Hasselblad H6D 100C Review. Shoots 4k Video MF

[webrunner5]

9 minutes ago, noone said:

It is pretty much a Mamiya Universal press camera with a couple of alterations to the mount and back so you can not interchange the film holders or lenses without alteration.

Ahh, I have had a few Mamiya Universal Press Cameras in the day. Most with 6x7 backs, 6x9 once..

I used Mamiya Pro RB67's a lot! And with Polaroid backs on them.

 

I loved how you could just rotate the revolving back to go to Portrait mode in a few seconds. But they were a handful, but with the bellows on them they were good for Macro also. And built like a Tank!

[noone]

3 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Ahh, I have had a few Mamiya Universal Press Cameras in the day. Most with 6x7 backs, 6x9 once..

 

Just getting it out again, it would be difficult to use for video because of how the Mamiya lenses work and with the leaf shutter.     Would need a different lens unless used in bulb mode. 

[webrunner5]

3 minutes ago, noone said:

Just getting it out again, it would be difficult to use for video because of how the Mamiya lenses work and with the leaf shutter.     Would need a different lens unless used in bulb mode. 

I think you are chasing a dead horse LoL. Those days are long gone. Hell buy a Red One MX and be happy!!.  One of the best cameras ever made! And heck, still is top shelf stuff with the Raw on them.

You can still made a Hollywood movie with one. How cool is that!

[jcs]

8 hours ago, tupp said:

Nope.  With all the equivalence tests that have been done, none have been conclusive.

In fact, all of those equivalence tests show a difference in DOF between lenses made for different formats, and some comparisons actually show a dramatic difference in DOF.

lol tupp, the ball is in your court to prove it at this point. You stated you need S16 against LF was it, so the difference would be clearly visible? Are the differences you pointed out in my S35 vs. FF test the same kind of magical differences you're referring to with S35 vs. MF and FF vs. MF? If not, can you show in actual examples the special look MF has over any smaller format (or any larger format over any smaller format for that matter)? This does not include folks doing equivalence tests wrong (especially those doing them wrong on purpose!  ). Better yet, why not show us what you are describing with your own tests? I did the work which you critiqued, now it's your turn to do the work to prove your claims that larger formats have special properties not available in smaller formats, and what exactly are those properties.

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

You are completely right. No way in heck you are ever going to get a MF look DoF wise unless you use a MF camera. And it trickeles down the same wayall the way to 8mm or less. There IS a reason people shot with 8x10 view cameras. DoF.

Where's the proof?

[webrunner5]

30 minutes ago, jcs said:

 

Where's the proof?

 There is No need for the proof. If m4/3 was all you need, APSC is all you need, why the hell does anyone make a FF camera, a medium format camera?? Why is s35mm the gold standard, and s16 not?? It is for a reason. and the reason is more MP, which we don't Need in video, and a better DoF look. I don't care what anyone says on here about equivalence, there is a reason FF is popular as hell. It is is better looking than m4/3.

If we had the money to buy a Arri Alexa over the GH5 we all would. Not because of just the prestige of owning it because of the look. It is not all about the film look, because it looks better than a m4/3 sensor looks. It would Never look as good as the Arri.

[jcs]

17 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

 There is No need for the proof. If m4/3 was all you need, APSC is all you need, why the hell does anyone make a FF camera, a medium format camera??

Different sensors sizes provide different pixel sizes and resolutions and abilities to use different lens sizes. Smaller sensor cameras tend to be more compact and lower cost. Nothing magical happens with DOF as sensor size increases. I got killer shallow DOF with the Voigtlander F.95 25mm on the GH4. Is the 50mm F1.4 or F1.2 shallower on the FF 5D3- sure, but these shallow DOFs aren't usable very often for video, right? And just being shallower isn't a special, magical property.

The Alexa looks killer because of the ALEV III sensor design and associated image processing and color science. They used S35 as that is the standard for filmmaking and for lens compatibility. If a larger sensor size would create a magical image better than a smaller sensor size, ARRI would have made it, right? What about the Alexa 65? That's just their way of using the ALEV III sensor (3 of them rotated 90 degrees) to get higher resolution without changing the sensor, pixel size, image processing, and color science. It's about resolution, and that's it. Nothing magical about the sensor size by itself.

If larger sensor sizes produce a better DOF look (vs. just shallower via available lenses), it should be easy to prove. The reason there's no proof is it's a myth.

[Cinegain]

How's the autofocus on that? 

[Shirozina]

Extreme narrow DOF has very little use if you are actually shooting a film as opposed to posting clips on the internet to make people go WOW! Most of the time you need more not less DOF. It's not like the laws of optics are new and still being worked out so why are people still arguing over 'equivelence' and some magical reality bending properties of MF lenses......

 

[tupp]

19 hours ago, jcs said:

lol tupp, the ball is in your court to prove it at this point.

No.  It's not.

As I just said, the fact is that all of the equivalence tests so far show a difference in DOF/focus between lenses made for different formats.  I would be happy to point out those differences to you once again.

So, given the DOF/focus differences inherent in all of the equivalence comparisons up until now, the "burden of proof" is on those who deny those results.

 

 

19 hours ago, jcs said:

You stated you need S16 against LF was it, so the difference would be clearly visible?

I said that I would not bother to do a test unless it involved two extremely different formats, so that the differences are undeniable.  The differences are already clearly visible in all of the equivalence tests so far, but biased testers and equivalence followers deny the results.

 

 

19 hours ago, jcs said:

Are the differences you pointed out in my S35 vs. FF test the same kind of magical differences you're referring to with S35 vs. MF and FF vs. MF?

Your two tests were flawed in almost every way, so they are hardly worth considering, even though the results showed differences in DOF/focus between different focal lengths.

 

In the first place, you used the same lens for every single test image.  How do you expect to get a valid result if you use the same lens (made for a single format) in every test? 

 

And that lens is a zoom lens to boot, which means that its internal convergent/focal point doesn't necessarily move to different positions to match the positions of focal/convergent points of prime lenses with different focal lengths.  Using two different focal lengths on the same zoom lens is like using the same prime lens with and without a focal reducer -- there will be almost no difference in DOF/look between the two focal lengths.  To properly test equivalence, one must use two prime lenses with differing focal lengths and with each lens designed for a different format.

 

Secondly, you did not include any middle-ground in the frame that could reveal the character of DOF/focus fall-off.  This mistake seems common amongst those making tests biased toward equivalence.  Having only air between the foreground and a distant background renders useless any test of DOF range/falloff.

 

Thirdly, you misinterpreted/ignored/dismissed your results.  When you first posted your two tests long ago, I and others stated that we could see differences in the DOF/focus, but you and other equivalence supporters failed to address those points.  In a more recent thread, I used flashing GIF images with colored circles which pinpointed these differences.  You and the other equivalence folks dismissed these differences as slight imperfection inherent in testing equivalence that only becomes apparent in flashing GIF images, even though these differences are quite clear to me and others without the flashing GIFs.

 

Furthermore, in your second test, you eliminated the variable of in-camera sharpening -- lo and behold, the differences in DOF/focus became more dramatic.  However, you and other equivalence supporters glossed over these more conspicuous non-equivalent second test results and only "focused" on the first test in all of the discussions.

 

 

19 hours ago, jcs said:

If not, can you show in actual examples the special look MF has over any smaller format (or any larger format over any smaller format for that matter)?

Such examples have already been linked several times on this forum.  You almost never respond to such links/points.

 

Notable examples would be the PhotographyLife "beer bottle" equivalence test (note the obvious differences in focus of the BG bush/car to the left of the bottle) and footage from Gonzalo Ezcurras extreme large format Cyclops cameras (if you can show a lens made for S16 that has this same, exquisite DOF roll-off/look, I'll give you US$100).

 

 

19 hours ago, jcs said:

Better yet, why not show us what you are describing with your own tests? I did the work which you critiqued, now it's your turn to do the work to prove your claims that larger formats have special properties not available in smaller formats, and what exactly are those properties.

First, why don't you explain one-by-one each of the DOF/focus differences that I pointed out in your tests (especially the DOF differences in your second test).  Also, please explain the huge, conspicuous DOF/focus differences in the "beer bottle" test linked above, which compared an Iphone camera lens to a full frame camera lens.  Here is the first post covering my points on both of your tests and on the "beer bottle" test, and here is a further breakdown of your first test.

 

There are a lot of specific focus/DOF differences both in the BG and FG in the tests that you (and others) have already done which you have not yet reconciled.  Even the bokeh is substantially different in size and edge sharpness (both tell-tale signs of DOF differences).

 

As I stated before, I will do an equivalence comparison if I can obtain a S16 camera/lens and a large format camera/lens, but you or some other equivalence supporter must be present to oversee the camera settings.

 

In regards to the optical properties that might differ between various sized formats, once again, these have been posted several times in this forum.

[jcs]

lol @tupp, referring to bad tests done by others isn't proof of anything. If you think my tests were wrong or flawed, and that Brian Caldwell calling them valid is wrong too, you're implying that you have more knowledge and experience than one of the top lens designers in the world.

Waiting for images of your own, actual work, to prove your conjecture vs. armchair quarterbacking of other people's work. No one needs to be there except you, this isn't a legal process, just a friendly debate. If the minor differences in my tests are what you consider to make a larger format superior to a smaller format, cool, enjoy those differences. You are laser focused on the fact that there are differences at all, not that they are pleasing or useful differences. Most people won't notice them, and most people couldn't tell the difference when I originally posted the results, remember?

The MiniCyclops is very cool however nothing magical is happening there, and he even states it in his comments:

Patrick Donnelly 3  years ago

Extraordinary! Have you patented this? Too late if not!

Gonzalo Ezcurra 3  years ago

Thanks Patrick! 
The principle is the same as a 35mm DOF systems for camcorders (Letus, RedRock Micro, etc) but in giant size and with fixed ground glass (and not rotated or vibrated) -of public knowledge-. The only magic is the Grain Free & High Gain Ground Glass, handmade which I will not reveal how I did, but I do not think they can to copy or reproduce.

[noone]

 

No one will ever do a test to satisfy some people (there will always be a fraction of a difference from theoretical equivalence- unless someone actually builds two cameras and lenses specifically to match, there will ALWAYS be a hair different here or a spot different there).     

Just using my own gear and doing my own lame tests I am more than satisfied.

One of these is M4/3 (in 3:2 mode) and the other FF.     Wont be acceptable as I was being lazy (really lazy) and doing this quickly but I see little difference.

 

[tupp]

15 hours ago, jcs said:

lol @tupp, referring to bad tests done by others isn't proof of anything. If you think my tests were wrong or flawed, and that Brian Caldwell calling them valid is wrong too, you're implying that you have more knowledge and experience than one of the top lens designers in the world.

Although I respect Mr. Caldwell for his optical engineering prowess and for his high-quality products, his "calling your tests valid" (please provide a link to this statement) certainly "isn't proof of anything."  In addition, Mr. Caldwell might not desire your dragging his name into this discussion.

 

In regards to my "referring to bad tests done by others" as not being proof, note that not only did I criticize the setups of the tests but that I also analyzed the results of the tests.  Those results show a difference in DOF/focus between optics made for different formats, a point which you still have yet to address.

 

Perhaps you (or Mr. Caldwell) could  explain why the "beer bottle" equivalence test shows the BG bush/car to be conspicuously sharper in the Iphone image than in the FF Nikon image.

 

 

15 hours ago, jcs said:

Waiting for images of your own, actual work, to prove your conjecture vs. armchair quarterbacking of other people's work.

Perhaps we should first thoroughly analyze the results of the tests done so far, instead of glossing over the information and dismissing discrepancies out-of-hand.

 

 

15 hours ago, jcs said:

If the minor differences in my tests are what you consider to make a larger format superior to a smaller format, cool, enjoy those differences. You are laser focused on the fact that there are differences at all, not that they are pleasing or useful differences.

Why would one do a comparison test and not focus on the differences in the results?  My guess is that such a tester does not want to contend with results that he/she is biased against.

 

 

15 hours ago, jcs said:

Most people won't notice them, and most people couldn't tell the difference when I originally posted the results, remember?

Again, dismissal out-of-hand...

 

 

15 hours ago, jcs said:

The MiniCyclops is very cool however nothing magical is happening there, and he even states it in his comments:

"The principle is the same as a 35mm DOF systems for camcorders [snip]  The only magic is the Grain Free & High Gain Ground Glass, handmade which I will not reveal how I did, but I do not think they can to copy or reproduce."

Mr. Ezcurra is clearly referring to how the Cyclops works and to the making of the Cyclops in the passage you quoted.  He is not commenting about the results of the Cyclops.

 

There are several videos on Mr. Ezcurra's Vimeo channel that show the unique look of both the "full" and "mini" Cyclops versions.  Again, if you (or anyone else) can duplicate this look with just a S16 camera and S16 lens, I will give US$100.

[sanveer]

On 08/04/2017 at 3:12 AM, Nikkor said:

 Cinema5D vídeos are so posed I can't take them serious.

I used to read Cinema5D articles quite regularly, previously. But ever since their bluff has been called about their obviously biased reviews, I avoid them like the plague.

[noone]

1 hour ago, tupp said:

Although I respect Mr. Caldwell for his optical engineering prowess and for his high-quality products, his "calling your tests valid" (please provide a link to this statement) certainly "isn't proof of anything."  In addition, Mr. Caldwell might not desire your dragging his name into this discussion

That should be the end of it because in this thread,

 Dr Calwell replied to you with-

"You are expecting a level of precision in this comparison that is entirely unreasonable.  Little things like changes in distortion and entrance pupil position during zooming make it impractical to make a blink comparator test completely perfect.  What the comparison does show - with more than sufficient precision - is that you can optically reproduce all aspects of an image shot on a large format with one shot on a smaller format - or vice versa. 

The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness.  The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer."

Somehow, I doubt you will accept this (since you went on to argue with him further in the thread).

 

 

[noone]

2 hours ago, noone said:

That should be the end of it because in this thread,

 Dr Calwell replied to you with-

"You are expecting a level of precision in this comparison that is entirely unreasonable.  Little things like changes in distortion and entrance pupil position during zooming make it impractical to make a blink comparator test completely perfect.  What the comparison does show - with more than sufficient precision - is that you can optically reproduce all aspects of an image shot on a large format with one shot on a smaller format - or vice versa. 

The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness.  The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer."

Somehow, I doubt you will accept this (since you went on to argue with him further in the thread).

 

 

Should have been Dr Caldwell (typo).

 

[tupp]

22 hours ago, noone said:

Dr Calwell replied to you with-

It seems that you and @jcs cannot resist bringing Mr. Caldwell into the middle of this discussion.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

"You are expecting a level of precision in this comparison that is entirely unreasonable.  Little things like changes in distortion and entrance pupil position during zooming make it impractical to make a blink comparator test completely perfect.

I believe that I already addressed this argument.  Essentially, my point is that the testers should address all differences, regardless of whether or not they think those differences are "reasonable/unreasonable."  Again, some of us immediately spotted the differences without the "blink comparator," and the blinking GIF was employed merely to reveal the differences to those who couldn't discern them with the side-by-side comparison.

 

Furthermore, I am fairly sure that everyone in the discussion was focused on the first Brightland Studios test when Mr. Caldwell made this post.  The second test (with in-camera sharpening eliminated) reveals more dramatic differences.

 

Again, the Brightland Studios tests were all shot with the same zoom lens, so the differences would be much more subtle than those encountered with two prime lenses of different focal lengths and designed for two different formats.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

What the comparison does show - with more than sufficient precision - is that you can optically reproduce all aspects of an image shot on a large format with one shot on a smaller format - or vice versa.

Ahh, so this is the line  in which Mr. Caldwell validates @jcs's equivalence test.

 

Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with Mr. Caldwell's notion that all aspects of a lens designed for one format can be reproduced with a lens that is designed for another format.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness.

Again, I strongly disagree here.  Merely demonstrate a S16 lens/camera combo that can come close to matching the look of a large format lens/camera, and I will give you US$100.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer."

The assertion that a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens will behave like any other 56mm lens is logically (and demonstrably) false, because lenses of the same focal length can exhibit a dramatic difference in behavior, even when designed for the same format by the same manufacturer.

 

Lo and behold, Fuji makes two 56mm lenses in their X-mount line:  the XF56mmF1.2 R; and the XF56mmF1.2 R APD.  These two lenses are identical, except for the fact that the APD version contains a apodization filter near the aperture.

 

Here is a comparison of the two lenses mounted to the same camera and set to the same f-stop:

Notice any difference in the focus roll-off?  You can see an enlarged version of the comparison with a few mouse clicks.  If you can't see a dramatic difference between these two images, then it is futile to continue this discussion.

 

On the other hand, if you do see the dramatic difference between these two images, then you must logically conclude that Mr. Caldwell's statement is false, regarding a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens behaving like any other 56mm lens.  The 80mm lens with a 0.7x focal reducer could behave like one of the 56mm Fujinons or like the other -- but it cannot behave like both.  Thus, the 80mm lens with a 0.7x focal reducer does not "behave like any other 56mm lens."

 

Furthermore (and most important to this discussion), how can this dramatic difference in focus roll-off be reconciled with the notion that the equivalence principle is absolute?  The focal length of the lenses are identical, and the f-stops are identical, so these images should have the exact same DOF/focus roll-off -- but they obviously don't have the same focus-roll-off.  In addition, if you look closely at the enlarged images, you will see that the technical DOF of these images does not match.

 

Again, there were no differences in aberrations nor "flaws" between these two lenses -- they are identical except that one of the lenses includes an apodization filter.  On the other hand, there are other lenses with intentional aberrations that also challenge the notion of absolute equivalence, such as soft focus lenses and the Fujian 35mm f1.7 (the aberration became "intentional" after folks used it).

 

So, do you think that there might be more to the look of a lens besides the equivalence/DOF formula?

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

Should have been Dr Caldwell (typo).

I'll call him "doctor" when he reconciles the notion of all lenses of the same focal length behave identically and when he explains how the focus differences in the BG bush/car in the "beer bottle" test proves "equivalence."

[noone]

1 hour ago, tupp said:

The assertion that a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens will behave like any other 56mm lens is logically (and demonstrably) false, because lenses of the same focal length can exhibit a dramatic difference in behavior, even when designed for the same format by the same manufacturer.

 

Lo and behold, Fuji makes two 56mm lenses in their X-mount line:  the XF56mmF1.2 R; and the XF56mmF1.2 R APD.  These two lenses are identical, except for the fact that the APD version contains a apodization filter near the aperture.

 

Here is a comparison of the two lenses mounted to the same camera and set to the same f-stop

Hi reply to you finished with

"  the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer"

Of course there are going to be differences UNLESS the two lenses have exactly the same optical formula and are mounted on the same camera.

Using a focal reducer on a lens to get to a 56mm is not going to have the same design as a lens made to be 56mm in the first place.

If you have five different 56mm lenses they will ALL be different to each other but no more different to a lens that arrives at 56mm by using a focal reducer.

That the man is responsible for focal reducers being main stream in photography and videography and yet you want to argue with him???

Of course most lenses labelled 80mm or 56mm or whatever are not going to be exactly that and I doubt you would be able to find many that would be exact so ANY difference will change things but not significantly and it will only be minor.

So much for respecting him too!

         

You find me two lenses that get you EXACTLY the same using a native lens and focal reduced lens and that will give you exactly the same results, if you can not, then the results will be close enough while having minor points of difference but not enough to matter. 

There is zero point in anyone continuing this with you

 

 

TL:DR

The man who designed the SpeedBooster and other optical goodies says-

"The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness.  The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer."

Some guy on the internet says-

"The assertion that a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens will behave like any other 56mm lens is logically (and demonstrably) false, because lenses of the same focal length can exhibit a dramatic difference in behavior, even when designed for the same format by the same manufacturer."

[tupp]

22 minutes ago, noone said:

Of course there are going to be difference UNLESS the two lenses have exactly the same optical formula and are mounted on the same camera.

The two Fujinon 56mm lenses are mounted to the same camera (suddenly camera/format makes a difference?) and have the exact same optical elements, except for the apodization filter.

 

 

22 minutes ago, noone said:

Using a focal reducer on a lens to get to a 56mm is not going to have the same design as a lens made to be 56mm in the first place.

Wait a second.  Mr. Caldwell stated that, "The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer."

 

So, as long as there are no significant aberrations nor flaws, the "design" of a lens has little bearing on it's look, as all lenses of the same focal length should behave the same ("period").  Do you disagree with Mr. Caldwell's assertion?

 

 

22 minutes ago, noone said:

If you have five different 56mm lenses they will ALL be different to each other but no more different to a lens that arrives at 56mm by using a focal reducer.

How many of those lenses will be as different as the Fujinon APD?  Don't you think that there could be something else to focus roll-off, other than the simple DOF calculation.

 

 

22 minutes ago, noone said:

That the man is responsible for focal reducers being main stream in photography and videography and yet you want to argue with him???  So much for respecting him too!

Well, above, you seem to be contradicting Mr. Caldwell.

[noone]

2 minutes ago, tupp said:

The two Fujinon 56mm lenses are mounted to the same camera (suddenly camera/format makes a difference?) and have the exact same optical elements, except for the apodization filter.

 

 

Wait a second.  Mr. Caldwell stated that, "The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer."

 

So, as long as there are no significant aberrations nor flaws, the "design" of a lens has little bearing on it's look, as all lenses of the same focal length should behave the same ("period").  Do you disagree with Mr. Caldwell's assertion?

 

 

How many of those lenses will be as different as the Fujinon APD?  Don't you think that there could be something else to focus roll-off, other than the simple DOF calculation.

 

 

Well, above, you seem to be contradicting Mr. Caldwell.

The two Fujinon lenses are not exactly the same.

Anything that indicates I am contradicting Dr Caldwell is an error on my point (but I don't see any).

I am out.

 

[tupp]

56 minutes ago, noone said:

Of course most lenses labelled 80mm or 56mm or whatever are not going to be exactly that and I doubt you would be able to find many that would be exact so ANY difference will change things but not significantly and it will only be minor.

Are you saying that the difference is minor between the Fujinon APD and other lenses of similar focal lengths?  The difference looks fairly dramatic to me.

 

 

29 minutes ago, noone said:

The two Fujinon lenses are not exactly the same.

They're really not even close in the posted comparison.