A
andershald
Guest
Hello Everyone.
I am new to this forum and I can see that this is a very active forum for medium format digital. I am considering the Hasselblad offer on the H3DII-31, and I found that there is relatively few posts on the web about this particular camera. I have borrowed the camera from at dealer in Copenhagen for the weekend and I thought I'd share my initial impressions. I have posted the same at the Hasselblad user forum, so forgive me if you read this both places.
My test is not a scientific or general purpose test of the camera, but a test of whether the camera is right for me and my way of working. I shoot kids, mostly, on location, mostly, in daylight, with reflectors, and occasionally with flash in a studio, but rarely daylight with flashfill (which is one of the things that make the lens shutters an advantage).
Let me start with some of the things I expected to be issues: I have been shooting a Canon 1DS2 for a couple of years, I expected shooting speed to be horribly slow. It wasn't...or at least it didn't feel slow. I used to shoot a Pentax 67 and this feels way faster. Also the whole handling of a medium format system gives a shoot a slightly different pace than shooting with a dslr. The shooting speed is fine. I tested both my Lexar 133x cards and a Sandisk Extreme IV card and the faster cards are essential. Not only does the buffer not fill up, the frame rate increases with the faster cards. So if I buy, I will also buy a new stack of 8gb cards (approx 150 images/8gb).
Battery life was ok, I got 300+ frames on the first charge and I presume the dealer gave me a freshly charged battery. Additional batteries will also be added to the shopping basket.
Autofocus was fine, not dslr speed, but everything is a little slower on medium format, thus the focus speed didn't feel like it was slowing me down at all. Even for kids I am not worried, although if I am shooting kids moving around, I'd probably reach for the Canon again, as I expected.
I was slightly worried that the crop factor of 1.3 with the 31 back would make the lenses feel slightly 'tight', that the 80 would feel too claustrophobic for a 'normal lens'. My first impression is that it is not an issue. The dealer gave me the 35, 50, 80 and 100mm lenses. I think the 50, 80 and 100mm lenses are the ones that gets me closest to where I'd like to be. It might be that I decide that the 100 is too close to the 80 which would make me look to the 120 macro, instead. Looking through the viewfinder at the 31back frame indication marks, I was surprised at how little bigger the bigger chips are. I am no longer concerned about the crop facter.
In my work I like to shoot at lower apertures, I like low depth of field. That would be my main reson for going with the 100mm lens. Yesterday I couldn't figure out what was troubling me, but I realised today that on a sunny day like yesterday, I actually had to stop the lenses down and shoot at f8, f11 and quite a few frames at f22, at a 100 iso. The shutters in the lenses are not very fast compared to the Canon. This I actually find to go against the way I work. I tried to find the specifications on Hasselblads website, but oddly the product sheets didn't specify the max shutterspeed! The 100mm seems to max out at 1/800s. I am not so happy about that. On the other hand, higher depth of field means that my shots from yesterday were nice and sharp
One of the things that really attracted me to the Hasselblad was the nice big monitor on the back. Sadly it was so dim that it was more or less useless outdoors! Even trying to shade it with a hand didn't help much (while holding a heavy camera and operating the navigation button). There might be a way to increase brightness, at the cost of battery life, but I couldn't figure it out. (If anybody knows how, do let me know) That is really a shame, because it would be nice to have a useful screen. The tiny (by todays standards) screen on my Canon 1dsII is far more useful than the big monitor on the HD3II-31, simply because it is brighter.
I am a big fan of the histogram on the handgrip, it is much easier to see than the monitor, and it'll instantly tell me if my exposures are good. Nice feature.
All in all I found the camera to be really well built, nice to work with, intuitive to use. A few of the things I expected to be issues were not, and some of the things I expected to be great were not so hot. One of the really important things to realise about buying a MFD system is that when you don't have one, they are objects of desire. When you have them, they are a camera, a tool and just that. Using one for image making is not a 'religious experience' that will bring your image making to new and pleasurable heights. It's a camera. It'll do what other cameras do, record images. Hopefully in the hands of the photographer it will enable the photographer to do something that she or he wasn't able to do with another tool. But an expensive camera will not turn any photographer into a better photographer. This type of camera will actually require slightly more skill from a photographer, I think.
There is one complication though. I am one of those odd photographers who feels compelled to withstand the Apple brainwash. Yes, I am a pc user. I am used to pc's and I will stick with my pc!
So in order to view the wonderful files from this very expensive camera I downloaded...FlexColor. The latest version, updated recently and whoosh...it was 1998 again. Drag and drop is a foreign concept, files must be imported through a separate import window, zooming in on an image in the raw processer to see if it is sharp doesn't help you it will just enlarge the pixels of the thumbnail, so no checking for sharpness prior to processing. I kept my raw files in seperate folders inside a folder called 'hasselblad test' in the import window I pointed to the 'hasselblad test' folder, and it was empty...of course, I have to import from the specific subfolder that contains the raw files...argh! The raw processing tools of CS3 is complete science fiction in contrast to the, let me try to be polite here, BASIC, tools available in FlexColor. In my opinion FlexColor is not an option for a working pro. I use Iview Media Pro for editing, but not with Hasselblad files. I tried opening Bridge (which I never use) and the Hasselblad files were compressed to square images!?! Would I show these to a client at a shoot? No.
I sat down and did my very best to work through a handful of images in FlexColor and it is actually doable. It takes forever, feels very primitive and was an altogether uncomfortable experience. I opened the processed tiffs in Photoshop (Whoosh back to 2008) and of course the files look great. As I expected. In fact I am sure that the image quality from any of these backs, Leaf, PhaseOne, Sinar or Hasselblad is great. The differences are marginal an mostly related to user preferences and camera preferences. I had a friend send me som raw files from his P31+ and P45 backs, I opened them in ACR (without travelling in time, adjusted them in my preferred raw converter) and compared them to the Hasselblad files. To my immediate impression the files seemed equal. I didn't do detailed analysis, I looked at them side by side at 100% 200% and 400%. I saw nothing that would make me prefer either back over the other. I did think that the higher resolution of the P45 back was so marginal that, for me at least, there would be no attraction to spend the extra money.
I know Phocus is coming and I now that it is estimated to arrive in Q4 this year. But I am offered a deal that is available until August 31. Would I spend this much money on a system that forces me to use a piece of software that is not available for me to test now. In short, NO! I know all the arguments about software correction etc, but NO! I will not gamble on liking Phocus. I bought Capture One when I bought the Canon, as a lot of people like it, but I didn't and never use it (even after they matched the PC user interface to the Mac UI). The software is as important a part of the imagemaking proces as the lens and the back, if I am not happy with that part, it IS a dealbreaker. I don't use Aperture or Lightroom or Bridge...so the fact that Phocus is made to look like those, doesn't really impress me. I know, on this particular point I am a little weird, but it's my opinion and how I like to work. A Phase back would allow me to work the way I like to work. Hasselblad should make their rawfile format available to be processed in ACR, and the user could choose and decide on wether to take advantage of Phocus or not.
I will continue to shoot today and tomorrow and I will add to this post any further impressions. Please note that these are only my impressions based on how I would use the camera. My findings are based on picking up the camera and using it without reading a manual or going through the various custom option. It is not unlikely that some of the findings are due to me not knowing specifics about the camera and the system, if that is the case, please don't hesitate to correct me. The things that I find less useful for me, could be a non issue for other photographer. I am also certain that using the camera and getting to know the camera as you only get to know equipment you own, will increase the quality of output from the camera, and the pleasure of using it.
I am writing my impressions because I intend to buy a MFDB and camera system and because I am seriously considering the H3DII-31. I have not yet ruled this system out completely (Phocus for PC could come out in time and I could like it!), I could find things about the alternative systems that annoys me more than Flexcolor. But I have asked my dealer to set me up to test the Mamiya/Phase camera and a Phase back next week. I will also post my findings of that test here.
Have a nice weekend.
Best regards,
Anders Hald
I am new to this forum and I can see that this is a very active forum for medium format digital. I am considering the Hasselblad offer on the H3DII-31, and I found that there is relatively few posts on the web about this particular camera. I have borrowed the camera from at dealer in Copenhagen for the weekend and I thought I'd share my initial impressions. I have posted the same at the Hasselblad user forum, so forgive me if you read this both places.
My test is not a scientific or general purpose test of the camera, but a test of whether the camera is right for me and my way of working. I shoot kids, mostly, on location, mostly, in daylight, with reflectors, and occasionally with flash in a studio, but rarely daylight with flashfill (which is one of the things that make the lens shutters an advantage).
Let me start with some of the things I expected to be issues: I have been shooting a Canon 1DS2 for a couple of years, I expected shooting speed to be horribly slow. It wasn't...or at least it didn't feel slow. I used to shoot a Pentax 67 and this feels way faster. Also the whole handling of a medium format system gives a shoot a slightly different pace than shooting with a dslr. The shooting speed is fine. I tested both my Lexar 133x cards and a Sandisk Extreme IV card and the faster cards are essential. Not only does the buffer not fill up, the frame rate increases with the faster cards. So if I buy, I will also buy a new stack of 8gb cards (approx 150 images/8gb).
Battery life was ok, I got 300+ frames on the first charge and I presume the dealer gave me a freshly charged battery. Additional batteries will also be added to the shopping basket.
Autofocus was fine, not dslr speed, but everything is a little slower on medium format, thus the focus speed didn't feel like it was slowing me down at all. Even for kids I am not worried, although if I am shooting kids moving around, I'd probably reach for the Canon again, as I expected.
I was slightly worried that the crop factor of 1.3 with the 31 back would make the lenses feel slightly 'tight', that the 80 would feel too claustrophobic for a 'normal lens'. My first impression is that it is not an issue. The dealer gave me the 35, 50, 80 and 100mm lenses. I think the 50, 80 and 100mm lenses are the ones that gets me closest to where I'd like to be. It might be that I decide that the 100 is too close to the 80 which would make me look to the 120 macro, instead. Looking through the viewfinder at the 31back frame indication marks, I was surprised at how little bigger the bigger chips are. I am no longer concerned about the crop facter.
In my work I like to shoot at lower apertures, I like low depth of field. That would be my main reson for going with the 100mm lens. Yesterday I couldn't figure out what was troubling me, but I realised today that on a sunny day like yesterday, I actually had to stop the lenses down and shoot at f8, f11 and quite a few frames at f22, at a 100 iso. The shutters in the lenses are not very fast compared to the Canon. This I actually find to go against the way I work. I tried to find the specifications on Hasselblads website, but oddly the product sheets didn't specify the max shutterspeed! The 100mm seems to max out at 1/800s. I am not so happy about that. On the other hand, higher depth of field means that my shots from yesterday were nice and sharp
One of the things that really attracted me to the Hasselblad was the nice big monitor on the back. Sadly it was so dim that it was more or less useless outdoors! Even trying to shade it with a hand didn't help much (while holding a heavy camera and operating the navigation button). There might be a way to increase brightness, at the cost of battery life, but I couldn't figure it out. (If anybody knows how, do let me know) That is really a shame, because it would be nice to have a useful screen. The tiny (by todays standards) screen on my Canon 1dsII is far more useful than the big monitor on the HD3II-31, simply because it is brighter.
I am a big fan of the histogram on the handgrip, it is much easier to see than the monitor, and it'll instantly tell me if my exposures are good. Nice feature.
All in all I found the camera to be really well built, nice to work with, intuitive to use. A few of the things I expected to be issues were not, and some of the things I expected to be great were not so hot. One of the really important things to realise about buying a MFD system is that when you don't have one, they are objects of desire. When you have them, they are a camera, a tool and just that. Using one for image making is not a 'religious experience' that will bring your image making to new and pleasurable heights. It's a camera. It'll do what other cameras do, record images. Hopefully in the hands of the photographer it will enable the photographer to do something that she or he wasn't able to do with another tool. But an expensive camera will not turn any photographer into a better photographer. This type of camera will actually require slightly more skill from a photographer, I think.
There is one complication though. I am one of those odd photographers who feels compelled to withstand the Apple brainwash. Yes, I am a pc user. I am used to pc's and I will stick with my pc!
So in order to view the wonderful files from this very expensive camera I downloaded...FlexColor. The latest version, updated recently and whoosh...it was 1998 again. Drag and drop is a foreign concept, files must be imported through a separate import window, zooming in on an image in the raw processer to see if it is sharp doesn't help you it will just enlarge the pixels of the thumbnail, so no checking for sharpness prior to processing. I kept my raw files in seperate folders inside a folder called 'hasselblad test' in the import window I pointed to the 'hasselblad test' folder, and it was empty...of course, I have to import from the specific subfolder that contains the raw files...argh! The raw processing tools of CS3 is complete science fiction in contrast to the, let me try to be polite here, BASIC, tools available in FlexColor. In my opinion FlexColor is not an option for a working pro. I use Iview Media Pro for editing, but not with Hasselblad files. I tried opening Bridge (which I never use) and the Hasselblad files were compressed to square images!?! Would I show these to a client at a shoot? No.
I sat down and did my very best to work through a handful of images in FlexColor and it is actually doable. It takes forever, feels very primitive and was an altogether uncomfortable experience. I opened the processed tiffs in Photoshop (Whoosh back to 2008) and of course the files look great. As I expected. In fact I am sure that the image quality from any of these backs, Leaf, PhaseOne, Sinar or Hasselblad is great. The differences are marginal an mostly related to user preferences and camera preferences. I had a friend send me som raw files from his P31+ and P45 backs, I opened them in ACR (without travelling in time, adjusted them in my preferred raw converter) and compared them to the Hasselblad files. To my immediate impression the files seemed equal. I didn't do detailed analysis, I looked at them side by side at 100% 200% and 400%. I saw nothing that would make me prefer either back over the other. I did think that the higher resolution of the P45 back was so marginal that, for me at least, there would be no attraction to spend the extra money.
I know Phocus is coming and I now that it is estimated to arrive in Q4 this year. But I am offered a deal that is available until August 31. Would I spend this much money on a system that forces me to use a piece of software that is not available for me to test now. In short, NO! I know all the arguments about software correction etc, but NO! I will not gamble on liking Phocus. I bought Capture One when I bought the Canon, as a lot of people like it, but I didn't and never use it (even after they matched the PC user interface to the Mac UI). The software is as important a part of the imagemaking proces as the lens and the back, if I am not happy with that part, it IS a dealbreaker. I don't use Aperture or Lightroom or Bridge...so the fact that Phocus is made to look like those, doesn't really impress me. I know, on this particular point I am a little weird, but it's my opinion and how I like to work. A Phase back would allow me to work the way I like to work. Hasselblad should make their rawfile format available to be processed in ACR, and the user could choose and decide on wether to take advantage of Phocus or not.
I will continue to shoot today and tomorrow and I will add to this post any further impressions. Please note that these are only my impressions based on how I would use the camera. My findings are based on picking up the camera and using it without reading a manual or going through the various custom option. It is not unlikely that some of the findings are due to me not knowing specifics about the camera and the system, if that is the case, please don't hesitate to correct me. The things that I find less useful for me, could be a non issue for other photographer. I am also certain that using the camera and getting to know the camera as you only get to know equipment you own, will increase the quality of output from the camera, and the pleasure of using it.
I am writing my impressions because I intend to buy a MFDB and camera system and because I am seriously considering the H3DII-31. I have not yet ruled this system out completely (Phocus for PC could come out in time and I could like it!), I could find things about the alternative systems that annoys me more than Flexcolor. But I have asked my dealer to set me up to test the Mamiya/Phase camera and a Phase back next week. I will also post my findings of that test here.
Have a nice weekend.
Best regards,
Anders Hald