H3dII 50 VS. P45 H1

[saltysearabbit]

I have the opportunity to buy Either a P45 (non-plus) w/ h1 body and 80mm or an H3d50II with 80mm for the same money. I know the Hasselblad back is higher resolution. I will be using the system to mainly shoot environmental Portraits, lighting that uses some strobe but has lots of ambient presence. Assuming both are in good shape with low shutter counts, and similar warranties from reputable venders; My questions are:

-How much of a difference will i see in resolution?
-Will either of these backs be acceptable at ISO 200? Which will be better on the higher end of ISO? Which will be better at 50 iso?
-Shooting speed. What back will be faster shooting to card? what about tethered?
-In terms of overall image quality what will generally be the differences that the software plays (after one has learned to get the best out of the files in both lightroom/phocus vs capture one)
- I do plan on doing the majority of shooting to card (say a 60/40 split or there abouts, perhaps even more) so I would think the screen on the Hasselblad back would be better. Is this the case?
- I know that the H3dII back and body are matched so that if I have an issue on a shoot with the body I cant swap it out. Should this be a Deal Breaker? Any of you H3d/h4d/h5d users has this issue?
-any other thoughts?

Thanks

[TMARK]

I would jump at that H3dII. 

Disclaimer: I've never used an H3DII50.

I like Phase Backs, don't get me wrong.  But H1 versus H3, well, I had horrid problems with the H1 back in the day.  Horrid, miserable problems.  I know that firmware has come a long way, but the H3 is just put together much better.

The P45, to me, was always too sharp for people, if that makes sense.  I always thought its color rendering for people looked too much like E100 Kodak slide film, not a bad thing is most cases, but i never reall liked it.  It is a hell of a back.

As to ISO, I don't know this for a fact, but I would assume that the newer H3dII50 has better ISO performance than the p45.  I used the plus version and 200 was pushing it a bit.  The H3d39 had nice noise performance up to 400, and 800 needed some work but was usable for the right shot. I would suspect, but don't know, that the 50 would be better.

[Doug Peterson]

Is it possible that you could hire/borrow/rent each kit for a few days to play with? This is one of those cases where you can get answers to the questions you're asking (which are important), but you won't get the answers to the questions you don't know to ask. Hands on shooting in your actual desired scenarios is the only way to get a thorough idea of which camera takes on the magical attribute of becoming an extension of your artistic will, and produces the quality you're after.

Notably with an H1+P45 if either the back or the body has problems you could rent another in a heartbeat in any major photo city (NYC/Miami/LA for sure, and most other big cities).

Other people's opinion on ISO200 is not going to get you very far. You need to get sample raw files (or better yet capture your own) to evaluate. Notably Capture One v7 does MUCH better at high ISO on Phase One digital backs. So anyone who last looked at an ISO200/P45 file in Capture One v6 would be giving you an outdated opinion on it's quality. The amount of fine tuning that is done in Denmark by the C1 team for P1 backs is truly remarkable; the hardware guys are literally down the hall and share drinks and financial motivation to make them sing well together.

The P45 is not traditionally my suggestion for environmental portraiture. It's frame rate is one of the slowest in the P1 lineup (0.7 fps). For your application I might normally suggest a P30+, P40+ or a P65+. That said, if you don't shoot very quickly and you favor frame size, and resolution over speed and high ISO performance than a P45 might be a good fit.

Which brings me to my trope... it's really better to start your search wide, and determine what the best tool for the job is and THEN find a good deal on it, rather than first find good deals and evaluate if they are a good tool for the job.

[TMARK]

Doug is correct in that you should shoot the cameras and look at the files.  I havent processed a P45 file in anything other than C1 3.74. 

Phocus is odd software, or at least it barely makes sense to me.  Again, I havenm't looked at it ina year or so.

A P30+ would do the trick.  There is a crop, but ISO 800 in C1 6 is usable.  The back is fast enough and an H1 is fast enough in terms of responsiveness to keep up with the back.

Is it possible that you could hire/borrow/rent each kit for a few days to play with? This is one of those cases where you can get answers to the questions you're asking (which are important), but you won't get the answers to the questions you don't know to ask. Hands on shooting in your actual desired scenarios is the only way to get a thorough idea of which camera takes on the magical attribute of becoming an extension of your artistic will, and produces the quality you're after.

Notably with an H1+P45 if either the back or the body has problems you could rent another in a heartbeat in any major photo city (NYC/Miami/LA for sure, and most other big cities).

Other people's opinion on ISO200 is not going to get you very far. You need to get sample raw files (or better yet capture your own) to evaluate. Notably Capture One v7 does MUCH better at high ISO on Phase One digital backs. So anyone who last looked at an ISO200/P45 file in Capture One v6 would be giving you an outdated opinion on it's quality. The amount of fine tuning that is done in Denmark by the C1 team for P1 backs is truly remarkable; the hardware guys are literally down the hall and share drinks and financial motivation to make them sing well together.

The P45 is not traditionally my suggestion for environmental portraiture. It's frame rate is one of the slowest in the P1 lineup (0.7 fps). For your application I might normally suggest a P30+, P40+ or a P65+. That said, if you don't shoot very quickly and you favor frame size, and resolution over speed and high ISO performance than a P45 might be a good fit.

Which brings me to my trope... it's really better to start your search wide, and determine what the best tool for the job is and THEN find a good deal on it, rather than first find good deals and evaluate if they are a good tool for the job.

[gigdagefg]

"Odd" seems seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory adjective to describe Phocus software!!!

Stanley

[TMARK]

"Odd" seems seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory adjective to describe Phocus software!!!

Stanley

When I use Phocus I freaquently hear myself say 'Hmmm'.  But again, my impressions are subjective.  I'm used to C1 and LR.  I even liked Leaf Capture V10!

[Gel]

I've never used the P45

But I used the P25, and the Phase backs are known to be contrasty and tend to be more ready out of the camera.

Hassy files tend to be flatter and in need of work. This isn't a bad thing, they are files that are meant to be worked on.
Hasselblad files work really well with Lightroom. But I've never ever been happy with Phase files in Lightroom.

I like to romance of the 40mp backs, any of them and sometimes I feel anything above 40mp is going too far.

If I was a gambling man I might trade my 50 for a P45+ (but would have a go on it first).

What I would say though is there is a fair jump in AF speed between the H1 and the subsequent bodies. A H3D (non MkII version should accept that back).

[saltysearabbit]

I ended up going for the H3DII50. Thanks for the input fellas.