Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: from Nikon autofocus to using Hasselblad H3D-31  (Read 18307 times)
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2009, 08:41:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: condit79
I guess you really need to try both and see how you FEEL shooting.  It sounds kinda lame, but how you act behind the camera with people or feel when you're shooting a location is key to how the images turn out.   Its much more important to love your process than to fight the process to create compelling work.  Good luck with your search.


Amen to that.
Logged
G_Allen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2009, 09:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I totally agree as well. I bought my H2/P30+ thinking that it would replace my Canons in almost all shoots. I now use it exclusively in the studio, where it excels, and use my Canons on location. I quickly found that I was not completely comfortable with H2 on location -- the equipment got in the way of the process. Go with what feels right, and don't try to justify using something based on price/perceived quality alone.

Good luck.
Logged

GREGORY ALLEN
PLASTICIMAGE.COM
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2009, 08:36:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: nikf
Of course it depends on what you see as 'significant'. At least the H3D-31(II) has no anti aliasing filter AFAIK. Compared to the D3 I have too, the H3DII-31 is not only better in resolution (sure it is), e.g. shadow detail is exceptional in comparison, H3DII-31 files scale up beautifully. For me the Hassy is a different tool and will be so even when I probably add a D3x. The most important differences I see in favor of the D3(x) are handling, fun of usage (ergonomics), high ISO capabilities and flexibility of the whole system. Have you ever shot a H3DII on your own subjects and had a look at the quality?
thas the thing i cant get hold of one and see what I feel....im going by what people in forums feel....I took some test shots with a D3x yesterday actually.....feels and handles like a D3 as expected and the files are clean in Capture NX2 as expected.....shot with a 24-70mm 2.8 Nikkor.....the issue will be can I live with stepping back in time to usign a camera slower and how big i want to print up in the end....i know it.....plus the price difference of course
Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2009, 11:09:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I went through this exact process a few months ago and ended up with a D3x. I'm VERY happy with its resolution, dynamic range and tonal range (which are big jumps over other DSLRs I've used - my subjective results from looking at prints match the DxOmark tests pretty well). I wasn't able to get test shots of the same subject from the D3x and the H3DII/31, but I looked at big prints from the Hasselblad, and am now making big prints from the D3x that stand up darned well. From what I've seen, the D3x (especially if treated like a MF camera - tripod, low ISO, etc...) puts a big dent in the rationale for lower-end MF. It doesn't dent the rationale for the H3DII/50 and above at all (those cameras will still have much more detail, due to the huge jump in resolution), but you need to decide whether you need all that resolution? I can print 24x36 inches from the D3x, and have it look awfully good, even from 8 inches away. If you own (or will buy) a 44 inch printer, and intend to regularly make prints over 24x36, consider the H3DII/50 or 60 strongly (compare them with the D3x at your largest print size). Otherwise, the D3x has a lot of advantages, ranging from being less than half the price to its AF, handling and ruggedness.

                                                 -Dan
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7779



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2009, 02:21:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sperera
Hi there....I'm debating (big time) whether to get a 2nd hand Hasselblad H3D-31 and 50-110mm lens or a Nikon full-frame (either D700, D3 or D3x as I have access to good prices) to supplement the Nikon D300 Im not getting rid of.

For what is is worth, I just found this post that might be of interest for you:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30695991

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2009, 01:54:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
For what is is worth, I just found this post that might be of interest for you:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30695991

Cheers,
Bernard
thanks for that Bernard, appreciate it.....so....more time with the D3x....any more conclusions?Huh??
Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7779



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2009, 07:38:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sperera
thanks for that Bernard, appreciate it.....so....more time with the D3x....any more conclusions?Huh??

If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to give a look at the 100% sample linked below (click on "all sizes" on top of the image, then select the "original" size on the right):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3198276391/

This was shot with a Zeiss ZF 100mm f2.0... handheld...

- Very close pixel level detail and shaprness compared to backs
- Near total lack of moire
- Clean shadows and good DR (C1 is the best converter from this standpoint)
- More DoF when needed/Less DoF when needed

On top of that, what I could confirm is:

- Great battery life in cold weather - I got 850 shots from one battery shooting 10 hours in a row at temperatures going from -15C to -7C while using MLU on most shots and doing a lot of image checking (not no all images though since I was shooting panos with no detailed check on all the images in a given pano series).
- Same overall performance as the D3 for AF,...

On the downside:

- The D3 is IMHO a ISO100 camera. The backs are the same, but you get a lot less image quality when raising the ISO. This being said the gap between the D3x and MFDBs probably increases as the ISO goes up,
- Critical focus is difficult to achieve with MF wider lenses without life view
- I don't like Nikon's implementation of life view since it is not possible to combine it elegantly with MLU -> I end up switching back and forth between life view and MLU modes.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2009, 09:32:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
- The D3 is IMHO a ISO100 camera. The backs are the same, but you get a lot less image quality when raising the ISO. This being said the gap between the D3x and MFDBs probably increases as the ISO goes up,
- Critical focus is difficult to achieve with MF wider lenses without life view
- I don't like Nikon's implementation of life view since it is not possible to combine it elegantly with MLU -> I end up switching back and forth between life view and MLU modes.

Cheers,
Bernard
thanks for that Bernard....you're a gem.....but can you explain one things a sec.....The backs are the same, but you get a lot less image quality when raising the ISO. This being said the gap between the D3x and MFDBs probably increases as the ISO goes up.......less quality from the Nikon when you raise the ISO or the backs? and what gap? the Nikon is better as the ISO goes up?HuhHuhHuh?
i also dislike the Live View implementation as i take it still the same on D3x as other Nikonz
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 09:34:30 PM by sperera » Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2009, 11:39:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Both qualities go down as the ISO goes up (the Nikon goes from extraordinary at ISO 100 to merely very good at ISO 400-800), but the back might lose more. Another difference to note that influenced my choice of the D3x is that the Hasselblad EATS batteries - most folks say that they get 200? shots from one of the $250 battery grips before having to recharge it. The D3x gets about 1000 out of a $119 battery, even in the Vermont winter. I own 2 D3x batteries (and one charger, which can hold two batteries), but would have had to buy and carry 4-6 bulkier Hasselblad batteries, along with multiple chargers (the Hasselblad charger is only a single-battery device).


                                            -Dan

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7779



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2009, 04:54:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Wells
Both qualities go down as the ISO goes up (the Nikon goes from extraordinary at ISO 100 to merely very good at ISO 400-800), but the back might lose more.

Thanks Dan.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2009, 09:46:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Having read this post and the other you've got going about strobes, I have to ask, Why do you want to shoot medium format?

If you want to travel light and get great AF, then small format is clearly the winner. MF is slow, heavy, the AF sucks and high iso sucks. The main reason I shoot MF is because the H1 gives me a high sync speed. I also like the MF "look," but I don't need it to create great images.

I use MF in controlled situations (like fashion shoots). I don't use it during weddings or even family portraits because it's just too slow. I wouldn't use it for anything where there's movement or action because there's too many shots that will be missed. If you don't have a full frame small format camera, I'd get one and see how you like it. They're dirt cheap compared to even a used MFDB kit. If you still feel like you need more, then you can look at a used kit plus you'll have a decent backup.

John
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 09:47:07 AM by Juanito » Logged

paratom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2009, 05:05:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I cant comment on the Hassy but on the Hy6 and while I rella like the Hy6 system the AF is just not comparable to a 35mm camera like the D3.
Compared to some other posters I do quit often use non center AF points when shooting with the D3, and find this extremly usefull to for example focus constantly on the eye (which is not in the center) instead of having to focus recompose-focus etc etc specially if the subject is moving.
On the other side the big and bright viewfinder of the Hy6 makes it much easier to manual focus.
SO far I think that if its about maximun IQ use MF, if its about maximum speed and flexibility 35mm DSLR. IMO there is not yet a solution which offfers the optimum of both-speed and image quality
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7779



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2009, 08:10:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: paratom
SO far I think that if its about maximun IQ use MF, if its about maximum speed and flexibility 35mm DSLR. IMO there is not yet a solution which offfers the optimum of both-speed and image quality

My view is a bit different:

- Max IQ from single frame -> MF
- Max IQ based on stitching -> 35 mm

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
nikf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2009, 09:14:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
- Max IQ from single frame -> MF
- Max IQ based on stitching -> 35 mm

What would you call 'stitched MF shots' then?
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad