Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: To leave Hasselblad H4D 50?  (Read 20964 times)
RVB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #100 on: May 11, 2013, 12:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What lenses do you compare and which raw processor? Is it full aperture or best aperture? I see a lot of chroma in the Nikon shot. Axial chroma is hard, but lateral chroma should be handled in raw processing.

What sharpening parameters are use dor each image?

Best regards
Erik

Erik,it's a Carl Zeiss 15mm  on the D800e and a HCD28mm on the H4D50.. I posted the link to the files in the previous page.. It's a yousend it link...

Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #101 on: May 11, 2013, 01:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I won't do animated comparison, just crop from the raw file with no correction and a bit away from the center:



Same area, but processed Nikon file with ACR lens profile turned on and corrected for exposure difference.

« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 01:45:47 PM by FredBGG » Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #102 on: May 11, 2013, 02:46:20 PM »
ReplyReply

My comparison was without lens corrections for both pictures. You will notice that the chromatic aberration is much better contained for the HCD 28 than for the Zeiss lens.

On your comparison, which tries to level the playfield by reducing the resolution of the H4D-50 to the lower one of the D800, the interested reader will notice that the fine details are better resolved on the H4D (e.g. the text on the Macbook Air).

Quite simply, the HCD 28 is a better lens than the Zeiss. I have the pleasure to own that lens. I am absolutely stunned by its level of excellence. The Leica 24mm is even better, as also apparent from the posted files, but is limited by the relatively low resolution of the Leica S.
Logged
RVB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #103 on: May 11, 2013, 02:53:37 PM »
ReplyReply

My comparison was without lens corrections for both pictures. You will notice that the chromatic aberration is much better contained for the HCD 28 than for the Zeiss lens.

On your comparison, which tries to level the playfield by reducing the resolution of the H4D-50 to the lower one of the D800, the interested reader will notice that the fine details are better resolved on the H4D (e.g. the text on the Macbook Air).

Quite simply, the HCD 28 is a better lens than the Zeiss. I have the pleasure to own that lens. I am absolutely stunned by its level of excellence. The Leica 24mm is even better, as also apparent from the posted files, but is limited by the relatively low resolution of the Leica S.

I fully agree with this,the HCD and Leica are better color corrected and render more detail over the frame.. I own the Zeiss and HCD so have no axe to grind,the nikon is a great camera and Zeiss lenses are very good but the medium format camera's still render more detail...
Logged
RVB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #104 on: May 11, 2013, 02:59:33 PM »
ReplyReply

How did you make the DNG for the Hasselblad file?

Fred,in Phocus you can export as DNG,this option only applies to Hasselblad raw's...
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #105 on: May 11, 2013, 03:25:09 PM »
ReplyReply

My comparison was without lens corrections for both pictures. You will notice that the chromatic aberration is much better contained for the HCD 28 than for the Zeiss lens.

On your comparison, which tries to level the playfield by reducing the resolution of the H4D-50 to the lower one of the D800, the interested reader will notice that the fine details are better resolved on the H4D (e.g. the text on the Macbook Air).

Quite simply, the HCD 28 is a better lens than the Zeiss. I have the pleasure to own that lens. I am absolutely stunned by its level of excellence. The Leica 24mm is even better, as also apparent from the posted files, but is limited by the relatively low resolution of the Leica S.

The image is a Leica file. s far as the scaling to overlay the two images it is to put the same crop on the subject onto the same screen area.
It scaled down from 100% to 85% so it's a very small 15% down sampling. We also all know that the down sampling helps make n image look better, not worse. Overlaid they look virtually the same. Also it's not really leveling the playing field, because the framings are different. In the Nikon shot the subject is much smaller with a wider angle of view. I'm sure that if the two were framed with a much closer composition the difference would be even smaller as the Leica is 37.5MP and the Nikon is 36MP. Only 1.5 MP difference.

I fully agree with this,the HCD and Leica are better color corrected and render more detail over the frame.. I own the Zeiss and HCD so have no axe to grind,the nikon is a great camera and Zeiss lenses are very good but the medium format camera's still render more detail...

I have no axe to grind on this issue either. Simply giving the OP some realistic advice.

Yes the Leica lens has better CA in the corners, but it is very well correctable on the Zeiss as it is corrected by Hasselblad on some of their lenses with automatic DAC.

The truth of the matter is that the difference in the real world is today far far smaller than it was before the Nikon D800 came out.

Put it this way. The Leica S@ and lens is really really really good while Nikon and Zeiss 21mm is really really good.

IF you are going to print very large and observe the prints very close you will see the difference, but it's not huge.

Here is a comparison between the D800E with a ts 24mm and the Phase One IQ180 with a schneider digitar lens on a tech camera.
Test done by an IQ180 owner.

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

Quote
At 30×20 inches, you can see subtle but clear differences between the IQ180 and the D800E. Not all of them weighted in favour of the medium format camera, though. For instance, the D800E produced much more pleasing shadow areas on the prints of the photographs produced to test dynamic range.

Resolution and detail of the IQ180 prints was better than that of the D800E prints – but not massively. Again, the difference was there, but it wasn’t huge. Certainly not €30,000 huge.

And we were stunned just how close the D800E ran the IQ180 when the files were printed at 60×40 inches, which is bigger than many dining room tables.

Put simply, Nikon has produced a phenomenal camera.


Jack can rent the D800e and lens and see how it works out both IQ wise and weight/ergonomics wise.
Logged
RVB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #106 on: May 11, 2013, 03:35:31 PM »
ReplyReply

The image is a Leica file. s far as the scaling to overlay the two images it is to put the same crop on the subject onto the same screen area.
It scaled down from 100% to 85% so it's a very small 15% down sampling. We also all know that the down sampling helps make n image look better, not worse. Overlaid they look virtually the same. Also it's not really leveling the playing field, because the framings are different. In the Nikon shot the subject is much smaller with a wider angle of view. I'm sure that if the two were framed with a much closer composition the difference would be even smaller as the Leica is 37.5MP and the Nikon is 36MP. Only 1.5 MP difference.

I have no axe to grind on this issue either. Simply giving the OP some realistic advice.

Yes the Leica lens has better CA in the corners, but it is very well correctable on the Zeiss as it is corrected by Hasselblad on some of their lenses with automatic DAC.

The truth of the matter is that the difference in the real world is today far far smaller than it was before the Nikon D800 came out.

Put it this way. The Leica S@ and lens is really really really good while Nikon and Zeiss 21mm is really really good.

IF you are going to print very large and observe the prints very close you will see the difference, but it's not huge.

Here is a comparison between the D800E with a ts 24mm and the Phase One IQ180 with a schneider digitar lens on a tech camera.
Test done by an IQ180 owner.

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/


Jack can rent the D800e and lens and see how it works out both IQ wise and weight/ergonomics wise.

It might be worth considering the S/S2 with a S24mm or S30mm lens.. the S camera is only 200grams heavier than the D800,the lens is heavy but worth the effort,S2's can be picked up at good price's now,and they are weather sealed and also have the same big bright viewfinder as the H camera..
Logged
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 11, 2013, 04:05:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Please define what you have seen as a "good price" for the S2?

Jack
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #108 on: May 11, 2013, 06:43:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I fully agree with this,the HCD and Leica are better color corrected and render more detail over the frame.. I own the Zeiss and HCD so have no axe to grind,the nikon is a great camera and Zeiss lenses are very good but the medium format camera's still render more detail...
Those are my exact conclusions after my own hands-on comparisons that I'm conducting and will be continuing over the next 3-4 days. I've used Nikons since the F1 in the late 60's and continue to use them today for most PJ work, so I've not axe to grind either. But, I've yet to obtain as good of files with the D800 as I do with the Hasselblads.

What with all the hype though about the D800, I have been wondering if my choice of WA zoom obtained around 2002, was just not up to snuff for the D800, so I'm looking into some new lenses and have rented a Nikkor 14-24mm f/ 2.8 AFS ED and Zeiss 21mm f/ 2.8 ZF2 to test against my go-to Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS ED. I thought I may as well toss my H4D-31 and HCD 28mm into the equation for fun.

This was my first test today - slightly overcast - testing sharpness near the edge. The D800 images were all exposed at 160 sec. @ f/ 5.6 at ISO 100 and were focused with 100% Live View manually - which I would not normally use - as opposed to my normal auto focus or manual focus. The Hasselblad shot was focused manually in the viewfinder and was exposed at 1/125 second at f/ 5.6 at ISO 100.

All files are as converted with only auto lens corrections and slight WB adjustment and the same amount of capture sharpening using PhotoKit. The raw Nikon files were converted with the latest version of ACR and the raw Hasselblad file was converted with Phocus.
The D800's were processed in the latest version of ACR with only auto lens correction and WB, but no other adjustments. The Hasselblad exposure was 125 sec. at f/ 5.6 and was processed in Phocus with WB and lens corrections only. All files were given a capture sharpening with PhotoKit Capture Sharpening.

At the moment, I am not seeing appreciable difference in the three lenses on the D800, and still believe the HCD 28 is a superb lens. Over the next three to four days, I plan to continue testing lenses.

Here are the results:











Ed

PS - Please, please don't convert to animated gifs, anyone, if I had wanted to, I could've done that myself.



« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 06:46:53 PM by Ed Foster, Jr. » Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
RVB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #109 on: May 11, 2013, 10:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Please define what you have seen as a "good price" for the S2?

Jack

I have seen them at $10k with very low actuation's and like new.... here is one in Germany for an asking price of 8600euro's,my dealer in the UK has offered my one with just over 1000clicks for 8500euro's... and another on GETDPI,(I'm sure you could get it cheaper.. )
http://photography.forumsee.com/a/m/s/p12-21375-0167849--for-sale-germany-leica-body.html

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/gear-fs-wtb/45380-leica-s2-w-warranty.html
Logged
RVB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #110 on: May 11, 2013, 10:26:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Those are my exact conclusions after my own hands-on comparisons that I'm conducting and will be continuing over the next 3-4 days. I've used Nikons since the F1 in the late 60's and continue to use them today for most PJ work, so I've not axe to grind either. But, I've yet to obtain as good of files with the D800 as I do with the Hasselblads.

What with all the hype though about the D800, I have been wondering if my choice of WA zoom obtained around 2002, was just not up to snuff for the D800, so I'm looking into some new lenses and have rented a Nikkor 14-24mm f/ 2.8 AFS ED and Zeiss 21mm f/ 2.8 ZF2 to test against my go-to Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS ED. I thought I may as well toss my H4D-31 and HCD 28mm into the equation for fun.

This was my first test today - slightly overcast - testing sharpness near the edge. The D800 images were all exposed at 160 sec. @ f/ 5.6 at ISO 100 and were focused with 100% Live View manually - which I would not normally use - as opposed to my normal auto focus or manual focus. The Hasselblad shot was focused manually in the viewfinder and was exposed at 1/125 second at f/ 5.6 at ISO 100.

All files are as converted with only auto lens corrections and slight WB adjustment and the same amount of capture sharpening using PhotoKit. The raw Nikon files were converted with the latest version of ACR and the raw Hasselblad file was converted with Phocus.
The D800's were processed in the latest version of ACR with only auto lens correction and WB, but no other adjustments. The Hasselblad exposure was 125 sec. at f/ 5.6 and was processed in Phocus with WB and lens corrections only. All files were given a capture sharpening with PhotoKit Capture Sharpening.

At the moment, I am not seeing appreciable difference in the three lenses on the D800, and still believe the HCD 28 is a superb lens. Over the next three to four days, I plan to continue testing lenses.

Here are the results:











Ed

PS - Please, please don't convert to animated gifs, anyone, if I had wanted to, I could've done that myself.





HCD easily looks the best here and this is with a 31MP H?Nikkor 17-35 seems to beat the Zeiss and 14-24
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8009


WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 12, 2013, 12:36:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for the samples, seems to be a good and careful test. They look very similar on my iPad. Hopefully, I can have a better look later. I would try to use LR 4 instead of Phocus. Just as an example, Phocus certainly eliminates lateral color fringing while LR 4 needs a checkbox, even with lens profiles. Both programs may apply different amount of sharpening.

Best regards
Erik

Those are my exact conclusions after my own hands-on comparisons that I'm conducting and will be continuing over the next 3-4 days. I've used Nikons since the F1 in the late 60's and continue to use them today for most PJ work, so I've not axe to grind either. But, I've yet to obtain as good of files with the D800 as I do with the Hasselblads.

What with all the hype though about the D800, I have been wondering if my choice of WA zoom obtained around 2002, was just not up to snuff for the D800, so I'm looking into some new lenses and have rented a Nikkor 14-24mm f/ 2.8 AFS ED and Zeiss 21mm f/ 2.8 ZF2 to test against my go-to Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS ED. I thought I may as well toss my H4D-31 and HCD 28mm into the equation for fun.

This was my first test today - slightly overcast - testing sharpness near the edge. The D800 images were all exposed at 160 sec. @ f/ 5.6 at ISO 100 and were focused with 100% Live View manually - which I would not normally use - as opposed to my normal auto focus or manual focus. The Hasselblad shot was focused manually in the viewfinder and was exposed at 1/125 second at f/ 5.6 at ISO 100.

All files are as converted with only auto lens corrections and slight WB adjustment and the same amount of capture sharpening using PhotoKit. The raw Nikon files were converted with the latest version of ACR and the raw Hasselblad file was converted with Phocus.
The D800's were processed in the latest version of ACR with only auto lens correction and WB, but no other adjustments. The Hasselblad exposure was 125 sec. at f/ 5.6 and was processed in Phocus with WB and lens corrections only. All files were given a capture sharpening with PhotoKit Capture Sharpening.

At the moment, I am not seeing appreciable difference in the three lenses on the D800, and still believe the HCD 28 is a superb lens. Over the next three to four days, I plan to continue testing lenses.

Here are the results:











Ed

PS - Please, please don't convert to animated gifs, anyone, if I had wanted to, I could've done that myself.




« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 01:04:16 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 702


« Reply #112 on: May 12, 2013, 12:56:48 AM »
ReplyReply

At the moment, I am not seeing appreciable difference in the three lenses on the D800, and still believe the HCD 28 is a superb lens. Over the next three to four days, I plan to continue testing lenses.

The D800 is not even close...
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1263



WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 12, 2013, 02:14:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello JV,

If there wasn’t any brand names on these images you wouldn't be able to know what camera and lens it was. I conclude that you a Hasseblad fan boy.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
RVB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #114 on: May 12, 2013, 02:45:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to agree that the Blad is better..
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #115 on: May 12, 2013, 04:13:07 AM »
ReplyReply

If there wasn’t any brand names on these images you wouldn't be able to know what camera and lens it was.

Indeed, at that size, the difference is not obvious. But we have files from RVB to see the difference between these cameras at their native resolution and, from these files, the Hasselblad system is clearly superior, if only by its higher resolution.

Now, it may well be that the level of IQ from the D800/Zeiss or Leica camera is sufficient to "lust4life". But the decision is not ours, but his.

As to weight:
H4D-50 + HCD 28mm: 2665g
Leica S2 + 24mm: 2660g
Nikon D800 + Zeiss 21mm: 1720g

Logged
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #116 on: May 12, 2013, 05:41:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe from reading this thread that from a pure technical perspective - the Hassie with 28mm wins.

But as the last post indicates, I have the problem of defining what is priority:
Simply put, the equation is: As weight increases, the ability to walk any distance decreases.

It's that simple.

Three days ago I had trouble walking 20 yards, and that was without carrying a camera.
Other days I can do substantially better, but not near what I used to do - run Marathons
and hike all over the planet with no issue on control of the legs.

A chap must learn to find this change in personal physical limits "entertaining" rather than
devastating.

What this tread has shown me to date is the Nikon D800 can do an acceptable job, while not
what I'm used to in image RAW data, but at a weight that will allow me to continue to gather images in
accessible areas - not distant hikes to waterfalls up steep hills.  Those days are gone even
without a camera.  Thus, I'm thankful that the D800 at 36.2MP and great Dmax is now in
the marketplace!

Like with many progressive neurological diseases, it is a downward slope you are
living on.  Thus I figure it will be a slow progression from the use of a Hassie AND Nikon D800, then gradually taking the Hassie out of the equation and going with D800 and Leica M.  Leica being the final tool
that will allow me continue to capture images.

Thus, at this point in the journey I think I will sell off my 50-110 lens as it is just too heavy, use the Hassie with 28 for very short (close to where the car is parked) scenes and buy a Nikon D800 with a wide angle
and short tele to use for scenes where I need to walk any appreciable distance to shoot it (and which
my wife could carry D800, a wide angle and my RRS carbon tripod with no problem).

I'm also finding it interesting to evaluate the need to move from Landscape photography, which in my experience does require hiking and stamina in your legs, to other areas of interest.  Yes, I'll still pursue landscape scenes as a "trunk photographer", but I think that focusing on
Abstracts, Architecture and possible Portraits will be a transition that I will have to shift my focus.

The transition will be "entertaining" to say the least.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 05:43:13 AM by Lust4Life » Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 12, 2013, 08:09:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for the samples, seems to be a good and careful test. They look very similar on my iPad. Hopefully, I can have a better look later. I would try to use LR 4 instead of Phocus. Just as an example, Phocus certainly eliminates lateral color fringing while LR 4 needs a checkbox, even with lens profiles. Both programs may apply different amount of sharpening.
Erik,
I don't employ LR, but use the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) with all sharpening turned off and in Phocus, sharpening is elective, and was turned off as well. Once these files were opened in PS, I applied the same level of Capture Sharpening with PhotoKit Sharpener. That way I thought I would achieve relatively similar results.

Are not the raw converters in ACR and LR essentially the same? And, are you saying that both ACR and Phocus both apply some level of sharpening even when sharpening is turned off?

If that's the case, I can always covert the Hasselblad file in ACR as well and compare. I am trying for a real world comparison and not trying to fool myself. I too have a need to lighten the load, and would really luv to have the D800 and Zeiss combo be a winner (those two Nikkors I used are quite bulky).

Regards,
Ed


Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #118 on: May 12, 2013, 08:27:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack,
I understand well where you are coming from and admire your tenacity and determination. Your 5th paragraph rings well with me.

I just happened to be testing one of the lenses mentioned in this thread, the Zeiss 21, and thought I would share a comparison. Since purchasing the D800, I can certainly tell you that it does outperform the D1 and D3. I have, IMHO, produced some excellent files with it. But, now, my quest is to find the right combination of optics in order to obtain the best results and, hopefully, reduce the weight. During this testing period, I am also going to rent a Leica M series and do some comparisons.

I would be curious of your thoughts as you try other gear.

Regards,
Ed
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8009


WWW
« Reply #119 on: May 12, 2013, 09:53:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

ACR and LR are the same.

Yes, raw converters may do apply sharpening, even if it is set to zero, Capture one was know to that. Hasselblad raw files work well with Camera Raw and LR, AFAIK. So using same raw converter gives like bananas to bananas comaprison.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I don't employ LR, but use the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) with all sharpening turned off and in Phocus, sharpening is elective, and was turned off as well. Once these files were opened in PS, I applied the same level of Capture Sharpening with PhotoKit Sharpener. That way I thought I would achieve relatively similar results.

Are not the raw converters in ACR and LR essentially the same? And, are you saying that both ACR and Phocus both apply some level of sharpening even when sharpening is turned off?

If that's the case, I can always covert the Hasselblad file in ACR as well and compare. I am trying for a real world comparison and not trying to fool myself. I too have a need to lighten the load, and would really luv to have the D800 and Zeiss combo be a winner (those two Nikkors I used are quite bulky).

Regards,
Ed



Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad