raid
Dad Photographer
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.
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.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Not sure if I understand.
Huss
Mentor
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.
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.
raid
Dad Photographer
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)
KM-25
Well-known
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.
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.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for your detailed feedback, KM-25.
raid
Dad Photographer
Interesting observation. Thanks.
Timmyjoe
Mentor
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
Best,
-Tim
Godfrey
somewhat colored
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
RichC
Well-known
Exactly! See link for proof: https://srussenschuck.com/full-frame-dslr-versus-medium-format/
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
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.
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.
RichC
Well-known
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.
santino
FSU gear head
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.