How's the focus ? Did you have the waist-level of the eye-level ?

E.

Yaya & Thierry should be able to tell us a bit more, no?

I did not test any Sinar backs, only the Leaf Aptus 75/Mamiya vs. H3D-39 (And the P45 on a H2).

The Leaf back was my reason for choosing the Leaf AFi and not the Hy6, for all I know the Sinar alternative might be just as good as the Leaf.

Manual focusing on the beta- Hy6 was very good, in the sense that you very easily could confirm precisely what was in focus. I used the waist-level finder with the very useful flip-up magnifier. The 90° prism viewfinder will be available when the camera ships to market. For precise manual focusing I preferred the Hy6 over the H3D.

None of the new Schneider-Kreuznach AFD lenses were available at their stand, but they claimed (of course) that the AF on the Hy6/AFi will be much faster and more precise than on the H3D.


- Rune

If it matters to you, I guess that Dalsa didn't make a Bayer pattern mask
for this sensor since it's intended for use in an observatory. People at
the observatory can likely take multiple photos with different filters if
they want color. Fairchild Imaging has been manufacturing an 80+ MP
8cm x 8cm monochrome chip since before Dalsa made the 111 MP one.
Their "ultra high resolution, electro-optical framing camera for reconnaissance
and other applications" description suggests to me that as with the sensor
for the Naval observatory, it takes a military/CIA grade budget to purchase
silicon sensors this large. If you download Fairchild's PDF, I found it interesting
to read about the acceptable numbers of clusters of bad pixels in their different
quality grades. - John

John, very interesting, I appreciate the info, Thank you.

Thats not quite right.

The HCD28mm lens is designed for the 22 / 39 MP sensor so 28mm is actually a 28mm lens. Important if you need really wide angle lenses and don't want to suffer from crippling lens conversion factors...

Which some might argue are present on the RZ.

Also a little known fact is that he metering system in the new finder is more accurate and also faster to meter.

Jo S.x

Jo,
I believe you're wrong!
The 28 is a 28 ,however there still is the crop factor of the sensor.
In real terms the lens is a 30.8 mm lens,which is still pretty good!
Cheers,
Willem.

I beleive I am right...

There is only a crop factor on the 31MP sensor, otherwise the image circle of the HCD28mm is 'fitted' to the 22 and 39 sensor.

Jo S.x

You can look here under compatibility...

http://www.hasselblad.com/media/61395063-a...f8-HCD28_UK.pdf

Jo ,you're wrong!
The H3 22 and 39 sensors are not full frame,we all know that!
Like I said before,a 30.8mm lens is still very wide!

The Hasselblad catalogue/brochure states this for the 28mm lens:

"the HCD 4/28 mm lens is designed solely for digital use. this means that the lens is
designed for a format of 37x49 mm and does not cover the film format (41.5x56mm)."

Does this not mean that there is no crop factor involved, and that the 95 degree diagonal angle of view does not apply? (Making it approx. the same as a 20mm on a FF canon with a 94 degree diagonal angle of view...)

I was under the impression that this lens is in fact a true 28 on the H3D, can anyone confirm this?

-axel

Here we go again!

I'm right, quoting from the link above...

'The HCD 4/28 mm lens is designed solely for digital use. This means that the lens is
designed for a format of 37x49 mm and does not cover the film format (41.5x56mm).'

Believe me now?

Jo S.x

O.K!
So the 35,50,80,150,210 etc are 35,50,80,150,210 ?

Anyway the 28 is a 28.9 mm.

http://www.hasselblad.com/media/61395063-a...f8-HCD28_UK.pdf

And the angle of view varies on which sensor is being used.
It certainly won't be the same with the new Hasselblad 31MB sensor.

Cheers,
Willem.

And please correct me if I'm wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 28mm is a 28mm (well.. around about 28mm). So on a H3D-39 it will appear to be approximately a 30mm - even if the image circle only covers the smaller area. The 28mm describes the actual physical measurement of the lens irrelevant of the sensor size.

A 28mm for 35mm format is still a 28mm even if it cant cover anything larger format.

Svein Erik

Thanks Svein!
I knew I was right a along!
Cheers,
Willem.

I'm getting very confused by this...

The HC lenses cover the 41,5x56mm filmformat giving a 1.1 crop factor in the image circle when you use either the kodak 22 or 39 mpix chips.

The HCD lenses though (currently the 28mm) cover only the 37x49 format, thus NOT cropping anything in the imagecircle. Are you guys telling me that it still has a 1.1 crop factor, even though it does NOT crop the imagecircle. That would be the same as saying a FF canon crops all the canon lenses with a slightly larger image circle (like all the TS/E lenses, making the 28mm TS/E something like a 40/50 mm?)

The only factor I can tell that would allow one to claim a crop factor involved would be the larger sized mirror box on the H-system bodies, and the subsequent lengt from lens exit pupil to sensor created by this oversized (in the HCD lens case) mirror box...

-axel
(not flaming, just very curious, and starting to think Hasselblad is in deep waters with this full frame 48mm system stuff on the HCD lenses if it in fact still is a crop factor involved on the HCD lenses...)

maybe i missunderstand you but i dont see the problem...( anyway axel is right )
a 28mm lens is a 28mm lens on whatever sensor or film size you mount it. same lens still will be a 28mm on 4x5" ( which it will not cover ofcourse ) and it will still be a 28mm on a 35mm sensor.
its the sensor size alone which determins the crop factor, and this 1.1 or 1.3 maths only says that a 28mm on a 36x49 sensor shows the same image field than a lens with 31mm would show on a "full" 645 sensor/film, cause here the image field is larger and therefor the lens need to be longer for the same image.

Dear Axel,

the 28mm is a 28mm and remains a 28mm as long as it exists, no matter which camera, which film size or which sensor size it is used with/on.

The important here is the lens angle, which gives the size of the image circle. This produced image circle will (or will not) cover a certain size or a certain sensor size. The size of the film/sensor is important here. And since we are speaking digital, the current size of the Kodak sensors are 36.7x49mm. And this is NOT the same size as the 4.5x6 flim size (41.5x56mm).

Important is the effect of the lens and compare what can be compared: this particular 28mm will have a certain crop (framing) which corresponds to the same crop with a 31mm (according to Willems calculation) on a (film) 4.5x6.0 (exactly 41.5x 56mm).

Hope this helps to understand, that whatever one says "full frame" is a relative wording.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thanks Thierry, that's what I was looking for...

The bit about a lens being a certain mm. no matter for what format, I have understood after my first foray into medium and large format many years ago.

It seems where I got confused by HB "marketing speak" is where one starts to compare a 28mm for the 36.7x49 format (22/39mpix chip) with a 35mm for the 41.5x56 format. This is like comparing 35 with 645 and a different format altogether.

If one disregards the image circle bit for the 28, it needs a conversion factor of 1.1 to be compared to all other HC lenses, and to be treated as a 30,8mm when being compared to both 645 and 35mm for easy understading of this lens in relation to other formats.

What is clear to me though, is that this lens provides a 95 degree diagonal viewing angle "on chip" for the 22/39 mpix kodak chips, making it almost directly comparable to a 20mm on a FF canon (94 degree diagonal viewing angle, so maybe more like a 19,5mm on the canon...) if one needs to easily grasp what this lens offers in terms of wide angle. (If this is not true, and HB gives the viewing angle for a 41.5x56 format in its documentation about this lens, then someone at their marketing department need to be fired as it is seriously misleading!)

Anyways, thanks for the clarification, the 28mm does indeed have a 1.1 conversion factor when being compared to other formats using 41.5x56 film/sensor size as the base for the comparison.

-axel
(after re-reading this post, I find that my terminology is'nt at its greatest here, but I hope I have understood, and that what I just wrote is understandable )

why do use quotes if what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with what you are quoting?

just read this whole exchange....another amazing example of hass marketing talk....so much that you can quote directly from the website/manual and still get it wrong....so really after announcing a 28 FF with big fanfare it turns out to be a 31 FF and still does not cover the whole area for film....
i just don't get what the point of trying to mislead consumers with a product that is so specialized anyway....nobody is not NOT going to buy the lens because it is a 31 (i hope)....

Okey Dokey!

So the 28mm remains a 28mm regardless of what it goes on, sure sure I get that.

But I believe what differentiates the HC lenses (50, 120 etc etc) to the H2D 28.9( ) is that the angle of view is not affected when it is placed on an H3D.

Whereas the other HC lenses will be affected by a crop factor... or whatever else you want to call it.

Either way its a very nice lens when I borrowed it for a couple of days.

Jo S.x

Based upon all your writings about Hasselblad it sounds to me like you hate Hasselblad and loves to write negative about every thing Hasselblad does.

Now it is not only the H2 you hate, but also the lenses.

It has become so predictebal that it is not worth reading anymore.

Every brand has qualities and faults.

Hasselblad would not be where it is today by being what you claim it is - only bad.

Try to get some grey shades into your opinions about a brand.

Then your opinion will be more interesting and credible.


Willow

I have a PhD in maths, and I'm confused.

Some of my cameras take 35mm film.
Some take MF film.
Some have digital sensors, the size of film.
Some have sensors cropped to various sizes.

I have a variety of lenses.
And all have lenses defined by millimeter numbers Mi.

These millimeter numbers Mi describe the distance of the nodal point of the lens to the film plane when the lens is focused at infinity.
These millimeter numbers Mi are supposed to magically relate to the angle of view of the lens, because after all we have different lenses for different angles of view.

And yet when I stick an 80mm lens on a Hasselblad film camera (nice camera!)it's a "normal " lens . On a 35mm camera it's a short-tele portrait lens.

Maybe just giving millimeter figures is not descriptive of field of view without defining the image size.

Which is why the marketing guys love it. You sell somebody a "medium format" camera except it's cropped and the field of view of the lens is reduced, but you tell him he's got the whole thing.

I'd feel more comfortable if people told me what field of view the lens had on their camera system, at a given aspect ratio.

As usual, people will tell me this is total nonsense. For those who like the less travelled road, but prefer it paved, here is a link to an FOV calculator.

http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html

Edmund

Correct

No PHD required

The perspective and DOF characteristics are however defined by the focal lenghth

SMM

May I correct Sam, with all my due respect:

- the perspective does not depend on the focal lenght but solely on the view point (distance & angle to the subject).

- The dof depends on the aperture & the reproduction size, and does also not depend on the focal length.

Thierry

The perspective and DOF characteristics are however defined by the focal lenghth.. given a fixed field of view and shooting point

ie a 65mm on 54 a f8 looks different from an 16mm on an APS chip at f8 even though the field of view is the same - the DOF is different

An 80mm f4 4 on a blad croped in half looks the same as an 80f4 on a dslr the perspective is the same but the field of view less

Bottom line - bigger chip = less DOF for a given view at a given aperture

world record for off topicness??

SMM

did you even read what i wrote? i said nothing negative abut hass lenses....
someone pointed out that what hass claims is wrong, of course the ususal people jumped on him , even quoting has literature and it turns he is right! i don't get deceptive advertising for a product like this.....and like i said....anyone would be stupid NOT to buy the 28 becaue it is still the widest lens out there.....
anyne working with digital knows about lensfactors...whenever anyone asks me: what is that lens on this camera...i always say it is the same lens...you might just get less of it....to me a 180 for the P30 is still a 180....just cropped....the lenses haven't changed, just what we get from them and with different sensor sizes it gets even more complicated....either way i know what a 28 will give me.....
but when a company takes that and by marketing speak (some of it quoted here earlier) makes it seem like you are getting more then you think you are (which some people here obviously did and by reading the material i was very confused as well) i just don't think that is right.....do you think that this is the way to advertise this lens?
of course the 80mm is the 80 and there is no other claim about it....the 28 on the mamiya will cover the whole area, but it won't be any wider on a P45/ C39 then the Hass 28...so what is the point....
and actually, because you mentioned it....i don't like hass lenses.....the 80mm is fine, i have no problems with it...it is fine, not great (which for the money it should be) and the zoom is fine optically, only very slightly better then my 10 year old mamiya zoom which weighs a fraction and cost even less....i was never very happy about my hass V lenses either (40, 80, 120)...fine, but nothing to write home about...the only good one was the 38 on the hass wide body....nice lens....these are all my personal experiences and i am sharing them just like you do....

Sam

if you want to compare the dof you have to compare what can be compared: of course a smaller format on APS has more dof than on the 4x5" film. But you cannot compare like this: you have to compare at the same reproduction scale, thus enlarge the APS to the same size as the 4x5 and then you will see what I mean.

As for perspective, it is the same: make 2 shots from exactly the same view point AND with a different focal lens, the first shot with i.e. a 47mm on 4x5 and the second shot i.e. with a 600mm on 4x5. Process and look at it: the 47 will give you a smaller reproduction scale. to compare you have to enlarge it to the same size as the 600mm shot and then you will see the same depth of field (and the same perspective = converging lines are the same).

That is what I mean.

Thierry

It is dangerous to show popularity as a proof of quality. Think Ford, McDonalds, Bose, etc - all manage to sell well despite producing some of the lowest quality products in their respective industries.

Not exacly correct in my view. I stated that the 28mm does not crop the image circle on the kodak 22 and 39 chips, and thus the 1.1 crop factor should not be used. And I am right in this respect, as long as you compare the H3D 48mm system to f.example a 35mm system, and not compare a FF 645 system to a 35mm system.

If you choose to convert the much debated hasselblad 48mm system to a 645, then you get the 1.1 conversion factor.

I must admit I was slightly confused on this topic. But I'm starting to see why hasselblad claims that they have a FF 48mm system, as the only difference is the mirror box which is slightly larger to accomodate the use of 645 film backs. Of course this system only has one lens that is true to its 48mm promise, as well as only one viewfinder and two digital backs (would probably do better with two lenses and one digital back )

Anyways, its not that important, the 28mm gives the same FOV as a 31mm when being used on a 645 system (which it can't...)

I find I'm going to use diagonal FOV to talk about coverage from now on, everything is so confusing in the multitude of marketing speak, that I feel FOV numbers are something I can relate to

-axel

Now, that would be a smart move. I applaud it. Let me map it out in detail for Sinar/Leaf/Rollei:

1. * REAL VALUE* Stick a mask and a magnifier inside the prism finder so that people can actually see what they're doing when shooting digital 36x48 mm with the 56w56mm Hy6.

2. *PERCEIVED VALUE A* Explain to everybody that thanks to an impressive new technology you have transformed your previous 80mm design into a short tele which can now be accurately focused with the new viewfinder and is ideal for portraits ON THE FULL FRAME. And that this new technology allows the center "sweet spot" of the lens to be used for their sweet models.

3. *PERCEIVED VALUE B* Stick a label on it that says "Full-Frame Digital", this impresses the hell out of the buyers of photo equipment.

4 *LOCK-IN* Put a dongle inside the body so that it won't work when bigger sensor comes out. Make sure very one knows that you have the only camera in the world which can take pictures with your "special portrait" lenses.


Ok, ok, here on this forum we don't think points 2,3,4 are necessary. But that may be why people here write Photographer or PhD after their name, rather than CEO.
A certain company has realized that Step 1 is actually necessary and that steps 2,3,4 rake in the money. What is interesting is that they are the only ones who did Step 1 and actually are selling the result in shops.

I have big respect for Sinar , Leaf and Rollei tech expertise and for Leaf's salesmanship. But marketing and channel is another skill altogether, and Hasselblad is running circles around them. Applause where it's due.

Edmund

Yep. That is the point I was trying to make but didn't put it across so well!

Thanks!

You don't like the Hasselblad H body. You don't like the Hasselblad lenses. You don't like the Hasselblad digital backs. Let me guess. You really don't like the lens caps either.

You left out the color.

JR

and the plastic bit on the side that gets lost

I've got two spare ones if you want one.

http://www.gaffertape.com/show_category.asp?cid=602

That could be a deal killer with the H3D. I am thinking that instead of the Hassy H3D, it may make more sense to pick up a Hy6 and get a changing bag to rotate the back on location.

how did you guess?
seriously...i could not care less what brand anything is...just so happens i have had nothing but bad experiences with hasselblad and i don't see why i should not share them....
the first thing everybody says about mamiya is that the body and lenses feel plasticey.....i am not in any way offended by it nor would i go into detail about how the mamiyas are built and why called them plasticey is stupid.....if that is the way someone FEELS, that there is no way to argue one way or another....

but saying that i am simply a hasselblad hater and i have some kind of personal vendetta agains them is just ridiculous....i have nothing to gain from hasselblads loss and i don't think what is say here has any impact on their sales...but maybe they are reading and maybe they might look at a couple of things that come up here....and i am obviously not the only one raising issues here....

and yes james i don't like the color.....samys LA had a black (Fuji) model and i looked at it....i like the look much better.....also reminded me about how excited i was when the H system was announced.....i had the 680, 690, 645 fujis and loved them....so when everybody was whining about hass's move to switch to fuji glass, i was really excited....the first pics i saw where the black ones and i loved the way the camera looked.....and then i held it for the first time.....boy was i disappointed.....
hmm maybe i do have a personal vendetta against it....how something i was looking forward to could turn out to be such a disappointment?
maybe i should not have gotten so excited about the Hy6? it will be just the same?
of course i am kidding...these are cameras...just tools...i use them more then anything else....they have to be an extention of my hand and eye.....so there is an emotional attachment but it comes with relyability and being able to count on it.....
i still can't wait to try the Hy6 but it will be at least 18 months before i would even consider using one day by day as my main system.....
i am also excited about the iphone....but i also know that version 2 or 3 will be the real killer....still might buy version 1 and bitch about it though.....

deleted

Edmund

Wouldn't it help to use angles when describing Field Of View? At least in discussions amongst people who are serious enough about photography to be considering digital medium format. After all, we correctly refer to angles in the name "wide angle lenses".

In the case of lenses for use with several film/sensor formats, several angles could be stated easily enough.

Then we could avoid this confusion about whether changing the sensor causes a change in focal length!

For example, a lens of f=28mm has diagonal angular FOV
- 103º with the 70mm diagonal of 645 format
- 94º with the roughly 60mm diagonal of largest DMF sensors
- 89º with the 55mm diagonal of the 33x44mm sensors.
A bit of imprecision is OK since focal lengths vary a bit from the stated number anyway.

For comparison, the classic normal lens of focal length equal format diagonal has angular FOV of 53º, but most normals are instead a bit under 50º:
- 47º with f=80mm in 645 film format
- 47º with f=50mm in 35mm film format
- 42º with f=50mm and 35mm film format cropped for an 8"x10", 11"x14" or 16"x20" print.

yes, yes, we're getting sowewhere.

Edmund