noise go away though, which is the basis of good (or bad) tonal response and color separation. The Dalsas and of course the new CMOS are no doubt better there, visually and measurably, but it will depend on shooting condition how much that matters. In portrait, not at all as critical regions are well-exposed, in high contrast landscape scenes without grads and aggressive post-processing - quite a bit.
 
I had been working with several different backs from H to P1. I do automotive work mostly and I can tell you that my best images are coming from both systems, ccd and cmos. It depends on the conditions, location, subject, lighting. One of my best images / I consider/ is from the P1 IQ140, and to be honest it does have the "MF" look that often comes up while comparing the two sensors. I tried the IQ250 and 350 for long exposure work and it works amazingly well, and I can't say the same with the Hassy H5D-50 ccd. The 30-second exposure images at night coming out with a vertical line split the screen and the two sides have different readings. Then I learned that this sensor basically two sensors put together. What a shame Hasselblad! Split reading is a huge issue with this sensor as we discussed the issue with few other photographers. Regardless of somewhat good experience with the IQ100 trichromatic and IQ4 150's huge files, my recent upgrade goes for the IQ 380 ccd sensor for H systems that can easily capture up to 60 minutes exposures. Image quality is superb and if you understand how to light your subjects, it is a true champion for me. I would love to see Hasselblad to come out with software that handles like C1. My choice was made on the system by not the body but the lens quality. The Schneider lenses have really bad LS issues and when I spent $30k on lenses and 5 out of 6 lenses had failed LS mechanism under 30-60k count, You can understand my disappointment. With the H system, I never had this issue except the HCD 35-90 failed a couple of times.
 

Olin555

Member
I have both of these cameras.
Each of them is good in its own way.
When it comes to shooting portraits in studio, I prefer H4D - I like its skin tone better and requires less processing in my process.
I'm on a business trip right now, I'll be back to work in a couple of weeks and I'll send you paired shots from these cameras.
In my opinion, H4D is unique in color, while H5D is similar to H6D, X1D and so on ...
Think about what subjects you are interested in, and I will take paired shots for you.
 

buildbot

Well-known member
It's not impossible though that different type of CFAs can be applied to the same sensor technology though, it just doesn't seem to be the case here, and I don't know of any such case in the MF world, but maybe there is.
Don’t the the IQ3/4 trichromatics have a different CFA than the regular backs? While using the same sensor. And no CFA on the acromatics (which I believe is a different part number, technically).
 

steve_cor

Member
Yes, the IQ3 100MP Trichromatic has a different CFA on the same sensor as the regular IQ3 100MP. But Anders Torger said he doesn't know of any like that in 2014. Phase One announced the IQ3 100MP Trichromatic in September 2017. Note that you guys started responding to an old thread.


--Steve.
 
Top