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!

Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi vs. Phase One XF/IQ350

michaelclark

New member
Just thought I would post this here - this is a review I posted just last week comparing the Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi Phase One XF/IQ350

The Hasselblad H5D 50C WiFi vs. The Phase One XF IQ350 » Michael Clark Photography

There is a thread that was started on this review over on Lu-La as well.

Also, here is a review of the H5D 50c WiFi that I posted a few weeks ago:

Equipment Review: The Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi » Michael Clark Photography

Cheers, Michael

Michael Clark Photography - Adventure Sports Photographer Editorial Advertising Photography
 
M

mjr

Guest
Hi

You got 7 images out of 200 sharp with the XF?! Ha! Had you set the lens up with the focus trimming? I have an XF and use it every day, there is no way I could earn a living with a camera that focussed that poorly, I don't expect it to focus like a D5/1DX but it's pretty quick and I honestly have minimal focussing issues, mainly down to me still learning the camera.

Mat
 
M

mjr

Guest
Actually, some more comments, I have no wish to be rude at all but I honesty don't see the point of writing a review when you don't actually spend some time with a camera, I don't understand it!

"With the H5D, you can change settings without moving your eye away from the viewfinder. With the XF, unless you have certain functions set up with a custom button this is difficult if not impossible to do. Need the mirror up? With the H5D you don’t have to take your eye away from the viewfinder. Need to do that on the XF, you have to very precisely touch the top LCD and you’ll have to look at it to do so."

An hour with a camera, setting it up how you want it is key to using it properly, I have focus on the rear button, mirror up on the front button down by the grip, ISO is rear dial, Aperture on the right rear dial and shutter speed on the front dial, you can operate everything you would need without moving your eye from the viewfinder, this is a very basic setup.

The H5Dc is obviously the right camera for you, excellent but if you're going to write about something, isn't it better to do it from knowledge?

Like I said, I don't wish to be rude but you had access to some great kit and you've really not done it justice in my opinion.

Mat
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Thank you for your comments, Mat. I find the XF autofocus extremely accurate. I did have to apply focus trim to all my lenses; interestingly they all needed about -150 points. I can shoot with autofocus, take another shot focussing with live view and not be able to tell the difference between the two files.

I have shot over 6,000 frames with the XF and except for a cold weather problem that was corrected in an early firmware update, I have had no issues. None. Not even a hint of one.

Like all complex machinery, one needs to spend at least a few days of real shooting to comprehend the XF properly, and to adjust the UI to one's own preferences. I don't feel a comparison based on less use than that is very useful. Having said, that I have used the Hassy quite briefly and think very highly of it.
 

modator

Member
Hy Michael,

Only 7 out of 200 ? seems like there is some mis calibration / alignment in the XF copy tested, the better ISO performance of the H5D-50c lie in it's CMOS that is a little bit different from the Phase, it has more blind pixel mask, to get a more precise noise bias, then the software denoise made by Phocus is a little improved, also the CFA is slight different... result: the H use a SONY CMOS it's 50mpixel but it's different from the one used by Phase in many aspects.

Best regards, Domenico.
 

tjv

Active member
Hy Michael,

Only 7 out of 200 ? seems like there is some mis calibration / alignment in the XF copy tested, the better ISO performance of the H5D-50c lie in it's CMOS that is a little bit different from the Phase, it has more blind pixel mask, to get a more precise noise bias, then the software denoise made by Phocus is a little improved, also the CFA is slight different... result: the H use a SONY CMOS it's 50mpixel but it's different from the one used by Phase in many aspects.

Best regards, Domenico.
That's interesting information, how do you know this is the case? If true – and I'm not saying I doubt what you've said – then I wonder if it has any effect on how the 50c backs perform on a technical camera with movements?
 

michaelclark

New member
Mat -

I don't know about focus trimming. What is that? Is it a setting in the IQ350 back or on the XF? The rep I worked with never said anything about that. We weren't shooting tethered the whole day so we couldn't check focus on a laptop as we were shooting. I tried out a camera that the rep had so I would have imagined that they would dial in the camera before letting me shoot with it. If not then that could have helped.

Also, I did a lot of focus and recomposing during my test of the XF and that seemed to make matters worse. All I have reported is what I experienced.

I would have loved to have four or five days with a test Phase One XF camera to really run it through it's paces but Phase One doesn't seem to offer that unless you pay $1500/day to rent it - or at least that is what I have found or was offered.

By comparison, Hasselblad sent me a camera with two lenses to test out for five days for free and even paid shipping both ways. If Phase One would have done that I would have taken them up on it. Especially since I had to drive to another state, pay for hotel rooms and expenses, and go out of my way just to test the XF.

As I state in the comparison, I didn't have as much time with the XF as I would have wanted. But straight out of the box the Hasselblad focused just fine. Over on the Luminous-Landscape forum there are a bunch of folks talking about how bad the XF AF is so it wasn't just me. I have talked with several Phase One shooters who have had the same experiences I had while testing it. Seems like there are quite varied experiences on that front.

Cheers, Michael

Hi

You got 7 images out of 200 sharp with the XF?! Ha! Had you set the lens up with the focus trimming? I have an XF and use it every day, there is no way I could earn a living with a camera that focussed that poorly, I don't expect it to focus like a D5/1DX but it's pretty quick and I honestly have minimal focussing issues, mainly down to me still learning the camera.

Mat
 

michaelclark

New member
Domenico -

There is definitely a difference at high ISOs. Interesting to read your info there. Hasselblad has done some tweaking on the chip.

And I talked with several Phase One users to confirm my findings on the High ISOs samples. They all said on the IQ350 they would only go up to ISO 1600 or so as that is where the noise was beyond their comfort zone - and these were working pros.

Cheers, Michael

Hy Michael,

Only 7 out of 200 ? seems like there is some mis calibration / alignment in the XF copy tested, the better ISO performance of the H5D-50c lie in it's CMOS that is a little bit different from the Phase, it has more blind pixel mask, to get a more precise noise bias, then the software denoise made by Phocus is a little improved, also the CFA is slight different... result: the H use a SONY CMOS it's 50mpixel but it's different from the one used by Phase in many aspects.

Best regards, Domenico.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Focus trimming is a setting on the XF body to ensure the AF point matches between body and lens, i.e focussing on a known point and then using the xf body to adjust back/front focus for the lens until it is correct, takes 10 mins.

I didn't mean to sound rude in my response but I honestly feel it's a matter of integrity as a professional to realistically record what the situation is, I personally have no interest in your ultimate decision on what you use, that's your business, but as I said, writing a review without knowing how to use the camera is pointless, I don't get it. As a professional, I can't imagine you would ever buy a piece of equipment without setting it up to complement how you work, and then using it in a variety of situations to get a decent handle on it before making a decision or committing your opinion, I don't see how you can have an opinion without using a camera properly. If you weren't able to get a decent length of time with the camera then surely all you can write is that you'd have loved to do a decent comparison but Phase didn't offer you one for long enough to form an opinion, because the alternative is to do as you have done and produce an article that isn't representative of the camera.

My entire living comes from my cameras, I buy the cameras that work for my own contracts and even the concept of buying the XF if I couldn't get it to focus or I couldn't change basic settings without accurately tapping the top screen is ridiculous, I would have returned it immediately, but it took less than an hour to check the focus was spot on and adjust it, get the key settings where I can access them quickly and start shooting.

By the way, this is not about the camera you chose, I have the same issue with anyone who writes a review within a day of having a camera, regardless of what it is, maybe I'm alone in this or a bit thick, but it can take me weeks to understand a camera and get it to work for me.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Hello Michael:

The focus trimming is a similar to a AF micro adjust that you can do with most Canon or Nikon lenses on their DSLR's

The DF+ allowed this also, but only for one lens at a time.

The XF allows multiple lenses and with the blue label lenses can store multiple versions of a set focal length.

So which each lens you have as long as each has a different focal length, you can micro adjust the AF and it's stored in the XF from that point on. Interface is quick and easy.

As to the noise, from what I have seen in posted tests and shots I took with the Phase, the noise floor on the 50MP Phase is possible not as good as the other companies using the chip. However I was able to get to 1600/3200 with the IQ150 with no real issues when I tested it last year. The tests that DT did over 2 years ago with the older IQ250 were extremely impressive, as much as 2.5 to 3 stops of shadow lift at base iso of 100. These were the tests done in a private library with the IQ250/260 and 280. I have also always found that with a Phase One file, the best raw converter is C1, (which I believe you used), as Phase seems to get the best results on higher ISO files than LR.

Personally in my use, AF on the XF has been excellent, coming from the older DF+ and previous to that DF. I am a user that would have preferred some form of multipoint design (probably an exception) but so far the center point seems very accurate on landscape work. Phase did upgrade the firmware on the XF about 2 weeks ago and one of the improvements was supposed to be a low light improvement.

Paul C
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Hello Michael:

The focus trimming is a similar to a AF micro adjust that you can do with most Canon or Nikon lenses on their DSLR's

The DF+ allowed this also, but only for one lens at a time.

The XF allows multiple lenses and with the blue label lenses can store multiple versions of a set focal length.

So which each lens you have as long as each has a different focal length, you can micro adjust the AF and it's stored in the XF from that point on. Interface is quick and easy.
Paul C
FYI - the Rollei Hy6 also had this feature, allowing you to dial in both AF and MF lenses. The mod II version would save the AF lens data for different lenses; on my earlier Hy6, I just keep the settings on the iPhone and look them up.

Its a great feature - my 150 tele-xenetar was (I thought) very soft; a bit of dialing in, and its now sharp as a tack. Recommended for all cameras.
 

tjv

Active member
FYI - the Rollei Hy6 also had this feature, allowing you to dial in both AF and MF lenses. The mod II version would save the AF lens data for different lenses; on my earlier Hy6, I just keep the settings on the iPhone and look them up.

Its a great feature - my 150 tele-xenetar was (I thought) very soft; a bit of dialing in, and its now sharp as a tack. Recommended for all cameras.

I'd say it's essential for all cameras to have this feature, actually.
 

jerome_m

Member
I am actually surprised to find out that one needs to focus trim on PhaseOne cameras (I did not know that, I use Hasselblad). I had that on my 24x36 and I found myself a bit cheated that the manufacturer left the last adjust operation to the end user.

So the comparison review was interesting for me because I learned something.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Jerome, what did you learn from the article? Focus trimming you learned from this thread. The article was in no way balanced, it's still perfectly reasonable to choose the Hasselblad, it's obviously an excellent camera and nobody can argue with personal opinion, it just seems a shame to not do it properly and actually understand what both cameras can do if you're going to write a review.

Obviously that's just my view, no need for anyone to agree with that.

Mat
 

jerome_m

Member
Well. I have had 2 H bodies. The first one was an H3D-31, ancient by any standard. Its AF was faultless with all the lenses I tried. So I thought it normal that on MF cameras the manufacturer would calibrate the lenses themselves. I expected that all MF manufacturers would do this.
Now I use an H4D-50, which has true focus. The AF is, again faultless. Many users praise the system, so it is not just me.
The article also says that the XF has difficulties focussing in darker scenes. I also found that surprising, since the H is indeed slower but can AF in relatively dark scenes, even without the built-in illuminator.

What else did I learn? I learned about the difference in sharpness (maybe the mirror is not damped as well?), in high iso noise, in ergonomics (weight and the grip bulge), and in high synchronization flash uses. I learned that the user interface of the XF needs to be customized.

The article noted some negative points of the H as well. In truth, I did not learn them from the article, because I have a H camera and knows its negative points. But they were there.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I understand Jerome, there are some sections where you can interpret his view, but as there are so many mistakes on the abilities of the XF, it throws the whole thing out for me, maybe not for anyone else. Things like saying the Hasselblad mirror stays locked up and the XF you have to lock it up for each shot is just wrong.

My point is that doing a proper test of both cameras does nothing negative, it in no way diminishes the abilities of the excellent Hasselblad, in fact the only thing it does do is increase the credibility of the writer by showing a balanced view and in turn, gives more weight to the reason for his choices as they relate to him.

Lets face it, the idea that there is such a thing as a perfect camera is a fairly daft one, I can list negatives of every system I have used but ultimately the positives need to out way them or else it's out the door. I'm not pro any brand, I'm just pro sensible, balanced reviews with information that people can transfer to their own requirements.

Mat
 

modator

Member
That's interesting information, how do you know this is the case? If true – and I'm not saying I doubt what you've said – then I wonder if it has any effect on how the 50c backs perform on a technical camera with movements?
Hi tjv,
for now I don't made any test of perf on tech camera, but I can say both CMOS chip have micro lenses (and also 100Mpix too), so the performance with shifted wide angles are degraded in comparison of old CCD without micro lenses... (this argument is not new..).

About what I state is not coming from my imagination...

Simply looking at the difference of RAW file,, everyone that can find raws of H5D-50c and IQ250/350 can do this...

Using Rawdigger with the "Masked Pixel" option checked in the preference, loading Hasselblad file You get the image surrounded by TOP / LEFT / RIGHT masked pixel like this:



In the case of an IQ250/350 raw file You get an image with only TOP / LEFT mask like this: (file from "Capture Integration" IQ250 raw samples)



I hope this clears the fact that the two CMOS are masked in a different way, and this masking is not software... it's HARDWARE !
SONY in the manufacturing have put a sort of "black paint" to mask some area of the chip to enable the respective customer to apply the proprietary algorithm of de-noise, thermal noise estimation, drift, biasing etc. etc.

Result : Hasselblad CMOS is different from Phase CMOS.. both are made By SONY but it's a different model/customization.. "Custom Chip".

Best regards, Domenico.
 
Top