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.
Hasselblad 503CW rumors
- Thread starter robert_schultze
- Start date
Hi John,
sorry for the late posting. Currently I am travelling a lot and have no internet access. November/December is a horrible time for me..
It can depend on the software that you are using for donsizing the image. Some software tell you, that the file is 130KB, but in fact it is 130.3 and so the forum software is blocking it.
The most secure way would be to use 129 KB maximum. Just try it. If this does not work, post here and I will contact you offline...
sorry for the late posting. Currently I am travelling a lot and have no internet access. November/December is a horrible time for me..
It can depend on the software that you are using for donsizing the image. Some software tell you, that the file is 130KB, but in fact it is 130.3 and so the forum software is blocking it.
The most secure way would be to use 129 KB maximum. Just try it. If this does not work, post here and I will contact you offline...
Same here. 125 and above is refused. So I keep it below that ... like 122 or so.
Dirk, you really should considering bumping that up some ... at least for this MF site. After-all, we ARE using larger film and digital sensors : -)
FYI, 900 X900 @ 230 max is what other sites are doing now.
Dirk, you really should considering bumping that up some ... at least for this MF site. After-all, we ARE using larger film and digital sensors : -)
FYI, 900 X900 @ 230 max is what other sites are doing now.
wbulte
Active Member
Dirk, Marc,
It has been suggested before but let me repeat it: maybe we (the list members) could drum up some money to give the server running the forum some more disk space? I'm not sure if that is the main stumbling block with regards to the image size of course.
regards,
Wilko
It has been suggested before but let me repeat it: maybe we (the list members) could drum up some money to give the server running the forum some more disk space? I'm not sure if that is the main stumbling block with regards to the image size of course.
regards,
Wilko
Hi Wilko
this is only one of the reasons. Neverteheless this is a good idea. We will make some changes soon to this forum anyway. We will switch the forum software to be able to offer more flexibility and customization for the users.
But we want to keep all old postings, so we are testing a script we payed for to import all old postings and members into this new sofware. This seems to be moe difficult then we thought it would be.
As long as we did not succeed with this testing, we can not do the switch. So we will announce in advance when we are ready for it, probably not before end of December.
After this switch, we could offer different image upload sizes depending on the userlevel. That would mean the users who support us financially, also do get more options and bigger image sizes for uploads, which is in my view only fair.
this is only one of the reasons. Neverteheless this is a good idea. We will make some changes soon to this forum anyway. We will switch the forum software to be able to offer more flexibility and customization for the users.
But we want to keep all old postings, so we are testing a script we payed for to import all old postings and members into this new sofware. This seems to be moe difficult then we thought it would be.
As long as we did not succeed with this testing, we can not do the switch. So we will announce in advance when we are ready for it, probably not before end of December.
After this switch, we could offer different image upload sizes depending on the userlevel. That would mean the users who support us financially, also do get more options and bigger image sizes for uploads, which is in my view only fair.
regarding the wrong KB-size. this is suprising that it forces you to go even down to 122KB. I do not know why...
I just changed the setting now to 200KB and 800x800 pixel. This should be fine for now. But I wonder what kind of REAL max. upload-size teh software now takes...
I just changed the setting now to 200KB and 800x800 pixel. This should be fine for now. But I wonder what kind of REAL max. upload-size teh software now takes...
simonpg
Active Member
A question has come to my mind after reading posts about V series and digital backs. Please pardon me if I am asking a silly question!
I have read that one should take care removing digital backs from MF camera bodies because the sensor is fully exposed / visible and can therefore collect dust (as well as face an obvious danger risk).
The writers say that unless changing digital backs to use, say a film back, one should avoid removing the digital back unnecessarily from the camera. This is consistent with the potential problems caused by removing lenses from 35mm SLRs (seeming not such a problem for V series 'Blads since they have the rear blinds closed when lens changes take place) - exposes the sensor to dust.
SO, given how film backs have a dark-slide to prevent unwanted light exposure of 1 or more frames; why don't the digital back manufacturers build onto digital backs a dark-slide assembly? NO, not for the same purpose as with film backs, but for a protection and dust minimisation purpose.
THEREFORE like film backs, digital backs with a dark-slide assembly will risk less possible dust getting onto the sensor when it is removed from the camera!
Am I wrong here or not? If no such thing exists, why wouldn't the manufacturer's have thought of having such a device fitted "a la" film backs and provide the sensor protection in general as well as some needed dust protection?
I have read that one should take care removing digital backs from MF camera bodies because the sensor is fully exposed / visible and can therefore collect dust (as well as face an obvious danger risk).
The writers say that unless changing digital backs to use, say a film back, one should avoid removing the digital back unnecessarily from the camera. This is consistent with the potential problems caused by removing lenses from 35mm SLRs (seeming not such a problem for V series 'Blads since they have the rear blinds closed when lens changes take place) - exposes the sensor to dust.
SO, given how film backs have a dark-slide to prevent unwanted light exposure of 1 or more frames; why don't the digital back manufacturers build onto digital backs a dark-slide assembly? NO, not for the same purpose as with film backs, but for a protection and dust minimisation purpose.
THEREFORE like film backs, digital backs with a dark-slide assembly will risk less possible dust getting onto the sensor when it is removed from the camera!
Am I wrong here or not? If no such thing exists, why wouldn't the manufacturer's have thought of having such a device fitted "a la" film backs and provide the sensor protection in general as well as some needed dust protection?
vandevantersh
Member
THEREFORE like film backs, digital backs with a dark-slide assembly will risk less possible dust getting onto the sensor when it is removed from the camera!
Am I wrong here or not? If no such thing exists, why wouldn't the manufacturer's have thought of having such a device fitted "a la" film backs and provide the sensor protection in general as well as some needed dust protection?
A heavy metal cover with a "rubber" gasket is provided that can be used to cover the exposed face of the CFV. The sensor is not exposed but the IR filter is and as the instructions say, it is expensive to replace. The upside is that the IR filter is easy to examine for dust and spots and is easy to clean.
Steve
Am I wrong here or not? If no such thing exists, why wouldn't the manufacturer's have thought of having such a device fitted "a la" film backs and provide the sensor protection in general as well as some needed dust protection?
A heavy metal cover with a "rubber" gasket is provided that can be used to cover the exposed face of the CFV. The sensor is not exposed but the IR filter is and as the instructions say, it is expensive to replace. The upside is that the IR filter is easy to examine for dust and spots and is easy to clean.
Steve
While on the topic of cleaning, what products or techniques do people use for cleaning and how often do there clean there backs, so far I have only given my CFV a full clean once in the last 7 months, using the e wipes which cam with the purchase of the back, rest of the time I have used a brush to remove any dust? Just wondering if there is any better products out there?
The CFV back is very, very easy to clean, but find its bit prone to dust due to the design of the 500 bodies, (any dust kicks up easily inside).
Still enjoying the back, not a fan of the flexcolour software though.
The CFV back is very, very easy to clean, but find its bit prone to dust due to the design of the 500 bodies, (any dust kicks up easily inside).
Still enjoying the back, not a fan of the flexcolour software though.
Simon, the CFV is far less exposed to dust than a DSLR for the reasons you mentioned. The difference with other rectangular shaped sensor backs is that they have to be removed and turned from landscape to portrait orientation when used on a V camera. This is not an issue when I use the Aptus back on my Mamiya RZ because it maintains it's rotating back feature.
Paul, my pal Irakly was over and brought his Visible-700 Arctic Butterfly cleaner with him. We used it to clean the sensors on my M8s, and I ordered one immediately.
What problems are you having with Flexcolor. Also, the new "Phocus" software is due very soon. I'm told that it is similar to Lightroom in design and function.
Paul, my pal Irakly was over and brought his Visible-700 Arctic Butterfly cleaner with him. We used it to clean the sensors on my M8s, and I ordered one immediately.
What problems are you having with Flexcolor. Also, the new "Phocus" software is due very soon. I'm told that it is similar to Lightroom in design and function.
lowprofile
New Member
G'day folks
apologies if this isn't the most appropriate thread for this question but it does seem to be vigorous and educated and the answer may therefore be simple.
A friend of mine is en route to NYC today and asked me if I knew of any reputable hasselblad dealers in New York (I was there on business a year or so back).
sadly as my trip was for business purposes i didn't get a chance to look around so couldn't help. if anyone knows of reputable dealers in the city, look forward to your views.
thanks
d
apologies if this isn't the most appropriate thread for this question but it does seem to be vigorous and educated and the answer may therefore be simple.
A friend of mine is en route to NYC today and asked me if I knew of any reputable hasselblad dealers in New York (I was there on business a year or so back).
sadly as my trip was for business purposes i didn't get a chance to look around so couldn't help. if anyone knows of reputable dealers in the city, look forward to your views.
thanks
d
floridarich
Member
James Bryant;
I have done business with B+H for over 30 years without a hitch, honest, direct, no hassels. I have purchased most of my high-end Hasselblad equipment from them without any difficulty by mail order.
Richard
I have done business with B+H for over 30 years without a hitch, honest, direct, no hassels. I have purchased most of my high-end Hasselblad equipment from them without any difficulty by mail order.
Richard
lowprofile
New Member
many thanks James - I have directed my friend accordingly
duncan
duncan