Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad with large reduction of prices  (Read 13540 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2012, 02:48:15 PM »
ReplyReply

... cramming 36MP into a FF35mm sensor ...
Please explain why you use the DPReview-style pejorative "cramming" when the evidence very much suggests that pixel-for-pixel, the photosites of the D800(E) overall perform better than the photosites of the CCD in any DMF back.

Whatever happened to the good old days, when people welcomed new emulsions of higher resolution, instead of hurling insults at such options without, apparently, having even tried them? That included the welcome given to some new black-and-white film emulsions of higher resolution than the D800(E) sensor, so I think we can rule out the idea that 35mm lens systems cannot make use of this much resolution.
Logged
jimgolden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2012, 06:39:42 PM »
ReplyReply

i welcomed the 5d, 5d2, Nion, Sony, but 22-24 is the limit. these are my real world working pro results, the H3D2 that I use yields better results for the way I work. I use the FF35 for anything applicable, but IMO, 22-24 is the limit -the canon and the Sony look good, the Nikon, meh.

I would gladly welcome some new film emulsions as I shoot a lot of 120 film as well.

remember DP review when it was independent and no one knew about? those were the days...

Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2012, 06:59:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why you'd say that Jim.  The D800's sensor is better in every respect than the D3x's, which was the 35mm standard.  And the better lenses take full advantage of it.

Sensor technology is a fast-moving field where real advances are being made, beyond pixel-count.  It's just that the cost dictates that's it's been mostly the big camera companies who are making the advances. Hasselblad has not done anything innovative in back or sensor tech for.....ages.  That doesn't reduce the existing utility of their devices - which we all agreed, and still agree, are superb image-producers - but the sensors on 35mm cameras and APS-C cameras are catching up fast, and to a shocking extent.

Cheers,

- N.

ps. really nice work on your site - especially like the portraits
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2012, 09:31:12 PM »
ReplyReply

i welcomed the 5d, 5d2, Nion, Sony, but 22-24 is the limit.
Again I ask why that particular number is the limit? It makes no sense to me in the face of evidence that the D800 delivers significantly more resolution that any 24MP camera, and with very good per pixel performance for dynamic range, noise levels, and such. I see no evidence that even 36MP is the limit, given how well 18MP sensors in APS-C format perform.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3969



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2012, 02:58:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think sensors are that expensive or complicated to design, like memory chips they consist essentially of a small number of replicated  cells.
For a sensor you need a team of a few very specialized guys, rather than a big team which is the case for processors.

I think the real issue which led to the dearth of sensors has been cultural. Camera companies made cameras, film companies made film.
Minolta fused with Konica, Sony bought both teams, then they went into the sensor business.

A generation of cameras is coming which will be a block of metal with a sensor at one end and a lens mount on the other, with all control functions handed off via a wireless iphone interface.
When these cameras finally arrive, the camera corps will be forced to go into sensors to differentiate their offerings. Or, like the personal computer firms when came the PC, they will die.


Edmund


Not sure why you'd say that Jim.  The D800's sensor is better in every respect than the D3x's, which was the 35mm standard.  And the better lenses take full advantage of it.

Sensor technology is a fast-moving field where real advances are being made, beyond pixel-count.  It's just that the cost dictates that's it's been mostly the big camera companies who are making the advances. Hasselblad has not done anything innovative in back or sensor tech for.....ages.  That doesn't reduce the existing utility of their devices - which we all agreed, and still agree, are superb image-producers - but the sensors on 35mm cameras and APS-C cameras are catching up fast, and to a shocking extent.

Cheers,

- N.

ps. really nice work on your site - especially like the portraits
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 04:52:36 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1407


« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2012, 03:05:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Again I ask why that particular number is the limit? It makes no sense to me in the face of evidence that the D800 delivers significantly more resolution that any 24MP camera, and with very good per pixel performance for dynamic range, noise levels, and such. I see no evidence that even 36MP is the limit, given how well 18MP sensors in APS-C format perform.

It is not only about the sensor.

Lenses. There are those that say that we are no-way near outresolving lenses and those that say we're already way past it. The difference seems to be that the first look at the center portion of lenses and the latter into the corners. Short DOF photographers (portraits etc) typically don't need so much corner sharpness (corners usually out of focus anyway), while landscape and still life photographers want it badly. When current D3x lens tests show less than impressive corner performance of many lenses it does not look too good for the D800. There are some lenses that look good (85mm looks great!), but how many are there and which focal lengths? We'll see over time.

On the other hand MF SLR-type of lenses don't seem overly impressive in this regard either. The best performers seems to be tech cam Rodenstock lenses.

Concerning short DOF there's another aspect to consider though. f/2.8 on a 54x41mm sensor is about f/1.8 on a 36x24mm if you want same DOF. Isn't it so that MF lenses are sharper also in the center at f/2.8 than 135 lenses at f/1.8?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 08:17:04 AM by torger » Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2012, 06:07:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think sensors are that expensive or complicated to design, like memory chips they consist essentially of a small number of replicated  cells.
For a sensor you need a team of a few very specialized guys, rather than a big team which is the case for processors.

I think the real issue which led to the dearth of sensors has been cultural. Camera companies made cameras, film companies made film.
Minolta fused with Konica, Sony bought both teams, then they went into the sensor business.

A generation of cameras is coming which will be a block of metal with a sensor at one end and a lens mount on the other, with all control functions handed off via a wireless iphone interface.
When these cameras finally arrive, the camera corps will be forced to go into sensors to differentiate their offerings. Or, like the personal computer firms when came the PC, they will die.


Edmund



+1
I agree with you
Logged

Best regards,
DF

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

Posts: 293


« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2012, 06:19:42 AM »
ReplyReply

i welcomed the 5d, 5d2, Nion, Sony, but 22-24 is the limit. these are my real world working pro results, the H3D2 that I use yields better results for the way I work. I use the FF35 for anything applicable, but IMO, 22-24 is the limit -the canon and the Sony look good, the Nikon, meh.

I would gladly welcome some new film emulsions as I shoot a lot of 120 film as well.

remember DP review when it was independent and no one knew about? those were the days...



I used to believe that it will be pretty hard to produce a sensor / chipset combination better than the D3x on the digital 35mm format. So I was expecting a long time will pass before it could be done.  I remembering opening the D3x files for first time. The files were great, pulling shadows was simple amazing.

The Canons are great too, and they produce far less texture (skin textures, less preprocessing, but I do want the textures to be there and don't plan of getting rid of them ) that the Nikon or Sony cameras.  They also have fantastic auto white balance (that for me destroys the quality of light, I want the moody yellow lights to produce the effect, but most people don't )

Now the D800 files may lack and specific character, but they are very good.  It seems to me that you don't believe that the D3x files are any good. That is proof  positive  that it will be a supper challenge for Nikon to produce any machine that you find any  good.

The old backs are very good in a pixel per pixel basis. The backs use to have big photosites. That is no longer the case. Of all the professionals and serious amateurs I interact with, you are the only one that find the D3x /D800 files to be just "meh". A lot of them prefer the Canon looks, or the Canon system or the Sony lenses or Hasselblad, but that don't make the Nikon files bad: Not the D3x or the D800.  

I just wanted to add a link to the opinions of someone we are familiar with. He is, as we know a medium format lover and has a very good understanding of his system (Phase one).  He is not seen the D800 (I typed  D3x in error) as better than Phase (better for what will be the question) but find the files to be very good:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html

Note that he is not showing professional grade Photos, in that forum he is just walking the camera. The results are good, but it's fun.
Best regards,

J. Duncan
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 08:38:22 PM by jduncan » Logged

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

Posts: 3969



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 25, 2012, 08:19:42 AM »
ReplyReply


Of all the professionals and serious amateurs I interact with, you are the only one that find the D3x /D800 files to be just "meh". A lot of them prefer the Canon looks, or the Canon system or the Sony lenses or Hasselblad, but that don't make the Nikon files bad: Not the D3x or the D800.  


I have a D3x. The files are "meh".
It will always take a decent "meh" picture.
The exposure will be good, sharpness will be good, focus will be superb unless you really ask the impossible.

If you need a decent picture the D3x is great. If you need a great picture, the D3x is decent.

I also have a D4. The camera appears to have some sensor-related issues; however when they are taken into account, the files of people are superb.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293


« Reply #49 on: May 25, 2012, 08:43:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a D3x. The files are "meh".
It will always take a decent "meh" picture.
The exposure will be good, sharpness will be good, focus will be superb unless you really ask the impossible.

If you need a decent picture the D3x is great. If you need a great picture, the D3x is decent.

I also have a D4. The camera appears to have some sensor-related issues; however when they are taken into account, the files of people are superb.

Edmund


Ok, Ok,  I know two.   Smiley
 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see MEH.
   Look up meh in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
"Meh" is an interjection, often used as an expression of indifference or boredom. It can also be used to indicate agreement or disagreement. It can also be used as a verb, (rendering something uninteresting or boring) and an adjective, meaning mediocre or boring.[1]



Wo will say,

Best regards,

J. Duncan
Logged

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

Posts: 5124


« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2012, 10:11:47 AM »
ReplyReply

It is not only about the sensor.

Lenses. There are those that say that we are no-way near outresolving lenses and those that say we're already way past it.
I agree that lenses are likely to be the ultimate limit on useful sensor resolution in a given format. But the evidence (like that you describe) is clear so far that the D800 gives significant improvements in resolution over 35mm format sensors of 24MP or less from a wide variety of lenses, even though the extent of the improvement is less towards the corners, less with some lenses that others, and less at the extremes of the aperture range (due to diffraction at small apertures, lens aberrations at large ones).

I am mystified by the idea that there is a "natural limit" on sensor resolution for a given format at a point (22-24MP?) beyond which clear further gains in resolution are possible, simply because the extent of the gains varies with the circumstances.

After all, differences in lens resolution were clearly visible with film, and even with films of less that the highest resolution. Especially when one examines the corners of the larger prints encouraged by higher resolution films. Yet no one suggested that new higher resolution, finer grained films went past some natural resolution limit (of, say 83 lp/mm, which is the absolute upper limit for a 24MP sensor in 35mm format.)

I will repeat that the D800(E) does not even match the resolution of some monochrome films. For example, TMAX 100 and 400 have distinctly higher resolution and better MTF than the D800 or D800E, and I have never heard of anyone criticize those films as going beyond some natural resolution limit imposed by lenses.

For comparison:
- a 24MP sensor in 35mm format has pixel pitch of 6 microns, so an absolute upper resolution limit of 1000/12 = 83 lp/mm
- a 36MP sensor in 35mm format like the D800's has upper resolution limit of just under 100 lp/mm
- TMAX 100 has MTF of 70% or better all the way to 100 lp/mm, and MTF 50% or better up to 125 lp/mm
- TMAX 400 has MTF of 50% or better to beyond 100 lp/mm
And in reality, Bayer CFA demosaicing reduces the resolution of those sensors below those maximum (Nyquist) values.

It will be time to complain about "excessive sensor resolution" when sensors surpass the resolution of _all_ the films that have been popular in 35mm format for the sake of their high resolution.
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1407


« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2012, 12:09:56 PM »
ReplyReply

It will be time to complain about "excessive sensor resolution" when sensors surpass the resolution of _all_ the films that have been popular in 35mm format for the sake of their high resolution.

As I have noted before, in principle I agree with you. However I'm kind of starting to change my view on this a bit.

The thing with film is that detail is still there past the grain which gives it a forgiving character, and also how it was handled in post-processing was also more forgiving. Digital is not forgiving at all, it's easy to pixel peep and see very small variations in sharpness. With digital everyone is much more aware of the resolution.

Digital post-processing workflows of today expects a reasonably sharp input file (for sharpening to work well etc), and customers also expect that a 50 megapixel file has twice the resolution of 25. A high quality file is one that look sharp at 100%, that is what we expect.

I don't think we are there yet in technology and mindset that digital file megapixel count should not mean anything concerning actual image resolution. 24 megapixel APS-C and 36 megapixel 35mm digital is working in the direction to change that though Wink
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2012, 01:33:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I used to believe that it will be pretty hard to produce a sensor / chipset combination better than the D3x on the digital 35mm format. So I was expecting a long time will pass before it could be done.  I remembering opening the D3x files for first time. The files were great, pulling shadows was simple amazing.

The Canons are great too, and they produce far less texture (skin textures, less preprocessing, but I do want the textures to be there and don't plan of getting rid of them ) that the Nikon or Sony cameras.  They also have fantastic auto white balance (that for me destroys the quality of light, I want the moody yellow lights to produce the effect, but most people don't )

Now the D800 files may lack and specific character, but they are very good.  It seems to me that you don't believe that the D3x files are any good. That is proof  positive  that it will be a supper challenge for Nikon to produce any machine that you find any  good.

The old backs are very good in a pixel per pixel basis. The backs use to have big photosites. That is no longer the case. Of all the professionals and serious amateurs I interact with, you are the only one that find the D3x /D800 files to be just "meh". A lot of them prefer the Canon looks, or the Canon system or the Sony lenses or Hasselblad, but that don't make the Nikon files bad: Not the D3x or the D800.  

I just wanted to add a link to the opinions of someone we are familiar with. He is, as we know a medium format lover and has a very good understanding of his system (Phase one).  He is not seen the D800 (I typed  D3x in error) as better than Phase (better for what will be the question) but find the files to be very good:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html

Note that he is not showing professional grade Photos, in that forum he is just walking the camera. The results are good, but it's fun.
Best regards,

J. Duncan

My ears where ringing. LOL

Its been a bit since I started that thread and now with C1 under the D800 blanket things have really improved a lot. The D800 is the best thing going in 35mm world PERIOD. Im sorry the D3x is old hat ( not bad just dated) and we can't compare it to the new sensor the new sensor just being a lot better in many ways. Some things have changed since I shot Nikon last I think the D300 but some of the new G lenses are amazingly good . Yes the 85 1.4 is a standout and I just did get the older version of the 200 F2 lens as well and they are really good on this sensor. Like anything else in the higher pixel range we just need to put good glass in front on these high resolving sensors to get the most from them. The D800 is absolutely no exception to this it begs for good glass. So if you get one don't try to cheap it out fit it properly and it will do a very good job for you. Yes to answer the age old question is it MF well no its not but it is very very good and the closing in hard on it. The MF world still enjoys the nice tonal range and great neutral color that we get in almost all the backs. Nikon needs a touch of work here but outside of that the DR is amazingly good and some would say better , you won't see me argue that point either its damn good. Also the noise floor will smoke any MF back since there simply is no noise until you hit ISO 800 or more so your shadows are very good and noise free. So overall the quote of the day to a lot of people that have them and also have MF systems the bottom line is its good enough and have to say in some cases its very true. I still shoot with my tech cam and still love my Phase back no question about it but I look at this in several ways it replaced 3 systems down to 2 systems for me and use the Nikons for a lot of stuff it has hit a tipping point of 36mpx that I can for lack of a better word cheat the DF system and not use it now. This has saved me money and actually built up the 35mm kit I always had but now its a lot better and for a lot of gigs its just what I need. Sure I have downgraded some without the DF kit but its also not the easiest kit to shoot and the 35mm kit is just more versatile . Where else are you going to get a 200F 2 in MF , it just don't exist.

But I am not giving up the tech cam and my Phase back I did downgrade to the 140 since I really don't have to deal with crop lines in the finder anymore as its tech cam only and 40 mpx is a sweet spot for me but I did love the 160 no question. But the extra 20 mpx was nice to have but not really needed I was avoiding the crop back than as I shot the Df.

Anyway I see a lot of people struggling with this D800 on the acceptance level and I can certainly understand some of it, but reality is its very good its a fence sitter for some or it tips the scales in favor of 35mm now and it also is a supplement to our MF kits. I understand many sides of this coin toss . Its a great new sensor with some great new lenses and its not the old Nikon we knew of and Canon folks should be watching closely. It adds a new element to the scene but it also adds use with care like a MF system as well. Your capturing 36 mpx now and it will soak up shutter speeds. I found that out the other day shooting the 200 on a monopod and I am a rock as far as holding cameras but it did not like 1/125 too much which in the past I could do with a older less mpx kit. Not now it was far better at the 1/200 range so just like MF it wants some shutter speed to handle the mpx size. But again being a MF owner for several years now with a lot of backs the Nikon is classified as good enough in my book. Its not MF and MF is not Nikon. Enjoy the day.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3969



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2012, 05:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Guy,

 You always like the latest thing best.
 I agree that the D800 is a big step forward.
 But most of us learnt out lesson with the 5DII: Any high-end prosumer model can get within the range of an MF solution for 1/10 the price.

Edmund

My ears where ringing. LOL

Its been a bit since I started that thread and now with C1 under the D800 blanket things have really improved a lot. The D800 is the best thing going in 35mm world PERIOD. Im sorry the D3x is old hat ( not bad just dated) and we can't compare it to the new sensor the new sensor just being a lot better in many ways. Some things have changed since I shot Nikon last I think the D300 but some of the new G lenses are amazingly good . Yes the 85 1.4 is a standout and I just did get the older version of the 200 F2 lens as well and they are really good on this sensor. Like anything else in the higher pixel range we just need to put good glass in front on these high resolving sensors to get the most from them. The D800 is absolutely no exception to this it begs for good glass. So if you get one don't try to cheap it out fit it properly and it will do a very good job for you. Yes to answer the age old question is it MF well no its not but it is very very good and the closing in hard on it. The MF world still enjoys the nice tonal range and great neutral color that we get in almost all the backs. Nikon needs a touch of work here but outside of that the DR is amazingly good and some would say better , you won't see me argue that point either its damn good. Also the noise floor will smoke any MF back since there simply is no noise until you hit ISO 800 or more so your shadows are very good and noise free. So overall the quote of the day to a lot of people that have them and also have MF systems the bottom line is its good enough and have to say in some cases its very true. I still shoot with my tech cam and still love my Phase back no question about it but I look at this in several ways it replaced 3 systems down to 2 systems for me and use the Nikons for a lot of stuff it has hit a tipping point of 36mpx that I can for lack of a better word cheat the DF system and not use it now. This has saved me money and actually built up the 35mm kit I always had but now its a lot better and for a lot of gigs its just what I need. Sure I have downgraded some without the DF kit but its also not the easiest kit to shoot and the 35mm kit is just more versatile . Where else are you going to get a 200F 2 in MF , it just don't exist.

But I am not giving up the tech cam and my Phase back I did downgrade to the 140 since I really don't have to deal with crop lines in the finder anymore as its tech cam only and 40 mpx is a sweet spot for me but I did love the 160 no question. But the extra 20 mpx was nice to have but not really needed I was avoiding the crop back than as I shot the Df.

Anyway I see a lot of people struggling with this D800 on the acceptance level and I can certainly understand some of it, but reality is its very good its a fence sitter for some or it tips the scales in favor of 35mm now and it also is a supplement to our MF kits. I understand many sides of this coin toss . Its a great new sensor with some great new lenses and its not the old Nikon we knew of and Canon folks should be watching closely. It adds a new element to the scene but it also adds use with care like a MF system as well. Your capturing 36 mpx now and it will soak up shutter speeds. I found that out the other day shooting the 200 on a monopod and I am a rock as far as holding cameras but it did not like 1/125 too much which in the past I could do with a older less mpx kit. Not now it was far better at the 1/200 range so just like MF it wants some shutter speed to handle the mpx size. But again being a MF owner for several years now with a lot of backs the Nikon is classified as good enough in my book. Its not MF and MF is not Nikon. Enjoy the day.
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2012, 06:33:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey I would not touch a Canon even with your hand. LOL

If you only knew how many I do not like. LOL
Logged

pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2012, 09:15:35 PM »
ReplyReply

This same discussion flared up when the D3X came out, people proclaiming the death of medium format. 35mm DSLR's are catching up to the lower end of the MFD market made up of cameras that are 3 or so years old. I'm looking forward to seeing the next generation of MFD cameras from Hasselblad, I like their cameras for much more than just the image quality.

I also remember seeing this test comparing a H3D-31 and Nikon D3x, I know which one I would rather have:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35603809
Logged
Kagetsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2012, 12:41:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I seem to recall it happening with the 645D from Pentax as well.

there's never one particular reason to choose a MFD over 35mmD. Sure they have resolution approaching the mid range MFD, but there's still plenty to keep us on MFD. I think it's a good thing what Nikon have done, but it's not going to make me feel like I've made the wrong choice going the route I have.
Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #57 on: June 01, 2012, 12:51:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes very true, the 645D was supposed to spell the end of all other medium format cameras. I believe that same argument is slowly surfacing again with rumours stating there will be a 645D successor soon.

I'm pretty sure the argument comes up that 'full frame' cameras are defunct too because APS is so good. I wonder when the argument will be between mobile phones and APS...

Still I'm looking at getting a Panasonic GX1, not because the IQ is as good as my Hassy, it's just much more comfortable putting it in a pocket.
Logged
jmd56
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2012, 12:05:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I worked with Hasselblad direct too. It was very pleasant and
saved me money vs the local dealer. To their credit, the local
dealer is also very pleasant, but reality is most people buy 35mm
from the dealer ... and their inventory proves it, so they have no incentive
to save me money like H did. I just asked Hasselblad for a deal, and H came through.
I probably got lucky on the purchase timing too...

James
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad