High ISO for Medium Format: Why?

[Uhooru]

<p>True, but if I was shooting certain kinds of photography including fashion, portraits, even product, etc. I would consider Hasselblad to be "in that race". Whether it used a 12 cylinder CMOS or a turbo CCD Not saying it's the winner, but lets say it has a (wait for it) track record in certain areas. :)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A track record indeed, using CCDs. Those certain kinds of photography were well served using those thingies.<br>What we have to wait and see (and can, like Marc, give an informed prediction about) is whether this 12 cylinder CMOS is something that can compete with their turbo CCDs, or whether it indeed is also/mainly here to interfere with PhaseOne's marketing succes.

[fotografz]

<p> </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p >If I was doing photography that careerwise required and justified the expense of a digital MF camera, I would always be interested in what Hasselblad had to offer when evaluating a product before I just wrote it off. But that's just me.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would consider Hasselblad to be "in that race". Whether it used a 12 cylinder CMOS or a turbo CCD Not saying it's the winner, but lets say it has a (wait for it) track record in certain areas. :)</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p>That's a lot of "ifs" Barry. I fully understand "track records", I've had 9 Hasselblad H cameras up to the H4D/60.</p>

<p>The fast car analogy is an anomaly regarding Hasselblad … it took them a lifetime to get the H4D/60 out the door, and during its life cycle NEVER did offer the battery for it to use the back on a field camera … meanwhile disabling the ability to use their expensive Image Bank II on location. But that's just me. </p>

<p>BTW, I did explain why I specifically wasn't interested in a CMOS MFD, which is the part you left out.</p>

<p>I've already inspected Phase One files using the same sensor, and (for now) it exhibits color rendering I subjectively find lacking … one of the main reasons I prefer MFDs with CCD sensors.</p>

<p>Besides, just how far need one go before they can get off this expensive merry-go-round? What I have does the job, I do not need any more. I know a number of other photographers that feel the same. This is not to say that others will think and feel differently … but I'm not one of them.<br>

<br>

In general, CCD or CMOS, I'm not interested in further MFD developments until the companies come to their senses regarding pricing. </p>

[lobalobo]

<blockquote>

<p>The fast car analogy is an anomaly regarding Hasselblad … it took them a lifetime to get the H4D/60 out the door, and during its life cycle NEVER did offer the battery for it to use the back on a field camera </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to hijack my own thread, but I find this astonishing. How can a company charge $40,000 for a camera back and not include a battery needed to use it on a field camera? Wouldn't a large part of the customer base willing to spend that sort of money be a prime candidate to at least occasionally want movements that are unavailable on an SLR? Or to continue with a car analogy (without need of changing the price, remarkably), this strikes me like selling a convertible but not offering the roof as an option. Did Hasselblad finally get the battery out for the H5D cameras? Hope so. All this makes me less disappointed that I can't afford these things as an amateur (and that it's not in the cards for me to work in photography professionally). Those of you that can or do have my sympathies about this equipment.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>In all fairness, the MFD companies are serving a very small slice of the photo populace. They do not have the resources to respond quickly or meet every demand.</p>

<p><strong>That said, they should NOT promise something they cannot deliver at the time of the promise.</strong></p>

<p>I upgraded to a H4D/60 from a CF39 Mulitishot on a H2F which allowed the digital back to be used on a field camera @ 39meg single shot … because it uses a clip-on battery like the CFV back does. My decision to get the 60 was predicated on 60 meg single shot approximating the IQ of the multi-shot in one shot rather than four (which I confirmed with testing), and that it could use a clip-on battery for which it had mounting ports. </p>

<p>During the entire time I owned the 60, the proprietary battery never materialized, The H5D was announced superseding the H4D, and it also is supposed to take a battery … my rep thought <em>that</em> battery may work on the H4D/60 but I have no idea if it ever materialized, nor whether it would work on the H4D/60. Moot point now as I have opted out of the Hasselblad H system altogether.</p>

<p>So, forgive me if I do not take the word of any of these companies, and believe their promises. Nor trust a company that uses their resources to produce something like the Lunar, while reneging on previous promises already paid for in full.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, I did explain why I specifically wasn't interested in a CMOS MFD, which is the part you left out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, I left it out because really I'm not trying to argue the merits of the reasons you are not interested. I appreciate your opinions about CMOS etc. All I'm saying is I would wait to see what the camera actually can do, before I just dismissed it out of hand as a general proposition because my medium format experience all in film, lends me to always to at least take a look at what Hassy offers. Especially if I were in the market for a $30-40,000 USD system. It may be a brick, or it could be great. I don't really see the point of dismissing a yet to be camera because they've made other systems you didn't like without waiting to even see any results. If you aren't interested that's fine by me, I'm not trying to change your mind. Just presenting my perspective which seems to differ from yours and some others. </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Fair enough Barry.</p>

<p>In reality, I'm not dismissing the achievement or advancement if it turns out to be that … which it may well be. In fact, I was served well by my H system and wish Hasselblad every success … with the hope it sells to photographers in that $30,000 to $40,000 systems camera category.</p>

<p>Just dismissing it for myself as <strong>not enough difference</strong> to warrant such a massive on-going outlay, with such a steep deprecation, in such a short time.</p>

<p>IMO, it is too little, too late, relative to conditions in the marketplace and the growing competition which do provide more of a difference for the work I, and many others, do. </p>

<p>BTW, it is not just a matter of price alone, but price to value ratio as it applies to the task at hand. 4 years ago, I moved to a Leica S2P with a full set of leaf-shutter optics which was hardly inexpensive. The S camera provides dual shutter versatility with sync to 1/1000 OR focal plane to 1/4000; it shoots to two cards, and I can use any Hasselblad HC/HCD lens, or Contax 645 lens on it with full automatic functions via Leica made adapters.</p>

<p>Today, I'm not sure that price to value ratio would even apply to my S2P system despite its versatility (but that's Leica for you) … the whole MFD pricing model has become even more questionable, and perhaps unsustainable IMO. </p>

<p>All the best,</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Interesting discussion, especially the tangent prompted by Marc, whose comments are always interesting (to me). Speaking of CCD vs CMOS, Steve Huff gives the opinion that the M240 and M9 are equivalent, and that the M240 does not give anything away to the M9. I have used neither camera but so far I like the results from both, although I haven't seen a mass-market digital camera that can easily handle challenging lighting.</p>

<p>It seems to me that photosite size (and Bayer colours) is more important than chip technology. For curiosity: the Phase One P25, which produces 22Mpx files, has 9 micron photosites. This no doubt helps it stay quite relevant, even in 2014. Some would choose it over a modern small format DSLR if the application allowed. I make no claims but I'm always up for a discussion on those matters. Fun reading.</p>

<p>I'm going to play around with MFD eventually. It seems quite an interesting product segment.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Photosite size is only one thing among many. <a href="http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/knowledge-center/appnotes/ccd-vs-cmos/">DALSA has a rather good, brief explanation of the difference up on the web</a>.<br>But since we're dealing with a visual medium, how these things these machines produce look is the most important factor. No matter photosite sizes and all that.<br><br>That is, indeed, until we have to empty our bank accounts at the check out. Then it appears that cost plays a major role. Hence the continued succes of Canons and Nikons (which found the way back up with the D 800), and the continuation of the precarious situation MFD manufacturers are in. The 35 mm based digital competition should be tackled, not in the first place by offering high speed sensors, but by offering the MF digital machines for a more competitive price. Can be done.

[fotografz]

<blockquote>

<p>"Speaking of CCD vs CMOS, Steve Huff gives the opinion that the M240 and M9 are equivalent, and that the M240 does not give anything away to the M9. I have used neither camera but so far I like the results from both."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've used both, and do not agree with Huff in that it takes a ton of post work to get the M240 file to have the "snap" of the M9 at ISOs up to 640. Sean Reid said something similar when testing the two including samples with richer shadow rendering from the M9 at lower ISOs. <br>

<br>

In my initial tests, the M240 also exhibited IR contamination greater than the M9 does (but less than the M8). According to "experts" this was due to accommodating certain M WA lenses with a thinner filter. This IR contamination results in exaggerated skin tones which are hard to tame in post … it can be done, and many have it down using new profiles, but not easily. Some M users, including myself, are still not convinced of the M240 color. I remain skeptical … which has saved me $7,000 : -)<br>

<br>

The M240 is a better camera in terms of functionality, versatility with an EVF, a better rangefinder for focusing/framing and a higher ISO ability (with banding possible on some 3200 files, and more prevelant at 6400) <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> "For curiosity: the Phase One P25, which produces 22Mpx files, has 9 micron photo sites This no doubt helps it stay quite relevant, even in 2014. Some would choose it over a modern small format DSLR if the application allowed. I make no claims but I'm always up for a discussion on those matters. Fun reading".</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There are pluses and minuses with the 9 micron pixel backs … usually related to being older tech so any ISO is okay as long as it is 100. Moiré is also a caution. </p>