Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
To what degree do all these models share / differ from having the same starting point?
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and they may have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for.
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving (subjective) "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s). I think the data presents the perspective that the Hassy provides more consistency of recording color ... as that color ... throughout a broad range of whichever color is being thrown at it (compared to other mfr's).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
And for those who will suggest this is a technical thing, not an artistic preference thing ... well, Hassy did call it out with "Science" in the namesake.
I take that to mean, that they will use scientific, in camera calibration, to record the natural color (whatever it was), as it was. That rather than having a cadre of temp / tint shifts throughout the color range.
None of the film profiles (Koda, Ekta, Fuji) noted could do that. Imo, what Hassy has done is the essence of what we envisioned digital photography would be. We're free to make the changes to our artistic heart's desire, but having as close to a "true color capture" as possible (saturation adjustments notwithstanding) was part of the vision. I just think that Hassy has achieved it at a level that is a notch above the others. Many folks will be in the "horseshoes and hand grenades" territory (i.e. close enough) with other mfr's (I have both Hassy and non-Hassy bodies).
Again, not your jam ... no worries. Some folks dig it.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
To what degree do all these models share / differ from having the same starting point?
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and they may have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for.
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving (subjective) "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s). I think the data presents the perspective that the Hassy provides more consistency of recording color ... as that color ... throughout a broad range of whichever color is being thrown at it (compared to other mfr's).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
And for those who will suggest this is a technical thing, not an artistic preference thing ... well, Hassy did call it out with "Science" in the namesake.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
To what degree do all these models share / differ from having the same starting point?
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and they may have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for.
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
And for those who will suggest this is a technical thing, not an artistic preference thing ... well, Hassy did call it out with "Science" in the namesake.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
To what degree do all these models share / differ from having the same starting point?
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and the have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for.
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
And for those who will suggest this is a technical thing, not an artistic preference thing ... well, Hassy did call it out with "Science" in the namesake.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and the have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for.
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
And for those who will suggest this is a technical thing, not an artistic preference thing ... well, Hassy did call it out with "Science" in the namesake.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and the have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for.
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
And for those who will suggest this is a technical thing, not an artistic preference thing ... well, Hassy did call it out with "Science" in the namesake.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and the have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for.
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
Jan 15, 2026 at 10:13 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16968082 « Hasselblad vs Leica image quality (IQ) »
