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 H1-P30 vs Sony A900

A

asabet

Guest
Jono,
did you also compare prints between D700 and A900?
Do you feel that the stronger AA-filter of the Nikon also leads to a visible loss in detail in smaller prints?
Cheers, Tom
I'd guess that using Raw Developer with the D700 gives me better per pixel sharpness with that camera than I'd get with the Sony and some of the more popular Raw processing applications. I believe that Adobe Camera Raw and Aperture are both throwing away some of the detail. When I opened Jono's files in Raw Developer, the A900 per pixel sharpness was striking and obviously higher than my D700. I am certain that the difference would be visible in a print. I personally wouldn't trade my D700 kit for an A900 kit, but if I were shooting mostly landscapes, I'd make that swap without hesitation.

Given the A900 megapixel count, per pixel sharpness, and the quality of available glass, I have a hard time believing that a sub-30MP medium format camera could offer significantly more resolution. That said, I don't think the P30 could be as low resolution as shown here. That's just hard for me to believe.

Dynamic range and color should be better with a good medium format sensor than for any 35mm sensor, but I think it'll be hard to see that in these relatively casual comparisons.

Btw - The DPReview assessment of the A900 AA filter is way off base IMO. Over the past several years, I've read countless DPReview reviews for cameras that I've owned and tried. I've come to the simple conclusion that their assessments of image quality have no correlation whatsoever with my own. Since they are "professionals", I guess that means that I am off in la la land. Still, I want to be happy with my own purchases, even if that means living with delusion, so I simply ignore whatever they have to say about image quality when I'm out to make a purchase.

I also thought that at the 200 base ISO the Dynamic range and colour were better on the A900 (bit subjective of course).
I felt exactly the opposite way, but who knows, that may just be pure bias on my part ;).
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,
did you also compare prints between D700 and A900?
Do you feel that the stronger AA-filter of the Nikon also leads to a visible loss in detail in smaller prints?
Cheers, Tom
Hi There
I didn't do any serious comparison of prints with the Nikon . . . . but I have done some comparisons between the A900 / M8 and E3, and the answer is that yes - there is a visible difference, even at A4 size, and I'm quite sure there would have been with the D700 as well. - mind you, whether it 'matters' is something different again . . . do you think this discussion would be better carried on in the 'other cameras' section?
 

carstenw

Active member
Right, it is always prudent to check one's real requirements before laying out massive amounts of money. For the guy in question, clearly the A900 is as good at taking pictures of his neighbour's driveway...

I don't know if I am alone here, but I would find the whole argument a lot more compelling if he would post actual, real, art shots or something. He should take both cameras to Yosemite or something.

I am slowly developing an allergy to test shots.

I sound grumpy, so here: :)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I dont see how comparison images need to be art.
I find the comparison quite interesting (even though I also think that the Hasselblad images seems not right)
cheers, tom

Right, it is always prudent to check one's real requirements before laying out massive amounts of money. For the guy in question, clearly the A900 is as good at taking pictures of his neighbour's driveway...

I don't know if I am alone here, but I would find the whole argument a lot more compelling if he would post actual, real, art shots or something. He should take both cameras to Yosemite or something.

I am slowly developing an allergy to test shots.

I sound grumpy, so here: :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
I dont see how comparison images need to be art.
I find the comparison quite interesting (even though I also think that the Hasselblad images seems not right)
cheers, tom
I actually agree with you both - not too keen on test shots (especially those indoor ones taken at 10 feet with a teddy bear a bowl of fruit a bottle of booze and a test card!).

I also think that they're dangerous - especially if they're indicating something bad!

But I thought this was interesting because of the similarity rather than because of the differences.
 

carstenw

Active member
But I thought this was interesting because of the similarity rather than because of the differences.
True, as long as the original poster was wanting to make a keep/sell decision based only on resolution in harsh sunlight...

There is so much missing in that "test scene" that I still have a hard time believing that he is considering selling (unless he thinks the softness of the one image is always present in the Hasselblad images).

For us, I guess it is just another data point. Interesting, in a limited way.
 

jonoslack

Active member
True, as long as the original poster was wanting to make a keep/sell decision based only on resolution in harsh sunlight...
Absolutely
For us, I guess it is just another data point. Interesting, in a limited way.
Well - Limited if you have no interest/intention of buying a camera with the new Sony chip (which will be used in the high resolution Nikon too). If you are interested, then it does suggest the the chip isn't too dreadful
 

Paratom

Well-known member
True, as long as the original poster was wanting to make a keep/sell decision based only on resolution in harsh sunlight...

There is so much missing in that "test scene" that I still have a hard time believing that he is considering selling (unless he thinks the softness of the one image is always present in the Hasselblad images).

For us, I guess it is just another data point. Interesting, in a limited way.

Shooting in harsh sunlight is more demanding regarding DR for example than cloudy light.
I think - compared to us - he shows images. we just exchange opinions without showing anything here.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Shooting in harsh sunlight is more demanding regarding DR for example than cloudy light.
I think - compared to us - he shows images. we just exchange opinions without showing anything here.
. . . . and when questioned, rather than bridling; he says he'll do it again with different lenses.
Long suffering and interested, I'm impressed.
 

Greg Seitz

New member
Carsten,

Now it makes sense... You are right about the crops I've shown being different from the ones Jono linked to. They are based on raw files from a prior thread and I didn't realize Doug had re shot them until I actually followed the link Jono posted.

Interestingly comparing the previous P30 shot (the one I showed in this thread) to the current one from the link Jono posted I have to agree that the latter P30 shot is either misfocused or suffering from mirror slap. Considering that Doug stated he used mirror lockup and assuming he used a cable release though he didn't state that explicitly I'd guess the focus was simply off on the latter shot vs the first one I showed.

Greg
 

carstenw

Active member
Haha, this is a text book example of talking right past each other. I am talking about one set of images, and you are talking about another :) Anyway, that guy needs to figure out if he should brush up on skills or send the Hassie away before making any decisions about the A900.

Btw, the A900's images were very soft in the dpreview test (the proper test, not the user tests), before being sharpened. Possibly even softer than Canon images. I didn't think it was possible. Sure, sharpening brings it back, but there is always something lost, and I think it should be possible to find a scene where the detail brought back looks all wrong compared to an image which never lost it in the first place, ie. MF digital.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Just to clarify - there are two Sony A900 comparison links being shared on the forums. In neither one of them is the Phase One P30 or any Phase One back a participant.

On one of the comparisons, a Mamiya AFDIII is indicated and the file actually comes from the Mamiya ZD, not a P30.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One
 

alba63

New member
there is always something lost, and I think it should be possible to find a scene where the detail brought back looks all wrong compared to an image which never lost it in the first place, ie. MF digital.
Well, but one can hardly look past the fact that one of those systems in question costs roughly 10% of the other one. It would have to be verified how much of that presumed difference in detail resolution (I don't doubt is is there) will show up in well exectuted prints, made with a RIP or a Lightjet or similar machine, and at what printing size...

My guess would be, for anyone but "high profile pros" (is that what those people are called?) who will get back the high cost of a MF back in a reasonable time the Sony is looking like an extremely interesting solution! Much more than I would have thought at the time of the announcement.

I had started to think about a data back as well, but the cost for a non pro with limited amounts of free money (like myself) is prohibitive, except a few "entry level" MF solutions, but then I am not sure how much better they are than the Sony. And they are still more expensive by at least factor 2 - 3

Regards
Bernie
 

Greg Seitz

New member
Just to clarify - there are two Sony A900 comparison links being shared on the forums. In neither one of them is the Phase One P30 or any Phase One back a participant.

On one of the comparisons, a Mamiya AFDIII is indicated and the file actually comes from the Mamiya ZD, not a P30.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Steve,

Actually the one we are discussing here is a Hassy H1 with a Phase P30 back.

Greg
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
There was a comparison between a P30 and a 1Ds mkIII somewhere, you could download the RAW files. Can't remember where they are on my computer or what my conclusion was re pure resolved detail. However there is a huge amount more to a MF file than pure resolution and that was very apparent in the files.
 

carstenw

Active member
Sorry for the long post, I am a bit behind, and just discovered multi-quote :)


Well - Limited if you have no interest/intention of buying a camera with the new Sony chip (which will be used in the high resolution Nikon too). If you are interested, then it does suggest the the chip isn't too dreadful
True, I meant that more in the sense of his thread, ie. basing a keep/sell decision of the H1/P30 on these results. The A900 does seem like an impressive camera, I just don't happen to be looking for such a camera.

By the way, here is a similar thread. I don't come to the same conclusion as him, but I fully respect his approach, which is rigorous and fair, unlike the H1+P30/A900 thread (so far):

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Medium_Format_Blog.html


Shooting in harsh sunlight is more demanding regarding DR for example than cloudy light.
I think - compared to us - he shows images. we just exchange opinions without showing anything here.
Well, we have neither P30 nor A900 :) At least, I don't. I just read through my comments and I do sound rather caustic. I guess I was supremely frustrated at someone wanting to sell a very, very pricy piece of superior equipment based on just one flawed test.


. . . . and when questioned, rather than bridling; he says he'll do it again with different lenses.
Long suffering and interested, I'm impressed.
Well, let's head over and give him some feedback for the next iteration. I think I still have a dpreview account somewhere...


Well, but one can hardly look past the fact that one of those systems in question costs roughly 10% of the other one.
Very true! An impressive piece of equipment, and I am personally also quite impressed by it, and very happy that Canon is finally getting some serious competition for the rather stale 1Ds-series. People have wanted improvements to that series for so long, and Canon has largely done nothing, just tweaked here and there. There is colour, noise, pixel-sharpness, interface, weight, size, and other work to be done to that camera to address owner complaints.


There was a comparison between a P30 and a 1Ds mkIII somewhere, you could download the RAW files. Can't remember where they are on my computer or what my conclusion was re pure resolved detail. However there is a huge amount more to a MF file than pure resolution and that was very apparent in the files.
Your comments from that comparison might prove very interesting here. Can you find it? What other aspects are thinking of, specifically?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Marc
Fair enough - bad test . . . but it's hard to see what he did wrong - have you any ideas? He doesn't seem to have an axe to grind, he owns both cameras (and if you look at previous threads it's clear he only bought the Sony as a decent lightweight backup, not as a replacement). The setup looks pretty okay as well.

As for your test between the 1DsMkIII - well, that isn't the A900, which, as far as I can see has considerably better 'per pixel' sharpness (possibly a lighter AA filter).
Not saying anything was done wrong ... could be the gear is defective, out of calibration, not focusing correctly ... or whatever. This is a first iteration H camera with a 3rd party back that may or may not be shimmed correctly. Who knows ... but what is apparent to me is that the Phase One files do not look like any I've seen before @100%.

As to my test with the Canon 1DsMKIII ... yes it is not the Sony, but other tests from the Sony I've seen so far aren't convincing, much poorer at higher ISOs than the Canon, or anywhere near the pure resolution I currently get from the H3D-II/31 ... with more pixel count and bigger pixels with no AA filter issue.

From what I can tell so far, what level AA filter is on the Sony is pure speculation.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Your comments from that comparison might prove very interesting here. Can you find it? What other aspects are thinking of, specifically?

It was done by one of the P1 dealers, caused a big furor at the time on the LL forum! :toocool:

After trawling through 35 pages on the LL forum I finally found it, my apologies, the files are not RAW.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21794

As for my conclusions, it was a long time ago, this is just what I remember, if I have time and can be bothered I'll look at the files again.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Carsten
Btw, the A900's images were very soft in the dpreview test (the proper test, not the user tests), before being sharpened. Possibly even softer than Canon images. I didn't think it was possible. Sure, sharpening brings it back, but there is always something lost, and I think it should be possible to find a scene where the detail brought back looks all wrong compared to an image which never lost it in the first place, ie. MF digital.
The one think that everyone who has an A900 agrees about is that :
1. the current ACR conversion is dreadful, introducting a lot of noise and producing a pretty poor level of detail. I actually think there is a real issue here in that Adobe put a lot of work into getting the best from Nikon and Canon files, but really don't do justice to the 'lesser' makes (Pentax, Olympus, Sony etc.)
2. the jpg engine is not good. (but who wants jpgs with a camera like this?)



Dpreview used . . . yes, you got it - jpg's and ACR to do their testing.
I'm using Aperture (because it works with my workflow). I sent Amin some RAW files and he converted in RAW developer - he agreed with me that what dpreview was showing was not in the same league.

Which is all rather ironic really - here's you saying that this guy screwed up with the Hassy files . . . and I'm telling you that Dpreview screwed up with the Sony!
:ROTFL:


Hi Marc
N
As to my test with the Canon 1DsMKIII ... yes it is not the Sony, but other tests from the Sony I've seen so far aren't convincing, much poorer at higher ISOs than the Canon, or anywhere near the pure resolution I currently get from the H3D-II/31 ... with more pixel count and bigger pixels with no AA filter issue.

From what I can tell so far, what level AA filter is on the Sony is pure speculation.
Well, as far as the AA filter is concerned, I'm sure you're right (it's speculation) - the dpreview tests don't reflect what I'm seeing (see above about ACR).
From where I stand; Looking at the A900 at 100% and comparing with the D3 at 100% is hugely different, with the proper glass they look much more like the M8 files (and of course, that's not taking into account the pixel count).

See Amin's post no 21 above with respect to this

High ISO - well, I agree, not in the same league as the D3/D700, but quite useable up to 3200 as long as you keep the exposure to the right.
 
Top