Something i wanted to point out.

[donny1963]

Ok some time ago i have mention that best quality pictures come from medium Format Camera's where many people especially on here (the ones who think they know it all)
Argued A Full Frame Camera is just as good in producing Image quality.

Where Full frame can produce image quality most of them do, but they do not
match up to the medium format spectrum camera's such as the Hasselblad H6.
Now they are many camera manufactures out there but only 1 so far make a true
Medium Format Camera, what i mean by True Medium Format, is that the sensor size being the same size as the medium format film camera's.

just like in 35 mm vs crop sensor, they are many medium format camera's out there that
do not have the full medium format sensor, also i might add The hasselblad H6 is the only full frame medium format camera that also produces true 16 bit color output.
the rest of the medium format camera's are only 8 bit like the full frame camera's such as the Nikon D850, that camera is a true 35mm Full frame, no crop same size as the 35 mm film.

For example the Sensor size for a Hasselblad Medium format camera is "53.4 x 40.0mm"
the other manufactures like the Fujifilm GFX 100 has a sensor size of "43.8 x 32.9mm"
so in theory the GFX 100 is a crop sensor camera in regards to medium format.
just like a Nikon D7100 (Sensor Size " 23.5 x 15.6 mm") would be a crop sensor
and a Nikon D850 (Sensor Size "35.9 x 23.9 mm") would be a full frame
So this is the reason why you can't compare other Medium Format camera's other then the Hasselblad H6 to Full frame because the "Crop Sensor Medium Format" is not a fair comparison to full frame 35 mm sensor camera's Because the Crop Sensor Medium Format
doesn't put out the same quality and color range as the Hasselblad H6 does.

it would be like comparing your Nikon D7100 Crop sensor to a Nikon D850 Full frame.
The D7100 would never be able to match it's quality.

The best camera in quality that produces the very best true to life images is the Hasselblad H6
there is no camera that can match it anywhere as of today.

you see there is a reason why the Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format is only $10,000.00 In price
Vs the Hasselblad H6 at $47,000.00 when you use both camera's you know where the extra $37,000.00 went to..

also if some one tries to tell you a full frame camera can produce just as good of an image as the Hasselblad H6 Medium Format, and shows you a picture from the Full frame Camera then one of the Hasselblad H6 then says " See both pictures are the same in quality the Medium Format doesn't look much better.

This is because these idiot will show you 2 images 1 from each camera and they are in both JPEG format. This is really stupid because The Haasselblad H6 produces 16 Bit color which makes a huge diffrence vs the Full frame only producing 8 bit color .

you see JPEG picture file can only be in 8 bit color, JPEG can not show you a 16 bit color picture because it's only 8 bit.

so this is why both pictures don't look any better then the other. you would have to view the Hasselblad Picture in a TIF file format not JPEG.
TIF file image is 16 bith color.

that would be a fair comparison.
now viewing 16 bit color pictures is not common on the web because most web browser only supports 8 bit color file formats, JPEG being the standard when you look at a picture on your web browsers, it's most likely a JPEG file format.

How ever it is still possible to view 16 bit color pictures on the web through software or plugins on your web browser.

for example Virtual Museums that you can visit online that display precious items use 16 bit color Medium Format pictures for this because True Medium Format pictures are the closest to looking at something that would be in true life,

in other words the Medium Format pictures that produce true 16 bit color are the most accurate to what you would see in real life, because full frame and any other 8 bit picture could not display the color spectrum and quality is just not there.

so when you go online at a Virtual museum, you download their software and connect through that because it's software sends the images for you to view in true 16 bit.

All these Virtual museums who hire photographers to take these pictures only hire the ones who are using the Hasselblad H6 True Medium Format with 16 bit color, they WILL NOT consider any full frame camera no matter what.

That is their #1 requirement.
I know this first hand, so there you go one more piece of evidence to why the hasselbald H6 is the best camera today producing the best quality images anywhere.

 

[JBPhotog]

Some of your assumptions on bit depth are not correct. Raw DSLR files are not limited to 8 bit and as of yet there are no native 16 bit monitors. Any bit depth integrity is limited buy the monitor one is viewing the file on and it better be calibrated using 3D LUT’s to get within a barge pole of 16 bit depth.

 

[Soocom1]

Forget the bit depth issue. Format will win the day hands down (provided your running like type technologies).
Ergo 3 nm pixles in a aps-c vs. 9nm fat pixles in an older 36x36 phase one.

They have to be the same evolution of tech. Otherwise its like trying to compare a modern suped up turbo Scion Xb to a 72 Mach 1 with a 429 SCJ

 

[donny1963]

Some of your assumptions on bit depth are not correct. Raw DSLR files are not limited to 8 bit and as of yet there are no native 16 bit monitors. Any bit depth integrity is limited buy the monitor one is viewing the file on and it better be calibrated using 3D LUT’s to get within a barge pole of 16 bit depth.

how ever the monitors that do exist can show the difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit photo.

n terms of color, an 8-bit image can hold 16,000,000 colors, whereas a 16-bit image can hold 28,000,000,000

16-bit color
With 16-bit color, also called High color, computers and monitors can display as many as 65,536 colors, which is adequate for most uses. However, graphic intensive video games and higher resolution video can benefit from and take advantage of the higher color depths.

24-bit color
Using 24-bit color, also called True color, computers and monitors can display as many as 16,777,215 different color combinations.

32-bit color
Like 24-bit color, 32-bit color supports 16,777,215 colors but has an alpha channel it can create more convincing gradients, shadows, and transparencies. With the alpha channel 32-bit color supports 4,294,967,296 color combinations.

to say here are no native 16 bit monitors, that is bull.
Also if no monitor could take advantage of the 16 bit color pictures from H6 they would not bother to produce something that can produce 16 bit color, and
DLSR's are all 8-bit and are limited to it,
they sure as hell can't do 16 bit that is for sure, which is double the colors.
you show me the the specs of a DSLR camera sold today that shows it is 16 bith, they will all say 8-bit
The H6 has way larger gamut of tonal range and color.
you can see it in post, it's way more colors, which also
improves SNR as well.

and i am correct.
you can try and put out any argument you want my OP is 100% correct no other camera can match the quality of the H6 NONE there is no camera that can match it..

 

[Overread]

Article from Canon on bit depth of cameras
8 or 16 bit - Canon Professional Network


Article that gives some insight into bit colour depth in monitors and why what is says on the box isn't quite true in terms of what the monitor shows
Why You Need to Know What Color Bit Depth Your Display Supports

 

[Sharpshooterr]

Jeez Donny, that's a pretty compelling rant you had going there!!! LoL
I have NEVER seen anybody here say that ANY FF is as good as an H6?!
But I have personally said that it would NOT be worth shooting with an H6 on most occasions when a high mp FF will do an adequate job for most photography. I spent years shooting with a 4x5 and long ago concluded that I would NOT waste my time shooting with MF again when if I truly wanted real Definition I would simply shoot on 4x5 film. Not even sure how many bit 4x5 film is, do you? And 4x5 cameras are CHEAP!!!
I feel in love with shooting portraits when in a museum I once saw one of Hendrick Kersten's 50"x60" portraits shot on 8x10 film. I wonder how that H6 digi image looks at 50x60 compared to the 8x10 neg at 50x60?
If you need an H6, nothing wrong with that, go for it but no one here has said that FF is better, only that there are different tools for different work and they are more than adequate. It's pretty hard to beat a FF with the myriad of lenses available and how fast they can perform.
If that H6 shot at 14 fps I'd be tempted and 14 bit is pretty darned close!
BTW, real MF is 2.25 x 2.25, not that wimpy 53 x40!!!
SS

 

[Derrel]

Welcome back, Donny.

 

[Original katomi]

I see that there are a number of posts here and I am sure that they make sense
However it’s all gone right over my head, I have looked at the Pentax 645 z and weighed up the +/-
And decided that
1 all the time photography is a hobby I can’t justify the cost of MF
2 I have invested a lot of time, effort and money in getting my current system just where I want it
3 all the time I can get what I want out of my kit, even if it means taking 20 pics to male a 2mtr panorama
Then why change.
4 ok there is better image quality to be had but I can’t use it without serious upgrade of related kit as well as the camera. Printer, lap top etc.
5 and finally I have to ask, even if money was no object.... do I need and or would I use the extra image quality
And for me is no I don’t need nor would I use it.

 

[tirediron]

You do understand that most of your statements are utterly meaningless, don't you? "Image quality"; is a totally subjective phrase. Image quality is a generalized term which means widely different things to different people. It could be anything from sharpness to pixel count, colour rendition, low-light performance, or simply the general appearance of the image. One point you seem to have totally overlooked is the fact that many, if not the majority of factors relating to "image quality" are in fact more attributable to the lens than the sensor of the camera.

You make frequent reference to crop and full-frame sensors. Be mindful that these are just marketing terms, created primarily for the benefit of the consumer to compare a compare's sensor to that of a standard 35mm negative. There have always been a multitude of negative sizes in all film formats, in particular medium format, so speaking of a "crop frame" medium format is, for all intents and purposes, pointless.

I would like to seem some supporting evidence for your contention that virtual museums only employ photographers using the H6; for instance, I know for a fact (Because I know some of the photographers who have done the work) that a significant amount of the material photographed by/for the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, BC was NOT shot on a Hasselblad H6.

I'm curious as to how many and which medium frame cameras you own. You speak with great authority regarding the H6, so I assume you own at least one of those, and since you compare it with the GFX, I assume you either own, or have extensive experience with that as well? I think many of us would be greatly interested in the MF gear that you own and/or have used. What sort of work do you do which justifies what must surely be a $75-100,000 investment?

 

[Mike Drone]

You do understand that most of your statements are utterly meaningless, don't you? "Image quality"; is a totally subjective phrase. Image quality is a generalized term which means widely different things to different people. It could be anything from sharpness to pixel count, colour rendition, low-light performance, or simply the general appearance of the image. One point you seem to have totally overlooked is the fact that many, if not the majority of factors relating to "image quality" are in fact more attributable to the lens than the sensor of the camera.

I agree with your statements, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe my 35mm makes the best images and image quality. I am not fond of medium and large format cameras. I read these post a few times but did not want to reply because of the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything". I don't mean to be rude in any way but I also am not going to be told what is beautiful to me and others. Image quality is opinionated. If one wants to compare cameras that they feel are nice, then back the compare data with supporting data and evidence.

Good morning everyone! i am getting some coffee...

 

[weepete]

What about large format?....

LargeSense Unveils World's First Single Shot 8×10 Digital Camera

 

[vintagesnaps]

No Katomi, it doesn't make lot of sense, and yes John, it mostly seems meaningless. I just glanced thru it rather than read it all due to past experience.

Donnie if you were in a country where English is not the primary language then it would be understandable that what you write is unclear and has a lot of errors in syntax, capitalization, etc. Otherwise it looks like you need to bring up your skills in writing and being much more clear about what you're trying to say.

 

[zombiesniper]

Image quality comes down to more than how many bits you have.

Mpix, Dynamic rande, # of bits, pixel size, processor, sensor filters. Any one of those that are not up to the task can make your image quality suffer. Boiling a large amount of variables down to one is:

A. Wrong, and

B. Lazy.

Not saying that Hassy (iff all other factors are IDENTICAL) won't take a technically cleaner image however the extra $40k? Ya not that much better no matter who you ask.

 

[Jeff G]

This is the beginners forum right? Am I the only one who thinks this seems kind of intense for beginners to try to comprehend? Sure it's informative, but I would put it a little above the basics. I could be wrong but it gives me a headache just trying to follow along.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I have heard and read many conversations like this. Be it cameras, lenses, fine shotguns, artwork, wine, instruments or a host of other subjects.

Above a certain price and quality level, it is the nuances and personal preference that determine " the best". It may make for interesting opinions but it like the old discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If there was one perfect camera we would not need so many types and models.