D800E vs Hasselblad unofficial unprofessional comparision

[FredBGG]

I was a good boy and listened to Nikon advise to use a Nano Coated 24-70
but I am looking to try other lenses like the 200 f2 (mine is without N coating) and other older lenses like Angenieux 180 f2.3
however I think the better lens will certainly give a more 3D feel to it but the change from highlight to shadow is just not the same
bigger is still better


perhpas I should go shoot a few more pictures to show when I have time

Zoom lens VS prime lens?

What was on the Hasselblad?

Here is the difference between the Nikon 50mm 1.4 and the Nikon 24-70, both at 2.8

You can clearly see that the prime had heaps more micro contrast.

 

[FredBGG]

I'm interested in seeing some of your shots with the camera, Fred. You have a certain aesthetic you are looking to achieve, especially as it is influenced by your work with MF.

I don't have anything that I can post yet with the new generation cameras. Too busy working on my portraits book and I can't post recent images from that.
I am liking the 85mm PC-E lens and have the 45mm PC-e on order.

But here is something in the mean time shot with the old Canon 1ds mark 1 with the 100mm f2. I used a dirty little trick...camera screwed onto a 4 lb chunck of metal to dampen all vibration.
I added some fine grain too.

Optically this was getting there, but you can see the limitations of the sensor's quantization, but that's totally changed with the D800.

 

[rayyan]

True Sense is far from bankrupt and is now part of a very solid and large group
with very deep pockets.

Fred, you are correct as stated above.

Kodak's image sensor division which made/makes the KAF-50100 sensor was
sold off to Platinum Equity.

Kodak, the original parent of True Sense ( new name now ) is in bankruptcy protection. Under which it of course can sell off its assets; as in this case.

The camera itself, the H3DII-50, is a discontinued product. Spare parts available for 5 years, 10 years? The extended program from Hasselblad is valid generally for 5 years for spares and repairs; as I understand it. I could be wrong.

My Leica MP has a guaranteed availability of spare parts for 30 years; as stated
by my Leica dealer when I bought the MP.

To have a US$ 39,995 product discontinued, and its sensor making entity sold to ( primarily ) a M&A firm does give me pause; even though I have to reluctantly accept the digital product cycle in cameras.

Regards.

 

[fotografz]

+ 1

Yes - pleeaaase ...

Format and / or brand comparisons are only interesting when illustrated in a way so that we can see and judge for ourselves.

And often it's more about 'today's technology compared to yesterday's technology' than about brands or formats as such.

For me a larger sensor area will always mean room for larger photosites, i.e. larger wells gathering more light.

And that goes for the entire range of digital formats:

Tiny sensors >> Four-Thirds >> APS-C >> 35mm >> Medium Format >> ...

+2

I'm not even sure it is about old verses new technology.

The haunting thing lurking in the back of my brain is that for much work, some of the 22 to 33 meg larger photosite sensor backs had something many described as magical. Sometimes I look back on my Hassey 203FE work with a CFV/16 back and wonder about that.

To late now ... :ROTFL:

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Fred, you are correct as stated above.

Kodak's image sensor division which made/makes the KAF-50100 sensor was
sold off to Platinum Equity.

Kodak, the original parent of True Sense ( new name now ) is in bankruptcy protection. Under which it of course can sell off its assets; as in this case.

The camera itself, the H3DII-50, is a discontinued product. Spare parts available for 5 years, 10 years? The extended program from Hasselblad is valid generally for 5 years for spares and repairs; as I understand it. I could be wrong.

My Leica MP has a guaranteed availability of spare parts for 30 years; as stated
by my Leica dealer when I bought the MP.

To have a US$ 39,995 product discontinued, and its sensor making entity sold to ( primarily ) a M&A firm does give me pause; even though I have to reluctantly accept the digital product cycle in cameras.

Regards.

You paid $40K for a H3D-II/50? Really?

The H3D-II has been discontinued, but it shares many parts with the H4D, so I wouldn't worry to much about it.

The 50 meg sensor is still current, and is available in 50 single shot, 50/Multi-Shot, and 200 multi-shot.

Hope you got that Leica guarantee of parts for 30 years in writing ...

-Marc

 

[rayyan]

You paid $40K for a H3D-II/50? Really?

The H3D-II has been discontinued, but it shares many parts with the H4D, so I wouldn't worry to much about it.

The 50 meg sensor is still current, and is available in 50 single shot, 50/Multi-Shot, and 200 multi-shot.

Hope you got that Leica guarantee of parts for 30 years in writing ...

-Marc

1. No. I did not pay US$ 40K for a H3D-II/50. Really I did not. Show me where I said I did.

2. I do not need to worry, I know. I have never bought nor do I intend to ever buy Hasselblad or anything resembling it in Medium or Large format. Where have I said I bought or owned or used or borrowed the said equipment. The H3D-II/50, of course.

3. The sensor is still current. Have I said it is not? If I did, please show me where.

4. Make it easy for you, as it was for me. When I bought the MP, I was told by
my very reputable Leica dealer that Leica would guarantee availability of parts
for my MP for upto 30 years from the date of purchase. I trusted my dealer on this. I did not get a written guarantee to this effect.

Why don't you ask your Leica dealer about the MP parts availability. It might have gone down to 25 years now. Inflation!

By the way, $40K was never mentioned. It was US$ 39,995. I got the price from here:

Hasselblad assembles megapixel monster: Digital Photography Review

Of course, it was such a long time ago US Dollars.

 

[fotografz]

1. No. I did not pay US$ 40K for a H3D-II/50. Really I did not. Show me where I said I did.

2. I do not need to worry, I know. I have never bought nor do I intend to ever buy Hasselblad or anything resembling it in Medium or Large format. Where have I said I bought or owned or used or borrowed the said equipment. The H3D-II/50, of course.

3. The sensor is still current. Have I said it is not? If I did, please show me where.

4. Make it easy for you, as it was for me. When I bought the MP, I was told by
my very reputable Leica dealer that Leica would guarantee availability of parts
for my MP for upto 30 years from the date of purchase. I trusted my dealer on this. I did not get a written guarantee to this effect.

Why don't you ask your Leica dealer about the MP parts availability. It might have gone down to 25 years now. Inflation!

By the way, $40K was never mentioned. It was US$ 39,995. I got the price from here:

Hasselblad assembles megapixel monster: Digital Photography Review

Of course, it was such a long time ago US Dollars.

My mistake.

 

[paulraphael]

Here is the only really interesting d800 vs. Hasselblad test I've seen. Partly because it was blind (the evaluator had no idea what two cameras were being compared) and partly because of the evaluator's expertise. He does prepress work for fine art reproduction, which has extrememly rigorous demands. It's also extremely specialized, so the degree to which the differences he fixates on apply to my work or yours is open to interpretation. (Also, there's the notable omission about differences in raw processing).

There's nothing in this test that would tempt me from the 800 to the Hasselblad, but I do believe there are differences which in some circumstances will be substantial.

I'll add that I hope the medium format industry manages to stay healthy and competetive. I think it's in danger from dslrs now, not because the d800 is as good, but because for many people it is more than good enough, certainly considering the costs. I worry that anything that eats into MF's small market share might compound its already serious problems with economies fo scale. I'd like to see the d800 act as a positive kick in MF's ***, not an injurious one.

 

[fotografz]

Here is the only really interesting d800 vs. Hasselblad test I've seen. Partly because it was blind (the evaluator had no idea what two cameras were being compared) and partly because of the evaluator's expertise. He does prepress work for fine art reproduction, which has extrememly rigorous demands. It's also extremely specialized, so the degree to which the differences he fixates on apply to my work or yours is open to interpretation. (Also, there's the notable omission about differences in raw processing).

There's nothing in this test that would tempt me from the 800 to the Hasselblad, but I do believe there are differences which in some circumstances will be substantial.

I'll add that I hope the medium format industry manages to stay healthy and competetive. I think it's in danger from dslrs now, not because the d800 is as good, but because for many people it is more than good enough, certainly considering the costs. I worry that anything that eats into MF's small market share might compound its already serious problems with economies fo scale. I'd like to see the d800 act as a positive kick in MF's ***, not an injurious one.

I wonder about all this. Bear with me a bit as I use to many words to explain

At one time MFD was the proprietary tool of choice for a select few specialized applications in the realm of commerce, and some well healed serious enthusiasts. Both markets had/have very specific needs and were/are willing to pay the premium to meet those needs. At the time, price wasn't a major issue in commerce ... the cost of digital capture was a line-item that replaced the cost of film, processing and scanning for the publication industry that had gone digital ... which on jobs like a major catalog could reach upwards of $5,000 to $7,000. A $12,000 Kodak digital ProBack could be paid for with just a few such jobs. That is exactly how I paid for all my first MF digital systems. 2 years of digital capture fees, and it was free and clear, so I kept upgrading and the work also paid for the upgrades.

Good enough isn't necessarily part of this group's vocabulary. The need is VERY specific and usually very well defined either by demands or extensive experience ... but usually both. These are the elements that define preference. The linked retoucher article is a good example of this kind of very defined specificity.

When Kodak introduced that very inventive, and quite stable Proback that severed the tether to a computer, many more enthusiasts took note of both its comparative price to other MFD backs, and its ability to extend the life of their MF film camera systems in the encroaching digital age ... first the much loved and ubiquitous Hassey Vs, then the Contax 645, Mamiya and even the Hasselblad H1. MFD was mobile.

This began swelling the ranks of discerning enthusiasts using MFD in concert with film, they now had the best of both worlds. Importantly, it introduced them to, or prolonged, the MF aesthetic that Jack references in his post above. It also wormed its way into commerce, and spurred on other back makers to leap-frog one another in an effort to win more advocates.

Perhaps, just perhaps, nature is now simply taking it course.

Maybe, just maybe, the MFD makers can return to dealing with the specificity of very defined needs, and stop chasing "the almost as good, is good enough" photographer. There is nothing wrong with that attitude BTW, no one is immune from using a tool that gets the job done with-in the limits of certain demands. Not many pros or enthusiasts exclusively use a 50, 60 or 80 meg MFD system even if they have one.

IMO, even if all the MFD makers became one maker, and Warren Buffet invested in that collective (which he wouldn't), they couldn't beat Canon/Nikon/Sony at their own game.

What they can do is move further up-stream into more rarified territory, stop trying to be what they are not, and better exploit what they are, and can be more of. Return to the roots of image quality applied to specific applications that defined them in the first place.

The thought of a 35mm camera that could challenge my H4D/60, for my specific applications, induces a horse laugh from me. When I think of improving my output for those applications, I don't think of stepping backwards, I think of an IQ180 or Leaf 80 meg on a tech camera, or in my specific case it gives me the "Wants and Gimmes" for a H4D/200 Multi-Shot.

However, it isn't just a function of megapixels. It is the invention of aspects that make those tools easier to use and more functional as applied to very specific applications ... not ones that appeal to general audiences. Don't dumb down MFD to meet a consensus of different people's needs.

So, I do not agree that 35mm DSLRs are endangering MFD, they are endangering the direction MFD makers chose when they went after a marginal audience and spent their limited resources on making systems to appeal to a crowd that would jump ship the minute that 35mm became good enough.

Time to get back on track.

-Marc

 

[jlm]

the only rational comparison I can see is between features and ergonomics, maybe in-camera processing.

other than that, the nikon sensor is like a crop from the hasselblad

 

[paulraphael]

So, I do not agree that 35mm DSLRs are endangering MFD, they are endangering the direction MFD makers chose when they went after a marginal audience and spent their limited resources on making systems to appeal to a crowd that would jump ship the minute that 35mm became good enough.

I think we are mostly agreeing here.

My only point on this topic is that since the market for MF digital is already quite small, it takes a relatively small number of photographers forsaking it for (much cheaper) 35mm to significantly effect that market.

This could conceiveably make the current situation—high prices thanks to poor economies of scale—even worse.

I don't think this is the only possible outcome, but it's one that I worry about. I say this as someone who's buying a d800, but whose work would actually be best served by an MFD carmera that I can't begin to afford.

 

[FredBGG]

Here is the only really interesting d800 vs. Hasselblad test I've seen. Partly because it was blind (the evaluator had no idea what two cameras were being compared) and partly because of the evaluator's expertise. He does prepress work for fine art reproduction, which has extrememly rigorous demands. It's also extremely specialized, so the degree to which the differences he fixates on apply to my work or yours is open to interpretation. (Also, there's the notable omission about differences in raw processing).

This test is totally pointless unless your in the painting reproduction business.

 

[FredBGG]

I think we are mostly agreeing here.

My only point on this topic is that since the market for MF digital is already quite small, it takes a relatively small number of photographers forsaking it for (much cheaper) 35mm to significantly effect that market.

This could conceiveably make the current situation—high prices thanks to poor economies of scale—even worse.

I don't think this is the only possible outcome, but it's one that I worry about. I say this as someone who's buying a d800, but whose work would actually be best served by an MFD carmera that I can't begin to afford.

You can afford a really good medium format camera to add to your D800.:thumbup:

Add a film camera to your tool kit.

The combination of what you can do and the aesthetic looks you can get with a high end 35mm DSLR and film camera with trump the look of MFD.

Also the look that a couple of different MF film cameras can give you.
It's really affordable to get several MF film cameras. Each with their own look and functionality.

I use a Fuji gx680 that has all lenses with tilt shift. 50mm to 300mm (I don't have the 500mm)

 

[paulraphael]

You can afford a really good medium format camera to add to your D800.:thumbup:

Add a film camera to your tool kit.

Ha. I've got a 4x5. I used it and nothing else for fifteen years. Ufortunately it's become impractical since I've started working mostly in color. $5 a click, after adding up film and processing.

Medium format film doesn't interest me much. I did my last project with a borrowed hasselblad. I had fun working with it, but from a technical standpoint the prints don't look as good as what I get from a cheap dslr.

This is the long version of why I'm excited about the d800.

 

[tjv]

Wow, ONLY $5 per click?!?! I dream of 4x5" being that inexpensive where I live! Seriously, in New Zealand 4x5" colour neg costs $19.50USD per sheet. Now THAT is crazy. :deadhorse:

Ha. I've got a 4x5. I used it and nothing else for fifteen years. Ufortunately it's become impractical since I've started working mostly in color. $5 a click, after adding up film and processing.

Medium format film doesn't interest me much. I did my last project with a borrowed hasselblad. I had fun working with it, but from a technical standpoint the prints don't look as good as what I get from a cheap dslr.

This is the long version of why I'm excited about the d800.

 

[Paratom]

As someone owning 35mm digital, MF film (Rollei 6080i2) and MFdigital I have the following experience:
Even though I really like the look of film a lot, and even though I have talked myself several times into using film and scanning I just grab the digital cameras all the time.
Why? Because a) I have limited time b) I am lazy c) I am curious and like having the results immediatly
So using film sounds good, but one has to have time and patience to do it.
I would like to add that scanned files in good quality seem to eat much mich more memory/disk space. And archiving film takes "real" space.
Still keep my M6 and my 6008 but I do use mainly my M9 and the S2, and occasionally when I want very fast AF the Nikon (not very often).

Regarding the IQ (advantage?) of medium format digital? For my taste it is clearly visible "better" IQ than 35mm digital. Of course at a very high price. (Even though one can get used MF gear which is not much more expensive than a D800.

 

[donaldt]

I am happy to see so many people responded to my post although that was a lot to read for me

anyway
I think if you dont have a camera yet, and you dont have to have the Hasselblad/Phaseone, the D800E is a great deal packed with superb details and resolution, that part is without any doubt
for me, my job has nothing to do with photography, or I should say my job has a lot to do with photography but I am not the one shooting the photos
I work with a lot of photographers on press, so I would say I have picky eyes, but photography is just a hobby for me

I think its the same thing from the camera system to the lighting system, if you cant or dont want to afford Profoto/Broncolor/Breise, there are all these other alternatives, Elinchrom is close enough for most, and there is always these Chinese bargains
same goes for the camera, the differences are there, but for the majority, you simply dont need that, even for the pros
just admit it, we never needed it, we just wanted it

I think the example of the Camero vs the Ferrari explains exactly that

while the Nikon D800E is the best 35mm camera, and Elinchrom being the best value for the money lighting, I am happier with the 4 year old Hasselblad and the uncool looking black colored Profoto

having that said there are times the D800E really shines, well, there are times my OM-D is the best option too, so lets drop the arguments, and be happy with what you have and shoot some pictures
but when it comes to IQ, bigger sensor clearly is better, if not we should all be shooting with Pentax Q

 

[FredBGG]

Don... what lens did you have on the Nikon?

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I am happy to see so many people responded to my post although that was a lot to read for me

anyway
I think if you dont have a camera yet, and you dont have to have the Hasselblad/Phaseone, the D800E is a great deal packed with superb details and resolution, that part is without any doubt
for me, my job has nothing to do with photography, or I should say my job has a lot to do with photography but I am not the one shooting the photos
I work with a lot of photographers on press, so I would say I have picky eyes, but photography is just a hobby for me

I think its the same thing from the camera system to the lighting system, if you cant or dont want to afford Profoto/Broncolor/Breise, there are all these other alternatives, Elinchrom is close enough for most, and there is always these Chinese bargains
same goes for the camera, the differences are there, but for the majority, you simply dont need that, even for the pros
just admit it, we never needed it, we just wanted it

I think the example of the Camero vs the Ferrari explains exactly that

while the Nikon D800E is the best 35mm camera, and Elinchrom being the best value for the money lighting, I am happier with the 4 year old Hasselblad and the uncool looking black colored Profoto

having that said there are times the D800E really shines, well, there are times my OM-D is the best option too, so lets drop the arguments, and be happy with what you have and shoot some pictures
but when it comes to IQ, bigger sensor clearly is better, if not we should all be shooting with Pentax Q

To be frank, I'm not putting a lot of credence to this thread. There's only mention of a zoom lens that might have been used, but no prime lenses. Also, there's no photos to compare to make this very general statement. If, as you say, you are not a professional photographer, and are not using standard baselines or techniques, then yes, it's unofficial, but a comparison? Not from this perspective.

 

[Chris Giles]

You know what I'd like to see? A natural light headshot from a H3D 39 by a 100mm 2.2 lens shot wide open against a D800E on an 85 1.4G at 1.6

Come on, someone....I can measure that visually.