We’re wrapping up our Fashion/Portrait Shootout so be sure to check out the Nikon segment going up today, but, working on the final installment, our Medium Format Digital Back piece featuring the Hasselblad H3D 31 and 39, the files just demanded a mention here. 
 

We’re always seeing questions and opinions on MFDB cameras, asking if there’s a difference, whether they’re worth it, how powerful the full-frame DSLR cameras are, and to be honest, in a lot of cases the MFDB cameras just feel like overkill, even to us.  They certainly are expensive, and they certainly have fewer features. 
 

In truth, it’s been a while since I’ve played with the files from one of the “big chip” cameras and it’s easy to forget how incredible this hardware performs.  Here, for the record, are three files that were shot with the Nikon D3s, the Canon 5DMII, and the Hasselblad H3D 31.  The Nikon is running a 12mp sensor at full-frame 35mm format, the Canon is also a full-frame sensor at 21mp.  The Hasselblad is sporting a 31mp sensor with a physical size of over twice the format of the 35mm- 48 x 36mm. 
 

We’re going to go into all of the ramifications of these differences in our feature review, but for now, let’s just see some files.  They certainly don’t tell the whole story, but they do, just as certainly, answer the simple question we see so often: “Is there a difference?” 
Here’re the three shots:  Hasselblad, Nikon and Canon.
 

Granted, the lighting is a bit different, but the first impression on processing all of these files in Adobe Camera RAW is that the Hasselblad is somehow simply richer.  The skin tones are full of subtlety, and nuance.  In the discussions about MFDB and bit-depth of sensors and A/D (Analog-Digital converters, a key part of file processing), this is where you can see exactly what all that tech talk is about.  The skin looks like skin, not digitally-rendered skin. 
 

Now, let’s look at the files at 100%. 
 

That, my friends, tells the whole story.  My favorite part is the little tiny hair in the very corner of her tear-duct.  You can’t see it in the Canon shot, but that’s not fair, the shot isn’t lit to show it.  The Nikon shows the hair, but it’s merely the hint of the shape.  The Hasselblad shows the hair- the shape and form of the individual hair.  It’s not a “the hair goes here” image, it’s an image of a hair.
 

This is the big impact of a high-resolution sensor, and it goes back to our discussion in our Canon segment of how sensors render leaves, in landscapes, and hairs.  Whether you can see it in the final image or not, the big sensors capture all the detail of the shape without making generalized strokes. 
 

Now, you can argue that at a small print size, say, 11”x14”, you’re not going to see any difference, you may say this is just pixel peeping.  Trust me, it’s not.  Just as you can see a difference in the richness of a print made from a 120-format negative in the darkroom and a similar print made from an 8” x 10” contact print (and if you’ve never seen this, you owe it to yourself to go see it some day), there’s a similar, almost intangible difference between a print made at 11” x 14” from a DSLR and a MFDB.  And likewise, if you’ve never seen the two side-by-side, you have to- either do the comparison yourself, or get the test done for you, but look at the prints.
 

You’re not going to understand it looking at the screen.  You won’t see the real feeling of the photograph on the monitor, no matter how much you “peep”.  The print is the final measure, and until you see them, (and this may sound harsh, but…) you won’t get it.  
 

The difference is visible, and undeniable.