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.
First results from the new CFV 39 part 2
- Thread starter polypal
- Start date
- Status
A few more pics from the new CFV-39
Pictures taken with the CFi40 FLE and CFi100 during day time (1/125 sec, f=8-11, at 100 ASA) and CFi30 (2 sec, f=8, 50 ASA).
Pictures taken with the CFi40 FLE and CFi100 during day time (1/125 sec, f=8-11, at 100 ASA) and CFi30 (2 sec, f=8, 50 ASA).
Attachments
16 verses 39: Test
Okay, I think any comparison has to be done in really controlled conditions ... like in the studio using strobes ... which are consistent.
So I did a comparison between my H3D-II/39 with the CF adapter and Zeiss 100/3.5 CFi .... and the 203FE with the CFV-II and the same lens. The digital back doesn't care what body it is on ... and the lens, aperture, shutter speeds were the same ... as was the lighting.
Quick conclusion: color, contrast, pop, pizzaz ... and all other Ziess stuff we like was almost identical between the two backs.
The gain with the 39 Back is native resolution compounded by a wider field of view = more detail with ability to crop more severely or enlarge more aggressively.
Stats:
39 meg, 16 bit @ 300 ppi for a 223.47 MB Tiff = 24"X18" native print size (larger than my Epson 3800 can print).
16 meg, 16 bit @ 300 ppi for a 95.26 MB Tiff = 13.6" X 13.6" native print size.
See attached photos and crops.
Okay, I think any comparison has to be done in really controlled conditions ... like in the studio using strobes ... which are consistent.
So I did a comparison between my H3D-II/39 with the CF adapter and Zeiss 100/3.5 CFi .... and the 203FE with the CFV-II and the same lens. The digital back doesn't care what body it is on ... and the lens, aperture, shutter speeds were the same ... as was the lighting.
Quick conclusion: color, contrast, pop, pizzaz ... and all other Ziess stuff we like was almost identical between the two backs.
The gain with the 39 Back is native resolution compounded by a wider field of view = more detail with ability to crop more severely or enlarge more aggressively.
Stats:
39 meg, 16 bit @ 300 ppi for a 223.47 MB Tiff = 24"X18" native print size (larger than my Epson 3800 can print).
16 meg, 16 bit @ 300 ppi for a 95.26 MB Tiff = 13.6" X 13.6" native print size.
See attached photos and crops.
Attachments
Marc,
I was doing ok until I saw your crop of the red "gemstone".....I want that kind of resolution for my 503CW! Very impressive.
Gary
Alaska
That gem stone is a pretty severe crop Gary ... enlarged without crop we are talking a print measured in multiple feet, not inches.
I think the mid-range severe crop is more revealing ... look at the pinkish/red cloth flower next to the figure's shoulder. More fabric and edge detail.
The other factor is I shot this to contain the whole width of the subject matter with both cameras ... which means I moved the 203FE backwards until it was the same subject width.. It doesn't take into account that with the CFV-II/16 you would compose as a square.
However, I did shoot the subjects with both digital backs without moving the tripod ... so here is that result using both as a square ... which simulates what you get when cropping a square from the new CFV-39 back ... which I believe is something like a 29 meg square RAW file.
The 39 meg back produces about a 18"X18" square native print size without up-rezing. The CFV is a 13.6" X 13.6" native print size.
The 39 still as the resolution advantage even cropped to a square. However, it's not as obvious as the previous test full width shots.
The CFV-II 16 does a very respectible job, and I'd say that if you do not print really large or use wide angles it's still an excellent choice for the money (like for portrait work for example).
The primary purpose of this exercise was to show that you do not give up the Zeiss color/contrast and snap with the new 39 back and it's smaller pixels ... as some folks were worried about. I think this test puts that fear to bed.
Here's the pics:
Attachments
Saved you some money did I Gary? ... LOL!
I'm still debating getting the CFV-39. If I didn't have the H3D-II 39 it would be a no brainer ... but I can use all my C type Zeiss lenses on the H3D-II which gives me the same sensor resolution, focus confirmation in the viewfinder (a huge plus), and ability to easily shoot in portrait mode with the 645 H body ... or AF lenses when I want or need them.
The draw of the CFV-39 is use on the most excellent 203FE and it's faster optics. It's a dilemma given that these days money is tighter than a Scotsman with his last a penny.
Plus, my ready cash is already devoted to the impending Leica M9.
I've put my CFV-II back and extras up for sale, and that will determine if and when the CFV-39 makes it to my gear vault. Nice kit if anyone is interested (see pic ... camera/lens not included).
-Marc
I'm still debating getting the CFV-39. If I didn't have the H3D-II 39 it would be a no brainer ... but I can use all my C type Zeiss lenses on the H3D-II which gives me the same sensor resolution, focus confirmation in the viewfinder (a huge plus), and ability to easily shoot in portrait mode with the 645 H body ... or AF lenses when I want or need them.
The draw of the CFV-39 is use on the most excellent 203FE and it's faster optics. It's a dilemma given that these days money is tighter than a Scotsman with his last a penny.
Plus, my ready cash is already devoted to the impending Leica M9.
I've put my CFV-II back and extras up for sale, and that will determine if and when the CFV-39 makes it to my gear vault. Nice kit if anyone is interested (see pic ... camera/lens not included).
-Marc
Attachments
bladdered
Member
Now there's a change !! Ha !
... and a revealing one, as the 203 stays in a mostly digital vault.
Best wishes with the sale.
Gary
for those who don't know, my Avatar used to sit in Marc's kit vault.
blowupster
Member
As you said not a big difference between a crop from a CFV 16 versus CFV "29".
If you use not only on square and do not wants to be saved with a 800 asa ...
If you use not only on square and do not wants to be saved with a 800 asa ...
Dear Marc,
I am in the process of sending you two files and hope you will only look at them as test shots for the CFV39.
I would like thank you for the time you are taking to teach me a few things about post processing and then posting images in those little jpegs without them looking so lousy.
Tomorrow I will post the differences I found between the two CFVs, but I will post the pictures after my training program with Marc, whom I am glad has decided to do his own comparisons.
Paul, thank you for your support, as always. I will not hide the fact that I love photographic equipment and I take pictures to test those equipment rather than buy the equipment to take pictures. I know that is terrible. But in macro photography I take picture to see what is invisible to the naked eye. In this regard the CFV39 is amazing.
Best regards
I am in the process of sending you two files and hope you will only look at them as test shots for the CFV39.
I would like thank you for the time you are taking to teach me a few things about post processing and then posting images in those little jpegs without them looking so lousy.
Tomorrow I will post the differences I found between the two CFVs, but I will post the pictures after my training program with Marc
, whom I am glad has decided to do his own comparisons.Paul, thank you for your support, as always. I will not hide the fact that I love photographic equipment and I take pictures to test those equipment rather than buy the equipment to take pictures. I know that is terrible. But in macro photography I take picture to see what is invisible to the naked eye. In this regard the CFV39 is amazing.
Best regards
bradleygibson
Member
Gary,
A new batch of CFV39 backs just arrived in NJ.
Paul
Hi, Paul,
This is exciting, as mine may be among them! Do you know what day the backs arrived? (Was it last week?)
-Brad
Sensor sensitivity for CFV-39
Following pictures were taken with the CFV-39 on a 501CM body, with a CFi120mm + 16 mm extension ring at f=11 (5500 K daylight)
138: 100 ASA 1/8 sec
139: 200 ASA 1/15 sec
140: 400 ASA 1/30 sec
141: 800 ASA 1/60 sec
142: 800 ASA 1/125 sec +1EV in Phocus
143: 800 ASA 1/250 sec + 2EV in Phocus
Following pictures were taken with the CFV-39 on a 501CM body, with a CFi120mm + 16 mm extension ring at f=11 (5500 K daylight)
138: 100 ASA 1/8 sec
139: 200 ASA 1/15 sec
140: 400 ASA 1/30 sec
141: 800 ASA 1/60 sec
142: 800 ASA 1/125 sec +1EV in Phocus
143: 800 ASA 1/250 sec + 2EV in Phocus
Attachments
michaelhcothran
Member
Interesting set of pictures. I note that there is a continual increase in contrast, perhaps even in overall brightness, as the ISO increases in each shot. At first I thought maybe your shutter speeds were lagging, but I guess it's due to the sensitivity (higher ISO) increase.
cs_foto
Member
Hi Marc thanks a lot for these images, can I ask, are these 100% crops you are posting? (except for the CFV-II which I guess you upsized to 29mpix?)
thanks
Saad's Photos:
Okay Saad, here are some quick processing versions of the two RAW shots you sent me. Both shots were taken in pretty bright and flat lighting conditions which is a challenge for most any digital camera.
I processed the close-up shot of the weathered wood boat using the Phocus software, then made some slight adjustments in Photoshop CS-4 to add a bit of saturation and sized/sharpened for web viewing.
The big boat photo was converted to a DNG and processed in CS-4 Adobe Camera RAW and tweaked in Photoshop.
Didn't have to do much to either photo. Obviously, tastes differ and this is simply how I would process these shots.
Attached are the full photos and detail crops.
Dear Marc,
I am in the process of sending you two files and hope you will only look at them as test shots for the CFV39.
I would like thank you for the time you are taking to teach me a few things about post processing and then posting images in those little jpegs without them looking so lousy.
Tomorrow I will post the differences I found between the two CFVs, but I will post the pictures after my training program with Marc
Paul, thank you for your support, as always. I will not hide the fact that I love photographic equipment and I take pictures to test those equipment rather than buy the equipment to take pictures. I know that is terrible. But in macro photography I take picture to see what is invisible to the naked eye. In this regard the CFV39 is amazing.
Best regards
Okay Saad, here are some quick processing versions of the two RAW shots you sent me. Both shots were taken in pretty bright and flat lighting conditions which is a challenge for most any digital camera.
I processed the close-up shot of the weathered wood boat using the Phocus software, then made some slight adjustments in Photoshop CS-4 to add a bit of saturation and sized/sharpened for web viewing.
The big boat photo was converted to a DNG and processed in CS-4 Adobe Camera RAW and tweaked in Photoshop.
Didn't have to do much to either photo. Obviously, tastes differ and this is simply how I would process these shots.
Attached are the full photos and detail crops.
Attachments
I didn't bother with the math, I just cropped the same details the same way for both backs to demonstrate resolution.
The Gem Stone crop is a lot more than 100% crop I think.
cs_foto
Member
Thanks I was wondering how do they compare to a ~ 7500x7500 (50 megapixels) scan from a negative in the imacon... that's why I asked... I think the negative resolves more to the crop you posted of the CFV-39 but I might be wrong...
Good job with the photos, I really like the colours, especially the boat one!
blowupster
Member
- Status