H5d-40 vs. 5dsr

[Barry Goyette]

As some of you might know, I've been a longtime Hasselblad digital user (going back to the H1/Imacon132c days). I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say that the past few years have been frustrating for me, relative to our mighty camera platform. I've kept most of my troubles off the internet, and have dealt with Hasselblad support quietly and behind the scenes. During those years, though I've kept my finger in the air, to get a sense as to what sony, nikon and now Canon were doing, as they have made steady strides towards our tiny corner of the photography market.

A few years ago when Nikon introduced the D800/e/810, I seriously considered yet another "system" in my life, but after getting a look at the skin tones from that camera, I felt I'd be happier if I stayed put....Patience is a virtue that I am not blessed with, but in this case, I waited, seemingly forever, as Canon crafted it's response. I took delivery of my new 5dsr on friday. What follows is a few of my impressions relative to its impact for me.

Attached is a simple comparison shot, that may or may not be part of a larger review. Whether or not that happens, the test I conducted was designed to answer some very specific question I had relative to the subject matter and way that I shoot. The commentary I'll provide you'll have to take or leave as to its accuracy, as I'm not going to document every nuance.

So really there were two primary questions that I wanted answered when I brought my favorite model Kali into the studio yesterday. The first, given quality lenses on both cameras is this: Is the resolution of the Canon, and the quality of that resolution similar to what I'm used to on my H4d-40 and H5d-40.

The answer to this question is pretty simple.  Yes... yes it is. My best match in lenses between the two systems is the HC 100 2.2 on the Hasselblad, and the 85mm t1.3 CN-e (Canon's L series 85mm housed in a cinema package). On that test, I matched the vertical coverage (as the canon image is a bit wider). As I'm mostly shooting portraiture and fashion, the 4:3 crop is more typical, so my scheme eliminates that additional width and resolution, (doing this still gives canon a slight advantage, as it's vertical pixel dimensions are still about 5% greater). Results? Well, as I poured over several images from both cameras I continually had to check the file names to remember which camera I was looking at. From a resolution stand point, I really didn't see anything that I would notice in a 40x60 retail poster (my standard of excellence :-). What I did see at the pixel level was that the hasselblad had slightly greater contrast in the highlight areas of the skintone, bringing out slightly more texture than the canon. This has always been something I like about hasselblad. To be honest though, while the canon image is slightly smoother in that area of skin, it's completely natural looking and doesn't look smeary or soft at all. Additionally I see that the Canon has a higher degree of noise, visible mostly in neutral mid tones (both cameras were rated at iso 100 and processed at default). When I look closer at the images, I can see that the Hasselblad simply has more noise reduction in the shadows, which leads to some overly smoothed areas in some of the shadow side skin tones. Really though, there isn't much difference between the two cameras in terms of resolution, the canon with a greater number of pixels is capable of slightly more resolution vertically than the H5d-40 and would probably have slightly less vertical resolution than the H5d-50 or 50c.

One more resolution issue that comes up though is lenses. I own a mix of old and new Canon Glass and I can tell you its going to matter how new your lenses are with this camera. Shots made on the older 35mm and 50mm II L primes certainly showed the flaws of those lenses. Generally Hasselblad wins this part of the equation, but Canon has the resources to redesign several lenses each year (while Hasselblad can only seem to muster enough to grow its market in to the toniest neighborhoods of Hong Kong).

The bigger question for me, and the one that is more difficult to illustrate is whether the 5Dsr is capable of skintones that are as lively and natural as the Hasselblad. This, since the beginning has been the reason I've continued to support hasselblad both in the dollars I spend and in my promotion of the camera as part of my business. I've always been able to say that the german camera (swedish? danish? japan by way of new jersey?) simply does things with skintones that the other cameras simply don't. The images attached below are not neutral or out of the box. They are processed both in ACR/Phocus and in PS to look like each other. If you were to look at these two images in their respective raw viewers, they look very similar but of course there are differences. The Canon image would be a tad yellow in the skintone highlight and has a little more overall contrast. The Hasselblad would have a slightly pink skintone highlight and is a little flatter overall. My primary test was "can they look like each other and do I like that result" (and thats what these samples are designed to show). Again...yes was the answer. What do you think?

Beyond those differences, I's say that it was a little easier to get the image where I wanted it with the Hasselblad. Perhaps that's just because I'm more used to phocus, but I think there are some minor contrast related issues with the Canon files that make things a tad tougher (again, in all honesty this is an order of magnitude less of a problem than anything I encountered with my 5dmarkII). The canon in the shadows has more noise, slightly higher contrast and a noticeably more natural rendering, but again, I think turning off the noise reduction in phocus would even that playing field. I also experimented with over and underexposure. The Canon at 2 stops under corrected beautifully with just a moderate increase in noise. At 2 stops over it produced a strange bronze skintone on my pale pink model (that yellowish highlight mentioned earlier is probably the cause). The hasselblad didn't handle the 2 stop overexposure perfectly, but at least the color of the skin looked natural with some noticeable clipping in the specular highlights. If I'm shooting portraits at 2 stops over I'm f**king up big time -- The hasselblad might just be able to save my ass...not so much the Canon. Both cameras handled 1 stop overs and unders with little problem.

Shooting people and fashion for a living puts a lot of wear and tear on the shutter, mirror and other mechanisms of my H-cameras. For me, over the years, they have become less reliable, heavy, clunky, slow and expensive (and slow) to repair. What they did have was an image quality that I always felt was a notch above what the vast majority of my competition was using. While this test is just the first of many for me (including putting this camera to work on an actual job), it does seem to show that a smaller sensor camera can play in the same playing field (at least in my playing field) as the Hasselblad. I'm curious if any of you are thinking the same thing.

Barry

[Hassilistic]

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the post.  You have answered almost all your questions and certainly mine.  You saved me a great deal of trouble as I was seriously considering the 5DSR and thanks to your review I have lost all interest, as you have reassured that they still have a long way to go.  Second best is second place, and I will always know that in the back of my mind and will bug me every single day knowing that it could have been better.

What is important to know though when comparing the 2, that they come from 2 different schools of thought;  Nikon & Canon favour sharpness at the expense of contrast, while Leica/ Hasselblad/ Ziess/ favour the opposite.  Schnieder/rodenstock however I believe succeeded in the impossible and that is perfecting both.

The second is, CCD will always trump CMOS for skin tones, and there is your answer.. !

Cheers,

[Barry Goyette]

I'm glad I helped you make your decision, although I'm not sure that I've said anything that would infer that the Canon produces an image that is somehow "less". (I may have left out the part about the hasselblad exposed 2 stops under having noise and banding issues, which would have told you that the H cam favors the highlights where the C cam favors the shadows...because that is certainly true.)

As cameras go, there are so many other issues to consider. In the past 15 years I can only think of 2 or 3 times I've ever had a Canon camera crash in the middle of  a shoot....which is of course a daily (hourly?) occurance with my H5D. I love the size of the Hasselblad viewfinder, but hate the quality of the LCD on the back. Canon has a nice viewfinder with lots of flexibility, but it's LCD is a thing of beauty. 5 frames per second at this resolution is a revelation compared to the .7 frames/sec the hasselblad produces. So far it looks like the canon handles moire in camera better than the hasselblad, but I'll have to revisit. (BTW, I'm not sure Canon and Nikon have any defect in their approach to contrast compared to Hasselblad.  The effective dynamic range, while untested by me, seems to be quite similar, but in the default processing we see a bit more contrast in the Canon. Its definitely a more usable look, and any H image I process in phocus would have a similar curve applied). As far as I'm concerned, image quality wise, these two cameras are equals...so that other stuff should start to have some weight (even with you :-).

[Hassilistic]

I hear you Barry and even go as far as to agree with some of the issues you mentioned..!
But who are you trying to convince now .. me or you 

In our line of work.. I say It's better the devil you know.

That said, I still can't part with my old Canon 5D mark I, not even for the Mark II or III, as there are more important things to me than resolution.. such as sharpness.  I have recently converted it at great expense to monochrome for my street photography .. the results are outstanding, certainly not better than my H5D, however, the application use is much different .. but that is a subject for another time!

Last April I have rented out the latest Leica S Camera and a couple of lenses , now that is something to write home about.  In your case, it might even be just what the doctor ordered.

As for me, I'll be waiting for the H6D and see Hasselblads answer to the new phaseone camera release.  Hopefully none of the current issues will carry over to the newer model, not that any of those issues prevented me from making a living.

Cheers,

[Barry Goyette]

Absolutely not trying to convince anyone. This camera will require much more testing (by folks more talented than me) before anyone in our coterie should consider it a replacement for medium format. I just wanted to clarify that my position is that the image quality from these cameras is largely equal, given the very limited criteria I described, as your conclusions seemed drawn from my comments.

[jerome_m]

Shooting people and fashion for a living puts a lot of wear and tear on the shutter, mirror and other mechanisms of my H-cameras. For me, over the years, they have become less reliable, heavy, clunky, slow and expensive (and slow) to repair. What they did have was an image quality that I always felt was a notch above what the vast majority of my competition was using. While this test is just the first of many for me (including putting this camera to work on an actual job), it does seem to show that a smaller sensor camera can play in the same playing field (at least in my playing field) as the Hasselblad. I'm curious if any of you are thinking the same thing.

First, thank you for a great review. As to the picture: I find the H to push magenta a bit too much on these caucasian skin tones (which is relatively typical) and the Canon to flatten highlights (which is just as typical).

To your question: there is not that much difference to be expected between a given sensor and another sensor which is just twice as big, so your results should not come as a surprise. There are some differences to be expected from the use of lenses at a smaller aperture for the same depth of field and from the fact that a sensor twice as big can collect twice as many photons, if the sensors use the same technology. Further, most tests available on the Internet or in magazines are designed to minimise the differences: they will use good light, flat subject, best lens aperture, etc... But if one designs a test to minimise the differences due to sensor size, one will necessarily find out as a result that all sensor sizes give the same output. This is not a consequence of sensor size, it is a consequence of test design.

The benefits to be gained from a MF camera are different. They come from the fact that the lenses are designed with a different set of constraints, that the viewfinder is bigger and brighter, that the camera is designed with tethering in mind, that the software is designed to correct all lens defects automatically, that the color can be optimised for a completely different intended use, etc...

Personally, even if I know that the Canon will give almost identical technical results in many cases, I am not planing to replace my H4D with a 5dsr.

[Barry Goyette]

there is not that much difference to be expected between a given sensor and another sensor which is just twice as big, so your results should not come as a surprise.

Actually, this is an area where I largely disagree, or would have until I met this new camera. My first digital camera that I did any work with was a Canon 10d and while I did turn in a few assignments with that camera, I can tell you it made me a little sick to my stomach doing so. I'd say for the past 8-9 years I'd argue to the point of a dual with anyone who might suggest that a cmos sensor could render skin tones equal to the CCD's used by Hasselblad and Phase One. (Of course, within the past year we've seen CMOS take over the medium format realm, so times are a changing). Over the past few years whenever my hasselblad took an extended vacation in europe, I was stuck using my 5dmark II for work that required medium format and that sick to my stomach feeling returned. The quality of the image from that 5dmark II didn't stand up to the older H3d-31 or the H4d-40 in terms of resolution, but also in its ability to render color and in it's malleability in post processing. CMOS is an extremely different technology, that for many years was not considered acceptable for photography....and it wasn't until Canon developed the special Sauce in the 10d that we saw this technology being used at all in our industry.

Over the past few days as I've worked with the images I shot during that test, I can honestly say that the canon generally excels in almost all areas of image quality. The H5d does handle overexposure better, but the Canon counters with better looking shadows and underexposure handling. This was not something I expected given my experience with canon cameras of the past.

As to the issue of viewfinder brightness and size. I'll need to compare that and get back to you. I think the 5dsr has a remarkably bright viewfinder that seems to magnify a bit bigger than previous cameras. I'm not sure I understand the significance of lenses being "designed to a different set of constraints". As for lens corrections, while hasselblad was certainly a leader in this technology, I believe that there is similar software in operation for virtually every lens canon makes. Certainly Hasselblad has technologies like true focus that are unique, but being honest we all know that canon's important proprietary technologies far outnumber and outflank anything Hasselblad has.

One final note. I've been on some other forums where 35mm users invade medium format threads with arguments not all that different than mine. I understand the unwelcome-ness at times of this point of view. I can tell you that I've been as dogmatic about medium format as the next guy for a lot of years, and my airing of my camera laundry here is as much therapy as it is just an opportunity to have a discussion. I own about 70K in hasselblad gear and probably almost the same in canon, so I don't really have an axe to grind either way.

[jerome_m]

there is not that much difference to be expected between a given sensor and another sensor which is just twice as big, so your results should not come as a surprise.

Actually, this is an area where I largely disagree, or would have until I met this new camera.

I tried to write my sentence as carefully as possible to avoid mentioning MF cameras and even digital. Yes, you are right that earlier CMOS offerings were not always ideal and that comparing an H3D-31 to a same era 24x36 dslr turned out at the advantage of the former.
But this is not what I wrote. I intended to mean that, taking two cameras of identical technology were one would just have a sensor twice as big as the other one, the differences between them, which would come from sensor size alone, would be small.
The differences you noted do not come from sensor size alone.

I'm not sure I understand the significance of lenses being "designed to a different set of constraints".

If you would scale down a MF lens to 24x36 coverage size (which amounts to scaling it down about 40%), you would get a prime weighting a lot more than usual, using twice as many optical elements and being much slower than usual 24x36 primes. When designing a 24x36 prime, the optical engineer has additional constraints like weight, size and usually large aperture. These constraints are much more relaxed for MF lenses.
One additional constraint for H lenses is to fit the shutter, which is one reason why they are comparatively slow. One additional constraint for mirrorless cameras is that the focussing group must be kept as light as possible.

[Giorgio]

Hey Barry,

Nice test, any further comments? It's been a few months. I hope you can keep this conversation going as I am also a Canon digital user.

From the EXIF I can see that the top image is your H5D camera. I do like both images and I understand the post processing goals.

I tend to use my H4D 60 in studio, but last year my work changed to 90% location work. Just recently picked up a 5DsR myself and it is quite the interesting camera. Is it just me or has Canon managed to give this camera better color fidelity? Using this camera with the 85L has given me a new appreciation for the lens.

Looking forward to your reply.

[Giorgio]

OK,

It's April, and I am off on a location shoot tomorrow. This will be the first time I shoot a job with just one (2) camera in many years.
I really think that I have things covered though because the 5DsR and a 1Dx as backup are more than adequate. I need the speed, I need the 5+ frames per, I need the high shutter speeds and I need some very long lenses. There is just no choice.

I still love the Hasselblad but I am going to only be shooting it in studio and or controlled lighting situations.

The H camera system makes better files, but the 5DsR is the best camera Canon has ever made and it is so much more versatile to use.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[NickT]

Over the years I have always carried two camera systems. My camera case had a 503CW and a Nikon F4. I would shoot the static "big" shots with the 'bad and the detail looser shots with the Nikon. These days I shoot the H4D40 in studio tethered and on location I shoot a D810. For me both cameras have their place.