Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: H2&P45+ or H4d-40?  (Read 10147 times)
pipzz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« on: September 20, 2011, 06:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Thinking to jump in MFD world sometime in the future (not planning to use tech cameras)

Any recommendation or hands-on experience regarding IQ, handling, tethering? Thanks.
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 642


« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2011, 07:31:26 AM »
ReplyReply

With the H2 you won't be able to use the 28mm and 35-90mm lenses, you won't have True Focus nor the magnified viewfinder.  You will still be able to shoot film though and the P45+ is supposedly the best back for long exposures.  The ISO performance of the H4D-40 on the other hand should be significantly better though.  Is there any particular reason like long exposures why you are targeting the P45+ and not the P40+.  The latter would give you access to the Sensor+ technology.
Logged
pipzz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2011, 07:46:22 AM »
ReplyReply

>  Is there any particular reason like long exposures why you are targeting the P45+ and not the P40+.

P45+ just have bigger sensor over P40+. (P45+ Image quality should be better?)

Phase has solid tethering, but P45+ is about 6 year old. Compare to new H4D-40. I like Hassy colors over PhaseOne. P45+ has very natural color, but Hassy delivers painting like colors which I like. At least what I saw online.

But P45+ gives cleaner low ligh shots over H4D-40 or not?
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 642


« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2011, 07:51:01 AM »
ReplyReply

No, the contrary, the H4D-40 should be significantly better in low light situations.
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2011, 08:11:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Thinking to jump in MFD world sometime in the future (not planning to use tech cameras)

Any recommendation or hands-on experience regarding IQ, handling, tethering? Thanks.

Jump in into P1 system :-)
No connection problems, no problems with the software. Think only on whether H2 is a good way. Perfect lenses appear to P1  Grin
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
pipzz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2011, 09:22:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jump in into P1 system :-)
No connection problems, no problems with the software. Think only on whether H2 is a good way. Perfect lenses appear to P1  Grin

Ones I'll see 28mm LS from Schneider and P1 colors like Hassy (IQ180 is already close to that), I'll be in.

Indeed I like 1/1600 full sync and Scnheider lenses.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2011, 05:36:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Thinking to jump in MFD world sometime in the future (not planning to use tech cameras)

Any recommendation or hands-on experience regarding IQ, handling, tethering? Thanks.
All the above opinions/quotes have their point and are right in their POV, I only want to add that in my opinion the OP should have been between the H2/P40+ or the H4D40, In photography you can't compare backs/cameras that have been designed to perform different tasks because then everybody advising you will be doing so according to his needs. If you compare a nearly FF sensor with a 1.3X crop sensor your lenses, perspective and general approach to photography have completely different needs! My advise to you would be not to go for a "closed" system, (I mean "cost-wise") because then, there will be sometime where you will want to add or upgrade to that system and then you'll find yourself trapped to what maybe very expensive solutions! If I was you I would do what I did 5 years ago adapted for today. First I would choose a camera system that has many choices of backs and lenses while at the same time would have superb dedicated lenses, to my view this would leave no other choice than the HassV, or Contax645, or Mamiya645 path, mind you that if my choice was for the first, I could always go for a body of the others and use my Hass V lenses on both via an inexpensive adapter! Alternatively I could choose any of the 645s and use (carefully selected) CZJ lenses, or HassV lenses or the dedicated ones. On all the above choices, the alternative use of film wouldn't be a problem at all.
   For digital back I would first decide the use of it, if the use would be for all aspects of photography, I would probably go for the P40+, if however I would have low light photography covered with a DSLR like the D700 (which I have, with faster lenses too...), then the advantages I would look for my MF back would be only for low ISO, superb resolution and DR, this would lead me to choose between the P45+, Aptus75/7, CF39/39MS, Sinar75 and maybe include the "lower resolution FF 22mpx" versions of them in my choices that perhaps don't lack anything else than resolution from their bigger brothers. Between those backs the Sinars and CFs have the added advantage of interchangeable fits for many different cameras, the Aptus has the best screen and the P1s are great for reeeeaaly long exposures, the CF/Imacons have alternative MS versions without sacrificing mobility, which to some (like me since that's what I use on my C645) can be irreplaceable! I guess thats all, needs gives the solution! Cheers Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Some people think that they should avoid 22mpx MF, because they feel its now comparable with FF DSLRs, .......they are under the influence of wrong impressions. There is just NO IQ COMPARISON whatsoever! 
Logged
paul_jones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2011, 05:54:32 PM »
ReplyReply

i don't know anything about phocus, but all the assistants i talk to that get to use both systems regularly (in NZ i guess theres about 50% phase/hassy) say capture one is quite a bit better than phocus. Phocus is getting better, but still buggy.
I use capture one and its very good. You can scroll and tag images fast, make quick proof jpegs in a second (very useful feature), web galleries, and processes very well. it does take a bit to learn though.

as for backs- the p45+ has very nice files and the frame is almost full (so wide lenses are wider), but it is slow to shoot with, and the iso is very low- 100 max for most things. But being the earlier kodak chip based backs, tethering is very stable- better than the newer dalsa p40+ and p65+- you can literally pull the cable, put it back in and it just keeps going (well it did in earlier versions of C1, I'm sure it still does). both my p40+ and P65+ are a bit more temperamental not to hang the software if you try this with it.
I have heard the hassy backs are a bit touchy to connect as well.

paul
Logged

check my new website
http://www.paulrossjones.com
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2011, 11:10:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I like Hassy colors over PhaseOne. P45+ has very natural color, but Hassy delivers painting like colors which I like. At least what I saw online.

Since both PhaseOne and Hasselblad use the same Kodak family of sensors, with the same Bayer CFA colour dyes, and presumably very similar fixed IR-blocking filters, I expect that any such distinct colour differences you see are mainly due to the post-processing software, not the backs themselves. Since we can tweak colours to our heart's content with just about any software package, then given the same raw materials (photons captured by the same detection bandpasses), we should therefore be able to make a PhaseOne and a Hasselblad image match each other in colour rendering. So I personally would not let impressive colour examples be a major factor in a decision like this. But this would not be the case when comparing images from sensors with distinctly different CFAs, like Dalsa vs. Kodak. And the shapes of the transmission bandpass of the lenses could also play a role, to some extent.

Ray
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2011, 05:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Since both PhaseOne and Hasselblad use the same Kodak family of sensors, with the same Bayer CFA colour dyes, and presumably very similar fixed IR-blocking filters, I expect that any such distinct colour differences you see are mainly due to the post-processing software, not the backs themselves. Since we can tweak colours to our heart's content with just about any software package, then given the same raw materials (photons captured by the same detection bandpasses), we should therefore be able to make a PhaseOne and a Hasselblad image match each other in colour rendering. So I personally would not let impressive colour examples be a major factor in a decision like this. But this would not be the case when comparing images from sensors with distinctly different CFAs, like Dalsa vs. Kodak. And the shapes of the transmission bandpass of the lenses could also play a role, to some extent.

Ray
+1. Color differences are mainly due to glass, my 528C has better color on my contax than on an H1/2 (I have both adapters). The Dalsa 22mpx I used to have on my Sinarback was more neutral than the Kodak 22mpx on my 528c, the later is slightly over saturated, the same was with a P25+ which I've tried on my Contax, this may be an advantage or not depending on taste. P45+ has the same color as P25+, there is a chance that someone will try a Dalsa sensor on one system and a Kodak on the other and conclude that the color difference is due to the different system, while its because of the different sensor. Color differences due to lenses can be noticeable between H and V systems as well (although Hass has tried hard to keep the traditional "Zeiss feel" on H), with the V being closest to the Contax! The Sekors have a different behaviour that reminds me of the Angenioux 35mm I used to own! Regards Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
Logged
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2011, 09:28:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I only want to add that in my opinion the OP should have been between the H2/P40+ or the H4D40,

Just FYI The P40+ and H4d40 are not really comparable, both use very different chips (the H4D40 is a microlensed kodak).

Nick-T

Logged

paul_jones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2011, 10:37:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Just FYI The P40+ and H4d40 are not really comparable, both use very different chips (the H4D40 is a microlensed kodak).

Nick-T



nick, so the h4d is pretty much the same as a p30+ but with more megapixels?  This would make it a very good chip, as the p30+(and non plus) is pretty much the only phase back to do anywhere near 400iso (if you don't count sensor plus mode).

Ive used the p30+ quite a bit, and the p40+ was my last back, the files are a lot different. the p30 is a little softer, and has the extra stop or more iso. the p40+ has a very detailed file, but really can only be used at 100iso or under. even 200 on the p40+ is quite "ungradable". Blacks blot quick, and has to delt with aggressive anti noise treating in capture 1.

paul
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 10:42:23 PM by paul_jones » Logged

check my new website
http://www.paulrossjones.com
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2011, 11:06:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Paul!
I have an H3D31 9same chip as p30+) and like it a lot. i had an H4D40 here for a while and it is a much nicer chip, better colours (new dyes) and probably 2 stops faster than my 31 (ISO wise). Compared the the P40+ (Dalsa chip) there is no contest at high ISO.
here's a (biased) post on the subject:

http://www.nick-t.com/blog/2011/03/h4d40-vs-p40/

Cheers Nick-T

P.S can I borrow your new laptop Smiley
Logged

John.Williams
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


It's your life - make yourself useful!


« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2011, 06:54:18 AM »
ReplyReply

To address the question of the thread (which so quickly seems to be a way to air out dissatisfaction from a few) the two systems produce extremely crisp imagery, I think it is important to recognize that the integration advances present in the H4D may be the most apparent technological difference.

Specifically the ability to lock the focal plane and recompose, then real-time compensation for the new composition to retain the original key focus.

As mentioned, the HCD 28mm and HCD 35-90 Zoom (very useful lens, btw) are designed for the H3D and H4D systems, with the remaining lenses (35mm, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 120macro, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm, 50-110 Zoom, 1.7 teleconverter, 13-26-52mm extension tubes, CF-lens adaptor and Tilt-shift HTS lens adaptor) for the entire H-series, including the H2/P45+ configuration.

Photo assistants in the major markets that I have shown Phocus (and subsequently shot with) they are very comfortable within minutes - yes, it is used regularly; the user interface is very familiar to anyone who has experience shooting with C1 with the tools on the other side from each other.

In some cases it it faster for certain tasks, but let's not split hairs - they are both recommended, used, and deployed by experienced shooters. Some of the grumbling I have seen is from those who have never used it; not exactly a great source to base a decision...

Why guess about it? Download Phocus and check it out yourself - there are minimum hardware requirements, but who would install on a under-powered computer?

Video Time!

John
Logged

(678) 365-0435
jay_dub@mac.com
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2011, 07:12:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Ones I'll see 28mm LS from Schneider and P1 colors like Hassy (IQ180 is already close to that), I'll be in.

Indeed I like 1/1600 full sync and Scnheider lenses.

So I welcome you in our family right now  Grin
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 642


« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2011, 07:27:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Paul!
I have an H3D31 9same chip as p30+) and like it a lot. i had an H4D40 here for a while and it is a much nicer chip, better colours (new dyes) and probably 2 stops faster than my 31 (ISO wise). Compared the the P40+ (Dalsa chip) there is no contest at high ISO.
here's a (biased) post on the subject:

http://www.nick-t.com/blog/2011/03/h4d40-vs-p40/

Cheers Nick-T

P.S can I borrow your new laptop Smiley


Nick,

how should I interpret these 2 stops?  Does it mean that up till 1600 ISO is usable on the H4D-40 compared to 400 ISO for the P30+/H3D-31?  

Thanks, Joris.
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2011, 07:33:08 AM »
ReplyReply


Photo assistants in the major markets that I have shown Phocus (and subsequently shot with) they are very comfortable within minutes - yes, it is used regularly; the user interface is very familiar to anyone who has experience shooting with C1 with the tools on the other side from each other.

In some cases it it faster for certain tasks, but let's not split hairs - they are both recommended, used, and deployed by experienced shooters. Some of the grumbling I have seen is from those who have never used it; not exactly a great source to base a decision...

Why guess about it? Download Phocus and check it out yourself - there are minimum hardware requirements, but who would install on a under-powered computer?

Video Time!

John

At the same ones who have to use Phocus, are more stressed. Instead of focusing on taking pictures, they are praying that nothing had crashed. Overtake the answer, I use both systems, I know very well Phocus and C1.Let's face it, C1 is more polished, more stable. I am not attacking at all Phocus, because it is a very simple program that I like. But I think that missing a few tools, it is not stable ... Of course, "C1" is not perfect. But much more you can rely on this program. You work without stress.
It is proposed to play a program when it is connected to the camera. That's when problems arise. Phocus as a viewer / developer is perfect tool.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 642


« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2011, 07:52:44 AM »
ReplyReply

At the same ones who have to use Phocus, are more stressed. Instead of focusing on taking pictures, they are praying that nothing had crashed. Overtake the answer, I use both systems, I know very well Phocus and C1.Let's face it, C1 is more polished, more stable. I am not attacking at all Phocus, because it is a very simple program that I like. But I think that missing a few tools, it is not stable ... Of course, "C1" is not perfect. But much more you can rely on this program. You work without stress.
It is proposed to play a program when it is connected to the camera. That's when problems arise. Phocus as a viewer / developer is perfect tool.

I use Phocus as well.  I never had it crash on me.  On the contrary C1 frequently crashes on me...
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2011, 08:04:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Just FYI The P40+ and H4d40 are not really comparable, both use very different chips (the H4D40 is a microlensed kodak).

Nick-T


I never said its the same sensor, its both 44x33 and the same res isn't it? That makes them comparable than the P45+ which is larger and obviously non-comparable. I explain that in my quote. Cheers Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2011, 09:39:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I use Phocus as well.  I never had it crash on me.  On the contrary C1 frequently crashes on me...

I'm sorry but I do not believe in such fairy tales. Each program crashes, sooner or later. The question of how often it does.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad