I should make it clear that I do NOT think any bias is a particularly negative one here on Get Dpi, and said so a couple of times on this thread. This is my favorite forum for its general tone and sharing of information across a wide spectrum of photographic subjects. However, IF I disagree with any given statement I'll pipe up and challenge it. Sometimes it is incorrect information (even from Phase reps) or incomplete information, and sometimes it is assumptions that I do not agree with.
If Hasselblad chooses to not participate in forum reviews in general and Get Dpi specifically, that's their decision. There are two informative forums that specifically provide a direct conduit to other experienced H users to answer technical questions or whatever ... plus, Hasselblad has their own system of demonstrations and specific method of getting questions answered as well as the Hasselblad Owners Club on their website. So, frankly, Get Dpi isn't where I would go for Hasselblad specific technical questions. In fact, I've definitely answered more questions regarding Hasselblad than I have ever asked here. BTW, this has playing out in a similar manner with the Leica S2, where the Red Dot forum is a rich source for technical, service and technique questions.
This absence could well account for the bias toward Phase One, because there IS a lot of experienced users here, as well as company representation. THAT however doesn't make Phase One systems superior in any way, and I'll challenge such stated assumptions when I feel it is appropriate.
I do not agree with Steve's statement that Phase One has ALWAYS been ahead in the back end ... that heavily depends on a photographer's applications, and to my way of thinking "AlWAYS" can never be a blanket statement from any maker. That is the difference of a photographer's perspective verses a marketer's perspective. As a Photographer with fairly well defined objectives, I found the H3D-II/39 just as good as the Phase offering in terms of IQ, with a better LCD, one button start up, and control ergonomics, and at the time, the Hasselblad Multi-Shot cameras were the top dog for studio based or institutional IQ ... which then led to a H3D-II/50 with the Kodak sensor that some prefer over Dalsa, and Phase never had ... then to the H3D-II/50 Multi-shot. Again, it heavily depends on applicational bias and phtographic intent. Now the excellent IQs have the lead if you need or want that sort of functionality ... which I personally do not but other's may and are excited about it.
I may be wrong, but do not recall any official Hasselblad representative ever directly addressing Phase One's camera, or systems shortcomings in such an overtly discounting manner, which would be very easy to do IMO.
Personally, as a systems oriented photographer, I still think Hasselblad is the leader, and has blazed a somewhat balanced path of camera, lens, back package with useful innovations like TF thrown in (and with the inclusion of the lens and color profiles in LR ... I now also include software) ... rather than pushing for dominance in one area and neglecting the other. Of course, that may change in future, but this is NOW, and we can't take pictures with speculative equipment no matter who's it is.
-Marc
Marc, I gotta say for one who is presenting the argument of "there is no leader or best", you sure do try to make the case for Hasselblad in your post.
You know, I simply made one little statement that IMO Phase One has always been ahead of Hasselblad in the digital back end part of the equation. It has been fairly accepted that Hasselblad has been the leader on the front end (though I could make the same application-driven arguments that you do in favor of other camera systems). But as soon as someone makes the same claim about Phase One and the back end, people go off in a tizzy. Seems....biased.
And btw, I've always been an application-driven prescriber. While I may feel one product or company has a leadership position, that is quite a different matter than what solution becomes the most appropriate fit for any client of mine. At that point, the leadership position doesn't really matter. What matters is the unique feature set and capability of the product that allows the photographer to do what they want to do in the most effective manner. And that is not a simple equation, as you know and have described.
If Hasselblad was not behind Phase One on the back end, then their own digital back sales for H1/H2 cameras did a poor job of getting the word out considering the low sales numbers compared to Phase One or Leaf digital backs on the same H1/H2 cameras.
I think we are arguing a bit over semantics - at least I hope so. When I say "ahead", I think that is evident. Phase One has always released sensors years ahead of Hasselblad, 22MP, 31MP, 39MP, 60MP, 80MP. What am I missing here? Well, the 50MP, as you point out, though I'm glad Phase One passed on a sensor that was 11MP more but the same size as the P45+, and instead jumped straight to 60MP and a larger sensor. They produced a Compact Flash capable digital back while Hasselblad (Imacon) produced a product that had to use a $2,000 external hard drive for portability
and was even necessary when shooting tethered. If you asked anyone back then if they considered shooting to a $2,000 external hard drive
ahead of shooting to Compact Flash Cards, the answer would be overwhelmingly no.
From a reliability standpoint, there is no digital back more reliable than Phase One IMO. This doesn't mean a Hasselblad digital back is unreliable, we're talking about a matter of degrees. But if you had to pick a winner, sorry, Phase One, IME. With the Plus backs, Phase One introduced 30 - 60 minute exposures while the rest of the medium format industry offered 30 seconds. And not just for one or two models, every model in the lineup, every megapixel offering, covering 5 different models. Phase One also patented Sensor Plus, which allows for a 2 stop increase in sensitivity and faster captures, while reducing file size to 1/4 the full resolution. Again, this technology is available with 5 different digital back models.
Of course, the IQ backs take things even further, with more unequalled firsts - highest resolution LCD screen by far. The fastest, most flexible and innovative digital back interface. FW400/800/USB2/USB3 output. Automatic perspective correction, focus mask, live view, all in the digital back. All this is further enhanced by Capture One, which has always been and continues to be well in advance of Flexcolor/Phocus software. I don't mean to sound like a Phase One commercial, but you aired the Hasselblad version, and I needed to make my point as well.
Hasselblad makes a fine digital back end, and there's lots of reasons one might choose a Hasselblad even just for the digital back end. There's nothing wrong with not being the leader! It does not mean there is not a reason to consider your product. I would not say the Phase One DF is the camera leader, yet people choose it every day for specific reasons. No different.
You're welcome to your opinion Marc, I'll continue with mine, which is Phase One has always been ahead on the back end and I see nothing that indicates that changing. Hasselblad has been ahead with the camera - ok if I say that?
- and as much as I like what Phase One has done on the camera/lens side, until we see and evaluate the new camera product, I'm not convinced they'll surpass Hasselblad here. Does this sound biased?
One last thing, yes, you would be wrong when you say that Hasselblad representatives have never directly addressed Phase One's shortcomings. And I've never had a problem with that.
Marc, one of these days we're going to find something we can agree on. Well, I will say that your contributions here hold great value for the membership. I hope we can agree on that! (because it is a fact, not just my opinion). We all have beliefs, thoughts, and opinions here. That's just the point of the place I think.
Steve Hendrix
