Posted by David Bostedo on November 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Antonello - Not too many people here use medium format digital. I'd suggest looking around on the Luminous Landscape site. Michael Reichmann, who owns/runs the site, is a well known user of several medium format digital systems for nature photography. There are some articles and reviews, and the forums there have a fair amount of discussion as well.
I've been using the Hasselblad H2D for the last 3 years and am extremely happy with it despite the limitations and cost. The pixel quality, lenses and print quality are amazing. I would say print quality is better than 4x5. The dynamic range is much better than 35mm digital. Phocus software is easy to use. ACR does not recognize Hasselblads RAW images, so you need to do RAW conversions in Phocus, then save as TIFF and export to PS. As far as image quality goes, it's second to none IMO. If you want to shoot for big gallery prints, this is the camera for you. But as far as 'getting the camera to the image locations', it's a lot heavier than a digital SLR and you can't really walk around with it hanging on your neck looking for photo ops. You have to be very careful with it in wet weather since it's not really weather sealed. The H2D can only shoot as wide as 28mm SLR equivalent lens, but the H3D can use a new lens that is equivalent to a 18mm on an SLR. Max exposure time is 32 seconds and max ISO is 400 on the H2D. These limitations can cramp landscape artistic ability in some situations. Cost of the camera/lenses/insurance is a topic all it's own. I agree with David that you should check out the Luminous Landscape for a detailed overview and for comparisons to other MF systems. But I can answer other questions if you have any.
Mike,
Thank You very much for the usefull help.one of my concern is about shoting in cold weather,and also 32 seconds can be a problem in situation like slot canions.What do You think about?
I haven't had any more problems than I have with a 35mm SLR in cold weather. I always carry two extra batteries in my down jacket with a skiing 'handwarmer' pack and that has always worked for me. I have had problems in extreme humidity though. The communication between the back and the camera can get finicky in tropical weather. I've had no problems in dry desert heat to 40 degrees C. The 32 second max shutter speed is a limitation creatively and so is ISO 400. Forget about night photography or evening street photography unless you have studio lighting. Even though they say ISO 400 can be pushed to ISO 800 in Phocus, I would not depend on this. On my H2D, native ISO 400 has a weird flat graininess to it. I shoot max ISO 200 except for certain occassions where I will selectively blend in parts of an image shot at ISO 400. Despite these limitations, the files look incredible and there is a real 'depth' to the prints I can't get with a digital SLR. The colors are very realistic and more film like than digital. I would treat it like a large format camera that is much faster to set up and easier to carry. You have more freedom than large format film, but not as much as 35 digital. Prints are better than large format film, and much better than 35mm digital. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.
Thank You Again for the very useful help.next days i will have the way to make some test images whit the camera.soon as i can i'll make You know about.
Thanks again.
just accidentally stumbled upon this thread.
Mike:
you compare this to shooting with LF?????!!!!!
you may compare it to use it with shooting MF - just digital.
yes, the files are really great, but not coming even close to what a 8x10" will give you (not close!) but the handling and carrying into the field is MUCH more restricted than with LF field cameras, which you can take basically everywhere. I don't even think it's lighter....
have you ever used LF?
prints are, of course, much better than with 35mm and even much better than MF but not certainly better than LF. resolution is not everything and LF provides you with the highest freedom to compose an image due to the tilt and shift features. the new hassi has a t/s adapter (for another HUGE prize) but it's making the whole setup even more clumsier.
fact is, with LF you have all the freedom you want to compose a landscape image, but it takes time to learn to use it as quickly as MF and you will never use it as quickly as 35mm. the hassi system is not really for efficient use in the wild outdoors. the roadside views yes.
sorry, but as a seasoned pro landscape photographer shooting LF for more than 10 yrs now and having tried both systems, I just can't let that info stand the way it was...
Uh Oh, I think I accidentally opened the proverbial can of worms here...
I'll try and clarify my thoughts. I began my comparisons to Large Format 4x5 and further discussion used only the term 'LF' and I should have been more specific. I DO believe print quality of the H2D files are comparable and in many cases superior to 4x5 film but not as good as 8x10 LF film.
I've made direct comparisons and TO MY EYE they are equivalent in resolution and the H2D files have better dynamic range and exposures can be blended easier and the files are pure rather than digital scans of the film. I don't think you can discount the huge benefits of expanded DR in these cameras as far as image quality goes. I've compared my image 'Lightstream' at 40x60 inches directly to a Fatali 40x60 print of the same scene shot on 4x5 and I see no difference (for the record, I found that spot on my own before I ever saw the Fatali version). But I agree with you that 8x10 LF image quality is clearly better than prints from the H2D or 4x5 film. Nothing quite matches a perfectly executed 8x10 LF print.
I would suggest to you that carrying an H2D backpacking for two weeks IS easier, less bulky and less weight than carrying 4x5 gear. I trekked with the H2D on and off trail all over Tibet and all the way to Everest Base Camp by myself without a porter and had no problems. You can also get by with a lighter, smaller tripod which is a huge benefit. I can't imagine doing that with 4x5 gear by myself. I rarely use the H2D for roadside shots. Almost all of my image locations required a significant amount of walking to get to them. Battery requirements are the only true drawback to the H2D compared to 4x5 on a long wilderness trip. But there are ways around this too.
As for Tilt and Shift movements, as you said, there are T&S adaptors for the H2D lenses. And since these are pure digital files, it's easy to simply shoot vertical panos, blend in PS, do a little Digital Scheimpflug and crop as desired.
Cost is a huge difference between the two systems, and that is THE limiting factor IMO. If you could get an H2D with the lenses for the same cost as a new 4x5 kit with lenses, which would you get? Once the cost barrier is removed (eventually) 4x5 may disappear leaving 8x10 film alone as king for large gallery prints.
All of your points are worthy of strong consideration to anyone contemplating a purchase of either gear. These are just my 2 cents with the caveat that I have a lot of experience shooting the H2D in all conditions and only a small amount of experience with LF film but I HAVE made lots of direct print comparisons between the systems. If you like, I can send you a print to evaluate yourself.
I'd love to hear Nye Simmons weigh in here since he is famous for his 4x5 prints but recently did a trip using a P 45 digital back.
I'm not a pro by any means and I value your opinion very highly and am interested in any other points you bring to this discussion.
I don't know if I should add more here, as it will lead away from the initial thread, but it might be interesting and informative for others too, who are interested in that small niche of photography...
I do shoot 4x5", but I really, really try to keep up with all the new digital achievements, because the LF gear is not a holy gral to me but it's matter of getting the most out of my photography. If digital is better in all aspects which are deciding for me, I have no doubts, that I would switch right away. prize is secondary.
to Mike's last comment.
1: print files truly are equal and even sometimes superior to 4x5" files. but... it sure depends on the scanning too, so hard to make true comparsions. (and I always referr to the h2d 39 pixel - not the new 60mp one!)
2: hiking with LF gear is easier as most think. You should try it. battery problems are none existent. I shoot very often along rough seashores being splashed on by saltwater. would you do that with a USD 30.000 setup? also the restricted exposure times are really a limiting factor. again: I shoot 4x5 for reasons, that I find it the least limiting setup in landscpae photography. quick handling can be learned. and the hassi is not exactly so super fast to handle either...
fatalis images are made in the darkroom (at least he says so…), image quality would be even harder to compare as it doesn’t all come down to crisp detail and DR.
3: don't forget you look on a 4x5" groundglass to compose and focus an image in LF but only on a fairly small image in digital mf. Much, much better to compose and fine tune an image with LF, unless you bring along a notebook into the field.
4: digital scheimpflug: It doesn’t work like the real one and it doesn’t bring you compareable results. Even software gurus have to confess that. Also, it means you will spoil some of your hard payed-for file-quality, if you have to do it in ps afterwards. Also: To correct tilt in ps means losing some of your image.
No harm done, but I felt these were half baked informations, the world of LF photography isn’t so easily rounded up as to look at the resolution of a file. More the opposite, most LF shooters I know, could care less about the better digital file a h2d brings, than all the many, many advantages a LF camera will give you on the creative and electricity-independed side.
Nothing personal and if you state otherwise on your personal website – that’s fine, but you have to keep things straight on an open platform like this. I felt your comment was delivering only half of the facts, which might lead to wrong assumptions and it's - like you said - a very, very costly decision one has to make, if opting for digital MF.
Great discussion here. You brought up a couple more key points. I have to be A LOT more careful with the H2D camera than I would have been with a film camera or a consumer 35mm digital SLR. I've missed shots because I didn't want to take a chance of falling into water or getting splashed by a big wave. I don't feel good about using it for street photography and I keep it 'hidden' from view until I'm out in the wilderness, especially on international trips. I have to make sure it is either hidden with me or locked somehow in a hostel room at all times. I have to deal with a lot of extra paranoia when traveling with it. At first, most people assumed it was a movie camera, but now that people recognize it and know it's value, I have to be ridiculously careful. The other intangible value of LF is the careful thought that goes into the composition, movements and the requirement of detailed photographic knowledge to get the image exposed properly with perfect DOF. You can cheat a little more and get by with less traditional photography knowledge when you shoot digital because of the LCD preview. The knowledge required to be successful shooting LF gear makes you a more well rounded photographer IMO. And of course nothing compares to the satisfaction of looking at a 4x5 chrome on a light table.
Mike,
i decided to buy the Hassy,so i have some more question.What kind of memory card do you think is better to use?I have an old Hassy,and an 80mm CF.Do you think is better the new lens, or could i use the old one?I buy the 28,and my plan is to use 50CF,150 CF using the adapter ring.What do you think about?
Thank you for help me
Anto
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 9, 2008 at 8:45 AM
I recently sold my 4x5 gear after almost 5 years of enjoying that format. For the last 3 or 4 years, I've also been shooting with a high end DSLR.
I agree with Mike's sentiment that, while you may get to the end product via a different path, there is arguably very very little that a LF setup can do that a digital setup (35mm or MF) can't.
With focus bracketing and blending, I can achieve the DOF control that was previously limited to cameras or lenses with movements. With stitching, I can achieve the very large prints that any film format can produce, and even larger, without compromising on image quality. Digital perspective control is very capable, but, to Georg's point, must be planned for carefully. But it's all possible. The downside is that PS work is hardly romantic, while working the controls of an LF creates a wonderul intimacy that digital lacks, imo.
In high alpine and wind-prone environments, I found LF to be very limiting, especially with the bellows extended. In those same environments, digital requires careful attention to battery useage and storage, esepcially on long (and cold) trips.
I think each format has it's strengths and weaknesses, but I think that either can achieve the same end product. How well each maps to a given photographer's preferences and needs determines which is the best fit.
For me, the versatility and quality of digital - combined with the increasing cost of purchasing and processing LF film - made the decision logical.
Rick,
i agree whit you.i've ben shoting large format(4x5) for about 15 years,but now i'm qute fed up to stay a lot of time cleaning scans.i scan my slide on a Tango drum scan,and i takes a lot of time to clean the scan and o lot of money too(film,lab,lab again).i live in Italy so every time i need to take a fly to go autside is boring too, whit a big amount of film.may be this way is not perfect,but my point of view is that advantage are clear.
Anto
Discussion
12 repliesI've been using the Hasselblad H2D for the last 3 years and am extremely happy with it despite the limitations and cost. The pixel quality, lenses and print quality are amazing. I would say print quality is better than 4x5. The dynamic range is much better than 35mm digital. Phocus software is easy to use. ACR does not recognize Hasselblads RAW images, so you need to do RAW conversions in Phocus, then save as TIFF and export to PS. As far as image quality goes, it's second to none IMO. If you want to shoot for big gallery prints, this is the camera for you. But as far as 'getting the camera to the image locations', it's a lot heavier than a digital SLR and you can't really walk around with it hanging on your neck looking for photo ops. You have to be very careful with it in wet weather since it's not really weather sealed. The H2D can only shoot as wide as 28mm SLR equivalent lens, but the H3D can use a new lens that is equivalent to a 18mm on an SLR. Max exposure time is 32 seconds and max ISO is 400 on the H2D. These limitations can cramp landscape artistic ability in some situations. Cost of the camera/lenses/insurance is a topic all it's own. I agree with David that you should check out the Luminous Landscape for a detailed overview and for comparisons to other MF systems. But I can answer other questions if you have any.
-Mike
Thank You very much for the usefull help.one of my concern is about shoting in cold weather,and also 32 seconds can be a problem in situation like slot canions.What do You think about?
I haven't had any more problems than I have with a 35mm SLR in cold weather. I always carry two extra batteries in my down jacket with a skiing 'handwarmer' pack and that has always worked for me. I have had problems in extreme humidity though. The communication between the back and the camera can get finicky in tropical weather. I've had no problems in dry desert heat to 40 degrees C. The 32 second max shutter speed is a limitation creatively and so is ISO 400. Forget about night photography or evening street photography unless you have studio lighting. Even though they say ISO 400 can be pushed to ISO 800 in Phocus, I would not depend on this. On my H2D, native ISO 400 has a weird flat graininess to it. I shoot max ISO 200 except for certain occassions where I will selectively blend in parts of an image shot at ISO 400. Despite these limitations, the files look incredible and there is a real 'depth' to the prints I can't get with a digital SLR. The colors are very realistic and more film like than digital. I would treat it like a large format camera that is much faster to set up and easier to carry. You have more freedom than large format film, but not as much as 35 digital. Prints are better than large format film, and much better than 35mm digital. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.
-Mike
Thanks again.
Mike:
you compare this to shooting with LF?????!!!!!
you may compare it to use it with shooting MF - just digital.
yes, the files are really great, but not coming even close to what a 8x10" will give you (not close!) but the handling and carrying into the field is MUCH more restricted than with LF field cameras, which you can take basically everywhere. I don't even think it's lighter....
have you ever used LF?
prints are, of course, much better than with 35mm and even much better than MF but not certainly better than LF. resolution is not everything and LF provides you with the highest freedom to compose an image due to the tilt and shift features. the new hassi has a t/s adapter (for another HUGE prize) but it's making the whole setup even more clumsier.
fact is, with LF you have all the freedom you want to compose a landscape image, but it takes time to learn to use it as quickly as MF and you will never use it as quickly as 35mm. the hassi system is not really for efficient use in the wild outdoors. the roadside views yes.
sorry, but as a seasoned pro landscape photographer shooting LF for more than 10 yrs now and having tried both systems, I just can't let that info stand the way it was...
best
georg
Uh Oh, I think I accidentally opened the proverbial can of worms here...
I'll try and clarify my thoughts. I began my comparisons to Large Format 4x5 and further discussion used only the term 'LF' and I should have been more specific. I DO believe print quality of the H2D files are comparable and in many cases superior to 4x5 film but not as good as 8x10 LF film.
I've made direct comparisons and TO MY EYE they are equivalent in resolution and the H2D files have better dynamic range and exposures can be blended easier and the files are pure rather than digital scans of the film. I don't think you can discount the huge benefits of expanded DR in these cameras as far as image quality goes. I've compared my image 'Lightstream' at 40x60 inches directly to a Fatali 40x60 print of the same scene shot on 4x5 and I see no difference (for the record, I found that spot on my own before I ever saw the Fatali version). But I agree with you that 8x10 LF image quality is clearly better than prints from the H2D or 4x5 film. Nothing quite matches a perfectly executed 8x10 LF print.
I would suggest to you that carrying an H2D backpacking for two weeks IS easier, less bulky and less weight than carrying 4x5 gear. I trekked with the H2D on and off trail all over Tibet and all the way to Everest Base Camp by myself without a porter and had no problems. You can also get by with a lighter, smaller tripod which is a huge benefit. I can't imagine doing that with 4x5 gear by myself. I rarely use the H2D for roadside shots. Almost all of my image locations required a significant amount of walking to get to them. Battery requirements are the only true drawback to the H2D compared to 4x5 on a long wilderness trip. But there are ways around this too.
As for Tilt and Shift movements, as you said, there are T&S adaptors for the H2D lenses. And since these are pure digital files, it's easy to simply shoot vertical panos, blend in PS, do a little Digital Scheimpflug and crop as desired.
Cost is a huge difference between the two systems, and that is THE limiting factor IMO. If you could get an H2D with the lenses for the same cost as a new 4x5 kit with lenses, which would you get? Once the cost barrier is removed (eventually) 4x5 may disappear leaving 8x10 film alone as king for large gallery prints.
All of your points are worthy of strong consideration to anyone contemplating a purchase of either gear. These are just my 2 cents with the caveat that I have a lot of experience shooting the H2D in all conditions and only a small amount of experience with LF film but I HAVE made lots of direct print comparisons between the systems. If you like, I can send you a print to evaluate yourself.
I'd love to hear Nye Simmons weigh in here since he is famous for his 4x5 prints but recently did a trip using a P 45 digital back.
I'm not a pro by any means and I value your opinion very highly and am interested in any other points you bring to this discussion.
Cheers,
-Mike
I do shoot 4x5", but I really, really try to keep up with all the new digital achievements, because the LF gear is not a holy gral to me but it's matter of getting the most out of my photography. If digital is better in all aspects which are deciding for me, I have no doubts, that I would switch right away. prize is secondary.
to Mike's last comment.
1: print files truly are equal and even sometimes superior to 4x5" files. but... it sure depends on the scanning too, so hard to make true comparsions. (and I always referr to the h2d 39 pixel - not the new 60mp one!)
2: hiking with LF gear is easier as most think. You should try it. battery problems are none existent. I shoot very often along rough seashores being splashed on by saltwater. would you do that with a USD 30.000 setup? also the restricted exposure times are really a limiting factor. again: I shoot 4x5 for reasons, that I find it the least limiting setup in landscpae photography. quick handling can be learned. and the hassi is not exactly so super fast to handle either...
fatalis images are made in the darkroom (at least he says so…), image quality would be even harder to compare as it doesn’t all come down to crisp detail and DR.
3: don't forget you look on a 4x5" groundglass to compose and focus an image in LF but only on a fairly small image in digital mf. Much, much better to compose and fine tune an image with LF, unless you bring along a notebook into the field.
4: digital scheimpflug: It doesn’t work like the real one and it doesn’t bring you compareable results. Even software gurus have to confess that. Also, it means you will spoil some of your hard payed-for file-quality, if you have to do it in ps afterwards. Also: To correct tilt in ps means losing some of your image.
No harm done, but I felt these were half baked informations, the world of LF photography isn’t so easily rounded up as to look at the resolution of a file. More the opposite, most LF shooters I know, could care less about the better digital file a h2d brings, than all the many, many advantages a LF camera will give you on the creative and electricity-independed side.
Nothing personal and if you state otherwise on your personal website – that’s fine, but you have to keep things straight on an open platform like this. I felt your comment was delivering only half of the facts, which might lead to wrong assumptions and it's - like you said - a very, very costly decision one has to make, if opting for digital MF.
Best
georg
Great discussion here. You brought up a couple more key points. I have to be A LOT more careful with the H2D camera than I would have been with a film camera or a consumer 35mm digital SLR. I've missed shots because I didn't want to take a chance of falling into water or getting splashed by a big wave. I don't feel good about using it for street photography and I keep it 'hidden' from view until I'm out in the wilderness, especially on international trips. I have to make sure it is either hidden with me or locked somehow in a hostel room at all times. I have to deal with a lot of extra paranoia when traveling with it. At first, most people assumed it was a movie camera, but now that people recognize it and know it's value, I have to be ridiculously careful. The other intangible value of LF is the careful thought that goes into the composition, movements and the requirement of detailed photographic knowledge to get the image exposed properly with perfect DOF. You can cheat a little more and get by with less traditional photography knowledge when you shoot digital because of the LCD preview. The knowledge required to be successful shooting LF gear makes you a more well rounded photographer IMO. And of course nothing compares to the satisfaction of looking at a 4x5 chrome on a light table.
-Mike
i decided to buy the Hassy,so i have some more question.What kind of memory card do you think is better to use?I have an old Hassy,and an 80mm CF.Do you think is better the new lens, or could i use the old one?I buy the 28,and my plan is to use 50CF,150 CF using the adapter ring.What do you think about?
Thank you for help me
Anto
I agree with Mike's sentiment that, while you may get to the end product via a different path, there is arguably very very little that a LF setup can do that a digital setup (35mm or MF) can't.
With focus bracketing and blending, I can achieve the DOF control that was previously limited to cameras or lenses with movements. With stitching, I can achieve the very large prints that any film format can produce, and even larger, without compromising on image quality. Digital perspective control is very capable, but, to Georg's point, must be planned for carefully. But it's all possible. The downside is that PS work is hardly romantic, while working the controls of an LF creates a wonderul intimacy that digital lacks, imo.
In high alpine and wind-prone environments, I found LF to be very limiting, especially with the bellows extended. In those same environments, digital requires careful attention to battery useage and storage, esepcially on long (and cold) trips.
I think each format has it's strengths and weaknesses, but I think that either can achieve the same end product. How well each maps to a given photographer's preferences and needs determines which is the best fit.
For me, the versatility and quality of digital - combined with the increasing cost of purchasing and processing LF film - made the decision logical.
i agree whit you.i've ben shoting large format(4x5) for about 15 years,but now i'm qute fed up to stay a lot of time cleaning scans.i scan my slide on a Tango drum scan,and i takes a lot of time to clean the scan and o lot of money too(film,lab,lab again).i live in Italy so every time i need to take a fly to go autside is boring too, whit a big amount of film.may be this way is not perfect,but my point of view is that advantage are clear.
Anto