Medium Format Advantages, Studio Captures and Image Comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- This series examines the advantages of Hasselblad medium format over the leading 35mm format camera system. Photographer and technical expert, Karl Taylor puts the Hasselblad H6D-100c to the test in a studio environment.
Learn more about Hasselblad: www.hasselblad.com
Buy now: store.hasselbla...
Thank you for the video.
Just a few considerations: 25 years ago in Italy before elections we were taking portraits of politicians using 8 x 10 inches cameras to reproduce the portraits in street bill boards. Medium format cameras, including 6 x 7 ones with nearly double the film area of the Hasselblad, were not even taken into consideration because the final quality would not have been great.
Hasselblad cameras with 16 bit dynamic range and larger sensors (today from 50 to 400 megapixel) will produce very high tecnical image quality, but not necessary are the best tools for every situation and work. To use these kind of cameras (medium format) can be very difficult, tiring and frustrating with lots of subjets, such as children portraits, moving subjets, etc In the end of the day, if you do not bring the image home, you do not get paid, even if you have the best equipment on the face of the earth.
So, for every job there are more suitable tools, according to the subjects, the photographers, the helpers available, the budget etc
Hi Karl,
I am from a non-English speaking country and due to that my English may not be good enough. Please excuse me for that.
Definitely understood the purpose of this series.
Medium format have that better overall definition and impression, 'the pop' for the image .
But looking at the focus ring of the lens and its shape, it looks like a Nikon 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 was used for this test, which won't deliver the best quality for the d850 sensor.
It would have been better, if an of ISO 64 (its base ISO) and Zeiss Otus combination of d850 put against H6D-100c. In that case, we could see what one of the best performing 35mm can deliver, though it might not quite match the medium format quality.
I like most of your videos and expecting more in future.
Thanks.
Thejus Valsan
You are right up to a point, the whole test is flawed. First of all a color profile must be done on the two cameras to make sure the curves and the colors are standardized, only afterwards is possible to compare. He is professional photographer he should know better.
Thejus Valsan Absolutely Correct!
And the Hasselblad RAW files have been in Focus software first, and that pulls out all the quality from Hasselblad files..
The Nikon RAW files should have been tethered ore putted in too Capture One first!!
Not the lesser good RAW converter in Adobe!
And a funny part in all this..!
Karl don’t do gear review’s ...
But when Nikon comes with a very good camera, that is coming a good step near/closer too MF..
It’s important to make a video how the MF is better..
But is it worth the price difference!?
You can by the D850 and the best Nikon lens, for the same price as one Hasselblad lens😁
And you have tilt screen, and superior autofocus on the D850👍
Yes! MF has “better” image quality than FF and APS-C cameras..
But is it sooo much better this day’s!? that’s up to the individual’s
I’m using it my self, and I need it for some of my own work..
This video is all about MONEY
And marked!
PS! by the Fujifilm GFX100 if you don’t need leefshuter lenses👍😁
And save a LOT off mony!
And get an insanely good autofocus, IBIS a flip screen and a lot more!👍
The auto white balance part is cheating. He point at a random location for AWB and of course one is colder than another. He probably cut all the good images from clunky and keeps those have better Hass images. Don't trust this so called review.
There was no disclosure of the lenses used for both cameras. How much of the 3D characteristics is because of the Zeiss lens? I have been adapting my 35mm lenses to all my (different) digital cameras over the past 14 years and have noted similar dimensionality differences between the Zeiss lenses and other brands. Only the Schneider Tele-Arton seemed to match/better the 35mm Zeiss. I'm sure the Hasselblad output is always going to be better as the tests showed but if we're using the subjective eye-test then from my experiments I know that dimensionality is more of a characteristic of the lens and dynamic range is attributed to the camera sensor. Of course both traits combine to create the fabulous images on display in your tests so no question about the final output of the tool used. It is always great to have such comparisons ... gets you thinking again on what makes up a good image. Thanks.
If you look at the X-system lenses, you'll notice none of them have names like Planar, Distagon or Sonnar, nor do they show the T* coating mark. I don't believe Zeiss makes the Hasselblad lenses anymore; I've heard it's Hasselblad's now competitor, Fuji.
Thanks for taking the effort to provide us this free nice-n-fair comparison Karl. As a Nikon studio shooter, I'm pretty much obsessed about tonal range but couldn't afford to do this comparison on my own. I hope one day every photographer who deeply appreciates medium format advantages, can afford one.
Can you post the raw files?
The Hasselblad samples look close to what I've seen with the Canon 5DS and 5DSR. The Hasselblad is nice. For top pay, it sounds like a good choice. But I can also see why Peter Hurley used a 5DS quite a bit ... excellent size and good quality for studio use with lights. But even the Nikon is a nice piece of gear. At this price point, the average person should think photos from any of them are stellar.
11:33 - A diffuser would have been so much better than seeing the light reflected in her eyes.
Thanks for making this comparison, and for the beautiful work.
I appreciate your videos, but in part I have to disagree with your findings. First of all is necessary to produce a color profile to equalize tones and color, only then you can show the differences fairly. A better lens will also help.
Is not point covering the make and model with to latter during the presentation you mention that is a Nikon.
Best🙂
Was thinking the exact same thing. This video is def skewed further toward the Hasselblad. Not saying it isn't better. We all know it is but if you're skilled photographer you know the errors in the video.
What lens were used in test for both cameras especially the Nikon D800
Thank you for the comparison, Karl! IMHO, while people complain about the comparison is not very fair (iso on 35mm can be set lower, could have used better lens), i think this is a very good and fair enough comparison. Many 35mm base ISO is 100 so by setting the ISO to 100, it would represent all the 35mm camera, and using any lens at closed aperture to achieve maximum perfomance on the 35mm camera lens is already fair. And by pointing the difference between medium format and 35mm, we can do some work around to get the 35mm result to be similar to medium format. Once again, thank you for this videos!
Well done Karl. You may now drop the mic!
The Hassy is amazing, of course - but I don't know that the D850 can really be referred to as "clunky".
Looking to buy the H6D400MS. here’s hoping the camera lives up to expectations.
I hate to say I feel it a bit unfair to compare as the model was not in the exact same position or pose as noted the model in the first segment the lighting bouncing of her hair on the nikon was more exposed to the overhead or side lighting than Hasselblad same as many of other photo shoot the model was not posed the same way you need to set up the rigs so they are fired at the same time remember even the slightest arm location can have a have enough impact the way the light bounce off the body Cheers
I'm thinking of doing a test with a medium format and dslr camera using the exact same medium format lens on both.
The sensor is what gives you your field of view and detail but the lens is the true determineing factor here. Especially since it'd be a studio setup I'm only assuming the comparison would be a lot closer than what's in this video. An adaptor from photodiox is not that expensive to do this test either. Def would need to rent the medium format camera.
Can you use leaf shutters on a DSLR?
I own both Hasselblad and Nikon ( X1d and D850).
I can say without any doubt that Karl findings are exactly the same as I saw in my own tests.
The color science of H Is unmatched . Being a portrait photographer that IS a big deal.
But in my case the biggest deal is the flash synch up to 1/2000th sec without losing flash power. Outdoors makes a huge difference unless you want to carry a 1200ws flash around....
the go to original option in camera raw additionaly suggest that he made an edit before the showcase
IM AFRAID YOUR TEST IS FLAWED. FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO PROFILE BOTH CAMERAS AND START WITH A WHITE BALANCE FOR BOTH.
THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE REAL SPEED FOR A CHOSEN ISO. COULD YOU PLEASE LET US KNOW THE NIKON AND HASSELBLAD MODELS?
THE CRISPNESS YOU MENTION IS ABOUT CURVES. THE TONE TRANSITION IS BETTER ON MEDIUM FORMAT BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT IN A 16 BIT FILE. ANYWAY THANKS FOR YOUR EFFORT AND TIME.
Thank you @KarlTaylor and @Hasselblad for these videos. It demonstrates again these differences in the formats and whats possible with the larger sensors. There is no reason to price compare and argue value because it is assumed that the two different classes are meant for two different consumers. It should be noted that while the demonstration compares similar MP output camera's, the fight becomes unfair at 100mp. I do plan to acquire the 100mp system in the next 10 years, but I would not hesitate to shoot the 50mp Hasselblad on every project. If you can't buy it new, you can rent or acquire a certified pre-owned system.
BTW, color can be subjective and the Hasselblad has superior color, but Tonal Range is not. The superior tonal range is reason enough to step up to MF.
don't get fooled, when two sensors have the same dynamic range the differences you see is the effect of the profile and the build in tone curve. adobe does not try to build the camera profiles to give a similar look but rather to match the manufacturer default rendering, so it is no surprise that they appear different. I´m very sure mr. Taylor knows this.
Querelle , your absolutely correct. Not only does this make two not match but it makes every sensor look “generic” by reducing every sensor to the Adobe look.
worth to mention that adobe changed the default color rendering with the newer version of acr & lr in a very positiv way so this comparison
is outdated anyway.
You might want to rethink that statement about the 50MP sensor. As far as I know there is no real 16bit sensor in that format. So effectively you get the same 14bit color that you would find in a Sony A7RII or III.
Hello Sir, I am your student. I’m great follower of your videos too. Now I photographing without fear, your course & RUclips videos makes more strength. Thanks a lot for it. Sir Now I looking to buy a new full frame dslr. My budget is a round $4000. Within my budget suggest a dslr that mostly like H6D Color tone , sharpness, dynamic rang etc matching dslr. I mostly taking studio portraits and landscapes photos. Sir, will you plz recommend a camera. Thank you..
Sorry Karl, I do believe you BTW, but I just cant really see it on the Utble channel, You should really make the raw files available if possible. (it a huge jump in money terms, seem like a fairly small jump in image quality ! )
Comparing this two Cameras is like comparing a C63 AMG against a VW Polo. Medium Format will always outperform any other Camera ;)
Kai Wiedersum
Not always!
let's be serious here the D850 is no VW Polo. and kudos to them for testing it against the best full frame camera ever made, even on 2022 mind you.
Damn that is the prettiest model I have seen in years.
btw they change white balance in camera raw(look at custom not as shot) bonkers
You found the 35mm format clunky to use?
Gimme a break bro
HB file has Custom settings in ACR and the D850 is set to 'As Shot' - LOL
Awesome... Thanks..
Just awesome....😮😮😮
Tint?
Well I think if 35mm could do the same as the medium format cameras there would be no reason for medium format to exist.
Nice & Thanks :)
Hasselblad is better because?. Well it it just is - Having moved up from GFX50 which I hated as it is far too complicated to even try - I went to H5D 50c - it was good seriously good - but not quite good enough. Having worked as a fashion shooter for 35yrs using a Mamiya RZ and even 5x4 the quality was still nowhere near what I am used to, but the convenience of digi is too overwhelming to reconsider film. Soooo I went all out and got perhaps the only S/H H6D100c on sale in the world - and for less than 1/2 price with 12K miles on the clock. Blown away. Overwhelmingly so. And just so you know I did not consider Phase One due to the many many horror stories lens choice, crop factor and legacy of the system. So sell your car, a cupla kidneys and a few of your least favorite kids and get one.
Hi Nelson, Do you see much difference between H5D 50c and full frame?
@@jvusa Hi there Yes huge amount - it is worth the extra investment for many reasons.
1. It is as you say full frame (ish) it s about .06 off full frame so not even 1x - but you actually get the best part of all the lenses anyway - and you can go a bit further into the aperture fo r the sweet spots without too much in the way of aberrations - all lenses suffer from this so it is a nice added bonus.
2 Pixel count - the 100 is almost twice the resolution - it does not quite work out at double as it is a bigger sensor than the 50c but it is hugely noticeable - one of the things I do is make composites at around F16 from around 9 individual frames with 3 exposures on each - occasionally up to 5 bu then the file sizes are around 4gb of data and then when stitched can be up to 500mb - so make sure you have the capacity to deal with that on the back end - LR stitches it all nicely.
3. there are many added features in the 100 not on the 50c - the touch screen is not only brighter and more detailed and a lot easier to see than the 50c but it is easier to navigate also.
4. increase in shutter capability up to 2000 but not on all lenses - are the orange dot lenses worth the money - maybe, I have one which is the 100mm it is a peach of a lens and probably the most accomplished lns on the H system - and don't forget you can use a small extension tube, even for portraits to get in nice and close with a very thrown out background - make sure if you go down this route to have a couple of new batteries the 1900AH as it is a bit more heavy on juice!!! - Also ensure you have beefier cards,
Go for it - you will not regret whatever discipline of photography you are doing
@@nelsonclub7722 Thanks a lot Nelson, Appreciate for your detail explanation, also 50c has only 1 center focus and alway have to use focus and recompose using true focus, does it give accuracy similar to eye auto focus ?
@@jvusa My pleasure my friend the AF is hopeless - always has been and sadly it is no better on the X series. MF. THe best AF is the Fuji FGX - it is cheaper than the both the 50c and the 100 respectively but the in my opinion the quality of the image on HAsselblad just knocks it out of the park, better in my opinion than Phase One - and a lot easier to work with than both. It's all about the in camera processing. Fujifilm gives the photographer far too many preset options none of which is any good really, the film simulations can easily be achieved in post, and they are not in my opinion anything like the films they are meant to emulate anyway In the end you will just turn them all off and still have too many buttons in places where if you touch them they switch on either a quick menu, and you haven't even noticed, or a preset which you can't quickly enough turn off. however for an 'all round' camera of unimaginable performance it beats the Hass. Its a camera for everyone. whereas the Hasselblad is a camera for the photographer who is far less concerned with trying to have a camera which can do lots of things reasonably well, for instance the AF is good and better than a Hass, but still not a patch on Sony, Canon, Nikon, Lumix etc, versus a camera which does just one thing well which is what the Hasselblad does. Unimaginable depth of colour, detail and pure loveliness. Fuji = 1 shoe fits everyone. Hasselblad = handmade shoe. Hass 50c is a great camera and be mindful that its only true limitation is pixel count and crop factor and a poorer old school menu function. Also I should say that when I spoke to Hasselblad in April - I am friendly with the UK and Swedish team, they assured me that the colour profile of the entire range from X1DI, II, 907x (CFV50II) and the H6D both in 50 and 100 and of course 400 (which is the same back as 100) all colour match across the range. The sensor in them all is the Sony - the 50c is identical to that of the X1DII - and of course the Fuji. It is worth noting also that Phase One helped Hasselblad bring their digital backs into being, and some of the Phase One staff now work at Hass, or at least did in the early days. There will always be a compromise somewhere. I don't use Autofocus - never have - so for me the Hass 100 is really where it is at - but when 9not if) Hass bring out a 100 907x for the X series I will then switch and use things like Arcbody - which will be the same as Phase One XT - which currently costs over 100K all in!!!!
@@nelsonclub7722 WOW. Yes based on watching few reviews I felt the same, Thanks a lot my friend. Appreciate again for the detail explanation.
Having this camera is like having a Lambo. You don´t need it, you want it. There is definitely not a 20k+ difference in image quality here. I shot one of these and it felt marvelous. Then again, if you must use this camera, chances are the jobs you are landing are not a couple of thousand dollars, but rather in the tens of thousands, making this camera, actually a really good investment and therefore affordable.
Professional photographers do NEED medium format cameras, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about comparing a professional work tool to a fucking luxury car
First for beauty, strobes, are mostly used, rather than continuous light, and I would have preferred to see the comparison done under those more common commercial lighting conditions. My Nikon D750 and the 70-200mm 2.8 would compare well with what was demonstrated here. I was expecting in studio to see also the images blown up for large print posters as that is the strength of medium format. This was more like a sales job for Nikon. The best Nikon lens was not used. If you used the 200mm f2 that would be quite an interesting comparison, particularly for large print for store display.
Those were strobes used? Studio flashes, in fact the best ones on the market 'Broncolor Scoro's'. It seems also people are making a lot of focus on the lenses, it seems there is only one particular lens in the nikon range that would have been up to the job? That's a shame.. I can pick up any of the Hasselblad lenses and there wouldn't be a problem, even some that are over 10 years old?
Thanks for the clarification on the lighting, Karl Taylor. With regard to the lenses for beauty, there is also the 135mm in the Nikon line as well as the 70-200mm f 2.8 E(I have this awesome lens, which has medium formatish tonality)-the successor to the VRII. The 80-200mm also works well. And you may not know this as I think you use Canon but Nikon is loaded with lens for beauty-but Canon gained something of a big share in with its 70-200mm 2.8 in the beauty field, with medium format also picking up a good share. Nikon's VRii didn't deliver in the beauty range in the 70-200mm 2.8f VRII. But now the latest lens in the 70-200mm is a competitor. I would interested to see the difference in Nikon compared to Hasselblad in print display sized images for stores, in fashion and beauty, with the following lenses used for Nikon--70-200mm 2.8 (the latest one not the VRII), the 80-200mm 2.8f, 135mm DC 2.0 (This lens will rock your eyeballs), and also the after-be-mentioned 200mm (costs a fortune)and there's a legion of lens that are older that will also work. I would also like to see the images appear in Phocus for the Hasselblad and Nikon View NX for the Nikon. Thanks for your informative reply. Oh and this is my lens, my new favourite, which gives a good comparison to the lens it has succeeded: petapixel.com/2016/11/22/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-review-worth-money-youre-pro/