Hasselblad

I read the blog of a pro the other day, where this photographer was
claiming that Hasselblad cameras are so much better (he didn't explain
why). Is that true and if so, what makes Hasselblad cameras better? Is
it just the higher pixel count due to the medium format sensor or are
the sensors better (lower noise, higher dynamic range etc), the AF, the
JPEG engine etc?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2014.11.08, 05:15 , Alfred Molon wrote:
I read the blog of a pro the other day, where this photographer was
claiming that Hasselblad cameras are so much better (he didn't
explain why). Is that true and if so, what makes Hasselblad cameras
better? Is it just the higher pixel count due to the medium format
sensor or are the sensors better (lower noise, higher dynamic range
etc), the AF, the JPEG engine etc?

Current Hasselblad's have larger sensor areas than FF 35mm cameras so a
great advantage in signal to noise even at high pixel counts. Dynamic
range is 16 bits per colour.

As an example, the H5D-50 has 50 Mpix and a density of 167 pixels
/ mm. This is pretty much identical to a 24 Mpix full frame camera ...
but with 2x as many pixels in the image.

Special versions from Hasselblad (H5D-50 CMOS MultiShot) even take 4
exposures per image and shift the sensor array by 1 pixel up/down and
sideways in order to record all three colours in each location. No AA
filter - moiré is eliminated. (4 th shot is a registration
verification). Such is great for still commercial and archival
photography (products, museum pieces, paintings and so on). Even
landscapes on a calm day...

(H5D 200 goes to 200 Mpix/image by stepping the sensor as well but it's
not the same as 200 Mpix over the sensor area - more akin to Sigma BS
claims - it's still, spatially, a 50 Mpix sensor).

Fujinon were the initial "H" series lens supplier - a switch from Carl
Zeiss. Not sure who makes more recent lenses for H but it's probably
still Fujinon. I believe Carl Zeiss continue to offer V series lenses
and there are adaptors for such to the H series. Other 3rd party lenses
exist as well.

JPEG engine? Seriously? That is the thing of least concern in such a
camera. Raw workflow is used to take advantage of the 16 bit dynamic
range pixel by pixel. Not even sure there is an in-camera JPG on the H
series.

As to AF, yes the digital Hassy's have it, but the shooting rate is
pretty low (frames per second). So it's not especially geared to event
photography and such. It's more for the slow deliberate shooter.

Other limits: ISO range is 50 to 800 in doublings only (50, 100, 200,
400, 800). Vice 1/3 stop ISO steps in most FF cameras. (Not that 1/3
stops is esp. useful if apertures and/or shutter speeds are 1/3 stop
adjustable. Exposure is controlled by the camera to 1/3 stop - but it's
not clear to me if this is aperture or speed or either or both.

The shutter speed tops out at 1/800 which is limited by the leaf
shutters in the lenses. OTOH, that's great for studio strobe work and
mixed lighting work.

No video recording. That's not of much interest to pro photographers
who use Hassy's. If they need/want that, they'd probably get pro video
cameras. Some H cameras have "live video" but I believe that's for
recording off camera by a computer - not in camera.

But all that said, the reality is that today's 20 Mpix FF cameras
surpass the quality of 56x56mm (6x6) film photography that was the
mainstay of commercial photography for a large chunk of the 20th century
- so for far less capital, a photographer can do much more than his film
toting Hassy competitor. Only when maximizing to extremes does one need
H series cameras - or better ...

LF digital cameras (limited to scanning backs - so still photography) -
384 Mpix on a 4x5 for example. These are popular for landscape and
studio commercial work where extreme detail is a requirement.


--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.”
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

In article , Alan Browne
says...

Current Hasselblad's have larger sensor areas than FF 35mm cameras so a
great advantage in signal to noise even at high pixel counts. Dynamic
range is 16 bits per colour.

As an example, the H5D-50 has 50 Mpix and a density of 167 pixels
/ mm. This is pretty much identical to a 24 Mpix full frame camera ...
but with 2x as many pixels in the image.

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

snip

(H5D 200 goes to 200 Mpix/image by stepping the sensor as well but it's
not the same as 200 Mpix over the sensor area - more akin to Sigma BS
claims - it's still, spatially, a 50 Mpix sensor).

It would be real 200MP if the pixel light sensitive areas were 1/4 of
the pixel areas.

I read that Hasselblad cameras are highly customisable (the back, the
focus screen etc can be replaces, to adapt the camera to a specific
situation), which makes such cameras more suitable for a pro.
Also, the bodies seem to be made completely of metal, probably more
robust than plastic and metal.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2014-11-08 19:13:24 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Alan Browne
says...

Current Hasselblad's have larger sensor areas than FF 35mm cameras so a
great advantage in signal to noise even at high pixel counts. Dynamic
range is 16 bits per colour.

As an example, the H5D-50 has 50 Mpix and a density of 167 pixels
/ mm. This is pretty much identical to a 24 Mpix full frame camera ...
but with 2x as many pixels in the image.

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

A Hassy with its medium format sensor has 16-bit RAW data capability as
does any FF DSLR shooting RAW, and even an APS-C DSLRs shooting RAW.
Hell! If need be all three can go to 32-bit/channel.

snip

(H5D 200 goes to 200 Mpix/image by stepping the sensor as well but it's
not the same as 200 Mpix over the sensor area - more akin to Sigma BS
claims - it's still, spatially, a 50 Mpix sensor).

It would be real 200MP if the pixel light sensitive areas were 1/4 of
the pixel areas.

I read that Hasselblad cameras are highly customisable (the back, the
focus screen etc can be replaces, to adapt the camera to a specific
situation), which makes such cameras more suitable for a pro.

In a studio yes, at a sporting event not so much.

Also, the bodies seem to be made completely of metal, probably more
robust than plastic and metal.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014110811565275977-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

A Hassy with its medium format sensor has 16-bit RAW data capability as
does any FF DSLR shooting RAW, and even an APS-C DSLRs shooting RAW.
Hell! If need be all three can go to 32-bit/channel.

slrs currently use a 14 bit a/d.

On 2014.11.08, 14:13 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...

Current Hasselblad's have larger sensor areas than FF 35mm cameras so a
great advantage in signal to noise even at high pixel counts. Dynamic
range is 16 bits per colour.

As an example, the H5D-50 has 50 Mpix and a density of 167 pixels
/ mm. This is pretty much identical to a 24 Mpix full frame camera ...
but with 2x as many pixels in the image.

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

Some do. It's up the manufacturer what he does at that level.


snip

(H5D 200 goes to 200 Mpix/image by stepping the sensor as well but it's
not the same as 200 Mpix over the sensor area - more akin to Sigma BS
claims - it's still, spatially, a 50 Mpix sensor).

It would be real 200MP if the pixel light sensitive areas were 1/4 of
the pixel areas.

You've missed the point of that camera - but I'll leave the research to you.


I read that Hasselblad cameras are highly customisable (the back, the
focus screen etc can be replaces, to adapt the camera to a specific
situation), which makes such cameras more suitable for a pro.
Also, the bodies seem to be made completely of metal, probably more
robust than plastic and metal.

Sure. Hassy's have always been modular. And the modules are not cheap.


--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.”
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

On 2014.11.08, 14:56 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-11-08 19:13:24 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Alan Browne
says...

Current Hasselblad's have larger sensor areas than FF 35mm cameras so a
great advantage in signal to noise even at high pixel counts. Dynamic
range is 16 bits per colour.

As an example, the H5D-50 has 50 Mpix and a density of 167 pixels
/ mm. This is pretty much identical to a 24 Mpix full frame camera ...
but with 2x as many pixels in the image.

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

A Hassy with its medium format sensor has 16-bit RAW data capability as
does any FF DSLR shooting RAW, and even an APS-C DSLRs shooting RAW.
Hell! If need be all three can go to 32-bit/channel.

My 24 Mpix is not 16 bit per pixel. That sort of stuff came out a bit
later.

As to 32 bits you would be dedicating most of those extra bits to noise.



snip

(H5D 200 goes to 200 Mpix/image by stepping the sensor as well but it's
not the same as 200 Mpix over the sensor area - more akin to Sigma BS
claims - it's still, spatially, a 50 Mpix sensor).

It would be real 200MP if the pixel light sensitive areas were 1/4 of
the pixel areas.

I read that Hasselblad cameras are highly customisable (the back, the
focus screen etc can be replaces, to adapt the camera to a specific
situation), which makes such cameras more suitable for a pro.

In a studio yes, at a sporting event not so much.

Also, the bodies seem to be made completely of metal, probably more
robust than plastic and metal.




--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.�
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.�
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

On 2014.11.08, 15:24 , nospam wrote:
In article 2014110811565275977-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

A Hassy with its medium format sensor has 16-bit RAW data capability as
does any FF DSLR shooting RAW, and even an APS-C DSLRs shooting RAW.
Hell! If need be all three can go to 32-bit/channel.

slrs currently use a 14 bit a/d.

I thought there were a couple that had breached that to 16 .. Nikon or
Canon.


--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.”
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

On 9/11/2014 11:49 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.11.08, 15:24 , nospam wrote:
In article 2014110811565275977-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

A Hassy with its medium format sensor has 16-bit RAW data capability as
does any FF DSLR shooting RAW, and even an APS-C DSLRs shooting RAW.
Hell! If need be all three can go to 32-bit/channel.

slrs currently use a 14 bit a/d.

I thought there were a couple that had breached that to 16 .. Nikon or
Canon.


I don't think so. Do you think those 2 bits make any difference at all?
I've seen tests showing that 14 bit can, under extreme PP conditions,
show some advantage over 12. If there's no penalty (apart from
increased file size) then it's probably a reasonable default option
(OTOH, many many people swear by jpeg and never shoot raw)
MF devotees were boasting the supposed advantage of 16 bit when MF
sensors were performing at about the level of a typical 2004 dslr - IOW
until about a year ago. Now they're improved to be at about the level
of a 2008 dslr, I still doubt that 16 bit shows any visible benefit.

On 2014.11.09, 04:13 , Me wrote:
On 9/11/2014 11:49 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.11.08, 15:24 , nospam wrote:
In article 2014110811565275977-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

If the pixel size is the same, also the dynamic range should be the
same. Why would a Hassy have 16 bit and a 24MP FF not?

A Hassy with its medium format sensor has 16-bit RAW data capability as
does any FF DSLR shooting RAW, and even an APS-C DSLRs shooting RAW.
Hell! If need be all three can go to 32-bit/channel.

slrs currently use a 14 bit a/d.

I thought there were a couple that had breached that to 16 .. Nikon or
Canon.


I don't think so. Do you think those 2 bits make any difference at all?

Possibly but hard to discern except in edge cases.

I've seen tests showing that 14 bit can, under extreme PP conditions,
show some advantage over 12. If there's no penalty (apart from
increased file size) then it's probably a reasonable default option

Shouldn't change uncompressed file size and a well designed compressor
will get it down to a reasonable size. Memory is ever cheaper and
processing (in camera and post) is ever faster.

(OTOH, many many people swear by jpeg and never shoot raw)

If there's little editing to be done then JPG is fine for a lot of uses.
Most PJ's don't bother with raw. (or MF cameras).

MF devotees were boasting the supposed advantage of 16 bit when MF
sensors were performing at about the level of a typical 2004 dslr - IOW
until about a year ago. Now they're improved to be at about the level
of a 2008 dslr, I still doubt that 16 bit shows any visible benefit.

Agree - though the pixel peepers will find it in the edge cases.

If the highlight problem of digital sensors could be solved, then 16
bits would be a benefit, however as the lowest order bit would end up
higher in the overall range v the present case. (eg: do any current
digital sensors retain detail beyond 2.5 stops above middle grey?).

The FinePix S3 solved this by pairing each sensor site with a low
sensitivity sensor for the highlights. Very clever. But couldn't keep
up with the resolution race at a time when conventional sensors improved
just enough.

--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.”
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA