H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

[timparkin]

I'm the editor of a web magazine and we did the big camera comparison test a year ago. We recently tested a H3D39 against a D800 in terms of resolution, colour, usability, etc. and also commented on it's use as a cheap entry point into a technical camera system (we consulted a few retailers and people who have actually researched and gone through this route) and I wondered whether a few excerpts from the test would be of interest to the forum? If I'm not supposed to post anything relating to a commercial activity here just let me know or delete the thread.

Issue Fifty Six | On Landscape

Our results suggest that the two cameras are producing almost identical results depending on how you compare the slightly different aspect ratios.

If you want a 3x4 image and would crop pixels off the D800 to get it then the H3D39 produces a slightly sharper and smoother image.

If you want a 2x3 ratio image and have to crop the H3D39 then the D800 ends up just a bit sharper (although very close) with smoothness on a par but possibly with the advantage to the H3D39 (at base ISO).

Now the interesting thing is that colour accuracy was a toss up. The H3D39 got some flourescent materials more accurately but the D800 got foliage a hell of a lot better (the classic yellow greens of the H3D39/P45 chip showed themselves). The H3D39 had problems with a later evening sky where the colours went slightly odd but then again the D800 showed much too strong cyanic blues.

We used a Sony A900 in one of the tests as a colour reference (that camera is just stunning for colour) and the resolution showed a significant drop from both cameras even in print.

The H3D39 didn't like rainy weather though and showed some sync issues (magenta splurges).

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/A6532636.jpg

The article is subscription only but here's a few samples of comparisons

The first shows the advantage to the H3D39 when cropping the D800

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/landscapegb/56/camera-test/dpi1.html

The second shows the sunset shot with the colour comparison

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/landscapegb/56/camera-test/dpi2.html

The third shows the difference in foliage colours

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/landscapegb/56/camera-test/dpi3.html

The first comparison also includes a frame taken with Portra 160 on the 645 film back. The 645 film back has a disadvantage because we were using the same lens as the digital back test whereas in fact the film has more surface area. Even so it's obvious that film can't compete at this scale (scans done on a well tuned Howtek drum scanner).

I would expect you'd need 6x7 for film to compete. It should be noted that transparency film retains more detail in a scan and we'll perhaps repeat the test with Provia next time and try to find a subject where we can zoom in/out to keep area the same.

The last test includes the Sony A900 for a colour reference. Just click on the 'names' underneath the picture to choose your comparison.

We also printed the results at various sizes to see if there was any visible difference when shown to members of the public and the answer for our particular test was that there wasn't any in terms of sharpness (the public don't tend to be great at this anyway). The photographers we showed the test too couldn't tell the difference when the prints were separate, only when they were shown side by side. We printed up to 20x24 and printed a sample at 40" long edge and 60". The cleanliness of the H3D39 showed through at 60" when compared side by side though when cropping the D800. I think this would be a very close thing if you cropped the H3D39 to give a 2x3 ratio image.

I'm happy to answer questions about the test if anyone is interested?

Tim

 

[MartinE]

Just wondering what lens was used and how the files were processed. I use the H3D39 on a daily basis for portrait and head shot work, and I do not think the Nikon can match it at all in this area. Cannot comment on the landscape stuff but surprised from what I have seen in the past for the H3 landscape images. The lenses are different. The processing is different. The sensor size is different. The DOF is different. The pitch is different. The images are different. Not sure why people do not see this. Regards Martin

 

[torger]

I think people do see that pictures are different, mainly in color as bokeh is rarely a big factor in landscape. But there's one thing to see that they are different, another to decide which one is better.

Comparing to a DSLR and especially this almost unmentionable camera is always a controversial thing, especially in this forum . I would expect the H3D39 to perform better in a comparison of portraiture with manufactured-provided processing pipelines.

I think the big strength with MFD in landscape is ability to use the back on tech cameras. It is possible with the H3D39 too, with the mess of having to use external power, but as H cameras and backs is among the cheaper gear you can get second hand it can be worth it.

 

[tjv]

It's a wash to my eyes in these samples.

 

[docmoore]

A little off track here but as a subscriber to On Landscape I can say that the
magazine is superb...look forward to each issue and do enjoy the ability to load PDF version into an iPad mini and carry it with me.

Very experience group of writers and great format...plus all the fabulous UK landscapes....so jealous of your backyard! :thumbup:

Having used a H3D II 39 with H body and on an Alpa and an A900 Sony I an not surprised at the findings....looks like I may have to look a bit closer at the D800...although I prefer the larger Nikon and Canon bodies and believe that there are few lenses in 35 that approach the level of MF lenses from Hasselblad, Leica, Rodenstock and Schneider. I have toyed with the idea of buying another A900 as the color is profoundly good.

Nice to see your post Tim and I will look closer at the issue today. Hope to see more input like this and the article on the Canon 1Dx was superb.

Regards,

Bob

 

[timparkin]

Just wondering what lens was used and how the files were processed. I use the H3D39 on a daily basis for portrait and head shot work, and I do not think the Nikon can match it at all in this area. Cannot comment on the landscape stuff but surprised from what I have seen in the past for the H3 landscape images. The lenses are different. The processing is different. The sensor size is different. The DOF is different. The pitch is different. The images are different. Not sure why people do not see this. Regards Martin

The cameras are different - in the article we talk about lenses and the way that buying into medium format brings you a range of quality glass. Also, shooting a more square image plays to the H3D39's strengths and possibly the colour rendering is more suitable for portraits.

I think I noticed that the cameras and lenses were different The depth of field was the same because we scaled it in relation to the aperture though.

Tim

 

[timparkin]

Just wondering what lens was used and how the files were processed. I use the H3D39 on a daily basis for portrait and head shot work, and I do not think the Nikon can match it at all in this area. Cannot comment on the landscape stuff but surprised from what I have seen in the past for the H3 landscape images. The lenses are different. The processing is different. The sensor size is different. The DOF is different. The pitch is different. The images are different. Not sure why people do not see this. Regards Martin

p.s. we used the 60mm Hasselblad and the 50mm Nikon 1.8 G - we tested the 60mm lens on the Nikon via a Mirex adapter and it was very sharp - definitely outresolved the Hasselblad.

 

[JGR]

The H3D39 got some flourescent materials more accurately but the D800 got foliage a hell of a lot better (the classic yellow greens of the H3D39/P45 chip showed themselves).

This concerns me, do you have any idea if the p65+ shares the same colours as the P45+, Tim?

I am due to purchase a P65+ with an Arca Swiss RM3Di and hope this back produces better greens. The D800 colours look fantastic to my eye, as does the resolution.

 

[JGR]

Never mind, I just did a search to find they're are indeed different

Can't wait to get out in the field with the new kit!

 

[fotografz]

p.s. we used the 60mm Hasselblad and the 50mm Nikon 1.8 G - we tested the 60mm lens on the Nikon via a Mirex adapter and it was very sharp - definitely outresolved the Hasselblad.

There is no 60mm HC lens.

 

[Udo]

Maybe a C(xx) 60 f3.5 lens with CF-adapter...?

 

[torger]

This concerns me, do you have any idea if the p65+ shares the same colours as the P45+, Tim?

I am due to purchase a P65+ with an Arca Swiss RM3Di and hope this back produces better greens. The D800 colours look fantastic to my eye, as does the resolution.

The P65+ has an entirely different sensor, a Dalsa FTF9168C. P45+ has a Kodak KAF-39000. Color of the P65+ is different, and concerning accuracy it's better. I would not worry.

 

[timparkin]

The P65+ has an entirely different sensor, a Dalsa FTF9168C. P45+ has a Kodak KAF-39000. Color of the P65+ is different, and concerning accuracy it's better. I would not worry.

Yes I've seen a lot better colour from the P65+ sensor - we'll be testing the IQ180 vs IQ260 colour in a future issue of the magazine.. we'll also try to include as many older backs as possible

 

[timparkin]

Maybe a C(xx) 60 f3.5 lens with CF-adapter...?

I believe it was although I'll check with Andrew Nadolski who set up the test. We mounted the lens to our Nikon via a Mirex adapter so that suggests it was an older lens. As I noted the resolution was fine as we checked on the D800.

Tim

 

[MartinE]

I have the 28mm HCD and do use for landscape sometimes, With Phocus I see great results from many other photographers and would recommend this set up to anyone looking at Medium format with the H3D39. To me it just works.

 

[gazwas]

Tim, I have no idea what you're test is all about as your article is a paid subscription only (?) and can only go off your very brief comments here but I just don't understand what your goal is with this sort of test.

In all the years I've had a keen interest in photography I have never used a capture medium (neg, trans, digital) that renders all colours 100% accurate. Film was chosen on it colour characteristic, shadow or highlight rendering or resolution (grain structure) and I don't think there existed a film that was good at everything. Digital is just the same so nothing has changed apart from its the camera's that dictate the colour rather than the film we put in them today.

Today, if I photograph something with my P65, 1Ds3 or iPhone the colours are infinitely adjustable to the desired level so why absolute capture accuracy is so important I have no idea. After all, we are not talking about one camera seeing green as red etc. And what is accurate colour in a landscape photograph?

If you were conducting a test for use in a repro environment and you custom profiled the cameras to your lighting and one camera registered red as a brown then there might be some basis for discussion but in landscape my idea of a good green is probably not yours and ultimately it's probably not a value that should be measured for accuracy.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Perhaps not in landscape but in repro, fashion, product, etc it is very very important.

 

[gazwas]

Perhaps not in landscape but in repro, fashion, product, etc it is very very important.

Yes, the ultimate goal in repro but this article discussed colour accuracy in landscape photography.

A good comparison yes but not something I'd ever be overly worried about and not something I'd base a buying decision on because a D800 shoots better (subjectively) greens than a HD39.

 

[Landscapelover]

I believe it was although I'll check with Andrew Nadolski who set up the test. We mounted the lens to our Nikon via a Mirex adapter so that suggests it was an older lens. As I noted the resolution was fine as we checked on the D800.

Tim

I believe it is just a typo. Is it 50mm HC?
To conduct the study this intensive, would you just use the HC or HCD lens? It doesn't make sense to me to use other types of lens.
I have Hasselblad H4D-40, Nikon D800E and IQ180/DF/Cambo (still have all of them). I don't have them for only few days but for over a year and more and have used them as a regular basis.
I shoot landscape only and, although the D800E is an outstading camera, I don't believe the pictures from Nikon D800E look the same as from the other 2 cameras in big prints.
Dynamic range of the D800E is better than both the Hasselblad and P1 but the the color and depth when printing big is not as good. The same as digital which is still not as good as film (but much more convenient to use).
It's just from amateur eyes who takes landscape photography for many years, not a test.
Thanks,
Pramote

 

[JoshMerwin]

Hi,
I also think that you should test the D800 against the newer backs, like an IQ140. I believe this is like testing an IQ140 versus a D700. Not talking of resolution, just the technology time frame of when these were out as new. I think even a H4D-31 would have been a closer comparison,it's more entry level pricing now too. I don't know exactly when the 39 sensor came out, but I feel like its at least 4-5 years old... I see you are in the UK, but if you come to the states, I'm happy to do some tests with you in Central Park with my H4x/IQ140 and your d800!!! I'd be very interested in seeing the results. I do own a D800E and I just prefer the h4x/iq combo for almost everything. But thats mostly portraiture and I think thats where mfbd's shine. The d800e is great though and I use it now mainly for video. You also can't compare the cost, etc. and I NOT suggesting people don't use the d800/e and must buy mfdb. My comments are strictly related to actually wanting to do a comparison between the two formats for that specific purpose. To be honest, I really wanted the d800e to replace my mfdb setup. It would have freed up a lot of money. But I just didn't feel like I could/wanted to do that after testing them.

Cheers,
Josh