Hi,
Thanks for the review Kevin. I'm sick of such a camrea myself having had
an old 2000FC with assorted lenses for years together with my Pentax
equipment. The camera with digital back got a very good review in the
Swedish magazine FOTO where they concluded that it offered a superior
image in terms of resolution and noise compared to the top of the notch
Canon. The oldrule still is valid - the bigger the better- However with
one exception - that is the lack of antialiasing filter whichmight give
moire at times. This is due t the fact that the lenses have a higher
resolution than the lenses and thus cannot sample all the details
(accurately) that the lenses put on the sensor. An old known problem in
signal analysis. However, they concluded that this was not really a
major problem and that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. I
would be curious to hear your experience on this with highly detailed
subjects further on.
Yes its a bit strange they deserted Zeiss. It could have been that at a
time Zeiss thought that they could not produce high quality AF optics -
again accroding to FOTO (Swedish magazine if I remeber correctly).
Actually some of the most recent Blad optics for their old line was not
made by Zeiss either. It turned out that they had started some
devlopment - design of optics - with modern software - the could give
them the optical quality they were looking for. The magazine FOTO
claimed in on sentence - that the new lenses for H1/H2 were as good or
maybe even better than the old.
If the camera is as rugged as the old Hasselbads then one should be able
to take them anywhere - but Josteins might be right - maybe dust could
be a problem? With old Blads this is not any problem. I've used mine in
environments rangin from -40C up to +30C from snow to beach - however
one needs to be careful particularly at the beach. One always should. As
for backpacking - I do it with some 5 kilos of Blad eequipment and add
som Pentax gear to that. It works but is of course not as fast as moving
around with a much smaller 35mm/APSC-digi stuff.
Cheers Ronald
Jostein
Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:00:14 -0800
Thanks for a very comprehensive report, Kevin.
Very interesting to read what to expect from a MedF digital over the current APS
size offerings from Pentax. If the Pentax digital 645 materialises, this is
probably what it has to match. At least in terms of noise characteristics, AF
performance and interface. Even if the Pentax sensor size will be "only" 16
Mpix, it will be sufficient for most uses.
Do you have any idea about the battery performance of the H1 kit? Using
triple-As sound like a short-lived solution...:-)
Also, do you have any thoughts about the ruggedness of the H1 system? Would it
be possible to expose a H1 to more hostile environments, like shorelines,
deserts or wet conditions?
Cheers,
Jostein
Quoting Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I took the H1 for a test drive today and I must say I was thoroughly
impressed.
>From the moment I first held it, the feeling of the camera let the operator
know
this was not a toy. Looking through the view finder I found it to be a vast
improvement from that offered by pentax. The view was light and bright, even
under low light it was easy to find an edge to work with.
A change from the tradition backs of the blads, no darkslide is needed when
changing backs, very convenient when working in the dark. The digital back
offers a 22 megapixel 48.9mm x 36.7mm sensor and various backs have various
sizes available.
The Kodak back is 22 megapixel 36mm x 36mm. This is a welcome change from the
APS size as it allows
much better cropping.
The first big hit comes with CF cards, each image is 96Meg but it does allow
saving in PS's DMG format. Also the ability to hook up firewire directly to a
computer/laptop is something I believe all "pro" models should have. If you
have anything less than a 2 gig card, you need to start spending. This is a
real plus for the APS size images as it affords much cheaper and smaller CF
cards.
Another plus in the Pentax camp was the use of AA batteries, the H1 uses
3 CR-123 lithium batteries or an extension which carries 8 AAA batteries.
There is not a large range of lenses available and I spent my time with the
80mm f2.8 as this is something I am familiar with in low light. There is
nowhere
near the range of AF lenses available for Pentax.
What impressed me instantly was the Auto Focus speed. This was a vast
improvement
on Pentax, although it did struggle with object coming directly at the
camera.
The AF in low light was impressive also. In situations where the *istD spent
its
time hunting, the H1 nailed it and had the image on disk.
A great gain was the ISO rating which is available up to 6400. I have use the
*istD
at 3200 and the image is horribly noisy. The Blad was not totally clean at
6400 but
gave a good result, and at 3200 was comparable with the 800 of the Pentax.
On using a strobe with the H1 flash was available at all speeds
A pointless addition to the H1 is a pop-up flash with a guide number of 12.
Although I could see where this may be useful in triggering other flashes...
maybe.
Flash was available at all speeds.
The button to stop down the lense is almost in-accessble for my fingers, I
hope this
changes at some time. When comparing the controls to the Pentax I find the
Pentax more
intuitive, perhaps that comes from years of use, but navigating the Blad menu
system
was not too difficult and with little effort I could access the settings I
needed.
I guess the losses are in wieght, at about 2kg this is not something you
would wear
around your neck while hiking, although the design seems to invite that. I
found
myself constantly comparing with the 6x7 (something I will never part with).
Other loses are in FPS at just under 2fps this is not a fast capture. The
loss
of AA batteries and the added cost of new AAA packs, and the added cost of
new
and larger CF cards, I would consider 4gig a reasonable size, make for some
additional costs to this not cheap camera. The kit I am looking at comes in
at $AUD40,000.00 although much of this cost is in the digital back. (film
backs are available).
The lenses are designed by Hasselblad and made by Fuji, Bokeh is BAD. Pentax
glass has it
all over these lenses if the 80mm 2.8 is anything to go by. I dont know why
they chose Fuji
as Contax usses Zeiss and they have a much better offering in lenses.
On the plus side, the extra sensor size/mp is a welcome change and the
ultra-fast AF
is what I really was testing for. I passed this test easily, and could even
focus on
a fly on a black backdrop without hunting.
In all I was impressed with the AF system in low light, which is what I was
looking for
but at $40k I will take look at the Contax before committing, unless of
course Pentax comes up with a
645D with a new or improved AF system.
Kind regards
Kevin
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
