Hasselblad -22/39 vs Canon 5D

[atp_design]

I can bore you with specifications of each camera but thats not the reason i am making this post.

Hasselblad H3DII -22 or 39 or vs Canon 5D
What i want to know is, has anyone been able to compare these two cameras together ? Is it a fair comparison if you're into landscape/nature photography ?

One has 39MP the other boasts full frame technology with lower MP

Image quality, functionality, bang for buck.

What are your opinions ?

 

[lostprophet]

the 'blad! there is no comparison.

5D 12mp small sensor
'blad 39mp and a big sensor

if your after portability than the 5D if your after image quality then the 'blad

 

[Alex_B]

well you compare 35mm full frame with digital medium format. of course the 5D is on the losing side here regarding resolution, noise, and overall IQ.

in that comparison the 5D only wins if we talk about weight, size, and cost.
currently the 5D costs about one tenth of the H3DII -22

 

[atp_design]

You could enter the Canon 1Ds MkIII into the equation..

What kind of people use the 'blad' ?

 

[Alex_B]

You could enter the Canon 1Ds MkIII into the equation..

What kind of people use the 'blad' ?

still medium format is a totally different class.

what sort of people? professionals for whom poster size prints at high resolution are a must. Some fashion photographers, some portrait photographers and even some playboy photographers. Also some landscape work is done in MF and it is used for product photography and anything really.

... and hobbyists who feel no pain paying the price of a fast sports car for a camera plus 3 lenses.

 

[atp_design]

I have been photographed by a Blad 39 for a 1/4 page magazine image and i have seen one take food/beverage shots for junkmail advertising.

Im just trying to work out the reasons why such an expensive camera is used over medium format ones that can probably shoot just as well ?
Or am i totally wrong ?

 

[Alex_B]

Errm, but digital medium format camera backs are not really cheap... or what do you mean by medium format ones that can probably shoot just as well ?


Once we talk about digital medium format, we are in that price range, always (+/- 50%).

 

[Jeff Canes]

IMO the Canon 1Ds MkIII would compare well to the Hassy H3DII in the areas of cost, lens options, flexibility and image quality; Canon has had issue with the auto focus on the 1Ds MkIII, I think it was most with moving subject, so that is not am issue here, and I’m not sure if they have worked it out

Also if I recall right, Corpse Bride the Tim Bride stop motion animation movie was shot with a 1DmIIn, but they did use Nikon lens

 

[Alex_B]

IMO the Canon 1Ds MkIII would compare well to the Hassy H3DII in the areas of cost, lens options, flexibility and image quality; Canon has had issue with the auto focus on the 1Ds MkIII, I think it was most with moving subject, so that is not am issue here, I’m not sure if they have worked it out

As far as I know, in terms of noise and dynamic range the H3DII is better.
But I agree for most applications the 1Ds MkIII would probably suffice.

But then again, for some applications even 100 USD p&s cameras do an excellent job! ... in photography you often pay 10 times the price for 10% increase in image quality .. or for not losing those 10% of shots you could not get with the cheaper one

 

[Alpha]

I personally know a few people who have shot with these backs. I'll try to pass along what they've noted to me.

1) The 39mp back is not all it's cracked up to be. I don't know anyone who doesn't prefer a different back.
2) The 39mp back is an Imacon back. Everyone who isn't sponsored by Imacon/Blad openly hates their backs because their screens are too small and their config menus are crap. Everyone I know who shoots MF digital prefers Leaf or Phase One (P45 if they need 39mp).
3) 35mm and MF are apples and oranges. In some respects the MF backs are objectively better. For example there's this moronic trend where dSLR manufacturers are making a wholesale shift toward very high ISO's. What's problematic is that they're cutting out lower speeds-- in the worst cases anything below ISO200. Regardless of the signal-to-noise ratios, lower speed is always preferable when possible. Further, the lack of low ISO's on dSLR's is extremely problematic for studio work. Especially when working with high-powered strobes, you can sometimes find yourself in quite a bind without that extra stop or two. At best it's limiting your lighting possibilities. Most MF back still go down to ISO 50.