Buy a 503 CWD or wait

[fotografz]

"All said, I am a bit hesitant in making a CWD move due to the slight difference between 10 mp and 16 mp"


Bishop, glad you joined us so we can turn you into a "Hasselbladist" : -)


Here's simple results formula:


Nikon D200 is blown away by a Canon 1DsMKII, which is in turn blown away by a Hasselblad CFV.

The Canon is 16 meg and so is the CFV. But the actual pixels of the CFV are bigger because the 16 meg are placed in a larger area than in the 35 sized Canon sensor. The Canon photosites are 6 microns where the CFVs are 9 microns. Even if you crop a CFV photo the larger photosites don't change size and produce beautiful tonal gradations.

Also, the Nikon and Canon cameras are 12 bit, where the CFV is 16 bit .... meaning greater depth of color data is originally captured.

The CFV also has a greater dynamic range than any 35mm type DSLR on the market.

Lastly, neither Nikon nor Canon has optics (especially wide angle lenses) the equal of the Zeiss glass used with a CFV equipped Hasselblad camera.

Should you wait? With digital development, it is always prudent to wait ... but not for too long .... or you'll be waiting forever instead of making photographs. Since the next announcement from Hasselblad cannot be to far off, just wait a few months and then make the leap to Hasselblad quality.

 

[bishopb]

Marcus -- I look forward to your posts after receiving the CWD and agree with your comments that anything better/newer that the CWD will probably cost a whole lot more. Best regards -- Bishop

 

[bishopb]

Marc --

Thanks for your reply. Agree and was familiar with the fact that by comparison MF would blow away both my existing body and those on the market with more MP. For all the reasons you have stated.

Your comments, and those of Keith, in another thread are what has had me perplexed...

Keith had stated..."it might boggle your mind but the fact is there are more 35 based DSLRs being used by professional photographers than all the other formats put together."

And, you (Marc) had stated..."Professionals that use 35mm type DSLRs, and don't need the quality of MF, were using more spontanious 35mm film based cameras before that anyway."

I know Keith's statement to be true and find that in contrast to your statement there are alot of photographers in the landscape/fine art arena using 35mm DSLRs as well...I also know that if you scratch the surface of some of these folks work you will find that a large body of popular work that is former 4x5 based work. Curious as to your thoughts and or reconciliation of these two facts??

Also, should say that my own interest in MF is driven by the work I have seen by Charles Cramer, Bill Atkinson and a few others who have moved to digital MF...the tonal range and detail of such work is what has caught my attention. Anyway, apprecaite your thoughts...

Also, curious if you have seen the Mamiya ZD 22MP camera and had any thoughts regarding it versus the CWD. Thanks and best regards -- Bishop

 

[fotografz]

"I know Keith's statement to be true and find that in contrast to your statement there are alot of photographers in the landscape/fine art arena using 35mm DSLRs as well...I also know that if you scratch the surface of some of these folks work you will find that a large body of popular work that is former 4x5 based work. Curious as to your thoughts and or reconciliation of these two facts??"

I think it's simple ... cost. Not many landscape shooters can foot the bill for a $32,000. digital back. A commercial studio can because they charge a digital capture fee for every job.
I seriously doubt that if asked, (and they told the truth), a DSLR shot would compare in quality to a well printed 4X5 piece.

Also, should say that my own interest in MF is driven by the work I have seen by Charles Cramer, Bill Atkinson and a few others who have moved to digital MF...the tonal range and detail of such work is what has caught my attention."

IMO, that statement answers your own question. Some people have higher standards than others.

The Mamya ZD is a real value, but it only works on a Mamiya 645 camera and an RZ Pro-IID with an expensive adapter. If that camera and lens system is your cup of tea, then it's a viable choice.

 

[bishopb]

"I think it's simple ... cost."

So true, Marc! I also forgot about the ability to charge a digital capture fee as well.

Hadn't considered that my statement actually answered my question but you are probably correct and that is probably why I am drawn to his work and that of those using 4x5's as well.

Since I know that I won't move to LF (film costs, scanners, etc), looks like I need to save a few more pennys to get to that CWD and make the MF plunge as that seems to be what it will take to capture the images I desire.

Bishop