5D Mark II vs. Hasselblad H2

[philip_wilson]

<p>Here is the same crop from the GX680 with the Fuji 65mm lens (effectively 33mm equivalent) taken wiuth Velvia 100</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The Fuji image is much sharper and is compressed here at a quality level of 64%. As I say I think the issue is the lens as the Fuji lenses are very good (Fuji makes the Hassy H series lenses) and the large negative means the lens is not stressed. I can show what I mean by using a different image taken with the 5DII but with the 100 F4 L IS at F8 on a tripod and using live view (so no mirror and focussed at 10x). This is about as good as the 5DII gets and the image was shot in RAW, converted in ACR with all sharpness setting turned off than carefully sharpened at 100% 0.2 pixel three times. This is about as sharp as the 5DII gets as the 100 F2.8 L IS is a very sharp lens. This image is sized so that it represents the same area of a full image as the Fuji (As you can tell the Fuji crop shows a smaller area than the 5DII crop and is only 0.3% of the image). This 5DII crop and the Fuji crop really need to be sized to the same size in photoshop so you can see the quality differences as they would both cover the same area in a print. Because the 5DII crop is 330 pixels wide and the GX680 is 700 pixels wide but as the 5DII is 5634 pixels and this Fuji scan is 11969 pixels they print the same size.<br>

It is important to remember that these are extreme crops to show there is a difference - on most typicl print sizes you will not really see it although the Fuji always has a different (better / sharper look) when printed. On my screen the Fuji crop is 8 inches wide which would mean that this is like looking at a printout that is 11.4 feet by 8.4 feet (pro-rate these numbers if you have a smaller or bigger screen).</p><div></div>

[ondebanks]

<p>Hmm. This debate has got a bit muddled as there are three things being considered -<br>

1) MF film<br>

2) MF digital<br>

3) 35mm FF digital<br>

- but most people are commenting on only 1) and 3). In my view it's 2) that the OP should be looking at. He has a fantastic digital-ready outfit in the H2 and its lenses. I would even go so far as to say that it is now a waste of time and money owning the latest AF 645s (Mamiya AFD series, Hassy H series, Contax 645) <em>unless </em>one is either using a MF digital back or saving up to get one for it. I know that statement will be controversial for many people; but I say it because for shooting purely film, a less advanced 645 model will in most cases cost much less and give you equal quality. And since MF film is uniquely scalable, if you're staying with film, why stop at 645? All the other larger formats should be considered as well - Philip has shown us above what can be done with a 6x8.</p>

<p>It's for this reason that I kept shooting with older film cameras (M645 1000s, Mamiya Universal 6x9) and only got the advanced M645 AFD when I'd already lined up my digital back of choice on the used market. I can and do shoot film on the AFD but that's secondary. And I still sometimes shoot film with my M645 1000s and Mamiya Universal also.</p>

<p>My advice to the OP would be to keep the H2 kit and aim for a €2k - €4k used H-fit digiback. They do exist, and remember that there's more than just PhaseOne: look also for Kodak, Leaf, Sinar, Imacon, Hasselblad.</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>Good observation Ray - I suspect that the lack of people commenting on MF digital is the price of MF digital. The reason that I use 35mm (film and digital) but MF only with film and a scanner is the price of a good MF back. If I needed a lot of MF digital images I vcould probably justify a digital back. Most of my MNF is black and white white I don't usually scan as a run a complete wet process.. I would be interested if you could post some crops to compare your Digital 645 AFD and an M645 high quality scan.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>I would be interested if you could post some crops to compare your Digital 645 AFD and an M645 high quality scan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alas, Philip, I cannot deliver on the second part of that request: all my scans are made with a lowly Epson 4990 Photo. This comes to the heart of the decision I faced: invest between €2-3k in a much better scanner, or invest the same amount in the 645 AFD + digiback. For a number of reasons, I chose the latter. And I'm not looking back.</p>

[guido_h]

<p>You could also use a Hasselblad V kit with a refurb or second-hand digital back. Thus avoiding the electronic bloat and clumsy look of the H bodies. The box-like form factor and weight of a Hasselblad V is very convenient for backpacking and field work, and you can switch between digital and film backs in no time. Best of both worlds!</p>

[joe_casey5]

<p>Thank you everyone for your comments. Charles and Phillip I'd love to talk with you more, please email me sometime at joekcinla@gmail.com. The original post was over a year ago and since that time I've changed out my equipment entirely. I sold the H2 system as I found the 50-110 zoom lens to be very heavy and soft in the corners. I now own a Canon 5DII and a Fuji GSW690III. The Canon is much lighter, cheaper by far and easier to carry but I've not been terribly pleased with the performance of the lenses I originally purchased (50mm 1.4 and a Series I 24mm TS-E). Both have their issues as the 50 isn't great at small apertures, especially when DOF is concerned and the Series I TS-E had major C.A. and flaring (which I later learned were two of the major reasons Canon now makes a Series II lens). I'm in the process of buying the series II L glass as I've found quite a difference between Canon's L and non-L glass. The TS-E series lenses that Canon offers are the one advantage that isn't readily available in MF digitals. I agree that Hasselblad has become the IBM of the camera world and IMO is about to be left behind by the competition! Being able to Tilt and Shift on a FF sensor does offer an advantage to change perspective and lay the plain of focus down, which in certain circumstances, has allowed me to use larger apertures and still get a huge DOF. <br>

Interestingly enough, I would have to agree with the film buffs for the most part. I shoot both landscapes and architecture. What I've found is for architecture the 5DII with a series II TS-E lens is ideal for many reasons but for landscapes the Fuji 690 blows the mass production digital away! Fuji definitely makes better glass than even Canon's L series (IMHO) and the 6x9 positives I've gotten on Velvia 50 and 100F are night and day from the noisy, mechanical sensor of the Canon. I've come to the conclusion that the film wins in the landscape category for the following reasons: (1) A digital sensor has to reproduce what an engineer tells it the image looks like, not so with organic film. (2) the sensor adds an extra layer of glass than the film, which means more flaring, ghosting, etc. (3) a 6x9 slide captures an image fully 3x the size of the FF sensor, which when scanned on a dedicated film or drum scanner delivers more detail, better sharpness, more depth and better color. (4) Twilight shots look better on film because starbursts from lights and street lamps are softer and more subtle, whereas the added glass of the 5DII's sensor does little to evoke subtlety. In all, I'm happy I made the switch. I now have two great cameras and an awesome Gitzo 3541 tripod with crossbar that allows setup of both cams at once. I now shoot film and digital side-by-side and enjoy comparing the two later. There are times when the digital wins over the film but I must admit... there aren't many!</p>