40mm CFE or 903SWC

[fotografz]

In the interest of Robert's original question ( 40CFE verses the SWC camera):

Here is a test shot done with the CFV back and SWC camera. Even though my family celebrates Easter today, I must work today shooting an Easter Mass at White Chapel Cemetary, a commercial client of mine. And I was thinking of using the CFV and SWC for the wide shots ... and like with any shoot, I test everything first.

So as my wife was setting up her table for the family feast yesterday, I snuck a shot with the SWC before she kicked me out of her kitchen/dinning room scolding me for moving her place settings

The SWC does focus very close, and in fact I had to move back quite a bit for this shot. All I can say it that I wish Dirk would increase the max to 200K instead of 130K ... this had to be reduced to a 35% res : -(

 

[mr_orange]

I thought it was about time I gave a quick opinion on my recently purchased CFV, (had it for about a month now).

Many people commented that the 1.5 cropping didn't bother them; if like myself you use wide angles a lot, it obviously will. If a full sensor came out, I'd probably jump at the chance of a trade in (as I’m sure many others would, price depending of course). My wide angle 50mm cfi just doesn’t seem wide any more, which has changed my direction in my style of shooting.

Portraits i have done with the back are very very sharp, and was really surprised at the quality, flesh colors are beautifully to. Landscapes is another thing, don't know why, but just not as sharp, which was surprising after the portraits. Could have something to do with the use of flash, as all images with flash (including portraits) came out very sharp and full of colour.

Another problem I had, is due to the battery at the base of the back, which made it impossible to use quick release on my tripod, as I was unable to flick the switch. To mount the camera on the tripod I had to detached the battery and then replace the battery afterwards.

The back is very easy to use, simple design didn’t bother with the instruction manual at first, until later, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything, i wasn't, (its that simple). Think the lcd screen for a digital back is a bit on the small side, don’t know why its not bigger?

The flexccolour software I'm still getting used to, mainly convert all files to dna and do work in lightroom and photoshop.

Overall I’m pleased with the back, I’ve been waiting for a square back under $10,000 for a while; it’s really sweet to be shooting with the old Hasselblad again.

Specially thanks to all on the forum who have answered my rather basic questions, I’m sure there will be more to comeïŠ

P.s I’ll add few pics at a later date, cheers.

p.s . s sorry for bad grammar and spelling mistakes.

 

[carl_sanders]

Thanks for this Paul, comments appreciated, we have had the CFV back for a few weeks and still not had chance to give it a good run, it will be mainly for portraits and still life. It was noticed that some of the hand held shots without flash may appear slightly soft but no different to film. I usually shoot with a slight fill in flash, which always sharpens the image. The contrast can be changed in photoshop ( used to be done in the darkroom).

The quality of the brick work in buildings (Always appeared to come out as painted backdrops in some instances) using film is still replicated with the CFV so I do not feel any loss by using digital. Pleased to see that portraits are sharp and tones meet expectation. We are in the middle of setting up the studio and creating new backdrops with acrylic paints etc. Will have to check out the quick release we did not find it a problem, best wishes, Carl