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!

H2 or Hy6???

David Klepacki

New member
...
The other mitigating factor of weight is how the weight is distributed. The H camera is a well balanced, compact camera with an integrated grip that I use with a hand strap that I find easy on the wrist since it's tight to the body to reduce fulcrum torque. This also allows me to let the camera just hang at my side when not in use. It is actually easier to carry at an 8 hour wedding than my Contax 645 was...
This is an interesting point, but counter to my experience. Holding a heavy camera via a wrist strap, no matter how tight it is to the body, puts a torque on the right hand wrist, that became very tiring. When I switched to using a waist level finder, my left hand was UNDERNEATH the weight of it all, and I found much less fatigue shooting in this position, even for long periods.

I also found that I was able to stabilize the camera better when supporting it form underneath. If it were more stable to support a camera from the side, then monopods would be an inferior way to support a camera, or at least have a much different design that would accommodate supporting them from the side.

The other issue I had with a 645 when rotating from landscape to portrait was the flash system. If you use a flash that is mounted to either the prism finder or an attached flash bracket, it is a lot of extra fumbling when physically rotating the camera, since the head almost always needs to be repositioned (and often requires removing your eye from the viewfinder). With a waist level finder and a revolving back, I don't need to mess with the flash orientation.

Lastly, as far as using 645 or 66 for weddings, I guess that is a personal preference. To date, I think more weddings have been shot via Hasselblad square cameras (since the 1960's at least), without any major disasters.

I also do not like pissing contests, so this is just my experience, and should be balanced with other opinions from people willing to share here.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Dear Marc,

some precisions from my side.

First: the Sinar Hy6 IS NOT a camera made out of plastic.

The body and structure is made of aluminum and covered with a rubberized plastic. As such, the Sinar Hy6 is as much a metal camera as the H3D.



I have done my own weighting and here the results for the Sinar Hy6:

- Sinar Hy6 body + eMotion 75 back + Schneider 80mm AFD + WLF + incl. Battery = 4.36 lbs (1.98 Kg), and not 4.70 as mentioned

- Sinar Hy6 body + eMotion 75 back + Schneider 80mm AFD + 90° Finder + incl. battery = 5.18 lbs (2.35 Kg)

I did weight it myself 10 minutes ago.

As for the H3D II (according to Hasselblad's specifications), with 90° finder, 80mm HC, battery = 5.05 lbs (2,290 Kg)

So I guess, for 2 BOTH METAL cameras, that's pretty much the same weight, with the Hy6's finder a bit heavier due to its covering of 6x6.


The feeling and impression from users of the Sinar Hy6 is the same: that this Hy6 camera is very well-balanced, more over easy to adjust the hand-grip when changing the shooting angle or when having to carry the camera.

This may be your own test with the camera you had, but is not what I have experienced and get reported from users comparing the 2 cameras.

Why are you claiming the OLED technology being an old one? Actually it is a much newer one.
This being said: the eMotion back do have now a TFT 2.5" bright display, instead of a 2.2" OLED previously.

The Sinarback eMotion can do a "lossless" compression as well: instead of the original size of 64 MB (UN-compressed), the file size can be reduced to 32 MB ---> double the amount of images can be stored. That is also more shots per storage device.

Now I have also to add some details about the storage device: the eMotion backs do have an internal hard-state memory of 6 GB for the eMotion 75 and 4 GB for the eMotion 54 IN ADDITION to the normal CF card storage.

IMO a lot more flexibility when it comes to storage capacity.

It is, "splitting hairs", definitively. Please Marc, do not take this as me willing to contradict your findings. I just wanted to give some details and little corrections. I can here link to another photographer owing a H3D 39 since 18 months and having tried the Sinar Hy6 - e75 for 1 month. Here his report:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24926

Read post 4

A different way to see things.

Best regards,
Thierry
I never said the Hy6 was plastic ... someone else did.

2.1 Kilos is the reported weight given in a Sinar supported release. They should correct that.

Yes, the Hy6 was nice in hand ... however I didn't experience it with the prism finder mounted as it wasn't there to evaluate the balance. I know first hand the H is balanced with a Prism finder.

Yes, it could be that the AFi I tried was faulty, and the AF wasn't as fast as it could be ... but it wasn't faster, and that's all one can go on. It's probably a nano second one way or the other, so a moot point.

"Older OLED" was in direct reference to the previous Hasselblad 2.2" display, not a cronological order of invention.

I like the internal storage of the Sinar backs ... a nice back-up feature. But with file sizes this big, 6 gigs is gone quickly in my world ... which is why I opted for the 100 gig Image Bank for shooting circumstances like that ... plus it places the power source in your pocket for cold outdoor work ... which I've used frequently.

The other photographer you provided a link to is comparing a H3D/39 to the Hy6 ... my Hasselblad is a H3D-II/39. That's about as fair a comparison as using a Phase One P45 instead of a P45+

In that thread, just below the post you reference, is a report from a photographer using a H3D-II/39 ... he mirrors my experiences to a letter. All my lenses and accessories have already stood the test of time and duty. It's a known enity that I can count on.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Marc,

no justifications needed: I did not point my gun on you and I know who said it was plastic.

Yes, I know that this weight is written in a tech sheet: there will always be such discrepancies (one measure w/o batters, the other with a 80mm non-AF lens, or with a previous AF or then with AFD, etc ... That's why I wanted to weight it myself with all the components and accessories like they are today and as described by you: it happens that I just have it in front of me.

It happens that I know khun_k, the photographer owing the H3D39 and having tested in job conditions the Hy6 for quite a long time (actually until last week). He does know the H3DII as well and did not want to emphasize on image quality, but rather on the camera, its features, the handling and comfort of use in HIS filed of work.

Marc, you know it as I do, and we agree on this for sure: there is no perfect system. I know the advantages and disadvantages of Sinar, most of the advantages and disadvantages of the other systems. No MF system is bad and it would be unfair and stupid to claim this. For me, I wish to give all possibles views and details, when I have the feeling that something has not been said, or that others do see or experience it differently.

Best regards,
Thierry

The other photographer you provided a link to is comparing a H3D/39 to the Hy6 ... my Hasselblad is a H3D-II/39. That's about as fair a comparison as using a Phase One P45 instead of a P45+

In that thread, just below the post you reference, is a report from a photographer using a H3D-II/39 ... he mirrors my experiences to a letter. All my lenses and accessories have already stood the test of time and duty. It's a known enity that I can count on.
 

David Klepacki

New member
...The Hy6 rotating for me is a non issue. becomes true ZERO issue if there is a 48x48 sensor on the horizon. I for one like the flexibility of the square and with pixels to burn who care that you need to crop...
Yes and no. I am not sure the majority of people will be happy with 48x48. Only those people who plan to truly print square will be happy. The majority of printing is still based on the 0.8 (4x5/8x10) aspect ratio. So, if that it is your end result, then consider this:

To print with 0.8 aspect ratio using a 48x48 sensor would require you to crop to 48x38.4, losing 20% of your pixels. Assuming 7.2um pixels, this means cropping a 44MP square to about 35MP.

On the other hand, to print with 0.8 aspect ratio using a 48x36 sensor would require you to crop to 45x36, losing only about 6% of your pixels. Assuming 7.2um pixels, this means cropping a 33MP sensor to only 31MP.

So, a 35MP final printing image or a 31MP final printing image? If the cost of the 48x48 sensor would be the same as the 48x36 sensor, then it would make total sense. Otherwise, you would have to be willing to throw away 20% of your pixels ($$) to get an extra 4MP in your image.

I really hope Dalsa goes straight to a 56x56 sensor instead. I think there would be much more of a market for this size, since it would give back the full frame (and things like a 180-degree square fisheye). For consistency, using 7.2um pixels in this case would result in a 60MP sensor, so even with cropping it would give substantial increase in resolution.

OK, so what if these bigger square sensors do materialize but are almost 2X the cost (let's say $50K)? Then, the revolving 645 back doesn't look too bad of a compromise, or would you still feel ok with "burning the extra pixels"?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I hope this thread isnt read that way. your comments marc have been spot on, O hope others appreciate the directness of your comments, and the7y are experience based from what I have seen.


yet we all have our own priorities; here are some other considerations:

the H3D has shown terrific innovation in a short time, and the Fuji glass is growing on me (after all, it was Kyocera that executed the Zeiss designs)

The Hy6 rotating for me is a non issue. becomes true ZERO issue if there is a 48x48 sensor on the horizon. I for one like the flexibility of the square and with pixels to burn who care that you need to crop.

So, as a "glass person' it may come down to whether I want access to the HC glass (and good AF) or to german glass (though I guess I could use an Alpa for schneider optics and Rollei.

Marc, why do you say Hy6 is more studio (that I do not have, except for a few backdrops and moble Profoto monos) while you see the H3D as a good reportage camera (others have mentioned this as well. But I dont see where they differ

regards
Victor
IF and WHEN there is a 48 X 48+ sensor, then it's the same decision I made when selecting a 645 verses a 6X6 with film. I used both for their specific strengths, and will do the same when that time comes ... depending on cost verses real world ROI potential, not internet debates.

I do not have to choose between the Fuji glass or "German" glass ... I use both on my H3D-II/39 ... and Schnieder/Rodenstock optics on a Rollei Xact ... and could secure an ALPA to mount the 39 meg back on.

The only way to answer your "why a studio camera" question is for you to go try both cameras in hand. IMO, it is the fundemental difference between a 645 camera and a 6X6. I use both, and have a preference for a 645 by a mile when it comes to what you term "reportage." But when it comes to studio work, the sensor is the basically same size right now (the H3D's 39 is actually a tad bigger), so the Hasselblad functions equally well there also.
 

David Klepacki

New member
... Marc, you know it as I do, and we agree on this for sure: there is no perfect system. I know the advantages and disadvantages of Sinar, most of the advantages and disadvantages of the other systems. No MF system is bad and it would be unfair and stupid to claim this. For me, I wish to give all possibles views and details, when I have the feeling that something has not been said, or that others do see or experience it differently.

Best regards,
Thierry
Amen.

BTW, if it was me that is being referred to as far as the plastic comment, I can't even remember exactly how I put it, but I will retract if necessary. There is some plastic, of course, like all modern cameras, but I never denied it being fundamentally metal. I think my high regard for the Hy6 has been perfectly clear, and am extremely happy with it.
 

David K

Workshop Member
Marc,
I think the points you raise with regard to the Hassy system are not only valid, but valuable. As you stated above, your choice was based on your priorities which may differ from mine because you're a working pro and I'm an enthusiast. No pissing contest here. BTW, it's good to know that Eli from Kurland offers good deals from time to time. His postings on ebay have me shaking my head. Hy6 body at $9500 or so... Leaf Afi kit at $36k plus shipping and without a lens... Yikes!!!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yes and no. I am not sure the majority of people will be happy with 48x48. Only those people who plan to truly print square will be happy. The majority of printing is still based on the 0.8 (4x5/8x10) aspect ratio. So, if that it is your end result, then consider this:

To print with 0.8 aspect ratio using a 48x48 sensor would require you to crop to 48x38.4, losing 20% of your pixels. Assuming 7.2um pixels, this means cropping a 44MP square to about 35MP.

On the other hand, to print with 0.8 aspect ratio using a 48x36 sensor would require you to crop to 45x36, losing only about 6% of your pixels. Assuming 7.2um pixels, this means cropping a 33MP sensor to only 31MP.

So, a 35MP final printing image or a 31MP final printing image? If the cost of the 48x48 sensor would be the same as the 48x36 sensor, then it would make total sense. Otherwise, you would have to be willing to throw away 20% of your pixels ($$) to get an extra 4MP in your image.

I really hope Dalsa goes straight to a 56x56 sensor instead. I think there would be much more of a market for this size, since it would give back the full frame (and things like a 180-degree square fisheye). For consistency, using 7.2um pixels in this case would result in a 60MP sensor, so even with cropping it would give substantial increase in resolution.

OK, so what if these bigger square sensors do materialize but are almost 2X the cost (let's say $50K)? Then, the revolving 645 back doesn't look too bad of a compromise, or would you still feel ok with "burning the extra pixels"?
Good analysis.

56X56 would do it for me ... as long as it translated into real value in the real world and had some ROI attached to it.

I'd see it as a suppliment not a replacement ... I'd love it for my RZ or V systems and studio work. Art Directors love to have cropping options and 56X56 would provide just that.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
It' wasn't you, David!

Not important, but it had been said and raised many times: just wanted to correct it, since this Hy65 IS metal.

Thierry

BTW, if it was me that is being referred to as far as the plastic comment,
 

fotografz

Well-known member
This is an interesting point, but counter to my experience. Holding a heavy camera via a wrist strap, no matter how tight it is to the body, puts a torque on the right hand wrist, that became very tiring. When I switched to using a waist level finder, my left hand was UNDERNEATH the weight of it all, and I found much less fatigue shooting in this position, even for long periods.

I also found that I was able to stabilize the camera better when supporting it form underneath. If it were more stable to support a camera from the side, then monopods would be an inferior way to support a camera, or at least have a much different design that would accommodate supporting them from the side.

The other issue I had with a 645 when rotating from landscape to portrait was the flash system. If you use a flash that is mounted to either the prism finder or an attached flash bracket, it is a lot of extra fumbling when physically rotating the camera, since the head almost always needs to be repositioned (and often requires removing your eye from the viewfinder). With a waist level finder and a revolving back, I don't need to mess with the flash orientation.

Lastly, as far as using 645 or 66 for weddings, I guess that is a personal preference. To date, I think more weddings have been shot via Hasselblad square cameras (since the 1960's at least), without any major disasters.

I also do not like pissing contests, so this is just my experience, and should be balanced with other opinions from people willing to share here.
Different experiences. I have my right palm partially under the camera with my elbow in and it's comfortable for hours of shooting. 8 Hours of looking down into a Hasselblad V with a waist level finder used to kill my back and neck ... glad that's history.

The wedding Hasselblad is/was shooting to a square, and back rotation was never necessary .. so if using a grip winder you didn't have to remove the camera from your eye.

This will change when and if there is a 56X58 square sensor for the Hy6.

I still shoot my Hassey Vs at wedding from time to time ... it's mondo slower than the H even though I've used the V system for 30 years and have it down pat. Hardly anyone uses a V camera, or any 6X6 camera at weddings anymore ... and not many use MF at all.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
well, the future is , well, the future. right now 90% of my work is landscape. THe prospect of rotating camera has never bother me (I dont worry anymore- I have bionic shoulders! LOL)

This is going to be tough. But the hands on I'm sure will do it.

A short story. About 10 years ago I was to trade into an S class mercedes (we had kids, big, at home then) and I was traveling 500miles a week. The MB was delayed a year.

I never really cared for the BMW but had never tried (well, I did like a stick 325 my daughter had). I tried the 740il

WOW, it drove like a sports car. I leased it and I REALLY enjoyed those three years, and put over miles on the lease :)

The next time around however, I went back to the MB.

I don't know what that means for this decision. If you can figure it , tell me.:ROTFL:
 

David Klepacki

New member
I have no idea, and if I would, then only under NDA.
:thumbdown:

Thierry
Thierry, 48x48 will be to little too late. People with the 33MP revolving backs will be very reluctant to trade up to 48x48, unless the cost was very reasonable. If the costs for square sensor are going to be significant, then they must jump to 56x56. I believe more people will be able to achieve their ROI with this size, than with the 48x48.

And, while I am dreaming....adding a focal plane shutter to the Hy6 would be such a phenomenal camera (...not only would the 110/2 sync at 1/500 like today, but be able to shoot at 1/2000+...).
 

fotografz

Well-known member
well, the future is , well, the future. right now 90% of my work is landscape. THe prospect of rotating camera has never bother me (I dont worry anymore- I have bionic shoulders! LOL)

This is going to be tough. But the hands on I'm sure will do it.

A short story. About 10 years ago I was to trade into an S class mercedes (we had kids, big, at home then) and I was traveling 500miles a week. The MB was delayed a year.

I never really cared for the BMW but had never tried (well, I did like a stick 325 my daughter had). I tried the 740il

WOW, it drove like a sports car. I leased it and I REALLY enjoyed those three years, and put over miles on the lease :)

The next time around however, I went back to the MB.

I don't know what that means for this decision. If you can figure it , tell me.:ROTFL:
Actually, I'm glad I don't have to make a decision right now. What I have fully covers my needs as they stand, and I can afford to wait to see (as you say) ... what the future is.

What's the next big step? If they're baby steps I can wait until they add up to something of real substance.

In the meantime, I keep eyeballing the Sinar back for my trusty 203FE and full range of lovely FE and CFE optics that I already own ... thank goodness ... another set of $5,000.+ ea. Hy6 lenses is a daunting deterent to any impulse buying.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Man starting to feel weak with only 22mpx better hit the gym and beef up. LOL

Good info guys and no pissing match I see. We all have different priorities and that leads to good discussion.
 

LJL

New member
Actually, I'm glad I don't have to make a decision right now. What I have fully covers my needs as they stand, and I can afford to wait to see (as you say) ... what the future is.

What's the next big step? If they're baby steps I can wait until they add up to something of real substance.

In the meantime, I keep eyeballing the Sinar back for my trusty 203FE and full range of lovely FE and CFE optics that I already own ... thank goodness ... another set of $5,000.+ ea. Hy6 lenses is a daunting deterent to any impulse buying.
Marc,
What you are saying is exactly why I had started that other thread a couple weeks ago, or whenever. If a person is coming to the game with pretty much a blank slate/empty gear closet, then the choices for delving into MF are both daunting and somewhat easy. O.K., that sounds crazy, but my logic for that statement is simple: daunting in that costs are going to be fairly high, unless entering with something used, or like the ZD; easy from the perspective that almost any system one chooses can deliver outstanding results. So it does come back to how somebody will be using the gear most to aid the selection process. Your choices for the Hasselblad system make a ton of sense to me, at least, and moving to something else might require more than some incremental improvement or option....has to be a pretty significant thing, or swapping stuff out would not be worth it, regardless if you have your clients paying stuff off one way or another.

David Klepacki (along with Thierry and others) makes a strong argument for the Hy6 system and all of its flexibility. Again, that really matters if one has needs for lots of back swapping and stuff. The rotatable back on the Hy6 is very nice, but it really matters more for folks using a WLF, or setting up for studio shooting. Not saying it is not valuable to others, as it is, but flipping the H3D II on its side, or even the Hy6 when using the prism finder, is not all that hard to do. Anybody that has shot with the bigger DSLRs gets very used to this. (I shoot the Canon 1-series bodies, and even though they have the "vertical grip" controls and stuff, I may have used that only a few times at most. The rest of the shooting with with a handstrap and just rotating the camera to the new position. It is probably totally second nature for most shooters, except those that only shoot WLF.)

The entire issue about "closed" versus open systems is an interesting discussion, but upon further reflection, it may not really matter all that much, except if one really wanted to shoot a specific back, and they are now locked out of doing the swapping with the H3DII. What does seem to matter, as was just starting to be discussed before, is readily available repair/replacement should something go haywire. Folks can argue which is best or better, but it really only matters for the shooter in their location when they need the service, and then rentals or something may come to the rescue in a pinch. For most enthusiasts or casual shooters, they would probably just grab their DSLR or M8 or something and continue their casual shooting, or come back another day. The working pro would need the replacement in hand ASAP to finish the job. As it stands, Hasselblad seems in very good position to meet those needs right now. I would guess Sinar will be also, and Mamiya is gearing up there too for the camera and lens stuff. So again, maybe not too big an issue.

The only other area that may or may not matter to some is the digital file stuff. Hasselblad clearly has a dedicated system approach, but it can and does deliver. The Sinar backs may provide the least adjusted files that can then be processed through one's choice of workflow. For Phase, they are closer to Hasselblad in how they are looking at processing, in a way, I think, but still open to options. I think this really matters most depending upon what is to be delivered. If one is shooting for personal pleasure, then processing a lot of files may not be as much an issue. If one has to hand off the processing to somebody else, either the more flexible system or the more dedicated system will work, as long as the process person is capable with it. If the shooting pro is doing all his/her own processing, it comes down to preferred workflows. Shooting the Hasselblad and using Phocus will deliver results rapidly. Shooting anything else and incorporating into some other workflow will also serve, but may require a bit more profiling, adjusting, etc. Once done, they are done and ready to rock.

So the decision process does come down to how much one needs and can spend, both in costs and time to learn the operations. At first, I was having my own reservations about the Hasselblad closed system, but am not sure I do anymore. From a professional trying to shoot for a living, there is a lot to be said for stuff that gets out of your way and just works quickly and predictably, without having to switch things (gear, software, workflow, etc.) constantly. Not saying the Hy6 or others are not great, as they are, and once somebody has their personal preferences and adjustments for processing figured out, they are just as good to go.

Back to Victor's questions.....best thing is exactly what you are planning to do.....hold them, shoot them, play with some files, all in the way you prefer to work and for your needs. You will probably not make any bad choices on which system to go with, as both seem more than capable of delivering. For my own choices, I am still torn. I can readily identify with Marc's work and use, and I can also appreciate David's arguments. Both are extremely valid to my way of thinking. Just comes down to how one works and what they need to take along and use. I could easily live with either, and make both do what I would need. As for the future and where things are headed.....since nobody really knows, it does not seem like something to make a decision on at this point. Buy and use what you need today. If something changes dramatically in a year or three, there will be plenty of time to re-evaluate. I would not buy a system based on some of the unknowns that folks are talking about, such as 48x48 or 56x56 sensors that do NOT exist at this time, and are not going to be cheap no matter what. Heck, the 22MP backs are still doing some incredible stuff, so would a 60MP change all that much except your bank account initially? If you are a shooting pro that could take advantage of that, you will, and most of this discussion is not as relevant.

Sorry for the long discourse. These are big ticket items for sure and nobody really wants to make a "mistake" in purchase. My point being that I do not really think there would be a mistake made either way. Just go handle and shoot them all to get comfortable with what realistically will fill your needs.

LJ
 

mark1958

Member
For one that has used the large canon DSLRs for years now, I have to say that after using the Hasselblad H system, I can really appreciate the ergonomic balance of the system as Marc pointed out earlier. I actually have trouble going back to the 1DsmkIII.

In regards to end to end integration as was mentioned by Woody earlier in this thread, it is my belief that over time this will become a more prominent advantage than it is now. THe ability of the software to automatically correct for specific types of inherent flaws including distortion at the wide focal lengths or via a any tilt-shift options that might become available are worth mentioning. So while I still have mixed feelings about a closed vs open system, I can clearly appreciate why we will see more closure if you will over time.
 
Top