ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi Anders,
I second that. I find I use my Hasselblad a bit more than my Sony Alpha 99, and it depends in part on having some fun using old gear.
Regarding bokeh, the Sony may be a better choice. It has circular aperture and much less axial chroma. But the P45+ has more pixels and it does deliver on sharpness when the stars are well aligned. Also, weaknesses are often more seen in the "lab" than in the "wild", lab conditions are more critical.
The way things are now, if I feel that I probably nailed the shot with the Hasselblad I don't shoot with the Sony. But I always carry the Sony. It is sort of the tool that I rely on.
Best regards
Erik
I second that. I find I use my Hasselblad a bit more than my Sony Alpha 99, and it depends in part on having some fun using old gear.
Regarding bokeh, the Sony may be a better choice. It has circular aperture and much less axial chroma. But the P45+ has more pixels and it does deliver on sharpness when the stars are well aligned. Also, weaknesses are often more seen in the "lab" than in the "wild", lab conditions are more critical.
The way things are now, if I feel that I probably nailed the shot with the Hasselblad I don't shoot with the Sony. But I always carry the Sony. It is sort of the tool that I rely on.
Best regards
Erik
IQ is not only about resolving power. Bokeh and look can be really good. I've seen more RZ results than V but I'm most impressed by the look when the depth of field is a bit shorter. Still I think nostalgia or economics (or both) are the main reasons why one would want to use a V system. There's some charm in using an old-school camera while not having to mess with film, and that's why Hasselblad keeps making digital backs to an otherwise discontinued system.