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!

H5D-200C

gazwas

Active member
I think you have an optimistic view of the whole MFD segment. These removable back cameras cost an arm and both legs, lose value swiftly, and continue to stay in the rarified price ranges even in the face of plunging demand and increasing competition from FF 35mm cameras that'll do 90% of what a MFD is capable of.
On the contrary, my experience with buying new MFD cameras since I started using Phase backs in 1999 was their whole business model was to keep users in the upgrade loop and encourage upgrades to the next best thing with their favourable upgrade programme every new big development (2 years?) Jumping ship and selling privately has never been an option to recoup your investment as the kit loose so much money and you're left with the decision to stick with what you've got for good or continue to ride the wave....... Seems to have worked very well for Phase for many year.
 

gazwas

Active member
In the case of Hasselblad, the camera is specifically designed more for studio work or planed location stuff, especially using lighting. I found that contrary to the desire for higher ISO performance, ISO 100 was a detriment when the highest shutter speed is 1/800. I'd rather see ISO 25 as a base.
Marc I'm not sure I understand you?

I shoot lots of interiors, now mainly with a Canon and TSE lenses and Broncolor battery lighting. My normal ISO settings are 160-320 (hence why I use the Canon over CCD MFD). My exposures normally fall between 1/4sec and 1/10sec at F11 on most jobs I shoot.

Why would I not want a CMOS MFD back with higher sensitivity and a multishot at that? Seems ideal to me - faster shutter speed means less margin for shake error on multi exposures and much less flash energy needed per exposure putting less strain on other parts of the kit. Seems like the ideal progression of multishot to me.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
On the contrary, my experience with buying new MFD cameras since I started using Phase backs in 1999 was their whole business model was to keep users in the upgrade loop and encourage upgrades to the next best thing with their favourable upgrade programme every new big development (2 years?) Jumping ship and selling privately has never been an option to recoup your investment as the kit loose so much money and you're left with the decision to stick with what you've got for good or continue to ride the wave....... Seems to have worked very well for Phase for many year.
So, you are a research poll of one.

I personally know a fair number of pros that have bailed on MFD, or are sticking with what they have because they see no real advantage in upgrades after they reached a certain point. And that doesn't even include many here on GetDpi that have moved on.

While the company trade-up programs do offer a bit less gouge to the pocketbook, they are still pretty steep compared to staying pat, or moving onto something else that gets the job done for a minuscule fraction of the price.

Granted, we all have different criteria, and there most certainly is a place for bigger and better MFD … but to think the MFD segment is raging forward unabated is simply not the case. Perhaps if the general health of paid photography recovers in future we'll see more interest … but I firmly believe that ship has sailed, and it'll only get worse, not better … again, "generally speaking". Okay for some, not okay for a lot of others.

While the whole concept of a large sensor is one I firmly believe in, the whole MFD camera gestalt has evolved at glacial speed. We don't need bigger, bad-boy backs, we need smaller, more modern cameras rather than some previous century devices with technological bandaids plastered all over them.

Hopefully that'll happen sooner than later. Maybe next month?

- Marc
 

gazwas

Active member
So, you are a research poll of one.
No need for any aggression?

I agree the whole MFD story is questionable now with other HQ offerings available but it's far from dead and developing these technologies to be more flexible to more photographers is encouraging. Sure, CCD MS was very much studio and studio strobe bound but this CMOS back changes that. Cost will always be the stumbling block with MFD but it always has been so we shall have to see how this pans out for the future.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc I'm not sure I understand you?

I shoot lots of interiors, now mainly with a Canon and TSE lenses and Broncolor battery lighting. My normal ISO settings are 160-320 (hence why I use the Canon over CCD MFD). My exposures normally fall between 1/4sec and 1/10sec at F11 on most jobs I shoot.

Why would I not want a CMOS MFD back with higher sensitivity and a multishot at that? Seems ideal to me - faster shutter speed means less margin for shake error on multi exposures and much less flash energy needed per exposure putting less strain on other parts of the kit. Seems like the ideal progression of multishot to me.
I was sharing my own experiences … mostly studio based product photography using MS because of the need for color correct images with distinct color separation.

You have a specific way of shooting interiors that isn't the only way to do them. My friend does high-end architectural work using a H camera at a higher sync shutter speed than is possible with a Canon in order to control outdoor window exposures, and then lights the interior in balance using ISO 50 or 100.

I do think MS is a good choice for architectural/design imagery for the same reason … subtile fabric rendering and so on.

However, it isn't cameras shake that is at issue with a tethered, locked down sand-bagged Hasselblad MS camera which automatically locks up the mirror and stops down the aperture while employing ultra focus corrections prior to going through the MS steps … it is subject movement … like trees outside in the wind. Most MS shooters also do a single frame in case that happens so they can marry the two in post. A higher shutter speed isn't going to solve that. Shutter speed has nothing to do with subject movement between each MS capture. With MS you have to set the micro delay between shots to coordinate with your strobe recycle time as it cycles through the 4 or 6 shots tripping the lights each time.

I will believe that CMOS is better when I see that it is better, and so far all the shots shown by Hasselblad are from the H4D/200MS back which has a 1.1X CCD sensor, and were done at lower ISOs. So, it's all speculative until someone gets a H5D/200C and does some shots … especially MS at ISOs above 400.

- Marc
 

gazwas

Active member
I will believe that CMOS is better when I see that it is better, and so far all the shots shown by Hasselblad are from the H4D/200MS back which has a 1.1X CCD sensor, and were done at lower ISOs. So, it's all speculative until someone gets a H5D/200C and does some shots … especially MS at ISOs above 400.
I'm not a big believer that CMOS is better and looking at the IQ250 to CCD comparisons I didn't think its clear cut. However, what I do think CMOS offers over CCD is its ability to adapt out out the usual MFD safe zone of the studio or very controlled lighting all shot at base ISO or very close to. Potentially, the more flexible MFD become in light of modern 35mm cameras, the more popular it may become again.

If I was in the market for a MS back today, unless it had major colour issues (very doubtful) I'd find it hard to to think of reason (excluding chip size with WA lenses) to buy the CCD version now this new back has been launched. We'll have to wait for the test results before we shall see?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm not a big believer that CMOS is better and looking at the IQ250 to CCD comparisons I didn't think its clear cut. However, what I do think CMOS offers over CCD is its ability to adapt out out the usual MFD safe zone of the studio or very controlled lighting all shot at base ISO or very close to. Potentially, the more flexible MFD become in light of modern 35mm cameras, the more popular it may become again.

If I was in the market for a MS back today, unless it had major colour issues (very doubtful) I'd find it hard to to think of reason (excluding chip size with WA lenses) to buy the CCD version now this new back has been launched. We'll have to wait for the test results before we shall see?
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you in hoping that CMOS can bring something new to the party in the way of expanded MFD versatility. However, I freely admit to being skeptical given that I'm not a fan of CMOS in any camera to date. IMO, they ruined the Leica M camera with the move to CMOS (and I am not alone in thinking this).

That Hasselblad did not enable live view on the LCD is a bit perplexing as it would enhance the use on a Tech camera even without T/S … however, for me, I shoot mostly tethered to a 30" monitor and zoom in 100% to check critical focus, so it's a moot point and not a compelling reason to pay that kind of money for a smaller sensor in a bigger camera.

"Big Camera" is the operative word here … IMO that is what is stunting use of MFD for mobile work. I do not mind somewhat larger, and find the Leica S2 to be fine because dual shutters makes it so versatile … but I have to admit that lugging my H system was a chore, and 1/800 top shutter made it less than versatile at times.

If someone used that new Sony sensor in a camera/lens system 1/2 the size of current MFD systems (not to mention 1/2 the price), then they probably would draw new blood into the MFD world.

The issue as I see it is not getting MFD die-hards to keep buying in regular cycles, it's getting new buyers to fill in behind them as they opt out … like an overwhelming majority of former MFD users I know have done in the past few years.

- Marc
 

tjv

Active member
I'm interested to see if Leica use a version of the sensor used in the M240 in a CMOS version of the S, or if they use a custom version of this Sony sensor.
I'm really keen to see some objective comparisons of colour rendition and detail between the three systems that already use the Sony sensor, being Hasselblad, Phase and Pentax.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm interested to see if Leica use a version of the sensor used in the M240 in a CMOS version of the S, or if they use a custom version of this Sony sensor.
I'm really keen to see some objective comparisons of colour rendition and detail between the three systems that already use the Sony sensor, being Hasselblad, Phase and Pentax.
I agree that a good wringing out of all three cameras using this new Sony sensor would be very interesting … especially by folks that really know the software for each company. However, I'd give it 6 months to a year before owners learn how to optimize their experiences with it.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm far less interested in sensors and backs that are debatable in terms of actual real-world gain for how these cameras tend to be utilized. It is the cameras themselves that need the revolution before they become truly versatile.

If Sony can put a FF 36 meg 35mm sensor in a camera almost the size of a pack of cigarettes … why can't these MFD companies make an interchangeable lens camera system with a MFD sensor that shrinks the box? IMHO, if they do not do it relatively soon, it'll be too late. First to do it will be the last one standing.

- Marc
 

tjv

Active member
At the risk of turning a thread about a great new Hasselblad product into a discussion about something else, I'd love to see Leica really up the anti and put a high res sensor in an S body. 60mpx plus would be a real selling point with that glass. The lower pixel count of the current S always perplexed me a bit considering the crowd it is aimed at.
 
At the risk of turning a thread about a great new Hasselblad product into a discussion about something else, I'd love to see Leica really up the anti and put a high res sensor in an S body. 60mpx plus would be a real selling point with that glass. The lower pixel count of the current S always perplexed me a bit considering the crowd it is aimed at.
The Leica S is a bit of an odd duck at the moment, it's certainly the finest glass that I've seen anywhere, but it's built around a sensor that was introduced with the S2 - in 2006! So it's definitely behind the times, and with the unique-for-MF 3:2 sensor ratio, they can't just plop Sony's sensor in, not to mention the fact that just a while ago they partnered with CMOSIS.

When Leica announces the next S at Photokina, I'm pretty certain we'll see it utilize some newly developed sensor by CMOSIS, but they'll also have to up the ante in terms of price and performance. If the next Leica S will cost around ~20k, it better have equal or superior characteristics to what Sony has done. Previously, it had used the same sensor as in the Pentax 645D, so the value proposition was in aesthetics, ergonomics, faster processing speed and S lenses.
 

modator

Member
Honestly I think this isn't the Year of CMOS from every brand.... As the result maybe at Photokina we see a new cmos MF camera, probably based on the existing Sony 50mpix chip. Maybe the ufficial presentation of the H5D-200c.... That's All...

in my Dreams, instead, I hope that arrive a 48x64mm 50mpix s-CMOS capable of noise free Images at iso 12800 and exposures of 5 hours or more in any condition with live view and 4k video recording capability, maybe priced less than a Pro dslr... Etc. Etc. Etc...
it's Just a dream.. The magicians at silicon foundry are able to do it, I know... And the dream can be true !!
 

Uaiomex

Member
Please count me in.
Eduardo

I'm going to start a rumour that the above mentioned Sony sensor measuring 44mm square is going to be implemented in a new Hasselblad back, for introduction at Photokina next month. If I wish it hard enough, it's surely to come true.
 
Top