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 CFV Digital Back User report
- Thread starter fotografz
- Start date
A
Alfie
> thanks for info could not figure out why color bars apeared and would not load in on flexcolor program. Keep coming up no capture although preview shows o.k.
keith_laban
Member
Marc, many thanks for an interesting and informative thread and also for the introduction (via photo.net) to this Forum.
A couple of questions.
Are you using any form of viewfinder mask to indicate the 37x37mm sensor area?
Foliage, important to the landscape and horticultural photographer but seemingly the weak point of many a digital camera (why is it so many reduce distant foliage to a green soup?). Anyway, what is your experience here; it's difficult to come to any conclusions from the jpeg images.
Many thanks
Keith
A couple of questions.
Are you using any form of viewfinder mask to indicate the 37x37mm sensor area?
Foliage, important to the landscape and horticultural photographer but seemingly the weak point of many a digital camera (why is it so many reduce distant foliage to a green soup?). Anyway, what is your experience here; it's difficult to come to any conclusions from the jpeg images.
Many thanks
Keith
Hi Kieth. Welcome.
The back comes with a new screen showing the capture area with an etched line.
BTW, the Leaf Aptus backs come with a new screen for some cameras (like the RZ) also.
Green soup ... hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. The lens characteristics seem to come through with these backs, so OOF areas seem to look similar. the MF CCD sensors tend to be less "plastic" than say the Canon EOS 1DsMKII CMOS sensored camera I shoot with. The filter in front of the sensor perhaps?
Frankly, my experience with this CFV specific back is limited as of now. I can say that the H2D/39 I also shoot with suffers no plastic look in the OOF areas that I can detect ... but it better not at that price : -)
The back comes with a new screen showing the capture area with an etched line.
BTW, the Leaf Aptus backs come with a new screen for some cameras (like the RZ) also.
Green soup ... hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. The lens characteristics seem to come through with these backs, so OOF areas seem to look similar. the MF CCD sensors tend to be less "plastic" than say the Canon EOS 1DsMKII CMOS sensored camera I shoot with. The filter in front of the sensor perhaps?
Frankly, my experience with this CFV specific back is limited as of now. I can say that the H2D/39 I also shoot with suffers no plastic look in the OOF areas that I can detect ... but it better not at that price : -)
keith_laban
Member
Many thanks Marc. It does seem that the anti-aliasing filters are to blame for this un-naturalistic plasticky "soup". Good to hear the H2D & CFV don't suffer in the same way.
If it wasn't for 1.5x lens factor I'd already be using the CFV, but try as I might I've yet to convince myself that 60mm is really wide enough. Even if I could find a 35mm lens for my ArcBody I'd still be effectively limited to 52mm. Such is life ;-)
If it wasn't for 1.5x lens factor I'd already be using the CFV, but try as I might I've yet to convince myself that 60mm is really wide enough. Even if I could find a 35mm lens for my ArcBody I'd still be effectively limited to 52mm. Such is life ;-)
Continuing the report ...
Used the 503CW and CFV digital back for about 50 shots at a recent wedding. Took 3 lenses and only had a chance to use 2: 50/4CFE-FLE for group shots & some ceremony images, and a 100/3.5CFi for some portraits. Very rushed wedding due to the limo failing to pick-up the Bride, so the wedding started very late. The 180/4 CFi never came out of the bag.
Primarily used a Canon 1DsMKII for it's speed and higher ISO abilities due to the rushed nature of this wedding. My shooting partner used a 1DsMKII exclusively.
Back-up shots he did standing shoulder to shoulder with me as I used the CFV showed more W/A distortion (Canon's Achilles' heal ), were less saturated, less true to color and showed significant vignetting. However, distortion and vignetting is minimized with the CFV due to the crop factor.
What continues to baffle me is the apparent wider looking nature of shots with the 40mm ... which looks wider than the crop factor should produce. A function of DOF creating a deeper sense of space perhaps? Large group shots were easy to pull off. Even when using full frame 6X6 with film, I wouldn't ever use a 40 for groups due to edge pull effects on the subjects. So, for weddings, this crop factor isn't really an issue as long as you have a 40mm.
Here's a shot done with the 100/3.5CFi and pretty severely cropped in from a full length shot. Converted to B&W using the Gradent function in PhotoShop.
Used the 503CW and CFV digital back for about 50 shots at a recent wedding. Took 3 lenses and only had a chance to use 2: 50/4CFE-FLE for group shots & some ceremony images, and a 100/3.5CFi for some portraits. Very rushed wedding due to the limo failing to pick-up the Bride, so the wedding started very late. The 180/4 CFi never came out of the bag.
Primarily used a Canon 1DsMKII for it's speed and higher ISO abilities due to the rushed nature of this wedding. My shooting partner used a 1DsMKII exclusively.
Back-up shots he did standing shoulder to shoulder with me as I used the CFV showed more W/A distortion (Canon's Achilles' heal ), were less saturated, less true to color and showed significant vignetting. However, distortion and vignetting is minimized with the CFV due to the crop factor.
What continues to baffle me is the apparent wider looking nature of shots with the 40mm ... which looks wider than the crop factor should produce. A function of DOF creating a deeper sense of space perhaps? Large group shots were easy to pull off. Even when using full frame 6X6 with film, I wouldn't ever use a 40 for groups due to edge pull effects on the subjects. So, for weddings, this crop factor isn't really an issue as long as you have a 40mm.
Here's a shot done with the 100/3.5CFi and pretty severely cropped in from a full length shot. Converted to B&W using the Gradent function in PhotoShop.
simonpg
Active Member
Thanks again Marc - this is a superb learning process from your experience for me and, I am sure, others.
Lovely shot - Gee.... they were making up for lost time I see.... a busy wedding!
What appeals to my eyes is how (even over the web) her skin has come up. That digi back may be great for fashion shots!
Re cropping factor:
You comments make much sense to me. Many say a longer lens can be made somewhat redundant by croppying 6x6 film (has the area to enable that and retain image quality). But it has always been my view that the final image's "look" is very different - just like you comment, what is in the frame has a different depth etc.. Of course, if one only has a shorter lens on site, sure 6x6 or other large image frame size enables cropping as a solution - but, never a real substitution for the longer lens IMHO.
Funnily enough, as n ex&le I find the Hasselblad 60mm a much different look to a cropped 50mm.
So, I wonder how you get on having that added factor to keep in mind when shooting a cropped frame and also having to factor in differing DOF characteristics as well as the "look".
I'd have no doubt that even Canon's excellent high res full frame is no match - simply a lack of space to optimise the pixel performance I suppose (and among other things I'm sure).
Thanks again for taking the time to keep this product experience updated.
Lovely shot - Gee.... they were making up for lost time I see.... a busy wedding!
What appeals to my eyes is how (even over the web) her skin has come up. That digi back may be great for fashion shots!
Re cropping factor:
You comments make much sense to me. Many say a longer lens can be made somewhat redundant by croppying 6x6 film (has the area to enable that and retain image quality). But it has always been my view that the final image's "look" is very different - just like you comment, what is in the frame has a different depth etc.. Of course, if one only has a shorter lens on site, sure 6x6 or other large image frame size enables cropping as a solution - but, never a real substitution for the longer lens IMHO.
Funnily enough, as n ex&le I find the Hasselblad 60mm a much different look to a cropped 50mm.
So, I wonder how you get on having that added factor to keep in mind when shooting a cropped frame and also having to factor in differing DOF characteristics as well as the "look".
I'd have no doubt that even Canon's excellent high res full frame is no match - simply a lack of space to optimise the pixel performance I suppose (and among other things I'm sure).
Thanks again for taking the time to keep this product experience updated.
mark_wallack
New Member
Hi Marc A. Williams
I also thank you for all the information.
Have you encountered a yellow cast problem with the initial imagaes from the CFV back as I have ?
Thanks
mark
I also thank you for all the information.
Have you encountered a yellow cast problem with the initial imagaes from the CFV back as I have ?
Thanks
mark
Hi Mark.
No.
What are you using to process the files?
With any processing program, including Flexcolor, you have to set it up at first and save that processing setting.
Shoot a color calibration card including white balance in neutral light (like a studio strobe or clear daylight), and in Flexcolor (or Adobe RAW using DNGs conversions) use the eye dropper to white balance ... then save that calibration.
No.
What are you using to process the files?
With any processing program, including Flexcolor, you have to set it up at first and save that processing setting.
Shoot a color calibration card including white balance in neutral light (like a studio strobe or clear daylight), and in Flexcolor (or Adobe RAW using DNGs conversions) use the eye dropper to white balance ... then save that calibration.
coolmingli
New Member
Marc, how does the CFV back compares to 1DsMK2 directly? picture quality wise.
I am thinking of getting one, however I don't think the CFV will blow away the 1DsMK2 in terms of picture quality, espeically with the up coming 1DsMK3.
I guess my question is the difference worth 10K?
BTW I have Hasselblad lenses from 38-250 and few bodys.
I am thinking of getting one, however I don't think the CFV will blow away the 1DsMK2 in terms of picture quality, espeically with the up coming 1DsMK3.
I guess my question is the difference worth 10K?
BTW I have Hasselblad lenses from 38-250 and few bodys.
Hi Mitchell.
When I first got my Canon 1DsMKII, I had great hopes it could become more active in studio work. The first job I tried with it was a jewelry catalog. The Canon simply could not deal with the specular highlights ... even when I mounted Contax Zeiss lenses on it like the 60/2.8 Zeiss macro via an adapter. The edge aberrations and lack of subtile tonal gradations revealed themselves pretty quickly.
I had to revert back to my Contax 645 with it's 16 meg Kodak Pro-Back 645C which I've now replaced with the CFV on V series cameras
The CFV back is better than the Kodak back. The CFV benefits from being 16 bit to the Kodak's 12 bit, and the CFV firmware and software is continuously upgraded. I often shoot weddings with both the Canon and Hasselblad 503CW with CFV back. There is no comparison between the files.
I doubt that will change even if Canon releases a 24 or 24 meg 1DsMKIII or 2Ds ... the sensor size is restricted to 35mm. I learned that from upgrading a H2D/22 to a H2D/39.
While the resolution is definitely better on the 39 meg back, the 22 had a beautiful tonal quality ... larger pixels verses more pixels.
However, obviously the Canon is faster, is AF, is motor-driven, etc. etc. ... and can shoot usable files at higher ISOs.
But for pure quality of files it's the CFV by a mile.
When I first got my Canon 1DsMKII, I had great hopes it could become more active in studio work. The first job I tried with it was a jewelry catalog. The Canon simply could not deal with the specular highlights ... even when I mounted Contax Zeiss lenses on it like the 60/2.8 Zeiss macro via an adapter. The edge aberrations and lack of subtile tonal gradations revealed themselves pretty quickly.
I had to revert back to my Contax 645 with it's 16 meg Kodak Pro-Back 645C which I've now replaced with the CFV on V series cameras
The CFV back is better than the Kodak back. The CFV benefits from being 16 bit to the Kodak's 12 bit, and the CFV firmware and software is continuously upgraded. I often shoot weddings with both the Canon and Hasselblad 503CW with CFV back. There is no comparison between the files.
I doubt that will change even if Canon releases a 24 or 24 meg 1DsMKIII or 2Ds ... the sensor size is restricted to 35mm. I learned that from upgrading a H2D/22 to a H2D/39.
While the resolution is definitely better on the 39 meg back, the 22 had a beautiful tonal quality ... larger pixels verses more pixels.
However, obviously the Canon is faster, is AF, is motor-driven, etc. etc. ... and can shoot usable files at higher ISOs.
But for pure quality of files it's the CFV by a mile.
coolmingli
New Member
There is no comparison between the files.
But for pure quality of files it's the CFV by a mile.
I am suprised to hear that, I found it hard to believe, however I trust your judgement. I know you from the Leica forums of the }Photo Net, I will order one in few weeks and report back here. Thanks!!
But for pure quality of files it's the CFV by a mile.
I am suprised to hear that, I found it hard to believe, however I trust your judgement. I know you from the Leica forums of the }Photo Net, I will order one in few weeks and report back here. Thanks!!
Best of luck Mitchell.
Once you get it, give yourself some time to learn the Flexcolor software. It is a little slow on the learning curve, but worth the effort.
Another thing you won't have to contend with is the horrible distortion of Canon WA lenses. But you will most definitely need the 38 or 40 for any wider work on the Hasselblad ... the sensor crop factor is 1.5X ... cutting down on the wider field of view ... but pumping up the FOV on your longer lenses. Your 250/5.6 effectively becomes a 375/5.6.
I'd be curious as to your take on the back. I've been using a square 16 meg back for some time now and know how to get the most from it. But none of these backs are replacements for swift working DSLRs if your work calls for that kind of performance. However, since you already have the Hasselblad gear, this back breaths new life into it.
Did I mention how much fun it is : -)
Once you get it, give yourself some time to learn the Flexcolor software. It is a little slow on the learning curve, but worth the effort.
Another thing you won't have to contend with is the horrible distortion of Canon WA lenses. But you will most definitely need the 38 or 40 for any wider work on the Hasselblad ... the sensor crop factor is 1.5X ... cutting down on the wider field of view ... but pumping up the FOV on your longer lenses. Your 250/5.6 effectively becomes a 375/5.6.
I'd be curious as to your take on the back. I've been using a square 16 meg back for some time now and know how to get the most from it. But none of these backs are replacements for swift working DSLRs if your work calls for that kind of performance. However, since you already have the Hasselblad gear, this back breaths new life into it.
Did I mention how much fun it is : -)
J
Jeffg53
Marc,
Can you post any comparisons of the 22 vs 39, or describe the difference more? I have a V96C which I love and have been contemplating a 39. I haven't heard that there is a difference between the two before.
And yes I do know how much fun it is. Now if I could only get 6 minute exposures with it...
Can you post any comparisons of the 22 vs 39, or describe the difference more? I have a V96C which I love and have been contemplating a 39. I haven't heard that there is a difference between the two before.
And yes I do know how much fun it is. Now if I could only get 6 minute exposures with it...
Jeff, internet postings would not demonstrate anything very well I fear.
Don't get me wrong, the H2D/39 is worth every enormous penny it costs. The resolution is mind boggling, and I've already done 5 foot wide prints from it that you could press your nose against and not see much evidence of pixelization. You can crop these files to Kingdom Come and still pull an excellent 8X10.
But the almost 2X meg count from the 22 meg one I had prior to this doesn't translate into 2X better images. The 22 meg sensor is the same size as the 39 meg one. So the 22 meg sensor has bigger pixels which provide a nice look to the images IMO.
If you can swing it, go for the 39 meg one ... no matter what they come up with next, I doubt you'd need more than what this back can produce ... unless it's a multi-shot ability that you need.
Don't get me wrong, the H2D/39 is worth every enormous penny it costs. The resolution is mind boggling, and I've already done 5 foot wide prints from it that you could press your nose against and not see much evidence of pixelization. You can crop these files to Kingdom Come and still pull an excellent 8X10.
But the almost 2X meg count from the 22 meg one I had prior to this doesn't translate into 2X better images. The 22 meg sensor is the same size as the 39 meg one. So the 22 meg sensor has bigger pixels which provide a nice look to the images IMO.
If you can swing it, go for the 39 meg one ... no matter what they come up with next, I doubt you'd need more than what this back can produce ... unless it's a multi-shot ability that you need.
J
Jeffg53
Thanks Marc, one of the reasons that I bought a V96C was that square is my preferred style and I saw that I would be cropping a lot of 22MP shots back to 16MP. When the 39MP came along, the game changed and I could see a way of getting more pixels if I wanted a square.
The H3D with a V series adapter is looking like a great way to go.
The H3D with a V series adapter is looking like a great way to go.
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Marc
Your report and all contributions in this thread have finally helped me in the decision for the CFV back , which i will get next week . It was an exciting decision . I can assure you of that .
I have been rereading this thread (not quite easy) . When you meter with the PME45 , do you just meter as if you would use film , or do you do any "compensation" and then transfer the metered data to the lens ?
Your report and all contributions in this thread have finally helped me in the decision for the CFV back , which i will get next week . It was an exciting decision . I can assure you of that .
I have been rereading this thread (not quite easy) . When you meter with the PME45 , do you just meter as if you would use film , or do you do any "compensation" and then transfer the metered data to the lens ?
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Hello Marc
I have gone through this thread again and i wonder if the images with that excellent quality were sharpened or not .
So , here is my question : do you have to sharpen images , taken with any of the available backs . And if so , for ex&le using PSCS , what values make sense .
I used to sharpened the scans of my MICROTEC 1800f just using 2 steps .
aaa) first sharpening 120% using 1.3 pixel . Save image .
bbb) second sharpening (on saved image) 100% at 0.8 pixel .
I have gone through this thread again and i wonder if the images with that excellent quality were sharpened or not .
So , here is my question : do you have to sharpen images , taken with any of the available backs . And if so , for ex&le using PSCS , what values make sense .
I used to sharpened the scans of my MICROTEC 1800f just using 2 steps .
aaa) first sharpening 120% using 1.3 pixel . Save image .
bbb) second sharpening (on saved image) 100% at 0.8 pixel .
Hi Jurgen,
The small Jpgs posted here were sharpened slightly, but that's because the compression dumbs them down so badly you have to sharpen a bit.
In most cases the full sized files are in need of very little sharpening, some not at all. It's a delicated balance. If you properly expose and set the contrast levels correctly in post processing, the microcontrast of the Zeiss lenses comes through to provide the Zeiss notion of visual sharpness rather than the edge sharpness that can cause halo shaprness ... which when looked at closely reveals a lightish line around edges ... which I hate.
I am so impressed with this back and it's balance between meg count and pixel size, that I am seriously considering the purchase of another one ... maybe the whole Victor Anniversary kit this time, since I worry that after this, the V system will become the forgotten stepchild.
As far as the PME45, which I use, I meter just as with film but review the results on screen and especially with the histogram. The secret is to expose digital to get the toe of the histogram as far right as possible without blowing the highlights ... there will be some hot points from specular highlights that will flash in overexposure warning, but that's normal and actually desirable.
Our good web friend Simon started a "Lens" thread, and I am going to post some more CFV shots to celebrate the holiday there. Come visit : -)
The small Jpgs posted here were sharpened slightly, but that's because the compression dumbs them down so badly you have to sharpen a bit.
In most cases the full sized files are in need of very little sharpening, some not at all. It's a delicated balance. If you properly expose and set the contrast levels correctly in post processing, the microcontrast of the Zeiss lenses comes through to provide the Zeiss notion of visual sharpness rather than the edge sharpness that can cause halo shaprness ... which when looked at closely reveals a lightish line around edges ... which I hate.
I am so impressed with this back and it's balance between meg count and pixel size, that I am seriously considering the purchase of another one ... maybe the whole Victor Anniversary kit this time, since I worry that after this, the V system will become the forgotten stepchild.
As far as the PME45, which I use, I meter just as with film but review the results on screen and especially with the histogram. The secret is to expose digital to get the toe of the histogram as far right as possible without blowing the highlights ... there will be some hot points from specular highlights that will flash in overexposure warning, but that's normal and actually desirable.
Our good web friend Simon started a "Lens" thread, and I am going to post some more CFV shots to celebrate the holiday there. Come visit : -)
J
Jeffg53
Hello Marc,
I'm getting closer to the 39MP leap and decided to have a look at the competition before slapping down the cash. What I found that made me come to a screaming halt is that the P45 lets me shoot longer than 30 second exposures. This would then let me use digital for my early morning shots which are around 6 minutes to start.
Did you look at the alternatives before settling for the Hasselblad option? I would love to hear what brought you there.
Cheers
I'm getting closer to the 39MP leap and decided to have a look at the competition before slapping down the cash. What I found that made me come to a screaming halt is that the P45 lets me shoot longer than 30 second exposures. This would then let me use digital for my early morning shots which are around 6 minutes to start.
Did you look at the alternatives before settling for the Hasselblad option? I would love to hear what brought you there.
Cheers