Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad H4D-60 and H4D-50  (Read 33625 times)
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #120 on: October 01, 2009, 11:51:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Shooting almost 100% of the time to a laptop, the screen on the back doesn't bother me - though yes, the screen on my G9 leaves it for dead.

I have only one wish........that I could capture multi-shot files on my 39mp back and open them ( in raw form and with Hassies lens corrections intact) in ACR so as to avail of all that it offers.

Yes, I know I'm dreaming, but I often wonder how many more cameras would they sell if there weren't limitations on the software that can be used with them?

They seem obsessed with this 'mine is bigger than yours' pixel mania, when ease of use (processing software, opening/moving/storing these huge files) is surely what most people want. Also, there seems to be a lot of reliance for takeup on a pool of exisiting users, to judge from the emphasis on upgrade offers.

My Canon is a dream to use. In typical Japanese fashion, they don't invent anything new (yes, I'm exagerrating a bit here.   ). They strip down something someone else has invented, have a good look at it, and then improve on it. Thus, when shooting tethered, even though the cable attaching the camara to the laptop generates miniscule torque, there is a screw-in lug that prevents the cable from being tugged from the camera. As a result, no damage can be done to the cable socket on the camera body. Similarly, the software for shooting tethered works like a dream and has a wonderful interface.

That said, Flexcolor does exactly what it says on the tin for capture - I only wish that ACR was the next stage in my workflow.

D.

Logged
gdwhalen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


WWW
« Reply #121 on: October 01, 2009, 12:01:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Wireless tethering is the only way to go.  That would be my dream upgrade.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #122 on: October 01, 2009, 02:54:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
RED is talking of a huge 6x17cm panoramic back. Apart from that, not a peep, certainly not from the usual suspects, Kodak and Dalsa.
I would like a high-res back compatible with my LF lenses, but you can buy a lot of lenses for the price of a Red 617.

I think no one currently makes a MFDSLR big enough (for sensors larger than 645) ¿do they? so it would need a total camera re-design or upsizing.
Quote
Exactly. The overwhelming trend is that sensors only get upsized in order to get more out of existing, modern, high quality, AF lens systems, so 35mm and 645 are the main upsizing targets, nothing bigger.
There are people who do not insist on AF, and there would be a small market for a 6*9 digiback for cameras like the Sinar P3, and lenses like the Schneider Apo-digitars, many of which cover 69.

¿Send the mirror to history?
Quote
Maybe, but mirrorless (and so "full time") live view requires far higher frame refresh rates than Full Frame type CCD's can provide, so a change to CMOS or interline CCD would probably be needed. RED (again) is talking of a 645 format motion/still camera with CMOS sensor and no mirror, and at smaller sizes it seems that many companies are interested in "full time live view" systems: not just Panasonic and Olympus but also Samsung, Fuji and Nikon. (Thom Hogan has supported the Fuji and Nikon rumors.)
On point-and-shoots there tends to be a delay between pressing the button and the exposure.

Hasselblad has not always been exclusively an SLR company... the SWC, Arcbody and Flexbody are mirror-free, but these cameras used components from the main line SLR cameras.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #123 on: October 01, 2009, 08:34:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
There are people who do not insist on AF, and there would be a small market for a 6*9 digiback for cameras like the Sinar P3, and lenses like the Schneider Apo-digitars, many of which cover 69.
Agreed that there would be  small market; the trends strongly suggest however that the demand, although it exists, is not enough to support the cost of putting such sensors into production. Sensor models seem to have a high overhead. Coating an existing emulsion onto large sheets of film in small quantities is much easier, and of course less common medium formats like 6x9 use the same roll film as more common ones like 645.


Quote
¿Send the mirror to history?

On point-and-shoots there tends to be a delay between pressing the button and the exposure.
That lag is one of the major challenges for "mirrorless", along with EVF/LCD lag behind reality. But Panasonic in particular has made progress with the G1 etc., and even in the E-P1, there is little lag once it is focused.
Logged
Paul_Claesson_HasselbladUS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 01, 2009, 10:12:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I received confirmation today that both the H4D50 and H4D60 will have the new display.

Resolution 460,400
3 Inch, 24 bit, TFT display
There is an improvement in contrast and also when viewing the display at increased angles.
Logged

Paul Claesson
Technical Support Manager
Hasselblad Hasselblad Bron Inc.
support@hasselbladbron.com or
pclaesson@hasselbladbron.com
800-367-6434 x303

The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Hasselblad.
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #125 on: October 01, 2009, 10:38:39 PM »
ReplyReply

the SWC, Arcbody and Flexbody are mirror-free
*******
The Hasselblad "space cameras" prior to 1975 were mirror-free, "point and shoot", also.

Steve
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #126 on: October 02, 2009, 03:37:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: vandevanterSH
the SWC, Arcbody and Flexbody are mirror-free
*******
The Hasselblad "space cameras" prior to 1975 were mirror-free, "point and shoot", also.

Steve
When Hasselblads were really versatile they came with wire-frame view finders  ¿You remember that?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
gdwhalen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 02, 2009, 06:14:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Paul_Claesson_HasselbladUS
I received confirmation today that both the H4D50 and H4D60 will have the new display.

Resolution 460,400
3 Inch, 24 bit, TFT display
There is an improvement in contrast and also when viewing the display at increased angles.


That is GREAT.  Thank you Paul!!!
Logged

Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


WWW
« Reply #128 on: October 02, 2009, 08:08:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Paul_Claesson_HasselbladUS
I received confirmation today that both the H4D50 and H4D60 will have the new display.

Resolution 460,400
3 Inch, 24 bit, TFT display
There is an improvement in contrast and also when viewing the display at increased angles.


Superb!!!!

Next question is what kind of file is displayed on this LCD.

It used to be a linear file whith no adjustments ( contrast, sharpening etc )

Will it change to a better file this time?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 08:08:26 AM by Willow Photography » Logged

Willow Photography
CurtisHight
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #129 on: October 02, 2009, 04:05:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
A few possible ingredients, beyond the very substantial increase in sensor cost:
- ...and so a deeper, heavier, slower moving mirror with even more mirror slap to deal with.
- ...so a complete new set of lenses in place of current 645 lens systems.
My comments were inclusive of these realities. (And any 66 lenses brought to market could be used to extend the choices available for smaller formats.)

In 2002 Hasselblad introduced the H1 and with it moved their focus from 66/645 systems to 645/smaller systems. This focus seems to have been a good match with the state of the image sensor market, but I wonder what the 2010s and beyond will bring. I project that the technical dynamics will grow in resemblance to those we had previously in the film only environment, and in this environment I think that 66 cameras have a great strength. 35mm image sensors, and the cameras built around them, are very good, so good that, for me, the 645 cameras currently shipping or announced, aren't enough.


Quote from: Boris_Epix
I wouldn't ever ask for a square sensor but I guess the point is people are tired of rotating cameras and waist level finders would work for vertical/square pics (since you wouldn't need to turn the camera). Instead of a square sensor a 6x7 sensor for the RZ67 would be really nice (including the rotating mount).

...Seems like architecture, landscape, product, etc shooters will be the remaining MFDB user base at some point. All served very well with live-view when using tilt-shift.
I understand 6x7 shooters wishing for a 6x7 image sensor. I reason against this because I think it pushes technical considerations out of balance. For example, unless it's designed as a 7x7 camera it won't gain the ability to shoot vertical without rotating the camera, and if it is designed as a 7x7 SLR camera it will be extra large, heavy, and slow--possibly too large, heavy, and slow. I think that a 66 camera is a better technical balance; filling notable shortfalls of 35mm SLR design trade-offs, without creating too many of its own. I suppose that a 6x7 solution would be delightful for tilt-shift work, and architecture, landscape, product etc. categories, but insufficiently strong to outweigh smaller format strengths (at this point in time and at least for the nearer future), and hence would only extend this trend instead of reversing it; but I hope you receive your wish.


Quote from: BJL
Indeed: making the square format cameras that some ask for is probably not done because it has little prospect of being profitable ... ask F&H, Rollei, Leaf, Sinar and Jenoptik. Camera makers are not charities serving poor suffering MF photographers, so addressing the profit motive is unavoidable.
I don't think this is a strong point; none of these companies were offering an "effective" or a "competitive in the broad market" square format digital solution. Note that with the H series Hasselblad moved away from their earlier flagship design of a focal plane shutter camera that also accepted leaf shutter lenses, to a leaf shutter lens only camera, but Mamiya/Phase and Leica are using this design; product or technology successes or failures follow complex factors. As for "profit motives", this is inclusive to my point; insufficient product differentiation and unique strengths are the foundation of the trend away from square and medium formats and the resulting decrease in profits for some companies, and I hope for a reversal of this trend.


Quote from: BJL
Yes: likewise, formats larger than 645 are less and less needed as sensors improve: historically technological progress usually drives format size choices down rather than up. (Getting sensor sizes up to match existing 35mm and 645 AF lens systems is the main recent exception.)
I think the image sensor market is too young to place so much weight on this trend, and there are advantages to larger sensors beyond a potential increase in the number of pixels. More pixels are often welcome, "more effective pixels" are guardedly always welcome, but a better camera is my salient theme and hope; I'm asking for a highly capable camera to shoot square and vertical rectangle format images, without lens factors or the need to be rotated; and a 66 SLR camera seems to be the most effective path, the best fit, within my view of the current and near future, technical considerations and market conditions. Other, or less capable, and smaller format cameras, which offer square format and vertical rectangle optimization, would also be welcome.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #130 on: October 02, 2009, 07:15:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CurtisHight
In 2002 Hasselblad introduced the H1 and with it moved their focus from 66/645 systems to 645/smaller systems. This focus seems to have been a good match with the state of the image sensor market ...
Hasselblad's shift to 645 for its AF system predated digital: it was following a move away from square towards oblong shapes, 645 in particular, that started before the digital era. Released 2002, started some years before.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 07:18:55 PM by BJL » Logged
smoody
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #131 on: October 02, 2009, 07:58:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Paul_Claesson_HasselbladUS
I received confirmation today that both the H4D50 and H4D60 will have the new display.

Resolution 460,400
3 Inch, 24 bit, TFT display
There is an improvement in contrast and also when viewing the display at increased angles.

Excellent. Thank you for the news.
Logged

.
.
. . . . photos
derekhsu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #132 on: October 05, 2009, 12:58:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
We do not plan to exclude Live Video from anything.

Hi David Grover,

Live View is available since Flexcolor & Phocus!  
What is the difference for the one on Phocus 2.0?

Regards
Derek
Logged

Hasselblad H3D39, HCD28MM, HCD 35-90MM, HC100MM
DELL T7400 Precision Workstation, 2 XEON 5482 CPU, 64GB Ram, GTX295 + FP3008 30" LCD.
DELL MD1120 Disk Array with 24 x 146GB 10,000rpm SAS Disk.

HTTP://WWW.DIGIBACK.NET (TRADITIONAL CHINESE)
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 953



WWW
« Reply #133 on: October 05, 2009, 02:49:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: derekhsu
Hi David Grover,

Live View is available since Flexcolor & Phocus!  
What is the difference for the one on Phocus 2.0?

Regards
Derek

The Live Video quality on Phocus is a little better than FlexColor.  The main difference now of course is that you can focus the H camera directly from the software.  Very hand for micro adjustments and if the camera is inaccessible.

David

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #134 on: October 05, 2009, 04:17:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CurtisHight
I understand 6x7 shooters wishing for a 6x7 image sensor. I reason against this because I think it pushes technical considerations out of balance. For example, unless it's designed as a 7x7 camera it won't gain the ability to shoot vertical without rotating the camera, and if it is designed as a 7x7 SLR camera it will be extra large, heavy, and slow--possibly too large, heavy, and slow.
So, again, I say the future for sensors bigger that 66 is in mirror-free view cameras, for architecture, landscape, groups of people...

who needs more than 100 Mpx in a hand-held camera?  ...but you can, of course use a mirror-free camera hand-help,
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #135 on: October 05, 2009, 04:52:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Suffice to say that more than 50% of business so far this year has been to customers who had previously not bought any Medium Format digital gear.  So I take solace in that we are delivering something to those guys which offers something additional to 35mm.

Me among them. I bought an H3DII-31 instead of updating my 5D to another Canon.

There are plenty of features which have been standard on the Canons since way back when I bought the first dSLR, a venerable D30, which are not present on the Hasselblad. But there are plenty of features on the Hasselblad which aren't on the Canons- most notably the leaf shutters in the lenses with sync with studio flash to 1/800th of a second.

As it turns out, that's much more important to me than the multiple AF points were on the Canon. Sure, it would be great to have all the options in the world on whichever camera system you favour, but I'm really enjoying shooting with the Hasselblad and have absolutely no regrets about making the change. Besides which if I ever do want to shoot a Grand Prix race, I've still got a sack full of Canons to use instead. Horses for courses.

I've hardly shot anything on the Canons since getting the Hasselblad. It just does the job I want to do much better and with much more lusterous and rich results. My main gripe would have to be the LCD screen on the camera back, which is atrocious.

  Cheers, Hywel.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 05:05:17 PM by Hywel » Logged
Boris_Epix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


« Reply #136 on: October 05, 2009, 05:19:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hywel
Me among them. I bought an H3DII-31 instead of updating my 5D to another Canon.

There are plenty of features which have been standard on the Canons since way back when I bought the first dSLR, a venerable D30, which are not present on the Hasselblad. But there are plenty of features on the Hasselblad which aren't on the Canons- most notably the leaf shutters in the lenses with sync with studio flash to 1/800th of a second.

As it turns out, that's much more important to me than the multiple AF points were on the Canon. Sure, it would be great to have all the options in the world on whichever camera system you favour, but I'm really enjoying shooting with the Hasselblad and have absolutely no regrets about making the change. Besides which if I ever do want to shoot a Grand Prix race, I've still got a sack full of Canons to use instead. Horses for courses.

  Cheers, Hywel.


Ok, so what can't you achieve with 1/250 sec x-sync time that you can with 1/800? Before you start mumbling wide-open fill-flash outdoors I'll have 3 words for you: Neutral Density Filter. But you've been talking about STUDIO FLASH and not portable flash and there it really doesn't matter because the flash duration is usually way faster than 1/1000 and will freeze more than a 1/800 x-sync can.

But if you think that 1/800 sec sync time is something that sets a Hasselblad appart from DSLR's I can tell you that I gave a workshop and one of the participants had a small Nikon. Don't remember the exact model... D70 or D200. Point is it would sync even shorter than 1/1000. (Electronic shutter).

Outside of controlled conditions I feel like it's harder to get the shot the way you want it with MFDB because of all the limitations (shutter speeds, mirror slap, no good high ISO. I got quite some money out of shots with Canons at 1/10 sec and a few even lower, with the RZ67  1/8s doesn't scare me away but the H bodes below 1/60 usually had quite some blur from mirror slap...

People managed to shoot back in the days with 1/60 sec x-sync. Sure 1/800 is nicer than 1/250 but 1/1600 is even more nice.
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 953



WWW
« Reply #137 on: October 06, 2009, 01:09:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hywel
Me among them. I bought an H3DII-31 instead of updating my 5D to another Canon.

There are plenty of features which have been standard on the Canons since way back when I bought the first dSLR, a venerable D30, which are not present on the Hasselblad. But there are plenty of features on the Hasselblad which aren't on the Canons- most notably the leaf shutters in the lenses with sync with studio flash to 1/800th of a second.

As it turns out, that's much more important to me than the multiple AF points were on the Canon. Sure, it would be great to have all the options in the world on whichever camera system you favour, but I'm really enjoying shooting with the Hasselblad and have absolutely no regrets about making the change. Besides which if I ever do want to shoot a Grand Prix race, I've still got a sack full of Canons to use instead. Horses for courses.

I've hardly shot anything on the Canons since getting the Hasselblad. It just does the job I want to do much better and with much more lusterous and rich results. My main gripe would have to be the LCD screen on the camera back, which is atrocious.

  Cheers, Hywel.

Thanks Hywel for your feedback.

David

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #138 on: October 06, 2009, 03:30:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Boris_Epix
Ok, so what can't you achieve with 1/250 sec x-sync time that you can with 1/800? Before you start mumbling wide-open fill-flash outdoors I'll have 3 words for you: Neutral Density Filter. But you've been talking about STUDIO FLASH and not portable flash and there it really doesn't matter because the flash duration is usually way faster than 1/1000 and will freeze more than a 1/800 x-sync can.

But if you think that 1/800 sec sync time is something that sets a Hasselblad appart from DSLR's I can tell you that I gave a workshop and one of the participants had a small Nikon. Don't remember the exact model... D70 or D200. Point is it would sync even shorter than 1/1000. (Electronic shutter).

Outside of controlled conditions I feel like it's harder to get the shot the way you want it with MFDB because of all the limitations (shutter speeds, mirror slap, no good high ISO. I got quite some money out of shots with Canons at 1/10 sec and a few even lower, with the RZ67  1/8s doesn't scare me away but the H bodes below 1/60 usually had quite some blur from mirror slap...

People managed to shoot back in the days with 1/60 sec x-sync. Sure 1/800 is nicer than 1/250 but 1/1600 is even more nice.

The high sync speeds you quote are only available with the dedicated flash guns, which is very much less than ideal. I'm not even sure if the same high speeds are available with the flashes remote triggering off camera. To be honest, they were such a pig to set up that we usually fell back to 1/125th for everything- and 1/125th was definitely the shortest shutter speed one could reliably use with the Canons and studio flash. They may claim 1/250th, but we found in practice that you ran an unacceptable risk of a hint of second shutter curtain shadow creeping in even at 1/160th.

I use Hensel Porty flash systems. I'm sorry if that was unclear. I think of it as a studio flash system, just battery powered, as opposed to an on-camera flash system. The important difference for my work is the ability to use light formers and to place the lights wherever I want, with no tethering to the camera. We tried using several slaved Canon flashes but it was always an awful flog to set up, hard to use light formers, and the flashes were VERY prone not to trigger correctly.

Using the Porty is like taking studio lighting on location, which just happens to be exactly what I want. I want two strip softboxes or honeycomb grids or beauty dishes on flash heads putting out a decent power, and the ability to balance that precisely with the sunlight coming in behind as a hairlight... or to underexpose the sky by three or four stops to render a sunset nicely in the background for a dramatic photo.

Your mileage my vary, but for me the combination of Hasselblad plus Porty has been the difference between crawling along and flying when lighting on location. The shots below would have been the devil's own job to set up with the Canon system but were a pleasure to do on the Hasselblad/Porty. I agree that one needs controlled lighting conditions for the Hasselblad to shine- but it has the capabilities to support controlled lighting on location to a much better extent than the Canons.

As you may notice from the EXIF, these were actually shot at /250th or 1/500th... but the key point was that we had the freedom to experiment. The water hair flick shot looked better at 1/250th than 1/800th so we used that one. It gives us the ability to choose the aperture for artistic effect (by setting the intensity of flash on the subject) and then choose the shutter speed to achieve some other artistic effect with the light on the background. The Canons in practice glued us to 1/125th, always.

Mirror slap is no problem on the Hasselblad for me. The custom setting for delay between mirror flip and shutter (which is not something the Canons provide). Setting that to 50 ms or gave razor sharp shots with no camera shake hand held to 1/60th with no problem, and a fighting chance of getting good shots at 1/30th or even 1/15th, which is more than acceptable for my purposes as because that slow one tends to get model movement creeping in a bit anyway. As before, YMMV, but for me, the Hasselblad supports my shooting style far better than the Canons did.

Cheers, Hywel Phillips
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 03:48:55 AM by Hywel » Logged
Boris_Epix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


« Reply #139 on: October 06, 2009, 08:48:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hywel
The high sync speeds you quote are only available with the dedicated flash guns, which is very much less than ideal. I'm not even sure if the same high speeds are available with the flashes remote triggering off camera. To be honest, they were such a pig to set up that we usually fell back to 1/125th for everything- and 1/125th was definitely the shortest shutter speed one could reliably use with the Canons and studio flash. They may claim 1/250th, but we found in practice that you ran an unacceptable risk of a hint of second shutter curtain shadow creeping in even at 1/160th.
No, I was not talking about Nikon flash guns. I was talking about Profoto and Elinchrom packs. I was surprised as you are when I tried to teach participants that you can't sync flash above x-sync time and told them to set 1/500 so they could see the shutter blade(s). Only one guy had no shutter blades in the frame so I thought at first he dialed in wrong settings. Turns out the D70 officially syncs up to 1/500 with it's combined electronic/mechanical shutter. Check out the the shutter section. So we went higher and as far as I recall it went up to 1/1250 s before parts of the image were not exposed correctly.

Quote from: Hywel
As you may notice from the EXIF, these were actually shot at /250th or 1/500th... but the key point was that we had the freedom to experiment. The water hair flick shot looked better at 1/250th than 1/800th so we used that one. It gives us the ability to choose the aperture for artistic effect (by setting the intensity of flash on the subject) and then choose the shutter speed to achieve some other artistic effect with the light on the background. The Canons in practice glued us to 1/125th, always.

I'm shooting the Canon 1Ds Mk3 at 1/250 x-sync outdoor all the time. No problem. Ambient light fills in and there's no darkening observable. In the studio I shoot it at 1/200. There you can have a bit of a darker edge. It seems you're talking about a 5D or lower end model but even the 5D syncs very well at 1/160 with no dark edge whatsoever or 1/200 outdoor. D3X is the same thing as the 1Ds... you can sync at 1/250 but on a plain white background the lower edge can be slightly darker (triggering with Pocketwizards). Not sure if a sync-cable setup would be better.

The three pictures you showed here all could have easily been shot with a Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Olympus/whatever. Some of the shots would have benefitted from more DOF, tighter cropping and some detail in the darker tones instead of the sudden black. The water shot is actually blurrier than anything I've seen from a DSLR and that kind of shot is probably been done million times before. I thought the point was to freeze the splashing water and hair (and face). Anyway, I'm not too fond of that I guess.

Quote from: Hywel
Mirror slap is no problem on the Hasselblad for me. The custom setting for delay between mirror flip and shutter (which is not something the Canons provide). Setting that to 50 ms or gave razor sharp shots with no camera shake hand held to 1/60th with no problem, and a fighting chance of getting good shots at 1/30th or even 1/15th, which is more than acceptable for my purposes as because that slow one tends to get model movement creeping in a bit anyway. As before, YMMV, but for me, the Hasselblad supports my shooting style far better than the Canons did.

Cheers, Hywel Phillips
Sure, mirror slap is no problem for you if you can keep your shutter speed above 1/60, use a heavy tripod or you're shooting with portable studio flashes with 1200 Ws. But how would you shoot in a castle where neither flash nor tripods are permitted? Where ISO 800 still only gives you 1/10 sec? The Hassy gives you about 4 stops of usable shutter speeds. Not very flexible IMHO. The Mamiya 645 DF with it's twin shutter setup will be more flexible. With video becoming more mainstream in DSLRs possibly at some point mechanical shutters will not be the limiting factor for faster x-sync there.

It's good to see you're happy with your camera, but 1/800 x-sync did nothing for your three pics here. So it's a bit confusing that it's the only feature you named. I'm all game for arguments like 16bit color depth, CCD-vs-CMOS, no AA-filter, better color fidelity, etc. And in fact I really like the color of the turquoise pool and the yellow cord.

But anyway, the most important thing is that you like your equipment and feel comfortable with it taking the shots you want.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad