Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Optics Theory -

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Medium format digital back? Why? Why not?
Old 09-06-2019   #1
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,907
Medium format digital back? Why? Why not?

How would you compare the resulting images from a Hasselblad medium format digital back (50MP) and a Leica 35mm digital image of (say) 50MP?
Is this not comparable?

The Hasselblad back sets you back around $10k, and then you need to buy the camera too. The SLII may have MP50 capabilities. Isn't the SLII less costly than a Hasselblad with digital back?

Just some thoughts as I am enjoying a sunny Friday here.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #2
Out to Lunch
Registered User
 
Out to Lunch's Avatar
 
Out to Lunch is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 5,511
Not sure if I understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #3
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,862
I don't see the point of a medium format back until they actually become a medium format back.
Right now they are a lot smaller than 120 film images, however you slice that.

MF is about rendering as well as detail. Digital MF gives you detail, not the rendering of real film MF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #4
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Out to Lunch View Post
Not sure if I understand.
I see posted material on a Hasselblad digital back. It gives images of size 50MP. I wonder if similar or same results can be obtained when using a 35mm digital camera with a 50GB capabilities. This is all.

This one costs $27k (100MP)

__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #5
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,682
I have the 50c back for my V system, might sell it to upgrade to the new one.

Like any gear purchase, it is a highly personal choice and not always apples to apples. I bought the back after I demoed it and found it to have more color range and tonal nuance than my Nikon D810 at the time and it still does over my D850 and Z7, not by a lot but by enough to justify it for what it's special role is.

It is much easier for me to carry a spare and digital back out with me when shooting black and white film for fine art purposes using my Hasselblad system rather than a whole other camera system in addition to the Hasselblads when also needing to satisfy a digital need.

Compared to a Leica M10, it is no contest, the 50MP Hasselblad back's sensor is much larger and again with far greater color and tonal range in actual use, regardless of what the specs say. Of course high ISO is another story but that is not what I use the Hasselblad system for.

I also don't mind the crop factor either, I think many of even the newer CFi lenses I own would be somewhat punished by a full frame square sensor so I am more than fine with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #6
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,907
Thank you for your detailed feedback, KM-25.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #7
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
MF is about rendering as well as detail. Digital MF gives you detail, not the rendering of real film MF.
Interesting observation. Thanks.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #8
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,028
I think another big factor in this is the glass. You would be comparing Hasselblad's Zeiss T* MF optics (if you're talking about the 50MP back for the V system) against the Leica rangefinder glass on the M10. I would think, (but I certainly could be mistaken) that the Zeiss T* Medium Format lenses might hold the edge in that comparison.

Best,
-Tim
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #9
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
How would you compare the resulting images from a Hasselblad medium format digital back (50MP) and a Leica 35mm digital image of (say) 50MP?
Is this not comparable?

The Hasselblad back sets you back around $10k, and then you need to buy the camera too. The SLII may have MP50 capabilities. Isn't the SLII less costly than a Hasselblad with digital back?

Just some thoughts as I am enjoying a sunny Friday here.
Let's put the money issue aside for a moment.

Few folks buying a digital back for their Hasselblad are actually buying a whole new Hasselblad system. Most of us (thinking of the hobbyist and fine art owners of Hasselblad gear) already have a V system setup (like my 500CM and four lenses, two film backs). The reason to buy a digital back is to allow you to use digital capture with your existing kit, albeit on a smaller than original 56x56 mm format (33x44 or 33x33 cropped square for the CFV50c/II).

Comparing it to my once-SL and once-M-D/M-P Leica's, the big gain from buying that CFV50c/II isn't resolution per se, it's getting 50 pixels from a sensor with four times the area. This nets smoother, lower noise captures, more tonal gradation, AND a different relationship between FoV and DoF. The Hasselblad V-system lenses are mostly comparable to Leica lenses in terms of resolution and contrast, and rendering qualities.

Once you have a digital back, your system becomes even more versatile with the Hasselblad. It can swap between digital capture, B&W, and Color film in a couple of seconds. It provides even more focus zone control than FF. All of the system accessories available for the Leica reflex cameras once upon a time are also available for the Hasselblad V system cameras ... bellows, extension tubes, focusing screens, etc etc. Add the new 907x stub body to your kit, and you then have access to the current Hasselblad XCD system auto-focus lenses, which to a one are outstanding quality. Add Leica M and R lens adapters to that, and you can also shoot with your existing Leica lens gear ... most will cover at least the 33x33 square crop nicely, some will cover the 33x44 full frame beautifully.

What are the downsides? Cost, bulk of the system, ... the usual. Speaking of cost now, the complete Hasselblad 907x Special Edition includes everything needed (907x stub body, CFV50C II back, various essential accessories and battery) but a lens and is priced at $7500. The back is the same one that I can buy standalone for my 500CM. That price is very similar to what I paid for a Leica SL or M-D body.

So in some senses, it's the same thing as buying a high-end 50Mpixel Leica, and in some ways it's not. I want it for the versatility with lenses and with doing ultra wide with some focus zone control ... that's the bugaboo of using small formats for ultra wide ... and because the back will lend new life to my often neglected Hasselblad 500CM outfit.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #10
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM-25 View Post
I have the 50c back for my V system [...] Like any gear purchase, it is a highly personal choice and not always apples to apples. I bought the back after I demoed it and found it to have more color range and tonal nuance than my Nikon D810 at the time and it still does over my D850 and Z7, not by a lot but by enough to justify it for what it's special role is.
Exactly! See link for proof: https://srussenschuck.com/full-frame...medium-format/
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2019   #11
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,512
What this comparison has to do with photography?
Need you family portraits at the best; use MF.
Want to try to get decent shot on the street, use Leica.
Photography wise Leica will do portraits and street.
Hasselblad with digital back is not street savvy.
I have seen Fuji RF style dMF street pictures. Nice, feels like LF.
If you would have money for it, I’ll get one. Easier for family and street.
I think it is 50mp as well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2019   #12
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
What this comparison has to do with photography?
Need you family portraits at the best; use MF.
Want to try to get decent shot on the street, use Leica.
Photography wise Leica will do portraits and street.
Hasselblad with digital back is not street savvy.
I have seen Fuji RF style dMF street pictures. Nice, feels like LF.
If you would have money for it, I’ll get one. Easier for family and street.
I think it is 50mp as well.
Clearly a large medium-medium format camera and a small, agile rangefinder have different uses. You seem to think that everything is about street photography!

Presumably Raid was just wondering if sensor size really does make a visible difference to image quality as physics says, or whether advances in camera technology have now made sensor size unimportant - given other things affecting image quality are the same such as megapixels and lens sharpness.

And the answer is yes, you can still see a difference in image quality - best viewed in prints, not surprisingly becoming clearer the larger the print. I think this difference is more visible when prints are traditional silver-based C-type rather than inkjet prints, though it's hard to say why. (Interestingly, it's cheaper to get C-type prints professionally printed by an agency than inkjet ones!)

As KM-25 says, given two cameras are identical except for sensor dimensions, the larger sensor will have better colour and tonal range, which is seen as more-subtle changes in colour and tone. One example is that the larger sensor handles transitions to bright highlights and deep shadow more gently.
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2019   #13
santino
eXpect me
 
santino's Avatar
 
santino is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Autriche
Posts: 1,067
And I think a larger sensor with the amount of pixels a smaller sensor has gives less noise - hence some still love their original Eos 5d.
__________________
Vivent les télémétriques ! -
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.