Hasselblad dynamic range

[eireann]

This a comment for this page on the website

Interesting that the Hasselbald's dynamic range is worse than the one of the Nikon D800. Just yesterday I watched a video on youtube where someone compared both cameras and found that Hasselblad's dynamic rage is unbeatable.

[MikeWhis]

Dynamic range is determined by the read noise and saturation capacity. The Hasselblad is very likely to have a high saturation capacity, that's why their highlights are less likely to be blown out, but you couldn't get much information from the shadows. If you underexposed the D800 and brighten it up in post, it is very likely to have more dynamic range than if you did the same to Hasselblad.

[vdhamer]

The Hasselblad is very likely to have a high saturation capacity, that's why their highlights are less likely to be blown out, but you couldn't get much information from the shadows.

Actually the Hasselblad H3DII_50 doesn't really have an unusually high "full well" or saturation capacity. It is, for example, lower than a camera with a similar pixel size that was also released in 2007: the Canon 1Ds Mark III (see http://www.sensorgen.info/). The Hasselblad also has more background noise, and a lower quantum efficiency. All-in-all the medium format sensors consistently under-perform in terms of dynamic range (especially considering that they should be able to outperform smaller sensors).

The rest of your analysis sounds sensible to me: it is easy to avoid blown highlights (for any saturation capacity) by appropriately (under)exposing. But that brings you uncomfortably close to the noise floor for scenes with dark shadows. I find it harder to judge whether or when people should care about this.

Peter