Hasselblad H3D 22mp VS Nikon 800E

[KLaban]

As an aside, I haven't a clue who Mike Sellers is or what he does and haven't a clue which camera would best suit his needs.

[Mike Sellers]

I do nature photography. I am represented by an art licensing agency and one stock agency. In the last few years I have tried the Canon 5D MKII,Contax 645 film and Sony a850. I really liked the ease of use with the Contax. The more buttons,menus and switches there are the more confused I get. I have been looking at medium format digital but have also been looking at the SD1. I read a report on the Sigma SD1 that the files have about the same IQ as 30mp medium format? Anyway,I want another camera for the upcoming fall color season.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It depends a lot on the lens you put in front, how you work and if you have a perfectly aligned sample. The area where Nikon has an advantage is live view and contrast detecting AF, plus flexibility regarding lenses. You have a choice of AF lenses from Nikon and some very fine Zeiss lenses.

My guess is that Nikon would have the edge. But I have tested neither, so I don't know.

Marc McCalmont who is a frequent poster here on this forums seems very satisfied with his D800E.

Best regards
Erik

My need is to print very large prints so between these two cameras which one would produce the best looking file for large prints?
Mike

[KLaban]

I do nature photography.

Static or dynamic?

For static either could work, for dynamic the Nikon would probably be the better choice.

[theguywitha645d]

I do nature photography. I am represented by an art licensing agency and one stock agency. In the last few years I have tried the Canon 5D MKII,Contax 645 film and Sony a850. I really liked the ease of use with the Contax. The more buttons,menus and switches there are the more confused I get. I have been looking at medium format digital but have also been looking at the SD1. I read a report on the Sigma SD1 that the files have about the same IQ as 30mp medium format? Anyway,I want another camera for the upcoming fall color season.

Then you should also think about a Pentax 645D which would make a very nice nature photo system.

The Sigma really does not have the equivalent resolution as a 30MP camera--that is marketing. The other potential problem with the Sigma would be the colors--they are very unique--which may be difficult to match with your other cameras. If you work with single images, that might not be an issue.

[EricWHiss]

The biggest difference between these cameras is going to be in the color and depth.  Recently I had a friend in the studio with a D800E and we compared his files to mine.  The D800e picked up lots of detail and I was impressed by it, however the differences in color were pretty large.  Areas of skin and fabric that had lots of subtle color changes came out flat in the D800E files.  It was weird. You could see the little hairs, strands of fabric, so the detail was there, but the color at 100% was all mushed together.     I'd think that the H3D22 would produce a more pleasing and real looking image at least at base ISO than the nikon.  But how much difference makes its way to the print is hard to say.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Were you using the same raw processor for both?

Resolution test charts tend to show some color fringing on the D800e, at least with LR. The D800 does not seem to have the same problem.

It has also been said that Color grid Array on Nikons may be more optimized for high ISO, while MF sensors may have CGAs that have less overlap.


Best regards
Erik

The biggest difference between these cameras is going to be in the color and depth.  Recently I had a friend in the studio with a D800E and we compared his files to mine.  The D800e picked up lots of detail and I was impressed by it, however the differences in color were pretty large.  Areas of skin and fabric that had lots of subtle color changes came out flat in the D800E files.  It was weird. You could see the little hairs, strands of fabric, so the detail was there, but the color at 100% was all mushed together.     I'd think that the H3D22 would produce a more pleasing and real looking image at least at base ISO than the nikon.  But how much difference makes its way to the print is hard to say.

[Mike Sellers]

Thanks for all the info. I will say that a big plus for the Hasselblad is the tilt/shift adapter. I used a Fuji GX 680 at one time but it was a little heavy to lug around.
If I get a nice wildlife photo it is by chance as a result of my being at a lake for landscape photos so I do "static" photography primarily.
I will say this about the Sigma SD1-I downloaded a raw file plus their software and opened it up to a tif. I went in to 100% and it looked really smooth and buttery. Better than a file from my Sony a850.
I will probably go with the Nikon depending on announcements from Photokina!

[FredBGG]

The biggest difference between these cameras is going to be in the color and depth.  Recently I had a friend in the studio with a D800E and we compared his files to mine.  The D800e picked up lots of detail and I was impressed by it, however the differences in color were pretty large.  Areas of skin and fabric that had lots of subtle color changes came out flat in the D800E files.  It was weird. You could see the little hairs, strands of fabric, so the detail was there, but the color at 100% was all mushed together.     I'd think that the H3D22 would produce a more pleasing and real looking image at least at base ISO than the nikon.  But how much difference makes its way to the print is hard to say.

Did you do a side by side test?

I did some comparisons between the D800 and the Phase One P25+.
I found that results were very close color wise at base iso. However quite different exposure
was required. Less with the Nikon and more with the Phase back.
What I did find is that with fine textures any moire correction on the P25+ resulted in mushy
color. Even mild correction required on natural textures like wood grain would mush up the
colors.

Now that said the D800 is not immune to moire, but it is much less likely to rear it's head
and if present it is far easier to correct.

As far as skin tones go the D800 and P25+ each have their respective advantages.
I find high key lighting of skin tones far better on the D800, same goes for skin with shine, especially
on black skin.

On the other hand I do like the slightly less real pastelly touch that I got with the P25+ on
skin tones with with reddisnesses to them. However with a few steps in photoshop I can
get the same thing with the D800. Keep in mind I'm talking about subtle differences.

As far as skin tone with black and white conversions the difference is much bigger.
D800 wins hands down. Both highlight and shadows of the blue channel are just way cleaner.
About the same difference that I found between the 5D III and D800.

Also anything other than base ISO on the P25+ would not hold up against the D800.

[EricWHiss]

Did you do a side by side test?

Of course! That's what I wrote.  YMMV

[Doug Peterson]

Dynamic range is after all a fairly specific quantitative measure --- we are not talking about more visceral, experiential attributes like "pop" or "3D effect" or the way that different lenses "draw", or how a camera "falls in the hand".

...BJL?? I don't expect to read something like this from you.

Of course dynamic range is visceral.

Most quantitive measures of DR only loosely correlate to useful photographic dynamic range.

For a shadow or highlight detail to be photographically useful in a high quality workflow I propose it needs to show:
- accurate color, especially when comparing shadows and quarter tones of the same object. If half of a banana is in deep shadow and half is in bright light then I only consider the shadow to be part of the useful dynamic range of the camera if the shadow-half is a correct-in-saturation-and-hue yellow - if it's a muddy brown color then I don't care that I can see the banana, it's not useful dynamic range. Likewise with skin tone and clouds/sky in highlight to three-quarter tone transitions - if the skin is a weird pink before a blown out highlight then the pink is at best questionably part of the useful DR.
- smooth, visually appealing transitions to tones around it (posterization and other visually awkward transitions, chunky rather than evenly distributed noise)
- tactile, natural looking detail/texture

And numerical representations of DR of a particular sensor almost always exclude vital parts of producing actual photographic images like the lens (lens characteristics, namely flaring, but also, micro contrast, total resolution, and chromatic aberration can all affect the usefulness of sensor-recorded data in highlights and shadows) and the software used to process (e.g. Capture One uses some proprietary data in a Phase One raw file to reduce noise inherent in the sensor based on the temperature of the sensor at the time of capture - processing in other software ignores that information).

Highlight rolloff, tonal transition smoothness, noise grain structure, shadow color accuracy, loss of texture in shadows - some of these things can be represented numerically, but given the number of variable the best approach is to look at actual pictures. If you can dodge out an important subject in such a way that the subject is beautifully rendered then it was inside the range of the useful DR of the camera. If you can see it, differeniate it from it's surroundings but it's artificial looking and generally aesthetically crappy then it was not.

In practice it's perfectly possible to have two cameras with identical "measured" DR but have their highlights/shadow be lightyears apart in real-world-photographic-usefulness. Much like you can have three noises which are equally "loud" on average (as measured in DB) but one is a beautiful trumpet jazz quartet, a second a dozen screaming babies, and a third the loud but generally tolerable rumble of a jet engine in the exit row seat of an international jetliner.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for explaining.

Problem is that we see very few samples, specially not samples with comparable images shot under comparable conditions with raw files available.

Marc McCalmont has posted some images a couple of months ago, comparing his new D800E to his IQ180 mounted on his Alpa. Those were good images and he made raw files available. Most thankful for that.

Another very good set of sample images were posted by Alex Koskolov, here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69391.0 .

Mr. Koskolov also made raw images available.


Best regards
Erik

...BJL?? I don't expect to read something like this from you.

Of course dynamic range is visceral.

Most quantitive measures of DR only loosely correlate to useful photographic dynamic range.

For a shadow or highlight detail to be photographically useful in a high quality workflow I propose it needs to show:
- accurate color, especially when comparing shadows and quarter tones of the same object. If half of a banana is in deep shadow and half is in bright light then I only consider the shadow to be part of the useful dynamic range of the camera if the shadow-half is a correct-in-saturation-and-hue yellow - if it's a muddy brown color then I don't care that I can see the banana, it's not useful dynamic range. Likewise with skin tone and clouds/sky in highlight to three-quarter tone transitions - if the skin is a weird pink before a blown out highlight then the pink is at best questionably part of the useful DR.
- smooth, visually appealing transitions to tones around it (posterization and other visually awkward transitions, chunky rather than evenly distributed noise)
- tactile, natural looking detail/texture

And numerical representations of DR of a particular sensor almost always exclude vital parts of producing actual photographic images like the lens (lens characteristics, namely flaring, but also, micro contrast, total resolution, and chromatic aberration can all affect the usefulness of sensor-recorded data in highlights and shadows) and the software used to process (e.g. Capture One uses some proprietary data in a Phase One raw file to reduce noise inherent in the sensor based on the temperature of the sensor at the time of capture - processing in other software ignores that information).

Highlight rolloff, tonal transition smoothness, noise grain structure, shadow color accuracy, loss of texture in shadows - some of these things can be represented numerically, but given the number of variable the best approach is to look at actual pictures. If you can dodge out an important subject in such a way that the subject is beautifully rendered then it was inside the range of the useful DR of the camera. If you can see it, differeniate it from it's surroundings but it's artificial looking and generally aesthetically crappy then it was not.

In practice it's perfectly possible to have two cameras with identical "measured" DR but have their highlights/shadow be lightyears apart in real-world-photographic-usefulness. Much like you can have three noises which are equally "loud" on average (as measured in DB) but one is a beautiful trumpet jazz quartet, a second a dozen screaming babies, and a third the loud but generally tolerable rumble of a jet engine in the exit row seat of an international jetliner.