Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: I bought an Ixpress 528C, and I am in shock! :-)  (Read 2994 times)
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« on: August 21, 2014, 10:04:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Some month ago I bought a Hasselblad H5D40 (great offer from Hasselblad , 45% of new ).
I love the skin tones and the viewfinder and the D800E is not getting so much use these days.

A couple days ago, I bought a Hasselblad Ixpress 528C on a HD1 used for under $2000.

Its 1-shot,4-shot or 16-shot.

I tested it against my H5D40 and the 4-shot is sooooo much better.
The resolution, colours and the lack of artefacts are out of this world.

Its a 22M back, but even when I resize up to 40M, its way much better than the H5D40.
Shooting products and interiors will not be shot with the H5D from now on, thats for sure.

And I haven't even tested the 16 shoot yet.
That will give a 88M back!!

Willow

Are there any other multishot users here?
Any tips? What to do and what not to do?





Logged

Willow Photography
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2014, 10:39:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi DougPeterson

You sent me a personal message on this topic.
I hope it is ok that I show it here, because I think it is a valid discussion.

You wrote : One of the reasons your 4-shot looks so good is because Hassy and LightRoom's algorithms are way behind Capture One for detail on 1-shot captures. If you compared to the quality of an IQ140 processed in Capture One v7 you'd be surprised how much of that advantage goes away (or wins if there is ANY vibration or imprecision in the multishot). I've done this test many times, as our Cultural Heritage division has been competing against multishot for many years (http://www.dtdch.com/).

I so not agree with you on this.
I have had a lot of P1 backs  ( Lightphase, P30, P65+ and IQ140. )

And I have had some Hasselblads.

I used C1 for a long time, both on P1 backs and Canon and Nikon.
Don't use it anymore for several reasons.

I like the skin tones from the Hasselblads much more than the P1s, and I don't find them any
less sharper than the P1s.

But of course C1 have some tricks. Even if you turn the sharpening down to zero, it adds some sharpening.

Just for fun I found some of my IQ140 shots from 2 years back and compared them to my H5D40 files.
Resolution wise there is no difference IMO.
Logged

Willow Photography
NickT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2014, 03:18:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I am a long time multi-shot user tho' less so these days as I shoot mostly food which moves. The difference is indeed dramatic! 4-shot mode is actually tolerant of sight movement but a decent tripod and mirror up is good practice. I always grab a single shot as well just in case. 16 shot is much more demanding, a really solid support and a delay between shots to allow the camera to settle but the results are pretty amazing.
HTH
Nick-T
Logged
NickT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2014, 03:23:29 PM »
ReplyReply

And YI there is now a 50C multishot that has a six-shot mode that produces 200MP files:

http://www.pdnonline.com/gear/Hasselblad-H5D-200c--11438.shtml

Hopefully Doug will chime in to tell us how terrible they are Smiley
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2014, 04:15:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Some month ago I bought a Hasselblad H5D40 (great offer from Hasselblad , 45% of new ).
I love the skin tones and the viewfinder and the D800E is not getting so much use these days.

A couple days ago, I bought a Hasselblad Ixpress 528C on a HD1 used for under $2000.

Its 1-shot,4-shot or 16-shot.

I tested it against my H5D40 and the 4-shot is sooooo much better.
The resolution, colours and the lack of artefacts are out of this world.

Its a 22M back, but even when I resize up to 40M, its way much better than the H5D40.
Shooting products and interiors will not be shot with the H5D from now on, thats for sure.

And I haven't even tested the 16 shoot yet.
That will give a 88M back!!

Willow

Are there any other multishot users here?
Any tips? What to do and what not to do?
 






Well... I hate to say this, but you'll be sorry you ever sold your Contax system if you ever try the 528c with Contax glass!  Smiley Trust me! I own the combo and I've tried it on a friend's H2 for comparison (bought the back in H-mount and still have the adapter).... Especially with the 120mm Apo in 16x microstep the result is simply ...shocking!  Shocked Welcome to the club!  Cool
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2014, 04:53:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi DougPeterson

You sent me a personal message on this topic.
I hope it is ok that I show it here, because I think it is a valid discussion.

You wrote : One of the reasons your 4-shot looks so good is because Hassy and LightRoom's algorithms are way behind Capture One for detail on 1-shot captures. If you compared to the quality of an IQ140 processed in Capture One v7 you'd be surprised how much of that advantage goes away (or wins if there is ANY vibration or imprecision in the multishot). I've done this test many times, as our Cultural Heritage division has been competing against multishot for many years (http://www.dtdch.com/).

I so not agree with you on this.
I have had a lot of P1 backs  ( Lightphase, P30, P65+ and IQ140. )

And I have had some Hasselblads.

I used C1 for a long time, both on P1 backs and Canon and Nikon.
Don't use it anymore for several reasons.

I like the skin tones from the Hasselblads much more than the P1s, and I don't find them any
less sharper than the P1s.

But of course C1 have some tricks. Even if you turn the sharpening down to zero, it adds some sharpening.

Just for fun I found some of my IQ140 shots from 2 years back and compared them to my H5D40 files.
Resolution wise there is no difference IMO.


 The reason that 4x shots of only 22mp look absolutely stunning (and 16x look extraterrestrial) is that no colour interpolation (and the inevitable errors of it) exist... As a result, the human eye understands the real colour that is recorded on each different pixel as resolution (which it is) and all that without the presence of any artefacts (or hint of artefact existence like moire) what so ever! The additional 2 stops of DR only helps things further for the difference between neighbouring pixels to be more evident!

It's simply the time when one realises that 22MP are more than plenty to have for stunning prints of more than 2m^2 of size... (if interpolation of colour was absent)  Cry

Additionally, the superb image (when compared with other modern single shot backs) of all Kodak sensor22mp backs (the now "famous" "fat pixel magic") when combined with the fact that single shots (common DSLR use) only very rarely needs higher resolution and the additional benefit that the sensors that where used on 528c where "hand selected" for optimum performance, as well as that the "fat pixels" make the back particularly "friendly" with view and tech or other cameras that offer lens movements, ...all contribute to what one may call "the perfect MFDB"!  Grin
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1077


« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2014, 07:22:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I used a Hassey CF39-MS for years. The 4-shot files are extraordinary. I don't care what anyone says, I've seen files from just about any camera ever made for fine art repro. That back mated with the 72mm Digitar (electronic shutter instead of mechanical) on a pancake camera produced better files than any single shot system I've seen. And for as much grief as people vent towards Phocus, it makes for a fine RAW developer. With repro work I shot in "repro" mode which rendered a flat response curve--exactly appropriate for copy work. Prior to using the CF39-MS, I worked with the 528C's little brother, the 384C. It had 1, 4, 16 shot capabilities too. I rarely used 16-shot. If I had to use that back today, I'd work in a darkened studio and shoot use the 16-shot capability in "pinhole" mode to bypass using a shutter. The studio was in a virtual zero traffic zone, and the floor 2 feet thick concrete. Rock steady!!
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 07:26:28 PM by BobDavid » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4036



« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2014, 10:39:21 PM »
ReplyReply

What Doug keeps proving over and over again is that good advocacy and salesmanship will improve a user's perception and experience of a product but some of us realize that this doesn't improve the product itself. Adding a concierge to a third rate hotel doesn't magically fix the airconditioning. Phase makes good single shot backs, but multishot is still better than single shot, especially for textiles and jewelry, trucks still carry more weight than motorbikes, and and pigs still need help to fly.

Frankly, I think that the institutional market would be better served with a mono sensor and filterwheel setup, but that's a different story.

I think that it was Kayne West who said that the recipe for having better music in his repertory was to make better music - Doug might tell this to Phase.

Edmund


Hi DougPeterson

You sent me a personal message on this topic.
I hope it is ok that I show it here, because I think it is a valid discussion.

You wrote : One of the reasons your 4-shot looks so good is because Hassy and LightRoom's algorithms are way behind Capture One for detail on 1-shot captures. If you compared to the quality of an IQ140 processed in Capture One v7 you'd be surprised how much of that advantage goes away (or wins if there is ANY vibration or imprecision in the multishot). I've done this test many times, as our Cultural Heritage division has been competing against multishot for many years (http://www.dtdch.com/).

I so not agree with you on this.
I have had a lot of P1 backs  ( Lightphase, P30, P65+ and IQ140. )

And I have had some Hasselblads.

I used C1 for a long time, both on P1 backs and Canon and Nikon.
Don't use it anymore for several reasons.

I like the skin tones from the Hasselblads much more than the P1s, and I don't find them any
less sharper than the P1s.

But of course C1 have some tricks. Even if you turn the sharpening down to zero, it adds some sharpening.

Just for fun I found some of my IQ140 shots from 2 years back and compared them to my H5D40 files.
Resolution wise there is no difference IMO.

« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 10:50:01 PM by eronald » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2014, 01:11:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I do use the multishot backs still.  Nick's advice to take a single shot is good.  Occasionally there will be some fine cross hatching in specular highlight areas, boundaries or other areas and if you have the single shot you can overlay this with a black mask and paint in over the the funky areas. 

With the 528c and I've just notice the Sinar 54H, the physical orientation of the back may affect performance - i.e. - if you point the camera down instead (like on a copy stand) of horizontal the micro step images may be affected more.  Some fluorescent lighting will not work for all shutter speeds.     

Multishot gives you 1.5 - 2 stops more DR than single shots - I've measured it.   I don't know how you measure tonality, but that is also greatly improved.   Also you can stop the aperture down more with multishot than single shot without seeing diffraction - somehow assembling the different frames the software is recovering something or perhaps better worded the bayer interpolation is loosing something that true RGB color for each pixel doesn't.     

If you like to compare the new 80mp backs to the 528, you'll find a few things:
The most obvious - The high MP single shot backs like the Phase and Leaf 80mp backs really win in workflow.
For images like maps - where the contrast in the printed lines is high - the 80mp backs will come very very close - perhaps even look better
For images like of textiles or  fruit or paintings  - the multishot will really shine

I think I was shooting a $20 bill taped to a test chart with the two and I didn't notice much difference until I realized with the multishot I could see the fingerprints on the tape, but with the 80mp back not.  It's subtle, but the differences are there. 

I shot an art reproduction job with both the CF 528 and the AFi-ii 12 where I was able to use the same lens on both cameras.   I ended up using the AFi-ii 12 files for output to the client because it was faster and it was easier for me to get to matching color with C1.  Maybe I know C1 better than flex color? (to get micro step you still have to use Flex Color since Phocus does not support 16 shot).    The software does make a difference, as does a user's knowledge of how to get the best out of it.   To get close to the same micro detail as the CF 528 in that job, I had to output the files out of C1 with low small radius sharpening and then run them through LR sharpening again on a second pass with a larger radius and the detail slider way up.  No doubt a wizard with C1 like Doug could do better, but that's what I found worked for me.   In my observation, the multishot files require less sharpening overall and gain less from 2nd pass tricks and deconvolution software.

But yeah, I'm a fan of multishot. Tedious and you can only use it on some subjects, but when it comes out right it - it's amazing.




Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503


« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2014, 03:14:43 AM »
ReplyReply

One boring thing with multishot is that software choice is limited... it would be cool if the backs could in a self-contained way generate a raw file that then could be processed in various software. Then one could even shoot multi-shot in the field when conditions are good Smiley. Well, for us tech cam users there's a need of electronic shutters too of course, which is a mess in the field...
Logged
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2014, 06:03:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Thx for your input guys.


I have now tested the 16-shot.
 
No problem with vibration and the result is stunning!!!
The mirror goes up and 16 shots and a few minutes later, it has done its magic.
All automatic thru Flexcolor.

4-shot tested in Phocus and its faster than Flexcolor.

I am amazed that I got this for next to nothing.

Now I only have to find a used H2F or a H4X so I can use my 28 on interiors and architecture.

Logged

Willow Photography
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2014, 06:48:13 AM »
ReplyReply

It's good to hear these backs are still valued and used. Just ridiculous value for money!
Logged

chiek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2014, 08:51:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree. but phocus only serve 4shot in 39ms back.
22mpx back serve 4shot and microstep 16shot.

I hope phocus serve 16shot to 39mpx back.
it needs software develop.not hardware.

Only hasselblad can do.
but they want to sell newer 50mpx based multishot with expensive price.

Logged

chiek imaging, in Seoul, SOUTH-KOREA.
Sinar P2, Hasselblad H1+CF-39MS and a7/R, 5dmk2 systems
major job is products shot, especially for electronic products.
but interested in Landscapes and Portraits, however I've shot portraits sometimes.
my hobby is Designing camera...
www.chiek.co.kr
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2014, 04:06:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree. but phocus only serve 4shot in 39ms back.
22mpx back serve 4shot and microstep 16shot.

I hope phocus serve 16shot to 39mpx back.
it needs software develop.not hardware.

Only hasselblad can do.
but they want to sell newer 50mpx based multishot with expensive price.


I am afraid that this is not the case... 16X mode is a matter of mechanical capability not of software! It seems that the piezzo electric crystal that moves the sensor can retain accuracy when moved at 4.5μm but 3.4μm (half of 6.8μm) that is needed for the 39mp sensor is too small to be accurately controlled! I believe that this is why the 200ms is using a new technique to create a 4x50mp=200mp  file out of a 50mp sensor in which it is moving the sensor only 6 times rather than 16 times that the 528c is using...

Now, I am not sure how exactly that process works, (perhaps Steven Hendrix could enlighten us here) but it seems that the 200ms does the same with 50MS for the first four shots (i.e. moves the sensor by one pixel thus aligning all the Bayer pattern colours on all pixels) and then it adds two more movements of 1+1/2 pixel length in magnitude (obviously to increase the size of the movement) once horizontally and once more vertically so that it then interpolates the presence of 200 pixels....

I haven't tried the 200MS but I think that the result may be impressive but may also be not up to the "real" 16x mode that the 528c can achieve, since there is no interpolation involved there for the 88mp file to be created... That said, I have to say that one must be very careful when comparing his 16x microstep results from his 528c back with anything else. He has to make sure that he has taken the maximum out of his 528c which is not easy to judge at all since one may consider that "because flexcolor detected no fault - the method was done to its perfection" which is rarely the case... My experience out of every day use of the 528's 16X microstep mode has shown to me that the software has some latitude in forgiving mistakes and that if one seeks for perfection there is simply nothing that compare to the result and that a modern 80mp back will pale in detail comparison even if the file is BW converted!
Logged
chiek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2014, 06:30:07 PM »
ReplyReply

It may be You're right.
but I guess piezo microstep motor drive by software.

I heard hasselblad cf-22ms and cf-39ms multishot hardware is same. just only operated by software.


Anyone knows this informations?
Logged

chiek imaging, in Seoul, SOUTH-KOREA.
Sinar P2, Hasselblad H1+CF-39MS and a7/R, 5dmk2 systems
major job is products shot, especially for electronic products.
but interested in Landscapes and Portraits, however I've shot portraits sometimes.
my hobby is Designing camera...
www.chiek.co.kr
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2014, 11:56:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the new Sinar eXact backs are 50mp and can do 16 shots mode.  The sinar micro step backs seem to have a piezo calibration routine - just learning about this as I have picked up a sinar 54H which is the equivalent to the 528c (sort of).  If I can get the sinar happy on the Rolleiflex 6008AF then I'll be doing a comparison between these two forgotten imaging giants.     I had the CF-ii 39MS and its a great back, but only does 4 shot mode not 16 shot.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370


« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2014, 04:15:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I am looking forward to the Sinar and Imacon comparison. One being a Dalsa multishot the other a Kodak multishot AFAIK.

The new Sinar back 48MP does 16 shot? I thought it only did 4. Indeed it does do 16shot! It is the only back that uses a 48x36 Dalsa sensor with 48Mp (AFAIK).

I am rally curious how that back performs but I have never met anyone that has one. I also like the thought Sinar put behind these backs, eg. No. Screen, to get the cleanest file possible. These things are completely designed as studio and multishot backs. No hybrid stuff like being able to use it on a body in the field with a screen.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 04:24:42 AM by Dustbak » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4036



« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2014, 02:43:18 PM »
ReplyReply

i think the Sinar backs are made by Jenoptik who i believe just happen to be the originators of the piezo multishot tech.


Edmund

I am looking forward to the Sinar and Imacon comparison. One being a Dalsa multishot the other a Kodak multishot AFAIK.

The new Sinar back 48MP does 16 shot? I thought it only did 4. Indeed it does do 16shot! It is the only back that uses a 48x36 Dalsa sensor with 48Mp (AFAIK).

I am rally curious how that back performs but I have never met anyone that has one. I also like the thought Sinar put behind these backs, eg. No. Screen, to get the cleanest file possible. These things are completely designed as studio and multishot backs. No hybrid stuff like being able to use it on a body in the field with a screen.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2014, 04:17:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I am looking forward to the Sinar and Imacon comparison. One being a Dalsa multishot the other a Kodak multishot AFAIK.

The new Sinar back 48MP does 16 shot? I thought it only did 4. Indeed it does do 16shot! It is the only back that uses a 48x36 Dalsa sensor with 48Mp (AFAIK).

I am rally curious how that back performs but I have never met anyone that has one. I also like the thought Sinar put behind these backs, eg. No. Screen, to get the cleanest file possible. These things are completely designed as studio and multishot backs. No hybrid stuff like being able to use it on a body in the field with a screen.

The Sinarback 54h and the Imacon/Hasselblad 528c/22ms both share the same sensor, the Kodak 22mp 37x49mm... The difference between the two (if any) should be only in software (since both backs record true colour images and there is no processor involved to produce colour).
The Sinarback 86h and E-xact again, both share the same sensor, the Dalsa 48mp 36x48mm which essentially is the same as the Dalsa 60mp sensor of FF size used by other makers, but cropped down to 36x48mm, in this version the sensor also lacks microlenses. The difference between them is that 86H is only able for up to 4x multishot, while E-xact can do up to 16x and offers 192mp true colour analysis.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2014, 04:24:50 PM »
ReplyReply

i think the Sinar backs are made by Jenoptik who i believe just happen to be the originators of the piezo multishot tech.


Edmund

True, at one point Jenoptik used to own the majority of Sinar shares... After the partnership has ended, Jenoptik is obliged to continue the provision of backs to Sinar. Jenoptik makes them, Sinar owns the rights, distributes them and supports them.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad