Cfvi + Cfvii + Swc/arcbody

[jotloob]

In the HASSELBLAD official introduction of the CFV-II back you can read the following :
For critical work however , it (the CFV-II back) is not recommended in conjuction with an SWC or ARCBODY , due to optical incompatibility .
Would that include a view camera with a digital lens like APO-SIRONAR DIGITAL 35mm ? ? ? Or an equivalent SCHNEIDER digital lens ? ? ?

Is there anybody , who could give a more precise description for that sentence . This statement was not present for the CFV-I back.

 

[blowupster]

Perhaps the CFs backs are optimised for standard retrofocused lenses.
The SWC lens is too close to the "film": the ray's strong angle may be unconfortable for effectif IR filter.

The M8 (Leica) is optimised for lenses close to sensor. But the IR filter is a poor one and there is a special screen to colect rasor light in the edges too.

 

[jotloob]

I have taken many images with my 905SWC + CFV back and could not find , and did not experience a "bad" quality or something , HASSELBLAD calls incompatibility . So , I am still very curious what HASSELBLAD means by that statement .

 

[blowupster]

Perhaps with the new IR filter you get cian color in the white corners (?)

 

[jotloob]

Pascal

Yes , perhaps .

Is there anybody out there who used a SWC/M or 903/905 with the new CFV-II DIGITAL BACK ? ? ?
And if so , what is the image quality in comparison to a SWC with the CFV-I .
Did you experience any color cast or unsharp edges and corners ? And/or any unwanted distortion ?

I would very much like to understand HASSELBLAD's "warning" , which can be found in the connectivity diagram for the CFV-II .

 

[polypal]

Maybe the "warning" is generated by the wish to sell more 28 mm lenses.

It will not be the first occasion that Hasselblad recommends not to use certain older items to promote more recent equipment.

Paul