Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
440 FLE v 440 IF
- Thread starter hhansard
- Start date
>[I would state the inconvience is more than the issue of manual >focus for what I was interested in. THe main reason i wanted to go >the CFE route was the ability to attach the PC mutar and have the >ability to do shifts. If you use the adapter and PC mutar with a >digital back, it becomes much more difficult because you have to >manually fire the back before and after cocking the lens shutter and >taking the exposure. In fact, Hasselblad in Sweden told me that my >idea would not work. It did work but I was not happy with the >results. ]
Mark - I remember you telling me this and understand your concern/problem.
Marc - I believe the Flexcolor software with DAC correction is a Hasselblad exclusive and limited to their intergrated digital cameras. I currently correct any distortion via CS3. As you know, the HC 28mm is also limited to their digital cameras and is a real sore point with those using third party DB's. There has even been talk about Hasselblad releasing a tilt-shift HC lens that will have the same limitations. I, for one, am not happy about it, but that is another issue.
Marc - I believe the Flexcolor software with DAC correction is a Hasselblad exclusive and limited to their intergrated digital cameras. I currently correct any distortion via CS3. As you know, the HC 28mm is also limited to their digital cameras and is a real sore point with those using third party DB's. There has even been talk about Hasselblad releasing a tilt-shift HC lens that will have the same limitations. I, for one, am not happy about it, but that is another issue.
Yes. But i understand Jürgen.
This advancement may be that, as long as we do not automatically equate advancement to improvement.
This advancement is making use of the fact that you probably will not notice that, in rearranging the bits in the picture, and though you are gaining a bit too, you are losing a bit. Sort of a two-wrongs-make-a-right thing.
But if you indeed do not notice, right?
But why do we not?
And even if we don't, knowing that a less than perfect thingy is made to look like it is may be enough. Even if it does not make sense.
This advancement may be that, as long as we do not automatically equate advancement to improvement.
This advancement is making use of the fact that you probably will not notice that, in rearranging the bits in the picture, and though you are gaining a bit too, you are losing a bit. Sort of a two-wrongs-make-a-right thing.
But if you indeed do not notice, right?
But why do we not?
And even if we don't, knowing that a less than perfect thingy is made to look like it is may be enough. Even if it does not make sense.
Are you assuming this advancement isn't an improvement QG?
Is it a bias on your part to imply it isn't?
Have you shot a fair amount of shots with the HC 28 or 35 and applied the DAC?
So, using the logic of your last line ... is not the 40 IF some sort of improvement over the CFE version, and was it not achieved using ... ah ... computers?
Is it a bias on your part to imply it isn't?
Have you shot a fair amount of shots with the HC 28 or 35 and applied the DAC?
So, using the logic of your last line ... is not the 40 IF some sort of improvement over the CFE version, and was it not achieved using ... ah ... computers?
wbulte
Active Member
Martin,
As I understand Juergen he wants the initial shoot to be as high quality as can be. Using the best lenses, cameras, film, digiback etc.
A Holga is basically a box with lens not unlike the bottom of a Coke bottle.
Not later on in postprocessing "add the quality".
Wilko Who yesterday met a gentleman from Hong Kong in Monument Valley with a Flexbody. A gentleman, without doubt, of the same conviction as Juergen.
As I understand Juergen he wants the initial shoot to be as high quality as can be. Using the best lenses, cameras, film, digiback etc.
A Holga is basically a box with lens not unlike the bottom of a Coke bottle.
Not later on in postprocessing "add the quality".
Wilko Who yesterday met a gentleman from Hong Kong in Monument Valley with a Flexbody. A gentleman, without doubt, of the same conviction as Juergen.
Wow! Monument Valley in August. Hope he had several liters of water with him.
Garbage in, garbage out. You can only do so much with software manipulation. Most of us know that. That being said, I think the currently technology is incredible. I do appreciate a great camera/lens which is why I turned to the CFE IF. In speaking with Zeiss (email) they put a lot of thought into reworking/improving the CFE FLE and consider the IF one their "classics."
Garbage in, garbage out. You can only do so much with software manipulation. Most of us know that. That being said, I think the currently technology is incredible. I do appreciate a great camera/lens which is why I turned to the CFE IF. In speaking with Zeiss (email) they put a lot of thought into reworking/improving the CFE FLE and consider the IF one their "classics."
Now, now gentlemen ... the concept is take it to the very highest level possible (with consideration of some sort of reasonable price threshold), then see if you can take it a bit further ... which they have with DAC.
The H/C lenses are hardly "Garbage In" ... and I've come to suspect they may be better suited for digital work when using the high resolution backs.
I have a table top shoot tomorrow morning. I think I'll test the Zeiss 120/4 Macro via the CF Adapter against the H/C 120/4 Macro ... both using the same H3D/39 back, same lighting, locked down camera stand, same everything except the lenses. I'll be shooting straight to the computer in Flexcolor, so if there are any differences it'll be clear pretty quick.
If I have time I'll also try the H/C 35 + DAC verses my Zeiss 40 CFE.
The H/C lenses are hardly "Garbage In" ... and I've come to suspect they may be better suited for digital work when using the high resolution backs.
I have a table top shoot tomorrow morning. I think I'll test the Zeiss 120/4 Macro via the CF Adapter against the H/C 120/4 Macro ... both using the same H3D/39 back, same lighting, locked down camera stand, same everything except the lenses. I'll be shooting straight to the computer in Flexcolor, so if there are any differences it'll be clear pretty quick.
If I have time I'll also try the H/C 35 + DAC verses my Zeiss 40 CFE.
Hold on Marc. I was not implying that the HC lenses are garbage. Quite the opposite. I own six of them!! Contrary to the opinion of some Zeiss fans, I think Fuji has done an excellent job.
I was trying to say that software cannot correct a poorly taken image regardless of how great the equipment is.
I was trying to say that software cannot correct a poorly taken image regardless of how great the equipment is.
Marc,
It's not bias.
I'll explain, but first it should be understood that we are not talking about great moves either way. When there is a justified disappointment about Hasselblad no longer aiming to produce 'the best', there must be no misunderstanding that ;less than best' still is very, very good.
It's the principle of things, the state of mind that leads to such a move, that is what we hadn't expected from Hasselblad. And that's what it is about.
Now the explanation:
In "Victor" we are told by Hasselblad themselves that they did not make the 28 mm lens as good as they well might have (would have been more expensive), but left it undercorrected, with (relatively) poor performance, because it would be possible - and cheaper - to correct its shortcomings using software.
So the lenses they now make aren't as good as they could be.
An improvement?
The software trick will make the (deliberate) shortcomings less visible. And since photography is a visual medium, all seems to be o.k. then, doesn't it?
But there is a difference between being good and relying on the fact that people do not notice that you are not.
Moving, uhm, advancing from the first to the latter is not an improvement.
The 28 mm shows that DAC isn't used to take things further. That might have been its initial purpose. But no more.
It is used to be able to move down from "the highest level possible" and get away with it.
The 28 mm + DAC is indeed a case of "garbage in ..."
So the disappointment is about the move from a full commitment to 'nothing but the best', to the present day's 'adequate', 'it will do' way of working.
A thing, by the way, omnipresent in today's world. Why bother to do more if you can get away with less.
An improvement?
You do show a fair bit of bias yourself, Marc.
Why do you think i have anything against computers and their use in image processing?
It's not bias.
I'll explain, but first it should be understood that we are not talking about great moves either way. When there is a justified disappointment about Hasselblad no longer aiming to produce 'the best', there must be no misunderstanding that ;less than best' still is very, very good.
It's the principle of things, the state of mind that leads to such a move, that is what we hadn't expected from Hasselblad. And that's what it is about.
Now the explanation:
In "Victor" we are told by Hasselblad themselves that they did not make the 28 mm lens as good as they well might have (would have been more expensive), but left it undercorrected, with (relatively) poor performance, because it would be possible - and cheaper - to correct its shortcomings using software.
So the lenses they now make aren't as good as they could be.
An improvement?
The software trick will make the (deliberate) shortcomings less visible. And since photography is a visual medium, all seems to be o.k. then, doesn't it?
But there is a difference between being good and relying on the fact that people do not notice that you are not.
Moving, uhm, advancing from the first to the latter is not an improvement.
The 28 mm shows that DAC isn't used to take things further. That might have been its initial purpose. But no more.
It is used to be able to move down from "the highest level possible" and get away with it.
The 28 mm + DAC is indeed a case of "garbage in ..."
So the disappointment is about the move from a full commitment to 'nothing but the best', to the present day's 'adequate', 'it will do' way of working.
A thing, by the way, omnipresent in today's world. Why bother to do more if you can get away with less.
An improvement?
You do show a fair bit of bias yourself, Marc.
Why do you think i have anything against computers and their use in image processing?
DAC>
The H system is exactly as stated in the literature, albeit carefully read the first time, once known it is apparent, it is a system, that performs very well.
Although I only used the H3 and the 28 mm during a store demo-with the western US Hasselblad representative. I made several exposures of a table display using their lighting and very poor a sync cord. Adjusting the flash duration with the sync speed I found very handy. When the rep returned to the room one of the first things I told him was that the distortion was terrible (or something to that affect), he quickly responded as he was sitting down at the computer and clicked the DAC and boom, the distortion was corrected immediately. It is as advertised: a system. If I needed to compete in the market place, I would make the investment in the H system immediately.
Now, if someone just would produce, a similar system program to correct the minor imperfections of the V system-Zeiss lenses. Perhaps all of us would be jumping up and down!
Also, lens designers and manufactures have learned that digital capture doesn't require them to attempt to produce perfect lenses to make excellent images.
Regards:
Gilbert
The H system is exactly as stated in the literature, albeit carefully read the first time, once known it is apparent, it is a system, that performs very well.
Although I only used the H3 and the 28 mm during a store demo-with the western US Hasselblad representative. I made several exposures of a table display using their lighting and very poor a sync cord. Adjusting the flash duration with the sync speed I found very handy. When the rep returned to the room one of the first things I told him was that the distortion was terrible (or something to that affect), he quickly responded as he was sitting down at the computer and clicked the DAC and boom, the distortion was corrected immediately. It is as advertised: a system. If I needed to compete in the market place, I would make the investment in the H system immediately.
Now, if someone just would produce, a similar system program to correct the minor imperfections of the V system-Zeiss lenses. Perhaps all of us would be jumping up and down!
Also, lens designers and manufactures have learned that digital capture doesn't require them to attempt to produce perfect lenses to make excellent images.
Regards:
Gilbert
Well, I would buy into the notion that the DAC was a software "trick" to make short comings less visible ... IF, as implied, there was some way to detect the "less visible" part of the equation... which to date I have not been able to discover even with massive enlargements of commercial work done with the 28mm.
28mm isn't 40mm ... it's pretty darned wide, and I'm sure quite difficult to produce at a price point mere mortals could afford. Mamiya never was able to make the much needed 43mm for the RZ/67 system ... a lens that I actually looked through at PhotoPlus in NY some years ago. They just never could get it corrected well enough to produce it ... a failing that severely hurt the use of digital backs on that system due to the crop ratio. Perhaps there was a lesson learned by other "observers" of that exercise?
Since I secured a new HC/28 for $2,200. USA during Hasselblad's recent "loyalty" promotion, it was an easier decision to make commercially. If they did indeed adhere to a " nothing but the best" policy for the 28mm, I fear only the Sultan of Brunei and Bill Gates could buy one. The cost of this stuff is escalating at a ferocious rate while income is getting more difficult to secure.
I'm also not sure of the comment that digital allows use of lesser lenses, so they can get away with less. The 28mm is an anomaly IMO, for reasons of level of difficulty on an SLR type camera. On the other hand, for ex&le, many pretty good lenses for view camera work don't fare as well when used with digital backs. The highly corrected "digital" lenses
(including my Schneider 28/2.8 L-92 Digitar) deliver the goods.
I wonder how the new Mamiya 645 28mm does in comparison? Anyone seen an ex&le from this lens?
28mm isn't 40mm ... it's pretty darned wide, and I'm sure quite difficult to produce at a price point mere mortals could afford. Mamiya never was able to make the much needed 43mm for the RZ/67 system ... a lens that I actually looked through at PhotoPlus in NY some years ago. They just never could get it corrected well enough to produce it ... a failing that severely hurt the use of digital backs on that system due to the crop ratio. Perhaps there was a lesson learned by other "observers" of that exercise?
Since I secured a new HC/28 for $2,200. USA during Hasselblad's recent "loyalty" promotion, it was an easier decision to make commercially. If they did indeed adhere to a " nothing but the best" policy for the 28mm, I fear only the Sultan of Brunei and Bill Gates could buy one. The cost of this stuff is escalating at a ferocious rate while income is getting more difficult to secure.
I'm also not sure of the comment that digital allows use of lesser lenses, so they can get away with less. The 28mm is an anomaly IMO, for reasons of level of difficulty on an SLR type camera. On the other hand, for ex&le, many pretty good lenses for view camera work don't fare as well when used with digital backs. The highly corrected "digital" lenses
(including my Schneider 28/2.8 L-92 Digitar) deliver the goods.
I wonder how the new Mamiya 645 28mm does in comparison? Anyone seen an ex&le from this lens?
Marc,
Just curious: have you ever used the 28 mm lens without DAC?
In "Victor", Hasselblad show a comparison of the same shot taken with the 28 mm both with and without DAC.
And (you will have guessed it) the difference is indeed quite visible.
28 mm is wide, yes.
But how wide, and how expensive a good one would be, is not determined by the focal length (alone), but by the frame size it has to cover. (Just remember the many, and very cheap 28 mm lenses that are available for an even smaller frame size.)
The 28 mm is designed to cover less than the 40 mm, so the 40 mm might even be the more difficult lens to make, and make well.
Despite the difference in their angles of view of both on the H3D 39.
But on the other hand: the 28 mm is also a lens that has to bridge a huge gap between flange and sensor. Considerably more so than the 40 mm.
Anyhow: i'm sure the 28 mm + DAC does very well, even so.
I wouldn't hessitate using one at all.
Just curious: have you ever used the 28 mm lens without DAC?
In "Victor", Hasselblad show a comparison of the same shot taken with the 28 mm both with and without DAC.
And (you will have guessed it) the difference is indeed quite visible.
28 mm is wide, yes.
But how wide, and how expensive a good one would be, is not determined by the focal length (alone), but by the frame size it has to cover. (Just remember the many, and very cheap 28 mm lenses that are available for an even smaller frame size.)
The 28 mm is designed to cover less than the 40 mm, so the 40 mm might even be the more difficult lens to make, and make well.
Despite the difference in their angles of view of both on the H3D 39.
But on the other hand: the 28 mm is also a lens that has to bridge a huge gap between flange and sensor. Considerably more so than the 40 mm.
Anyhow: i'm sure the 28 mm + DAC does very well, even so.
I wouldn't hessitate using one at all.