What's new
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

Steve
I am not a 100% shure . But try the following . Login with your user , then go and see your profile . Under E-MAIL notification , you will find a table . Check this table for the notifications you want . If you have hooks everywhere , your E-MAIL box will run over .
An other way could be , to have an additional "FORUM E-MAIL" address .
 
Thanks for the emai tips, Jurgen.

Well, I did do a little test tonight, sharpening in Flexcolor (85 amount, 1.2 radius), then trying various unsharp routines, and smart sharpenening that file as well as an exported .fff that had no sharpening applied in Flexcolor.

I had a hard time telling any difference at all. So, this result indicates sharpening in Flexcolor (not final sharpening), then applying your final sharpening for output size in Photoshop doesn't seem to make a difference. That was surprising, because some of my customers have maintained it makes a difference. Then again, I didn't quiz them on their procedure.

But I know I have heard that from Bruce Frasier - it's unlikely he was discussing a Hasselblad digital back, so perhaps it's camera or software dependent. And it's possible that in some situations sharpening in Flexcolor still may yield better results.

The best thing to do in situations like this, is experiment and let the results be your guide.

Steve Hendrix
 
Are these CFV images any better than a Canon or Nikon 6MP or 12MP? The resolution does not appear to reflect the £6,500 it would cost to purchase a CFV back. This money buys a lot of DSLR equipment mmmmm! just do not see it. best wishes, Carl
 
> This could get into a whole "bag of worms" as the saying goes. Of =20 > course the "extra" quality is not worth the "extra" expense. That =20 > is less than 50% of what influences a purchase like this.

> If you went purely by cost/benefit, you'd get something like a =20 > Nikon D70 6Mp for around $300 USD used. I have one of those, =20 > because I can not bring myself to fork out 5X as much for only a =20 > 25-30% increase in resolution along each axis ( that is all you =20 > actually get in going from 6-10Mp). Heaven forbid 30-40X as much =20 > for a MF digital back for my H1 or 553elx.

Now if I were a professional ( I am only an amateur), a whole host of =20=

other factors can come into play, one of which ( and it is by no =20 means trivial, and is certainly not the only or main reason to get =20 one) is impressing the customer so he'll come back with more =20 business. I might convince myself that one was needed, but it would =20 still be hard to swallow....
 
May be the 'world of difference' between MF digital and 35mm equiv can be explained apart from its not just about pixels. Quality if paramount, can similar quality be found in smaller digital cameras or are we genuinly paying for a better quality? Is everyone just informing the king that his cloths are magnificent when he is not wearing any? Whilst he linger to convince ourselves that digital technology is suitable for MF isn't the new technology better served with these smaller cameras? Its ok, I know its not, pick up a phone to any advertising photograper in London and they are using 503's with high resolution digital media. (but not CFV's), best wishes,
happy.gif
 
You make an interesting point about the superiority of images made with a sensor that has more Megapixels and MORE of such pixels arranged on a LARGER sensor ( sorry-I don't want to appear to be screaming! ). There are those much more informed then I about the issues of how Megapixels AND sensor size translates into image superiority at the SAME level of enlargement, and I believe that such technical issues have been elucidated here in the past. All other issues aside, the use of the digital set up on one's Hasselblad certainly does allow for the use of the lenses that one has accumulated over the years. Furthermore, it seems intutitive that the ability to have one's employer, or contractor, pay for the equipment might influence one's choice of what digitial set up to utilize. Also, when the image OF the photographer is almost as important as the images that the photographer makes, then one might easily see that such a professional would "need" to use a Hasselblad rather then the same Nikon or Canon that Mr. Everyman uses to take images of the family and the car ( after all, one must contemplate the impression that LF photographers make with their tripods, hoods, and cowboy hats versus the impression that the same photographers would make using a Nikon D200-a subject for yet another discusion, especially when one begins to compare the ever improving output realized from computer editing and subsequent printing versus the results gained from traditional darkroom techniques using cameras much larger and certainly more imposing ). Furthermore, at least in the USA, the tax codes allow one to "write off" a significant part of the equipment the one uses in one's work. However, one can only assume that the skill and expertise that many on our thread bring to their Hasselblad equipment would translate to the ability to make equally wonderful images with the Nikon or Canon equipment utilising those makers better lenses and digital gear-at a cost that would be much more "reasonable". Would such images be "better" then those made with Hasselblad digital equipment costing 4-5 times as much? Would such images be made with the same alacrity that such images might be made with Hasselblad gear? Would the client be satisfied with images made with a Nikon or Canon, and would such client be able to tell any differences at all between images taken by those cameras in comaprison with images taken by the Hasselblad ( or Rollei! )-and exhibited at the same size and intended for the same applications? I am not qualified to say, but such questions are interesting to ask.

Elliot
 
In reply to Dr. Elliot Puritz (Mahler_one), who mentions the relative merits of having a medium format on display for the client and the image that a professional photographer has to create to sell themselves. We could go into this but the comment was an attempt to stay focused on image quality not about putting up a front for the business. Bearing in mind that studio lighting has a large part to play in the final picture quality, if you are a studio photographer and that an image representing the photographer reflects their skills, the ‘name’ of the camera is less important.

It is pointless having all the best equipment if the individual does not know how to use or make best of it, which is sometimes the case with enthusiastic, more money than sense individuals. Please note the word ‘sometimes’ because some individuals are more fascinated with equipment rather than what it can do. There is nothing wrong with that, the Hasselblad is a beautiful piece of engineering.

The clients first contact is likely to be an image taken by the photographer either advertised in a yearly-specialized book or mail out, though it is likely to be in combination of a website presence. It is usually this that attracts the buyer regardless of camera.

There is little interest what the client thinks about the equipment, in similar vein, having the most expensive guitar does not mean that you are the best guitar player. It just means that you are a guitar enthusiast / professional with an expensive guitar. The expensive guitar may have the potential of allowing it to be used for its sound quality unmatched by cheaper guitars, with practice by
the owner.

In similar way that when we listen to music that we like, we do not question the make of the instrument being played, “Is that an old tatty saxophone that is being played? Grief! I will not be buying any of their music again!”

It is hoped that Art Directors and buyers are not that shallow or other photographers for that matter, I know of no photographer that bought cameras just for show, they usually realise the quality that a camera can produced first, anything else comes second.

This is why the question arose from the image quality of the CFV, there is no point in purchasing it just because it has the Hasselblad name if there are 35mm equivalents at a fraction of the cost producing equal quality. It is the finished product for the client that is important not what equipment is used in getting there. Though from my point of view and enjoying the unique sound of the shutter mechanism on a Hasselblad, it has to be fun doing it, otherwise what is the point, cheers Elliot, Carl. (Will keep them shorter in future)
 
Good question Carl, and an accurate analysis of attempting to distinguish qualitative differences using web images as one's guide ... an indication perhaps, but not definitive since the www tends to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator ... sub 1 meg sized compressed jpgs. Dare I say it, but these web uploads favor the lesser gear, and penalizes the better.

Also, good all around further discussion.

All that I can do is relate practical experience, and a point-of-view concerning MF digital backs in general, and the CFV specifically.

My first test of a MF back pitted an older Kodak ProBack on a Contax 645 with Zeiss optics verses a newly acquired Canon 1DsMKII using L primes. Both sensors are 12 bit, and both claimed 16 meg. capture. The test was a real world job involving a major studio shoot for a high-end jeweler. From $50,000. diamond rings to corporate gifts such as a crystal world globe. Over 100 shots for a catalog presentation.

I had purchased the 1DsMKII in the hope it could replace the Contax kit and ProBack for a lot of this sort of table top work. First shots I took made it apparent this wasn't the case. The jewelry's specular highlights from the Canon were jagged, and color fringed far to much for this type work. The ProBack handled the same shot using the same lighting with ease. The larger micron size of the pixels spread out over a larger sensor is what makes for this qualitative difference. So, better tonal range and a smoother tone gradation is one advantage ... like with film, bigger is better.

Now as to the CFV, while it is also 16 meg and the same size as the Kodak sensor, it is 16 bit instead of 12 bit, thus provides even more data for image quality. Kodak beats the Canon, and the CFV beats the Kodak.

The CFV fits most all V series cameras, including the 200 series, plus ... the Arc Body, Flex Body, SWC, and any view camera with a common V system adapter. So the CFV, or most any other digital back, adds a lot of versatile choices for a photographer ... from wedding and portrait work, to tabletop product images, to architecture.

Comparing a 35mm type DSLR to a MF digital back is like comparing apples to a watermelon : -)
 
Thanks for such a sensible short review Marc.

I constantly read comments by people trying to talk up the 1DS Mk II as being the equal of MF capture and it has always stuck me as a matter of logic that it could not be. Now I have the benefit of technical user experience to back my lay suspicion.

You've also wetted my appetite for a CFV - well so long as Jurgen gets satisfaction from Hasselblad after his awful saga! All I have to do is start saving all those pennies!
 
Good God Simon, it is most excellent to hear from you. Posts from others led me to believe you were in dire straits.

I think when others compare the 1DsMKII to MF they are referencing MF film to digital as viewed on a computer screen. Digital does produce a smooth, grain-less images at lower ISOs. I've said this before but it's worth repeating ... Scanned film looks worse on a computer screen than it really is when printed. I don't scientifically know exactly why this is, but I suspect it is the randomness of film grain being shown on a regimented pixalated screen.

My scanned prints ALWAYS look way better once printed, and I've learned to compensate my evaluation of grain on screen so as to not apply to much grain reduction. Digital and film really are two different animals.
 
Galbers!

G'Day mate - longtime nosee writey.

Hope all is well with you.

I see Marc has given you the title "Good God Simon" which I think is a bit over the top, but I can live with it.
z04_pc5.gif


Cheers,

Colin
 
From everything I've read it seems that the 1DsMKII/D2x are superior to MF film IF its compared to the 6x4.5 format. And that comparison is typically limited to resolution.

When compared to an uncropped 6x6 or the larger 6x7,8,9 etc... then film still holds its own. Of course both have their virtues apart from resolution. The look of film, its relative affordability for the amatuer, ability to easily use good quality wides, can still be scanned and stitched. The 1DsMKII/D2x have speed, ease of use, good enough quality for many situations. Just to name a few attributes of each.

I also am looking for a way to afford a CFV, or better. I can still use film for when a wide is needed. Would actually enjoy the longer lens effect gained from the 1.5 crop factor, especially with the 120 and 180.

And yes Simon, welcome back!
 
Frankly I'd love to use the CFV in combination with my 500 series and Arcbody, I'd love to take advantage of the 16Mp square sensor and continue shooting square, I'd buy one tomorrow if it wasn't for the 1.5x lens crop factor. If I use my 45mm I would have the equivalent of a 67.5mm lens, a 40mm would give me 60mm, a 38mm would give me 57mm and even if I bought the 35mm I'd still only end up with a 52.5mm lens. The fact is I need the very minimum of a genuine 40mm lens which effectively rules out use of the CFV.

I no longer have advertising account executives and art directors paying my bills, all of my work now revolves around print sales and image licensing and this effectively rules out buying the 31 and 39 Mpix backs.

Hasselblad as a company have been very supportive of myself and my work, I've supplied the company with both editorial and promotional images for publication. I love my Hasselblads and would love to continue using them for the foreseeable future in combination with digital capture, unfortunately I can see no way forward.
 
HI Keith, the way forward may be to rent a higher resolution back for the 'V' system as a treat on a personal portfolio project or commisioned work. best wishes, Carl
 
Hi Carl, I'm certainly not against the idea of renting a high resolution back for the odd day or two or for the occasional small project, but so much of my work involves travel over a period of many weeks and as such the costs involved would be prohibitive.
 
>=20 >=20 >=20 > Keith: >=20 > You might consider looking for a refurbished or demo CF-22. IN the USA, C= FV=B9s > go for MSRP $10K, while refurbished CF-22=B9s can generally be had for arou= nd > $15K. A good bit more, but maybe not out of the question for you? The CF-= 22 > also would give you a migratory path to other camera platforms via the > i-Adapter system. >=20 > Steve Hendrix > PPR Digital >=20 >=20 >=20
 
Hi Steve, thanks, I've considered the 22Mp backs but can see no advantage in using one to a square shooting, square printing kind of guy ;-) A 22Mp back cropped square *is* a 16Mp back.
 
>=20 >=20 >=20 > Hmm. Well, that=B9s true. You=B9re such a square! :) >=20 > Although you could stitch two 22MP files to achieve quite an impressive > square. Oh well, looks like 36.9mm is it for now. While there have been s= ome > (very) light rumors about full frame 2-1/4 chips down the line, I=B9m dubio= us > over that prospect. The stronger rumor is full size 645 =AD maybe late this= year > or early next. Time will tell. >=20 > Steve Hendrix > PPR Digital >=20 >=20 >=20
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top