H5D-60 vs H5D-50c

[truegen]

Does someone have sample files from the H5D-60 or H4D-60?

Is there really an advantage to a full frame 645 CCD sensor over a 1.3x crop CMOS sensor?

Obviously the 50c is much superior in low light.

[loceano]

Hi -

I'll PM you with a link to a sample H4D-60 file.  Are you looking for any kind of material in particular?  Just let me know if you are looking for something else.

Obviously the larger sensor allows for wider FOV with the same lenses.  I always liked the noise quality of the CCD and usually shot it around 400 out in the world.  I had however come from the older 22MP back and I really liked the feel of those images.

My issues were more related to the reliability of the H4D overall. I didn't try the Hasselblad CMOS until the X system which isn't quite apples to apples.

Scott

[truegen]

Thanks Scott.

I compared the files from the H4D-60 to the one's coming out of my H5D-50c. There was one shot at ISO 100 and another at ISO 400. Both were shot using the 120mm lens at f/5.6 or f/6.4 respectively (according to the metadata).

The H4D-60 files seem sharper with lots of fine detail, even at 400 ISO. Not sure how much the lens contributes to this.

The image shot at ISO 400 had more noise when pushed in photoshop compared to the 50c. The one shot at ISO 100 seemed fine.

However I'm not sure if I can technically identify the differences. I heard some people swear by the Dalsa 60 MP sensor. Any thoughts?

[loceano]

I generally like the look of that sensor.

Specs are correct. Yes, I sent you a 100 and 400iso frame for you both on the 120mm (Version 1).  Both were either handheld or braced by leaning on something firm.  Likely the latter with the 120.  Still not "optimal" practice for sharpness.  I think 90% of my images are at one or the other iso.  One the cleaner look, and one more filmic (to me).

As to the technical differences in the sensor, I never compared vs the 50c with my own materials.  I think there were some samples online at the time. In the end, I just preferred the larger sensor and my perception of the look between the two.  The 60 was closer to where I was heading and I was using the 35mm a lot.  I find there is a smoothness to the color look while keeping plenty of edge detail.  I make some larger prints and always enjoy the richness and details that appear.

I didn't find the images on the 80mm or even the 35mm lacking in sharpness in any way that mattered to me. What lens are you looking at?  I can see if I have something similar around and add it in.

Yes the noise at 400 and above is greater, but I tend to use that as part of the look vs fighting it.  Sometimes a little color noise reduction is useful but I keep the luminance noise as part of the look.  At 800 and above I'm either desperate or playing with something specific. Still, if you are not lifting the blacks it behaves - not that instagram gives you much, but I have some from that pier series up on @onebysea day and night.  Many of the other 2x1 shots are on the Hasselblad.

I think I'd look at it as a look vs ISO tradeoff.  CCD was great - but had some limits.

Scott

[truegen]

Scott

I looked more closely at your files and I can attest to the fact that the H4D-60 has a lot more edge detail compared to the H5D-50c, even at ISO 400. The H5D-50c looks a bit soft/hazy wide open with my 28mm HCD. I tried adding sharpening, which helps, but still hazy compared to the H4D-60. The H5D-60 can be infinitely cropped and looks perfect.

As far as color, I do actually see a difference with the H4D-60 when using the HSL slider in PS. It's feels like there's more color separation with the CCD sensor and colors behave differently.

Perhaps you could shoot a color chart? (like a ColorChecker or Datacolor)

[loceano]

I'll see if I can get to something - but it may have to wait until the weekend.

Scott

[Mark Thompson]

I've been looking into the question of sensors too. Having shot with the 22MP (my favourite CCD) it took a while to get used to the 100c look (though I really appreciate the resolution. What I've found is the well capacity of each photo site seems to have a direct relationship to how people feel about each sensor. Kodak KAF-22000 is 100ke- which puts 16bit capture significantly above the noise floor. As resolution went up, photo sites got smaller and well capacity reduced. The Dalsa CCD sensors have about 50ke- so can't achieve 16bit and unavoidably have more noise. Though they did 2.3 to 2.7 times the resolution of the 22MP back. I looked at the 50 and 60MP CCD backs but settled on the 39 which is performing well though it still leaves me longing that old 22 pixel performance