The Hasselblad H3DII-31
When compared to more nimble 35mm cameras there are certain compromises to shooting a big 645 DSLR. It often operates more slowly, with less flexibility of exposure and focus, and – in most cases – it’s more cumbersome. Is the added complexity and added cost worth it? Do the trade-offs pay off once the files hit the hard drives and big TIFFs go to print?
Why race a Station Wagon and a Super Car?
I’ve been thinking through questions like these for a few weeks now and have a number of images from parallel shooting with a Nikon D3 and Hasselblad H3DII-31. It’s a very interesting comparison, I think. In some respects, it’s an unfair comparison. The Nikon is half the cost and a fraction of the resolution. The D3, though, is my primary working camera, and it’s been interesting to analyze the benefits of upgrading to medium format.
It would be interesting, also, to conduct similar comparisons with a Nikon D3X or a Sony A900 or a Canon 5DII or 1DS-III. All of those have more MP than my D3, which is certainly a factor in image quality. They all, however, have significantly less resolution than the H3DII-31, which is the humblest camera in the Hasselblad lineup. Some of them, also, are not substantially less expensive than the now discounted H3DII-31. So, whether with a D3X or D700, the comparison will be unfair. If this were Car & Driver, I’d be comparing a Ferrari super car to a BMW sporty station wagon. Similarly, there are times when a wagon is nice and when a super car is impractical; the question is: when is the compromise worth it? Read the rest of this entry »