Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: John R Smith on April 05, 2010, 01:30:37 pm
-
Folks
I'm just looking for some general guidance here. Since Christmas, I have been shooting digital for the first time on my beloved Hasselblads using a CFV-39 back. I suppose that there are not that many people in my position, where I am using exactly the same cameras, lenses and accessories which I have used for many years, and now instead of a film magazine there is a 39MP digital device hung on there instead. Well, only users of Hasselblad V-system and Contax 645, perhaps.
By now I have shot about 150 frames I suppose (the CFV had to go back to Denmark to be fixed under warranty, so I lost a month). And I am having so much trouble with focus and depth of field it is driving me insane. Where before, with scanned film, I would reckon to get at least 90% or more of my shots correctly focused and with adequate DOF, now it is about 50% if I am lucky. My DOF seems to have disappeared - using the DOF scale on the lens is pointless, and hyperfocal focusing (which I used to use a lot) is a total write-off. The other crazy thing is how sensitive the camera has become to camera shake - I am even getting blur from camera shake when shooting off a tripod, unless I am terribly careful and use the mirror pre-release religiously.
The really annoying thing is, that some shots are absolutely perfect, even hand-held at lowish shutter speeds. I try just as hard to get the focus pulled on every shot, but my results have become completely inconsistent, so I will get one brilliant result and the next frame will be pants.
Are digital sensors really so demanding?
John
-
I shot the same Mamiya AFd and RZ cameras for years with film and then with Leaf and Phase backs.
You are right, digital is more demanding. The image plain is really flat, not like a piece of film. You are also looking at a less than 645 crop of a what was a 6x6 frame, which means the way you used to shoot with film is not up to the task of the effectively tighter field of view with teh small chip. You are also looking at it at 100%, which, if you think about it, is ridiculous.
I think the 645 cameras are a bit better for digital, because thye optics and viewfinders are better matched for the close to 645 sensors. Things like VF magnification with the 645 cams is closer to what you need than an unmagnified waistlevel 6x6 finder. Maybe try the Chimney finder, if its magnafied.
You also might want to have your 500 series camera CLA'd. This might help.
Good luck.
Folks
I'm just looking for some general guidance here. Since Christmas, I have been shooting digital for the first time on my beloved Hasselblads using a CFV-39 back. I suppose that there are not that many people in my position, where I am using exactly the same cameras, lenses and accessories which I have used for many years, and now instead of a film magazine there is a 39MP digital device hung on there instead. Well, only users of Hasselblad V-system and Contax 645, perhaps.
By now I have shot about 150 frames I suppose (the CFV had to go back to Denmark to be fixed under warranty, so I lost a month). And I am having so much trouble with focus and depth of field it is driving me insane. Where before, with scanned film, I would reckon to get at least 90% or more of my shots correctly focused and with adequate DOF, now it is about 50% if I am lucky. My DOF seems to have disappeared - using the DOF scale on the lens is pointless, and hyperfocal focusing (which I used to use a lot) is a total write-off. The other crazy thing is how sensitive the camera has become to camera shake - I am even getting blur from camera shake when shooting off a tripod, unless I am terribly careful and use the mirror pre-release religiously.
The really annoying thing is, that some shots are absolutely perfect, even hand-held at lowish shutter speeds. I try just as hard to get the focus pulled on every shot, but my results have become completely inconsistent, so I will get one brilliant result and the next frame will be pants.
Are digital sensors really so demanding?
John
-
Folks
I'm just looking for some general guidance here. Since Christmas, I have been shooting digital for the first time on my beloved Hasselblads using a CFV-39 back. I suppose that there are not that many people in my position, where I am using exactly the same cameras, lenses and accessories which I have used for many years, and now instead of a film magazine there is a 39MP digital device hung on there instead. Well, only users of Hasselblad V-system and Contax 645, perhaps.
By now I have shot about 150 frames I suppose (the CFV had to go back to Denmark to be fixed under warranty, so I lost a month). And I am having so much trouble with focus and depth of field it is driving me insane. Where before, with scanned film, I would reckon to get at least 90% or more of my shots correctly focused and with adequate DOF, now it is about 50% if I am lucky. My DOF seems to have disappeared - using the DOF scale on the lens is pointless, and hyperfocal focusing (which I used to use a lot) is a total write-off. The other crazy thing is how sensitive the camera has become to camera shake - I am even getting blur from camera shake when shooting off a tripod, unless I am terribly careful and use the mirror pre-release religiously.
The really annoying thing is, that some shots are absolutely perfect, even hand-held at lowish shutter speeds. I try just as hard to get the focus pulled on every shot, but my results have become completely inconsistent, so I will get one brilliant result and the next frame will be pants.
Are digital sensors really so demanding?
John
Same experience with my CFV(16). I have upgraded my tripod system, my view finder and use MUP and remote release almost exclusively. The number of OK and throw-away shots are the majority. However the ones that are near "perfect" are amazing. I think that there are significant differences in the "physics" of the depth of the silicon sensor vs film but also pixel "peeping" the digital files has increased the psychological threshold for what is excellent. The SWC + CFV still works pretty well for hand held shots.
"brilliant result and the next frame will be pants."
Major advantage of digital...not changing film after 12 shots...You might also try DOF bracketing.
Steve
-
Welcome to digital. You are experiencing more or less the same thing I did (as well as others) with my 503CW. It will get better over time. I got the 45degree PME finder which was a true blessing as well as installing the better screen. Eventually I bit the bullit and went with the H.
I still find DoF has disappeared and only remained in a very thin slice that doesn't seem to do much even going from f4.0 to f16.0 (especially fairly close in).
-
Folks
I'm just looking for some general guidance here. Since Christmas, I have been shooting digital for the first time on my beloved Hasselblads using a CFV-39 back. I suppose that there are not that many people in my position, where I am using exactly the same cameras, lenses and accessories which I have used for many years, and now instead of a film magazine there is a 39MP digital device hung on there instead. Well, only users of Hasselblad V-system and Contax 645, perhaps.
By now I have shot about 150 frames I suppose (the CFV had to go back to Denmark to be fixed under warranty, so I lost a month). And I am having so much trouble with focus and depth of field it is driving me insane. Where before, with scanned film, I would reckon to get at least 90% or more of my shots correctly focused and with adequate DOF, now it is about 50% if I am lucky. My DOF seems to have disappeared - using the DOF scale on the lens is pointless, and hyperfocal focusing (which I used to use a lot) is a total write-off. The other crazy thing is how sensitive the camera has become to camera shake - I am even getting blur from camera shake when shooting off a tripod, unless I am terribly careful and use the mirror pre-release religiously.
The really annoying thing is, that some shots are absolutely perfect, even hand-held at lowish shutter speeds. I try just as hard to get the focus pulled on every shot, but my results have become completely inconsistent, so I will get one brilliant result and the next frame will be pants.
Are digital sensors really so demanding?
John
John, i have similar experience, be it in 35mm format. I use a Nikon D700 (full frame) with my set of Leica R lenses, so i do have to manually focus.
I even went back to use the Leica R5 with a slide film to figure out if it was me or that a digital sensor is so much more demanding. Turns out that it is indeed more demanding. Also made clear that quite a few of my slides are not perfectly focused after all :~)
Now i am used to it and a considerable percentage of shots is correctly focused, so i even do not want autofocus lenses anymore. Difficult to find autofocus and leica quality optics combined into one lens anyhow, so i am quite happy now. ;-)
-
Yes, Jan, I should certainly stick with your Leica glass.
Well, this is one of the really good things about this Forum - now I know that it is not just me. Thank heaven.
I have had to up my game by a good 100% since I started using this thing, and at times I have wondered if I was completely mad to have spent so much money on it. I should perhaps clarify things a bit -
Close-up still-life shots off a tripod using a prism and my 120mm S-Planar have been no problem. They have mostly been perfect. Equally, distant views at infinity using my longer lenses have also been good -I have one from the 150mm Sonnar where there is a power line about 1/4 mile away, and you can clearly see the insulators and dropper wires on the pole. And that was hand-held!
The difficult part is with the standard 80mm or the 60mm lens where the subject is neither particularly close nor very far away - about 15 to 40 feet, say. Then I am having real trouble, because the sensor is insisting on focusing to within about a foot, and often the wrong foot. And even using a split prism I cannot distinguish the plane of focus accurately enough, especially in low light or contre-jour.
John
-
Agree with everything written above.
I also think most digital backs have a small shutter lag, at least my contact/phase does and it changes the rhythm in how we work.
A contax with film use to go click, click, click, with a p31 it goes push shutter, click, push shutter click. Not much of a difference but enough to throw you off if you've been shooting with film for years. You get used to it and the success rate goes up.
I think we just shoot more and faster. Digital is far from free, actually I believe if I count the costs of storage, processing time, computers, software, calibrators, monitors, etc. etc. etc., I know for a absolute fact that it costs me more per frame than film.
Regardless we shoot more and probably shoot some things we might not attempt with film.
Also it's just damn hard to read most lcds on any digital camera unless you use something like the 5d2 and live view, or you tether your digital back to a computer, running focus check all the time.
The last thing is we hand hold more. I don't know why we do this with digital when in the film days almost everything was shot with a tripod, but we do, so there is more room for error.
With medium format I've gone back to almost all tripod shooting and the focus rate goes up 10 fold, but given that sometimes things just look screwy. We'll shooting autofocus and boom one scene just doesn't go into focus, so I switch to manual and boom everything is fine, then 2 hours later everything flops.
Still, nothing improves focus like a tripod.
BC
-
I really don't know how you'd manually focus on the 39mp back with any confidence. When I stepped up from the 22mp imacon to the 31 mp H3d...I quickly became aware that I couldn't focus the damn thing. It wasn't my eyes...it's simply the limitations of the prism optical system, specifically the focusing screen. I'd attempt to focus on a point...letting the screen "moire" at the point where high frequency detail "pixelated"..but I noticed that I could rotate the focusing ring a little in each direction from that spot, with no real change in the apparent focus...and sure enough....my focusing was randomly all over the place.
I contacted some folks at Hasselblad, eventually getting connected to Paul Claesson, who suggested that I try the autofocus ("it's very good" he said.) I scoffed at first, but when he finally told me that he was not capable of focusing his camera manually, I figured I'd give it a try. Since then, I rarely have any out of focus frames.
Now this doesn't help you with you're camera back combination...but hopefully it let's you know that it's not you...it's just the world of high end digital
(on the DOF situation...again...it's simply the state of being...the catch 22 is the visible diffraction on most f stops over 11.5...we need to stop down more with these cameras...but we can't, as the sensor is picking up diffraction in a way film never did.)
-
I really don't know how you'd manually focus on the 39mp back with any confidence. When I stepped up from the 22mp imacon to the 31 mp H3d...I quickly became aware that I couldn't focus the damn thing. It wasn't my eyes...it's simply the limitations of the prism optical system, specifically the focusing screen. I'd attempt to focus on a point...letting the screen "moire" at the point where high frequency detail "pixelated"..but I noticed that I could rotate the focusing ring a little in each direction from that spot, with no real change in the apparent focus...and sure enough....my focusing was randomly all over the place.
I contacted some folks at Hasselblad, eventually getting connected to Paul Claesson, who suggested that I try the autofocus ("it's very good" he said.) I scoffed at first, but when he finally told me that he was not capable of focusing his camera manually) I figured I'd give it a try. Since then, I rarely have any out of focus frames.
Now this doesn't help you with you're camera back combination...but hopefully it let's you know that it's not you...it's just the world of high end digital
(on the DOF situation...again...it's simply the state of being...the catch 22 is the visible diffraction on most f stops over 11.5...we need to stop down more with these cameras...but we can't, as the sensor is picking up diffraction in a way film never did.)
I never tried to MF an H. I always used MF on my Mamiya AFd with a P30 and the 45mm lens. I had a 90% success rate using MF on that camera. Much better than using AF, in most cases.
-
I really don't know how you'd manually focus on the 39mp back with any confidence. When I stepped up from the 22mp imacon to the 31 mp H3d...I quickly became aware that I couldn't focus the damn thing. It wasn't my eyes...it's simply the limitations of the prism optical system, specifically the focusing screen. I'd attempt to focus on a point...letting the screen "moire" at the point where high frequency detail "pixelated"..but I noticed that I could rotate the focusing ring a little in each direction from that spot, with no real change in the apparent focus...and sure enough....my focusing was randomly all over the place.
Oh, great. Thanks, Barry. In other words, it's impossible. What you have described is exactly my experience. And yes, even worse, stopping down to f16 doesn't help too much because the centre goes soft. I proved this a few days back shooting a test frame of a pebble-dashed wall. The teensy little snagette, chaps, is that there is no autofocus available for a forty-year old 500 C/M (and two of my lenses are almost fifty years old).
Maybe I shall just have to resort to taking six shots of everything in the hope that one is OK.
John
-
Oh, great. Thanks, Barry. In other words, it's impossible. What you have described is exactly my experience. And yes, even worse, stopping down to f16 doesn't help too much because the centre goes soft. I proved this a few days back shooting a test frame of a pebble-dashed wall. The teensy little snagette, chaps, is that there is no autofocus available for a forty-year old 500 C/M (and two of my lenses are almost fifty years old).
Maybe I shall just have to resort to taking six shots of everything in the hope that one is OK.
John
Are you using the latest AcuteMatte D focusing screen? If not, the 42215 has both microprism/split image.
Steve
-
Are you using the latest AcuteMatte D focusing screen? If not, the 42215 has both microprism/split image.
Steve
Steve
Yes, I have the latest screen (microprism & split-image) which was supplied with the CFV. And all sorts of othe AcuteMatte screens, too. And two prisms and a magnifying hood. Perhaps I should go in for a type of pictorialist style where everything is kind of soft . . .
Actually, now it occurs to me that I read somewhere that the plane of focus for MFD has to be accurate to within 0.02mm. It strikes me that a forty-year old body where the back is just held on by two sort of hooks is not too likely to be within that sort of tolerance anyway, however one would wish that it was. And you know that awfully nice man from Hasselblad UK who called to give me a demo mentioned absolutely none of these things. And I gave him two cups of tea and some nice biscuits.
John
-
I suppose that there are not that many people in my position, where I am using exactly the same cameras, lenses and accessories which I have used for many years, and now instead of a film magazine there is a 39MP digital device hung on there instead. Well, only users of Hasselblad V-system and Contax 645, perhaps.
I (and many others) did exactly what you have done putting a 6MP back on a 503CWD and my experiences mirror yours.
Couple of things I have learnt.
First off there is a fair bit of tolerance in V system kit. Shoot a ruler running away from camera (on a tripod) and see if where you think you are focussing is what is sharp on screen. Repeat at different distances.
This will tell you if the mirror back latches are out of whack or not. My 503CW needed adjusting.
Beyond that I'm pretty convinced that very little of my film stuff was actually perfectly in focus, it looked just fine under an 8X Schneider loupe tho'
Perhaps one of the clever chaps here could work out what the equivalent loupe would be on 6X^ film vs 100% on a 39MP file, I'm betting it's a big old loupe.
Regards from NY
Nick-T
-
Some points..
1) try downrezzing and blurring your files in photoshop to the resolution of a bad scan or an A4 mag page- you may find your focus errors dissapear
2) you should run some formal tests of your mirror chip allignment focusing on fence posts or whatever - you mirror/chip/back may be a bit wonky if you see consistent front or rear focus
3) in general I think that digital is outresolving what the human eye can decern inside a mirror box - ie resolve over a 645 area - live view on a good screen with pixel to pixel zoom is the future
Frankly the 5dmk2 has that which makes it the winner over my hosselblot in so many situations
4) When I used to shoot the blad a lot I bracketed focus all the time
When I shot on a square mamiya I just prayed !
S
-
The really annoying thing is, that some shots are absolutely perfect, even hand-held at lowish shutter speeds. I try just as hard to get the focus pulled on every shot, but my results have become completely inconsistent, so I will get one brilliant result and the next frame will be pants.
John,
The thing to understand though is that for a given print size you will at least get with digital the same quality you had with film, and sometimes much better. Looking at files on screen at 100% can indeed be a frustrating experience though since it makes you feel how much untapped resolution potential is wasted due to inaccurate focusing.
It has been my experience too that once you get in 7 or 6 micron photosites consistent manual focus is simply not possible.
The only 2 solutions known to mankind are:
1. An accurate/tunable AF. Unfortunately none of the MF camera currently offer per lens user tunable AF as far as I know,
2. Live view for those situation where a tripod can be used. Unfortunately the CCD used by MF camera these days don't enable in camera live view.
All in all, you might be better off with a high end DSLR in terms of achieved image quality even if the specs on paper are lower.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A similar experience here although with different camera gear. Use of MFDB often leads to low ISO, low shutter speed, and open shooting, with limited DOF. Using 400 ISO might seem like a high number in film, but digitally, to get both stable and DOF is very hard.
I ended up getting a significantly powerful lupe on the WLF, and also a split-image focusing screen (the matte isn't good enough to tell in from out of focus). Change of gear gets a focus confirmation, which works very well with the manual focus lenses.
yes, check the back alignment, also focus shift can occur on the lenses, so do the ruler test and see where focus really is.
The combination of being a bit off, looking at 100%, and realizing those wonderful film shots weren't always on either leads to greater understanding, but not necessarily solving the problem. Some of it can often be blur from shake, some from DOF, or OOF. Greater precision will cure the OOF, and slowly you will get this under control.
-
First off there is a fair bit of tolerance in V system kit. Shoot a ruler running away from camera (on a tripod) and see if where you think you are focusing is what is sharp on screen.
*********
I did a quick ruler shot with a Lens Align which I had purchased for my Nikon. 203 FE, 110 F/2 and CFV back. Shot at about 10 feet and images significantly cropped. Not sure what it means but looks as if at f/2, there is slight front focus and at f/5.6 and f/16 slight back focus??
Steve
-
so do the ruler test and see where focus really is.
The reason i suggested a fence not a ruler is I think our OP is not into macro and I geuss there may be some shitft from maro to infinity
S
-
I would suggest a simple test in the studio using Live View; With the lens wide open do the "ruler test" and focus on a certain mark, then drop the mirror back and look through the finder. Be sure to do is at a close enough distance so that ti will be easy to see the shift.
This at least will tell you if the mirror and/ or your focusing screen need any adjustment...
HTH
Yair
-
First off there is a fair bit of tolerance in V system kit. Shoot a ruler running away from camera (on a tripod) and see if where you think you are focusing is what is sharp on screen.
*********
I did a quick ruler shot with a Lens Align which I had purchased for my Nikon. 203 FE, 110 F/2 and CFV back. Shot at about 10 feet and images significantly cropped. Not sure what it means but looks as if at f/2, there is slight front focus and at f/5.6 and f/16 slight back focus??
Steve
Optimum focus shifts a little dependant on aperture, which could explain what you are seeing. Something adjusted automatically for in the H system.
I guess you didn't touch the focus between captures?
D
-
Optimum focus shifts a little dependant on aperture, which could explain what you are seeing. Something adjusted automatically for in the H system.
I guess you didn't touch the focus between captures?
D
I re-focused before each shot...I suspect that if I did multiple attempts, that the lens-body-back combination would be close to "neutral" focus at all f stops.. From my experience in checking my Nikon lenses, experimental error can be a significant factor.
Steve
-
Folks
I'm just looking for some general guidance here. Since Christmas, I have been shooting digital for the first time on my beloved Hasselblads using a CFV-39 back. I suppose that there are not that many people in my position, where I am using exactly the same cameras, lenses and accessories which I have used for many years, and now instead of a film magazine there is a 39MP digital device hung on there instead. Well, only users of Hasselblad V-system and Contax 645, perhaps.
By now I have shot about 150 frames I suppose (the CFV had to go back to Denmark to be fixed under warranty, so I lost a month). And I am having so much trouble with focus and depth of field it is driving me insane. Where before, with scanned film, I would reckon to get at least 90% or more of my shots correctly focused and with adequate DOF, now it is about 50% if I am lucky. My DOF seems to have disappeared - using the DOF scale on the lens is pointless, and hyperfocal focusing (which I used to use a lot) is a total write-off. The other crazy thing is how sensitive the camera has become to camera shake - I am even getting blur from camera shake when shooting off a tripod, unless I am terribly careful and use the mirror pre-release religiously.
The really annoying thing is, that some shots are absolutely perfect, even hand-held at lowish shutter speeds. I try just as hard to get the focus pulled on every shot, but my results have become completely inconsistent, so I will get one brilliant result and the next frame will be pants.
Are digital sensors really so demanding?
John
I'll admit I rarely post on forums but I do learn a great deal from them. I thought this thread would be a good opportunity for me to share my experience.
Like John who started the post, I am shooting a CFV-39 with a 503CW, and focusing can be very much of a problem. In the past, I've owned a Mamiya AFD + Aptus 22 and an H3DII-31. I've always loved working with the V system with film and thought I would give it a try with a digital back, although I did suspect the large digital sensor would perhaps be too demanding for manual focusing.
I purchased the system with the idea to shoot it primarily in the studio on a tripod. I am actually getting very accurate results using an Acute Matte D screen and a the built-in magnifier of the waistlevel finder. I also use a chimney and go back and forth with the latter. The Acute Matte D screen has the split image and microprism combo. I like the microprism very much but find the the combination of ground glass/microprism/split image a bit too distracting. I have been thinking of ordering a screen from Bill Maxwell with just the microprism or actually none of the central aids. Does anyone have any experience with Bill Maxwell's screen and digital-V?
While I am getting satisfying results in the studio, shooting handheld outside is another story... At first, the keeper rate was null; every image was blurry, either from focusing or from what looked like motion blur. I am now starting to get better results, but the keeper rate is barely above 50%. I found that focusing just with the waistlevel finder will not do it. I definitely need to use the built-in magnifier or a chimney. I also find that the DOF is very shallow, and feels even more so than with film.
I took the camera yesterday to do some random focusing test. These are simple shots with no great contents, and just for illustration.
This shot was taken handheld at ISO 100 f8 and 1/250. It is a good example of how sharp the image can be. I've done very minimal editing in Phocus and exporting the file to full-size with quality of 10 to reduce the file size a bit. It is still 10MB so make take time to download:
(http://gilleslorin.fileburst.com/forum/ISO100_f8_handheld_0033.jpg)
I got a number of other images which were quite acceptable in sharpness. Again, this is handheld, probably stopped down a bit, around 5.6:
(http://gilleslorin.fileburst.com/forum/LL%20forum_0034.jpg)
However, the greatest part of my images were more or less blurry. If I pixel-peep, I would qualify these as unacceptable and would send the file straight to the trash. But I dug through scans done at similar pixel size with a Creo scanner, and I was surprise to see that what I regarded as blurry shots were pretty close to what I was getting on film.
Here are two examples:
1. film, probably Ilford HP-4 ISO125: (http://gilleslorin.fileburst.com/forum/film%20crop.jpg)
2. CFV-39: (http://gilleslorin.fileburst.com/forum/digital%20crop.jpg)
We know that the CFV-39 is capable of much better results, but I think that this image could actually make a very good print if I compare it to the film shot. This a crop at 5000 pixels image. Downsized for screen viewing or for an 8x10 print, you could probably not tell it is blurry.
This is another shot I took from about 6 or 7 ft away at f2.8. The pebble measures about 1in. The DOF is very shallow, yet I was able to shoot this handheld:
(http://gilleslorin.fileburst.com/forum/LL%20forum_0035.jpg)
Digital is definitely very much more demanding. I think the choice of camera comes down to ones preferences and goal. Comparing H to V systems having owned both, my keeper rate was much greater with the H3DII-31. I actually I don't remember focusing handheld was ever a problem. Yet I like the body and lenses of the V system much more, and since I primarily shoot on a tripod and take my time to compose images, I find the V more suited for my photography. In an ideal world, I would love a back which would fit both V and H systems, or any other AF systems.
Gilles
-
Before you do lose your minds, you should know that in the days of the 500 series Hass used to send out a news sheet. In one of those, they were very honest and presented side-by-side shots of two images of the same thing, one with MU and the other not. They (Hass) pointed out, reasonably, that ALL single lens reflex cameras are faced with the problem of mirror bounce. Their message was: always use MU and a tripod if you can.
Anecdotal experience: on my very first outing with my spanking new 500C I was under the illusion that I was using a new version of my old Rollei TLR. I soon discovered that I had not been doing that: the number of 'soft' images was a revelation. It became clear that I had bought an excellent studio camera that loved electronic flash. Hand-held available light people shots was never going to be a sensible option; far, far better off doing that sort of work on the Nikon F!
Horses for courses.
Rob C
-
Yes,
Or more exactly you are. Just so convenient to look at an image at actual pixels.
Have you tried analyzing prints?
Best regards
Erik
Are digital sensors really so demanding?
John
-
I have heard more than one trusted friend report that their V Hasselblad body, mated with digital back, has been very hard to focus. I just wonder if this is a common occurrence, and if anyone has found a good solution to help this issue. Maybe a better focusing screen, or larger more magnified viewfinder.
I'd love to purchase a V body (503), and work with either a Phase back on it, or maybe a CFV-39, but this nagging thing about focusing issues is holding me back. Many people won't admit to it unless you almost beat it out them. My concern is that maybe the use of a digital back now REQUIRES autofocus in the body, due to the tiny tolerances.
-
*meh
-
If you want to take advantage of the higher level of detail you can resolve with a 39 megapixel sensor then yes you will have to be extremely critical on focus. If you're off on focus your image will still be as sharp as it was in the days of film. If the fact that another area of the image is sharper bothers you simply down-res the file to the detail level of film and you won't have lost anything compared to film.
Come on, Doug. This is supposed to be comforting? Kinda like saying, "Here you can buy this $200k Ferrari, but if it's only hitting on two cylinders, then it'll still run as fast as your old '68 AMC Gremlin".
It's about looking thru a supposed precision viewfinder, and actually being able to trust what you're focusing on, without having to resort to LiveView, (which really isn't even available on a MF camera). It's about certainty; it's about eliminating doubt.
I'm actually wondering if we're really talking about that Autofocus is simply necessary, with these modern digital backs.
-
This is exactly my experience.
My feeling is that the ground glass viewfinder simply cannot render the degree of tolerances that the digital back gives, thus, it's simply hit and miss, as you spin the focus ring on the lens, manually. It's as though that the Hasselblad V lenses need to rotate with a much further "throw" from minimum focus to infinity. As if the focus ring would have the capability of spinning around three or four complete turns, to show the degree of tolerance necessary to render proper focus on the ground glass.
The scary thing is, as I review jobs I've shot, is that there's no real rhyme or reason to the missed focus; it's literally hit and miss, when wide open. Yet, my memory is, while I was shooting, I never shot unless it appeared tack sharp on the eyelashes. That's the scary thing -- Doubt.
-
Could any RZ users with digital back give feedback:
Do you have the same focus issues as the Hasselblad V photographers seems to have ?
I am using Contax mount with P45+ and dont seem to have issues with manual focus - but I am concidering a mout swift (to Mamiya or Hasselblad V), as I love working with a WLF (portrait mode).
TMARK if you read this: I think I remember you said in another thread to go for the RZproII and Not the RZproIID - It would be great to work without cables, so could you please tell me the advantages / disadvantages between the two RZ models.
Thanks
TES
-
Tes,
The RZ is a joy. It gets heavy, but when you are in the zone shooting with it, its your best friend.
With the RZ, if there is enough light to see the subject clearly, and you calibrated your screen and use the magnafier, you can get a very high hit rate. The ProII has the fine focus control, which helps. I took a trick from Andre Napier from this forum: if I can, I'll throw a HMI Par light on a models face for more light than the modeling lights provide, but not really enough to change the exposure. When I do that, I get 90%+ sharp focus. Otherwise, I can hand hold the RZ really well, down to 1/30 with the 110 2.8 and the grip. There is no real mirror slap, which is amazing for such a huge mirror.
As to the RZ model, if you are shooting a Phase back that needs a wakeup signal, the ProIID is the best bet. The electronics in the ProIID wakeup the back. Otherwise you would need a seperate wakeup signal from a cable release.
The cables don't bother me. What bothers me is the ProIID's crappy, flakey electronics. Dead batteries, power drains, bad synchs, no wakeup signal, etc. I bought an H mount Leaf 54s which I use on a Leaf H to RZ, rotating adapter. Its a dead plate, meaning no electronics aside from the sync cable. Reliable and cheap.
Could any RZ users with digital back give feedback:
Do you have the same focus issues as the Hasselblad V photographers seems to have ?
I am using Contax mount with P45+ and dont seem to have issues with manual focus - but I am concidering a mout swift (to Mamiya or Hasselblad V), as I love working with a WLF (portrait mode).
TMARK if you read this: I think I remember you said in another thread to go for the RZproII and Not the RZproIID - It would be great to work without cables, so could you please tell me the advantages / disadvantages between the two RZ models.
Thanks
TES
-
Really just chiming in with more of the same - I am shooting with an Ixpress V96C (square 16mp chip) on Bronica SQ bodies that I'd been shooting film with for years, mounted via a V-mount adapter plate. Table-top photography on a tripod and macro lens is always spot-on. Head and shoulders portraits are always sharp, with focus right where I put it, focusing with the waistlevel finder. Full-body shots are extremely difficult to focus reliably with any lens and viewfinder I've got, and I never experienced this with film. I did all the focus checks and shimming of the Ixpress when I got it, so I know what I see in the viewfinder is what is being captured. It simply seems that there are certain distances & scenarios for which the viewfinder is simply not up to the task.
-
Tes,
The RZ is a joy. It gets heavy, but when you are in the zone shooting with it, its your best friend.
With the RZ, if there is enough light to see the subject clearly, and you calibrated your screen and use the magnafier, you can get a very high hit rate. The ProII has the fine focus control, which helps. I took a trick from Andre Napier from this forum: if I can, I'll throw a HMI Par light on a models face for more light than the modeling lights provide, but not really enough to change the exposure. When I do that, I get 90%+ sharp focus. Otherwise, I can hand hold the RZ really well, down to 1/30 with the 110 2.8 and the grip. There is no real mirror slap, which is amazing for such a huge mirror.
As to the RZ model, if you are shooting a Phase back that needs a wakeup signal, the ProIID is the best bet. The electronics in the ProIID wakeup the back. Otherwise you would need a seperate wakeup signal from a cable release.
The cables don't bother me. What bothers me is the ProIID's crappy, flakey electronics. Dead batteries, power drains, bad synchs, no wakeup signal, etc. I bought an H mount Leaf 54s which I use on a Leaf H to RZ, rotating adapter. Its a dead plate, meaning no electronics aside from the sync cable. Reliable and cheap.
Hey TMARK - Thanks a lot
Do you shoot the RZ with a WLF ? How does the WLF work in your opinion ?
Is it difficult or do you need special tools to calibrate the screen ?
I have a full RB system that I have used for portraits for a long time, and since digital I have been missing shooting with that system.
I am looking into buying a RZ system, I have tested a RZ with a Contax to Mamiya RZ adapter (dead plate too) but it bothers me that I need a special cable release (with wake up signal) to work the P45+. No problems for still life but a problem for portraits.
I think there are two options:
1. Mount swift to Mamiya but I somehow dont want to give up my Contax kit.
2. Upgrade to a P65+ (Contax mount) and here I think it is possible to shoot without wakeup cable with the Contax to Mamiya RZ adapter ? - I will have to test.
Any advice is appreciated; I will work mainly with portraits with this setup.
Cheers
TES
-
Hi,
This may give some insights on the issue: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
You may also check: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
The factors as I see it:
- Digital has fairly high resolution
- Focal plane is flat and thin
- Easy to look at actual pixels which really corresponds to gigantic print
Suggestions:
1) Make sure your focusing screen is focusing correctly
2) Get a very good viewfinder loupe
3) Try, test and gain experience
Best regards
Erik
Folks
I'm just looking for some general guidance here. Since Christmas, I have been shooting digital for the first time on my beloved Hasselblads using a CFV-39 back. I suppose that there are not that many people in my position, where I am using exactly the same cameras, lenses and accessories which I have used for many years, and now instead of a film magazine there is a 39MP digital device hung on there instead. Well, only users of Hasselblad V-system and Contax 645, perhaps.
By now I have shot about 150 frames I suppose (the CFV had to go back to Denmark to be fixed under warranty, so I lost a month). And I am having so much trouble with focus and depth of field it is driving me insane. Where before, with scanned film, I would reckon to get at least 90% or more of my shots correctly focused and with adequate DOF, now it is about 50% if I am lucky. My DOF seems to have disappeared - using the DOF scale on the lens is pointless, and hyperfocal focusing (which I used to use a lot) is a total write-off. The other crazy thing is how sensitive the camera has become to camera shake - I am even getting blur from camera shake when shooting off a tripod, unless I am terribly careful and use the mirror pre-release religiously.
The really annoying thing is, that some shots are absolutely perfect, even hand-held at lowish shutter speeds. I try just as hard to get the focus pulled on every shot, but my results have become completely inconsistent, so I will get one brilliant result and the next frame will be pants.
Are digital sensors really so demanding?
John
-
I do use the WLF. It has that flip up magnafier which is great and covers most of the digital crop. I also use the ae finder as as an eye level. Its dim, but works OK with longer lenses or when you have lots of light.
MAC group in Elmsford NY will sell you the tool to adjust the screen. It was about $50 when I bought it back in the day. With digital you shoot tethered, on a tripod, locked down, focus on something (I use a ruler at 45 degrees), shoot, adjust, shoot, adjust. I did this with Polaroids 12 years ago, and again when I started mounting my Leaf back on my RZ's.
I think the P65 in Contax mount would be the best bet. No wakeup cable, dead, rotating plate, big sensor to fill that big viewfinder, then you keep your Contax and use have the RZ.
T
Hey TMARK - Thanks a lot
Do you shoot the RZ with a WLF ? How does the WLF work in your opinion ?
Is it difficult or do you need special tools to calibrate the screen ?
I have a full RB system that I have used for portraits for a long time, and since digital I have been missing shooting with that system.
I am looking into buying a RZ system, I have tested a RZ with a Contax to Mamiya RZ adapter (dead plate too) but it bothers me that I need a special cable release (with wake up signal) to work the P45+. No problems for still life but a problem for portraits.
I think there are two options:
1. Mount swift to Mamiya but I somehow dont want to give up my Contax kit.
2. Upgrade to a P65+ (Contax mount) and here I think it is possible to shoot without wakeup cable with the Contax to Mamiya RZ adapter ? - I will have to test.
Any advice is appreciated; I will work mainly with portraits with this setup.
Cheers
TES
-
I know the feeling too. Been adjusting my diopter on and on and ended up setting it at neutral (on my 5DII) I know the viewfinder shows more depth of field than will show in the final file, but I can focus very exactly when my eyes allow. What I mean with this is: in the morning my eyes SEE the subject in focus and the file has the focus on the same subject. But then in the afternoon things come out completely off focus. This can even vary with mornings, afternoons or evenings. Guess it's something to do with becoming of age. 50+ will give you eyes that aren't that good anymore. I do see very good, even trained myself reading without reading glasses. Stopped drinking alcohol and regained better vision. As with every muscle in the body the eyes have more souplesse too again. But still, not enough for precise focussing at any moment. So, when focussing is critical, I use live view enlarged 10x. 100 percent right. Disliked digital SLR's for quite a while, but going from film to digital in 2001 just was in sync with my eyes becoming less trustful. But if this helps
My feeling is that the ground glass viewfinder simply cannot render the degree of tolerances that the digital back gives, thus, it's simply hit and miss, as you spin the focus ring on the lens, manually. It's as though that the Hasselblad V lenses need to rotate with a much further "throw" from minimum focus to infinity. As if the focus ring would have the capability of spinning around three or four complete turns, to show the degree of tolerance necessary to render proper focus on the ground glass.
The scary thing is, as I review jobs I've shot, is that there's no real rhyme or reason to the missed focus; it's literally hit and miss, when wide open. Yet, my memory is, while I was shooting, I never shot unless it appeared tack sharp on the eyelashes. That's the scary thing -- Doubt.
-
Well, I just printed two really good 'uns tonight. Tack sharp, three-dimensional, great depth. Can't last, can it? The next frame is bound to be pants . . .
John
-
I think the P65 in Contax mount would be the best bet. No wakeup cable, dead, rotating plate, big sensor to fill that big viewfinder, then you keep your Contax and use have the RZ.
How bizarre, and what a statement on the state of the market, that you'd come up with that as your best bet, (and that I'd almost agree with you). It's funny: I have this little mental exercise that I do when I'm thinking of the ideal camera -- most of the time, it's me standing there by a window, shooting a portrait of someone, handheld, and I'm pushed for light, and I need asa 800, and I'm shooting vertical, so I need a vertical grip, and I don't have enough light to feel good about manual focus, so I need autofocus. Almost aways, it comes down to a decision of a separate back and body, and usually, the back is always a P65+. (Remember, this is just a mental exercise, so I only have to write a mental check, so it's no big deal). So if the back is a P65+, because I want the largest physical chip, then that leaves only the body, which is either H NASA Slap, or MamiyaPlastic, or Hassie V CantFocus, or ContaxDarkViewfinder. But of those, for me, the two top choices would be Contax, due to NoSlapNoLunge, or Hassie V, just because it feels like RealPhotographer.
I know there's some code wording in there, but I think you'll get what I'm talking about. The only others that leaves is the wild card of the new Pentax, or maybe a Nikon D3x, but those are way down the list.
In the end, the ideal camera would be the feeling of a Mamiya 6 body and grip, the way it fits into your hand, but with SLR, no rangefinder focus issues, but with P65+ glued to the back of it.
I am calling this camera: Walkaround, LowLight, WindowLight, HighASA, Handhold, FastLenses, GreatViewfinder. I see it so clearly in my mind.
-
I do use the WLF. It has that flip up magnafier which is great and covers most of the digital crop. I also use the ae finder as as an eye level. Its dim, but works OK with longer lenses or when you have lots of light.
MAC group in Elmsford NY will sell you the tool to adjust the screen. It was about $50 when I bought it back in the day. With digital you shoot tethered, on a tripod, locked down, focus on something (I use a ruler at 45 degrees), shoot, adjust, shoot, adjust. I did this with Polaroids 12 years ago, and again when I started mounting my Leaf back on my RZ's.
I think the P65 in Contax mount would be the best bet. No wakeup cable, dead, rotating plate, big sensor to fill that big viewfinder, then you keep your Contax and use have the RZ.
T
TMARK, thanks a lot for this info, really appreciated.
Cheers
TES
-
How bizarre, and what a statement on the state of the market, that you'd come up with that as your best bet, (and that I'd almost agree with you). It's funny: I have this little mental exercise that I do when I'm thinking of the ideal camera -- most of the time, it's me standing there by a window, shooting a portrait of someone, handheld, and I'm pushed for light, and I need asa 800, and I'm shooting vertical, so I need a vertical grip, and I don't have enough light to feel good about manual focus, so I need autofocus. Almost aways, it comes down to a decision of a separate back and body, and usually, the back is always a P65+. (Remember, this is just a mental exercise, so I only have to write a mental check, so it's no big deal). So if the back is a P65+, because I want the largest physical chip, then that leaves only the body, which is either H NASA Slap, or MamiyaPlastic, or Hassie V CantFocus, or ContaxDarkViewfinder. But of those, for me, the two top choices would be Contax, due to NoSlapNoLunge, or Hassie V, just because it feels like RealPhotographer.
I know there's some code wording in there, but I think you'll get what I'm talking about. The only others that leaves is the wild card of the new Pentax, or maybe a Nikon D3x, but those are way down the list.
In the end, the ideal camera would be the feeling of a Mamiya 6 body and grip, the way it fits into your hand, but with SLR, no rangefinder focus issues, but with P65+ glued to the back of it.
I am calling this camera: Walkaround, LowLight, WindowLight, HighASA, Handhold, FastLenses, GreatViewfinder. I see it so clearly in my mind.
I play these mindgames myself.
My dilemma is that I love everything about the Contax system (have most of their lenses), but I love doing portraits on a tripod looking down a WLF and focusing the Mamiya RB with film in portrait mode.
I want to convey this feeling to digital capture.
I have a WLF on the Contax but this cant be used in portrait mode.
Ok I could crop to square format, but the loosing chip real estate.
OK then a Contax to Mamiya RZ adapter plate but then the problem with wakeup cable release.
OK then swift moutn to Hasselblad V and use the classic 500CM, but I always hated focus the 500CM in the film days and after reading this thread it seem even more difficult with digital.
OK then swift mount to Mamiya, but the I have to let go of the Contax (no Mamiya to Contax adapter).
OK then upgrade to the P65+ in Contax mount, larger chip size (ver good), it can fit the RZ and work without wake up cable - this might be the best option.
Then I suddenly remember that I have an ongoing project where I need very long exposures - back to the P45+
I am stuck....... Need two backs........ F#€&
-
How bizarre, and what a statement on the state of the market, that you'd come up with that as your best bet, (and that I'd almost agree with you). It's funny: I have this little mental exercise that I do when I'm thinking of the ideal camera -- most of the time, it's me standing there by a window, shooting a portrait of someone, handheld, and I'm pushed for light, and I need asa 800, and I'm shooting vertical, so I need a vertical grip, and I don't have enough light to feel good about manual focus, so I need autofocus. Almost aways, it comes down to a decision of a separate back and body, and usually, the back is always a P65+. (Remember, this is just a mental exercise, so I only have to write a mental check, so it's no big deal). So if the back is a P65+, because I want the largest physical chip, then that leaves only the body, which is either H NASA Slap, or MamiyaPlastic, or Hassie V CantFocus, or ContaxDarkViewfinder. But of those, for me, the two top choices would be Contax, due to NoSlapNoLunge, or Hassie V, just because it feels like RealPhotographer.
I know there's some code wording in there, but I think you'll get what I'm talking about. The only others that leaves is the wild card of the new Pentax, or maybe a Nikon D3x, but those are way down the list.
In the end, the ideal camera would be the feeling of a Mamiya 6 body and grip, the way it fits into your hand, but with SLR, no rangefinder focus issues, but with P65+ glued to the back of it.
I am calling this camera: Walkaround, LowLight, WindowLight, HighASA, Handhold, FastLenses, GreatViewfinder. I see it so clearly in my mind.
The Contax is actually a good choice because of (i) the autofocus system which is very accurate (if not blazing fast) and (ii) because of the comparatively soft mirror slap - which both help in achieving maximum sharpness.
I share the experience of many other people here with the difficulty of focusing an MFDB equipped camera manually and with the very shallow depth of field. I am now using a Sinar Hy6 body with my digital back and have had the focusing accuracy of all my lenses measured by a Sinar technician in Zurich - he printed a little certificate for me, showing the recommended offsets (focus micro-adjustments) for each lens. Every time I switch lenses I dial in these offsets in the camera body menu (the latest version of the firmware allows this). This really helps, especially at shorter distances (as proved by my own tests using the Lens Align tool). Interestingly, when I had checked some of my Contax lenses on the 645 body (with the same Sinar e75 back and the Lens Align tool) there was no micro-adjustment needed, the autofocus was impressively spot on. So if you can live with the relatively dim viewfinder on the Contax (and the lack of a 45 degree prism which I missed with that system), the Contax in my view addressed the focus accuracy problem very well - and at a very reasonable price. The Sinar Hy6/Leaf AFi is another good and more modern (and more expensive) alternative (and yes I know all the potential concerns here in connection with the demise of F&H - my point is that the system does address the focus accuracy issue through the possibility of micro-adjustment - and as a benefit, there is no need for a vertical grip since it has the rotating back adapter which I find hugely helpful).
Regards,
Martin
-
I sympathise with the writer who yearned for the old 500C/CM experience because it felt 'real photography'. How bloody true.
I no longer haver either 'blad, but wish that I did; I still have an F3 and also a D200 and D700, neither of which gives the feeling of the old Nikons. There is a suspicion that younger photographers will not suffer this feeling since they probably never knew the bliss of the simple, easy ways, where the big deal was seeing the right image before you and the mechanical feel was just so right it actually helped inspire you in your work.
But I suppose those days have passed for ever. Long live the synthetic mode... yeah.
Rob C
-
Hello,
Well Rob all I can say is that I never what to work with film cameras again. I've be shoot professionally for 25 years and I just love the creative freedom that digital has to offer. I do miss the smell of the 669 Polaroid's thou.
Cheers
Simon
-
Well Rob all I can say is that I never what to work with film cameras again. I've be shoot professionally for 25 years and I just love the creative freedom that digital has to offer.
Simon
It all depends what your definition of a "photographic experience" is. Quite a lot of people still ride horses, sail wooden boats, or drive classic cars, although they are all outmoded forms of transport. For some of us quaint eccentrics, the slam of a 'Blad mirror or the focusing knob of a Rollei TLR are an enjoyable and intrinsic part of the making of a photograph. If I just want to get quickly from A to B I would probably hire a 2010 Ford, but if I want an interesting and challenging driving experience I would pick an old Alfa or MG any day.
John
-
Simon
It all depends what your definition of a "photographic experience" is. Quite a lot of people still ride horses, sail wooden boats, or drive classic cars, although they are all outmoded forms of transport. For some of us quaint eccentrics, the slam of a 'Blad mirror or the focusing knob of a Rollei TLR are an enjoyable and intrinsic part of the making of a photograph. If I just want to get quickly from A to B I would probably hire a 2010 Ford, but if I want an interesting and challenging driving experience I would pick an old Alfa or MG any day.
John
A few years back, I met one of the worlds top music photographers who still shoots with a Nikon F and his trusted Tri-X. He used to be a very good Jazz Musician before turning into photography.
I asked him why he still uses this old equiptment and his answer was that he liked the sound of the shutter.
No lightmeter, he calculate his exposure from experience. No camera lcd to look at to take away attention from photography, he knows when the shot is there. He delivers fast: 1 hour developing film and make 4 prints in the darkroom (no contact sheet).
My guess is digital would take longer when you calculate, computertime including storage.
-
Hello,
I get what you are saying. I still use a Sinar P2 and a Mamiya RZ. The great bit is that lovely Leaf Aptus 75 clipped on the back of them and tethered to a Imac, just wonderful.
Cheers
Simon
-
I agree with all the foregoing about the difficulty of focusing with MFDB and the unreliability of the depth of field indicators on the lens barrels even though my experience is only from the low levels of an Aptus 17.
What I am surprised at is the lack of any rational explanation for these problems. Some talk about the flat plane of the sensor being the cause but all film backs try to keep film as flat as possible so the flatness of the sensor should be a plus for accurate focusing! Some talk about the thinness of the focal plane with digital but it is not as if film is of any substantial thickness itself.
It seems to me that the precision that an absolutely flat and rigid sensor offers should positively help achieve reliable focus.
So, why are we having focusing problems?
When someone sorts that out, I would like to know why some lenses do not focus at infinity with digital on the Flexbody. I noticed this with my 150mm Sonnar and found confirmation of the issue on the web. Focusing at infinity should be so easy to achieve but not with my 150mm lens on my Flexbody. The lens focuses fine on all my 500 series bodies. Other lenses focus at infinity on my Flexbody with no problem. I challenge someone to explain this situation.
Roger
-
What I am surprised at is the lack of any rational explanation for these problems. Some talk about the flat plane of the sensor being the cause but all film backs try to keep film as flat as possible so the flatness of the sensor should be a plus for accurate focusing! Some talk about the thinness of the focal plane with digital but it is not as if film is of any substantial thickness itself.
Roger
Indeed. I have a 1928 quarter-plate camera of uncertain origin, which has a very crude 6x9 rollfilm back. You focus on the groundglass in the usual way, then fit the film back, remove the darkslide, and make the exposure. If you saw how badly this focus screen mount is worn, saw how much the film bulges and curls in the back (no pressure plate) and how sloppy the mount for that is, you would reckon that there would be no hope of any focus at all, let alone quality. Yet the little 3-element Schneider Radionar produces stunning, tack sharp shots. So compared with all that, a 'Blad 500 with a Phase or CFV back should be a total Rolls Royce. And yet we can't focus the damn thing.
John
-
It's something that puzzles me too, that idea that having a less flat surface on which to focus (film) will produce a greater number of sharp pics than a very flat sensor seems able to do on the same body. I've read the explanations offered, that the emulsion thickness allows the light to focus internally even at different depths (!) to the absolute surface... yes, but no. I just don't accept it as reasonable. There has to be something else going down - has anybody actually checked how flat all sensors really are? Are we assuming huge assumptions about manufacturing controls? Going by how they put out lenses today, I wouldn't be too convinced about QC of sensors either.
It's said that 'blad backs were sloppy: never felt mine sloppy in a front to back plane. Why would digi backs be any more well machined unless the idea is that 'blad and 'nica etc. were unwilling to go to the nth degree with their film backs? I'd imagine they were as well made as possible, in those days.
John R Smith has it right: 'feel' is about more than mechanics - it is also an emotion, and if photography isn't all wrapped up in emotions then it's nothing. Digi is certainly more convenient - even in my jaundiced opinion - but take time and the problems caused by the shrinking film industries out of it and I would have those 500s back in an instant. I liked heavy that way; I hate it for a walkaround number, which the 'blads seldom were (again, for me). Maybe the big problem I face is money: more of it, and a dedicated 120 scanner would be my passport to what I'd love to use today. I think. I told you it was an emotional matter.
Rob C
-
I still use a Sinar P2 and a Mamiya RZ. The great bit is that lovely Leaf Aptus 75 clipped on the back of them and tethered to a Imac, just wonderful.
I hear you , those are my main cameras too.
Have to admit, the RZ is still the only non-LF camera I can get the focus right with pretty much every time (A75 here as well) .
-
I have (hopefully) one final question about this focus issue -- specifically to people who are using Hasselblad V bodies with digital backs on them:
If you are having focus issues, can you tell me which scenario most applies to you?
1) "I'm shooting, and the subject is not moving, and I'm on a tripod, and I'm going slow, and everything is calm, and I focus and then refocus and then refocus again, and I just know in my heart that the focus is on the eyelashes, but many times, when the file opens up, it's either backfocused or frontfocused. I think it might be my focusing screen, but honestly, I don't have a clue".
2) "I'm shooting, and I'm not on a tripod, and I'm trying to follow focus on people that are in motion to some degree, and I'm walking around, and shooting from the hip, and I think when I shoot that it's sharp, but honestly, who knows? It sorta seemed sharp, on the ground glass, when I shot, but people were moving around. Maybe the V body is not the best body for that type of shooting".
Thanks.
-
I have (hopefully) one final question about this focus issue -- specifically to people who are using Hasselblad V bodies with digital backs on them:
If you are having focus issues, can you tell me which scenario most applies to you?
1) "I'm shooting, and the subject is not moving, and I'm on a tripod, and I'm going slow, and everything is calm, and I focus and then refocus and then refocus again, and I just know in my heart that the focus is on the eyelashes, but many times, when the file opens up, it's either backfocused or frontfocused. I think it might be my focusing screen, but honestly, I don't have a clue".
2) "I'm shooting, and I'm not on a tripod, and I'm trying to follow focus on people that are in motion to some degree, and I'm walking around, and shooting from the hip, and I think when I shoot that it's sharp, but honestly, who knows? It sorta seemed sharp, on the ground glass, when I shot, but people were moving around. Maybe the V body is not the best body for that type of shooting".
Thanks.
I've been shoot with the CFV-39 and a 503CW for a little over a month now. I primarily shoot your scenario #1: tabletop objects with controlled lighting and on a tripod. After getting used to the system, focusing is now a non-issue and I hit the mark just as much as when I was using a AF system. The focusing screen certainly plays a great role. I use a Acute Matte D with split image and microprism. The screen is very bright. I am still contemplating a Bill Maxwell's screen. I've tried waistlevel finder, chimney finder and PME45. I still prefer the waistlevel finder and systematically use the built-in magnifier for critical focusing.
Regarding scenario #2, I have not done any extensive shooting outside, but I've done a fair amount of testing handheld. Camera shake is a big concern, although I just bought a CW winder, and this may solve the problem. I was able to handhold some shots with a 180mm at 1/125th, so that's promising. I still need to do more shooting.
The system is definitely growing on me...
Best, Gilles
-
Since the photography world has turned upside down, I've begun to use the cameras I like more than just the cameras that will just easily do the job.
I understand with looking for an edge and going back to our roots. I like real cameras, with minimal menus and real knobs for fstop and shutter. There is just something that feels natural with a film based camera vs. a all digital dslr with spinning wheels and menus that go on for ages.
I'm sure that's why I like the contax and the Leica.
In the film days I had two elms and always found focus to be a challenge.
I used them, loved the build quality but when time permitted, I can't count the number of times we shoot a 665 pn polaroid, washed off the neg and checked focus.
Once I moved away from them I found every camera I used to be easier to focus than the v series.
Actually had the Contax not come along I "might" have gone to the 200 series blad, because I like focal plane lenses, but once it became a 645 world it just made no sense to me to shoot a square camera. Taking a back off and on was more effort than just moving the Contax on an L bracket from vertical to horizontal and the Contax has a right angle grip.
The last 2 1/2 projects I've gone away from the Canons and to the Contax and p30+ backs. The previous project I shot over 900 frames all manual focus with the 120 macro.
Honestly since I've used the Canons for so long now, I was kind of concerned about focus, especially all manual focus but it's kind of like riding a bike, it all comes back quickly and since I processed and checked all 900 something frames there were only 2 that were soft. Now I shot most of the shoot at high f stops so that helped, but still f 16 or f 5.6 out of focus is out of focus.
Not to go off topic, but the only issue I have with the Contax is the p30+. It's a bullet proof back but I have and always find the color response very tricky with skin tones. It just seems so sensitive when the curves are moved around. Maybe the p40 dalsa chip fixes this, but I don't think I'd put 20 grand on another cropped chip digital back. I've thought about looking for a used Leaf 54s, or maybe a 75, because the Leaf files seem less sensitive to moving the curves, but it's probably difficult to find a used Leaf with a Contax mount and I have this felling that the next and only expensive camera I'll even consider will be an EPIC.
Then again, I think it's all down to personal style and then again when it comes to color response, and sharpness I'm still blow away with the 5d2. I think it's much better than my two 1ds3's, much better than anything else I've tried (color response that is).
Once again, not to move off topic, but I think a lot of the debate we see about 35mm vs. 645 is between the two, there just isn't that much difference in real estate. Granted 24x36 vs 36x48 seems almost twice size, but with a cropped chip, it's still not that much of a difference as say a 35mm vs. an RZ or a square 6x6, or a 6x7 camera.
Personally and I say this because I'd kind of like a leaf, I think Leaf would be smart if they offered very quick turnaround and change of camera mounts, without waiting.
My only fear of Leaf is what direction they are going since Phase now owns them. Are they now flush with money and R+D or they considered just to be a stepping stone to move current leaf customers to Phase? Will LC 11 continue with the next apple os upgrade, or will it just be dropped in favor of C-1?
I don't know because medium format land seems to be limited in actual hard fact information.
BC
P.S. This post is not meant to start a 645 vs. 35mm debate. Those go nowhere.
-
Why not a FF P65 ?
-
I am still contemplating a Bill Maxwell's screen.
Who is this mythical Bill Maxwell guy, and what is he doing that some large corporation like Hasselblad can't do? You read stuff about it him, and he seems like some Jimmy Durante or Yogi Berra type, sitting in a smoke filled basement somewhere, trying to get away from his wife, but he's able to grind something out that's truly unique. Can anyone describe what he makes, and why it's so good?
Is the market so small that Hasselblad just doesn't bother ripping him off?
-
I have (hopefully) one final question about this focus issue -- specifically to people who are using Hasselblad V bodies with digital backs on them:
If you are having focus issues, can you tell me which scenario most applies to you?
1) "I'm shooting, and the subject is not moving, and I'm on a tripod, and I'm going slow, and everything is calm, and I focus and then refocus and then refocus again, and I just know in my heart that the focus is on the eyelashes, but many times, when the file opens up, it's either backfocused or frontfocused. I think it might be my focusing screen, but honestly, I don't have a clue".
2) "I'm shooting, and I'm not on a tripod, and I'm trying to follow focus on people that are in motion to some degree, and I'm walking around, and shooting from the hip, and I think when I shoot that it's sharp, but honestly, who knows? It sorta seemed sharp, on the ground glass, when I shot, but people were moving around. Maybe the V body is not the best body for that type of shooting".
Thanks.
Okay, you pose the questions in good enough faith, but I sort of imagine that scenario (2) is being proposed with a huge amount of tongue in your cheek? At least, I hope so!
I used 500 series for many years, and on the very first job I shot outdoors, hand-held, I had imagined I was dealing with a super Rollei TLR; imagine my expensive disappointment when I discovered how wrong I had been. It isn't the focussing, it's the blasted mirror bouncing around like an enraged rat trap! But, connect it to electronic flash in the studio and you can walk around with it as long as your wrists hold out. But then, you obviously know all that from the sort of work you do so well.
In effect, I suggest that the 500 series should always be mounted on a tripod, which is more or less what Hasselblad themselves suggested when they put out that leaflet about mirror-up employment being a very, very good idea.
And why not? You can't reinvent physics - accept how great a tool it is for what it does so well. Nothing covers all needs.
Rob C
-
Actually had the Contax not come along I "might" have gone to the 200 series blad, because I like focal plane lenses, but once it became a 645 world it just made no sense to me to shoot a square camera.
I understand the temptation, but I could never get it out of my mind that Hass had started that way and gave up in favour of lenses with shutters. Apart from poor flash synch there was the problem of uneven curtain travel which was also present with many 35mm fp shutters until the F3 came along...
I expect they reinvented the 6x6 fp system for themselves in an effort to catch sport shooters and also widen the product line - how many cameras of one type will you sell when they last for ever?
Rob C
-
Who is this mythical Bill Maxwell guy, and what is he doing that some large corporation like Hasselblad can't do? You read stuff about it him, and he seems like some Jimmy Durante or Yogi Berra type, sitting in a smoke filled basement somewhere, trying to get away from his wife, but he's able to grind something out that's truly unique. Can anyone describe what he makes, and why it's so good?
Is the market so small that Hasselblad just doesn't bother ripping him off?
You should give him a ring (770) 939-6644 - he has an assistant but usually he'll answer the phone and loves to talk. He'll tell you all about it. He actually may be supplying screens to some of the manufacturers and/or will know who is making the stock screens for many cameras. His Hi-Lux treatment definitely makes the view brighter but there are other tricks he can do to tailor the trade offs to your preference as well as add whatever focus aids and grid or crop lines as you like.
-
There is not much wrong with the Hasselblad acutematte screens (of which I have three examples). I also have various earlier standard screens, and the difference is astonishing. If Maxwell's screens are better again, they would be well worth paying for.
The screen, I feel, is not really the problem with the V-system focus issues. It is more likely that there is not enough magnification using either the WLF or the prisms to actually see the very subtle variations in sharpness which we need to distinguish the absolute plane of focus. A 6x loupe would probably help, as others have suggested. The other issue is that the critical area of foucus for a great many compositions lies between say 20 feet and infinity, exactly the area of lens helicoid with the smallest movement and least finesse.
John
-
I too have been having problems with focusing lately, here is my story; I sold my medium format / digital back system because I was not having much luck manual focusing, I think my eyes are going bad. I have been shooting the Canon 1Dsmk3 and was noticing that certain lenses were front focusing, about 5 feet in front of the subject when the subject was at least 20 feet from the camera, and other similiar situations. It never seemed to happen when I was relatively close to the subject. It was only happening with my 300 F4 L and 85 1.2 L lens and 100 F2 non-L lens. My 50mm 1.4 non L seems to be work fine.
I called canon support and had them walk me thru the micro-adjustments procedure, seemed to help a little bit but not really sure. Thats the problem, the front-focusing problem is not consistent. I called canon again, we did the lens test on the phone, I emailed him jpgs of a ruler shot at a 45 degree angle, everything checked out fine.
Then he said this, which surprised me, " for best results use the CENTER only AF focus point and recompose once you get focus. Do not use the other surrounding AF points, those are only for al servo mode when tracking a moving subject. Really? They told me that yesterday, I shot today with his advice and he seems to be right, I nailed focus more often than not, but it is too soon to tell.
Has anyone else heard this? I was thinking of sending all my lenses and camera body to canon to be checked out just to be sure there isnt an actual problem, but I would prefer not to obviously.
Just to re-iterate; the main focus problem seems happen when I am at least 20 feet away from the subject, and after focusing and recomposing from a non-centered AF point the camera places the focus a few feet front of where I focused.
-
I have no idea about the reason for christo's focussing problems, but on the MF slr cameras, I suspect that one reason some cameras are better than others in this respect is the way that focussing is done.
Take the Rollei TLR and the old Mamiyas: you wound a knob at the side of the body, a natural movement, quick to do and easy on the wrist. Contrast that with the helical focussing system of other such cameras, where the lens itself has to be messed around with in an unnatural, twisted wrist manner. I think the difference in comfort also carries over into how comfortable/confident the eye becomes when the wrist is not at ease. It's all connected, as they say.
Having had both the Rollei TLR and then the 'blad straight after it, though I was able to focus both well, I do think I remember the Rollei as quicker. And without doubt, once you start to 'hunt' with focussing, it goes nuts very quickly - or at least, you do!
Rob C
-
Has anyone else heard this? I was thinking of sending all my lenses and camera body to canon to be checked out just to be sure there isnt an actual problem, but I would prefer not to obviously.
Yes this is what I've been told by the Hasselblad guys, AF gets more and more difficult the further from the centre of the frame you get. This is part of the rationale behind Hasselblad's focus/recompose compensation system (a.k.a "True Focus")
Nick-T
-
Yes this is what I've been told by the Hasselblad guys, AF gets more and more difficult the further from the centre of the frame you get. This is part of the rationale behind Hasselblad's focus/recompose compensation system (a.k.a "True Focus")
Nick-T
I guess that makes sense then. I would love to hear from others who are shooting the 1Dsmk3 to see which AF points they use and their general experience. I thought AF on a Canon was a no brainer, I guess I was wrong. ( sorry in advance, I know this is a MF forum )
-
Take the Rollei TLR and the old Mamiyas: you wound a knob at the side of the body, a natural movement, quick to do and easy on the wrist. Contrast that with the helical focussing system of other such cameras, where the lens itself has to be messed around with in an unnatural, twisted wrist manner. I think the difference in comfort also carries over into how comfortable/confident the eye becomes when the wrist is not at ease. It's all connected, as they say.
Having had both the Rollei TLR and then the 'blad straight after it, though I was able to focus both well, I do think I remember the Rollei as quicker. And without doubt, once you start to 'hunt' with focussing, it goes nuts very quickly - or at least, you do!
Rob C
I agree completely with this, having also owned and used the Rollei TLRs and the 500 series 'Blads. The Rollei was a lovely thing to focus (well, lovely in a lot of other respects, too). Since I originally posted this thread, I have to say that I have improved my focus hit rate tremendously - from about 50% to nearer 80%. I have evolved a little 'trick' which seems to work for me, but I hesitate to suggest it because it may just be something to do with my particular eyesight / glasses / general ineptitude.
John
-
I have evolved a little 'trick' which seems to work for me, but I hesitate to suggest it because it may just be something to do with my particular eyesight / glasses / general ineptitude.
John
Hey John, share your trick anyway please, it can't do any harm!
Philip
-
Hey John, share your trick anyway please, it can't do any harm!
Philip
Philip
OK, if you are really twisting my arm. But it is quite complicated to explain (though easy to do). So I will have to take a bit of time on it (I might start a new thread). But this is where Smith will get shot down in flames
John
-
I guess that makes sense then. I would love to hear from others who are shooting the 1Dsmk3 to see which AF points they use and their general experience. I thought AF on a Canon was a no brainer, I guess I was wrong. ( sorry in advance, I know this is a MF forum )
still hoping for some feedback regarding my quote above
-
still hoping for some feedback regarding my quote above
might need to start another thread about that one, I am curious as well