5D Mark II vs. Hasselblad H2

[joe_casey5]

<p>There's so much buzz these days I'm amazed my head hasn't exploded already!<br>

I purchased a Hasselblad H2 with a 50-110 zoom lens and film back this past year. The camera is amazing but a beast in the field; it weighs in a whopping 7.5 pounds with the lens (excluding tripod)! Shooting with film is getting harder and harder, as I realized on a recent trip to Illinois when I called all over the state trying to locate 120 roll film and found only ONE place 2.5 hours from where I was had some, good times!<br>

My medium is landscapes; what I love to shoot. For years Hasselblad has been a force to beat but now Canon is turning a corner with their latest digital technology and the 5D Mark II is seemingly offering some stiff competition to the H system, film and digital back.<br>

I'm considering selling my H2 system and crossing back over to the dark-slide (digital). Remember when porn was shot only on film... aahh the memories! But now everyone is going digital and it's hard for me not to see the light in the distance and know that the days of film are limited and so is my camera system.<br>

I understand my lens are slightly better than Canon's. My medium format film offers some advantages still over a full-frame digital sensor but there are the drawbacks of a huge, hulking camera, locating film, loading film, hoping that I've done steps 1-10 correctly so I can get the correct image and then the wait... to develop the film... and then there's the cost of the film and processing! SHEW! I'm exhausted from the thought of it.<br>

I love the romance of film but am I fighting a hopeless cause? Has Canon really caught up to Hasselblad with the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV in image quality and even depth of field? I've considered the cost of the P45 digital back for the H2 but at $10,000 vs. selling my H2 system and getting a complete 5D Mark II system and lenses with no added out of pocket... is a bit more tempting.<br>

As they said in the X Files, "The truth is out there", somewhere... and I'm hoping to find it.<br>

- Joe Casey</p>

[jeff.grant]

<p>As you already have the Hasselblad, why not look at second hand backs. Older ones are pretty well priced these days, particularly if you look at lower MP ones. Once you see the output from a MF digital back, you may find the Canon less appealing.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>True Jeff. I know in the case of Pentax, once I worked with some 645D files, I can never look at 35mm FF DSLRs again!</p>

[rvalois]

<p>Hi Dave ...<br>

Based on your post I'm assuming that you have a 645D. If so, can you advise if the lenses for the 645N are FULLY compatible on the 645D?<br>

The lenses I have: AF 75mm, AF 45mm, AF 80mm-160mm. Flash: AF-500FTZ<br>

I've written to Pentax US. They passed me on to Pentax Japan since the camera is not in the US yet. The Pentax Japan site has no area to contact them. Then going back to Pentax US, their responses are somewhat vague staing in effect that in the past new Pentax camera models accepted previously designed lenses but never stating that in the case of the 645D, that older lenses are in effect compatible. <br>

Whew and help !<br>

Thks,<br>

Ray</p>

 

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Joe (and others), unless you're dealing with fast moving objects, regular landscapes can easily be done with far higher quality than with any single digital (or film) camera by using the pano stitching technique. Here's one I did earlier this year with a low resolution camera using 18 shots: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/126073767">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/126073767</a></p>

<p>It's been reduced to a 27mp file here in jpeg and is several hundred mp in the original tiff. As you can see image quality is no problem and is far greater than anything achievable even with an 8x10 film camera. All you need to do is pick up a cheap pano head and a cheap point and shoot or, if you prefer, a low budget 10-12 mp dslr and a stitching program. And there's plenty of info on the web about how to do this.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>A digital H is a whole different machine than a Canon 5D MkII. Compare an image from each, then start looking for a digital back for your H.</p>

<p> </p>

[benjamin_s.1]

<p>Recently I came across this comparison between a 5D MK II and 6x7 film.<br />The author came to the conclusion that the resolution was nearly equal, however, he used only an Epson V700 to scan the film. An Imacon-scan may deliver even higher image quality, but we all know the price of these machines...<br /><br />http://www.westernlandscapes.com.au/node/197 <br /><br />I would also recommend the digital back for your Hasselblad. If it has to be 35mm, I would also have a look on the Sony A850 and the new Zeiss Distagon 24/2,0, which is amazing according to the tests I´ve read so far.<br>

Best regards, Benjamin </p>

[jeff.grant]

<p>Anyone interested in the 645D should find this interesting:<br>

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18585</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>While I have no doubt that there may be measurable differences between P45 images and a 5DMkII, depending on who's paying for the equipment (you or customers if you're a functional working professional), those differences may not be quite enough to justify the incredible cost and hassle of using medium format digital. I have neither a Canon 5DMkII nor any MF digital cameras but have seen files from both and given the cost of MF digital lenses, and the weight of the camera, one might conclude that the Canon is the way to go. This is coming from someone who used 4x5 and a Hasselblad film camera as well as a Mamiya 7 for many years and who is happy as a clam with a D700 and a couple of tilt-shift Nikon lenses.<br>

And, if you want to get really depressed, look at the prices of used medium format backs compared to their new cost. I realize all digital equipment eventually becomes a doorstop, but that's easier when it cost $2,500 up front vs $40,000 (the cost of a Phase camera and 65 mp back, I believe.<br>

In case you cannot tell, I'm not a fan of medium format digital, possibly out of sheer envy, though I guess I could afford it if I sold... At some point the madness must stop.<br>

I'd say stick with film, there's nothing wrong with it, and plan better for your film supply. If you have no high end digital experience, the learning curve for Lightroom and Photoshop can be a bit daunting.<br>

Good luck.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>With the benefits of shooting on film, there isn't much reason to pick up digital. Just mail order your film and do it in bulk so that you have a lot and if you are getting into wanting to photoshop things, have scans made at a lab and do it that way. In the end, the film is really worth it!</p>

[bueh]

<p>I say go for it! Film has its place but if you want convenience, digital is the way to go. You could test the waters with used Canon EOS 5D and see how you like it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Has Canon really caught up to Hasselblad with the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV in image quality and even depth of field?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depth of field is based on sensor/film size, so with all thing being equal, DOF will always be smaller with the smaller format. On the other hand, Canon has some large-aperture glass that makes up for it (i.e., many f/1.2 to f/2 lenses).</p>

<p>I find that digital SLRs have long passed the image quality provided by scanned MF film. True, if you pay outrageous fees for high-end professional scanning you might have better images with higher resolution, but this is just not worth it on a regular basis. However, if you work fully analog and do black-and-white pictures only, a film camera will still easily beat (in terms of dynamic range, tonality etc.) any dSLR.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>DOF will always be smaller with the smaller format.</em></p>

<p>Wrong! For the same field of view, the smaller the format, the greater the depth of field.</p>

[guido_h]

<p>Did you also consider the Sony A900 + Zeiss ZA 28-70/2.8 lens? </p>

[dave_s]

<p>Yeah, but from the context, it's clear that's what Bueh meant. Slip of the pen. So to speak.</p>

[bueh]

<p>Yepp, sorry -- I messed up when I changed some sentences. As Edward moted, DOF is of course larger with the smaller format...</p>

[uk]

<p>Fully agree that 35mm DSLR's are more convenient. Whether the quality is adequate is subjective and somewhat application dependent.<br>

I tested a 35mm digital against a Hasselblad CFV and discovered that the quality could be equalled PROVIDING focal lengths were similar. 50mm on a 35mm did not compete with the 80mm on the MF, but 75mm on the 35mm provided a closer view and improved resolution. <br>

The downside of this was the 35mm view is tiny in comparison, when shot from the same position. The MF thus gets tremendous flexibility in image management at the time and after exposure. <br>

Film has lots of disadvantages, but image quality on paper is not one of them. Film imparts a 'look' to an image and that varies depending on film used and it's processing. It can't be replicated; digital can't match the character of Velvia 50, or Tri-X. if indeed that is what is wanted. If you prefer the digital appearance, then that's a big factor in your decision.<br>

An artist would hardly compromise his materials, because he commits great time and effort to his product. If our work matters we should make the choice based on the end product. If convenience is a significant factor then digital wins big time.</p>

[jeff.grant]

<p>I think that you probably just answered why I took so enthusiastically to digital, Gary. I hadn't expressed it that way before. When I started with MF digital, I loved the colour palette, and the release from film such as Velvia that it provided. With digital, I start with a much more neutral palette so the addition of colour and saturation is a choice not a given. I used Astia and E100G for years trying to escape the Velvia look.<br>

As an artist, I feel that digital provides a starting point that matches my vision more than I could ever get with film.</p>

 

[jonathan_montague]

<p>Personally, I cant understand how anyone would think that... "digital SLRs have long passed the image quality provided by scanned MF film."<br>

i mean there's a reason that so many people working from DSLR files want psd actions to recreate the feel of film. and once you have your negs scanned you can either decide to stay with the incredible tone and colour of the film or go on to post process to your desired effect (even recreate a digital feel if thats what floats your boat) so for me film will always win on image quality unless you have £££'s to spend on a MF digital back, and even then i dont think its quite the same as film..</p>

<p> </p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Over the past twenty-five years I've shot 35mm, MF (645, 6x7, 6x9, 6x17), LF 4x5 and several years ago I added digital to the mix. I gave up 35mm film long ago and went to MF and LF in my quest for resolution and detail. Being drawn to landscapes, like many, I shot a lot of Velvia in spite of the shortcomings of high contrast, limited dynamic range, etc.<br /> <br /> I would offer the following observations, for what they're worth:<br /> To my eyes, disregarding resolution chart tests, a single 20-25 meg FF digital image, shot with a quality prime, will <em>barely</em> equal a 645 MF frame that is also shot with a prime and well-scanned on an Imacon or a drum scanner. The issue of digital vs film look is another matter.<br /> <br /> The MF digital backs certainly raise the stakes but at great expense and tremendously quick loss on equipment investment. After renting and evaluating a SONY a900 for almost a month, I settled instead, on the 5D2 because of portability, excellent noise performance and the availability of a handful of L series lenses that deliver excellent quality for my purposes. I also use, with an adapter, my Pentax 645/67 MF lenses occasionally on the 5D2.<br /> <br /> I recently made a trip north to Banff and took the opportunity to shoot a 12 frame (4x3) group for a stitch. The final image is over 400 megs at 8 bits after processing/cropping. I can look at the image at 150% on my monitor and still see fine detail with a noise level that is almost non-existent to the eye. The colors have a natural look similar to neutral print film. If I want a Velvia look with exaggerated saturation, I can achieve that with tone mapping. The total time for shooting the frames, simultaneously processing the 12 raw files and making the actual stitch, was less than 30 minutes. That is pretty cost effective.<br /> <br /> While this approach works for me, I realize that it is more applicable for still life nature/landscapes. If one desires large digital files from a single frame shot at an affordable cost (relatively speaking), the Pentax 645D seems like the most logical approach. Judging from the regular promotions I receive from Hasselblad, I would guess their sales aren't exactly setting the world on fire.</p>

[marco_ristuccia]

<p>Personally I don't think that working with film means that the aspect is imposed its characteristics. At least if using a hybrid approach. The film can be scanned and then post-processed like digital, by modifying its color saturation, contrast, etc...<br>

Moreover, by using a "low contrast / wide dynamic range" film like a modern 400ISO NC and then scanning it we get a quite neutral raw file to start from and we can do all the post-processing we need to give him OUR specific characteristic, just like we do with a digital RAW file. This is obviously not true when choosing the fully chemical process way, from the shot to the print. </p>

<p>I think that the real important difference between the old chemical world and the new digital one is that with the latter WE are able to chose the final characteristics of the developed digital negative. We are not anymore limited to the finite range of characteristics offered by films. That can be a power but also a weakness, it depends on our skills and sensibility.</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>I'm a bit surprised with the either/or debate. I love film. There are qualities with certain types of film and processes that you cannot replicate (easily) with digital. But I also could not live without digital. I shoot Nikon and some Canon for personal digital work. Leica, Nikon, Canon, and Sinar/Toyo/Crown Graphic for film. And Hasselblad H digital for fashion and some commercial work. They <em>all </em>have unique looks and processes. I wouldn't want to live with just one system. It would be like having a toolbox with just one tool: a screwdriver, to do all your home projects.</p>

<p> </p>

[rothelle]

<p>I shoot 90% with a Pentax 67 and have an old Canon scanner D1230U and I have made print from up to 30 x 40 with it. I never care what people say any more as long as my work dose what I want. I have shot with very high end digital and still do and made great prints from it as well. But I love shooting film still and love the darkroom prints. I don't think I will ever buy a medium format digital. I think I'm done until something new come out meaning next level above digital. I say why do you need a a medium format ad I have great shots from a simple 10 mp point and shoot. I don't know about you guys as longs as I get what I want I don't care what I shot it on. I even still work with 4x5 but my 6x7 I love the most. I print on a HP Z3200 and now Canon new 6200 24" printer.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have owned the 5DII since it was released and shoot with good glass (the three F2.8 zooms, and top quality lenses such as the 100 F2.8 L IS, 70 -200 F4 LIS, 85 F1.8, 50 f1.4, 300 f2.8 etc...) . I find that the quality is very high but only really gets to about the same level as my Mamiya M645s with Velvia and a Nikon 9000 scanner. I think the issue is that the lenses cannot match the sensor resolution and certainly find that my Fuji GX680 scans are much sgarper than the Canon. Over the years I have posted lots of comp images but here are a few samples - remember these are extreme crops here is a 5DII image of Moraine lake</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>I'll try that again</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>While the lens was not at it's optimum setting (I was just using the 5DII as a digital polaroid for the GX680) here is a crop from the 5DII which is about 1.37% of the image.</p><div></div>