question from longtime 35mm user...

[kevinbriggs]

This question pertains to medium format digital cameras:

 

When I was in high school and college photography courses, my dream was to be

able to progress to a point in life in which I could afford a Hasselblad medium

format camera for landscape work. I remember one of my college photography

teachers brought in his medium format Hasselblad and I will never forget seeing

the differences in the 35mm film versus the medium format film -- the width and

thickness of the larger format films. (This was about 18 years ago...)

 

Of course we know that Hasselblad has their digital cameras on the market now;

ranging from $20,000 all the way to nearly $29,000, depending upon megapixels.

 

But now that we have the new Canon Mark III 1Ds coming out on the market at 21.1

megapixels (sometime this fall), the question begs: what is the difference

between the least expensive Hasselblad (22.2 megapixels) and the new Canon at

21.1 megapixels as far as they relate to the difference between standard 35mm

camera bodies/sensors and medium format bodies/sensors?

 

Is there still something about the Hasselblad (and other brands of digital

medium format) cameras/bodies that make them "true medium format" as opposed to

the 1Ds?

 

Of course I know the few basic differences between medium format digital cameras

and 35mm bodies like the Mark III, i.e. ISO speeds, shooting speeds (fps), etc.

 

By the way, as you can probably tell, I never did get the opportunity to work

with a medium format camera, Hasselblad or otherwise. I just salivated for

several years over the possibility... =)

 

Thanks for all comments!

 

Kevin

[davemoss]

well, this might be headed for the flame wars, but as far as i can tell, you will still get better results from the hasselblad, no matter what the megapixel count is.

 

i'm not exactly sure how big the sensor is on the medium format backs, but they are sure to be bigger than the 35mm FF stuff.

 

the difference between medium format and 35mm has always been the size of the negative. and hence, MF backs should still be bigger than 35mm FF sensors. again, i don't know if the sensors are 6cm square, but i would assume they are close.

 

i know from seeing examples that i'd rather have the mamiya 645 with digital back, than any canon offering. but that's taking into account that i find canon lenses inferior to both zeiss' and mamiya's, so i would always find their images more pleasing.

 

i don't know if you are debating buying anything, or just pixel peeping, so i can't assume what your intentions are.

 

me personally, i got a Mamiya MF system recently, and a good scanner. it isn't as quick and easy as digital, but it is a look i love for certain applications. i do own digital SLRs too.

[dave_redmann]

I have never used a digital medium format back, but based on my experience with DSLR and digital point-and-shoot cameras, and what I've heard about digital medium format backs, all I can say is: not all pixels are created equal!

 

By most accounts, the major advantage of the digital medium format backs is that they provide dynamic range far superior to the smaller digital options. In othe words, there would be highlights that the 1Ds Mk. III would blow out, or shadows that it would fade to black, even with raw capture, where the digital medium format back, given the same exposure, would retain detail.

 

Also, my 6 MP DSLR typically provides resolution far superior to my 7 MP digital point-and-shoot, plus better results in other ways. I would expect digital medium format backs to have similar advantages.

 

Note also that I think most of the digital medium format backs have sensors that are 36.7 x 48.0 mm or 36.7 x 36.7 mm--in other words, much bigger than those in even "full frame" 35mmm-style DSLR's (although somewhat smaller than even 645 film).

[Ed_Ingold]

Kevin,

 

Your question is legitimate. Unfortunately, not many among us have been able to compare MF Digital backs with small format DSLRs and film.

 

I recently purchased an Hasselblad CFV back, and have owned a Nikon D2x for 1-1/2 years now. Although the CFV has only 16MP, it is sharp enough to produce an excellent 24x24 inch print, possibly larger (that's as far as I've taken it). Sharpness is only one measure, and not all pixels are equal.

 

What distinguishes the CFV from the D2x, for example, is the low level of noise up to ISO 200, excellent color and, most important, an extremely wide dynamic range. Hasselblad claims a 12-stop dynamic range, which is comparable to good B&W film (e.g., Tri-X). I can't attest to the actual numbers, but everything I've seen so far (and I have hundreds of rolls of Tri-X in my archives) is consistent with this statement. Although the D2x is nearly as sharp, it doesn't come close the shadow detail in the CFV.

 

A physical factor in favor of MF digital compared to small-format digital is the size and spacing of the pixels. The CFV (and rectangular 22MP backs) have a pitch over 9 microns. The D2x and Canon 1DsMkIII have a pitch of about 6 microns, considered the lower limit for acceptible signal to noise ratios. The larger spacing is also more forgiving of lenses, so that comparable lenses will be sharper when used with a MF sensor. As we see in recent announcements by Canon and Nikon, advances in sensors and image processing will result in better small-format cameras. For the near future, however, real-estate and dynamic range trump pixel count.

 

You should not limit your concerns to MF digital. You can enjoy many benefits of MF using film. Film or digital, MF photography is a contemplative activity, compared to SF at any rate.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I think some things stay the same comparing the formats as before. 35mm will give you a shallower dof a chance to use very fast lenses, more variety of zoom lenses and ones with some new technologies such as IS/VR that make for less shake and better fast frame rates. High iso is something the new Canon is likely to be good at. I see the new Nikon has sensor sights almost 9 microns because its a 12 mp sensor, Nikon wanted very low noise at high iso, better DR and faster frame rates 9fps so they felt 12mp would be the sweet spot to achieve these goals. Only you can decide what you find best. One thing I feel is that the idea of a separate back is not as important when you can change iso at any time and the sensor does both color and B&W. I think the integration of the controls and the camera is really very key.

[bob_smith]

35mm has shallower depth of field than medium format? Huh?

[kevinbriggs]

Thanks very much to everyone for their responses. Much appreciated! I'm learning a great deal.

 

Edward, you note that Hasselblad has a pixel pitch of 9 microns as opposed to Canon and Nikon which have (with their latest body releases) pixel pitches of 6 microns. But what I'm confused about is the following quotation from Wikipedia under the subject heading of "pixel pitch":

 

"Measured in millimetres, a smaller number generally means a sharper image (as there are more dots in a given area), and vice versa."

 

Wouldn't this mean that Canon and Nikon would have the sharper images...?

 

If anyone can clear this up for me, it would be most appreciated.

 

Kevin

[q.g._de_bakker]

Kevin,<br><br>Shoot the same scene with the Nikon and the Hasselblad, and the picture the Hasselblad projects on the senso will be much bigger (by the same ratio its sensor is bigger) than that in the Nikon. So though there are more 'pixels' per mm on the Nikon sensor, there are less 'pixels' per picture element: the same bit in the picture is captured by less sensor elements. Print both images to the same size print and the Nikon picture will then have less pixels per mm too.

[bryn_evans]

Kevin,

With medium format prices as low as they are now it's the perfect oportunity to buy the hasselblad of your dreams. I would just put a roll of velvia 50 through it and look at that before splashing out 1000's on a digital back. You can always scan your best shots if you want to alter them digitally.

With the current pace of Dslr development a lot of pro's must be selling medium format which is good news for the amateur buyer.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I agree, Bryn. You can buy a nice Hasselblad and an Imacon scanner for less than a digital MF back. Or skip the Imacon scanner and but a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (or just have your best shots drum scanned).

[fotografz]

The least expensive Hasselblad back is the CFV which is under $10,000. Under $9,000.

some places ... and sure to be under $7,000. in mint condition if a new one is announced.

 

The concept of "Size Matters" that held sway with film, holds true with digital also ...

although not to as great a degree as it did with film.

 

My current commercial arsenal consists of a CFV on my Hasselblad V cameras, a 31 meg

H3D, a 39 meg H3D. I also commercially use a Canon 1DMKIII and a 1DsMKII (soon to be

replaced with the 22 meg 1DsMKIII). For personal work I often shoot MF film scanned on a

Imacon 949.

 

I do not confuse the three options in any way.

 

The MF digital backs outperform the 35mm DSLRs in terms of the image quality I need for

commercial assignments, while the

35mm DSLRs provide the high ISO and fast shooting abilities I need for spontaneous

wedding and event work.

 

Outdoors in relatively decent light, or in the studio, the 35mm DSLRs go back in the bag,

and the MF digital comes out. If I were to be doing landscape work on a tripod, I'd use the

MF digital camera every time.

 

When I first got the 16 meg 1DsMKII, I tested it against my then MF back ... a 16 meg

Kodak ProBack. I had a commercial assignment to shoot a high-end Jewelry catalog. The

Canon simply could not render the specular highlight of the jewels, silver and gold ...

where the ProBack handled them with ease. Same meg count, huge difference in

performance.

 

Every Hasselblad back available today, Including the CFV, is better than that wonderful

Kodak Proback.

[gary_ferguson1]

If you produce colour prints on an A4 or A3 size inkjet printer , especially if you haven't

spent many years closely examining thousands of prints, then frankly you'd be hard

pressed to tell the difference between shots taken with my Canon 5D and shots taken with

my Phase One P25 on a Hasselblad V camera. And even then the difference would be

elusive, present in some shots and not in others. The medium format back would deliver

slightly smoother graduations between colours and tones, and the merest hint of

additional resolution.

 

Those fractional diferences make it worthwhile for me, but I'd be the first to admit that

they're relevant only to those of us afflicted with serious obsessionality!

[andreas_carl]

Apples and Oranges. The good news is, with hasselblad prices way down and the ability to

buy and sell on ebay, you can make your dream come true now!

[rashedahmed]

If you can afford to buy a Hasselblad with digital back,buy it.

It will give you more working comfort than any other formats.

I have tried all three of them (SF,MF & LF).If you are a detail

freak,go for it.

[kevinbriggs]

Thanks again for all of the responses! I must say once again that I am learning a tremendous amount from all of you.

 

Gary, thanks in particular for your honesty about those of us who may possess "serious obsessions" when it comes to certain results. =)

 

Kevin

[scottferris]

the main drooling differance for me between a canon and a hassy is the lenses...mmmm zeiss glass...*drool*

[frankz]

scott ferris, Aug 27, 2007; 01:21 a.m

the main drooling differance for me between a canon and a hassy is the lenses...mmmm zeiss glass...*drool*

___________________________________

 

Scott, I'm with you. Personally, I find a Hassy a general pain, but I keep mine for that reason - the glass.