This summer I had the wonderful opportunity to finally get my hands on the “Big Daddy” The Hasselblad H4D 60, 50 and 40 (60, 50 and 40 megapixel backs respectively) digital SLR medium format camera. This coveted camera, with lens, ranges in price from $20,000 to well over $40,000. A pretty decent chunk of change for struggling fine art landscape photographers, who usually save every penny they have for their extended travel journeys. It seems that today in our ever advancing technological world it is far too easy to get spoiled with what we have and always want the next better thing. I am no exception. But maybe we should pause and appreciate what we have a bit more, instead of always coveting what we don’t. My hope is that this article might help some out there to do just that.
Anyone who knows about mega pixels and quality fine art printing knows that, generally, the more quality mega pixels one has the better the print detail. Squares are turned into little dots and the more (per inch) and the better those little dots are, the better the potential outcome is for a high quality detailed print. This is pretty much a given. Because when I am not out leading photography tours/workshops or doing my own personal shooting I spend the rest of my time behind the computer carefully working over my own photography, and/or the photography of other demanding fine art gallery photographers, post production, I am no exception to the quality and detail obsession! Having said that, what are my general impressions of the Medium Format Digital world now that I spent a solid week shooting with it and much more time processing those files for print? Well, my answer may surprise you!
For those feeling lost, or behind in the money game for high end equipment, my feedback here may take some of the burden off you. Yes, shooting with that “Big Daddy” H-Blad all over Glacier National Park did feel good. If you are the type of person who likes attention, then having the “big gun” camera (or that humongous lens) for all to admire, might appeal to you and make you feel like a rock star. I can’t tell you all the stares, comments or questions that I was bombarded with as I carried that monster around the park. In the early days of my career I might have loved this, but today I don’t thrive on that type of attention. Honestly, I would rather be alone to concentrate on my job and not be distracted by all the questions, comments or stares.
I will compliment the Hasselblad by saying that when the files are shot at 50 ISO (maybe up to 100) and in great lighting these cameras soar in sheer detail quality! Their broader dynamic range (over 35mm DSLR) also helps with the bracketing and blending issues we are often confronted with in landscape photography. The files are exceptionally clean, processed in either Adobe Camera Raw or Phocus (the Hasselblad proprietary raw converter). I also think accessing more of the true 16 bits these babies shoot might produce a real world benefit to obsessive quality printers like myself.
But…
What about less than ideal shooting conditions to which many of us thrive in? What about speed? What about higher ISO shooting? What about the new frontier of long exposures and, or low light night photography? What about finesse of camera functionality?
Well, maybe get more feedback from a few other photographers, but personally I am quite disappointed. Those Hasselblad advertisement photos can make the camera’s seem perfect; so beautiful and so cutting edge. I, and others around me, generally found the opposite to be true. I won’t get into explaining every detail in this, my second blog posting, but I will say this: I found the cameras to be a bit clunky, behind in functionality (with lots of hang ups and hiccups) not very intuitive, and even downright terrible at either higher ISO (moderately high on up) or long exposure times. I admit I was surprised. Even images shot at 200 ISO and above had unacceptable, in my opinion, noise issues. I also slapped on a 9stop ND filter to push some exposures to one or two minutes (and above) and those did not turn out well. The mirror is massive in the camera and mirror lock up takes on a whole new importance. The micro shake caused by it, is that much more pronounced (don’t think micro anymore).
It is true that once I picked up my Canon DSLR, the 5D Mark2 again, I did feel a bit disappointed at the lack of resolution it captures (21million pixels vs the 60 million – a meager third of total pixels) but instantly as I began to shoot with it I could not believe its speed and utter finesse! I guess the big DSLR companies’ large budgets over the years have allowed their big teams of engineers to really perfect the finesse and functionality of their cameras in a way a smaller company starting into a new market just can’t match. I can now say that I appreciate the smooth functional, lightning fast finesse of 35mm DSLR more than ever. I am truly amazed by the machinery we posses in our hands at this time in history, and shooting with the Hasselblad simply made me appreciate 35mm digital all the more.
Would I, or will I, own and shoot with a Hasselblad H4D 60 if my budget allowed? Honestly, I would say maybe 20% of the time. My somewhat radical shooting style often puts me on the edge in very challenging weather situations (where the camera could get destroyed easily) or in rivers or behind waterfalls or flirting with the power of nature and massive crashing surf.
And, when I am not doing that, I am often trying to push long exposure or low light high ISO shots into new territories. Maybe 20% of the time I am in a “safe zone” where everything is just right to benefit from the qualities the Hasselblad has to offer.

Canon 5D Mark 2. A two minute exposure through the entire epicenter of a blazing sunrise color at Pray Lake, Glacier National Park, Montana.
That’s just me. Maybe you should try out a Hasselblad yourself (rent one?) and see if you are really missing out? I came away with a much deeper appreciation of 35mm digital and aside from always wanting more mega pixels, I will not complain again.










