Nikon D3x vs. Hasselblad H4D-60 and low-light natural light photography

[scott_walker6]

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I've looked at this site for years and thinks it's the best and today I made an account and posting my first question. I presently have the Nikon D300s, but I'm working on an idea that needs a higher level camera because I want to sell prints in the range of 50" - 75" range. I like the H4D-60 because of 60 megapixels, but my idea is going to be using natural light, documentary-style shooting, and most shots will be indoors, so I'm concerned that the H4D might be too slow as far as getting shots that are NOT blurred. I plan on using the lowest ISO or the near lowest.<br>

Because of this ISO and blur issue I'm wondering if I should just go with the Nikon D3x. And the issue with going with the Nikon is that it's only 24 megapixel, so ppi would be much lower, which means it would be a bigger stretch to try and get prints in the 50" range.<br>

Please give me your opinions on this.<br>

Thank you</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I have no experience with either camera so take it with a pinch of salt, but more as a generic thought: it depends very much on how you think people will watch these large prints. The "requirement" of 300dpi is for photos watched very close. The larger a print gets, the more distance people will keep, which means you can drop the print resolution quite a lot. Meaning, 24 MP can yield a larger print than you might think.<br>

Either way, if you want natural light low ISO, you'll be working from a tripod - both cameras have more than sufficient resolution to show any kind of movement, so your lenses, technique and tripod need to be up to the job - a large print is going to emphasise the movement and lack of sharpness otherwise. And if you are not too bothered with a bit of movement and lack of sharpness, because it fits the style of the photography (that could be a valid creative choice), then the high resolution also becomes a more moot point, in my view.</p>

[scott_walker6]

<p>Hi Wouter,<br>

Ideally I'd like the images overall to be as sharp as possible. I plan on doing some blurred hand-held to to get a variety of shots, but I want my sharp shots to be sharp and my blurred shots to be blurred.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>natural light, documentary-style shooting, and most shots will be indoors</em></p>

<p>Could you show some examples of what kind of images you want to get? The only natural light indoors comes through the window and if you intend to photograph people (and not just the interiors) with it, you will in most circumstances want to augment the natural light with (bounced) flash or reflectors. Flash is quicker to work with and gives you more options regarding to lighting ratios. If window light is a major part of the lighting and you want some depth of field, e.g. 85mm at f/4, you will be shooting at around ISO 800 give or take two stops. That puts you into D3s territory, not D3X. If you want to use base ISO to get to use a high resolution camera, then a lot of the time you will be using mostly flash and not natural light, unless again your subject is the interior and not the people. If you are photographing the people further away from the window, this means there will be significant color variations due to the increase in contribution of existing artificial light sources which means again you will need to replace the light with something that is daylight balanced, or accept the color variations in the image. Of course if the outcome is a black and white image then you have more options how you can use artificial existing light. Anyway, when you move away from the window the lighting will be progressively weaker, and you'll be using ISO 1600-3200. The other possibility is a direct sunbeam hitting the interior at a low angle ... but then you'll have a disasterously large dynamic range in the scene which you will again need to manage with fill flash.</p>

<p>I am not familiar with digital medium format cameras but from what I understand from their film equivalents, they are not very convenient to use for spontaneous shooting and since the maximum apertures of the lenses are quite small you will more often need to use more flash light. The latter is true of the D3X also.</p>

<p>Now as to the print size. The number of pixels you will need for a given print size depends on many factors, one of which being how much detail you need to show of the subject. If the subjects are people, showing them in exquisite detail in contrasty natural (or existing) light may work against you if the aim is to make a pleasing image. I think 12 MP FX is fine for making large portrait prints at up to around ISO 800 (or 1600 on the D3s). The bigger the print, the further away the viewer would normally be. Obviously in a large print if the viewer goes really close to it, you get advantages from having greater resolution (and in the case of medium format, better tonality) but to really get that in the context of indoor photography, I think you will need to using flash both to manage the wild lighting contrast, and also to stop movement unless your subjects are going to be sitting. Even if you do use flash, you will not be shooting at base ISO most of the time since you need to preserve the feeling of window light (although if you replace the window light with a large soft box you can then shoot everything at base ISO but it won't be spontaneous and the subjects will certainly notice the flash going off like a nuclear bomb. The more spontaneous and "documentary" you want your images to be the more you're likely to use a camera which works well at high ISO.</p>

<p>Anyway, you have to consider that I have no personal experience with digital Hasselblads, but I do window lit portraits and other types of indoor documentary photos quite a lot. My choice would be the D3s and the f/1.4 AF-S Nikkor primes (all four) for the indoor part of the challenge. And I would definitely be using flash when needed, in a subtle way, but still, for the portraits. For candid images I would do more available light only but the quality does suffer and the images will have a rugged feel due to the lighting contrasts, and I think having more pixels in this situation would not help the image quality.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>I've never done prints that large but this has worked for me in converting some old low res files to good prints.<br>

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-resize/?ind&gclid=CMSxiIy73qsCFYoDQAodoG6eSQ<br>

There may be a free trial program for evaluation.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00ZRQy?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00ZRQy?unified_p=1</a></p>

 

[scott_walker6]

<p>Incredible reply Ilkka.<br>

I don't know the stats on the D3s, but I've read it's better for low-light than the D3x, so I'm going to read up on it. I'm actually looking for the rugged feel. I mean this project isn't about beautiful images as far as perfect lighting, etc., but more about people and their lives and living conditions. I'm thinking more and more that it might be best for me to shoot for the larges sizes being in the 40"x50" range instead of 60"x75." I think I could probably only get good quality 60x75 is if I was using the Hasselblad H4D-60. I recently saw a photographer's work at a gallery show and she used a Canon 5D Mark II and she had a shot that was 40"x50" and it was incredible. I got really close to it and was just blown away. There was another photographer that had images in the same sizes, but they used a MF film and the images weren't as sharp.<br>

I may take a big soft-box, like an octagon, but overall I want my indoor shots to be spontaneous and just follow my subjects around.</p>

[dan_south]

The D3s that you already own is the best camera ever made for high ISO shooting. A 75 inch print will require up-

sizing no matter what camera you use, and the D3x is not renowned for it's high ISO ability. I've seen stunning 6-foot prints from the original D3. Will it have the detail or MF shot on a tripod in perfect conditions? No, but you're not working in perfect conditions.

 

 

I'd recommend sticking with your D3s. The D3x wins only when you can shoot your subject at low ISO without having to worry about camera

shake or motion in the frame. Medium format cameras lack fast lenses AND VR/IS.

[scott_walker6]

<p>Hey Dan,<br>

I have the D300s, not the D3s. I'm excited to hear your words about the D3 however. It gives me hope that I can use the D3s for this idea. <br>

Someone said something about if I'd be shooting in colour or black and white. Well I plan to offer unlimited colour prints and limited-edition b/w prints. The colour prints might be smaller sizes, but the b/w will be 40"x50 up to hopefully 60"x75."</p>

[philip_wilson]

I have a Canon 5DII (21MP) which is supposed to be close to the D3X in IQ. I do not have a digital Hassy but can

compare to top quality MF scans (I use a Nikon 9000 scanner). I find the Canon is way better than film at high ISO but

in terms of IQ matches a good 645 scan at low ISO. in essence you cannot beat sensor / film area. The Canon image

is cleaner than a 645 film scan but the resolution and IQ are about the same. A scan from my Fuji GX680 (6x8) is

clearly better than the Canon DSLR - especially for big prints. Thus i suspect a digital Hassy will beat the D3X formbig

prints.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Philip, I am not trying to start an argument here, but I disagree that a 5DII delivers the same quality as a 6x4.5 scan (at low ISOs). Already, Ektar 100 in 35mm is equivalent to a 5DII. A larger piece of film is obviously going to be superior.</p>

[adam_puzach]

<p>Ive shot with the hassy. It has unbelievable resolution. The pictures really do pop. But honestly i think you would be better off with a D3s for what you are shooting. The Hasselblad is hard to shoot with until you get used to it. Its much more of a studio style camera. Also I use the Zeiss ZF glass on my Nikon and I find that it gives an exceptional sharpness that cannot be achieved with the Nikon glass. If you are worried about it looking that perfect they would be worth looking at. The 100mm f2 makro is the sharpest lens Ive used.</p>