5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

3 end

Marcus Watts
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

The difference is small enough that it would make the 5d the far better choice for portrait and wedding work. You cannot beat the versatility of the 35mm format in those situations.

Edited on Mar 22, 2008 at 05:11 AM

Mar 22, 2008 at 05:10 AM

Focus Locus
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

One feature/benefit that the Hassy has... that the 5D doesn't have... (and that no other digital body or back has)... is the MultiShot mode.

This is for studio/product stills where the Hassy Multishot back takes 4 shots in immediate sequence, moving a 1/4 pixel each time... one with red pixels, one with blue, and two with green.

The files from these Multishot exposures are PHENOMENAL!!! There is no mistaking whatsoever between a normal 39 mp shot, and a MultiShot exposure. The difference is so evident that it is visible even on an LCD projection screen shown in broad daylight.

Mar 22, 2008 at 05:23 AM

Don Clary
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #3 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

rhtml wrote: What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.

Try an $80 EF 50mm f1.8 and $85 PTGui stitching softtware. Then compare 10 stitched 5D pictures from this cheapo equipment to a Hassy wide angle digital back print. 130 MP of Canon printed at 10 feet x 15 feet vs the Hassy print. Then put your eye 6"" from the 10' x 15' print. Who do you think is going to win this resolution contest?

Mar 22, 2008 at 06:44 AM

Chris Fawkes
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #4 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

Mar 22, 2008 at 08:47 AM

Antje
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

Don't know if that has been mentioned before - I *love* the colour rendition of the Hassy. He says the light levels changed, so maybe it's just coincidence, but I find the highlights and the colours in the Hasselblad much nicer. Otherwise, yeah, it's a close call.

Antje

Mar 22, 2008 at 09:14 AM

Andi Dietrich
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #6 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

its even closer if you consider that the 5d was croped to 4:3 = 8.5mp.
However there is more to MF than just pixel count, the 5d has about 8 stops DR while the back should have about 11 stops at 100 ISO

Mar 22, 2008 at 09:24 AM

LMCasey
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

I think you need to consider how large you are likely to print. Yes the MF digital backs make some unbelievable photos, but you are not likely to notice this unless you print very large.

Mar 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #8 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

rhtml wrote : "...when actually 5D can't even do landscape."

That statement is simply nonsensical and demonstrates a lack of awareness of landscape photography.

Now, if you want to say that a 5D cannot produce a 3 foot by 4 foot print with sharpness precisely equal to that of a carefully shot image from a 39MP digital MF back, I'll go along with you - but that is hardly a requirement for "landscape" photography.

You also considerably overstate the perceived "problem" with Canon wide angle lenses.

Mar 22, 2008 at 01:29 PM

Antje
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #9 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

Don Clary wrote:
rhtml wrote: What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.

Try an $80 EF 50mm f1.8 and $85 PTGui stitching softtware. Then compare 10 stitched 5D pictures from this cheapo equipment to a Hassy wide angle digital back print. 130 MP of Canon printed at 10 feet x 15 feet vs the Hassy print. Then put your eye 6"" from the 10' x 15' print. Who do you think is going to win this resolution contest?

Well... After doing that a couple of times during a landscape shoot, you'd probably yearn for a Hasselblad. Only half kidding here...

I have a 40 year old Hassy and shoot film with it. Shooting with it is very enjoyable, almost point&shoot-ish (especially, of course, compared to my LF camera) and the resolution I get from a properly scanned piece of film is just awesome. I love my 20D, too, but when I want to shoot a forest or so, something with many little things in it, a detailed landscape or so, I reach for the Blad.

Antje

Mar 22, 2008 at 02:06 PM

Beni
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #10 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

The 100% crops are downsized not upsized as they should be, no wonder they look so close. There was a test on the Alternative Forum between the 5D and a MF back which was more realistic and really showed the differences though the 5D still does incredibly well for a 35mm format camera period! It seems that there is a significant percentage of commercial shooters for whom the 5D is the camera of choice as backup for their MFDB rigs. The amount of detail it can capture with a good lens, and more to the point, capture so pleasantly (almost perfect AA filter?) is really a testimony to that sensor. I have little doubt that its sucessor will just not win as many hearts due to overprocessing and cramming more megapixels onto the real estate.

Mar 22, 2008 at 06:26 PM

michael49
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

rhtml wrote:
What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.

1. That's just a silly comment in my opinion. The Canon wide angles are good enough.

2. I've visited many landscape galleries with very expensive prints and not until I started visiting these forums did I even begin to notice the corners of these photographs - and even now I rarely do unless I'm being ridiculously critical - corner sharpness is not what makes a landscape print worth hanging or purchasing.

Edited on Mar 23, 2008 at 01:47 AM

Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45 AM

Andrew Welsh
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #12 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

I recommend you all buy hassy digital backs.

My wife works at Kodak in the fab where those very sensors are manufactured. You will keep her employed and allow me the extra income to purchase your no longer needed 5D's and lenses

Format size makes all the difference. High end fashion photogs use MF for a reason.

Edited on Mar 25, 2008 at 05:44 PM

Mar 25, 2008 at 05:44 PM

SoundHound
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #13 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

These are all tools. You don't specific your application. If it's static landscapes, with lots of detail, you can buy a cheap DSLR and stitch/photo merge many images for a huge negative. If these are moving subjects it's not so easy to stitch.

But most important-what is your exhibition size? I have made fine 24x36" prints with my 5D not to say that a MF 20/40Mp might look different or even better. But then there's also the question of utility, FL, ISO speed etc. Sort of like "what is better a NASCAR of F1 race car" without specifying the track and ,conditions.

Mar 25, 2008 at 08:24 PM

Bmeister
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

cineski wrote:
What is the 5d missing? Field of view, and the ability to do extensive post production without having to clean EVERYTHING up when the 5d falls apart in the shadows and highlights. A straight out of the camera shot like this doesn't do much for me. Show me a 5d image that's been through the photoshop ringer (I do a lot of this and the images do NOT hold up well), and another from the H3D. Then tell me how much time you spent achieving each image, and how well the H3D's images held up no matter how much you push them.
Bingo. I've had the privilege to shoot some Imacon and Phase One backs and you are totally correct on point. Even the heralded 1DsmkIII falls short compared to the larger format backs.

Mar 26, 2008 at 12:46 AM

gene A.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #15 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

Its been awhile since I studied this stuff but one reason that the 5D files might look similar to Hassy files is that MF lenses in general have about half the resolution of there 35mm counterparts. As I recall a zeiss planar 50mm f1.4 lens when tested on a high res b&w film like tech-pan was capable of something like 110 lines/mm, while the best an 80mm f2.8 zeiss planar from a hasselblad could pull was a little less than 70 lines/mm using the same testing methods.

Now you will magnify the MF image less to get to the same size print , so the noise, saturation etc. will be better, but resolution wise there probably isn't a huge diffrence between the two.

Edited on Mar 26, 2008 at 03:58 AM

Mar 26, 2008 at 03:56 AM

erickb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

I have an Hasseblad H1 & P45 a 5D and an 1Ds Mark III
90% is marketting , IQ difference is only noticiable for large prints

if you compare only something like price/IQ , the 5D is far ahead (IQ is very very near, price is very very far)

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 12:23 PM

dhphoto
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #17 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

erickb wrote:
I have an Hasseblad H1 & P45 a 5D and an 1Ds Mark III
90% is marketting , IQ difference is only noticiable for large prints

if you compare only something like price/IQ , the 5D is far ahead (IQ is very very near, price is very very far)

I come from a studio, large format background mixed with plenty of medium format and I'd say a LOT of this medium format digital stuff is down to the anal-retentiveness of the art directors.

We tried to switch from Hass to RB67's and even after showing them that the format fitted the page better, the image itself was bigger, the lenses as good (or even better in some cases) they refused to let us change, even though the Hass's were clearly mechanically inferior they just had the Hass name and that was all they wanted

For studio sets, interiors and other places where 5x4,5x7 or 10x8 sheet would have been used, yes the MF back will do a much better job of resolving fine detail than a 5D, but for my work, which is often industrial where detail matters, my 5D's do a great job, comfortably the equal of the RB's. I can comfortably go to 400 ISO without *any* loss.

Hass MF cameras are gorgeous, but IMHO not really necessary for a great deal of stuff.

David

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 01:30 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 01:29 PM

erickb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #18 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

thanks David, I see that we have nearlly the same opinion
I need 39MP for working but for fun the 5D (or 1Ds) is outstanding

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 01:42 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 01:40 PM

dhphoto
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #19 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

erickb wrote:
thanks David, I see that we have nearlly the same opinion
I need 39MP for working but for fun the 5D (or 1Ds) is outstanding

Out of interest why?

My stuff goes into financial reports, adverts etc, what benefits do you find from 39meg? Do you print massive or need the meg for some other reason?

The only thing I miss *at all* is camera movements.

David

Apr 03, 2008 at 02:00 PM

erickb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #20 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

I am working for car industry and if you have not a Medium Format and 39MP you are not a serious photographer
I have tried to say that a 1Ds Mark III is enough with same IQ (and 21MP) and much more flexibility , but they believe in MF
they need 39 MP for very large prints or ... just in case , even if it is for a calendar or a catalog

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 02:38 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 02:24 PM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #21 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

michael49 wrote:
rhtml wrote:
What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.

1. That's just a silly comment in my opinion. The Canon wide angles are good enough.

2. I've visited many landscape galleries with very expensive prints and not until I started visiting these forums did I even begin to notice the corners of these photographs - and even now I rarely do unless I'm being ridiculously critical - corner sharpness is not what makes a landscape print worth hanging or purchasing.

I have a 16-35 Mark 1, and if I stop it down to f/8-f/16 on a 5D, the corners are perfectly sharp (and i don't mean "pretty good", i mean every pixel is resolved perfectly, even at 16mm) and that is where Lanscape photographers shoot, so whats the problem? i just printed a 20x30 print that has far more detail than I have ever seen in a medium format film print of the same size. The "purists" will cry "but i can get a gigabyte of information from one medium format negative", but much of that information is redundant and unnesscessary, because once you start scanning at those levels, you run into the grain of the film, and there is no improving that. i would rather have a 5D printed at 144 DPI. I would rather use my camera to "scan" reality than create a negative to scan. Eliminate the middle man! If every pixel is resolved perfectly, it is a heck of a thing to see IMO. And i love the idea of carrying it around in my backpack.. Allows for a lot more opportunity for shooting.

I do see the value of larger formats for very specialist shooting, but give me a 39 MP hasselblad with comparable 1600 ISO (or 1600 ISO at all for that matter) that I can stick in my backpack and carry around with me all the time and i'll be happy to switch. Until then i'll save my pennies for something else, like a house.

In the end, the 5D wins out by a long shot for versatility.

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 03:13 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 03:12 PM

erickb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #22 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

there is no needs for 1600 iSO (even 800) for MF , 200 ISO is the maximum needed

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 03:20 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 03:17 PM

cineski
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #23 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

High Megapixels are just icing on the cake for MF, and people who think that MF is only about higher MP count are mistaken

. The fact that at 28mm on an H3DII, you have essentially the same field of view as a 14mm lens on 35mm. I say essentially because of different aspect ratios and the hassy 28 is almost 29mm, or 14.5mm in a 35mm conversion (I hope I did my math correctly

). So, to get the same shot with the different formats, you'd have much less distortion on medium format than you do on 35 format by design of the lens. 28mm doesn't distort as much as 14, even though on medium format with a 28mm lens you see as much as a 14mm lens on a 35mm camera. Larger fields of view make the world look more natural, less distorted. This is another reason you see high end advertising and architectural photographers using large format film. Heck, I've seen large format done with a digital back and the sensor is moved around to create a stitch. Another examples is a 90mm lens on large format is WIDE and doesn't cause the distortion you find in 35mm to achieve the same field of view. Also, the fact that you can fix lens distortion in photoshop is a moot point. Getting it correct and clean in the camera is what medium/large format photography is about which is why the higher end jobs are done with it. Also, these field of view advantages aren't just for wide angle lenses. All focal lengths are enhanced.

Again, field of view, full range flash sync, gargantuan viewfinder and bit depth are what makes Medium Format king of the roost. High Megapixel count is icing.

Now, what would be cool is if Canon gave up the megapixel race and started on 16bit images instead of 14. The H3DII can capture 39 frames per minute. I'd be fine with a commercial/advertising grade camera from Canon that can only shoot 2 frames per second that captures as much information as they can get. This wouldn't combat the other 35mm restrictions mentioned above, but it would help!

Bmeister wrote:
cineski wrote:
What is the 5d missing? Field of view, and the ability to do extensive post production without having to clean EVERYTHING up when the 5d falls apart in the shadows and highlights. A straight out of the camera shot like this doesn't do much for me. Show me a 5d image that's been through the photoshop ringer (I do a lot of this and the images do NOT hold up well), and another from the H3D. Then tell me how much time you spent achieving each image, and how well the H3D's images held up no matter how much you push them.
Bingo. I've had the privilege to shoot some Imacon and Phase One backs and you are totally correct on point. Even the heralded 1DsmkIII falls short compared to the larger format backs.

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 03:23 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 03:22 PM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #24 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

For your work, yes. For me, I like to shoot a lot of different stuff. Like musicians in dimly lit bars. 200 ISO won't cut it. I am sure the best of both worlds would be to have both kinds of cameras, but if i had to choose one to use, it would most certainly be the 5D. I don't need the AF of the 1 series, nor their bulk, nor their increased MP which only arguable increase the detail you resolve, and if so by a very small amount ( http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_5D/Canon_5D_review.html ) while loosing high ISO quality due to decreased light gathering abilities. What "I" want is a camera that can do just about anything well, and really IMO the most versatile camera is the 5D or possibly the Mark 3, but i don't shoot sports very often, so I'll take the FF and the extra MP.

Edited on Apr 03, 2008 at 03:29 PM

Apr 03, 2008 at 03:28 PM

erickb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #25 · 5D vs the Hasselblad H3D-II

when you need it for working there is no problem, the job pays it ...
for IQ it is 90% dreams

Apr 03, 2008 at 03:29 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 end