Which digital camera and focal lens compares to 150 mm Hasselblad for prof. portraits.

[beverly_hall]

<p>I have been using a Hasselblad 500CM for portrait work for 30 yrs. Am considering switching, finally, to digital to save costs, but am totally lost as to which digital camera ( nikon, leika, etc) and lens focal length will give me the same results I get from my 150mm zeiss lens. I would like to know of any other portrait photographers that have made this switch and what their choice was, and how it compared to the Hasselblad look. My camera repair expert ( Hasselblad and Leika specialist) has recommended Leika for best portraits. I would really appreciate some feedback before I spend money and am disappointed with the results not being what I'm accustomed to.<br>

I have a Nikon D80 with a 70-200 zoom lens now, but it doesn't seem to look the same as Hasselblad when I have experimented during photo sessions. I use a softarII filter with Hasselblad and don't know if there is an equivalent soft filter for digital. Any suggestions will be very much appreciated. thank you. Beverly</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Beverly,<br><br>What focal length to use to get somewhat near what the 150 mm delivers on 6x6 depends on the exact sensor size of the camera you choose. And, of course, the different aspect ratio between Hasselblad's square format and a DSLR's rectangular format will change things too.<br><br>To get (as good as) the same angle of view over the long side of your D80, you need a 63 mm lens on that camera. The angle of view over the short end is then 2/3 of that you get on the Hasselblad.<br>To get the same angle of view over the short side, you need a 42 mm lens on the D80. The angle of view over the long side is then almost 1.5 times that of the Hasselblad.<br>To get the same diagonal angle of view, you need a 53 mm lens on the D80. The long side is then 1.2 times wider, the short side only 0.8 times the angle of view of the Hasselblad.<br><br>You can get the same Softars in thread mount, and they should work.<br><br>What camera to get? <br>The look and feel of digital will always be different from what you get from film (whether better or worse i'll let anyone decide for him/herself). So if you are looking to get the same, i think you will never find it.

[nathan_wong2]

<p>Not sure if this helps but the 120mm lens was about 75mm - 85mm in 35mm so the 150mm is more like the 105mm lens. If you have a full frame camera, like a D700 or D3 then, well, you now know the focal lengths. Remember, you're not going to get the same depth of field as you got with the medium format lenses since 150mm is 150mm and won't look the same as a 105mm at the same distance.<br>

If you want my suggestion I'd buy a Hasselblad to Nikon adapter (about $80) on the bay and continue to use your Hasselblad lenses. Carl Zeiss lenses work great on Nikon digital cameras if you don't mind manual focus. Since you used Hasselblads for 30 years you're used to the weight of the lenses already. I use my D700 with my Hasselblad lenses.</p>

[mark_farrell]

<p>Another difference from medium format to your DSLR will be a slight increase in the depth of field when a lens is used that is the equivalent to your 150mm at similar apertures. This may make a subtle difference when comparing images from each camera. A full fame DSLR would tend to compare better to the Hasselblad for its depth of field.<br /> As far as trying out a camera and lens, is there an option to rent the gear to see if it would work out?<br /> I have purchased adapters so I could use my screw mount filters on the Hasselblad bayonet mounts. I would believe there are adapters so Hasselblad filters could be used on a DSLR lens so long as the filter wasn't too small for the lens size. This could save on the cost of new filters. Any reason though why you wouldn't use a software filter in your image editing software to achieve a slightly diffused look?</p>

<p>I guess I type slow...Nathan beat me to the DOF thing. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

An opportunity to 'plug' the <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx" target="_blank">Hasselblad Historical focal length comparison page</a> and <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWAoV.aspx" target="_blank">calculator</a> i will not let go by unused. ;-)<br><br>That DoF thing isn't quite correct. If you end up with prints showing the 'sitter' the same size, whether taken with a Hasselblad and 150 mm or a DX sensor camera using a 63 mm lens, provided that you use the same f-stop, DoF will be the same in both prints.<br><br>Comparing the wide sides, a 150 mm lens on 6x6 has the same angle of view as a 96 mm lens on 35 mm format (not quite 2x the length of the 'normal' lens in both formats). So 105 mm is a bit too long.

[mark_farrell]

<p>From the DOFMaster calculator there is a difference in the DOF and I do notice a difference between my crop and FF DSLR's when using equivalent lens focal lengths. I'm a willing listener if you can explain otherwise.</p>

<p>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

DOFMaster uses different criteria for different formats.<br>As the site says: <i>"Calculations using these equations must use consistent units"</i>. They must also use 'consistent' criteria. If not, not the way to compare DoF between formats.<br>The formulae used by DOFMaster are the 'usual' ones, derived from a hyperfocal distance formula. Not quite the same thing.

[bob_sunley]

<p>Well you have to look at everything. How do you produce prints at the moment, scan and inkjet or wet process prints, optical prints to silver based paper? B&W or colour? Switching to digital imaging is a steep learning curve, sensors respond differently to light than film, the dynamic range is less with digital, and even that depends on the camera you chose.</p>

<p>I'd suggest renting a top end full frame Nikon body for a week with a lens that covers 65mm focal length which is approx the same vertical angle of coverage as your 150 and use it a lot. You will find a huge difference in image quality compared to your D80. The 60mm f2.8 micro nikkor may be a little on the wide side, the 24-70 f2.8 zoom should be good.</p>

<p>Thats all I can suggest at the moment, good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

[rashed_s]

The 85MM will be the most appreciate for your 150MM Lens, specially for portrait work.

[stanley_leung3]

<p>I am an old school film photographer with Hasselblad and Nikon equipments. In my subjective opinion, I would say the old Nikkor (AI or AIS) 105mm f2.5 got the picture with closest looking with the Hasselblad 150. Although those pictures was taken by a film camera Nikon F3, I would expect the full frame digital equipment can also capture the characteristics. Both the Hasselblad 150 and Nikkor 105 are Sonnar design, and that may explain the optical performance similarities.<br>

IMHO, just looking at the viewing angle is not sufficient especially you are portrait photographer. The prospective between the subject and the background is utmost important in most cases. I believe a 60mm lens is too much a differences to the 150mm in this regard.</p>

[stanley_leung3]

<p>I am an old school film photographer with Hasselblad and Nikon equipments. In my subjective opinion, I would say the old Nikkor (AI or AIS) 105mm f2.5 got the picture with closest looking with the Hasselblad 150. Although those pictures was taken by a film camera Nikon F3, I would expect the full frame digital equipment can also capture the characteristics. Both the Hasselblad 150 and Nikkor 105 are Sonnar design, and that may explain the optical performance similarities.<br>

IMHO, just looking at the viewing angle is not sufficient especially you are portrait photographer. The prospective between the subject and the background is utmost important in most cases. I believe a 60mm lens is too much a differences to the 150mm in this regard.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The same angle of view also means the same distance for the same composition, and that means the same perspective (which includes the spatial relation between sitter and background).<br>So it's indeed a good measure to use in comparisons.<br><br>The 60 mm (or rather 63 mm) is the angle of view (so also perspective) match to the 150 mm lens, but on the Nikon D80's DX format sensor only. And then you of course lose some of the width, compared to the Hasselblad's square format.

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>That DoF thing isn't quite correct. If you end up with prints showing the 'sitter' the same size, whether taken with a Hasselblad and 150 mm or a DX sensor camera using a 63 mm lens, provided that you use the same f-stop, DoF will be the same in both prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so I'm afraid Q.G. To get the same depth-of-field the DX camera would have to be opened up by 2 stops over the 'blad. My (very accurate) Excel calculator says the 150mm lens at 3 metres and f/11 would have the same DoF as the DX camera's 63mm lens at f/5.6 for the same subject distance. Within a few millimetres anyway. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

R.J.<br><br>DOFMaster's calculator is very accurate too. That doesn't get in the way of it having flaws. Or vice versa.<br>Accurate and correct can be worlds apart. So what are the flaws in your Excel calculator?<br><br>Anyway, this thread isn't about DoF, and it wouldn't be good to turn it into a DoF-discussion, so let's agree to differ.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>No serious flaws in my calculator, apart from the ridiculous degree of accuracy not being noticeable in reality.</p>

<p>I guess the only way to prove the point is with an illustration. Below are two side-by-side pictures; one taken with a full-frame DSLR and the other with a little digital bridge camera. Their formats vary by a linear factor of about 4 times. Both cameras were at the same subject distance, with a 90mm lens on the DSLR and with the bridge camera's zoom set just short of the "100mm" (equivalent) marking. The same aperture of f/5.6 was set on both cameras.</p>

<p>As you can see, the "printing" scale is identical, but yet the depth of field is grossly different. This is proof enough to me that depth-of-field does indeed vary inversely with format size, given the same angle-of-view, the same subject distance and same relative lens aperture.</p>

<p>Q.G. If you can refute or disprove this with another set of pictures, then please post them. I would love to see all the accepted theory and calculations, all the text books and all the empirical evidence gathered by millions of practising photographers conclusively proved wrong.</p><div></div>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>If you end up with prints showing the 'sitter' the same size, whether taken with a Hasselblad and 150 mm or a DX sensor camera using a 63 mm lens, provided that you use the same f-stop, DoF will be the same in both prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., I seem to recall that you argued passionately <em>against</em> such statements in <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00ZHYw">this thread last month</a>...remember when Josepth Wisniewski was querying the "myth of medium format DOF"?</p>

<p>I'm with Rodeo Joe on this. I still have not seen a clearer and more comprehensive treatment of this question than Paul van Walree's: http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html -<br>

"Let's make a comparison between two photographs, one taken with a 35-mm camera and one with a digital camera equipped with a miniature sensor...A fair comparison requires 'identical' pictures, i.e. the object distance (perspective) and field of view (FOV) must be the same in both cases...we also want to consider eventual prints or screen displays of the same size...<em>[and the result is]</em> Although the perspective, composition and F-number are the same, the depths of field differ greatly."</p>

[bryn_evans]

<p>I don't post on here too often but I am a regular reader and felt I had to comment at this point when Q.G. de Bakker made this statement:<br>

"Anyway, this thread isn't about DoF, and it wouldn't be good to turn it into a DoF-discussion, so let's agree to differ."<br>

For me (and I expect others)this marks a huge turning point, has Q.G. lost the will to argue his point for at least another two pages ;-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Quite right, Bryn (except for the two pages bit). ;-)<br>How many times has DoF been the topic of discussion, with the same points being made over and over again, without it making any difference?<br>I have indeed lost the will to argue my point when people actually believe - after 'doing research' on Photo.Net - that i have ever argued against the plain and simple truth about DoF. I'm sure you can appreciate that.<br>There's way too much <i>"what people think would be [...]"</i><br>For instance (and then i'll really stop discussing DoF), R.J.: do your images show unequal DoF, or an unequal rate of increase of unsharpness in front of and behind the DoF zone due to different focal lengths? Have you ever given the difference between those two thingies a moment's thought?<br>And i bet your calculator uses different CoC-size criteria for different formats too. Why?<br>But wait, i promised...

[jose_angel]

<p>Curiosity kill the cat (I`m the cat, you know).</p>

<p>Could we say that RJ is performing an unfair comparison? If the format difference is about four times, the focal lenght should be four times, too, as well as the magnification and why not, aperture. Given that the focus distance is the same in both cameras, the magnification will not be proportional.</p>

<p>If we compare formats applying proportional parameters (apples to apples?), things are different, that is, the same DoF. Am I right?</p>

 

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>Could we say that RJ is performing an unfair comparison?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jose, RJ is performing a comparison exactly in line with testing Q.G.'s earlier statement. Q.G. stipulated same image (angle covered); focal length proportional to the sensor/film size; same f-stop; same "sitter" distance (the sitter being a ruler in this case!); same final reproduction size. And R.J. did all of that. I don't see anything unfair about that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For instance (and then i'll really stop discussing DoF), R.J.: do your images show unequal DoF, or an unequal rate of increase of unsharpness in front of and behind the DoF zone due to different focal lengths?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it shows both effects. I have to ask a direct question, Q.G., because I <em>think </em>I may see where you're coming from. Where, on the ruler scale, would you place/estimate the DOF limits in both images?</p>

[francisco_disilvestro]

<blockquote>

<p>And i bet your calculator uses different CoC-size criteria for different formats too. Why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that is what I have always seen in DOF calculations. They are based on an assumption of perceived sharpness of a 8x10 print viewed at about 1 foot. That's why the bigger the format the larger the CoC.</p>

<p>If you use the previous assumption, then given the same angle of view for different film formats, to get the same DoF you need the same Entrance Pupil size on both lenses. This is in some cases approximately to what Rodeo Joe shows.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Quite the topic of discussion over on APUG a while back. I think Ralph disproved Q.G.'s assertion quite effectively. Scroll to post #138.</p>

<p>http://www.apug.org/forums/forum41/87142-what-biggest-perfectly-sharp-format-you-can-get-from-your-sharpest-negatives-4.html</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, from what I understand, Q.G. wants to mean that DoF is related to the transition from what is sharp to unsharp, hence with smaller formats, once they have been heavily enlargered (to be the same height as the medium format print), this transition is smoother but certainly there. On larger formats, detail is greater, then the limit of the "sharp" area is more obvious due to that transition, -which after the "latest" theoretical sharp point- is way steeper.</p>

<p>I also read that Q.G. doesn`t take the format parameter into account in this discussions, for a reason. But I understand that from a "true perceived sharpness" point of view, <em>format</em> should be included.</p>

<p>I know the answer (<em>my answer</em>) to the medium format vs. small format DoF issue is both have the same DoF... unless you want to demonstrate the opposite. I`m not qualified to discuss this topic but <em>I suspect</em> that if you don`t apply proportional parameters, you can get anything you want.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><small><em>"... On larger formats, detail is greater... "</em> -- I`m refering to the final print, we are comparing it to the smaller format print "heavily enlargered".<br /> <em>"... that from a "true perceived sharpness" point of view... "</em> -- call it whatever, <em>"easy DoF perception"</em>, <em>"first sight depth"</em>... I don`t know how to name it...</small><br /> <small> </small></p>

[fotografz]

<p>I may be wrong, but I'd suspect that Beverly is totally lost in all the tecno-babble and "contests of will" that is obscuring her original question.</p>

<p>Beverly, part of the look you like comes from the use of Zeiss optics ... in your specific case the 150mm. You should be made aware that you can buy a simple adapter that allows use of those same lenses on most any modern 35mm digital DSLR. The adapter renders the lens as a dumb lens ... meaning that there is no communication between the lens and the camera, and you must use stop-down metering for accurate exposures.</p>

<p>For decades, I was a die-in-the wool Hasselblad 500 and 200 system user and loved the 150 with a Softar-I filter for portraits. Today I use a full frame Sony A900/850 DSLR with a range of Zeiss ZA <strong>AF</strong> optics ... specifically using the ZA 85/1.4 and ZA 135/1.8 for my portrait work. Prior to that I tried both Canon and Nikon, and while both were excellent in their own way, it just wasn't close enough to the look I was used to from my Hasselblads. While the Sony A900 and Zeiss lenses aren't exactly the same, that combination came closest and I've truly enjoyed it for my portrait work ... that they offer very accurate AF is a bonus. Worth a look IMO.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>