Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: pflower on January 07, 2007, 07:04:25 pm
-
I am slightly surprised at the lack of posts relating to the CFV back. This is the cheapest way to get into MF digital and I am wondering if this would suit me. Sure I can rent and test, but renting costs money so I am looking for any advice that would justify the initial outlay for even tests (or persuade me that it is not worthwhile) on this back.
I am not a working pro and so client concerns do not enter the picture. I do exhibit and I do sell prints so to some extent I can justify additional expenditure but not to the extent of the £20,000 or so that a new H2 system with backs would cost. I can probably run to the £5,000 or so that a CFV back would cost or even to a Mamiya Zd but am reluctant to give up on the lenses I have in the last respect.
I have an old V system including 50mm, 80mm and the 120 Makro Plannar lenses. The body and the film backs are now not worth very much but I have put significant money into the lenses which I love. I scan velvia and Ilford HP5 and FP4 through a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 and now print on an Epson 3800. I would like to print bigger on some images and am considering an HP Z3100 or and Epson 7800. I love the square format and the waist level finder. I have pretty much given up on the wet darkroom.
I also have a Nikon D2x with various lenses. I do mostly landscapes (slightly quirky and close up rather than wide) and some portraits and still lives. The D2x files hold up well up to A2 but not beyond.
So would a CFV be of any use for my purposes - i.e. larger than A2 prints or even at A2 - compared to the D2x? The crop factor is a pain (not just as regards the lens but also as regards format) but I might be able to live with that. Or should I just give up the ambition of printing larger than A2.
Anyone got any thoughts?
Thanks
-
I have the CFV which I bought particularly because I have the Hassey 300 f2.8 which is so specialized I just couldn't part with it (plus I couldn't bear to sell my faithful 203FE for the pennies they sell for today). It is excellent. Be prepared for a bit of a wait if you own a 200 series and have to send it back for conversion. It took over two months but that was early and people tell me the turn around is faster now. The color compared to my Canons is very different ... certainly picks up fine gradations of hue ... and for us old guys that big bright viewfinder is a delight. I would base your decision on your assortment of lenses. If like many of us you have some great old FE lenses ... the CFV is a great way to extend their useful life. Like you say for the price it is hard to beat ... if you have a hassey system you are up and running digitally, whereas a change to another system will mean new lenses, etc. so the cost for the complete system will quickly exceed the CFV. Bill
-
Square cropped backs are not popular hence lack of traffic
Basically if you deliver rectangular images a 16 mp cropped to rectangle is 12mp
you can get this cheaper with a Canon or Nikon
Being restricted to 40mm (35mm FOV) at the wide end is a deal breaker for many too
My experiecne of owning a square back (kodak proback) is that I soon went out and bought a 22mp for the extra field of view - which if you are cropping to rectangle is almost DOUBLE
If you can live with shooting tethered or to a 'pack' you may be better considering something like a Phase H25 or Eyelike Precision 22 used
If you are happy to deliver square images, it may be for you
-
Square cropped backs are not popular hence lack of traffic
Basically if you deliver rectangular images a 16 mp cropped to rectangle is 12mp
you can get this cheaper with a Canon or Nikon
Being restricted to 40mm (35mm FOV) at the wide end is a deal breaker for many too
My experiecne of owning a square back (kodak proback) is that I soon went out and bought a 22mp for the extra field of view - which if you are cropping to rectangle is almost DOUBLE
If you can live with shooting tethered or to a 'pack' you may be better considering something like a Phase H25 or Eyelike Precision 22 used
If you are happy to deliver square images, it may be for you
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been using an Imacon (Hasselblad) 384C. This chip is a 16mp square. I think it may even be the same chip used in the CFV. I've also got a Canon 5D. There is no comparison between the Canon and the Imacon files. The Imacon/Hasselblad chip produces much better tonality, cleaner files, and truer color rendition. Go with the CFV. It's a great way to get into medium format digital for short money. By the way, I often crop the square down to 12mp and blow up the files to beyond 16" X 24." They look great.
-
I bought a CFV back a couple of months ago. I love it.
The most important thing to understand is that the 16 megapixels of the CFV are not the same size pixels as those on the smaller sensor 35mm format DSLR’s, such as the Canon 1DSMII or the D2X. The pixels of the CFV are larger pixels that contain much more information, which translates into tremendous dynamic range, shadow detail, and detail in general.
Along with the exquisite image quality that the Zeiss glass delivers on the CFV, the back is a snap to learn, feels like a slightly deeper film back, shoots square (not 645) and can be used on any of the V system Hasselblads. I have used it on a 503CW, a 903 SWC, a 553 ELX and a 205 TCC (which required a small modification to be fully functional on that body).
If you want to see a really excellent thread that thoroughly explores what the CFV is capable of, go to http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/discus/messages/4/26201.html (http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/discus/messages/4/26201.html), in which Marc Williams, the Detroit creative director and photographer, did a long illustrated posting on Hasselbladinfo.com with lots of back and forth interaction with other forum members about the back
Regarding my personal experience with the CFV, like you, I was a little concerned about the crop factor, but to my surprise I don’t even notice it . The CFV back comes with an etched screen that shows the coverage area so it’s a little like looking through a leica with frame lines…and it works just as well). What’s also surprising is that it seems always to cover more area than I thought it would, and I am constantly surprised at how much I pick up with my SWC and with the 40mm and 50mm lenses on the 503 and 205. By the same token, I don’t find that I am on top of my subjects even using the 110 f/2 on the 205. In fact, I like the working distance better with the CFV back attached than with a film back.
Regarding comparing the CFV to a smaller sensor camera like the Canon 1dsMII in terms of the size of the prints that can be made from its files, in my opinion (and I think Marc Williams agrees) it’s no contest. I don’t have a D2X, but I have a Canon 5D and I used to have a Canon 1DS MII, until I sold it when I got the CFV. Even the 5D is hardly ever used now, except for long telephoto shots. I print up to 24” x 24” on an Epson 7600 and I can’t tell the difference between the prints I get from CFV files and prints I get from scanned 120 transparencies, and since I scan on an Epson 848, that's saying something, I think.
If you didn’t own a hasselblad and some V lenses, I would still say what I have said above, but given that you already have a Hasselblad and some beautiful Zeiss lenses, this should be an easy decision for you. . . .
Did I mention how easy the back is to learn and use?
I am slightly surprised at the lack of posts relating to the CFV back. This is the cheapest way to get into MF digital and I am wondering if this would suit me. Sure I can rent and test, but renting costs money so I am looking for any advice that would justify the initial outlay for even tests (or persuade me that it is not worthwhile) on this back.
I am not a working pro and so client concerns do not enter the picture. I do exhibit and I do sell prints so to some extent I can justify additional expenditure but not to the extent of the £20,000 or so that a new H2 system with backs would cost. I can probably run to the £5,000 or so that a CFV back would cost or even to a Mamiya Zd but am reluctant to give up on the lenses I have in the last respect.
I have an old V system including 50mm, 80mm and the 120 Makro Plannar lenses. The body and the film backs are now not worth very much but I have put significant money into the lenses which I love. I scan velvia and Ilford HP5 and FP4 through a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 and now print on an Epson 3800. I would like to print bigger on some images and am considering an HP Z3100 or and Epson 7800. I love the square format and the waist level finder. I have pretty much given up on the wet darkroom.
I also have a Nikon D2x with various lenses. I do mostly landscapes (slightly quirky and close up rather than wide) and some portraits and still lives. The D2x files hold up well up to A2 but not beyond.
So would a CFV be of any use for my purposes - i.e. larger than A2 prints or even at A2 - compared to the D2x? The crop factor is a pain (not just as regards the lens but also as regards format) but I might be able to live with that. Or should I just give up the ambition of printing larger than A2.
Anyone got any thoughts?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I just read one of the other posts regarding the square vs rectangular format of the CFV.
I think that here we have a clear case of ideological differences. To some of us, the fact that the sensor IS square on the CFV is one of its biggest selling points, not a deficiency Indeed, this subject has been written about for decades in discussions about the Rolleiflex TLRs and Hasselblads compared to 24X35mm, 6X7, 6X9 or 6 X12, etc. Obviously, you get more data in a 22 meg 645 rectangular format back, but if you PREFER the square framing, you end up cropping your file down to the same size that the CFV produces to begin with. I am not a purist, myself, about this, but for some fine art photographers, cropping is heresy. And I think there is something to the argument that composing your photograph in the viewfinder instead of in the darkroom or on the computer screen produces better photographs. That said, this cuts both ways: if you think rectangular images, maybe you need a 22 meg sensor instead of the CFV, but you can always crop a square to a rectangle, can't you? Anyway, as I prefer the square format, the CFV is ideal. If anything, what I would like to see if a full size 57mm square sensor. Just my 2 cents.
Square cropped backs are not popular hence lack of traffic
Basically if you deliver rectangular images a 16 mp cropped to rectangle is 12mp
you can get this cheaper with a Canon or Nikon
Being restricted to 40mm (35mm FOV) at the wide end is a deal breaker for many too
My experiecne of owning a square back (kodak proback) is that I soon went out and bought a 22mp for the extra field of view - which if you are cropping to rectangle is almost DOUBLE
If you can live with shooting tethered or to a 'pack' you may be better considering something like a Phase H25 or Eyelike Precision 22 used
If you are happy to deliver square images, it may be for you
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I dont disagree with any of the above as I said..
"If you are happy to deliver square images, it may be for you"
If however you are shooting a Hotels new reception area - the client will most likely want to see most of it
At that point the wide issue will be a big issue
If your client has an A4 brochure or an A3 poster they will cut em rectangluar
If you dont work to client brief than there is no worry
I shot some of my most aesthetically balanced portraits ever with a proback and an 80 - lovely for that
So there are indeed 'idological' differences and it is true that 12mp of even proback is better than 12mp of DSLR
There is always stitching and the arcbody for the unhurried square chip owner who needs a wide view too..
SMM
-
Thanks for all the replies. I shall now go forth and rent.
Philip