Comments on: Canon 5D vs. Hasselblad H3Dii - A Real World Test

By: mxky

mxky — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:31:39 +0000

Very interesting test, thank you for that, I learned many things, I actually didn’t know about hasselblad!

By: Jacqui

Jacqui — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:00:26 +0000

Hi, just wondering if you have compared the Hasselbad H3Dii to the new Canon 5D Mark II? Let me know if you have any results. Thanks.

By: Frans de Bruijn

Frans de Bruijn — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:05:40 +0000

Of course the Hasselblad has sharper photos. It is a simple matter of the area of the sensor. The Hasselbad H3Dii has a sensor measuring 48mm x 36mm =1728mmsq area compared to the Canon 5D 36mm x 24mm = 864mmsq, that is half the area for the canon. It means that the same quality lens can create a large image on the larger sensor giving the effect of a considerably sharper image. This is recognised by photographers who have moved up from APC-s sensor to full frame sensors. When 35mm was introduced it was introduced for its convenience and quality took back seat, a bit like reel to reel tape to cassette audio tape recorder. On my Canon 5D using EF50 f1.4, the same as used in the test, can’t produce fine detail that hasn’t lost considerable amount of contrast. It will be only a matter of time before Canon and Nikon will be forced to manufacture a medium or large format digital camera.

By: Terence Lowe

Terence Lowe — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:04:13 +0000

Good article. I’m also waiting with money burning a hole in my pocket for the 5D Mark II.

I wonder what the results would be (shadow detail, resolution, sharpness) if, rather than upsampling the 5D image, several photos were taken with the 5D so that the resulting file was the same size as a Hasselblad file (a bit like stitching a panorama). A different lens would have to be used, or subject-to-camera distance adjusted, but wouldn’t this would be a truer comparison of Canon pixels versus Hasselblad pixels?

By: KETCH ROSSI

KETCH ROSSI — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:22:45 +0000

Thanks for putting the time in doing this test, I my self are in the same situation for different reason, I just want the best image quality money can buy.

But when it comes to quality we all know that beside the obvious personal talent as a photographer is a must as no great gear makes a great photographer, but in deed great gear makes a great photographer, well … greater!

I’m familiar only with Canon, and have owned and used extensively the 5D, 1D IIn and the new 1D III, I only have “L” series lenses, and use mostly Primes.

Now in the market for a new camera, to be the 1Ds III or the H3D II.

I believe that each camera should work better with the lenses which were created for it, but there are obviously exceptions, they always are.

I think that for me there will be no other alternative before I make this next Photo gear purchase, but to rent out both the Canon 1Ds III and the Hassie H3D II with comparable lenses, shoot away on the same subjects and exact lighting, and see the results at full res on each camera, and each file processed first on the same application, and secondly process the Hasselblad image on the proprietary Fhocus, which claims wonders.

Thanks again for the post.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI

By: Lincoln Barbour

Lincoln Barbour — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:51:27 +0000

Re: Johnny Danger,

You know, I totally agree with you. Pixel to pixel, the two cameras compete. But with the H3Dii, you get 27 more MP of info. That’s what I was trying to ge across originally. When I have the time, I’ll post upsampled 5D crops of the comparrisons.

Thanks for your feedback!

-lincoln

By: John

John — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:13:39 +0000

After re-reading my post, I realize that it may come across a bit trite. I’d like to thank Lincoln for producing the test as I’m always interested in pixel-peeping, but I guess I just don’t see the value of the comparison in the way it was presented. When portability and smaller files are required obviously the 5D will make do just fine, but when you need a 39.1 megapixel smoking camera… well, we all know where to go. Let’s see both results at 39.1 megapixel crops to get a gauge of the large printing abilities of both.

By: John

John — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:05:15 +0000

Is it just me or does this test lead readers to believe (incorrectly) that the 5D resolution is nearly as good as an HD3ii? Sizing the HD3ii DOWN to 12.6 megapixels is… kinda bassackwards IMO. Try sizing the 5D UP to 39.1 megapixel size and then the detail differences will become painfully obvious. Granted the 5D is a great camera, but 12.8 megapixels just isn’t that close to 39.1 megapixels no matter which way you cut it.

Why would people shoot the HD3ii? Most likely because they need 39.1 megapixels for unmatched detail in large prints, not because they want to make a nice image and size it down to 12.6 megapixels.

HD3ii looks great obviously. 5D is great too. Side by side… apples and oranges.

By: David

David — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:56:32 +0000

Thank you for this excellent comparison. I am amazed how well the Canon 5D compared, bearing in mind the massive price differential. I’ve got the money for the Canon 5D Mk2 waiting in my bank account, can’t wait till this camera comes out!

By: chris

chris — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:29:40 +0000

Hi,
thank you so much for sharing this. The 5d really is worth its money.