clarity and quality

<p>Christmas day, I brought my ELX with a 80mm Zeiss T* lens to a friends house. I took 24 shots of 160c fuji film of people standing in front of the tree. I was amazed at how hard it was to focus. We become used to AF without realizing it. If you assume that the focus is on, what I would like to know is, does anyone believe that the hasselblad/220 film will be clearer than let's say my D200. I used f8/125 with two vivatar 285's using a flash meter?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

David </p>

<p>I have a D300 and a D2X as well as a 500 c/m, and I can tell you that the details and color rendition just blow me away. It's very hard to describe in an objective way, but the pictures just seem to have more "depth" to them. So far as focusing is concerned that does take a while. Use a magnifying prism with a split screen focusing screen and you you should be able to get sharply focused shots. I would not use these lenses if there were kids running around. Way too hard for me to assure focus. Of course using the Vivitars will freeze the action. Out of curiosity, how did you sync the second Vivitar. I don't know how to do that yet.</p>

<p>An Hasselblad can be very hard to focus in dim light. It is hard to see the image, and you tend to look through the GG rather than at the image plane. At 6' (guessing) and f/8, the depth of field is a little over 1 foot. This seems like a lot, but isn't really. If one person is a little ahead of the other and you focus on the closest one, the far person will look a little soft at f/8. I have some suggestions...</p>

<p>(1) Nothing ever looks sharp on a GG, just sharper and less sharp as you turn the lens. Focus through the best point, then back up a little.</p>

<p>(2) Concentrate on keeping any screen markings in focus. If that's a strain, you need different glasses, a correcting lens or a focusing eyepiece.</p>

<p>(3) Use a screen with a split-prism rangefinder. Focus on the eyes, eyeglass rims or failing that, the edge of the face. I find these focusing aids a distraction, others like them. Most screens have'm, and are widely available used.</p>

<p>(4) Re-focus between shots - hope for the best. Use a tripod if possible. Adults are a lot easier to shoot with a tripod, since they don't move around as much as kids, and you have more time to set up before shooting. It's easier to focus with a tripod since things don't shake around as much.</p>

<p>(5) Make sure your shutter speed blocks ambient light, unless you are using a tripod. 1/125 second won't guarantee there's no camera shake with an 80mm lens if ambient light comes into play.</p>

<p>Edward</p>

<p>What do you mean by the "GG"? Is that a "glass-something"?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>GG = ground glass (a generic term for viewing screen).</p>

<p>A Hasselblad with some good film will blow your D200 out of the water.</p>

 

<p><em>A Hasselblad with some good film will blow your D200 out of the water.</em></p>

<p>Don't be so sure. They're close enough that the cost and fussiness of medium format produces diminishing returns. That's why you can buy spotless Hasselblads for 30 cents on the dollar.</p>

 

<p>A properly focused 6x6 film transparency still has significantly more detail than the D200 is capable of. As for the focusing issue, perhaps you should investigate better focusing screens for your camera if you are having problems. It should be easy in good light.</p>

<p>Edward please..... Your turning up my stomach acids. Stop reminding me how much my pristine, mint condition Hasselblads are not worth. ;=) I just want to use them in peace and admire them on the kitchen table. I agree, the outdated D200 does hold up pretty well, but there is no substitute for hand worked black and white on fiber paper, so I think I'll hold on tight for now.</p>

<p>My own personal test results so far (Hasselblad vs. Nikon D300 at portrait distance) are in accord with what most others have said. That is: (1) if you nail the focus, the Hasselblad can capture fine detail better than the DSLR; but (2) it's hard to nail the focus. Film choice seems to be important too. I compared Astia 100 (the sharpest in my test) to Velvia 50 (second place) and Provia 100 (last place, about equal to the D300). The film was scanned with a Nikon 9000 and glass carrier.</p>

<p>I don't have 100% confidence in these results, mainly due to doubts about my focusing ability. But since the tests made me happy—justifying continued use of the Hasselblad where feasible—I may not do any more.</p><div></div>

<p>The caption on the lower right crop should say "CF" Sonnar, not "CR."</p>

<p>Other than contrast, which is easily fixed, I don't see much difference between results in the Hasselblad and the D300. The same fine details are present in each. This is pretty much in line with what I see comparing my D2x and Hasselblad, after crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's.</p>

<p>Try comparing the D300 at ISO 800 with NPZ800. That should reveal a clear winner.</p>

<p>The sample images appear to be taken at the same distance (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, then the 150mm Sonnar would have 50% more magnification than the 105mm Nikkor. Yet the D300 compares very well given experimental tolerances.</p>

<p>With a low contrast target like a wall map, Asti will have somewhat less resolution at the film plane than the D300 - 60 lp/mm to about 80 lp/mm. In a practical situation, you would normally shoot to include the same field of view, in which case the Hasselblad would clearly have more resolution - about twice as much. This is because Hasselblad film is more than twice the size of the D300 sensor.</p>

<p>The nice thing about the Hasselblad is that you can equal or exceed the image quality of a $7K DSLR for a third the initial outlay, and take your time doing it. If you count your time, that's another matter.</p>

 

<p>Edward, the sample images were composed to have approximately the same field of view (with the long dimension of the D300 matching the width of the Hasselblad square frame). So the Nikon shot (with a focal length approximately 3X normal) was taken from farther back than the Blad (with a focal length of approximately 2X normal). I realize that's a bit of an apples/oranges comparison but did it that way because I was also testing 35mm film and wanted to use the same lens for both the 35mm film and digital.</p>

<p>I understand your point about contrast. I did try to neutralize that factor by using a curves layer in Photoshop to match the white, black, and one of the gray squares on the ColorChecker for each test image.</p>

<p>Capture sharpening is also a possible variable I suppose. For that, I used the applicable PK Sharpener process for each type of image because that was as close to a standard as I could think of.</p>

<p>And of course you're right about ISO 800. That's part of what I meant in saying I would use the Hasselblad (mine is a simple 500C/M) where "feasible." I love using it, but digital is better if one needs more than 100 ISO, automatic focus, automatic exposure, instant feedback, high frame rate, long telephoto, immediate images with no time or money required for processing and scanning, etc. As a practical matter, digital usually seems preferable. But not quite always I think.</p>

<p>Also, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone else. Just sharing my personal, admitedly somewhat flawed, test for whatever it may be worth. I would think others, like the OP, who are pondering whether or not MF film photography is worth the trouble, would want to do their own tests using their own lenses, scanners, and (maybe most important) focusing skills.</p>

If I may interrupt the surely new, fresh and fascinating film vs. digital discussion, can I go back to one thing the OP said: "I was amazed at how hard it was to focus. "

 

You have a Hasselblad and you imply that you used it well before you got started on digital. Which likely makes you not quite a spring chicken any more. And one thing I just learned by my own experience is that presbyopia - age-related inability to focus close - really does creep up on you without you noticing, and can do so at a much younger age than many people perhaps believe.

 

I recently got my first pair of progressive glasses, after probably a year or more of worsening near eyesight. The two things that really hit me was 1) hey, I can read in dim light again! and 2) wow, manual focus suddenly got a whole lot easier. And not just a plain ground glass like on my Pentax 67 either; a split image prism isn't nearly as useful as it can be when the edge you try to line up is blurry.

 

So no matter what else you try, do take the time to check your eyes. Changes creep up on us without us noticing, and life is too short to run around getting unfocused shots when we don't have to.

<p>Yep, manual focus on a blad or Rolleiflex can sometimes be difficult. When in doubt, I have had an easier time of it just zone focusing and stopping it down. A better screen is the answer. As far as the digital vs MF dealie, my take is something like this: the cameras are designed for different things. If you need the speed and ease of focus, the digital is fine. W/ color neg film you won't see a lot of difference other than the digital's colors will look a bit weaker. If you're shooting transparencies or B&W you will see a noticeable difference in quality, especially at medium to large enlargements. Is it worth the extra hassle and expense ? Only you can decide that. If you're a B&W shooter your decision has been made.</p>

<p>Focussing may indeed appear difficult when you were used to autofocus, but it can be done perfectly fine, no matter what screen.<br>

Never as fast as autofocus can be, true. But very often better. ;-)</p>

<p>A more likely thing (or rather things) to cause problems are indeed our eyes. Janne's suggestion to have your eyes checked is a very good one.</p>

<p>Okay, let's blow up those images to something usable, like a 20x20" image, and see which one is better. There's no comparison, unless you blow the focus on either camera. For Hasselblad, try a chimney focusing device. Add an Acute Matte screen, if you like. And make sure you have a clean GG screen.</p>

<p><em>Okay, let's blow up those images to something usable, like a 20x20" image...</em></p>

<p>The examples are 100% crops, pixel for pixel. If blown up you would get something larger than a 20x20" print. It's time to face reality.</p>

<p><em>"100% crops, pixel for pixel"</em><br /><em></em><br />... and exactly the same size? What a coincidence!</p>

<p>That's what is wrong with most such comparisions on the net.<br />The lesser format/medium (in performance - whichever that may be) is blown up to the point that it will not stretch any further.<br />Then, that size is taken to be the norm, and the format/medium to be compared to is blown up to that same size. Not also to the point where it too cannot be stretched any further.<br />So what we usually get to see is format/medium A still performing just about as well as format/medium B. Hardly ever what format/medium B is capable of still. Hardly ever how the second format/medium would (out)perform when it too is taken to its limits.</p>

<p>So i habitually disregard all comparisons in which the 'comparees' appear exactly the same size.<br />Unless the things compared are either sensors/bits of film of the same physical size producing the same pixel count (film after having been scanned, obviously), almost all such comparisons are pointless. (The ones that are not are the ones that reveal a difference so huge that it is impossible that it would have been produced by infavourable comparisons).<br />And compare digital to film, and you obviously are not just comparing two methods of capture, but three. Film, after all, has to be scanned before it can be compared <em>"pixel for pixel"</em>.</p>

<p><em></em><br>

It's time to face reality indeed! ;-)</p>

<p>As Q.G. says, in my comparison, the digital is pixel for pixel, and the MF is cropped and down-rez'd and to match the digital framing. Doing a print comparison instead is a very good idea. I was thinking the same thing and will try it soon.</p>

<p>By the way, I understand that film-vs.-digital debates are trite and tiresome. By doing these comparisons, I'm just trying to better understand the relative capabilities of the equipment I have. For example, this summer our family is planning a driving trip to the American west coast that will include Yosemite National Park and Point Lobos. I am trying to decide whether to take the Hasselblad or the digital kit. I will definitely take a 4x5 (after all, this is a sort of landscape photographer's pilgrimage), and taking all three seems like too much.</p>

<p>"That's why you can buy spotless Hasselblads for 30 cents on the dollar."<br>

Funny how that works. You can buy D200 for about the same.</p>

<p><em>The lesser format/medium (in performance - whichever that may be) is blown up to the point that it will not stretch any further.<br /></em></p>

<p>In this case, the OP indicates that both images had the same field of view, so each has the same degree of enlargement in the samples and would be the same size if the entire image were printed. The comparison is valid.</p>

<p><em>"That's why you can buy spotless Hasselblads for 30 cents on the dollar."<br />Funny how that works. You can buy D200 for about the same.</em></p>

<p>Point taken. However the D200 has gone down in price because you can get a D300. The Hasselblad has gone down in price for precisely the same reason ;-)</p>

<p><em>"the D200 has gone down in price because you can get a D300. The Hasselblad has gone down in price for precisely the same reason ;-)"</em></p>

<p>Summary: both have gone down in price because something newer came along. This is not unique to the digital age, and also happened back in film days.</p>