Reading mode: Light Dark

Some comparison shots between my Hasselblad 555/ELD and my Sony A7rII

Go to last post
Erik Kaffehr

Erik Kaffehr

Veteran Member
Messages
8,195
Solutions
7
Reaction score
5,118
Location
Nyköping, SE
Hi,

A few months after getting the A7rII I ran some comparisons with my Hasselblad 555/ELD combined with my P45+.

These images were shot with significant care, using the PM5 viewfinder with a 3X monocular thus having 9X magnification. The camera was on tripod with MLU and electrical release.

On the Sony I used magnified live view for focusing, EFSC, self timer and no image stabilisation off.

On the Hasselblad I used the 100 mm/3.5 at f/8 and the Distagon 40/4 at f/11, while on the Sony I used the 90/2.8G macro at f/5.6 and the Canon 16-35/4L zoom at 25 mm at f/8.

Aperture usage was based on equivalent aperture.

Most of the images are actual pixel crops.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index2.html

My conclusions?
  • Not a lot between the Hasselblad 100/3.5 and the Sony 90/2.8G, at least in these images.
  • The Hasselblad Distagon 40/4 CF FLE is quite weak. There is a much better version called 40/4 CFE IF, that is not what I have. The Canon lens is significantly better than the 40/4 CF FLE of axis but drops below the Hasselblad lens in the extreme corners.
I had also tested the Distagons 50/4 CF FLE and 60/3.5 CF. Neither is up to the Canon 16-35/4L across the field.

The Zeiss lenses were designed in the film era. My experience is that the Sonnars are very good, the Distagons loose quite a lot of sharpness towards the edge. Of the Planars I used three, the 100/3.5 CF is optimised for infinity where it is very sharp. The Planar 120/4 is designed for close up work. The Planar 80/2.8 CFE is in between I guess. I did make some very good images with that lens.

Newly designed lenses are probably better.

The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index.html

Best regards

Erik
 
Last edited:
Very interesting - am just now looking for a reason for not shelling out for the new compact Hasselblad - and this comparision is quite convincing.

Besides the Loxia trio (21 - 35 - 85) is compact and light weight.

Seems like the A7rII is getting closer and that my neighbours are loosing this one (live next to Sweden).

Thank you for posting this one - appreciated!
 
Trollmannx said:
Very interesting - am just now looking for a reason for not shelling out for the new compact Hasselblad - and this comparision is quite convincing.

Besides the Loxia trio (21 - 35 - 85) is compact and light weight.

Seems like the A7rII is getting closer and that my neighbours are loosing this one (live next to Sweden).

Thank you for posting this one - appreciated!
Click to expand...
Hi,

My comparison is with an elderly Hasselblad. The first raw images I have seen from the X1D were very convincing. In that test the lens was that sharp that it really called for higher resolution sensor.

I almost exclusively print at A2, that is around 16" x 23", and that is the largest cut paper table top printer format. At that size I have seen little benefit from moving from 12 MP APS-C to 24 MP full frame. Some benefit but not a lot.

Moving from 24 MP full frame to 39 MP 37mm x 49mm I saw no advantage in my print sizes.

I did not make any comparisons going from 24 MP on full frame to 42 MP on full frame in A2 size prints. Based on previous experience it would be waste paper, ink and time.

Good enough is good enough.

This actual pixel crop shot with the Canon 24-105/4L on the A7rII impresses me quite a lot:



Canon 24-105/4L at f/5.6 and 1/250s, handheld and AF. Actual pixel crop.
Canon 24-105/4L at f/5.6 and 1/250s, handheld and AF. Actual pixel crop.



The full image
The full image

For me, the A7rII offers a lot of advantages:
  • Focal length range from 12 mm to 400 mm plus fisheye lens
  • Ability to use almost any lens, due to short flange distance.
  • Tilt and shift with Hasselblad, Pentax 67 and Canon mount lenses.
  • Accurate manual focus using magnified live view.
Some folks complain about user interface and battery life. Things I all agree with. But for me the camera is mostly an imaging device. If it delivers the images I want I would not care about the rest.

BTW, my P45+ back is rather power hungry, too. What i miss most with the P45+ is a really good and useful live view. I would hope that the new IQ3-series backs play in a different division - but I never had the opportunity to test those.

Best regards

Erik



--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Thank you for the answer.

Yes - that good enough is good enough should be a real life guide. I am now using a couple of A7 cameras (my photography is almost entirely a hobby now as I left the photographic buisiness years ago - but some contacts are still active) for ordinary photography. Find the resolution and image quality on the fringe for the odd jobs.

But am entering more demanding task in the near future so I need a camera like the Sony A7rII or the new Hasselblad (lovely system but overkill for my need, not for my want).

So I guess it is time to fill in an order and go for real life need. Held back until now...
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
Hi,

A few months after getting the A7rII I ran some comparisons with my Hasselblad 555/ELD combined with my P45+.
Click to expand...
The P45+ is a circa 2007 device am I right? There are two ways to look at this comparison.

1.) Not a fair fight as there are 8 years separating the technology.

2.) Since you cannot see much difference between the two cameras in paper prints, the P45+ has stood up well over the years suggesting that MF is possibly more cost effective over the long haul.

Erik Kaffehr said:
These images were shot with significant care, using the PM5 viewfinder with a 3X monocular thus having 9X magnification. The camera was on tripod with MLU and electrical release.

On the Sony I used magnified live view for focusing, EFSC, self timer and no image stabilisation off.

On the Hasselblad I used the 100 mm/3.5 at f/8 and the Distagon 40/4 at f/11, while on the Sony I used the 90/2.8G macro at f/5.6 and the Canon 16-35/4L zoom at 25 mm at f/8.

Aperture usage was based on equivalent aperture.

Most of the images are actual pixel crops.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index2.html

My conclusions?
  • Not a lot between the Hasselblad 100/3.5 and the Sony 90/2.8G, at least in these images.
  • The Hasselblad Distagon 40/4 CF FLE is quite weak. There is a much better version called 40/4 CFE IF, that is not what I have. The Canon lens is significantly better than the 40/4 CF FLE of axis but drops below the Hasselblad lens in the extreme corners.
I had also tested the Distagons 50/4 CF FLE and 60/3.5 CF. Neither is up to the Canon 16-35/4L across the field.

The Zeiss lenses were designed in the film era. My experience is that the Sonnars are very good, the Distagons loose quite a lot of sharpness towards the edge. Of the Planars I used three, the 100/3.5 CF is optimised for infinity where it is very sharp. The Planar 120/4 is designed for close up work. The Planar 80/2.8 CFE is in between I guess. I did make some very good images with that lens.

Newly designed lenses are probably better.

The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index.html

Best regards

Erik
Click to expand...
 
Rick Knepper said:
The P45+ is a circa 2007 device am I right? There are two ways to look at this comparison.

1.) Not a fair fight as there are 8 years separating the technology.

2.) Since you cannot see much difference between the two cameras in paper prints, the P45+ has stood up well over the years suggesting that MF is possibly more cost effective over the long haul.

--
Once you've done fifty, everything else is iffy.
Click to expand...
Hi,

This is not about a fight, just offering a comparison with older and therefore affordable MFD technology.

There is significant interest in using older MF systems with older and therefore affordable digital backs, and the Zeiss lenses have a great reputation that some actually deserve.

Phase One shifted from Kodak to Dalsa technology, but Kodak sensors very similar to the P45+ sensor are still used in the Leica S (typ 006) . Development in CCD based MFD has not been that fast.

A lot happened in modern MFD, CMOS based sensors, Phase One XF and their new blue ribbon lenses. Not least, the new X1D and the Fuji GFX that both are optimised for 44mm x 33mm sensor size.

My thinking is like this:
  • Old MFD technology may offer little advantage over recent CMOS based technology.
  • Large CCD sensors with high resolution, like the IQ-280 offer a resolution benefit and may be close to modern CMOS 24x36 in DR.
  • New CMOS based MFD sensors obviously have the benefit of size over modern 24x36 CMOS, but it may be questionable if smaller sensors with non optimised lenses offer a real advantage over present generation 24x36.
  • There is a new generation of MFD cameras optimised for the 44x33 sensor. But, is the difference in sensor estate large enough to justify the difference in price?
Another point is that I have two lenses, the Canon 16-35/4L and the Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 covering the range I have with my five Hasselblad lenses (40/4, 60/3.5, 100/3.5, 120/4 and 180/4) with considerable margin at the wide angle length. Also those lenses all significant shift and full tilts, that is significant for me…

On the other hand, would I print very large, like significantly above my present 70cm x 100cm print format, the 100 MP system would offer a clear advantage but at considerable price.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Last edited:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Hi,

A few months after getting the A7rII I ran some comparisons with my Hasselblad 555/ELD combined with my P45+.

These images were shot with significant care, using the PM5 viewfinder with a 3X monocular thus having 9X magnification. The camera was on tripod with MLU and electrical release.

On the Sony I used magnified live view for focusing, EFSC, self timer and no image stabilisation off.

On the Hasselblad I used the 100 mm/3.5 at f/8 and the Distagon 40/4 at f/11, while on the Sony I used the 90/2.8G macro at f/5.6 and the Canon 16-35/4L zoom at 25 mm at f/8.

Aperture usage was based on equivalent aperture.

Most of the images are actual pixel crops.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index2.html

My conclusions?
  • Not a lot between the Hasselblad 100/3.5 and the Sony 90/2.8G, at least in these images.
  • The Hasselblad Distagon 40/4 CF FLE is quite weak. There is a much better version called 40/4 CFE IF, that is not what I have. The Canon lens is significantly better than the 40/4 CF FLE of axis but drops below the Hasselblad lens in the extreme corners.
I had also tested the Distagons 50/4 CF FLE and 60/3.5 CF. Neither is up to the Canon 16-35/4L across the field.

The Zeiss lenses were designed in the film era. My experience is that the Sonnars are very good, the Distagons loose quite a lot of sharpness towards the edge. Of the Planars I used three, the 100/3.5 CF is optimised for infinity where it is very sharp. The Planar 120/4 is designed for close up work. The Planar 80/2.8 CFE is in between I guess. I did make some very good images with that lens.

Newly designed lenses are probably better.

The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index.html

Best regards

Erik
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top