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!

Hassaelblad H3 / Mamiay AFdIII / A900 test

PeterA

Well-known member
Only fools would buy into the MFD back myth. The weight of evidence as posted by Sony/canon/Nikon /olympus/pentax and Holga 'reviews' proves it time and time again. I can't wait for the Pntax Spotmatic review from Zimbabwe to add to thei weighty weightfulness.


The gravitas of it all is sucking me into a state of apoplexy. Now if I could only figure out how to attach one of these fine babies to my Alpa I would be in the 8th Heaven.


Cheers and Merry Christmas.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I read that test a while back. There is clearly something very wrong with the Mamiya shots, judging from the strange very obvious colour cast and colour balance issues. I suspect a serious hardware problem. So yes, the A900 doies brilliantly well, but the results are suspect, in my view.

Quentin
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Thank you for the heads-up, Jono.
I for one fully agree that it is indeed very interesting to see comparisons between the three >20 MP DSLRs and some of the Medium Format Digital Backs.
Of course I expect the MFDBs to be the winners since they have larger sensors with either more pixels or larger pixels. The interesting part is to see how much better they are. How big is the difference actually. And also to what degree does price reflect quality ? At the same time I insist to be prepared to be surprised now and then, to be openminded.
Of course Peter has a point that there are probably sometimes biased agendas behind some of the comparisons. Maybe even behind most of the comparisons we have seen so far.
That's why I so much hope some of the members here on this civilized forum with access to both high megapixel DSLRs and MFDBs have the courage to make some neutral, non-biased comparisons, despite the risk to get shot down in flames. The more comparisons we see, the better. I think .-)
 

jonoslack

Active member
That's why I so much hope some of the members here on this civilized forum with access to both high megapixel DSLRs and MFDBs have the courage to make some neutral, non-biased comparisons, despite the risk to get shot down in flames. The more comparisons we see, the better. I think .-)
HI There Steen
I quite agree - nobody sane is going to expect the A900/D3x/5dII to be better than the MFDBs . . . but it's certainly interesting to see how much one loses.

Having looked at several such comparisons, it seems that it might not be as much as one would have expected.

But it would be great if someone around here did a sensible comparison.

GUY - you'd better go buy yourself an A900 so that we can see how crap it really is :)
 

Brian Mosley

New member
GUY - you'd better go buy yourself an A900 so that we can see how crap it really is :)
Jono, having bought an A900, surely you know how crap it really is already? :ROTFL:

Use the camera that inspires you to take more great images, I hope you keep the low res M8 and use both :)

Kind Regards

Brian
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I use a ZD camera and A900 (and my ZD works very well). At some stage I will do a comparison between the two.

I'm not expecting major differences. There is no law that says an A900 or 5DII or whatever inevitably has to be inferior just because it costs less. Interestingly Michael Reichmann has purchased 2 A900 bodies and 5 lenses for use on his next foreign shoot to use in place of his MF and other kit

Quentin
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
HI There Steen
I quite agree - nobody sane is going to expect the A900/D3x/5dII to be better than the MFDBs . . . but it's certainly interesting to see how much one loses.

Having looked at several such comparisons, it seems that it might not be as much as one would have expected.

But it would be great if someone around here did a sensible comparison.

GUY - you'd better go buy yourself an A900 so that we can see how crap it really is :)
Honestly and I really mean this , this is about the best looking files i have seen lately in these new camera's coming out. I have not been impressed by much lately , the G1 is cute and represents some fun shooting and the thought of some leica or Zeiss or other lenses makes it a interesting tool. But This Sony I am impressed by the value of it first of all but more important i like the look of the images and to me if you are shooting 35mm this is the area that counts the most is the look of the images and the files i seen Jono take besides his great eye is some really nice clean looking files with a great feel to them. Maybe a tacky saying but if it don't have the feel it just ain't very real. Don't quote me on that one. Sounds weird but I think you understand my meaning, your really after the look at the end of the day. The Sony with the Zeiss glass has it and i like the price too. Just wish C1 could see the files
 

jonoslack

Active member
Honestly and I really mean this , this is about the best looking files i have seen lately in these new camera's coming out. I have not been impressed by much lately , the G1 is cute and represents some fun shooting and the thought of some leica or Zeiss or other lenses makes it a interesting tool. But This Sony I am impressed by the value of it first of all but more important i like the look of the images and to me if you are shooting 35mm this is the area that counts the most is the look of the images and the files i seen Jono take besides his great eye is some really nice clean looking files with a great feel to them. Maybe a tacky saying but if it don't have the feel it just ain't very real. Don't quote me on that one. Sounds weird but I think you understand my meaning, your really after the look at the end of the day. The Sony with the Zeiss glass has it and i like the price too. Just wish C1 could see the files
I couldn't agree more Guy, it's such an intangible, and so few reviews really get to it. The M8 files have a good 'feel' to them, and these Sony files do as well, although in rather a different way.

I'm finding that quite often I'll open an A900 file on the computer and it gives me a sharp intake of breath . . . and it's STILL doing it a couple of months and 3000 images down the line.
 
G

gtmerideth

Guest
I understand that shortness of breath.

I'm most impressed with the color rendition in three ways.
Accuracy, balance and the ability to record very subtle tones.
And I haven't even started to play with the creative button.

Tests are fun but with this camera all you have to do is use it
and it gets it's message across. my message now is "Aren't you
glad you bought me".
g.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Honestly and I really mean this , this is about the best looking files i have seen lately in these new camera's coming out. I have not been impressed by much lately , the G1 is cute and represents some fun shooting and the thought of some leica or Zeiss or other lenses makes it a interesting tool. But This Sony I am impressed by the value of it first of all but more important i like the look of the images and to me if you are shooting 35mm this is the area that counts the most is the look of the images and the files i seen Jono take besides his great eye is some really nice clean looking files with a great feel to them. Maybe a tacky saying but if it don't have the feel it just ain't very real. Don't quote me on that one. Sounds weird but I think you understand my meaning, your really after the look at the end of the day. The Sony with the Zeiss glass has it and i like the price too. Just wish C1 could see the files
Evidently C1 does see the files Guy. Read the link below where the tester compared Aperture and C1 to process the Sony files.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Interesting?

Ahh, if it were only true.

I have the H3D-II/39 and Sony A900 and all the Zeiss optics.

I guess some people have different evaluative standards than others.

Trust me, there's nothing I'd like better than to put 40K in my pocket and just get a second Sony A900.

Ahh, if it were only true. But trust me, an owner of both ... it isn't.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Interesting?

Ahh, if it were only true.

I have the H3D-II/39 and Sony A900 and all the Zeiss optics.

I guess some people have different evaluative standards than others.

Trust me, there's nothing I'd like better than to put 40K in my pocket and just get a second Sony A900.

Ahh, if it were only true. But trust me, an owner of both ... it isn't.
ahhh... but the real question is whether the the extra 35K is worth the difference in image quality.

I can't answer that for anyone but myself... but I know for my work it wouldn't be. For high end architectural work and/or fashion, probably so. The thing I struggle with is that in published print, the differences are so minuscule.

Fine art print at large reproduction? That's a different story.

So, in the end, I think discussions about superiority of systems really has validity if we're all shooting the same thing. Good stuff all!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
ahhh... but the real question is whether the the extra 35K is worth the difference in image quality.

I can't answer that for anyone but myself... but I know for my work it wouldn't be. For high end architectural work and/or fashion, probably so. The thing I struggle with is that in published print, the differences are so minuscule.

Fine art print at large reproduction? That's a different story.

So, in the end, I think discussions about superiority of systems really has validity if we're all shooting the same thing. Good stuff all!
Well, first off the difference in price isn't anywhere near 35K. $40K was in reference to 2 H3D's and lenses. The Sony is mondo reasonably priced, but the lenses are not cheap, and none of them are APOs (not that I care.) IMO, it's just a better mouse trap than Canon offers, not competition for MF type work.

"Published Print" is my game and was for most my career as an Art Director and Creative Director. As our pre-press folks liked to say "the better going in, the better it comes out. We may use a shot for magazine print one day, crop the heck out of it the next, or make a wall sized display graphic.

So, you're right ... people have different criteria and different ideas of acceptability ... and have to weigh cost verses real world need.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Interesting?

Ahh, if it were only true.

I have the H3D-II/39 and Sony A900 and all the Zeiss optics.

I guess some people have different evaluative standards than others.

Trust me, there's nothing I'd like better than to put 40K in my pocket and just get a second Sony A900.

Ahh, if it were only true. But trust me, an owner of both ... it isn't.
Of course, once you have spent the money, its logical to defend your decision :cool:

Not saying there is no difference, of course, simply that everyone has their own reasons for reaching the conclusions they reach. Subjectivity rules.

Quentin
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Of course, once you have spent the money, its logical to defend your decision :cool:

Not saying there is no difference, of course, simply that everyone has their own reasons for reaching the conclusions they reach. Subjectivity rules.

Quentin
Ahh, if that also were true ... but in my case the A900 cost me more than the Hasselblad because I didn't pay for the Hassey, clients did via rental fees. The A900 is a camera I use for weddings where rental fees do not apply ... so I paid for it directly out of my profit margin. BIG difference.

Nothing personal or subjective. Just business.

I would say that the opposite is more true. People WISH that a small format could perform up to that of MF ... (and that is not historically confined to digital). That wish and hoping clouds their judgement.
 
Last edited:
Top