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!

Some really better bits

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I am a bit surprised by the negative comments. I use an Hasselblad H4D-50. The built-in AF system is almost always dead on and, on the occasions where it is not, it was usually my fault for not waiting long enough for it to find the correct focus position. The lenses all outresolve the sensor enough to excite moiré on fine details at reasonable apertures like f/5.6-f/8. Bokeh is pleasing on most lenses, except maybe the HC50-II full open.

I don't think that all this is an Hasselblad exclusive, BTW. There are fashion photographers using MF cameras and they usually manage to focus on the model's eyes accurately enough. They are certainly not using tethered live view
for doing so.

I mean: I agree that the higher the resolution, the more critical focus becomes. But your comments seems to be a bit exagerated as to the limits of present technology. We can get reasonably sharp pictures with DLSR style bodies and MF backs... ;)
Not negative at all but more limitations we are dealing with when you buy a very expensive back and your lenses can't do corners worth a damn. One does question your sanity of that purchase. Every system has limitations but sometimes those limitations start to get under your skin and work arounds are just not fun anymore. I have been through many systems and that usually is my case. I get bored with it and playing the workarounds. I love shooting a tech cam for the IQ , but its also a limiting system for more creative endeavors sometimes.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Just as an example, the Mamiya LS 55 shots you posted looses a lot at the corners compared to the center. The 40 mm Rodenstock HR seems to be very sharp at the pixel level over the whole image.

Now, real world images are not flat, except landscapes shot at infinity and architecture. The unsharpness in the LS55 image may be due to field curvature, which often works in our favour as foreground is often closer to camera than area of main focus.

This is something I often see on my Distagon 40/4. Center is sharp, edges are well… you know, but corners which are close to the camera are sharp. Top part of image is often sky, and the clouds may be a bit more fuzzy. Who cares about fuzzy clouds?


Best regards
Erik

Yes it is what it is and thats the nature of Photography in a lot of systems.
 

Ken_R

New member
Lot's of great thoughts and info posted.

Gotta love Guy's candor and he has a lot of experience with many different back / system combinations.

I would like to add that in short, if you want great wide angle performance with medium format digital you are basically limited to a tech camera setup. The performance from the tech camera lenses, specially the Rodenstock HR-W's on the 60 and 80mp sensors is just stunning. If you want edge to edge sharpness at 100% look nowhere else.

With normal to tele lenses the tech lenses will offer VERY large image circles to work with but if used normally the best SLR lenses then are quite close in performance.

I use my IQ160 with an Arca RM3Di mostly (landscapes) but also with a Hasselblad H1 and 80mm lens (for portraits and commercial work) and really like the performance of the H1 AF for what I use it for.

In portrait work I am mostly concerned about the look of the back/lens combination and not really edge to edge sharpness. The bokeh is specially important and overall image rendering.

FWIW I find the live view on my IQ160 usable for my needs and the image quality, even up to iso 200 full res., just superb. Love the look and feel of the file. Also the sensor is large enough compared to full frame 35mm that it looks like what it is, a significantly larger format. Yes, its not 6x7, which I loved, but its close.

Yes, it has limitations but every single camera / lens system has them.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
anyone compared backs yet?
CMOS, 50mpx, Sony, live view:
blad CV50C is $15,000 no USB3
credo 250: $29,000
Credo 150 $25,000 (no wi-fi, reduced warranty)

CCD, live view is limited, USB3
IQ 160: $39,000 no crop, 60mpx

please comment and fill in the blanks
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
anyone compared backs yet?
CMOS, 50mpx, Sony, live view:
blad CV50C is $15,000 no USB3
credo 250: $29,000
Credo 150 $25,000 (no wi-fi, reduced warranty)

CCD, live view is limited, USB3
IQ 160: $39,000 no crop, 60mpx

please comment and fill in the blanks

Jim, I modified your list a bit to reflect the actual list price and proper names, etc, with a few additional details.

Hasselblad CV50-C is $15,500, 1 Year Warranty, no USB3, Live View pending, Wifi pending (+ $1,000 USD)
Phase One IQ250: $35,990, 5 Year Warranty, USB 3, Wifi, Live View
Phase One IQ150: $29,990, 1 Year Warranty, USB 3, Wifi, Live View
Credo 50 $26,990, 1 Year Warranty, USB 3, Live View

CCD:
IQ 160: $30,990 no crop, 60mpx, 1 Year Warranty, USB 3, Limited Live View


I feel the image quality out of all these products - and you could toss in the Pentax as well - is going to be similar (I've shot them all). There may be some small differences, and for the very discerning, perhaps those preferences may be a factor. But the ultimate determining factor is going to be the size of your wallet, and the willingness with which you pull out the contents to trade for what you want.

Each of these products has something to offer, but the price of admission will have to be factored in on a subjective basis.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Steve,

What about LCD image quality on the CV50-C? A good LCD is important for live view. I know that Phase One and Leaf have great LCDs.

Best regards
Erik

Jim, I modified your list a bit to reflect the actual list price and proper names, etc, with a few additional details.

Hasselblad CV50-C is $15,500, 1 Year Warranty, no USB3, Live View pending, Wifi pending (+ $1,000 USD)
Phase One IQ250: $35,990, 5 Year Warranty, USB 3, Wifi, Live View
Phase One IQ150: $29,990, 1 Year Warranty, USB 3, Wifi, Live View
Credo 50 $26,990, 1 Year Warranty, USB 3, Live View

CCD:
IQ 160: $30,990 no crop, 60mpx, 1 Year Warranty, USB 3, Limited Live View


I feel the image quality out of all these products - and you could toss in the Pentax as well - is going to be similar (I've shot them all). There may be some small differences, and for the very discerning, perhaps those preferences may be a factor. But the ultimate determining factor is going to be the size of your wallet, and the willingness with which you pull out the contents to trade for what you want.

Each of these products has something to offer, but the price of admission will have to be factored in on a subjective basis.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

OliverM

Member
We live in a world of analytic comparisons, reviews on the web, scores, etc.
When someone looks at pictures made with sophisticated expensive gear, he will look for the analytical differences : definition and sharpness mainly.
But on these 2 fields, a sony a7r gives excellent results.

When I watch at my pictures and compare sony to MF, it's not on large prints nor at pixel level, it's on a 30" nec monitor.
And what I see in most cases :
- very good pictures from the sony, that I got with minimum efforts
- some pictures I love I made with the contax or the alpa, that were really worth the efforts

On my ipad, the differences are less obvious.

What I feel is that the first main difference is colors. For me 35mm and MFDB are not different brushes like said before, one is acrylic and the other is oil. There are fantastic paints made with both, but depth of colors with oil has a much stronger appeal to my eyes. And regarding colors, my old sinar 54lv is as fantastic as the p65.

Second difference comes from the lenses and probably sensor size :
- sony 55/1.8 is an amazing lens, but transitions are not as smooth as with a contax 80 or 120, and foreground bokeh is not as homonegenous with background as it is with the contax
- I didn't make valid comparisons with the rodenstock and schneider lenses, but I haven't made a single landscape picture with the sony that come close to the ones made with the alpa

The differences are macro, not only micro, and maybe not important to many, especially when money is considered. A friend preferred the colors of his D3x to the ones of the Sinar, I still cannot understand how but this is what it is.
I went to a large prints picture gallery recently, cameras were indicated : canon 5d2 and one was IQ180. I was curious to see the difference ... The IQ one was so heavilly post treated with a kind of High Dynamic effect that is was actually worse that the other ones ...
Post treatment is indeed the last key point I see : even on this site you recognize the photographer by the first look of the picture even more than by the camera he used. This is probably a way to differentiate and attract customers. But then when the style impacts colors a lot, probably the value of MF is gone.

I had to sell my alpa for another project, but as soon as I can I will buy one again. I bought a Sony a7r for the holidays, 6 weeks after coming back, I still did not treat the pictures as I don't find the attraction I usually have developing MF pictures. I was too lazy not to bring the contax and hoped the sony was equivalent. Much better on most aspects except absolute quality : will have 100 good pictures this year instead of 10 fantastic I usually get.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
"will have 100 good pictures this year instead of 10 fantastic I usually get."
heard a guy on the radio say he was approaching the point in his life when he wouldn't have enough time left to review all the digital images he had made...
a lesson i can understand
 

cunim

Well-known member
We live in a world of analytic comparisons, reviews on the web, scores, etc.
When someone looks at pictures made with sophisticated expensive gear, he will look for the analytical differences : definition and sharpness mainly.
But on these 2 fields, a sony a7r gives excellent results.

QUOTE]

Oliver, your impressions of what MF does well match my own. What about a flexible MF system offering multishot? Of course, the Blad gets you partly there now, but imagine that the ms capability uses a device integrated with an fps or electronic leaf shutter? You could put it on your Alpa! Sigh. Probably never happen.
 
Top