Puts: M8 vs. Hassy

[jrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmm.

 

Testreports

 

JC

[sdai]

For once I think Erwin has become very objective ...

 

The M8 cannot match the H3D quality in absolute terms ...

 

Think what we've read on this board in the past few months ... flame wars, open fire.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pascal_meheut]

So 39Mpix and 5 time the price and size is better than 10. What's new ?

 

Next time, Puts will compare the M8 with a 3 Mpix camphone and conclude the M8 is better ?

[joern]

I am tired of looking testcharts and those simple still life and portrait shots from Puts wich are claiming to be meaningful.

 

If he could even photograph the way he writes than it could be interesting.

 

But i wonder if he would came to the same conclusions then.

 

 

jørn

[j. borger]

Just 1.2 X better for 5X the price .....now that's quite something:D

That's the nice thing with all the objective reports you can just read what you want and feel good ...............

[Asher Kelman]

Just 1.2 X better for 5X the price .....now that's quite something:D

That's the nice thing with all the objective reports you can just read what you want and feel good ...............

 

This is a simplistic interpretation. How on earth does Puts get to "1.2"?

 

The main difference, beside the reserve resolution is in depth of focus. Really now! These cameras cannot be compared since one does not use them for the same purpose.

 

The attitude of the photographer is different too.

 

They are two different tools!

 

Asher Kelman

 

The Open Photography Forums Initiative

[j. borger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a simplistic interpretation. How on earth does Puts get to "1.2"?

They are two different tools!

 

Yes .. i agree a simplistic interpretation of a simplistic review ....

[mwilliamsphotography]

I don't get this comparison. It's like comparing a Bentley Turbo and a Porsche ... and concluding that the Porsche is more sports car like.

 

Just a few observations and questions based on using both of these cameras for approximately the same amount of time ... however, I am quite familiar with both camera types from using an M for decades, and the H system for well over a year. The H3D/39 is just my latest upgrade.

 

I could be mistaken, but I couldn't seem to find what ISO each of these camera were set at for this comparison. Each are quite different as to what is available. The Leica has 160 to a questionable 2500. The H3D has 50 to a marginal 400. This is the first hint of different intent.

 

I also couldn't locate what software was used. Leica uses 3rd party software, and the H3D uses the proprietary Flexcolor software. The 3F RAW files from the H3D can be transfered into DNG files and processed with 3rd party software that recognizes DNGs, but all the Flexcolor software lens corrections, and other proprietary aspects are then lost.

 

I question some of the numbers. It may be that I just don't grasp what he's saying, and tiny compressed internet files are illuminating the information IMO.

 

While it is true that you get diminishing returns as you increasingly strive to improve image quality, the notion that the image quality is "close", is more than mildly misleading.

 

The are a couple of practical considerations to keep in mind when evaluating pure image quality from these two cameras.

 

First is the RAW data provided by both. I've attached a simple graphic to illustrate the difference ... from sensor size to real world output available. The premiss is that more data going in = better opportunities for the skilled software user.

 

The second graphic attached demonstrates the practical everyday use of digital cameras in the higher image quality arena.

 

I selected an 11" X 14" print output as a median, where the M8 file can enlarged with small penalty, and the H3D downsizes quite readily. The fact is that common print sizes have to be taken into account. At 5X7 or even 8X10, the visual differences will be there, but subtile. Past that and the differences began magnifying. Add in any cropping, and it increases exponentially. I have made ISO 200, 5' panoramic H2D/39 prints for clients that you can pixel peep until your nose bleeds. ISO 50 studio shots are beyond practical enlargement use, and serve primarily to resolve detail in fabric, and preserve subtile tonal gradations for things like table top Jewelry work, etc.

 

You'll notice that the ratio of the sensors results in more data area being lost when enlarging with the M8 than the H3D ... just like 35mm film verses a 6X7 film.

 

Prior to the H3D/39 I used a H2D/22, which is nearly half the resolution of the H3D ( but the diminishing returns factor and pixel size is at play here, so the H3D isn't twice as good ). If the simple math proposed in this comparison holds true, the Leica M8 image quality would out-perform the 22 meg 645 sensor camera ... which I can assure you it does not.

 

IMO, comparisons of this nature only fuel fantasy, and undermine credibility. The M8 is a fine camera for it's place in the tool box ... as is the H3D. But they are a grape to a watermelon comparison : -)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[stunsworth]

Perhaps. just perhaps, what's he's trying to say is that the Hassy is superb, and the M8 is _almost_ as good.

[Guest stnami]

I'll ask my mum what the real answer is

[rosuna]

The M8's images are very good compared with the Hassy's images.

[luigi bertolotti]

I am an admirer of Puts, but must say that this time he has gone out of target: besides the usual deep tech explanations on sensor pixel formats etc, the results are someway obvious : Hassy (39 MP) can many times perform better than the 10 MP M8...

I appreciate a lot the results of my M4 with Slux 50, but... some 30x40 prints taken with my SuperIkonta 6x9 Tessar 105 must admit are better than 30x40 from M4...

[stunsworth]

Luigi, but he's not saying that the Hassie can perform several times better than the M8. I think that's the point of the article. The last two paragraphs read...

 

"The Leica engineers can be satisfied with this result. The Leica image is not as good as the Hasselblad one, but the difference is quite small and especially in the prime area of the Leica (dynamic hand held shooting) probably not of supreme importance.

 

The advantage of the 39 Meg pixel area compared with the 10 Meg area is less great that one could expect: here we note that pixel count is not of paramount importance , just as resolution was in the silver halide domain."

[Vivek Iyer]

The comparisons (value for money- theme) with D-Lux' and the PanaLux are missing. Can the Leica engineers be proud of these as well?

[mwilliamsphotography]

Okay, I'll be clearer.

 

Despite all his apparent scientific approach, Puts is out of his depth here, and has left out some critical data that creates a bias that borders on being ludicrous.

 

I also use a 33 meg Leaf Aptus 75 digital back. The M8 is no match for that either.

 

This isn't a defense based on the amount of money spent BTW. The digital backs pay for themselves through digital capture/rental fees via commercial work (average $400-$500 per day). The Leica came out of my own pocket, and is not usable for 90% of the type of commercial work I do. If I could, I'd capture fees for it also. But not one Art Director I know will let me shoot a product shot for an in-store poster with my Canon 1DsMKII, let alone a M8. They want the big MF files.

[rosuna]

Puts' basic comparison isn't between M8 and Hassy, but between film and digital. How the measured differences between formats stay on digital cameras?

It is a good and interesting article.

[tom0511]

I dont see any sense in this article.

What shall it prove or show?

[hankg]

I agree it's a silly comparison. 1.2 better? Not even close. The enlarged crops where day and night. Maybe the difference in print is not so glaring. It's no knock against the M8 that a kit that is 10x the price and triple the resolution produces better quality images.

[wstotler]

It's interesting--the 200% M8 and 100% Hasselblad photo comparisons were what caught my eye.

 

Puts' intentions and commentary aside, the 200% M8 shot was clearly less crisp than the 100% Hasselblad shot. But I think it was pretty good, when you consider the M8 has 29M fewer pixels and is gobs of $$$s less expensive.

 

I think the general thrust of the article was: "You don't have a Hasselblad. You have an M8. But your M8 does credibly well even when compared against the Hasselblad under certain conditions. Just be advised."

 

As a comment about that, isn't the Hasselblad supposed to be the very best studio camera on the planet? E.g., it is the unchallenged optical instrument for taking studio photos and the like? In other words, didn't Puts just compare the M8 to the very best (theoretical) thing out there for capturing pictures? And, isn't that somewhat meaningful in terms of understanding where the M8 sits in comparison to the top end of the spectrum? We know from other other comparisons how the camera (technically) fits in with other technically comparable image capturing equipment in its "class"--e.g., the Canons and Nikons with similar MPs and good glass (although not RFs)?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mwilliamsphotography]

No, the Hasselblad H3D/39 is not the best studio photography solution they offer. It is the best single shot camera, which provides superb quality in studio and out. Phase One also offers the same meg count in a single shot. The Aptus backs are a very close second @ 33 meg. slightly smaller sensor.

 

The best from Hasselblad are the multi-shot backs, which are used primarily in the controlled environment of the studio for obvious reasons. 4 shot, 8 shot and 16 shot. Most any H back can be upgraded to a multi-shot, or will be soon enough.

 

In addition, I don't know if he used the Flexcolor software. DNGs processed in Adobe Camera RAW are a distant second to the same file processed in Flexcolor.

 

The next probable step could be a near 6X6 sensor, which cameras like the old Hasselblad V cameras, Rollie, Mamiya RZ, view cameras, and upcoming Hy6 will be able to exploit. The 645 systems from Hasselblad, Contax and Mamiya won't.

 

BTW, considering the M8 + 50/1.4 ASPH Puts used, the actual cost ratio is more like 3.5 X not 10X. A H3D kit comes complete with the camera, prism, digital back and lens. Previous users of Imacon/Hasselblad digital backs get an additional 10% off, so it's more like a 3X factor.