CFV II a dinosaur?

[TJV]

Well, I'm lying in bed with the old iBook trying to avoid going out into the rain. It's getting to be winter here and I've forgotten how horrible things will get, and in a hurry! I've been killing time surfing the net looking at all the MF digi options out there, as well as pro scanners like the Flextight series. To be honest, I'm totally dreaming. The money involved in buying a MF digi system or scanner of that quality is totally crazy for me at the moment. I'd have to be selling a heck of a lot more prints - ie, I'd have to be Alec Soth. But it's possible I could justify something soon.

Anyway, I got to looking at the Blad site and reading up about the CFV II back. A quick price check at B&H tells me that it can be bought for $10000, which is a lot of money in anyones book, I'm sure. The thing that I like about it is that it has a square sensor. But the crop factor, combined with what is now days a very average 16mp, seems to suggest this is a silly entry point product. I'm thinking about how Mamiya are now selling the DL28 package for $15000, which is a bigger sensor, camera and lens package and a lovely new Leaf 65s back.

Now, I'm a total sucker for the V system, but like others here I'm pretty much convinced it's dead to Hasselblad in terms of future development. But what do you experts and actual users of the CFVII think? If, right now you wanted to buy into a "modest" MF system - meaning entry level back and possible new body and basic lens set at a fair (for MF) price - what are the best products on offer? Maybe the CVFII really does hold its own, I don't know. I've never used one.

How old is the CFVII anyway? Is it good enough to replace my film systems and do you think it'd be better to explore the H system or Phase / Leaf back options. I'm into documentary work, environmental portraiture and street photography - usually with a Leica or Mamiya 7ii. I prefer the Mamiya 7ii and 6x7 format. I've worked quite a bit with a 503CM of late and very much like the process as it slows me down and forces me to think. I love looking at work by people like Alec Soth, Pieter Hugo, Joel Sternfield, Allesandra Sanguietti - all of which use film, either MF or LF. Would investing in a Flextight scanner be a silly idea, considering we're entering into a digi age and the same money could basically get me a digi system with an upgrade path?

All responses appreciated.

Tim

 

[polypal]

This is a choice many of us have been struggling with.
The nice thing is there are also many solutions possible that exist of a combination of the options.

Suppose the available budget is 15000 USD.
That could get you a CFVII back and a Nikon 9000 Coolscan scanner in case you want/need to scan film.

The same 15000 would get you the Mamiya set with Leaf 65 back.

Option CFV with Coolscan leaves you full use of your other cameras with quality digital scanned files.
Hasselblad scanners are top of the bill but a Nikon Coolscan is getting pretty close at a fraction of the cost.

 

[TJV]

Thanks for your reply.

I'm getting some test scans done by a friend who uses one of the top Imacon scanners this week to see what the quality is compared to the Nikon scanner, which I have at work along with the class neg carrier. It'll be interesting, because the Nikon is really bad at scanning neg film compared to trannie. The noise is horrible and grain aisling really bad. I think the orange base of neg kills it. I'm hoping the Imacon will show much better results. I have only seriously shot E6 because of scanning problems but I'd prefer the extra latitude of C41 colour film.

With regard to the CFVII, as far as I see it, for the price it just seems under spec. I'm aware that a bigger sensor is key and that pixel res doesn't necessarily mean better performance, but 1.4x crop AND only 16meg seems underwhelming. I do love the square format though, and I love using the V series cameras. I could justify the CFVII if it really does produce images significantly better than well scanned film AND equivalent high res 35mm dslr systems. I like the idea of the upgrade path offered by MF systems with interchangeable backs, not that it works out cheaper than buying a new pro dslr body every four years.

I'm in New Zealand so things are a bit tricky with regards to seeing and holding equipment as well as proper service plans, which is another thing that bothers me about sinking a lot of money into effectively a one body, one back setup. Having said that, all my 4x5 and E6 work I insist on couriering out to anther city because quality locally is appalling. I guess a big draw card for digi is the ability to keep production 100% under one roof. That's not even mentioning pace of turn around.

What are peoples honest opinion about the CFVII back? In this day and age is it actually worth $10000? It just seems a nice little interim unit if one already has a V system already or can find one second hand cheaply.

Tim

 

[polypal]

TJV:

" I could justify the CFVII if it really does produce images significantly better than well scanned film AND equivalent high res 35mm dslr systems."


That is one thing you can be sure of.
The CFV even within its limitations of size and pixel count beats both scanned film and 35 mm based DSLR cameras.

Besides the CFVII I would also consider other options like Sinar digital backs.
Well built Swiss quality. I do not know what the back up for Sinar is in NZ.
Most Sinar users are quite happy with a quality product that serves them without problems.

 

[TJV]

Again, sorry if this has been gone over a million times...

How do the 16mb CFVII files handle upresing? I like to print at 18x18" using an Epson Pro 7800 printer. Would the files re sized to print at this size still beat scanned MF 6x6 film in terms of subtle colour gradations, grain and sharpness? At what point do the CFV files start to suffer from noise? I'm used to shooting 100 and 400ISO on film.

Tim

 

[lorenz]

I'm working since 1 1/2 year with the CFV Hasselblad back. I do portraits, sculptures and reproductions with this digital back. well, the image quality is fine and I think bether then 6x6 film and dsrl. But, it very much depends on your knowledge about digital postprocess. and also, the exposer of the digital image has to be well done. it's difficult to say sometimes, a black&white film 6x6/4x5" scanned with ft X5 has a nice quality and still charme of film. digital black&white from the CFV ist clean and sharp, but still not the same.

The CFV back is more filmlike as a dslr, i think. If you don't work prober in the digital postprocess, you might not able to see difference to a dslr, though. with leaf, phaseone and a imacon with 39 etc. you defently have the difference in mpx.

cheers

 

[TJV]

I see Phase One have what seems to be the same back rebranded on offer. How does it compare with the CFV aside from how it looks on the outside?

Also, if I'm smart, perhaps I'd just consider an H2?

 

[lorenz]

There is no reason to get a H2 except autofocus and prefering to invest in future system. The V-system and cf-lenses are really good, i think. most still on digital.

well, phase one P25+ is supposed to be good for technical photographs, repros etc. the colours are quite real. compared to the p30, witch is good for moire and skin-colours. I used p25+ and be pleased as well. For a good price, I always would buy it.
phase one menu is easier to handle with and screen is more usefull.

justmy2cents

 

[peterbkk]

Is it good enough to replace my film systems and do you think it'd be better to explore the H system or Phase / Leaf back options.

All responses appreciated.

Tim

I love my CFV and the results I get from it and my 205FCC. It has completely replaced my film systems with close-enough-to-film quality and wonderful convenience. With Histogram display, no more missed shots due to exposure issues...

However, one of its main attraction to me was my existing investment in the FE lenses and the 205FCC and attachments. I figured I could get another 5 years out of an already 10 year old system. I just love the way the CFV looks and operates on the camera.

However, if you do not yet have the system, you'd probably be better off looking at one of the newer H series 'blads. That's what i'd do.

NO, the CFV is not a dinosaur. It is a superb piece of modern technology that (a) performs up there with state-of-the-art systems, (b) looks superb and (c) extends an existing investment in the V system.

Regards
Peter

 

[peterbkk]

...

But, it very much depends on your knowledge about digital postprocess. and also, the exposer of the digital image has to be well done.

Hi Lorenz,

When you say that the exposure has to be done well, what do you do?

Do you monitor the histogram for each image? For an "sunny 16" outdoor shot, what kind of histogram profile do you prefer? Dark end? Mid? High?

Regards
Peter

 

[jotloob]

When you say that the exposure has to be done well, what do you do?
Do you monitor the histogram for each image? For an "sunny 16" outdoor shot, what kind of histogram profile do you prefer? Dark end? Mid? High?
Regards
Peter

Peter
My experience is as follows : Using my 203FE + CFV , I set the meter for example to ISO50 , while I set the CFV to ISO100 . That makes one fstop and I carefully watch the histogram to be covered for at least 80% to the right side .

 

[peterbkk]

Please help me understand.

Peter
My experience is as follows : Using my 203FE + CFV , I set the meter for example to ISO50 , while I set the CFV to ISO100 . That makes one fstop and I carefully watch the histogram to be covered for at least 80% to the right side .

I am a bit slow today. Can I paraphrase your response to make sure I understand.

By setting 50 ASA on the camera and 100 ASA on the back, you are effectively giving one stop extra exposure than the sensor would receive if you had them both set to 100 ASA, right?

So, you believe that the "normal" meter reading is a bit too under-exposed (dark) for this back, yes?

By making sure that the histogram covers for at least 80% to the right, you mean that the vertical bars cover from zero (left-side) to almost the top (right-side) end of the spectrum, yes?

So, if I read you right, you find the results better with a brighter exposure rather than darker (sort of opposite from slide film). Is this correct?

And, the reason for this is when you get it into PhotoShop, you have a broader range of pixels to play with, n'est ce pas? Or some other reason?

I guess that I have been heading in the same direction but more by trial and error and I am interested to understand the best approach.

Regards
Peter

 

[michaelhcothran]

I want to corroborate what jotloob has stated. I too "overexpose" my images, getting as much of the histogram as possible on the right side without clipping (other than specular highlights). Just the opposite of what us oldtime "slide shooters" of yesterday did.

If you're unfamiliar with the technique, go to the Luminous Landscape site. Michael Reichmann has written a wonderful tutorial/explanation of "how & why" it works. And it does work. But you've got to do ONE thing very important in the process - you must correct your over exposed image while it is in RAW format. Meaning either in Phocus/Flexcolor, ACR, or another RAW processing software. Once you change it to a TIF or PSD it's too late.

My CFV images tend to be slanted on the dark side if I use the PME51 meter and CFV back at the same ISO. So if I set the CFV @ 100, I'll set the camera meter to 50 ASA. If 50 doesn't push it far enough to the right, I'll open up yet another stop, or anywhere in between.

But regardless of how you set your metering plus CFV, all it takes is a quick look at the histogram to see where you are exposure-wise. Keep pushing it to the right, and you will experience more detail and less noise (not that I've ever had any noise with the CFV, but then again, I never shoot faster than 100 ASA).

 

[fotografz]

CFV and the Jurassic Period of Photography.

The CFV is a throwback ... because the cameras it's designed for are ancient history ... and we like it that way !!!! The Hasselblad V cameras are an example of survival of the fittest. It's like a Dino in Manhattan ... LOL!

It's main strength above all others with similar sensors is that there is no sync cable involved when on a V camera ... sync cables are truly a Stone Aged, Flint Stones way to use a MF digital system, and the weakest point of those type backs.

And the CFV looks like a V film back.

I had a Mamiya 645AFD-II and an even bigger Leaf Aptus 75s back ... it's gone now ... the V stuff is still here in partnership with my H system.

The Aptus back is pretty good, but I hated the Mamiya camera.

Want a relatively inexpensive kit? The word relative is ... well relative.

Look at the Contax 645 with Zeiss lenses and a refurbished Phase One P25. The back looks like it was made for that camera.

 

[polypal]

The CFV is a throwback ... because the cameras it's designed for are ancient history ... and we like it that way !!!! The Hasselblad V cameras are an example of survival of the fittest. It's like a Dino in Manhattan ... LOL!

Hear, Hear !!!

 

[peterbkk]

If you're unfamiliar with the technique, go to the Luminous Landscape site. Michael Reichmann has written a wonderful tutorial/explanation of "how & why" it works. And it does work.

I did some looking around and found the article you mentioned:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Thanks for the tip. Very interesting.

I'll do some experimenting tomorrow.

Regards
Peter

 

[jotloob]

Peter

All my answers to your questions are YES .
I came to these answers also , just by trying out .
And I found , it is valid for my workflow , that , if the vertical bars reach up to 80% , I get the most image information , although lower and higher exposures still result i a "green light good exposure"
I do not claim , that my kind of work is perfect .
So , who ever knows it better , please post it here .

Marc

Sorry , I have to contradict you here .
Seriously .
The CFV is no dino at all and also no throwback .
The CFV is a logical , fantastic and necessary supplement for the V-SYSTEM . And it also looks good .
The V-SYSTEM is the most successful MF-SYSTEM which has ever been built and it is not dead .
It is often copied and has never ever been reached in design , compatibility and quality . It has reached a worldwide reputation , without that , the H-SYSTEM would be a "nothing" .
Who would buy an H-SYSTEM , if it would not carry the name HASSELBLAD ? ? ?

But , before the tears run down your cheek now , and as you know , it is true what I said about the wonderful V-SYSTEM , don't take things too serious . . I have nothing against you , the opposite is true . Believe me .
And I have a little goody for you here .

View attachment 1018

A SW camera from 1957 with a CFV DIGITAL back from 2007 .
50 years difference in age , and it works . I have tried it out .

It is true , a digital back , which needs a sync cable is not a real progress , but might be a necessity .
But at the time , that beautiful SW was built , nobody even knew , what a digital back is .
Long live the fantastic V-SYSTEM .

BTW , the image was taken with a LUMIX G1 and KONICA M-HEXANON 2/50 lens .

Best regards Jürgen

 

[jotloob]

Michaels contribution encourages me for my workflow and exposure techique .
When I set the ISO to the same values in the camera meter and the CFV , the vertical bars for the "light" information only reach the middle of the horizontal range .

Jürgen

 

[peterbkk]

A SW camera from 1957 with a CFV DIGITAL back from 2007 .
50 years difference in age , and it works . I have tried it out .

Fantastic. The SW looks like it is in excellent condition. I am the same age as that SW. I wish that I was in as good a condition.

As I pondered this, I realised that the camera in your photo is my age. And the age of the CFV is close to my daughter's age. Sometimes, my daughter and I work well together, sometimes we fight... Here is a photo, taken with the 205FCC/CFV last Sunday. We were both riding around the bicycle park together.

 

[jotloob]

to conclude my rambling i would say that if you like film, you will not get that quality out of digital, get an imacon scanner

Even with the current trade in offers for HASSELBLAD X1 and X5 scanners , I can not afford them .
But for the high end scans I need , I have a professional lab that does it for me . With 949 or X5 scanners . It is not cheap , but in an alround calculation , cheaper than buying an X5 scanner (over the next 5 years) .