$8,000 Hasselblad vers $1000 Fugi.

[Ysarex]

Posting comparison images at web resolution is somewhat like comparing a VW and a Lamborghini going down the road side by side at an idle. You wouldn't spend the money on a Lamborghini unless you intended to step on the gas, and I wouldn't spend the money on a Hassy unless I needed the better camera. Not knocking the G7, but what do you think the response would be if you walked on the set of a major commercial shoot with it?

I couldn't care less. I posted the image at web resolution because it nonetheless shows the scene DR and that the G7 handled it. At 20 megapixels it'll make a 20x30 print that will be indistinguishable from a same-size print from the Hassy at appropriate viewing distance. I'm sure you could stick your nose in the prints and see a difference due to the resolution difference. People who do that have a problem. Again back to the price/performance curve how much is it worth to be able to stick your nose in a print to see what you spent?

 

[smoke665]

Again back to the price/performance curve how much is it worth to be able to stick your nose in a print to see what you spent?

For you apparently not, but you failed to answer my last question..."Not knocking the G7, but what do you think the response would be if you walked on the set of a major commercial shoot with it?" There are cases where even the "pixel peeping" difference is significant. "In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little, human detail can become a Leitmotiv" - Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Despite the cost, despite its relatively small market share, the brand has continued profitablly since its early beginnings in 1940 as a supplier of cameras for the Swedish air force. Apparently NASA thought there was something special about the brand when they chose it for their space missions. Later it became the one chosen to land on the moon.

You don't need 100 megapixels, you don't need 50. I

Really Joe, how about a quote from you back in Dec? "It's not a "perceived difference" -- more pixels on the subject is a real difference.....they represent a real quality boost". So which is it....more or less is better? I couldn't find the post but I also remember something about you touting the larger pixel size of a a medium format sensor. Then from earlier in this thread you talk about the quality of the lenses, I don't think there's much doubt that the quality of the glass is superior in the Hassy.

To be clear I don't own one, don't know if I want one for some of the reasons you've posted, but if I were in a position to need a camera of that caliber, they'd be at the top of my list. I also don't criticize anyone for their choice of gear when that choice is based on matching it to need.

 

[Ysarex]

For you apparently not, but you failed to answer my last question..."Not knocking the G7, but what do you think the response would be if you walked on the set of a major commercial shoot with it?"

Couldn't care less was my answer but otherwise I'm well enough familiar with the value of bluff and perception over substance.

There are cases where even the "pixel peeping" difference is significant. "In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little, human detail can become a Leitmotiv" - Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Despite the cost, despite its relatively small market share, the brand has continued profitablly since its early beginnings in 1940 as a supplier of cameras for the Swedish air force. Apparently NASA thought there was something special about the brand when they chose it for their space missions. Later it became the one chosen to land on the moon.

I used Hasselbalds for years. Those were mechanical film cameras. These new X cameras are entirely a different critter.

Really Joe, how about a quote from you back in Dec? "It's not a "perceived difference" -- more pixels on the subject is a real difference.....they represent a real quality boost". So which is it....more or less is better? I couldn't find the post but I also remember something about you touting the larger pixel size of a a medium format sensor.

That was in a thread where the question concerned "reach." Would the same lens produce same results on an APS camera and "crop mode" FF. The whole issue in that case for a wildlife photographer was they don't have enough. They're not close enough, the lens isn't long enough, they can't crop enough, etc. Here I'm talking about having more than enough.

Then from earlier in this thread you talk about the quality of the lenses, I don't think there's much doubt that the quality of the glass is superior in the Hassy.

Lots of doubt actually. Back when they were mechanical film cameras Hassy took every opportunity to point out that their lenses were made by Zeiss in Germany. Those were good, I owned some. Now on their website you can't find a single mention of who/where makes their lenses. They don't make them. They're made by Nittoh in China. I use Zeiss, Leitz and Fuji lenses on my Fuji. I'll go with I use better glass.

To be clear I don't own one, don't know if I want one for some of the reasons you've posted, but if I were in a position to need a camera of that caliber, they'd be at the top of my list. I also don't criticize anyone for their choice of gear when that choice is based on matching it to need.

So, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Hassy or that it doesn't provide all that resolution, DR, and low-light capacity it's advertised to supply. I'm sure it does. What I'm saying is there's a point of diminishing returns that needs to be considered once you've past the point of having more than enough. The cameras I have now provide me with more than enough resolution, more than enough DR and more than enough noise-free images. I'm way past the point of diminishing returns. If someone gave me that Hassy I probably wouldn't use it since what good is more than more than enough.

Frankly that's the case with my FF Nikon. I didn't buy it. It was given to me brand new four years ago. I barely use it. Just checked and the last photo I took with it is numbered 776. When I received the Z7 I was using my Fuji X-T2 which I still use. My G7 compact goes with me everywhere and get's used more than all my other cameras combined. For most photos it's more than enough. But when I want to use other lenses (macro, superwide, etc.) the fixed lens Canon won't do. Do I get the Z7? No, it's too big and bulky and it's more than more than enough. So I get out my Fuji X-T2 which provides me with all the resolution I need, all the DR I need, noiseless photos, and likely better glass than that Hassy.

If I were put in a position where I was forced to give up some of my existing camera gear, the first thing to go would be the FF Nikon. I don't have a lot of need for overkill. Someone thinks they need a medium format digital camera they're lucky they can get one now with/lens/lenses between 10 and 20 grand. But let's remember how this thread begins. Some guy shot the same photos with a Hassy X2d and a Fuji X-T4 and people couldn't tell them apart. It's hard to see the effects of overkill.

 

[smoke665]

Couldn't care less was my answer but otherwise I'm well enough familiar with the value of bluff and perception over substance.

Since you keep evading the answer, I'll answer...........If you showed up at a high budget commercial shoot with anything other than top of the line equipment, you'd be fired on the spot, and escorted from the building. I respect your knowledge and have actually learned a few things from you, but you made a grossly broad statement without limitation earlier - "Once you have enough resolution there's really little benefit to more. It's overkill." Then went on to disparage anyone who might need absolute perfection "People who make wall size prints and then walk up to them and stick there noses in them to see if they're sharp enough don't really care about the image, about the photograph. They have a problem." You're making no distinction between the casual user and a professional.

What I'm saying is there's a point of diminishing returns that needs to be considered once you've past the point of having more than enough.

Agreed, but that point of diminishing returns is variable based on the requirements of the image.

 

[Ysarex]

Since you keep evading the answer, I'll answer...........If you showed up at a high budget commercial shoot with anything other than top of the line equipment, you'd be fired on the spot, and escorted from the building. I respect your knowledge and have actually learned a few things from you, but you made a grossly broad statement without limitation earlier - "Once you have enough resolution there's really little benefit to more. It's overkill." Then went on to disparage anyone who might need absolute perfection "People who make wall size prints and then walk up to them and stick there noses in them to see if they're sharp enough don't really care about the image, about the photograph. They have a problem." You're making no distinction between the casual user and a professional.

Well it wasn't my intent to disparage casual users. They just don't understand and that's understandable as they're not professionals who know better. In my defense there are afflicted photographers who inappropriately assess image quality with their noses in a print when they should stand back and view the print from an appropriate distance. I've met more than a few.

Agreed, but that point of diminishing returns is variable based on the requirements of the image.

Only to a degree and/or in extreme exceptions which really shouldn't count. For example most of what we all photograph will be adequately handled by a sensor that records 10-11 stops of DR. Frankly 9-10 stops is more than enough for most of what we all photograph. So it's an extreme exception that any of us would need 12+ stops of DR. (A professional in such a case would most likely correct the lighting as the best course of action).

 

[smoke665]

In my defense there are afflicted photographers who inappropriately assess image quality with their noses in a print when they should stand back and view the print from an appropriate distance. I've met more than a few.

Agreed, and many wouldn't really know if it was an issue or not. During my college years I worked for a newspaper with a large commercial printing operation in production. Following graduation I bought a Publishing company that produced 3 newspapers with a well equipped commercial printing operation, so my early experiences with quality in an image, was more than casual.

Only to a degree and/or in extreme exceptions which really shouldn't count. For example most of what we all photograph will be adequately handled by a sensor that records 10-11 stops of DR. Frankly 9-10 stops is more than enough for most of what we all photograph. So it's an extreme exception that any of us would need 12+ stops of DR. (A professional in such a case would most likely correct the lighting as the best course of action).

You bring up a valid point on DR, even outside on ambient portraits I use supplemental lighting. First thing the inexperienced do is buy a fast lens and shoot wide open where either the eyes are out of focus, or most of the facial features are blurred. They don't consider DOF or the fact that most glass is sharpest at it's mid range not at the extremes of the aperture. Utilizing the DR is a matter of adding or subtracting light as required for the exposure. I realize there are those who might shoot wildlife or other low light shots that would require a higher DR, but then as you say, they are "extreme exceptions".