Nikon D800 vs. Hasselblad H4D-40

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Sandman, Apr 1, 2014.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Pretty interesting video of professional die-hard Hasselblad photographers
    putting the D800 to the test with blown highlights and shadows, skin tones
    and ISO.

    The Hasselblad takes the price, naturally, but they're still pretty
    impressed with the D800 performance, especially when taking price into

    In short:
    Skin tones - Hasselblad
    Blown highlights - Hasselblad
    Shadow detail - D800 (slightly)
    ISO - D800

    This was probably done before the D800E was released, would have been
    interesting to see that as well.
    Sandman, Apr 1, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    Yes, I keep hearing the D800 is close, but the Pentax 645 will do the same job on the Nikon and it can be had now for about $5000-$6000.
    RichA, Apr 1, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    As I've said in the past (when I was choosing between the 645D and the
    D800E), even pentaxforums give both studio and outdoor performance to the


    If you move up to higher end medium format, the difference is going to get
    bigger, but the price of the 645D over the D800E is not warranted.
    Especially considering the enormous amount of fantastic glass available for
    the Nikon.
    Sandman, Apr 1, 2014
  4. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    Lots of lenses doesn't necessarily make up for lesser image quality, depending on what you are doing.
    RichA, Apr 2, 2014
  5. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Which would have been a good point if the image quality of the D800E was
    "lesser" than the 645D, which it isn't.
    Sandman, Apr 2, 2014
  6. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    How so?
    Not sure what to say here, why do you think they're comparing factory
    Sandman, Apr 3, 2014
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    The RAW converter, which in turn works with 16 bits of data for the
    Hasselblad instead of 14bit for the Nikon, so a LOT more data to more
    correctly represent skin tones - and for curves to play with in the end
    should you want to change it around.

    Just for reference - a 14bit sensor can capture 16,384 different tones per
    dot (pixel), while 16k different colors sounds awesome enough, a 16bit
    sensor can capture a whopping 65,536 different color values. Per pixel.
    Plus, the MF sensor has larger pixels, so more light information reaches
    each pixel.

    The RAW converter is the first step to make these bits sing. If you convert
    it to a 16bit TIFF, you won't lose any data, so it's just a matter how good
    the RAW converter is. The Hasselblad RAW converter will use proprietary
    code from Hasselblad known as HNCS, or Hasselblad Natural Color Solution in
    order to as accurately as possible reflect natural colors from the 16bit
    RAW data. And needlesstosay, Hasselblad owners enjoy this quite a bit (I'm
    note one of them, regretably).

    So no, it's not a matter of comapring factory settings, neither is it
    something you can easily adjust with Curves in bitmap space either - or
    rather, there's a ton of work to make skin colors from a D800 look as
    natural - or nearly as natural - as a Hasselblad shot. You could probably
    replicate it so that you won't know the difference, but experienced
    photographers would.

    Here's a great page with some good comparison shots:
    Sandman, Apr 4, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.