Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?  (Read 20442 times)
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123


WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2010, 09:19:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Guy raises some interesting points re. the sensors.

Bottom line is: with PhaseOne's current lineup, you can have decent high ISO (Dalsa's 6 micron + pixel binning: Sensor+) or decent long exposures (Kodak's 6.8 micron low darknoise: eXpose+) - but not both together. The P30+ comes closest to offering both together.

With Hasselblad's and indeed Pentax's current lineup, you do have both together - in Kodak's 6 micron, 40MP microlensed, even lower darknoise chip.

Why PhaseOne missed the boat on the Kodak 6 micron chips (40MP & 50MP) is a bit of a mystery. They are now behind the technology curve. I was hoping for a Photokina announcement which would change this, but all we got was Leaf's 80MP back which is going in the other direction entirely - no high ISO, no long exposure.

Sometimes these things are timing - and they're not always tied to coincide with trade shows. And also, Phase One's recent history shows a close working relationship with Dalsa. Will they work with Kodak sensors again in the future? Perhaps. There are many factors that would impact whether they will, including pricing, technology, time to market, etc, all valid considerations.

I like the idea of high ISO and long exposure. However, Phase One may be working on technology that encompasses this (or other features) that are based on larger sensor sizes than 44mm x 33mm. I do like that if this is the case. Even more so than resolution, medium format needs to retain an imaging area size advantage over 35mm. Indeed, many don't feel that 645 medium format digital really is medium format. Now 60mm x 70mm, that could be another matter. So, perhaps Phase One is not investing the same amount of R&D in 44mm x 33mm sensors as they are in larger sensors.


Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2010, 11:54:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Steve,

 You're a dealer, so I guess we can dispense with politeness Smiley
 Phase have taken over Leaf which was a Kodak subsidiary, they scrapped the only decent modern camera around (the Hy6). Yes they are making a profit by recycling their existing designs. No they are not advancing the state of the art. Yes, Hassleblad is screwing them for all they're worth, by revving their camera and back quality incrementally while lowering prices. As for me, I haven't been able to get a decent offer on a decent camera for my P45+, as Phase dealers do not do upgrades for idiots who bought into the Mamiya system, so I'm going to take Hasselbald's competitive upgrade so I can get a camera that will focus.

Edmund

Sometimes these things are timing - and they're not always tied to coincide with trade shows. And also, Phase One's recent history shows a close working relationship with Dalsa. Will they work with Kodak sensors again in the future? Perhaps. There are many factors that would impact whether they will, including pricing, technology, time to market, etc, all valid considerations.

I like the idea of high ISO and long exposure. However, Phase One may be working on technology that encompasses this (or other features) that are based on larger sensor sizes than 44mm x 33mm. I do like that if this is the case. Even more so than resolution, medium format needs to retain an imaging area size advantage over 35mm. Indeed, many don't feel that 645 medium format digital really is medium format. Now 60mm x 70mm, that could be another matter. So, perhaps Phase One is not investing the same amount of R&D in 44mm x 33mm sensors as they are in larger sensors.


Steve Hendrix
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2010, 12:37:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve is known as one of the nice guys around here, and universally appreciated by members of this forum, so maybe you missed that smiley on the first line Smiley

If I stay in MF, I really think I'll move to brand H, and I have a feeling I'm not the only one. I may miss C1 software, but I will never miss the Mamiya body.


Edmund

Edmund,

One thing to keep in mind is that what Phase does is not necessarily related to the dealer. Steve is by far one of the few who will talk honestly about the equipment and agree for the most part with all of our frustrations. That's rare and appreciated.

Good heaven's, you still have that P45+. I think we all had to hear about your debacles for quite a few years. I would think you would have unloaded it by now. A friend had one with good success but sold his a year ago and got reasonable sale price, nothing great to what they were. If you are going to hold onto gear for a good while, use it, get it paid, and expect the financial rear ender later on to unload it. Tech is tech and few want old tech, everybody wants new tech.
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123


WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2010, 01:50:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Steve,

 You're a dealer, so I guess we can dispense with politeness Smiley
 Phase have taken over Leaf which was a Kodak subsidiary, they scrapped the only decent modern camera around (the Hy6). Yes they are making a profit by recycling their existing designs. No they are not advancing the state of the art. Yes, Hassleblad is screwing them for all they're worth, by revving their camera and back quality incrementally while lowering prices. As for me, I haven't been able to get a decent offer on a decent camera for my P45+, as Phase dealers do not do upgrades for idiots who bought into the Mamiya system, so I'm going to take Hasselbald's competitive upgrade so I can get a camera that will focus.

Edmund



Edward, you're an end user, so I'll be polite.  Cheesy

But my opinion is different. First, I think there were far more culpable parties than Phase One when it came to scrapping the Hy6.

It is important that Phase One make profits on recycling improving existing designs. These funds are necessary while they advance the state of the art with products that are still in development.  I can tell you that our customers appreciate the improvements in their Mamiya/Phase One camera systems, which so far include dramatic improvement in auto focus speed, innovative vertical grip with built-in wireless, and new Leaf Shutter and tilt shift lenses from Schneider, one of the most respected optical companies in the world.

I don't know what the situation is where you're at, but I make fantastic offers every day to P45+ users who wish to upgrade. It doesn't matter what camera platform they're on. Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by Phase One dealers not doing upgrades for P1/Mamiya owners?

Politely,
Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2010, 08:13:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve,

 I talked to the original dealer who I bought the back from today.

 His best quote on a competitive upgrade to H4D60 and the Phase One deal to P65+ are basically identical.

 Phase do not seem to be offering a reasonable upgrade path for just the camera body and lens alone.

  To get a feel for my other -read CHEAPER- options, I took an H4D40/100mm/2.2 for a test spin @1600 and @400 ISO outdoors. Accidentally I happened to have my daily beater, a Nikon D3x/85mm/1.4 with me. Light was failing, and I did some low light portraits of a lady who gave me 5 minutes of her time.

  Re. handling, the good surprise is that I found the H4D focuses beautifully -much much better than my AFDII,  and the finder is very, very good with the 2.2 lens. The  bad surprise was that shutter lag was huge, around 0.7 seconds at least.

 The upshot of the test is that the files from the back are very good@400, but a bit problematic @1600 with a possible hint of IR sensitivity; the surprise here is not only that noisewise the H4D is very good but also that the Nikon just about matches the H4D quality all along, with no hints of issues @1600.

The H4D40 did appear to achieve just a little some of that MF magic 3D effect; the Nikon in fact showed good skin tone under difficult circumstances, and no hint of file non-uniformities or streaking @1600.

 I hadn't really internalized until now how superb the Nikon files really are, when it's people, scenes, and not brick walls. I can understand why Bernard fights so hard on this forum.

 Seeing how ridiculous Phase's policies are I think selling my back is a better idea than paying substantially more than $8K for a new body and Schneider lens *just to get good focus and sharpness with my existing back*.  I might be tempted to crossgrade to Hassy, but from today's experiment I'm not so sure it's really worth it, as I find that in practice I usually shoot at ISO 400.

Maybe the smart thing to do is to sell the back now, and use the money in a year or two for a used Hassy system (that can focus) or a new Nikon Smiley

You might take this post as an act of encouragement for Phase to provide a reasonably priced body/lens only upgrade path for existing owners. Financial shackles can be painful if they are too tight.

Edmund


Edward, you're an end user, so I'll be polite.  Cheesy

I don't know what the situation is where you're at, but I make fantastic offers every day to P45+ users who wish to upgrade. It doesn't matter what camera platform they're on. Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by Phase One dealers not doing upgrades for P1/Mamiya owners?

Politely,
Steve Hendrix
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 05:04:25 AM by eronald » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2010, 09:41:24 AM »
ReplyReply

UPDATE: After burning the 4am oil, and deciding that outside the studio the D3x is very, very good compared to a back (equivalent DR, better ISO, superb focus, decent resolution) - in fact I said that 1600 ISO was very usable and there with the 400 ISO of the H4D40, and the DR still good on those images, and  I thought "how can this be possible"?

And so I did what I used to do before I got Alzheimer, I cross-checked with other experiments. Namely the Dx0 camera comparator, which shows just about the same situation.

The nice thing about the H4D, IMHO is the fact that the AF and the chimp screen both work well, so you will actually reliably get the quality of sensor and lens you are paying for. My unfortunate opinion of the Mamiya P45+ combo I own is that the vagaries of the AF and the mount tolerances void the advantages you get by moving to the larger sensor.

This is not to disparage the H4D40 in any way, but as a field unit the D3x is really better than I thought. Also, the Nikon plausibly has the best AF on the market in a hi-rez camera, which is the other thing which makes it such a formidable competitor - sharpness is really determined by focus. We too often forget the need for sharp focus when we read the megapixel sensor hype, and look at fashion imagery shot with truckloads of artificial lightning, crosschecked for focus by an assistant on a big display.

I'm enclosing a link to the DxO site and the DR comparator image for D3x, HD350 and P65+; note the elbow in DR at ISO 400 when the P back moves to pixel binning. The Dx0 site has a gadget, where you move your mouse up and down over the color strip and it shows you how your image gets degraded by the DR. It also gives you measured ISO values as you hover the mouse.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/585|0/(appareil2)/485|0/(appareil3)/579|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Hasselblad/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Phase%20One

Please note that for once, this is a case of pixel-peeping backing up a real-world test. Not that I should be ashamed of using metrics, after all I did train as a scientist rather than as a photographer  Smiley

Edmund

PS. I do wonder why most people in this forum never noticed the abilities of the Nikon. I adopted the Nikon because I needed fast accurate focus - it is possible that many here preferred the 5D2 for reasons of price alone, assuming it was identical in abilities, and that therefore they underestimate the state of the art in 35mm.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 10:48:32 AM by eronald » Logged
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2010, 10:41:45 AM »
ReplyReply

UPDATE: After burning the 4am oil, and deciding that outside the studio the D3x is very, very good compared to a back

PS. I do wonder why most people in this forum never noticed the abilities of the Nikon. I adopted the Nikon because I needed fast accurate focus - it is possible that many here preferred the 5D2 for reasons of price alone, assuming it was identical in abilities, and that therefore they underestimate the state of the art in 35mm.


I have mentioned a few times here, that my assistant kept telling me, that she could push the D3x files more around than the files from my back - I think she is right, the D3x have some truly fantastic files - and I don't care if Nikon is doing some pre-processing with the raw-files, they look good!

My main system for a lot of reasons is still Alpa with a Leaf back.

The dslr I'm using now is, a bit ironic, a 5D2 for mainly two reasons: the new 17mm and 24mm ts - but - do I miss the file quality from the D3x.....  Embarrassed

/adam
Logged

pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2010, 12:53:32 PM »
ReplyReply

UPDATE: After burning the 4am oil, and deciding that outside the studio the D3x is very, very good compared to a back (equivalent DR, better ISO, superb focus, decent resolution) - in fact I said that 1600 ISO was very usable and there with the 400 ISO of the H4D40, and the DR still good on those images, and  I thought "how can this be possible"?

PS. I do wonder why most people in this forum never noticed the abilities of the Nikon. I adopted the Nikon because I needed fast accurate focus - it is possible that many here preferred the 5D2 for reasons of price alone, assuming it was identical in abilities, and that therefore they underestimate the state of the art in 35mm.


I only hear good things about the Nikon D3x, this is encouraging for the format. I am holding out for the 1Ds Mark IV, as I intended to make that camera last for a good long while. Hopefully it will be as good as the Nikon. I think that 35mm needs really good electronics that read the sensor, that is what it takes to make them work well. Not enough money was spent (perhaps) on the 5DII to get clean readouts. I don't know... anyway thanks for sharing.
Logged
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2010, 02:59:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The  bad surprise was that shutter lag was huge, around 0.7 seconds at least.


Edmund there is basically NO shutter lag on the H system UNLESS it have been manually set (to reduce vibration from the mirror on slow exposures for example). I would say that it was very likely someone had set a mirror delay on the camera you tested.
Nick-T
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2010, 03:06:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund there is basically NO shutter lag on the H system UNLESS it have been manually set (to reduce vibration from the mirror on slow exposures for example). I would say that it was very likely someone had set a mirror delay on the camera you tested.
Nick-T

I agree fully that no one else had ever reported a shutter lag issue on the H;  this camera showed a lag *before shutter release activated* in other words *before* the mirror went up. I can only report this, maybe you have an idea what caused it. Wouldn't the mirror delay lift the mirror immediately and then delay before exposure?

Edmund
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2010, 06:00:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is my screenshot comparing the H4D40 and the D3x; this is a real world image in bad light, both cameras @ ISO 1600.

The Hassy can do 1600, but it looks like the Raw conversion is going noisy in the face shadows for the guy, and totally losing detail in the dark areas in the front of the guy's hair.

The Nikon on the other hand seems to be holding 1600 with its usual excessive smoothness, so I ADDED SOME NOISE TO THE NIKON SHOT, as I would usually to get some "filmlike" texture.

Both cameras are handheld in bad light with mild tele lenses (85 and 100), and its not the world's best shot, but it demonstrates that both cameras can focus, both can do decent realistic work at realistic real-world ISO, and they are both playing in the same league when taken off a tripod and out of the good light. I did some more shots with the Hassy, basically @ISO 400 it is more or less comparable to the Nikon @1600, but not really better. The Nikon seems to have amazing DR.

Edmund
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 06:05:43 PM by eronald » Logged
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2010, 06:06:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is my screenshot comparing the H4D40 and the D3x; this is a real world image in bad light, both cameras @ ISO 1600.

The Hassy can do 1600, but it looks like the Raw conversion is going noisy in the face shadows for the guy, and totally losing detail in the dark areas in the front of the guy's hair.

The Nikon on the other hand seems to be holding 1600 with its usual excessive smoothness, so I ADDED SOME NOISE TO THE NIKON SHOT, as I would usually to get some "filmlike" texture.

Both cameras are handheld in bad light with mild tele lenses (85 and 100), and its not the world's best shot, but it demonstrates that both cameras can focus, both can do decent realistic work at realistic real-world ISO, and they are both playing in the same league when taken off a tripod and out of the good light. I did some more shots with the Hassy, basically @ISO 400 it is more or less comparable to the Nikon @1600, but not really better. The Nikon seems to have amazing DR.

Edmund
Hello. can't find the link ... (fixed thanks)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 08:03:48 PM by jduncan » Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #52 on: October 19, 2010, 06:09:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello. can't find the link ...


Reposting attachment here.

Can you guys see the attachment? I am viewing an empty image on my browser. Will make a yousendit.com link.

Edmund
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2010, 06:14:15 PM »
ReplyReply

There's a problem on the forum with my attachments.

HERE IS AN EXTERNAL LINK.
https://www.yousendit.com/download/ZGJjK3BNR3NBNkd4dnc9PQ

Someone else is welcome to host/post if they manage.

Edmund
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1077


« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2010, 07:57:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Not surprised with Edmund's tests. I've been using a Sony a850, at ISOs lower than 400, and find that it has a mighty fine sensor, especially when it is wedded to the CZ 24-70. In fact, I use it more than I do the Blad (CF 39MS on a H2f body) these days, especially for field work. The a850 uses the same sensor as the Nikon D3x, however, the Nikon has a 2-stop advantage over the Sony. Those Nikon guys are pulling off some fancy footwork with their processing engine. Of course, for fine art repro, nothing beats a multi-shot medium format back. The same goes for fussy studio still-life projects.
Logged
Professional
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 306


« Reply #55 on: October 19, 2010, 07:59:25 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, i managed to download the file image from this link, thanks.

I did similar tests in the past, H3DII-39 against 1Ds3 and again H4D-60 against 1DsIII, i found that 1Ds3 won in high ISO for details only, but the color tones and rendering it is always winner with MF, i did shoot a painting on the wall using ISO800 as this is maximum with my H4D-60 and did the same with 1Ds3, the 1Ds3 retained the details very fine against the Hasselblad and even you may prefer it over Hasselblad, but the color tone and DR was better with Hasselblad, more natural colors with Hasselblad.

I remember i did tests in the past with 1Ds2 against 5D classic, as all said that 5D high ISO shot was cleaner but what i found out is that 1Ds2 shots has more details at highest iso always over 5D.

So when i compare two cameras, what the most factor i have to worry about, the noise? the color? the details? the DR?....etc?Huh??
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 08:01:18 PM by Professional » Logged
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2010, 08:16:14 PM »
ReplyReply

There's a problem on the forum with my attachments.

HERE IS AN EXTERNAL LINK.
https://www.yousendit.com/download/ZGJjK3BNR3NBNkd4dnc9PQ

Someone else is welcome to host/post if they manage.

Edmund
The true to be told I found the Hasselblad surprisingly good for a Medium format camera.  This is a CCD against an cmos sensor. When cmos become universal  there were a shock about the impossible good low light performance. Not to differ with you in the bottom line. But I din't  expected the H4D-40 to be competitive at ISO 400 @ low light. Is important to realize also the the resolution advantage  of the 40 is minimal (on mpixels only)  7304 x 5478 pixels vs 6048 x 4032 pixels. 
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2010, 08:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, i managed to download the file image from this link, thanks.

I did similar tests in the past, H3DII-39 against 1Ds3 and again H4D-60 against 1DsIII, i found that 1Ds3 won in high ISO for details only, but the color tones and rendering it is always winner with MF, i did shoot a painting on the wall using ISO800 as this is maximum with my H4D-60 and did the same with 1Ds3, the 1Ds3 retained the details very fine against the Hasselblad and even you may prefer it over Hasselblad, but the color tone and DR was better with Hasselblad, more natural colors with Hasselblad.

I remember i did tests in the past with 1Ds2 against 5D classic, as all said that 5D high ISO shot was cleaner but what i found out is that 1Ds2 shots has more details at highest iso always over 5D.

So when i compare two cameras, what the most factor i have to worry about, the noise? the color? the details? the DR?....etc?Huh??
Nice to see you by this internet virtual words. How is you baby doing?  (the H4D-60).  This is off topic but maybe some of this days when you have a time you could share some of  your general impression and experience with the tool in a different thread ?

Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #58 on: October 20, 2010, 05:47:03 AM »
ReplyReply

The true to be told I found the Hasselblad surprisingly good for a Medium format camera.  This is a CCD against an cmos sensor. When cmos become universal  there were a shock about the impossible good low light performance. Not to differ with you in the bottom line. But I din't  expected the H4D-40 to be competitive at ISO 400 @ low light.

This is down to the Kodak KAF-40000 sensor used in the H4D-40, and the Pentax 645D. It gains one stop over most MF backs by virtue of its microlenses. And about another stop by virtue of its lower readnoise (which is still way worse than a good CMOS sensor though). So ISO 1600 on the H4D-40 & Pentax is like ISO400 on a 'typical' MFD back, and ISO 400 is approaching 'typical' ISO 100.

Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4058



« Reply #59 on: October 20, 2010, 05:57:42 AM »
ReplyReply

This is down to the Kodak KAF-40000 sensor used in the H4D-40, and the Pentax 645D. It gains one stop over most MF backs by virtue of its microlenses. And about another stop by virtue of its lower readnoise (which is still way worse than a good CMOS sensor though). So ISO 1600 on the H4D-40 & Pentax is like ISO400 on a 'typical' MFD back, and ISO 400 is approaching 'typical' ISO 100.



How does this compare with the KAF-37500 in the Leica S2?

Edmund
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad