Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Pentax 645D vs Hasselblad H4D-40 vs Phase One P45+ w/645AF  (Read 18605 times)
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2010, 10:16:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Dick,

Some what arrogant comment to make Dick.

I’m a Pro and I use Nikon.

Cheers

Simon
Yes, perhaps... but it is nice that the forum generally take such remarks with good humor.

I see that your site says:

"We also have the latest Leaf Aptus 75 digital system consisting of 33 million pixels of incredible resolution"

So... it seems that you do not use Nikon for everything.
Logged

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

Posts: 537



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2010, 01:02:55 PM »
ReplyReply


The H4D-60 is not as good at high ISO as the H4D-40, but it is still usable hand-held in good ambient light with a 300mm.

Sure, at 1/640th of a second. Below that it will not be critically sharp unless you are in rigor mortis.

And Dick, Simon is a skilled professional. The forum benefits from the participation of individuals such as him. If you wish to participate in these conversations, please govern yourself with the rule of courtesy. 

- N.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 01:04:54 PM by ndevlin » Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2010, 02:41:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The H4D-60 is not as good at high ISO as the H4D-40, but it is still usable hand-held in good ambient light with a 300mm.

Sure, at 1/640th of a second. Below that it will not be critically sharp unless you are in rigor mortis.
Yes... there comes a point where you have to use high ISO to get the compromise between noise, camera shake and DOF, and you you might not produce better picture than you could with a Point-and-shoot.
Quote
And Dick, Simon is a skilled professional. The forum benefits from the participation of individuals such as him. If you wish to participate in these conversations, please govern yourself with the rule of courtesy. 
- N.
Yes, I appreciate Simon and his contributions here.
Logged

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

Posts: 8188



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2010, 04:18:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes... there comes a point where you have to use high ISO to get the compromise between noise, camera shake and DOF, and you you might not produce better picture than you could with a Point-and-shoot.

It should be clear that the sweet spot for this is currently FX bodies and will be DX bodies soon. Not only is the high ISO quality superior today, but the pace of improvement relative to other formats has been accelerating.

The reason is probably that the companies working on these have the technology and sell enough volumes to generate the funds needed to keep investing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 537



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2010, 08:30:22 PM »
ReplyReply


If Pentax is able to scale their sensor-based stabilization technology up to the 645D, it will be an amazing advance. This won't solve the shutter vibration issue, but will sure help otherwise. 

I found that the breeze was an issue with the 300mm lenses when out testing last week. (ugh)

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
TorontoSam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2010, 09:05:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Guys,

Thank you for all your ideas, warnings, comments and support for helping me to search for a MF camera.  Your kind effort is much appreciated.  Being a current 1Ds3 owner, I would like to share my findings and thoughts about the H4D-40.  I am no professional writer.  Nevertheless, here we go.....

Picked up the camera from the downtown dealer on Friday afternoon.  Many thanks to the fine gentleman at the dealer for lending me the camera along with the 80mm and 28mm lenses.  The camera did not come with a manual and I did not bother to look one up on the web.  Also, I did not spend a lot of time to learn about Phocus.  I will tell you why in just a minute....

Weight: The weight doesn't bother me as it is comparable to my 1Ds3 with a bigger lens.  It is totally hand-holdable;

Ergonomics: Reasonably ok but not quite as good as the digital 35mm SLR's I have used.  Still can't figure out how to change to P, AV, TV, etc....  Currently, the camera is set at Manual.

Image Quality: Excellent, if you have the correct settings.  Tons of details.  I did not shoot under studio lighting.  I shot some pictures outside and some even with the Canon 580EX around my house.  In case you are interested, the 580 actually works very well shoe-mounted with manual controls.

Autofocus Tracking: I am not a pro shooting inside a studio.  I am very busy with my own non-photography related work.  I just love to take pictures of my family and kids and want the best possible IQ.  I also do landscapes and travel but being able to take pictures of the kids in random motion can definitely not be ignored.  I regrettably have to tell you that focus tracking is very challenging.  I just wasn’t able to get it right with much patience.  That’s when I pretty much stopped learning more about the camera and Phocus.

True Focus: I have to be fair.  True Focus is excellent.  It really does its job right.  What a great system!  This is perfect for doing studio work.

White Balance: I just can't locate Auto WB.  Maybe there is no auto WB.  It is a pain for not having it.  Maybe it is there just that I can't find it.

Others:  Battery life is a bit short.  With the current promotion happening in North America, I honestly think pricing is reasonable too.
I really hope that Hassy can do better with their AF Tracking.  People will tell me that it is designed for studio use.    However, if it can perform better AF Tracking, I can be sure they will sell more.

Conclusion: I like the resolution and built quality of the camera and lenses.  It is perfect for doing models and products inside a studio.  It will also be great for any non-moving objects such as landscape and travel.  However, it is not all rounded like my 1Ds3.  I cannot use it to shoot a soccer game of my kids.  It would be perfect to have a camera with the Hassy resolution and 1Ds3 features.  I guess now Pentax 645D will be my last hope with this MF dream.  Thank you so much again for all your help.


Sam
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2010, 10:35:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Two questions...

1.) How big is your printer? To tell the difference between a 1Ds3 and a theoretically perfect camera will take a very large print. I'd guess that a 1Ds3 will saturate even a 17" printer (no way to tell the 1Ds3 from any possible "better" camera on a 16x24 from a normal viewing distance). The difference will start to become apparent with a 24" printer, but that is a floorstanding beast.

2.) Are you willing to wait 6 months for what Canon comes out with next? Nikon's (24.6 mp, but image quality that is even higher than that pixel count suggests) D3x has substantially better image quality than the 1Ds3 (especially if you're willing to use the 14-bit mode which slows the D3x down to 1.5 fps). Canon will replace the 3 year old 1Ds3 sometime in the next 6 months, and they will need to beat the (already 2 year old) D3x. I predict somewhere around 30-32 mp, with a full-speed (5 fps) 14 bit mode and the dynamic range of a D3x (which is as good as any but the very best medium format). Because of diffraction and antialiasing filters, that won't be QUITE the image quality of a 31 mp MF system, but it'll be right in between the D3x and 31 mp MF. The D3x already makes stunning 24x36 inch prints, so the new Canon almost certainly will as well (with the right lenses, a caveat that applies to any of the top "35mm" type cameras). At that point, you'd need a 44" printer the size of an upright piano to make a print that shows the difference between the "1Ds4" and medium format. There's at least one reasonably priced (by these rarified standards) 44" printer out there - Canon's own iPF 8300. I just bought one (haven't even gotten it fully set up yet), and the one big caveat is that the darned thing is literally the size and weight of a very ugly piano. Coming from a 24" printer, I was very surprised at how huge the 8300 is - I knew it was 6 feet long, but I had NO idea just how squat, stocky and sturdy it was. If you want a printer like that, it goes in its own room (fortunately, I have a spare bedroom it can live in)!

Unless you are willing to make the commitment to a 44" printer, the "1Ds4" will be plenty of camera for almost any purpose (and will have truly superb AF tracking). Even with a 44" printer, it should do pretty darned well. Note that a 40x60" print is so large that you can't easily mat around it - it has to be framed without border because mat board only gets to 40x60" (until you get to really odd stuff). Even with a 44" printer and a lot of landscapes that lend themselves to big prints, I'm sure that less than 10% of my printing will be 30x45, 36x54 and 40x60, simply due to the handling problems. My bread and butter print sizes will be 12x18, 16x24 and 24x36, any of which a "1Ds4" will handle just fine (I bought the big printer mostly for the ink cost savings, and only secondarily for the maximum print size, although 24x36 canvas wraps (which need extra image size) are a nice capability to have).
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2010, 03:51:07 AM »
ReplyReply

1.) ...The difference will start to become apparent with a 24" printer, but that is a floorstanding beast.
I have a 24" floor-standing beast, and I would regard 18* 24" @ 360 original cameras per print inch as the "native" print size, with 24 * 36" as another option.
Quote
2.)...you'd need a 44" printer the size of an upright piano to make a print that shows the difference between the "1Ds4" and medium format.
I am thinking I am about to get a 48Mpx MS, which should look good on a 44" @ 180 original camera pixels per print inch, when I can find the room and the budget for the 44" printer.

...and what is this "normal viewing distance?

...If people see a picture of mine, and they are drawn in to look at detail, I do not want the print to look awful when they put their reading glasses on.

Do not compare digital with film, or MF with small format ...compare your pictures with the one to three square meter old master oils of hundreds of years ago.
Logged

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

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2011, 09:13:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I cannot use it to shoot a soccer game of my kids.

For that purpose I'd get myself a D3S or a Sony SLT.
MF will make you lose a lot of shots due to unsharp focus.
What do you have from the superior quality of a MF system
when you won't be able to get proper focus in a heated sports
or other kid action situation? What about the low framerate of a MF Camera?
I believe you will most likely miss a lot of shots and
not get the quality you desire because you are going
to use the wrong tool.

"Horse for courses" I believe is the right proverb here.


Just my $ 0.02


Cheers
Chris
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2011, 05:04:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Dick,
The Old Masters did not paint with the complete detail of a photograph. I bet if we are talking pixels probably about 10mpx. They put the detail in where it was needed, not every leaf, blade of grass or nostril hair is recorded.  The colour palette was used as much to convey detail as individual drawn detail. The impression of detail is huge but actual detail not as grand as you might think. Most of it is the "Wow" factor of it being nothing but a build up of paint by the human eye and hand, to portray light and shade, delicacy and boldness, mood and atmosphere in a convincing way such as has you are left wondering how did they do that?
That's how I see it.
Photography and Photographers like to think the more detail resolved the more real and better the picture is, hence 80 mpx. Which I think is fine if they bring more colour range, more subtle change to a picture, if it's just to count more leaves on distant trees I don't see the point. Who else but photographers and the socially challenged judge a picture on insane levels of detail?

Kevin.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 06:54:31 AM by KevinA » Logged

Kevin.
NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2011, 05:41:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Excuse me for adding my penny's worth. I know you said AF is important but for landscape, is it, especially with wide angles with a lot of DOF for a given f stop, and you want to be aware of where you are placing the point of focus anyway. Anyway, if you can accept that premise, try the ZE Carl Zeiss lenses with your 1Ds3 before committing to MF. I've just acquired a 35/2 and a 21/2.8 - absolutely brilliant, well at A2 at least. And BTW, the wavy distortion on the 21mm clears with one click in ACR.
Logged
Akvinat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2012, 04:15:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not a pro shooting inside a studio.  I am very busy with my own non-photography related work.  I just love to take pictures of my family and kids and want the best possible IQ.  I also do landscapes and travel but being able to take pictures of the kids in random motion can definitely not be ignored.
You might want to consider another lenses rather than another camera.
For landscapes and travel Zeiss ZE and Voigtlander APO-Lanthar lenses could give you a better image quality and different "look", while you could still have Canon USM lenses with fast AF to take pictures of the kids - and all that in one system.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad