5D MKII 21.1 mp sensor vs. hasselblad 40 to 60 mp medium

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>A (former) associate who uses and sells Hasselblads was always trying to get me to try and buy one. $9K for a used digital camera was a bit much. And then, lenses. But he knows I'm a sharpness fanatic, which is why I dropped the money for the Canon.<br>

So I email him and ask: The Hasselblad is 2.25x2.25 with a mp of 39 and change. Mine is a 35 mm full frame at 21.1 mp,<strong> is the megapixel density on the full frame about the same as on the Hasselblad? In otherwords, megapixels per square something? </strong><br>

He stopped answering my emails. He stopped speaking.<br>

What did I uncover? Am I right? Is he afraid that there's a secret that I'm threatening to reveal about Hasselblads?<br>

He has put out three photo books and, frankly, I don't see a difference in photo quality -- sharpness, color fidelity, not content -- in a coffee table book about 16 inches by 12 inches.<br>

Other than the sensor size, what does a Hasselblad have that I don't have with respect to resolution?<br>

h</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>I guess it would be like comparing a 35mm film SLR against a Medium Format camera. If you print 4X6, 5X7 even 8X10 you might not see a difference, but as the print sizes gets larger the medium format camera starts flexing its muscles. Not sure about Digital, but with film even on an 8X10, the medium format cameras had this 3 Dimensional look that set it appart. </p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Well, the Hasselblad CFV-39 39 Megapixel back has a sensor 36.7mm x 49.0mm, which just about exactly twice the size of a 5D's 24x36mm sensor. Since it has about twice as many pixels and twice as much area, it should also have about the same pixel density: Roughly 21,700 pixels per square mm for the Hasselblad, versus 24,400 pixels per square mm for the Canon 5D mk 2.</p>

<p>However, I don't think any of that was a secret.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Your friend probably sighed and didn't want to get into it.</p>

<p>It is debatable whether you will notice the difference on a small digital print when the output is only 240 dpi, but obviously you can print much larger and/or crop much more savagely if needed.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>"<em>Other than the sensor size, what does a Hasselblad have that I don't have with respect to resolution?"</em><br>

<em></em>Less.</p>

[james_atria]

<p>It was always explained to me that the big draw for these large backed cameras was not just the Mega Pixels but the Dynamic Range and the Color Depth.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>I don't understand what you uncovered. Maybe he thought you were a little nutty. If you want to believe that your Canon is sharper than or just as sharp the Hassy it's your prerogative, but I don't think anyone is going to agree with you.</p>

[Brad_]

It makes no difference. It's your eye, how you see life, and creativity that ultimately produces compelling

photographs. Not sharpness or other technical minutia.

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>Obviously a lot of Hasselblad lovers here. In my early watching digital evolve, a 3 mp camera didn't give respectable quality at any enlargement and hardly on the Web. I didn't see a real competition with film until the dslrs got to 4 or 6 mp.<br>

I think I might have been clearer, when I start cropping, how much effect will that have on the final product? I've found nothing in my proofs or in his that said I'd lost anything. But I do much of my work while running, ducking, hiding or being cursed. A big camera isn't practical. Still, I've shot some scenes and cropped 75 percent of the photo away and gotten equisite detail and sharpness. I just don't think stepping up to a five-figure camera and five-figure lenses is going to do me any good.<br>

And I still don't know why he stopped speaking.<br>

I appreciate the comments</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Harry,</p>

<p>My comment is not in the Hasselblad camp, the Hassy has less resolution!</p>

<p>I was interested in the Pentax 645D for the, rare, occasions I wanted more than 21mp and/or a larger sensor. But I reasoned for my use and the images I wanted to shoot that needed more I could stitch 90% of the time, so I am spending that money on a new printer and some lenses.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>Harry, this is just a supposition, but perhaps he thought you were badgering him. I mean, if you're satisfied with the Canon, why would it be his job to convince you otherwise? I think the best way really to see a difference is to rent one and then look at the files yourself. If I was selling Ferraris and someone would say, look, I have a Corvette and it's just as fast and I love it and I'm not getting a Ferrari no matter what you say, well, that's that. What else can he say and more to the point, why should he say anything else?</p>

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>Na. This was poor salesmanship.<br>

I think he was so set on selling me a $9K used camera and triple that in lenses that when I dared ask him a question as to what would I get with his camera that I don't have with mine, he got a bit insulted. You have to know the guy. And frankly, I still feel that way. I agree with Brad. Considering what we call the greatest photos in history were taken with contraptions that we'd call junkers today. Different cameras do different jobs. I haven't shot in a studio since 1973. I spend time practicing instant focus. I look for ways to lighten my loads on my shoulders. I use light thats there when I get someplace.<br>

Frankly if I wanted superior detail, I think I'd go to large format cameras. They're available in digital now, and film in large format isn't obsolete.<br>

Simply put, photography is not one size fits all.<br>

h</p>

[david.wagle]

<p>The hasselblad has 16 bit color depth, the canon has 14 bit depth. That means the medium format has significantly more color information per pixel than the 35mm, and that gives you significantly more post-processing latitude. It comes out to about 8 stops of resolution to the 5dii's 6.5 or so.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>As already pointed out sensor resolution is very similar since the actual medium format sensor size is only double the 35mm sensor size. I'm still waiting for a full frame 6x6 camera to make proper use of all those expensive medium format lenses. Speaking of which, don't forget that medium format lenses do not resolve as well as 35mm lenses. So it is quite possible that the 5D II, 1DsIII, and D3X are superior. Depth of field is less in medium format which can make compositions a challenge. This gets even worse for 4x5, hence the typical use of f45 to f64, making for very long exposures. Sure you get movements to try to change the plane of focus but that does not always get what you want either.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>It's possible. I can see you felt snubbed by the way he treated you. Hasselblads move for what $30,000, $40,000 without lenses? I don't even know. I would be weary too of buying a used one. It seems they would suffer from obsolescence quicker. And what about reliability? They're probably used by people that really put them through their paces. He probably gets customers that know exactly what they want and he doesn't need to give them a song and dance about the product itself. I mean, not compared to an SLR, maybe to other medium formats and about warranties and service certainly. I read in <em>Photo District News</em> an article about pricing a product/fashion shoot. Three agents put in bids and they did the play by play to see how the bids compared. I think the best bid in terms of price and content was around $150,000, including travel, location, models, etc. These are the kinds of photographers that buy Hasselblads like that.<br /><br />If you really are asking if you would notice a difference in the quality of the file, well, there's no question that you would. I think the Hasselblad wouldn't have an aliasing filter for example over the sensor. I've heard photographers complain because you get so much detail that every pore and whitehead and imperfection is visible on a model's face.</p>

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>@David. Interesting. But does processing in a 64-bit program compensate. Also, is there a point where the human eye doesn't see the quality and it's all specs? I look at the work in National Geographic and on the website, and I look at other photo sites and good-quality magazines. I don't see anything that would make me chuck that kind of cash.<br>

@John. That's another thing. I actually see the difference between L-series lenses and other lenses and cameras. In fact, autofocus isn't good enough for them. I manual focus and bracket and get better results than AF. And for digital some of the photos I see are really crisp. And I really don't see that in photos I know have been shot by Hasselblads. I do see a teenie bit difference with Leica photos.<br>

@Blake. Snubbed? Never. Frankly this discussion is to get some answers. As for the detail, I prefer to start with too much. Then use "surface blur" to smooth out any wrinkles. But I don't shoot models. The biggest problem with that is I'd have to work with models. When got gave me my gifts, she forgot patience.</p>

[martin-s]

<blockquote>

<p>If you really are asking if you would notice a difference in the quality of the file, well, there's no question that you would. I think the Hasselblad wouldn't have an aliasing filter for example over the sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the lack of that filter makes a huge difference. The amount of fine detail captured is pretty stunning and certainly exceeds what you could capture with any Canon, Nikon etc. FF camera. Whether you need that level of quality, is another issue.</p>

[Brad_]

A real shame Robert Frank didn't have sharp lenses. He could have been somebody...

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>The way I see it, the 35 mm sensor could very well provide better files. But it can't provide the quantity, no matter what the quality might be like. Color accuracy, the lack of an aa filter, dynamic range, I think this is all hype.<br /> The same points that are used to blame the 4/3 sensors vs. 35 mm FF sensors are used in this comparison.<br /> Just think how fast 35 mm sensors evolve, how many lenses are launched, and there is a big chance that a 35 mm sensor could yield better results than MF. Remember the nikon D3x blitzing all but one MF sensor on DXo ?<br /> It all comes down to neccesity: Do you need 4x5 meter prints ? Buy a hasselblad with a high MP count back.<br /> You don't need it? Just buy a 35 mm camera, it is as good in some situations, better in others.<br /> I downloaded some test images from the DPR site, taken with the pentax 645. I ran them trough my usual work flow and the color reproduction was non-impressive, the DR was nothing to dream about, the detail was good (no AA filter). Bottom line, for normal print sizes, the pictures provided by my D700 looked better in all respects but megapixel count (and detail, which was similar).<br /> It's like the Leica factor, there probably is no 3d leica look of the pictures, and that glass has been surpassed by the more modern lenses, but a leica fan will stop responding to your emails if you suggest that a Nikon F3 does a better job a 1/10 of the price.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I cannot comment on the digital Hassy but I find a scanned image (Nikon 9000) from my Fuji GX680 III shot with

quality print or slide film is sharper and more detailed than the best results I can get from the 5D II. I think a big part of

the difference is the lens resolution. While MF lenses resolve less than 35mm lenses the image area difference is

significant. The Fuji is almost 5x the area of the Canon 5D II and at 4000 dpi gives a 105 MP image. While the digital

Hassy has a much smaller sensor I suspect that it does produce better images. The key question is at what point do

you really see it. I find that the scanned Fuji images only really look better than the 5D II images when printed 18x12

inches or bigger. Below this you really cannot see a difference of course this size has the 5D II image printed at 300

dpi

[james_harris13]

<p>I had the 16MP 36x36mm Hasselblad V-system, at the same time as the 5DMkII.<br>

At ISO 50, with a tripod, those were the most amazing 16 megapixels you can imagine. No antialiasing filter meant unimaginably sharp at 100%, 9-micron pixels meant 0.0 noise and a pixel size well above the lens MTF, and incredible color depth and richness. Way, way better than the Canon's 21MP.<br>

Raise the ISO to 200, or try to handhold less than 1/250th, or take a picture that includes textured fabric, and the Hasselblad was no longer the winner. So they have their place, but not if you are ducking and running.<br>

I still own the Canon.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"@David. Interesting. But does processing in a 64-bit program compensate"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Talking about two different things entirely. Your 64-bit software gets to address memory locations using 64-bit pointers, granting the application a much larger address space, allowing larger amounts of memory (assuming your computer has it available) to process more data more efficiently.</p>

<p>14-bit vs. 16-bit depth refers to how many potential shades of tone/color are recorded in the image file--for example, 8-bit has 256 possible shades, 12-bit, 4096, 14-bit 16,384, and 16-bit 65,536. And this is per-channel, so multiply x3 for red, green, and blue. What this means to image quality is smoother color gradations, less likelihood of banding, etc. In photoshop, this ibit depth appears as 8 and 16-bit modes. Note that JPEGs are 8-bit, so to take advantage of the greater bit depth during post-processing you need to shoot RAW or record as 16-bit TIFF if your camera supports it.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>People have been bringing out specs to show that the 35mm-sized DLSRs are as good as 120mm film or digital since the first full-frame Canon camera. People still build and buy digital MF cameras and backs, and even Leica has gotten into the market - and I've always viewed Leica as a company that says, 'They'll buy what we tell them to buy, because we're Leica.'</p>

<p>Not saying it means anything ... just sayin'.</p>

<p>Between you and your friend though, it sounds like both of you are arguing over whose dad can beat up who. They're two different cameras for different applications, and neither can be strictly better. It's like arguing about whether a Harley Davidson is better than a Dodge Ram.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Although I posted details of this a few days ago on another forum, a friend and I both own 5DmkIIs. My friend recently purchased a Pentax 645D, shot some well controlled comparison shots and made the RAW files available to me to download from his website. The results were interesting and quite disappointing to me as a longtime Canon owner. Opening up the RAW files the Pentax blew away the Canon.</p>

<p>Both cameras were operated at ISO 200, a range of F8-F11 at 28mm focal length, with a scene ranging from near black to white, plants, trees, a horse trailer, ceramic pots, etc. To our eyes colors were far more neutral from the Pentax but the big surprise was noise and lack of detail in the darker, shadow areas of the Canon frames vs the squeaky clean shadow areas of the Pentax. We both expected the Canon to be superior in that area as we've heard the stories about the noise issues of MF digital cameras at higher ISO settings, although ISO 200 is not high. My conclusion is, as others have said, that it's more than just the number of pixels or pixel density. Processing and the architecture of the sensor have a great deal to do with the final result.<br>

I can, and have, used stitching to create large files comparable or exceeding that of typical MF digital cameras, even high res scans of 4x5 film but if other qualities of the resultant image don't live up, then what have I gained? </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>if you're satisfied with the Canon, why would it be his job to convince you otherwise?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A (former) associate who uses and sells Hasselblads</p>

</blockquote>