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.
50th anniversary
- Thread starter polypal
- Start date
carl_sanders
Member
The idea that a larger sensor will "revive" the V series with markets such as this is wishful thinking. That boat sailed some time ago. In addition, all the commercial photographers that flooded ebay with their Mamiya RZs, Bronicas, and Hasselblad Vs aren't going to revert back because of a 22 meg CFV back being made available. Get real.
With respect there are some photographers who did not dump their V system and
still use it, so that is the "get real' of it. You are quite right there are those who will not go back to it if they have sold it on. It does not mean that if they have one sitting in the cupboard as some professional advertising photographers do, then they are likely to start using it as another option. The Advertising photographers I spoke with in London all still have their hasselblads and all still use them as they have found they do not need to use their 5 x 4's. It was on their advise and with shock that I suggested that I sell mine, they were quick to advise that it is widely used and the standard tool.
What was I thinking about a 22MP on a V system, it was the technician who mentioned aboutthe lenses doing something at the edge that digital lens do not have a problem with.
So whilst it looks acceptable there are technical reasons why the lens were redesigned by Fuji, ask Hasselblad.
The shot of the Xact is exactly what we would be looking for in the studio, a small version of a Sinar 5x 4, looks the part, we saw something similar, a Cambo, well not similar we thought is was a load of rubbish but based on the same lines.
With respect there are some photographers who did not dump their V system and
still use it, so that is the "get real' of it. You are quite right there are those who will not go back to it if they have sold it on. It does not mean that if they have one sitting in the cupboard as some professional advertising photographers do, then they are likely to start using it as another option. The Advertising photographers I spoke with in London all still have their hasselblads and all still use them as they have found they do not need to use their 5 x 4's. It was on their advise and with shock that I suggested that I sell mine, they were quick to advise that it is widely used and the standard tool.
What was I thinking about a 22MP on a V system, it was the technician who mentioned aboutthe lenses doing something at the edge that digital lens do not have a problem with.
So whilst it looks acceptable there are technical reasons why the lens were redesigned by Fuji, ask Hasselblad.
The shot of the Xact is exactly what we would be looking for in the studio, a small version of a Sinar 5x 4, looks the part, we saw something similar, a Cambo, well not similar we thought is was a load of rubbish but based on the same lines.
Sorry Carl, the commercial studios are a drop in the bucket compared to the huge event and portrait photography market that once-upon-a-time used, or aspired to use these 6x6 cameras.
Of the commercial studios still using them, it's a fraction of that drop in the bucket. All the reality of the market place shows this. Bronica ... gone. Contax ... gone. Mamiya ... struggling, underfunded, buy-outs of the American distribution ... Hasselblad down to mere fraction of it's former self... e-bay flooded with MF gear.
Yes, I see some V cameras in the LA, Chicago and NYC studios we contract to do photography ... very few, and rarely being used for actual jobs. Perhaps in your neck of the woods they're still being heavily used, and I don't doubt you on that. Just not my experience.
Of course despite that, it never entered my mind to get out of the V system ( I do still shoot film as well as digital ) ... and I would dearly love to see a 22 meg (at least) CFV. But it's a secondary consideration compared to having moved to the H system. If it were the primary consideration, I'd have purchased a CF/39 with a V mount instead of the H. In my local area, most of the photographers did the same ... mamiya 645s, some Contax 645s, and Hs with different backs from Leaf, Phase One and Hasselblad.
There are some issues at the far edges of these sensors especially with wide lenses, which is why micro-lenses are being used now to mitigate that in the faster backs.
Of the commercial studios still using them, it's a fraction of that drop in the bucket. All the reality of the market place shows this. Bronica ... gone. Contax ... gone. Mamiya ... struggling, underfunded, buy-outs of the American distribution ... Hasselblad down to mere fraction of it's former self... e-bay flooded with MF gear.
Yes, I see some V cameras in the LA, Chicago and NYC studios we contract to do photography ... very few, and rarely being used for actual jobs. Perhaps in your neck of the woods they're still being heavily used, and I don't doubt you on that. Just not my experience.
Of course despite that, it never entered my mind to get out of the V system ( I do still shoot film as well as digital ) ... and I would dearly love to see a 22 meg (at least) CFV. But it's a secondary consideration compared to having moved to the H system. If it were the primary consideration, I'd have purchased a CF/39 with a V mount instead of the H. In my local area, most of the photographers did the same ... mamiya 645s, some Contax 645s, and Hs with different backs from Leaf, Phase One and Hasselblad.
There are some issues at the far edges of these sensors especially with wide lenses, which is why micro-lenses are being used now to mitigate that in the faster backs.
Hi Carl,
> What was I thinking about a 22MP on a V system, it was the technician > who mentioned aboutthe lenses doing something at the edge that digital > lens do not have a problem with.
It is real chuckle (to me at least) when people call lenses "digital" lenses (not you Carl, but marketing and "technicians" etc. People supposedly "in the know"). The lense is not a "digital" lense. It may have been designed with some parameters taken into consideration FOR use with a particular digital sensor(s). The two main issues are reducing the MTF (dumbing down the lense to reduce aliasing) or redesigning wide angle lenses to reduce vignetting in the corners.
I assume the former was not what he was talking about, but the later. I'm skeptical that for the V series, there were any lenses that had issues at least in my experience. The scanning back I had was full frame, and I never had any noticeable (to me) vignetting with a 40 or a 50. Does anyone know of any evidence that this was ever an issue?
Regards,
Austin
> What was I thinking about a 22MP on a V system, it was the technician > who mentioned aboutthe lenses doing something at the edge that digital > lens do not have a problem with.
It is real chuckle (to me at least) when people call lenses "digital" lenses (not you Carl, but marketing and "technicians" etc. People supposedly "in the know"). The lense is not a "digital" lense. It may have been designed with some parameters taken into consideration FOR use with a particular digital sensor(s). The two main issues are reducing the MTF (dumbing down the lense to reduce aliasing) or redesigning wide angle lenses to reduce vignetting in the corners.
I assume the former was not what he was talking about, but the later. I'm skeptical that for the V series, there were any lenses that had issues at least in my experience. The scanning back I had was full frame, and I never had any noticeable (to me) vignetting with a 40 or a 50. Does anyone know of any evidence that this was ever an issue?
Regards,
Austin
Marc,
The "thinly veiled contempt" is not of the H-System. It is of the way the visionaries steered the company - that was well poised to surf the digital wave and come out a winner - in all of the wrong directions.
I have praised Shriro before, and will do so again, for taking charge and turning Hasselblad's fate around. Yes, they (!) did the right thing with the H-System. And that includes bringing in Imacon.
But we're still not at the "and they lived happily ever after" ending of the story. Not enough has been done yet. Not by far.
It is also of the digital back producing companies, who share much of mr Imacon's believes (which led to the state Imacon was in when Shriro snapped them up and saved their rear ends too), because they too are fighting a losing battle.
Unless they change tactics and face the competition head on. Again, "for every MF camera now 'replaced' by a MF camera with digital back, there are six, seven, eight, if not more, that have been replaced by a 'Canon'."
You are indeed right about older thingies not selling, even though they can be had for less and do better than newer things.
That's because of the silly consumerist state of mind, which equates anything that is not 'the latest' with being decrepit, useless, junk, "retro" even.
The madness that equates 'new' and 'latest' with 'quality' and 'best'. Such are the times we live in...
But back to the point: there is nothing wrong with V-System cameras themselves that would disqualify them. There's nothing "retro", "back then", or "not versatile" about them.
The only thing that put them 'off side' are the too small sensors. Calling for, affordable, bigger ones is therefore not "retro", "sentimental", or unprofessional. On the contrary: it makes sense.
Whether the market will support such a thing (we have touched the subject of perhaps too many cameras being dumped already before) is another matter. Maybe so, maybe not.
That will largely depend on the price they will sell for. The same thing that will decide whether digital backs and 'integrated' MF digital machines will survive or not.
The "thinly veiled contempt" is not of the H-System. It is of the way the visionaries steered the company - that was well poised to surf the digital wave and come out a winner - in all of the wrong directions.
I have praised Shriro before, and will do so again, for taking charge and turning Hasselblad's fate around. Yes, they (!) did the right thing with the H-System. And that includes bringing in Imacon.
But we're still not at the "and they lived happily ever after" ending of the story. Not enough has been done yet. Not by far.
It is also of the digital back producing companies, who share much of mr Imacon's believes (which led to the state Imacon was in when Shriro snapped them up and saved their rear ends too), because they too are fighting a losing battle.
Unless they change tactics and face the competition head on. Again, "for every MF camera now 'replaced' by a MF camera with digital back, there are six, seven, eight, if not more, that have been replaced by a 'Canon'."
You are indeed right about older thingies not selling, even though they can be had for less and do better than newer things.
That's because of the silly consumerist state of mind, which equates anything that is not 'the latest' with being decrepit, useless, junk, "retro" even.
The madness that equates 'new' and 'latest' with 'quality' and 'best'. Such are the times we live in...
But back to the point: there is nothing wrong with V-System cameras themselves that would disqualify them. There's nothing "retro", "back then", or "not versatile" about them.
The only thing that put them 'off side' are the too small sensors. Calling for, affordable, bigger ones is therefore not "retro", "sentimental", or unprofessional. On the contrary: it makes sense.
Whether the market will support such a thing (we have touched the subject of perhaps too many cameras being dumped already before) is another matter. Maybe so, maybe not.
That will largely depend on the price they will sell for. The same thing that will decide whether digital backs and 'integrated' MF digital machines will survive or not.
Okay, enough about all that. What we all agree on is that these cameras were, are, and will remain great tools to make images with. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't still own them, and more importantly still use them.
I tend to agree with Austin on the lens thing. I said above that I DO use these Zeiss lenses with 645 sized sensor backs and I don't see any issues. There may be some issues with the sensors sometimes because of the light path to the pixel wells (unscientific term alert : -)
exaggerating vignetting.
I tend to agree with Austin on the lens thing. I said above that I DO use these Zeiss lenses with 645 sized sensor backs and I don't see any issues. There may be some issues with the sensors sometimes because of the light path to the pixel wells (unscientific term alert : -)
exaggerating vignetting.
Hi Q.G.,
> There are whisky glasses, that are not (nor made of) whisky, jam jars > that are not (made of) jam, water-skis that are not (nor made of) > water, meat cleavers that are not... [etc.]
How true, and that's a good thing! But, they are made FOR that obviously. It appears to me that "digital" lenses are marked so simply for hype than actually any design criteria, though certainly *some* lenses marked as such are designed with digital in mind.
There seems to be a point of "sensible" identification that goes along with this, like water skis vs snow skis. Unless you really qualify what aspect of digital the lense is designed for (which I've yet to see any literature accompanying a digital identified lense). It's kind of obvious when it comes to skis ;-)
Regards,
Austin
> There are whisky glasses, that are not (nor made of) whisky, jam jars > that are not (made of) jam, water-skis that are not (nor made of) > water, meat cleavers that are not... [etc.]
How true, and that's a good thing! But, they are made FOR that obviously. It appears to me that "digital" lenses are marked so simply for hype than actually any design criteria, though certainly *some* lenses marked as such are designed with digital in mind.
There seems to be a point of "sensible" identification that goes along with this, like water skis vs snow skis. Unless you really qualify what aspect of digital the lense is designed for (which I've yet to see any literature accompanying a digital identified lense). It's kind of obvious when it comes to skis ;-)
Regards,
Austin
najobskalf
Member
I wonder whether this idea has arisen from the use of some crap optics in some digital cameras, which have their defects compensated by firmware/software. (This is only conjecture on my part.) I have been similarly amused, Austin, by advertisements for "digital" glass or resin filters for front of lens!
Hello Austin,
For a while there was talk about "telecentricity".
The rays hitting the sensor will get more oblique going out from the image's center towards the edges and corners. Not a big problem for film, but more so (so it is said) for sensors, where the sensitive bits are lying 'deep' inside wells.
Changing to a more asymmetric, 'retro-focus' design (i.e. moving the exit pupil away from the sensor) will reduce the angles, and with it the risk of 'well-vignetting'.
So maybe a lens designed to be more asymmetric, though only so to reduce this phenomenon, would indeed merit the "digital" badge?
But i think you are right, and that often it is pure hype.
For a while there was talk about "telecentricity".
The rays hitting the sensor will get more oblique going out from the image's center towards the edges and corners. Not a big problem for film, but more so (so it is said) for sensors, where the sensitive bits are lying 'deep' inside wells.
Changing to a more asymmetric, 'retro-focus' design (i.e. moving the exit pupil away from the sensor) will reduce the angles, and with it the risk of 'well-vignetting'.
So maybe a lens designed to be more asymmetric, though only so to reduce this phenomenon, would indeed merit the "digital" badge?
But i think you are right, and that often it is pure hype.
Bojan,
There are legitimate uses of filters that might indeed merit the "digital" badge.
One is the "dumbing down" of lenses Austin already mentioned.
The other is removing IR light, which sensors are sensitive too, and which leads to blurry images.
But yes, whether you need an extra filter in front of the lens to do that with any of the available digital cameras is highly doubtful.
Those filter are already 'built-in'.
There are legitimate uses of filters that might indeed merit the "digital" badge.
One is the "dumbing down" of lenses Austin already mentioned.
The other is removing IR light, which sensors are sensitive too, and which leads to blurry images.
But yes, whether you need an extra filter in front of the lens to do that with any of the available digital cameras is highly doubtful.
Those filter are already 'built-in'.
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Austin , Q.G
If you look at the design for ex&le of a :
APO GRANDAGON 45mm and an APO-SIRONAR-DIGITAL 35mm , you will find , that there are big differences .
Or even the APO-SIRONAR-DIGITAL HR . Even bigger .
I can hardly believe , that these lenses are only built out of marketing reasons . There must be a differences in optical performance .
The sales figures are too low to rectify a different design with no optical progress , but higher production costs .
If you look at the design for ex&le of a :
APO GRANDAGON 45mm and an APO-SIRONAR-DIGITAL 35mm , you will find , that there are big differences .
Or even the APO-SIRONAR-DIGITAL HR . Even bigger .
I can hardly believe , that these lenses are only built out of marketing reasons . There must be a differences in optical performance .
The sales figures are too low to rectify a different design with no optical progress , but higher production costs .
Hi Q.G.,
> For a while there was talk about "telecentricity". > The rays hitting the sensor will get more oblique going out from the > image's center towards the edges and corners. Not a big problem for > film, but more so (so it is said) for sensors, where the sensitive > bits are lying 'deep' inside wells.
Absolutely correct. That's why I mention wide angles pretty much exclusively when talking about lenses that could possibly be redesigned for digital.
The other thing that is also claimed for "digital" lenses, has really nothing to do with digital, but image size. Lenses whose image circle is reduced to accommodate smaller digital sensors...which would be done identically for a reduced film format as well...so IMO, that isn't specifically for digital.
> Changing to a more asymmetric, 'retro-focus' design (i.e. moving the > exit pupil away from the sensor) will reduce the angles, and with it > the risk of 'well-vignetting'.
That's my understanding as well. But, I don't know if there is any downside to this redesign. Do you?
I guess in order to merit a "digital" badge, you would have to specify what aspect of digital was accommodated in the lense design (and as well show the problem with the original lense), and that aspect would have to be applicable to digital only (as opposed to the film format aspect I mentioned above).
Next, we will have "optimized for film" lenses, eh?
Regards,
Austin
> For a while there was talk about "telecentricity". > The rays hitting the sensor will get more oblique going out from the > image's center towards the edges and corners. Not a big problem for > film, but more so (so it is said) for sensors, where the sensitive > bits are lying 'deep' inside wells.
Absolutely correct. That's why I mention wide angles pretty much exclusively when talking about lenses that could possibly be redesigned for digital.
The other thing that is also claimed for "digital" lenses, has really nothing to do with digital, but image size. Lenses whose image circle is reduced to accommodate smaller digital sensors...which would be done identically for a reduced film format as well...so IMO, that isn't specifically for digital.
> Changing to a more asymmetric, 'retro-focus' design (i.e. moving the > exit pupil away from the sensor) will reduce the angles, and with it > the risk of 'well-vignetting'.
That's my understanding as well. But, I don't know if there is any downside to this redesign. Do you?
I guess in order to merit a "digital" badge, you would have to specify what aspect of digital was accommodated in the lense design (and as well show the problem with the original lense), and that aspect would have to be applicable to digital only (as opposed to the film format aspect I mentioned above).
Next, we will have "optimized for film" lenses, eh?
Regards,
Austin
Hi Jurgen,
> There must be a differences in optical > performance.
There is never a reason, in my experience with commercial gear, that would warrant better optical performance (depending on what you mean by that) that would not also show up on film, except for one possible issue that some *may* consider "optical performance".
The lenses you listed are wide angle lenses, and as was mentioned by both Q.G. and myself, there *may* be some issue with the previous design of those lenses that did produce vignetting when used with digital sensors that had an image circle near the size of the lenses image circle.
Regards,
Austin
> There must be a differences in optical > performance.
There is never a reason, in my experience with commercial gear, that would warrant better optical performance (depending on what you mean by that) that would not also show up on film, except for one possible issue that some *may* consider "optical performance".
The lenses you listed are wide angle lenses, and as was mentioned by both Q.G. and myself, there *may* be some issue with the previous design of those lenses that did produce vignetting when used with digital sensors that had an image circle near the size of the lenses image circle.
Regards,
Austin
The APO Sironar digitals (not the HR versions) have 2 extra elements. The H R versions have 4 extra elements. From what I've heard, the 35mm/45mm/55mm Sironar digitals do not have significantly better performance that the trad itional lenses. I have all three analog versions and use them with both dig irtal and film. If I do shifts beyond about 5mm on any of these lenses, I h ave to use the LCC (lens cast correction) function in Capture One to clean up the cyan/magenta casting. LCC does a good job.
I just got the APO Sironar Digital 90mm F4.5, but have not used it with my P20 since I'm still waiting (and waiting and waiting) to get a V-mount adap ter for my Arca-Swiss 6x9. I did use it with 4x5 film last weekend and it d id cover the full 4x5 frame, even though it is spec'ed out for a 125mm IC. I'd really like to try this lens head-to-head with the tradition 90mm F4.5 Rodenstock lens.
I just got the APO Sironar Digital 90mm F4.5, but have not used it with my P20 since I'm still waiting (and waiting and waiting) to get a V-mount adap ter for my Arca-Swiss 6x9. I did use it with 4x5 film last weekend and it d id cover the full 4x5 frame, even though it is spec'ed out for a 125mm IC. I'd really like to try this lens head-to-head with the tradition 90mm F4.5 Rodenstock lens.
wbulte
Active Member
Given the sensitivity of digital sensors to light entering at extreme angles leads me to the theory that a SWC should be worse on a digiback than a recent CF40. The CF being a retrofocus lens should fit the requirements of a digiback better in other words.
Anyone who owns both and can run some experiments?
Wilko
Anyone who owns both and can run some experiments?
Wilko
Austin,
The more asymmetrical a lens, the more distortion is a problem.
The issue (if one) is not with wide angle lenses only, but with all lenses that have the exit pupil close to the sensor.
And with the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses that includes a lens like the 80 mm, while the widest of the bunch, the 30 mm F-Distagon, is not the worst (better than the 80 mm in fact).
But i don't know whether it is an issue at all with Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses.
It wasn't reported by people using digital backs behind a Biogon, and if any, that lens would be the one that would be worst and show it most.
Worse, Wilko, than even the older C version of the 40 mm lens, i.e. you do not need the latest version of the 40 mm lens to avoid the problem.
The more asymmetrical a lens, the more distortion is a problem.
The issue (if one) is not with wide angle lenses only, but with all lenses that have the exit pupil close to the sensor.
And with the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses that includes a lens like the 80 mm, while the widest of the bunch, the 30 mm F-Distagon, is not the worst (better than the 80 mm in fact).
But i don't know whether it is an issue at all with Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses.
It wasn't reported by people using digital backs behind a Biogon, and if any, that lens would be the one that would be worst and show it most.
Worse, Wilko, than even the older C version of the 40 mm lens, i.e. you do not need the latest version of the 40 mm lens to avoid the problem.