brick33308
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #5 · Hasselblad vs Leica image quality (IQ) | |
RustyBug wrote:
Imo, the main separator for the Hassy is what you can do with 16 bit color vs. the limits of what you can do with 14 bit color. If you are one of the folks who gripe that there is no difference and you don't want the "slowness" of processing 16 bits of data, the utilitarian speed of 14 bit processing trumps the IQ difference that you don't use ... if you aren't CHALLENGING the files. (Note: The Hassy can be shot in 14 bit to speed things up, but will still be slower due to the larger number of rows / MP being processed.)
...Show more →
Just FYI on the 14 bit vs 16 bit discussion, here's what Jim Kasson says about it: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/the-16-bit-fallacy-why-more-isnt-always-better-in-medium-format-cameras.4803313/
as summarized by Grok:
This thread, started by Jim Kasson himself in May 2025, directly addresses the topic. He debunks common myths about 16-bit superiority, arguing that sensor limitations (e.g., photon shot noise and read noise) cap effective dynamic range at around 14 stops, making additional bits unnecessary for photography. Key arguments from his opening post and replies:
Dynamic Range: A 16-bit file theoretically offers 96 dB vs. 84 dB for 14-bit, but real sensors don't exceed ~14 stops (84 dB). Once quantization noise is below the analog noise floor, extra bits add no value.
Tonal Smoothness and Banding: 14-bit already provides more tonal steps than the human eye can detect, especially in post-processing. Banding issues arise from output formats or compression, not capture bit depth—shot noise naturally smooths quantization.
Color Accuracy: Sensors don't deliver true 16-bit color fidelity; the bottom bits are noise-dominated. Color depends more on lens, sensor design, and spectral response.
Future-Proofing: Unnecessary, as 14-bit files already have excess granularity beyond current sensor capabilities.
Other Applications: 16-bit might help in controlled scientific settings, but not in typical photography with variable lighting.
Drawbacks of 16-Bit: Larger files, slower readouts (due to ADC design), longer blackouts, and increased rolling shutter distortion, with no compensating benefits in single-shot mode.
He concludes that 16-bit is "more about marketing than measurable photographic benefit," with "little to no advantage over 14-bit" for dynamic range, smoothness, or color. In replies, he notes this applies to 44x33mm sensors like the GFX 100x and X2D, and while frame averaging (e.g., in Phase One IQ4) might slightly favor 16-bit by reducing noise, it's implementation-specific and could be handled via software from 14-bit data.
My take: if given the choice between the SL3 and X2DII, I'd go with Hassy for the simple scientific reason - the Hassy is sexy as hell 
Back to reality: unless you're printing huge, I doubt anyone will see a difference in images taken under comparable lighting/settings using quality glass of the same equivalent focal length. I've heard from many users of both platforms but have no actual knowledge that Hassy colors SOC are superior, especially skin tones. But these days who relies solely on jpgs SOC as opposed to shooting RAW and processing in post? Finally if you have any desire to shoot street and rely on auto focus, again based solely on what I've heard, the SL3 is more adept.
|
