I wonder if this affects the CFV?

[cs_foto]

"2) "Old" Zeiss glasses are ready for digital chalenge"

Wrong: Old Zeiss lenses although very good but do not meet digital standards.
Exceptions 120 CF/E/i and 100 mm Planar. The 40 mm IF is a "new" lens!

".

sorry, in what sense do they not meet digital standards?

appart from functionality, are you saying image quality is compromised?

if so how? why?

 

[nathantw666]

So, if you manufacture digital backs and you own the technology as well as the brand and the know-how, how in the world would you neglect to produce a money-making digital back for the thousands and thousands of camera and lenses ALREADY THERE? These cameras will outlast your digital backs. Another chance to sell more backs.

In the eyes of Hasselblad, though, there's a possibility that they're saying "we do offer a digital solution for our loyal customers in the CFV II. It may cost $10000 for a 16 MP back that has a sensor that's smaller than the format they would use with film, but it's still being offered for those that require a digital back."

 

[polypal]

sorry, in what sense do they not meet digital standards?

appart from functionality, are you saying image quality is compromised?

if so how? why?

Digital backs from 25 Mp onwards clearly show limits of older lens designs.
Chromatic aberration and limits of resolution of older lenses are clearly registered by these backs.

The exceptions are as already mentioned: the "new" 40 mm IF, the 100 mm Planar and the 120 Makro Planar.

 

[uaiomex]

Well, I'm not so sure

I have a set of "older" Canon EOS EF lenses like the cheap 28-105 II and the 24 and 45 TS. They work wonderfully with the 5D when in optimun aperture. The 28-105 at f8 is incredibly sharp, not the same as my 100 f2.0 but really close. THe 45TS is sharp all across even when shifted. The 24TS at f11 not shifted gives me enough sharp pictures for prints up to 16X24".
I know some people would say sharpness is subjective. I totally agree. What I'm trying to say is that this older glass gives me much sharper and bigger prints with a digital body than when they were attached to a film EOS body. Now, I would ask: Wouldn't it be the same for "old" CF glass when mounted on a digital camera?

Digital backs from 25 Mp onwards clearly show shortcomings in older lens designs.
Chromatic aberration and limits of resolution of older lenses are clearly registered by these backs.

The exceptions are as already mentioned the "new" 40 mm IF, the 100 mm Planar and the 120 Makro Planar.

 

[blowupster]

I have the canon too. 450D in fact. For high quality inside job I use one of my best canon lenses: the Zeiss-Hasselblad 50FE or my Zeiss-Hasselblad CF 180mm. The Canon actual 50mm 1.4 is a good lens from pre-numerical time.

I wonder if the "Historical CWD for 100 year of Victor" was a product to improve trust between Hasselblad manager and Hasselblad owner or if it was a product for the market of tons of Hasselblad-V owners.
The 120CFE is perhaps not the best example as this Zeiss lens exist in apo but for Hasselblad.

40mm IF, CF60 CFi100 CFE180, SA lenses and the famous FE 300/2.8 are exellent lenses for a 60Mpix on a 56x56mm sensor.

BTW the CFE80 is not the best lens and is not a standard lens for a CFV back.
A CF60-CFV Kit should have been better.
And why not produce a new "CFV-III CFE60mm Apo Biogon 2.8 Kit" to kill any competitors ?

BTW, my best lens for my Leica is perhaps my Biogon 21mm 4.5
----------------------------------------------


"Wrong Wrong Wrong" Perhaps more modern and fair way of comunication existe now.

 

[polypal]

Now, I would ask: Wouldn't it be the same for "old" CF glass when mounted on a digital camera?

No it is not.
It is also understandable that C and most CF lenses do not offer better performance as they were developed for a lower resolution any way.

Keep in mind lenses for 35 mm film cameras are in most cases better lenses than lenses for MF purely from the point of resolution.
They need to be because they serve a smaller negative.

Lets face it there will not be any newly developed lenses for the V series.
Turnover of new gear is small, much too small to expect from Hasselblad to invest in new lenses.
All stock of the last batch of 30 mm lenses was sold as a job lot to a large trader in Germany.
Hasselblad has no more stock of this lens.
The trader now owns over 28 new 30 mm lenses simply because Hasselblad users did not buy them fast enough for Hasselblad to hang on to their stock.

How many of us bought new gear for the V series last year?

 

[jotloob]

Digital backs from 25 Mp onwards clearly show limits of older lens designs.
Chromatic aberration and limits of resolution of older lenses are clearly registered by these backs.
The exceptions are as already mentioned: the "new" 40 mm IF, the 100 mm Planar and the 120 Makro Planar.

Paul

Let me add some simple mathematics here .
The CFV DIGITAL back has a sensor size of 36,7x36,7mm .
The pixel size is 9 microns . That makes up 4080x4080 Pixels resulting in 16MP .
As far as I know , all C , CF , CFE/CFI and F/FE lenses have a good enough resolution for the pixel size of 9 micron .
Looking at CFV images , they are just great .
Pixelmania gives us sensors with up to 60MP with the known disadvantages of noise . Pixel sizes have gone down to 6 micron , but the sensors sizes have not grown (one exception) .
I think it would be better to stay at a pixel size of 7 to 9 microns and have bigger sensors . (7-9 microns , whatever is possible in the production process)

Comming back to a 48x48 mm or bigger sensor , with a pixel size of 9 microns , the 48x48 mm sensor then would have a size of about 28MP .
Own calculation are allowed and wanted .
Not a candidate for pixelmania , but IMO a realistic technic with fantastic results .
And now , how wonderful . All C , CF , CFE/CFI , F/FE lenses would be in the game again . The same is valid for ZEISS/ROLLEI lenses and others .
I doubt , that any camera producer wants this .
But what we face here is the fact , pixelmania is wanted by the camera industry , but in no way neccessary .

 

[polypal]

Hello Jürgen,

This is not purely a mathematical affair this is imaging based on maths I agree to that.

I am just recalling experiments I witnessed six years ago with a group of photographers that were exploring the limits of digital capture.

These tests revealed the following results:

The limits of older designs of C lenses are shown on the highest grade modern emulsions.
Later upgraded designs from the CF series are suitable for modern films.

Digital backs with 16 times multi shot show the limits of most CF lenses.
The best lenses from the CF/E/i series are the 40 mm CFE IF, The 100 mm Planar and the 120 Makro Planar.


Paul

 

[jotloob]

Hello Jürgen,
This is not purely a mathematical affair this is imaging based on maths I agree to that.
The best lenses from the CF/E/i series are the 40 mm CFE IF, The 100 mm Planar and the 120 Makro Planar.
Paul

Paul

I had a look to the CZ homepage and found only a resolution figure for the 4/40 IF CFE DISTAGON and also for thr the 4,5/38 BIOGON .
From the text of the other lenses 100 PLANAR and 120 MAKRO PLANAR , I understand , that they are as good or even better in resolution .

The resolution for the first two lenses , DISTAGON and BIOGON is 200 linepairs per millimeter . Whatever that means .

So some more maths here . But no solutions , questions .
How thick is a linepair ? ? ? does anyone know ? ? ?
If one pixel of the CFV is 9 microns you would theoretical have 111 pixel per millimeter . But as you must also have a little distance between the pixels , it will shurely be less than 111 pixels .
So how many pixels are there for one millimeter and how can we compare that to linepairs per millimeter .

 

[uaiomex]

Test both

I wish somebody do this test. I think Marc has this gear already.
Hcamera, Hback & Hlens VS Hcamera, Hback & Vlens.

 

[jotloob]

Eduardo

Yes it would be very intersting to see a comparison .
But even more interesting would be , to get some information about the resolution of the HC-Lenses .
The resolution for a given lens is not interesting related to a sensor size but to the size of that sensors pixel size .

So , anyone interested in maths please see the the previous contributions .
Best regards to Mexico , Jürgen

 

[polypal]

Jürgen, Eduardo,

We did not do math all those years ago, we just looked at the pictures.....

I kept proof of these tests: a very detailed map from the 17th century.
The map is what we call a monks job, handcrafted with all names of small villages handwritten with enourmous precision.
The original map was folded. That left a crease in the center of the map.
Everybody who sees this print of the map feels the "crease" but there is not any in the print of course.

I will take this print with me next time I see Jürgen.
It is an amazing experience to say the least.

Paul


Paul

 

[polypal]

Map cropped

Cropped part of the map.
A little to the right of the center the village Heynkenszand.
That is where this tests were done.
Amazing it is in the part of the map I selected. Pure luck.






This is just a quick repro of the print.
It is not part of the original digital file.

 

[CarstenW]

The resolution for the first two lenses , DISTAGON and BIOGON is 200 linepairs per millimeter . Whatever that means .
[...]
How thick is a linepair ? ? ? does anyone know ? ? ?
If one pixel of the CFV is 9 microns you would theoretical have 111 pixel per millimeter . But as you must also have a little distance between the pixels , it will shurely be less than 111 pixels .
So how many pixels are there for one millimeter and how can we compare that to linepairs per millimeter .

A linepair is one black and one white line. 200 linepairs per millimeter means that 200 black and 200 white lines interleaved can be resolved by the lens, but no more. If you get lucky, 200 pixels per millimeter would exactly lie on those lines, but in general, Nyquist's theorem says that you need double that to be sure not to miss, i.e. you would need to have 400 pixels per millimeter to exceed the resolution of the lens with this statistic.

In a more practical view, 100 lppm is considered a good measurement for both lens and sensor. Many good lenses don't even reach that over the whole field.

200 sounds very, very high for a medium format lens. Is that a theoretical value, based on optical design expectations?

 

[jotloob]

Jürgen, Eduardo,
We did not do math all those years ago, we just looked at the pictures.....
Paul

Ok , Paul

No more maths . I agree .
I have been on the homepages of SCHNEIDER , RODENSTOCK and CARL ZEISS . The topic is very interesting but also very complex and I did not understand everything . Not neccessary .
The SCHNEIDER article is rather scientific , with formulas etc. while what I found for RODENSTOCK (LINOS) is more practical .
Like : the RODENSTOCK APO-SIRONAR DIGITAL is designed for a pixel raster of 9 microns while the APO-SIRONAR DIGITAL HR is designed for a pixel raster of 5-12 microns . This lens family now has a new name and is called HR DIGARON .
For the ZEISS lenses I could only find the info , I posted earlier .
200LP/mm for the BIOGON and the latest 40mm DISTAGON .

Carsten

Yes I was surprised about the 200LP/mm as well , but you can find that on the CARL ZEISS home page .
Up to now , and I did not do testshots with all my lenses and CFV , I could not see any weekness and found that for a pixel raster of 9 microns of the CFV BACK the CZ lenses must have the required resolution .

Additional to that , we know that the H-SYSTEM digital backs have a smaller pixel raster than 9 microns , but HASSELBLAD supplies a CZ lens adapter .
That means to me , that at least some CZ lenses must be good enough for pixels less than 9 microns .
Is there any restriction mentioned with that adapter ?

Also , I have learned , that the human eye can only resolve 6LP/mm .
So , if you have the best of available resolution for your lenses and digital backs , your printer must be of the finest as well .
Our eyes will not be able to see the quality of the resolution , but we will see the contrast , which is part of the game .