![]() Want to hear more options about this test and cameras? Check this out: ![]() P.S You can also check out DxOMark Nikon D800 review and my other reviews. To sign-up, use the top form on the right sidebar, and link to our special downloads page will be sent to you.Īll the best my friends, there is a forum post on photigy if you want to discuss this test even further: Forum Topic ![]() Hi-res original TIFF and JPEG files (in case you decide to play with them yourself) are available for download absolutely free, you just need to sign-up for our newsletter. Plus, I hate to clean 35mm DSLR sensors, and every time I swipe dust off from my P25+ Phase One digital back i smile: it is so easy!:-) Like I’ve mentioned before, I need digital back to be deatachable and mountable on any other rig such as technical camera. My personal decision is to stay with Hasselblad and replace H1 P25+ with H3D39 or similar MF camera. Ferrari is in business, as well as Subaru, and both are pretty fast and enjoyable cars to drive, isn’t it? □ Well done Nikon! Cameras like D800 will shake medium format market, and I hope it will drop their pricing even more.Īnd what about Hasselblad? It is still a choice of hi-end professionals who can spend 5x more time more money to get that last 10% of quality for their images. Yes, it would give me a better resolution at F6 or F8, but I rarely use such wide open aperture in my studio work, and this is why I’ve used F16 in the test: to see the real-life performance, not the best possible. Nikon had cheap, and most likely it would deliver even better sharpness and details if I’d use Carl Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (or similar older Zeiss) lens for Nikon.Īlso, I was using F16 and F11, which is quite tough for the lens, especially for Nikon’s. Great shadow and highlight recovery was actually a big surprise for me, considering 14 Bit small sensor vs 16 bit in Hassy (more bit depth means more colors and wider dynamic range).Īlso, we need to keep in mind that it was not a true sensor-to-sensor performance test, as the glass was playing a big part of the resolution and details quality of the shots. Despite the huge difference in a price, D800E was able to deliver the quality comparable to 5+ times more expensive Hasselblad. I was pleased to see the performance of Nikon D800E. Nikon D800E Highlights and overexposure recovery test resultsĪs expected, Hasselblad delivered better color accuracy with it’s Natural Color Solution (HNCS), which is good. The situation appeared to be quite unusual, especially for Hassselblad owners: for underexposure recovery it is better to use Phocus than ACR, but it is opposite for overexposure and highlights recovery: Adobe Camera Raw does much better job with Hasslblad RAW files than “native” Phocus. This time I decided to include both results, from Phocus and ViewNX for you reference. View NX was not good as well, producing too contrast and low detail images compare to ACR. For some reason when I tried to adjust exposure and recover highlights, it brought pink colors on areas with blown pixels (FIY: all the lens corrections were “On”). Here I’ve got an opposite situation with RAW converters: Phocus and ViewNX couldn’t get even closer to Adobe Camera RAW results of pulling overexposed areas. Especially Phocus from hasselblad. Third test, Overexposure and highlights recovery Read the first part here: Nikon D800E v.s Hasselblad H4D40: Round One This is a second part of the test-review of Nikon D800E and hasselblad H4D40 cameras.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |