Posted by Nat Coalson on June 14, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Here's a photo I made last week, prior to the start of my workshop in the Tetons with Bret Edge. This is Teewinot Peak reflected in String Lake, Grand Teton National Park.
When I left the hotel at 4am, it was raining with very low clouds. The peaks were socked in. I wanted to go back to bed but went ahead anyway, and was rewarded with spectacular conditions at sunrise and the rest of the morning.
I used a grad to balance out the top with the reflection in the lake, which (as usual) was about +1 stop above the exposure of the reflection.
Comments and critiques always welcome!!
Posted by Nat Coalson on June 14, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Oh yeah... I shot this with the Hasselblad H4D-40.... 40 MP medium format.
Here's a zoomed crop showing the detail of the tree in the middle of the frame, on the far edge of the lake.
I think it's pretty remarkable to resolve individual branches and plants at that distance. Your thoughts?
Really nice, Nat. String gets overlooked a lot in favor of the more iconic views but it's one of the nicer locations in the Tetons. So....what's the price tag on the Hassy and is this a demo or did you spring for one? It looks pretty amazing.
My thoughts are that 5 years from now, 40 MP will probably be the resolution of those $10 digital cams you get in the supermarket.
I like this, Nat, terrifc reflection and symmetry. The forest on the rhs seems a bit bright on this monitor, like the midtones could use some burning. A great mountain scene!
Posted by Brian Jackson on June 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Great shot Nat. Looking at this from a laptop so it could be me, but the reflection looks sharper and clearer than the non-reflection. The top half looks a little washed out to me. Again could be my viewing.
Love the shot, very unusual and pleasing comp. As for 40mp, I guess my response is, at what cost? I'll take my $2700 21mp camera over a heavier $10K-$20K-$30K rig anytime. Mostly because if my wife ever caught wind of me spending that much money on a camera, all my stuff would be out in the front yard and the locks would be changed.
Thanks for the feedback, guys! This Hassy is a demo loan from the western regional rep, Jeff Payne, who happens to live in Denver. We met at WPPI in Vegas a couple of months ago.
I've been wanting to go to MF for some time, and this is the first chance I've had to work extensively with a high end MF camera. (I've had the H4D for almost a month.)
The H4D kit with 80 mm lens (which is "normal" focal length in MF) lists at $19,999.
This image was shot with the Hasselblad 35-90 zoom, which lists for $7,200.
So this system ain't cheap. And it isn't intentionally designed for landscape/nature photography.
I was curious to see how the resolution, the larger photosites and quality of the optics might be relevant to outdoor work.
There's no doubt that the resolution provides significantly more detail. And the image files are as clean as I've ever seen, due to true 16-bit capture. This provides loads of headroom for editing.
The build quality is exceptional. But in MF, that means big, heavy and unwieldy. That said, this is a camera designed to be used on a tripod... which we usually do in landscape photography.
After working with this system, I have to admit I'm still on the fence. I'm not sure it's worth the cost, for an outdoor shooter. For someone shooting high-end fashion and advertising photography in the studio, I can definitely see why this kind of system rules. For folks traveling around, shooting in all kinds of conditions (which might include rain), I can't see that it makes much sense.
By way of comparison, the Canon 1Ds Mark III provides many of the high-end capabilities of the H4D, in a more friendly package. True, the resolution is just a little more than half, but how big is big enough?
After working with this camera for a while I am looking forward to getting back to my own 5D Mark II, which I still consider to be the best fit for my work.
But all in all, it's nice to have some killer images that I know I can print - literally - at any size I want with excellent quality.
If money was no object (yeah, right) I would definitely own of these, and use it when the conditions were just right. But to have an H4D as an extra camera seems a bit much.
I also have a demo Mamiya ZD system that I will be testing this week. I'll post a shot from that also. The ZD system I have is 28 MP, using a Leaf back. (The Hassy uses a Hasselblad-branded sensor made by Kodak.)
Pentax is long rumored to be coming out with a 645D system that uses the same Kodak sensor as the Hassy, for under $10K. It's already been released in Japan; if it comes to the states, I expect to make the switch to MF.
True, the resolution is just a little more than half, but how big is big enough?
Sorry to go geek on you but going from a 21.1 MP Canon 1Ds Mark III to a 40 MP H4D only gives you a 38% upgrade in resolution not double. You would have to get a 84.4 MP before it would double the resolution.
Very pretty scene, Nat. I love the Tetons and never tire of images from there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the MF systems. Brian is correct about the resolution. In order to double a sensor's resolution, you need double the number of pixels in each dimension. Length x width.
Thanks, Paul. I understand the logic now. It's kind of like enlarging a photo - a 20% enlargement will result in unequal changes in each dimension (unless it's square).
Let's make it easy and start with a 100 pixel camera.
It's resolution is 10x10 = 100 pixels. If you doubled the pixels to a 200 pixel camera then that would be roughly a 14x14 = 196. 10x10 compared to 14x14 is a 40% increase in resolution. You would have to go to a 400 pixel camera 20x20 = 400 before you would double your resolution. To double the resolution of a sensor, the amount of pixels both length and width must be times two.
Hope this helps.
Posted by Jack Garrett on June 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM
Since nobody has asked me for a full wall-sized photo yet, I guess I will forego the $27,000 investment...I got enough problems coming up with the bucks for the 5D2, which by the way, I will be selling my 50d and a couple lenses very soon to raise the necessary funds.
Great explanation, Brian. Thanks! I'd always (incorrectly) assumed that 2x MP is 2x resolution. I get it now.
So back to the issue of sensor resolution - it's better to have big photosites, to collect as many photons as possible.
So if you have a 20 MP DSLR and a 20 MP MF back, the MF will produce cleaner captures because of the size of the photosites and more accurate interpolation during demosaicing. Also, most DSLRs capture 12 or 14 bit, and most MF backs are true 16 bit.
In the end, pixel resolution is not the only consideration, or the most important one. What matters is - physically- how the sensor collects the light to create the raw capture. Very similar to the considerations for scanners.
I was surprised to find that the Hasselblad cameras are using Kodak sensors; that's significant because Kodak is struggling to find its way in the digital landscape. I'll be looking closer at the Leaf sensor on the Mamiya demo I have (28 MP).
Very nice, Nat. I especially like the clouds in this. The view from this part of the lake makes for lots of nice lines and angles, I think. Glad you made the effort to go despite the weather. It paid off quite well, I'd say.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on June 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Beautimous, Nat! Love the detail and resolution. When CAZ told me about the demos you were playing with I was hoping we'd see something. Sounds like it would be fun to shoot with. I'm with Todd on what my wife would think about dropping 27 Gs on a camera kit. ...maybe someday.
Posted by D J Kuklinski on June 15, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Nice reflection of the mountains and very peaceful scene. Yeah, lugging around a "high-fashion photography" camera around for landscapes is not my cup of tea either. Very impressive, though.
Great reflection on the glassy water! That is probably a very rare event in Wyoming!
Most, if not all, of the MF sensors are not handicapped by low pass filters, so the apparent sharpness has an additional boost, beyond just pure pixel count.
On a side note, I just saw this rumor about the 1Ds4:
"1Ds Mk IV will not have sensor cleaning since Canon has removed the 3-layer low pass filter to improve per-pixel acutance and microcontrast."
I'm looking forward to seeing the image quality and price differences between the 1Ds4 and the new Pentax 645D.
Thanks for posting Nat. IU have always wondered what kind of images those expensive MF digital bodies were producing. I also saw trhe same thing as Bill on the rumor for the Canon 1Ds MIV. Also saw 32MP priced at under 8K.
Discussion
21 repliesWhen I left the hotel at 4am, it was raining with very low clouds. The peaks were socked in. I wanted to go back to bed but went ahead anyway, and was rewarded with spectacular conditions at sunrise and the rest of the morning.
I used a grad to balance out the top with the reflection in the lake, which (as usual) was about +1 stop above the exposure of the reflection.
Comments and critiques always welcome!!
Here's a zoomed crop showing the detail of the tree in the middle of the frame, on the far edge of the lake.
I think it's pretty remarkable to resolve individual branches and plants at that distance. Your thoughts?
Now, about that camera....are you now shooting Medium format or is this just a trial camera for you? 40MP just blows my mind!
By the way, I downloaded my LR3 and is is way cool. Thanks for the link and I'll buy your book as soon as it's released.
I like this, Nat, terrifc reflection and symmetry. The forest on the rhs seems a bit bright on this monitor, like the midtones could use some burning. A great mountain scene!
I've been wanting to go to MF for some time, and this is the first chance I've had to work extensively with a high end MF camera. (I've had the H4D for almost a month.)
The H4D kit with 80 mm lens (which is "normal" focal length in MF) lists at $19,999.
This image was shot with the Hasselblad 35-90 zoom, which lists for $7,200.
So this system ain't cheap. And it isn't intentionally designed for landscape/nature photography.
I was curious to see how the resolution, the larger photosites and quality of the optics might be relevant to outdoor work.
There's no doubt that the resolution provides significantly more detail. And the image files are as clean as I've ever seen, due to true 16-bit capture. This provides loads of headroom for editing.
The build quality is exceptional. But in MF, that means big, heavy and unwieldy. That said, this is a camera designed to be used on a tripod... which we usually do in landscape photography.
After working with this system, I have to admit I'm still on the fence. I'm not sure it's worth the cost, for an outdoor shooter. For someone shooting high-end fashion and advertising photography in the studio, I can definitely see why this kind of system rules. For folks traveling around, shooting in all kinds of conditions (which might include rain), I can't see that it makes much sense.
By way of comparison, the Canon 1Ds Mark III provides many of the high-end capabilities of the H4D, in a more friendly package. True, the resolution is just a little more than half, but how big is big enough?
After working with this camera for a while I am looking forward to getting back to my own 5D Mark II, which I still consider to be the best fit for my work.
But all in all, it's nice to have some killer images that I know I can print - literally - at any size I want with excellent quality.
If money was no object (yeah, right) I would definitely own of these, and use it when the conditions were just right. But to have an H4D as an extra camera seems a bit much.
I also have a demo Mamiya ZD system that I will be testing this week. I'll post a shot from that also. The ZD system I have is 28 MP, using a Leaf back. (The Hassy uses a Hasselblad-branded sensor made by Kodak.)
Pentax is long rumored to be coming out with a 645D system that uses the same Kodak sensor as the Hassy, for under $10K. It's already been released in Japan; if it comes to the states, I expect to make the switch to MF.
Sorry to go geek on you but going from a 21.1 MP Canon 1Ds Mark III to a 40 MP H4D only gives you a 38% upgrade in resolution not double. You would have to get a 84.4 MP before it would double the resolution.
Sorry geek off.
Would you be willing to geek out some more and explain?
It's resolution is 10x10 = 100 pixels. If you doubled the pixels to a 200 pixel camera then that would be roughly a 14x14 = 196. 10x10 compared to 14x14 is a 40% increase in resolution. You would have to go to a 400 pixel camera 20x20 = 400 before you would double your resolution. To double the resolution of a sensor, the amount of pixels both length and width must be times two.
Hope this helps.
So back to the issue of sensor resolution - it's better to have big photosites, to collect as many photons as possible.
So if you have a 20 MP DSLR and a 20 MP MF back, the MF will produce cleaner captures because of the size of the photosites and more accurate interpolation during demosaicing. Also, most DSLRs capture 12 or 14 bit, and most MF backs are true 16 bit.
In the end, pixel resolution is not the only consideration, or the most important one. What matters is - physically- how the sensor collects the light to create the raw capture. Very similar to the considerations for scanners.
I was surprised to find that the Hasselblad cameras are using Kodak sensors; that's significant because Kodak is struggling to find its way in the digital landscape. I'll be looking closer at the Leaf sensor on the Mamiya demo I have (28 MP).
Most, if not all, of the MF sensors are not handicapped by low pass filters, so the apparent sharpness has an additional boost, beyond just pure pixel count.
On a side note, I just saw this rumor about the 1Ds4:
"1Ds Mk IV will not have sensor cleaning since Canon has removed the 3-layer low pass filter to improve per-pixel acutance and microcontrast."
I'm looking forward to seeing the image quality and price differences between the 1Ds4 and the new Pentax 645D.