CFV-39? could be better.....

[sperera]

A plug and play digital back for the V system like the CFV-39 is fantastic......it really is.....no adapters and your Zeiss lenses doing their thing is so great, mouth watering in fact......but.......

......and i know i wont be popular with this.....but i think Hasselblad has not done as great as they could have by using the H3D-39's sensor......they should have used the H3D-31 sensor which gives better images (way better in my opinion) and only a slight enlargement defecit....

in fact, i think Hasselblad know their H3D-39 is probably the worst camera in the H range and thus they're off-loading the sensors produced for it into the CFV-39 backs in order to get them out of the door....and then there's the fact they're using the same back as for the 16mp back right???

So there....I've burst right out with what i think....dont hate me guys.....its my opinion....Saad's images left me cold and dissapointed....I know what im looking at by the way, im not a runny nosed amateur weekend snapper.....and yes, many pros use them etc. etc. but that's a whole new story in itself....

hang on, whats that i see from my window....a black car's pulled up with two guys in dark sunglasses...are they following me now...is this...the Hasselblad mafia with a hit on me now????

 

[saad]

Hi Sperera, how could you say such a thing. But did you look at the second set of raw files? If you did and you then think that they are inferior; or could be better, ok that is your opinion. But if the CFV16 is not better than the CFV39, then how could the CFV31 be better, in the only possible area and that is noise.

 

[sperera]

as i said...it is my opinion...surely this is a forum to voice opinions even if it is against the grain.....regardless, i thank and keep on thanking you for posting the images.....without your help i would not have an opinion....

i have compared the H3D-39 to the H3D-31 and to us the results are clear.....the H3D-31 has the microlenses which to my eyes results in better images....the CFV-39 has the H3D-39 sensor and its, in my opinion, not as good as it should be....

im sure all sorts will come in and tell me how crazy and blasphemous i am but i see what i see.....

 

[polypal]

Sperera,

I think it takes more first hand information and maybe even a straight comparison to draw any conclusions regarding the quality of the CFV39.

Unless a proper test, done to scientific standards, shows you are right I regard your opinion as premature not backed by facts.

This forum is a place for everybody to discuss without any restrictions matters concerning photography.
Before any conclusions on important matters like the image quality of essential new parts of the system are drawn please look at the facts.

Facts is meant here as in first hand results from tests.

Paul


Please note:

Before anybody gets the wrong idea: I think Saad did a good job providing us with first raw files from the CFV39.
I thank Marc for his expertise to tweak those files and give us an impression of the possibilities of the new DB.

Lets see what others come up with who are now anxiously waiting for the arrival of their CFV39 backs.
More raw files made under different conditions will certainly give more results to be judged.

 

[bradleygibson]

I think it would be unfair to criticize Saad's raw files--he has gone out of his way to indicate that they are test shots and has provided them to the community in order to give us all an early look at the new back.

Other than that, no problem here with your comments either, sperera. I accept you at your word that you are underwhelmed.

Personally, I am interested in hearing more about specifically what is lacking for you with the CFV-39 or H3D-39 for you.

All the best,
-Brad

 

[fotografz]

LOL ...

if you are so experienced, then you know these professional digital backs take practice (Shooting technique, how to expose for a specific back, and most importantly how to process) ... and people new to them need some time to learn how to do that.

In other words, this is not a runny nosed point-and shoot-camera that does all the thinking for some weekend happy-snapper.

Did you bother to look at Saad's original files that I re-processed? No digital artifacts or noise. It took 5 seconds to correct that processing error.

RE: the claim that the 31 is better than the 39. Have you shot both cameras side-by-side? I have ... a lot.

(BTW, I just sold one of my H3D-IIs ... guess which one).

Don't get me wrong, the H3D-II/31 is a great camera ... but it has its limitations for a lot of applications.

The microlenses provide a stop more ISO setting but you lose the ISO 50 that's so useful when using powerful studio strobes ... or when you just run out of shutter speed in bright light. You also lose the ability to mount the 31 back on a tech camera or view camera with tilts and shifts due to severe color shifts from the micro lenses that are difficult to impossible to fully correct. With the 31 you lose the wider angle advantage because of the 1.3X crop factor.

Concerning pure IQ ... well there is where the 39meg pulls ahead even farther. Most gains are slight, but they are there. More detail. Less color shift. Better tonal transitions. Where this really shows up clearly is when shooting in the studio with HR APO optics and bellows focusing (ie. no moving lens elements) ... and this is where a vast majority of people who use these high meg backs want the advantage.

H camera with a 39 meg back @ ISO 400 using a H/C 300mm on a mono-pod.

 

[sperera]

Im not criticizing anyone here, as i said, Im thankful for people makking .fff files available.....

......at the end of the day photography is all about the human eye not science tellking us why one thing is better or not......

for example....explain why we like the look of an image coming from a lens when the MTF curves tell us we should prefer another.....

i insist....you can baffle me with science but i see and judge with my eyes and heart only......

 

[sperera]

thanks for the information.....all debate is good surely yes? we shouldn't all just bow down to God Hasselblad and not question.....

I'm perfectly happy shooting film on my V system so im part of the religion but i need to be 100% convinced about something to spend that much money.....at the moment digital Hasselblad + Phocus FOR ME is too questionable......

and by the way...I'D LOVE TO BE PROVED WRONG AND BE CONVINCED ABOUT THE CFV-39....if that day comes i will castigate myself with the cable release cord!!!

 

[fotografz]

All good points ...

Thankfully, we all have the option to shoot film. Or digital. Or both ... because of the way these cameras work.

IMO, it's perfectly okay to be a Luddite. Some of my best friends are Luddites. When I mount a film back on my 203FE, I'm a Luddite ... LOL!

If you want to make a judgement based on sub-sized web uploads from a fresh user of a brand new piece of gear, and discount or ignore anyone and everyone else's experiences, that's your choice.

However, my impression is that these CFV threads are about sharing images and learning how to extract the most from this new piece of gear ... NOT about convincing you of anything.

I personally don't care what you do or do not do. All I'd like to do is assist new users of the Hasselblad CFV/39 back by sharing my experiences using a 39 meg back for years.

If you are convinced of the superiority of one digital back over another because your eyes tell you so despite other experiences to the contrary (based on LOOKING and SEEING actual prints not web uploads or some scientific bar chart), then get the one you prefer. Who's stopping you other than yourself? If you don't think any of them are worth the money that's a valid consideration ... then Eureka! Don't buy one.

Nothing wrong with sticking with film.

-Marc

 

[sperera]

i must admit i had to look up the meaning of luddite....i was expecting it to mean 'insolent European' or something similar! heh heh heh

ok ok ok im taking hits from everyone on this.....fair enough

I have to say though my reason for jumping in on this in this forum is that I have had no luck from Hasselblad dealers in giving me any .fff's to look at from this back and this has been the only place in the world (as far as I know) that's putting fff files from the CFV-39 available....so chapeau to this forum first and foremost......

But hereunder are my final thoughts.....

...yes, I must admit that im trying to look for a reason to buy this back as the magic bullet to my needs....and yes i do use forums, perhaps wrongly, to influence my decisions.....i dont trust marketing departments but i trust real people like everyone here.......

...yes i do admit that instead of saying the CFV-39 is crap I should have said the Phocus + digital back combination DOES NOT give ME the workflow i want.....

....yes, I do admit that I am still thinking film gives a better look and quality to images......

....yes, I shoot both digital and film for my pro work

....yes, no one on earth will convince me that Lightroom is a good RAW convertor....

I believe that all camera brands will not give out there magic recipes for making fots as good as they should be from their systems to either Lightroom or Photoshop RAW convertors.....in order for us all to use their own software....Capture One, Nikon NX2, Phocus, etc.

 

[cs_foto]

i have compared the H3D-39 to the H3D-31 and to us the results are clear.....the H3D-31 has the microlenses which to my eyes results in better images....the CFV-39 has the H3D-39 sensor and its, in my opinion, not as good as it should be.....

You guys are getting it all wrong, I don't think he is criticising Saad's raw files, but his argument is that the 31mpix sensor is a lot better than the 39 mpix, in fact he even says that the 39mpix sensor is a flawed product and is being 'off-loaded' to V system users

Now sperera, I would love to see that comparison between the 31mpix and the 39mpix (both in their H3D versions) that proves (or shows) what you mention...

I had no idea of that.

Cheers

 

[sperera]

You guys are getting it all wrong, I don't think he is criticising Saad's raw files, but his argument is that the 31mpix sensor is a lot better than the 39 mpix, in fact he even says that the 39mpix sensor is a flawed product and is being 'off-loaded' to V system users

Now sperera, I would love to see that comparison between the 31mpix and the 39mpix (both in their H3D versions) that proves (or shows) what you mention...

I had no idea of that.

Cheers

exactly....i am NOT criticizing Saad's shots.....as i keep saying i thank him and everyone for their .fff's

i just think the 31mp sensor is better than the 39mp because it shoots with less colour noise, artefacts etc from the files i and my colleague who is ready to buy into all this when he's convinced looked at carefully.....and the 50 iso issue is not an issue to me.....

...an NO i dont own either of these cameras but i DID have a deposit down for a H3D and I did get images by ProCentre in London to do my comparisons and I DID withdraw the deposit and ended up buying second hand V system again to shoot film as some may know cos i wasnt convinced....I first had V system back in 1992

 

[fotografz]

"Better" is always subjective. The "eye of the beholder", and all that. That will never change.

That the H3D-31 produces less noise at the same ISO is a subjective evaluation, when and if it does, it comes at a penalty. Some folks like Canon files because they have less noise than other cameras at the same ISO rating ... others do not like the penalty associated with it. Subjective.

Preferring a 31 meg Hasselblad CFV for a 500 series camera is a moot point. It doesn't exist. Get a Phase One P30+ instead. They exist. And then you can use C1 Pro.

Bringing up Lightroom as a debate point is tilting at windmills. No one is claiming it's better. It's just an alternative for faster workflow using DNGs ... which comes at a penalty ... only the user can determine if the trade off is worth it. For my wedding work it's worth it. For commercial photography it isn't.

But don't let logic get in the way ... LOL!

-Marc

 

[sperera]

you've hit the nail on the head....I kept on emphazising its MY OPINION only....

who am I....who are you...we're all individuals with subjective opinions....stuff like MTF curves dont prove anything over my eyes IN MY OPINION....

end result for me is the client being happy with the shots....i need a fast efficient workflow and that doesnt exist with Haselblad digital in my opinion at the moment....so im not buying into it........when Phocus rocks it all out like Lightroom does then we're talking i would say......

Lightroom opens up RAW files as a bad joke in my opinion over the quality i see when i open them up in the camera manufacturer software....in my opinion.....and i LOVE Lightroom dont get me wrong....i use it to sort it all out nut NOT to process the money shots......

Thanks for listening to what im saying....I value everyones opinion in here which is why im in here....people like Polypal and all you others that contribute excellent words of wisdom are invaluable to me in my quest to make my life as easy as it was when i shot a roll, sent it to a lab, got it back circled the money shots with a crayon and that was that.....now im confronted with too many hours in front of a computer and its FRUSTRATING......

Utopia Option A:
1. new films are designed with amazing quality and thus film comes back big time to weed out the wannabes;
2. new scanners are designed costing $400 that give amazing scans to any size;
3. labs spring up again creating employment for scanning and handling rolls like the ole days
4. Clients want to pay for this all

Utopia Option B
1. Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc and Hasslblad and all the other medium format manufacturers all agree to produce the *LSH file format that we all shoot and open up in lightning fast programmes like Lightroom 50.9 with no need for us to correct any files at any point as its all been done already.....

(*Looks Sh*t Hot format)

 

[cs_foto]

Utopia Option A:
1. new films are designed with amazing quality and thus film comes back big time to weed out the wannabes;

I think film today and even before was as good as it gets, there is nothing lacking in present and past emultions... if anything, by trying to find 'the holy grail' of film companies like kodak with their EKTAR are just making film photography boring, as boring as digital.... I hope never comes the day when only just one-size-fits-all 'the best' kind of film will be available..

I was reading this the other day (from wikipedia c41 process entry)

"Each layer is only sensitive to a certain color of visible light. In the classic illustrative example, there are three emulsions: one is red sensitive, another is green sensitive, and the last is blue-sensitive. ..."

here the interesting bit:

"The illustrative example outlined [...] DIFFERS from the design of actual film, in respect to the number of layers. Almost all C-41 films contain multiple layers sensitive to each color. Each of these layers have different speed and contrast characteristics, allowing the film to be correctly exposed over a wider range of lighting conditions."


Conclusion: Digital photography is lacking so much that not even by using a 3 layer sensor (like foveon) we will get anywhere near the plasticity and response of film...

 

[sperera]

"The illustrative example outlined [...] DIFFERS from the design of actual film, in respect to the number of layers. Almost all C-41 films contain multiple layers sensitive to each color. Each of these layers have different speed and contrast characteristics, allowing the film to be correctly exposed over a wider range of lighting conditions."
Conclusion: Digital photography is lacking so much that not even by using a 3 layer sensor (like foveon) we will get anywhere near the plasticity and response of film...[/quote]

very interesting indeed.....C-41 has more range than transparency indeed but I sure as hell can't scan a colour negative as well as I can scan a tranny.....

I have a Scanview Scanmate 5000 drum scanner i used to do all my own repro with for my work as a designer and i still havent seen a better scanning film than Fuji Provia III.....wow, what a beautiful film to scan.....im pretty sure my scanner is optimized for trannies over colour negs which is a pity cos id love to shoot some of the new Kodak Ektar 120......

in fact, a few weeks ago my colleague brought be a 5x4 Fuji Provia shot of the interior of a church.....i scanned it up to 50cm i think it was.....wow, edge to edge sharpness from the Schneider lens and no artefacts, colour noise and all the other alien intervention we get from wam bam digital!!!!!

but this isnt another film v digital as i use both to suit different jobs.....but, unlike many people today, i have the experience of both and hus can talk about what i feel about them subjectively.....

the lab i send my work to in Spain doesnt process trannies anymore so im really disappointed with it all at the moment as im forced to shoot digital mainly but feel there's nothing out there i can afford thats worth the money......as big a disappointment as the D3X Nikon was when i saw the price and the fact i only got about 15cm more enlargement at 300dpi to the sides for like LOADS more money than my Nikon D300.....

 

[filmcapture]

I've been shooting LF/MF film for over ten years, and early this year, I decided to give a try on MF digital. So I acquired a Phase One P25 and some great Alpa gears. Frankly speaking, I were quite disappointed with the P25 outputs. Resolution is acceptable to me, but the lack of tonality is my big concern. I had some high hopes from CFV-39 since I have lots of wonderful Hasselblad gears, from 903SWC to 300 SA, however, after processing some RAW files downloaded from this site (many thanks to saad and Brad), I'd like to give it a second thought.

 

[sperera]

in fact i've just had an epiphany.....

....its due to all those years scanning transparencies and opening them in Photoshop and usingthem in my design work etc and seeing the amazing quality film can yield that im so despondent about medium format digital.....at the moment.....

 

[sperera]

I've been shooting LF/MF film for over ten years, and early this year, I decided to give a try on MF digital. So I acquired a Phase One P25 and some great Alpa gears. Frankly speaking, I were quite disappointed with the P25 outputs. Resolution is acceptable to me, but the lack of tonality is my big concern. I had some high hopes from CFV-39 since I have lots of wonderful Hasselblad gears, from 903SWC to 300 SA, however, after processing some RAW files downloaded from this site (many thanks to saad and Brad), I'd like to give it a second thought.

meaning what....that you like what you see or, like me, you're not convinced......though I repeat, its only becuase people here are so cool and have put up .fff files for us to look at we can start forming opinions.....

 

[bradleygibson]

Interesting, guys.

It sounds like you're seeing something from your film work that your digital files aren't giving you.

First of all, thank you for braving the waters and wading in with a controversial opinion! (I do some teaching and take pains to explain the ups and downs to my students of both film and digital. I am not biased for one over the other in general, although I do have a personal preference digital. In no way, though, does that make digital "better", it's just my own personal preference...)

In any case, filmcapture refers to the digital files lacking "tonality" compared to film--is it the steps between tones are too visible? Lack of contrast? Neutrality? Something else? I ask because what you seek may be a look that can be achieved via digital adjustments, but primarily out of curiosity.

Best,
-Brad