best digital hasselblad for portrait

[megan_stone]

<p>i currently use a nikon d200 and d700 and looking into making a massive jump into medium

format/hassleblads.</p>

<p>which of their digital range is best and most popular for portrait photography?</p

[paul_gardener]

<p>Maybe you should refrase the question:<br>

Which of the lenses is to be preferred for portraits?<br>

Lenses have more influence on the final result than any of the digital systems made by Hasselblad or companies like Phase One and Leaf.<br>

Try to find samples of work from other photographers and look what they achieved with either V or H series cameras.<br>

V lenses are legendary for portraits and many other applications.<br>

This does not mean lenses made by Fuji for the H series cameras are less good.</p>

<p>If you go for Zeiss lenses with a V series camera it is good to know this concerns full mechanical cameras where only the relatively rare 200 series bodies and lenses offer TTL light measurement and some degree of auto exposure.<br>

All V series cameras are manual focus.</p>

<p>The H series offers AF and TTL light measuring.<br>

H series cameras were designed with digital in mind.<br>

Last but not least V series lenses can be used with H series bodies and a suitable adapter.<br>

Depending on what V series lens is used also TTL light measurement is available.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Portraits with lights and backdrops, or headshots of your friends? I prefer to think the former.</p>

<p>Most of your needs could be met with a "V" series Hasselblad body, 200 or 500. You neither need nor want automatic exposure for formal portraits, group shots or the like. You need good exposure for faces without any inteference from the clothes nor backgrounds, and you need consistency. Autofocus might useful for kids, but gets in the way for adults where you want a shallow depth of field with the eyes in sharp focus.</p>

<p>Most digital backs ever made can be connected to a "V" Hasselblad. Most new backs are stand-alone with batteries and CF cards. In a studio, an older, tethered (to a laptop) back would work nearly as well. The newer backs can be operated tethered to a computer too. I definitely recommend getting an EL body - the best would be a 555ELD. It is distracting to use a winding crank when you need rapport with your subject.</p>

<p>Don't be too concerned about the number of megapixels. I have a CFV-16 which, absent an anti-aliasing filter, is at least 50% sharper than my 12.3MP D2x. If you can afford $12K for a CFV-39 back, you'd be set for life. 120 film would be two steps backward from that.</p>

<p>A cropping back means that you lose at the wide-angle end. A 100mm or 120mm makes a good digital portrait lens, and work for group portraits outdoors. For groups, you will need a 50mm or even a 40mm in tight locations. I find that a 60 makes a good long-normal lens for general photography and environmental portraits.</p>

<p>The cropping factor for a rectangular sensor (22Mp and up) is 1.1x - almost insignificant. Unfortunately they have an horizontal orientation on these cameras, which means you need an L-bracket for portraits. That's not particularly bothersome in the studio.</p>

<p>You could probably do well enough with a good DSLR, but then too can every amateur with the same or better camera. You need something that sets you apart, and appeals to a clientele with money to spend.</p>

[d_g]

<p>for portrait i will go with a 100 cfi (maybe too sharp) or a 120 makro cfe.<br>

considering the back, i think that for portrait the waist level finder is a must, so if you wants to shoot in "portrait" orientation, then the new CFV39 isn't for you... it does not allowed to be attached this way, so you have to turn the camera..</p>

<p>leaf and Phase one backs in V mount can be used in both ways !<br>

not a problem with the previous CFV because it was square !<br>

backs are compromises, something like a P30+ is a good option if you want to shoot at 200 iso... but for architecture, it's the worst choice... horrible thinks happen when using movements because of the micro lenses !</p>

[diegobuono]

<p>To d.g.: if you can crop a vertical rectangle from a 16mp sensor you can crop from a 39mp as well; the 39mp when reduced at a square sensor (it has this option) is 29mp so nearly double resolution than the previous CFV16.</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>AT DG,</p>

<p>I do not know if you are shooting film or digital but both lenses, 100CFi and 120 CF are not a logical choice for portraits.<br>

The focal length is too short, they are unsuitable due to extreme high resolution unless you want to stack a number of softars.<br>

Diego Buono is right considering cropping to square format.<br>

Besides that what is the problem to tilt the camera 90 ° with a suitable prism?<br>

I have done that many times doing 4.5x6 frames.<br>

Be flexible especially when you have time to do portraits.<br>

Ergonomics are not the most important feature for a camera when doing portraits.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>if you can crop a vertical rectangle from a 16mp sensor you can crop from a 39mp as well; the 39mp when reduced at a square sensor (it has this option) is 29mp so nearly double resolution than the previous CFV16.</em></p>

<p>Yes, but you throw away half the pixels of a rectangular sensor in an 8x10 crop. Personally, I'd use an L bracket and a 90 degree prism.</p>

<p>A 37X49mm sensor is nearly full-frame. You would use the same focal lengths for portraits as with film (e.g. 150 or 180). I use a 100 or 120 with my square sensor (1.5x cropping). I would never stack softars, and with Photoshop it's not necessary to use even one. The idea of a lens "too sharp" for portraits is not a practical limitation.</p>