Canon 1Ds Mk II vs older Hasselblad: keep or not

I would probably keep the Hassy for a couple of years (but it could lose value over that time). But honestly, I haven't shot film since 2001 and I just can't seem to make myself. I can achieve anything film can do with my digital darkroom.

But that said, I still have several film bodies hanging around collecting dust ;-(

C Painter

I've clung to my Hasselblad system because I use it professionally for weddings still, and added a 5D for those contracts that insist upon digital. I've just a few years remaining until retirement and no economic reason to invest heavily anymore. If I were continuing as a wedding professional I would buy a digital back for the Hasselblad and keep a 20D with a 16-35-L for the wide shots. The corner performance of the 5D is appalling.

Keith Laban Photography

Walter, can you live with the Canon's colour fringing, vignetting, poor edge performance, distortion and inadequate viewfinder? Can you live with that many buttons and a short shelf life?

Can you live with the Hasselblad's lack of immediacy and the dubious pleasures of film processing and scanning? Can you live with the limited lens choice, the lack of auto focus and programs?

It's your call.

There's no right answer Walter. I have the same kind of setup as you (1Ds II & 5D with L lenses as well as a large Hasselblad outfit). I have to say I prefer using the Hasselblad for my best work and I think the results are better. But on many occasions it is just too impractical/undesirable and digital is preferable. So I've kept both and quite happily use both.

Good luck.

I find that using a 5D with Canon prime lenses gets me quality equivalent to, or very close to, what I could achieve with medium format + scanning. Digital is much more consistent. In optimal circumstances, medium format would be a bit better (than the 5D with Canon primes), but probably not than the 1DSII (with Leica and Contax wide angle primes).

Have others noticed the 5D's poor edge-performance? Is this due to the chip?

I don't think we're too far out from the day when a really good digital back for the classic Hasselblad cameras will be inexpensive enough to compete with the full 35mm frame DSLRs, at least for a pro workflow. Once that happens, I suspect the current slide in used MF equipment prices will reverse. I'm keeping all my Hasselblad stuff in anticipation.

If you think about it, given the current prices of MF gear and darkroom equipment, MF must be the least expesive route for amateurs to get really high quality, large-sized prints, esp. black and white. But the equation for pros has to favor digital because of processing costs and speed.

Although some people say that the 1Ds MkII rivals medium format I have not found that to be the case in my experience. Certainly the absolute lack of noise makes for a very nice clean image but my scanned 6x6 negatives or slides still have a fairly obvious advantage in terms of resolution over my 1Ds II files. The scanner I use now is the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED which I recommend highly.

Can the above poster really be getting better resolution out of his SCANNED MF images? Are you shooting RAW?

I have Hass, RZ, Mamiya 7II, and no way can they stand up to a 24" enlargement from the IDs2. For years I've done optical prints from transparencies, from print film, using sharpest films, sharpest paper, and lately I tried a HUGE drum scan enlargement, printed on Lightjet from Hass 250 Superachromat and from RZ 210 APO.

I was very sad to find that the posters from the 1Ds2 for my last trade show I shot simply outdid any of the MF prints. One was interesting, an exact reshoot of a film shot poster a year ago. I was so disappointed that when I put them side by side, 1Ds2 easily won.

I hate menus, computer work, electronic file storage questions, calibrating monitors. I don't like the modernization of the creative world around me, and I would never go to digital if the results did not slap me across the face.

Shoot RAW, save only in PS or TIFF files, use the best of the L's, and I think you'll find what I did.

I HOPE an affordable ($10k) 6 x 6 back comes along.

>>The corner performance of the 5D is appalling.<<

That would be the lens you are using, not the sensor.

Hi, my hassy outfit is similar with extra bodies, I thought of getting a Phase one back, but dreaded being teathered to a laptop. My recent commercial shot of an old hotel was a 500cm alongside a 20d+prime, the client took the 20x30 from the digital. unless a good simple back becomes a reasonable price I see no reason for me to keep the MF. I still love the contrast and quality but mixing the chemistry has now become a chore and filling the RA4 processors to much hassle for the amount of prints I put through compared to the digital I print. I have advertised all my Hassy gear at a price that suits me, if it sells I`ll be sad to see it go as I`ve been using it for 3 decades, but maybe its time to move on.The 5D and 1Ds2 certainly less time consuming. As most will know hassy does not like to sit idle. Its your personal choice will you use it the next 6 months.

good luck

>>mixing the chemistry has now become a chore and filling the RA4 processors to much hassle<<

Exactly! And even if one takes the work to a PRO LAB there is still extra time/expense involved and certainly somewhat less control of the final print (though, a good PRO lab will soon "learn" your needs and style and will deliver excellent work).

I worked with film since I was a teen and I am the first to admit that Digital has been a HUGE leap forward in photography.

What about the Kodak DCS 16 meg back for the hasselblad? would that not be an elegant solution allowing you your present kit with the choice of digital? It can't be more these days than a mkII and as they are solid state 2nd hand backs shouldn't be a risk. It won't measure up to the 1Ds mkII for noise but at iso 100 should beat it for dynamic range and tonality due to the bigger pixels.

>>The corner performance of the 5D is appalling.<< That would be the lens you are using, not the sensor.

Yes Armando - I shoot RAW. The detail is simply better from well scanned MF in my experience. Yours clearly differs.

Strange the corner performance is so bad, and mine is so good. I wonder if there is a difference in this regard between 5d and 1Ds2. In any case, the original question is about 1Ds2. I have to admit, I did not shoot the Zeiss 21 at larger than f4, as I envisioned using it 4 or smaller. At 4, the corner performance is incredible, right across the frame is amazing (and dismal with the Canon 20). And this is not because "this is what I wish to see". I never expected digital to exceed my film. I did not really care. The 1Ds2 is not expensive compared to MF systems that I own. I just wanted something good for fast web shots, quick small ad work. If I was not impressed I was going to immediately sell it, figuring I'd lose $1,000 or $1,500, which after taxes is much less.

As with MF I make sure I use good technique, mirror lock-up, sturdy tripod, careful focus (manually, marking lens barell for dof/aperture in pencil as one would with a view camera).

Walter, if you are near NH I'll show you some large prints from Hassy, RZ, 1Ds2, and even 4 x 5 and you can judge for yourself.

moving from contax 645 to the 1dsii. for portraits and action shots, as well as events shots, the canon is unbeatable. the luxury of shooting two times faster per second for minutes on end is incomparable.

however, for landscapes, i still prefer to dust off the contax 645 and use my favorite films (velvia, ilford b/w, etc.). sure, drum scanning the keepers is expensive (i send those to a pro lab) but the results are worth it. PRINTED, the velvia slides seem punchier, contrastier and dare i say, more brilliant. maybe it's the lenses (zeiss) or it's the film, but i am not convinced that the canon matches up.

which reminds me, i've got some old fuji print film that i need to shoot before it's too late.

my other reason for keeping the contax (besides the severe depreciation of late) is that all dslrs are computers more than anything else. so far so good, but if the canon fails, i'd like to have the contax back in action. didn't know what err99 was until i acquired the canon. what a horrid sight!

For anyone shooting Velvia and concludes that the film is punchier, and more contrasty, you do realize that you are describing the "look" of Velvia. I can't imagine anyone arguing Velvia is neutral. To achieve that look in digital you will need to pump up saturation, contrast, and play with color balance. My comparisons of digital and film are with neutral color films like Provia. Before that I used the standard (not the punched up versions) of Ektachrome.

If the landscapes are with wide angles you might need to see what a Zeiss 20mm or 28mm does on your 1Ds2.

you must compare the work of canon mark II with a good scanner with medium format, not a high level of drum scanner. Canon win. With a high level professional scanner canon win. I am sade of this, but is so. Tes by yourself. And generally the comparison is made on 1 ds markII and a medium level scanner. Canon mark II win easy. (i'm not a fan of canon, but tis is real and not emotionally thoughts.)