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

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 29, 2011; 06:33 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Harry,<br>

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

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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Scott, can you point us to a test where the 39mp Hassey has less resolution than a 5D2? I'm curious to see how an image of about 7200 pixels wide is outresolved by a 5600 pixel image....with an AA filter. </p>

<p>I'm curious as I've yet to see a test site agree with this....nor have I seen a print that backs this up.</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>If everyone wants to see what the REAL differences are, instead of listening to those who claim there isn't one, simply go to the Imaging Resource site. Download the Raw files from the Canon and Pentax 645 studio scenes. Take a look at the texture in the fabrics you can see with the Pentax 645D.....that are simply smeared away with the Canon.</p>

<p>The Hassey with the P45, or the Pentax 645D, simply slaughters the Canon 5D2, or Nikon D3x when it comes to resolving detail. Then we can avoid dealing with comments from people telling us what they think, as opposed to what is real. It's visible in prints as small as 16x20....and becomes glaring at 20x30 and up.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dave that wasn't the context of the comment. I took it to mean, maybe incorrectly, if you use the same area of each sensor which has more resolution. In that case the denser Canon sensor, even allowing for the AA filter, should have more resolution.</p>

<p>Dynamic range and colour depth, no, but the question, as I read it, was specifically about resolution, whilst ignoring sensor size. Full frames of each and the Hasselblad is a much fuller file, stitch 5D MkII files to match the sensor size and whilst the theoretical advantage is to the greater colour depth of the Hasselblad in reality, unless you have wide gamut screens, you are not going to see any difference. Dynamic range, again, the advantage is very much to the Hasselblad, as it should be, but again, what do you need to be able to make good prints?</p>

<p>By the sounds of Harry's use he is not a committed tripod user, if you are not using a tripod with either camera you can't realise the ultimate image quality from them, if he is happy with the 5D MkII results then, using his standards (<em>"running ducking and hiding"</em>) <strong>he</strong> is missing nothing from the Hasselblad, that does not mean that nobody could use the Hasselblad to get better results per sensor area than the Canon, just that as per his question, he is missing nothing.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Harry, do you mean- will you notice any difference in the output if it is destined for a coffee table book 16 x 16 using a Canon 5dMkII or a Hasselblad w/39MP?</p>

<p>That is an interesting question. I doubt you would notice a difference myself, if all other things are equivalent: mainly because you are limited by the output resolution of the print. Pixel peeping the file, or if you were printing larger than 20 inches or so then I would anticipate you would see a difference.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>Here it goes:<br>

If you are a full time professional shooting in a studio for a magazine and they buy your gear, you get a Hasselblad. If you're a wealthy enthusiast and want the best money can buy, you get a Hasselblad. If you're either you probably don't read internet forums on which system is better. If you're in the other 95% of photographers you get something like a Mark ii Canon which can take any picture a blad can and the casual observer couldn't tell the difference. </p>

[drpath]

<p>I found this an illuminating discussion. A little simple math shows the 'Blad back to have 6.8 micron pixels with a pitch of 147 per mm. The 5D has 6.4 micron pixels with a pitch of 156. Another way of looking at this is that enlargement to a 255mm wide 8x10 would give 28 pixel per mm for the 'Blad, and 22 for the 5D2. These are trivial differences, probably swamped by the anti-aliasing, microlens design and processing pipleline. I also doubt that the difference between 14 and 16 bit color depth can be seen with any current printing technology.</p>

<p>James Harris' remarks about the 16MP back vs the 5D2 are also interesting. This is pretty much what I would expect. Now, I'm just an amateur who clings to his 5D1 (and his stock of 120 film in the freezer) and still believes that big pixels are better pixels, but I think the MF manufacturers are putting themselves in a box by trying to compete with FF cameras in pitch. The new 50Mp 'Blad back has 6.0 micron pixles, which is getting down into APS-C territory, yet the pitch is only 167. How's that going to work out?</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Next time you see him, ask why Hasselblad did not come out with a 6x6 square format digital back?<br>

More than half a century of preaching 'square format is directly from God' and the quit and go 645 with digital.</p>

[gandicarter]

<p>I have a few images on my website made from my H3DII-50 for people to enjoy. A number of them have a flash player called "Zoomify" that allows you to zoom in to 100% to get a feel for the images at a per pixel level. Those images are compressed however, the actual images are better than what you can see over the web.</p>

<p>It is my experience that that camera provides prints upwards of 30" X 40" that are very satisfying to me. Pixel peeping comparisons between its images and my Nikon equipment usually gives the advantage to the Hasselblad -- so even if I only used 12MP cropped from its images, the Hasselblad image would look sharper and more contrasty than from a Nikon D300. (Both cameras have approximately the same sized photo sites) This probably has to do with the AA filter in the Nikons. This tells me that the Hasselblad's lens is just as good at the fine detail as the Nikon's even though it covers a much bigger sensor.</p>

<p>On of my favourite pictures is http://suresoft.ca/G031/G31L.HTM and it is a good example of what that camera can produce. I admit I not sure why I like that image as much as I do, there is no one strong point of interest or really strong composition but I find it quit satisfying.</p>

<p>However for every Hasselblad picture I make, I probably make about 4 with smaller, more portable and flexible cameras.</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

<p>http://suresoft.ca</p>

<div></div>

[rashed_s]

<p>There is no way to relate the Hasselblad 39MP to any of the Canon cameras or Nikon, we are into different ay out of sensors here.</p>

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>I think I got what I wanted to see. And I've seen a lot of excellent logic. And the technical information has been marvelous.<br>

Frankly, you've made me quite satisfied with what I'm shooting. In fact, the folks at my photo processing lab said they could take a well shot photo and blow it up to fit on the side of a truck, if that's what I wanted.<br>

To take this out of the realm of high-technology where I often fall through the ice, I don't thing the difference between the Hasselblad sensor technology is worth the expense if I'm not shooting really big art for a gallery. I don't shoot art for a gallery.<br>

I've shot medical research photos with a macro, tripod and focus rail, well lighted and teenie f-stop and a LOT of bracketing. And the physicians were more than happy with the results and 130mb tiff files for their powerpoint presentations. (don't ask, sworn to lifetime of secrecy about what they did and how they did it.)<br>

I haven't seen any photo I can't take with my 5DII; and (and the Hasselblad people aren't going to like this) when I've been to photo shows, the Hasselblad enthusiasts tended to focus on the quality of the print while the dslr and slr folks would dwell on the content of the photo. Hasselblad folks shot things that were sitting still and dslr and slr folks shoot things that were in motion, sometimes violently. I have no idea how consistent that is. I have seen documentary photographers in the field with Hasselblad film cameras, but never yet digital. But that's what I've seen, not necessarily what is.<br>

So it's obvious where I've pitched my tent. In all, it's what you need to get done and which the tools do it best. <br>

As for my ex-friend who quit speaking. He likes to be praised, not questioned. He's not speaking to a lot of us in the group.</p>

 

[bfmelton]

<p>An interesting, albeit unscientific, exercise might be to use Gerald's website to try to tell the difference (without peeking at the camera info) between the Nikon pictures and the Hasselblad pictures. While the limitations of the exercise should be obvious, for its limited purposes it may be instructional.<br>

FWIW, I correctly picked out the Hasselblad pictures, but did attribute two Nikon pictures to the Hasselblad.</p>

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>@BF<br>

I went through Gerald's slide show. Nice stuff. I missed three of 25 that I viewed, but I picked out 100 percent of the Hasselblad photos. Gotta give props where it's due. With respect to Hasselblad owners here, I was able to see a superior depth and clarity in both the foreground and background; and in the original photo, I couldn't tell where the focus point might have been. <br>

With respect to my curiosity, I didn't see where the difference was anything other than camera skills, a tripod, flat water, no breeze to move the leaves even though you're shooting through a kickass f22, a shutter cable, fill flash for the foreground, 1SO 50, and I could reproduce that with a good dslr full frame.<br>

Gerald's Nikons reproduced Hasselblad quality at least three times, and mainly the difference was the depth of field and things like details in trees in the backgrounds. That was him behind the camera, not the camera.<br>

Other than that, I'm working on a documentary-based website based on photos and narratives, and my first project is photographing where homeless people sleep in major cities across the country, and I've been chased twice out of tunnels by psycho veterans, who throught I was gathering information for federal surveillance. I'm glad one time I was just carrying a G10. But hauling a Hassy along with a short, wide and medium telephoto zooms in the dark, in the cold someplace where I'm only marginally welcome ... unsafe.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Yes, and a point and shoot in the right hands can outshoot a Canon in the wrong hands. So what else is new?</p>

<p>We have come down to a camera culture of convenience. The reason that 35mm largely supplanted medium format had nothing to do with quality but everything to do with convenience. Digital is also more convenient than film, which is not necessarily to say that it is better than film, which is a separate issue.</p>

<p>I shoot the Canon 5D II and love it, but more power to those who are willing to take the time and trouble to shoot medium and large format. Choose the camera that is best for you, but don't ever think that all camera formats are created equal. They are not, whether you can see the difference or not, and whether or not the difference is worth the time, trouble, and money.</p>

<p>I shoot the 5D II, but I can spot the difference in quality with medium format in an instant. Let's not kid ourselves here. . . . </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sam_adams2]

<p>There are people here who know much more about this than I do but here is my take anyway - and please correct me if I'm wrong:<br>

First off, I wouldn't worry too much about pixel density and some theoretical resolution. In that league all is good. But you are comparing two different formats which will give you different results due to the basic physics of size. The style of pictures will look different - just like the results from a DSLR will look different from anything you could ever get out of a P&S. Even if the theoretical "resolution" is the same, the sensor size alone will render different results.<br>

I chose the 5DII because of it's larger sensor which makes the basic physics of things similar to what I was used to from 35mm film. If I was independently wealthy or made a living from photography, I might have considered medium format instead ( I am in fact seriously considering getting an old MF film camera because the results from the format look different in many ways and I like it).<br>

When it comes to sharpness in prints like the coffee table book you mention, it is not possible to see a difference between a 8MP point and shoot and digital medium format camera for ten thousands of dollars. The pictures themselves will likely be very different because of a number of reasons that relate to the sensor size. But the resolution will be equally limited which has nothing to do with the cameras but with what digital print technology can or cannot do. Different story if you want to crop or get very large prints.</p>

 

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>I think Harry is for some unfathomable reason insecure about his Canon. So what if it's smaller than someone else's? It's really about how you use it. But if the question is, which one is bigger, mine or his, well, the Hassy is bigger. You can't argue against that.</p>

[faysal]

<p>Haha, I think I'll have fun comparing this to cars<br>

I'm happy with my 2004 Subaru WRX which I got for 26,000 back in 2003. I know, sure the $500,000 WRC Prodrive version is faster, handles better, and is a sure beast - but lets be honest, its way too impractical for my needs, especially considering the price.<br>

500,000/26,000 =19.23</p>

<p>I'm happy with my Canon 5D Mark II, which after tax, insurance, etc was more than the 2500 sticker price, but I won't include that. Sure a ginormous MF sensor with file sizes that would make my laptop cry tears of silicone would be awesome. But its way too impractical for my needs, especially considering the price.<br>

45,000/2,500 = 18</p>

<p>18 is close to a factor of 19.23, so I figure that should be close enough of a financial comparison.</p>

<p>One is definitely better on paper, but not necessarily better for your needs.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

"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."

 

That is the key right there. In virtually all significant ways there is little or no advantage to shooting the MF digital

system if that will be your output size.

 

MF digital has real and significant image quality advantages... if you shoot in certain ways and print quite large.

 

Dan

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>I think I figured out how to ask my question better, although it's pretty much been answered: If I took a Hasselblad sensor and snipped away all but the 36x24 that's about the size of a full-frame sensor, would that sensor the Hasselblad left behind be of superior quality or is Hasselblad touting a bigger area giving a better photograph.<br>

A couple of people have explained marvelously that the sensor has better specs pixel to pixel, but not enough to take out a mortgage to buy it.<br>

Thanks all.<br>

h</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>If the V-Hasselblad digital backs would have an FX 56 x 56mm size sensor, it would be worth a sin! But with these cop factor sensors, for the 6x6 and 645 cameras, I am staying with my FX 5DII!</p>

[eduardo_cervantes]

<p>I would "sin" if the CFV 36/50 backs had a rotating sensor like Leaf's. I can't yet understand how Hasselblad made this backs without means of any rotation. We are talking about the quintessential waist-level finder square camera for god's sake!</p>