Jump to content

Hasselblad H6D 100C Review. Shoots 4k Video MF


webrunner5

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Different sensors sizes provide different pixel sizes and resolutions and abilities to use different lens sizes. Smaller sensor cameras tend to be more compact and lower cost. Nothing magical happens

Extreme narrow DOF has very little use if you are actually shooting a film as opposed to posting clips on the internet to make people go WOW! Most of the time you need more not less DOF. It's not like

Big boy toy!! Damn the 4k is usable. And it shoots in Raw also!! And the wide angle stuff IS Wide Angle! Interesting. I can see a few firmware updates and wow, a real player in the Video field. h

Posted Images

It might have some cool features and advantage over Red (for example bigger pixels and color science), however MF has no intrinsic advantage over FF or Super35 or M43 via sensor size alone (which is what they tried to show in their post. I put a link in the comments how to set the cameras up for equivalence).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its Big advantage is Shallow DoF, big time DoF. And I don't know the sensor Pixel size but I bet it is using some pretty dang big ones compared to what say a 42mp Sony A7r mkII has. I think the sensor is 70% larger than FF. That is a big ass sensor area wise.

Plus it has Raw, yeah Raw MF output. That is a huge thing, no pun intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Plus it has Raw, yeah Raw MF output. That is a huge thing, no pun intended.

4K is not MF ... and JCS is right ... put a Noctilux on a FF A7S II in 4K mode and your depth of field will be 

so shallow that nothing will be in focus ... for long.

Give me the Leica SL and a couple of Leica C Summicron lenses ....

http://www.madeinwetzlar.com/filming-with-the-leica-sl-summicron-c-lenses

Nothing against Hasselblad ... although I passed on a pre-ordered X1D ... GH5 and a Leica Monochrome

instead. Their lenses ... other than the HC 100 lack much character or mojo ... really sharp but bokeh and

cinematic feel lacking.

RAW is compelling but if the underlying color science is close ... not that big of a deal. 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jcs said:

There's no DOF advantage at all- we've covered this ad nauseum! ?

Nope.  With all the equivalence tests that have been done, none have been conclusive.

 

In fact, all of those equivalence tests show a difference in DOF between lenses made for different formats, and some comparisons actually show a dramatic difference in DOF.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tupp said:

Nope.  With all the equivalence tests that have been done, none have been conclusive.

 

In fact, all of those equivalence tests show a difference in DOF between lenses made for different formats, and some comparisons actually show a dramatic difference in DOF.

 

 

You are completely right. No way in heck you are ever going to get a MF look DoF wise unless you use a MF camera. And it trickeles down the same wayall the way to 8mm or less. There IS a reason people shot with 8x10 view cameras. DoF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used MF still cameras since 1984 ... lots of Hasselblad Mamiya 7 ... traded out of dozens of lenses and bodies

for my first MF digital with the H2D and a Phase 20 back. Moved to the H3D 39 II .... Leica S2-P ... Leica S006. Lost 

money every iteration of the cameras and lenses. Video ... Sony EX1R to a Red One to RED Epic ... could have dried my hair with

the fan on that one ... Honestly enjoyed my hacked GH2 and small lenses better ... but that may have been that I did not have a 

5K monitor and everything looked somewhat similar ... I now review my old Epic files on the Dell 5K and wish it were still here.

DOF is one element that must be used with an end in sight regarding presentation ... just traded the Leica Noctilux as it had

such small DOF and wild bokeh that I would get dizzy reviewing the files when processing them in LR/PS. I much prefer the 

50 LUX/50 Apo presentation.

The H6D is not that different from my H3D 39 II and I cannot imagine anyone messing with it for video ... 

Truth is everyone wants to present themselves as unique ... whoever does this with the H6D-100 will work for their money.

Just sayin' 

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well its Big advantage is Shallow DoF, big time DoF. And I don't know the sensor Pixel size but I bet it is using some pretty dang big ones compared to what say a 42mp Sony A7r mkII has. I think the sensor is 70% larger than FF. That is a big ass sensor area wise.

Plus it has Raw, yeah Raw MF output. That is a huge thing, no pun intended.

I would think the A7Rii actually has larger pixels.

I think it might be something like 4.9 x 4.9 for the A7Rii to 4.6 x4.6 for the MF camera (I remain to be corrected on this) but in any event  A larger sensor by about 70% but also more than double the number of pixels?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What nonsense is this? (from the C5D article):

Quote

Some people say medium format mimics how your eyes actually see the world better than the smaller Super35-sized imagers thanks to being able to shoot an extremely wide scene but still have the “real-world” look of a lens with a longer focal length. The subject remains flat and not ‘stretched’ out.

Presumably they mean that medium format lenses are said to be better corrected for barrel distortion. But the way they phrase it suggests a deep misunderstanding of perspective. And after their resistance to the feedback on their GH5 article, I can't even be bothered to post this in their comments.

@jcs You have a seemingly infinite reserve of patience :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

You are completely right. No way in heck you are ever going to get a MF look DoF wise unless you use a MF camera. And it trickeles down the same wayall the way to 8mm or less. There IS a reason people shot with 8x10 view cameras. DoF.

The largest sensor with the fastest lens will always give you the shallowest depth of field for a given angle of view.

Where the "problem" arises is when the larger sensor camera doesn't have any lenses that match up for speed with a smaller sensor camera.

FF has an advantage in that there are plenty of super fast lenses for many focal lengths while medium format(s) and larger often don't have such fast (or wide) lenses available.

That is one of the things said in reviews of the new MF Fuji.     There are not any lenses that can give it shallower DOF than some of the FF cameras available.

I am sure there are lots of reasons people shot on 8x10 view cameras but then what else would they have at the time?

I can only find a few MF cameras in the DOF calculator I play with and so have picked the Pentax 645D.

Here is a list of available lenses for it (from Wikipedia).   There may be others and you might be able to adapt other lenses too.

smc PENTAX-D FA 645 25 mm F4.0 AL SDM AW [IF] (2011)
smc PENTAX-DA 645 25 mm F4.0 AL SDM AW [IF] (2012-current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 35 mm F3.5
smc PENTAX-FA 645 35 mm F3.5 AL [IF] (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 45 mm F2.8
smc PENTAX-FA 645 45 mm F2.8 (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 55 mm F2.8
smc PENTAX-D FA 645 55 mm F2.8 AL SDM AW [IF] (2010-current)
smc PENTAX 645 LS 75 mm F2.8 (current) - leaf shutter
smc PENTAX-A 645 75 mm F2.8
smc PENTAX-FA 645 75 mm F2.8 (current)
HD PENTAX-D FA 645 Macro 90 mm F2.8 ED AW SR (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 Macro 120 mm F4.0 (current)
smc PENTAX-FA 645 Macro 120 mm F4.0 (current)
smc PENTAX 645 LS 135 mm F4.0 (current) - leaf shutter
smc PENTAX-A 645 150 mm F3.5
smc PENTAX-FA 645 150 mm F2.8 [IF] (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 200 mm F4.0
smc PENTAX-FA 645 200 mm F4.0 ED (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 300 mm F4.0 ED [IF] (current)
smc PENTAX-FA 645 300 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current)
smc PENTAX-FA 645 400 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 600 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current)
HD PENTAX-DA 645 28-45 mm F4.5 ED AW SR (current)
smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 33–55 mm F4.5 AL (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 Zoom 45–85 mm F4.5
smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 45–85 mm F4.5 (current)
smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 55–110 mm F5.6 (current)
smc PENTAX-A 645 Zoom 80–160 mm F4.5
smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 80–160 mm F4.5 (current)
smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 150–300 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current)


The crop factor to FF is .79 (I think) and the widest lens is 25mm so nothing readily available wider than around 20mm.    Nothing faster than 2.8 it seems either.

A 75mm 2.8 lens on the MF Pentax equates to about a 60mm f2 lens FF.     Nice enough but there are much faster lenses readily available.

That 75mm lens on the Pentax at 2.8 and with a subject distance of 10 feet has total DOF of 1.17 ft.

A 60mm f2 lens on FF at f2 and at 10 feet to subject has a total DOF of 1 foot (not an exact match but the figures are not exact - close enough though).

Stick a 58mm 1.2 lens on the FF camera and the total DOF is going to be well under 1 foot at 10 feet to subject distance.

Yes, there are super fast MF lenses but they are rare and expensive and mostly aerial photography lenses.    Anyone ever seen one?

The H6D 100C has a larger sensor than the Pentax 645D but the same things still happen.     You have to have the lenses for it to have shallower DOF.    If you DO, the yes you wont match it but what lenses are you going to use?

The Hasselblad does have wider and faster lenses (than the Pentax 645D) available though not a huge amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, noone said:

I would think the A7Rii actually has larger pixels.

I think it might be something like 4.9 x 4.9 for the A7Rii to 4.6 x4.6 for the MF camera (I remain to be corrected on this) but in any event  A larger sensor by about 70% but also more than double the number of pixels?

On further reading, it seems I was wrong and the Hasselblad does have very slightly larger pixels than the A7Rii.

4.5 microns for the Sony, 4.6 microns for the Hasselblad is what I can find.    

In any event, many current/recent FF cameras have larger pixels (all the Nikons, all the Sony mirrorless other than the A7Rii, the Canon's other than the 50mp pair).     Some of the latest APSC sensors are close (some of the older APSC and even 4/3 ones have larger pixels but that is different ages of technology and some of the older MF backs had massive pixels too).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I doubt any of the MF cameras really make too much difference to us good or bad. We can't afford the bodies, let alone the lenses. And they are going to suck at video and video controls. So they are a dead horse to us in reality.

I keep looking to see if there is a way of adapting my old Polaroid 600SE camera with a digital back.      It is a big Polaroid pack film rangefinder camera with interchangeable lenses (a couple of modified Mamiya lenses) and it can take MF film with an adapter.      Should be easy enough to put an adapter on the adapter (though not huge demand for it) and older MF digital backs can be quite cheap (some low resolution ones) but it would be for stills only as I think it will be a few years yet before any MF back or camera that can do video will be at my price point at least.

Would be fun to try if not serious use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, noone said:

I keep looking to see if there is a way of adapting my old Polaroid 600SE camera with a digital back.      It is a polaroid pack film camera with interchangeable lenses (a couple of modified Mamiya lenses) and it can take MF film with an adapter.      Should be easy enough to put an adapter on the adapter (though not huge demand for it) and older MF digital backs can be quite cheap (some low resolution ones) but it would be for stills only as I think it will be a few years yet before any MF back or camera that can do video will be at my price point at least.

Would be fun to try if not serious use.

Wow I have Never even heard of one of those, and I have had about every camera made LoL!! I have no clue about what you can do or not with them?? Interesting. They are big as heck.

There were a few Digital backs that fit the Mamiya, and Hassy cameras in the day but that was about it. We are talking like 14mp backs at the time. There was a back that took like 5 minutes to take a shot. It had to make like 3 passes then to get all 3 colors. People used it for Fine Art and Jewelry beacusethere was no motion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow I have Never even heard of one of those, and I have had about every camera made LoL!! I have no clue about what you can do or not with them?? Interesting.

It is pretty much a Mamiya Universal press camera with a couple of alterations to the mount and back so you can not interchange the film holders or lenses without alteration.

They can still sell for silly money on Ebay and have a bit of a cult following.

My Dad gave it to me years ago with a 127 f4.7 lens and 75 f5.6 (there is only one other main lens for it though maybe a few rarer ones).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...