If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
The H3D-II is a more integrated system ... meaning the system components and controls are more interactively working with each other. It's a product of Hasselblad's drive to make the H system more DSLR like in terms of handling and operation.
In addition, the H3D and H3D-II cameras will benefit from many software upgrades to further enhance this digital integration. This has already begun with the DAC correction feature of the current Flexcolor software ... and will continue with some major improvements early next year when Flexcolor is replaced with the new Phocus software.
When it comes to MF digital, it's my opinion that if you can do it, get the latest version of what you need to do the job, and be content with that for awhile.
Rufus it really depends on your personal style re: which system to choose. It's not just about the hardware, it's about the software as well. Capture One Pro for Phase and Flexcolor for Hasselblad are very different and offer different advantages and disadvantages. From my perspective Capture One might be stronger in terms of workflow, while Flexcolor gives more precise color control particularly for product.
For the amount of money you'll be spending I strongly suggest making the effort to test both systems- even if just shooting a few shots with each and trying out the software of each system.
The camera does play a role in this. I've used the Contax 645AF, Mamiya 654AFD-II (which I still use), and the Hasselblad H2 & H3 ... and prefer the speed and handling of the H3 by quite a bit.
Software is of course a key consideration. I have Capture One Pro which I use with other cameras, but personally have never liked it. For workflow speed I prefer Lightroom, and Flexcolor files can be converted to DNGs for this application. But for color, noise control, and shadow detail that a 39 meg back provides I still favor Flexcolor.
Phase backs are excellent. The Hasselblad backs are excellent, and the Leaf Backs are excellent. IMO there is very little difference between them.
Pick any one of them and the absolute most important decision you will make is WHO you buy it from and their support afterwards.
The new APTUS 22 , 54 S , 65 S and 75 S come with LEAF CAPTURE 11 .
This software is propagated to be an absolutely new design and to be better , than its predecessor LEAF CAPTURE 10 .
Can you say anything for capture 10 and 11 ? ? ?
I am using Capture 11 right now Jurgen. It is better than the previous version, but not up to Capture One or Flexcolor standards. But to be fair, I am still exploring it, so perhaps I should reserve judgement.
Rufus, Flexcolor has a simple process to convert any 3F Hasselblad file into DNGs ( Adobe's universal Digital NeGative), which are supported by PSCS2 and PSCS3 RAW as well as Lightroom. You open the browser for Flexcolor, select all keeper images, and click the DNG button. The conversion is very fast ... and then you can process them in PSCS.
I also discovered that the new Aptus 75s files no longer open directly in PSCS like the 75 used to, but upon investigation found that a RAW converter also exists for the Leaf lossess compressed MOS files that allow processing in PSCS3 and Lightroom.
What questions do have about the H/C lenses Rufus?
DNGs are conversions to a different lossless file format, the orginal is untouched.
Yes, you can use Zeiss CF,CFi and CFE lenses on the H2D and H3D. Hasselblad makes a CF adapter. It provides fully automatic stop down aperture metering and shooting. You need to manually cock the adapter to reset the shutter in the Zeiss lens.
When CFE lenses are used, they automatically communicate with the camera via the "E" data bus contacts. When CF and CFi lenses are used you must select the lens from a menu in the camera's LCD.
I have this CF adapter and a wide range of Zeiss optics. I rarely use them any more because the Hasselblad AF glass is optically stellar, and in some cases better practically because they are AF, have a higher sync speed, and in most cases offer slightly faster maximum apertures ... not to mention allow you to take advantage of the new DAC correction tools in Flexcolor.
What would be important is to know what information is lost according to Canon. If it is image data that one thing, if it's exif information that's another.
It is a common practice for commercial photographers to archive using the smaller DNGs after a certain period of time. I also keep my origianl Flexcolor 3Fs for about a year, then just maintain DNGs after that.
What cannot be maintained when using Flexcolor to convert to DNGs are any corrections done in Flexcolor. The DNG conversion engine is simply that ... a converter of the original file into a DNG.
Could be a number of things. For instance masked pixels, and the black level information derived from those. Or proprietary metadata, not included in the EXIF. Differences in colour encoding and colour space. Different compression algorithms may lead to different data. Etcetera.
Raw data too are not that 'raw', but already the result of conversion and processing. The question is whether a difference between Raw and DNG caused by further processing (the conversion) is a move away from what you would like the data to be. And if so, big enough to have anybody worry about it.