Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: daleeman on June 30, 2010, 06:57:28 am
-
Guidance on buying a digital back for 500CM
Greetings, I’d appreciate any and all advice when it comes to moving into a digital back for my 500cm system. I acquired everything used and it is in fairly good to great shape.
Would like to enjoy going into nature and doing waterfalls, landscapes and such along with images of people, posed and candid images, as candid as you can be with a Hassy. Not looking for this to be costing an arm and a leg but wanting to be able to buy right and use it for some time to come.
So from an uninformed medium format digital wantabe, I imagine my criteria is something like this:
CF card, not tethered
Image review hopefully with histogram
Interchangeable batteries
IR filter on the sensor (I have an M8.2 and realize this can be an issue)
Square sensor preferred over 645 format
Able to fire from sync cord, or if I find a newer camera internal contacts, if there is such a thing.
Raw format that I can deal with (CS5 or Phase one ver 4 basic flavor)
No lower than 10 mega pixels, more the better 12, 16, 20+ gets bigger smiles ( I am looking for used)
Price: well that is the whammy. I’m trying to save up to 2,700 to buy, but am about half of that.
So my criteria is all about growing slow and cheap but gathering up as best as I can for the money. No sugar momma taking care of this guy, so as I save I see things go buy on eBay and wish I could pull the trigger but am looking for other places to see and find informed sellers of used equipment that have integrity and will stand behind the used equipment. (I know, the check is in the mail and I really do have the deed to this bridge I will sell you)
So any guidance on how I might move into MF digital would be appreciated.
Lee
-
Get a nice used Ixpress back. Something like a 96c or a 384c if you'd like to do multi-shot. I'd be more inclined to get it from a dealer than from eBay, unless you really know what you are doing. Michael Ulsaker at Ulsaker Studio is reputable. You can find him by googling ulsaker studio. The abovementioned Ixpress backs use and ImageBank, instead of CF cards. But the ImageBank is fine. I think it stores 40GBs.
-
Get a nice used Ixpress back. Something like a 96c or a 384c if you'd like to do multi-shot. I'd be more inclined to get it from a dealer than from eBay, unless you really know what you are doing. Michael Ulsaker at Ulsaker Studio is reputable. You can find him by googling ulsaker studio. The abovementioned Ixpress backs use and ImageBank, instead of CF cards. But the ImageBank is fine. I think it stores 40GBs.
Thanks, I'll take a look. Hope to find some others offering some guidance. I look forward to using my Hassy on digital as well as film.
-
you might find a used Hasselblad CFV-1 in the 3k range. square, 16mpix, 9 micron sensor, cf card, perfect integration to the 500. makes beautiful images, phocus software is free, uses Sony batteries, has all the typical LCD functions (histogram, image review, etc)
-
I decided to jump into a digital back last year with my 500cm.
A few thoughts about what I've learned.
- works really really well for landscapes, product photography....anything that doesn't move and gives you plenty of time to focus.
- awful for anything that moves - ie: people. Impossible to focus. I felt like I'd gone back in time to the 19th century asking people to hold perfectly still while I attempted to get the focus point right.
I've upgraded my focus screen, tried different loupes, but basically use the WLF. With film, I can shoot all day hand-held with the 500, but with digital, there's no leeway for focus. It's like an on-off switch.
So, I went back to the Nikon for any shoots with people, and use the Hasselblad for still subjects. Expensive lesson learned. YMMV.
-
This is a really tough price range to work in. You will for sure find backs but they will all have some pretty significant limitations.
Phase One doesn't really have any products at that low-end of the scale but an Leaf Aptus 17 or Leaf Valeo 17 would be worth a look with their own sets of advantages and limitations compared to the options already mentioned.
Since you specifically mentioned you wanted a back which is supported by CS5 or Capture One you should be aware that many backs in this price range are not supported in CS5, and only Leaf/Phase are supported in Capture One.
If you could up your budget a few thousand more you would open up a much larger range of possibilities.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
So any guidance on how I might move into MF digital would be appreciated.
*********
At that price point, get a Epson 750 scanner and shoot film. I would be very concerned that if you find a digital back at your price point, you may be buying trouble and may have thrown money down a rat hole.
Steve
-
I have a couple of 503s and a 500ELX, a 40, 60, 100, 150,180 and 250 sitting here. Love them. Made a good living with them for years.
But my 5DII surpasses the quality I'd get with a low end digital back on any of the above.
For your budget you also want to be cognizant of what that back will be work in another year. Not much.
-
- works really really well for landscapes, product photography....anything that doesn't move and gives you plenty of time to focus.
- awful for anything that moves - ie: people. Impossible to focus. I felt like I'd gone back in time to the 19th century asking people to hold perfectly still while I attempted to get the focus point right.
I've upgraded my focus screen, tried different loupes, but basically use the WLF. With film, I can shoot all day hand-held with the 500, but with digital, there's no leeway for focus. It's like an on-off switch.
This is exactly my experience. With any decent digital back for the 500, you will have to completely relearn your shooting technique. Forget depth of field, with digital there suddenly isn't any. So you may be alright for landscapes, still-life or whatever, but shooting candids or moving subjects will be impossible. With those kinds of subjects and MF digital, you have to have auto-focus. It's not a luxury, but a necessity. The old Zeiss lenses are just too slow and stiff to manually focus quickly. With film you can pre-focus and use the DOF scales to bracket your subject, but this approach simply will not work on an MF DB. This effect will be less pronounced the fewer megapixels you have - so, for example, a CFV-16 will be somewhat easier to deal with. But then you have the 1.5x crop factor to consider, and all your wide-angles are suddenly not wide anymore. If you get a 40 or 60 MP back for big money, you are shooting with equivalent of a 4x5 or larger view camera in terms of DOF and critical focus, but without the ability to judge it on a big ground-glass screen with a powerful loupe. You can get fantastic results with a 500 with a 39 MP back, and I have myself (far better than on film), but only with extreme attention to every detail of capture.
The second point would be that a (relatively) cheap digital back for the 500 is really not worth messing with. The quality will not be great, and if it goes wrong, it will cost way more to fix than it is worth. As someone else pointed out above, you would be better off spending the money on a decent scanner instead.
John
-
This is exactly my experience. With any decent digital back for the 500, you will have to completely relearn your shooting technique. Forget depth of field, with digital there isn't any. So you may be alright for landscapes, still-life or whatever, but shooting candids or moving subjects will be impossible. With those kinds of subjects and MF digital, you have to have auto-focus. It's not a luxury, but a necessity. With film you can pre-focus and use the DOF scales to bracket your subject, but this approach simply will not work on an MF DB. The second point would be that a (relatively) cheap digital back for the 500 is really not worth messing with. If it goes wrong, it will cost way more to fix than it is worth. As someone else pointed out above, you would be better off spending the money on a decent scanner instead.
John
John,
I will add another perspective to your statement. Not that I'm saying that you are wrong but I have a slightly different experience.
Don't know if this is a 500's exacerbate issue that's involved.
When I first hanged the Contax and focus manually, my rate of well-focussed frames was extremely low, as you point.
Then I started to examinate the files and realised that the manual errors where always similar and start to apply little corrections in the field.
Using a reduced range of focals, you finally get used of, let's call it a sort of 6th sense and your brain automatically "understand" the idiosyncracy of one particular gear.
What you point is also true in FF 35mm if you use manual focus, but it is magnified in MF.
I completly agree that there is a big difference between film age, digital does not forgive.
But if an AF can get the correct point, is that correct point exists and can be trained.
IMO, not contradicting your experience on that matter, I think that most of the time, (or we are in times when) taking this training into account and
accepting a learning curve is what is also missing.
Many times I just want to focus quickly on a part of the frame that I just feel more "creative" and if I had to relly on any AF, I just miss the shot on moving objects.
So, yes, manual focussing is more complicated in digiland, but like it or not you have to train this sort of 6th sense (don't know how to call it).
If not then you are just chained to the machine. Because let's say you focus first AF then reframe very quickly. You will have to apply anyway a little correction manually.
If you don't train yourself in manual focussing, the way you will apply this correction will be hazardous.
That's also the case with any dslr.
You can not relly on the viewfinder really, but you end to learn in what sense the viewfinder is fooling you.
I also use a lot MLU on field and that also makes differences.
Again, I'm not contradicting your point and your experience, but adding a "yes but" that IMO has to be taken into consideration.
All I can tell you is that having taken the time to deal with that (insisting on focussing manually despite the issues), my rate of
well focussed images has increased dramatically on moving subjects, and I feel more free to frame and choose my focus point by myself.
Cheers.
Edit: Mr Reichmann pointed in some articles that when it comes to the P65 sort of backs, forget about brain training for focussing. I've never tryied such a back and I suppose it is logical.
But he also stressed that this not relly only on the AF but all the elements on the chain: tripod, MLU, exposure, lightning...
It happens that the AF of manual focussing has been correct but one element of that list where missing.
-
Fred
I agree with you completely. My manual focusing has improved remarkably over the past six months But I was thinking about this from the perspective of the OP, who has a 500 C/M, like me, and therefore also probably has the old Zeiss C lenses, not even the CF series. Now these lenses (lovely though they are) have a really stiff, thin little focus ring which is a bear to use even with film. They were so bad that Hasselblad themselves sold an add-on focus lever for them to give you a bit better chance. I have dismantled all my C lenses and cleaned and re-lubricated the helicoids, which has helped.
I did write a piece on this topic for the Forum a while back, where I analysed the problem and proposed a method of focusing which actually does work for me - Focus From The Front.
John
-
Fred
I agree with you completely. My manual focusing has improved remarkably over the past six months But I was thinking about this from the perspective of the OP, who has a 500 C/M, like me, and therefore also probably has the old Zeiss C lenses, not even the CF series. Now these lenses (lovely though they are) have a really stiff, thin little focus ring which is a bear to use even with film. They were so bad that Hasselblad themselves sold an add-on focus lever for them to give you a bit better chance. I have dismantled all my C lenses and cleaned and re-lubricated the helicoids, which has helped.
I did write a piece on this topic for the Forum a while back, where I analysed the problem and proposed a method of focusing which actually does work for me - Focus From The Front.
John
Thanks for you repply John.
I think you did well to write this topic, it is a fascinating subject. I remember it and re-readed just now.
Yeah, the fashion guys where not convinced and we can understand them: too risky.
Actually, if I where shooting fashion and had to choose one gear, that would be the bloody D3xxxxxxx (if Bernard read this he will be happy )
Also, the Contax seems to do a decent job on that matter compare to others, I have zero experience with the Hassy 500 but it seems hard.
Cheers.
-
Also, the Contax seems to do a decent job on that matter compare to others, I have zero experience with the Hassy 500 but it seems hard.
Cheers.
Fred
Not just the Contax, but I think almost any other MF camera is easier to focus than an early Hasselblad 500. Rollei 2.8F TLR, Mamiya 645, RB67, Pentax 6x7, Pentax 645 - I've used all of those and they all have better focus rings and "pop" into focus more clearly on the screen.
John
-
Fred
Not just the Contax, but I think almost any other MF camera is easier to focus than an early Hasselblad 500. Rollei 2.8F TLR, Mamiya 645, RB67, Pentax 6x7, Pentax 645 - I've used all of those and they all have better focus rings and "pop" into focus more clearly on the screen.
John
Actually, I support and confirm your "focus on the front". FOTF ?
That is a great trick, and at least you did some research on that matter.
I still think that brain is a much more incredible tool than any robot, maybe it just have to be trained the right way.
-
I don't want to flog this topic to death, but by way of example -
I went on a canal holiday about three years ago, and took my 500 and the 80mm Planar. I shot two or three rolls of film, and I didn't focus the camera on the subject once. Because the boat was moving all the time, and I was shooting from the bow, I knew I didn't have a hope of focusing fast enough to keep up. I just set the lens to hyperfocal at f11 or whatever, so that infinity was inside the DOF scale at one end and at the other was around 20 feet or so. It all worked just fine and I got a series of good clean, sharp frames on Ilford HP5.
Now I know that with the digital back, that approach to focusing would have been a complete disaster.
John
-
I don't want to flog this topic to death, but by way of example -
I went on a canal holiday about three years ago, and took my 500 and the 80mm Planar. I shot two or three rolls of film, and I didn't focus the camera on the subject once. Because the boat was moving all the time, and I was shooting from the bow, I knew I didn't have a hope of focusing fast enough to keep up. I just set the lens to hyperfocal at f11 or whatever, so that infinity was inside the DOF scale at one end and at the other was around 20 feet or so. It all worked just fine and I got a series of good clean, sharp frames on Ilford HP5.
Now I know that with the digital back, that approach to focusing would have been a complete disaster.
John
John, I understand your cautiousness.
It is a very interesting topic IMO, but a sensitive one with all the possibilities to be loaded for another WW.
So I may affirm that with digital it is almost impossible to acheive moving objects in manual focus. (but will keep going using manual focus)
Anyway, thanks for the time you spend on those testings.
-
Out of curiosity,
Above refers to the O.P. regarding 500CM. Per following that camera was fabricated 1970-1994 and thus before digital tolerances as we know were known.
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCam....html~mainFrame (http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?Hasselblad500.html~mainFrame)
Same website states that the more recent 503CW and 501CM were produced from 1996 and 1997, respectively.
Thus, speaking of the Hassy V system in general and indeed to shed some light of it in general, could it be assumed that for these newer cameras that there will be far more easier to focus with digital back, even a high resolution one such as Phase-One P65+ or Leaf Aptus-II 10?
I realize this is outside of O.P. query, but it would be interesting to hear of some factual experience on the matter. Likewise, it would be interesting from point of view or experience of that a Hassy V series from 1950s per say was not made to same tolerance and requirements as one that is made new today.
Thanks.
Regards
Anders
-
Anders
All of the V-System 500 series cameras were manufactured to the same (very high) tolerances. The same collimation tools are used to set them all up. You won't get a better result from a 503CW than a 500C just because of the age difference per se. Which is not to say that the older camera might not be a bit out of spec just due to use and abuse over the years, but here in the UK Hasselblad will set your old girl up as good as new for a very reasonable cost. The problem we are talking about here is not really anything to do with tolerances or design of the camera as such, I believe. If you mount the 500 on a nice big tripod, level everything up, focus extremely carefully, and use the mirror pre-release with a long cable release to fire the shutter, you can get a pin-sharp result. I have two 500 C/M bodies, 1971 and 1973, and on a tripod with the 120mm S-Planar I can find no difference between them. I have also used a recent 503 CW and there was no improvement. The snag is, the 'Blad is so neat and handy that it begs to be used handheld too. And then, with a digital back, the troubles start.
The V-series is just an old design, and there are certain features common to all the models over the years which in the digital age are rather less then desirable. Such as big mirror recoil, and very old-fashioned stiff focus rings which work against you rather than with you when you are in a hurry. But once you have set the focus, it certainly won't shift accidentally! The lenses themselves are wonderful pictorially, and draw with a great deal of character. But by modern standards the old wides in particular do not have tremendous bite and the corners are somewhat soft. I would say that there is probably no point at all in going beyond 39 MP with a 500, and that 60 MP would simply reveal more of the lens imperfections without gaining much additional resolution. Save the mega-bucks zillion megapixel backs for the modern cameras which can make use of them. What we really need for these old cameras (and what we will never get) is a sensible 25 or 30 MP back but with a full-frame 6x4.5cm sensor and a decent usable 800 and 1200 ISO.
John
John
-
This is exactly my experience. With any decent digital back for the 500, you will have to completely relearn your shooting technique. Forget depth of field, with digital there suddenly isn't any. So you may be alright for landscapes, still-life or whatever, but shooting candids or moving subjects will be impossible. With those kinds of subjects and MF digital, you have to have auto-focus. It's not a luxury, but a necessity. The old Zeiss lenses are just too slow and stiff to manually focus quickly. With film you can pre-focus and use the DOF scales to bracket your subject, but this approach simply will not work on an MF DB. This effect will be less pronounced the fewer megapixels you have - so, for example, a CFV-16 will be somewhat easier to deal with. But then you have the 1.5x crop factor to consider, and all your wide-angles are suddenly not wide anymore. If you get a 40 or 60 MP back for big money, you are shooting with equivalent of a 4x5 or larger view camera in terms of DOF and critical focus, but without the ability to judge it on a big ground-glass screen with a powerful loupe. You can get fantastic results with a 500 with a 39 MP back, and I have myself (far better than on film), but only with extreme attention to every detail of capture.
The second point would be that a (relatively) cheap digital back for the 500 is really not worth messing with. The quality will not be great, and if it goes wrong, it will cost way more to fix than it is worth. As someone else pointed out above, you would be better off spending the money on a decent scanner instead.
John
John,
I see where you are getting at. It will be almost a run until it drops used piece of equipment. Works until it is broke the first time than not worth repairing. Budget does not allow for more of an investment, but I do appreciate the slower shooting with the 500cm. I do also agree with what you mentioned and others too about it being not great for anything that moves or with blinking breathing people.
What I do not get is this depth of field issue. I guess my perspective is a lens delivers what it can for shutter speed and iris. There must be something I am missing here in my understanding about this, any deeper explanation?
Certainly am all ears and thank all who are contributing.
Lee
-
Fred
I agree with you completely. My manual focusing has improved remarkably over the past six months But I was thinking about this from the perspective of the OP, who has a 500 C/M, like me, and therefore also probably has the old Zeiss C lenses, not even the CF series. Now these lenses (lovely though they are) have a really stiff, thin little focus ring which is a bear to use even with film. They were so bad that Hasselblad themselves sold an add-on focus lever for them to give you a bit better chance. I have dismantled all my C lenses and cleaned and re-lubricated the helicoids, which has helped.
I did write a piece on this topic for the Forum a while back, where I analysed the problem and proposed a method of focusing which actually does work for me - Focus From The Front.
John
Fred,
I do have the luxury of buying all this stuff used so I have a 80, 120 and 150 CF. The only C T* I have is a 40 and yes its like rowing a boat in tar to focus it, but almost everything is in focus at f8.
Lee
-
I do not undserstand why manual focus would work with film, and be a problem with digital. Isn't depth of field at a given f stop with a given lens independent of what the light hits? (film or sensor). I have a serious interest in this issue of MF digital manual focus. I have 4 beautiful manual focus Pentax 645 lenses, and I had fully intended getting the new 645D as soon as it is available in the US. Am I going to find the lenses are unuseable from a practical point of view? Pentax says all their legacy lenses, both AF & MF will work. Any help/advise?
Thanks in advance
Dave Gurtcheff
Beach Haven, NJ
www.modernpictorials.com
-
John,
I will add another perspective to your statement. Not that I'm saying that you are wrong but I have a slightly different experience.
Don't know if this is a 500's exacerbate issue that's involved.
When I first hanged the Contax and focus manually, my rate of well-focussed frames was extremely low, as you point.
Then I started to examinate the files and realised that the manual errors where always similar and start to apply little corrections in the field.
Using a reduced range of focals, you finally get used of, let's call it a sort of 6th sense and your brain automatically "understand" the idiosyncracy of one particular gear.
What you point is also true in FF 35mm if you use manual focus, but it is magnified in MF.
I completly agree that there is a big difference between film age, digital does not forgive.
But if an AF can get the correct point, is that correct point exists and can be trained.
IMO, not contradicting your experience on that matter, I think that most of the time, (or we are in times when) taking this training into account and
accepting a learning curve is what is also missing.
Many times I just want to focus quickly on a part of the frame that I just feel more "creative" and if I had to relly on any AF, I just miss the shot on moving objects.
So, yes, manual focussing is more complicated in digiland, but like it or not you have to train this sort of 6th sense (don't know how to call it).
If not then you are just chained to the machine. Because let's say you focus first AF then reframe very quickly. You will have to apply anyway a little correction manually.
If you don't train yourself in manual focussing, the way you will apply this correction will be hazardous.
That's also the case with any dslr.
You can not relly on the viewfinder really, but you end to learn in what sense the viewfinder is fooling you.
I also use a lot MLU on field and that also makes differences.
Again, I'm not contradicting your point and your experience, but adding a "yes but" that IMO has to be taken into consideration.
All I can tell you is that having taken the time to deal with that (insisting on focussing manually despite the issues), my rate of
well focussed images has increased dramatically on moving subjects, and I feel more free to frame and choose my focus point by myself.
Cheers.
Edit: Mr Reichmann pointed in some articles that when it comes to the P65 sort of backs, forget about brain training for focussing. I've never tryied such a back and I suppose it is logical.
But he also stressed that this not relly only on the AF but all the elements on the chain: tripod, MLU, exposure, lightning...
It happens that the AF of manual focussing has been correct but one element of that list where missing.
I use a 553ELX with an Imacon 584C multishot back and I shoot fashion and beauty mostly in a studio.
Focusing was a big problem at the beginning but after making sure that my modeling lights were the strongest possible and I had the brightest screen to focus (I paid $300 for it on ebay) and after I get used to doing it, now, a year later my keepers are above 95%. I actually started shooting at f/4 and results are pretty good. As far as people are concerned, you got to make sure that there is a bright catch light on the model (or person) so that you can focus accurately.
I love the quality I am getting out my back. You can underexpose by up to 2-3 stops and still pull shadow detail without any noise. The colors and the detail are great
Evangelos
www.vankou.com
-
I use a 553ELX with an Imacon 584C multishot back and I shoot fashion and beauty mostly in a studio.
Not likely to be found on ebay for the $2700 the OP wishes to spend.
-
I do not undserstand why manual focus would work with film, and be a problem with digital. Isn't depth of field at a given f stop with a given lens independent of what the light hits? (film or sensor). I have a serious interest in this issue of MF digital manual focus. I have 4 beautiful manual focus Pentax 645 lenses, and I had fully intended getting the new 645D as soon as it is available in the US. Am I going to find the lenses are unuseable from a practical point of view? Pentax says all their legacy lenses, both AF & MF will work. Any help/advise?
Thanks in advance
Dave Gurtcheff
Until you have actually experienced this for yourself, it is very hard to believe. And only those who have shot film for years on a particular camera/lens combination and then put a digital back on the same camera will have encountered it. But the fact is that your effective and usable depth of field appears to simply evaporate into thin air with a MF DB. And your ability to focus accurately seems to vanish along with it.
As you and the OP point out, DOF is DOF. The laws of physics are immutable and apply equally to whatever emulsion or medium the light from the lens falls on at the point of the focal plane. However, there seem to be other factors at work. All of us here, as photographers, have a highly developed sensitivity to focus and sharpness in a print. Much more so than non-photographers. In fact, rather similar to musicians who develop a refined sensitivity to pitch and can instantly tell when one of a group of instruments is out of tune.
There is actually no such thing as DOF. There is only one plane of focus in any photograph where the subject is perfectly sharp, a plane which has no physical depth. Everything else is out of focus to a greater or lesser degree. What happens is that the grain of film masks this. All film has some grain, and it covers the whole of the image, unlike digital noise. If you can imagine printing a photograph through ever coarser litho screens, then what you will observe is that the apparent depth of field increases because your ability to judge sharpness is progressively impaired by the screen. The sharp and soft parts become more equal, as resolution is diminished by breaking the image down into coarser chunks of information. (For an extreme example of this, walk up close to a big billboard poster. Can you tell any longer which parts of the image are in or out of focus? Or where the DOF begins and ends?)
Film grain works in the same way as the litho screen. We don't really see it most of the time (except perhaps in skies) but it is all pervading, and has the effect of expanding the area of apparent sharpness, which is what we call DOF. With a digital back of say 39 MP on a MF camera, grain suddenly ceases to exist for all practical purposes at low ISO. There is the granularity of the sensor photosites, of course, but the demosaic algorithms are designed to process this out and interpolation ensures that we never see it.
With (effectively) no grain, we can see for the first time exactly where true focus is. Without the screening effect of grain, the sharp parts of the image appear sharper and the soft parts appear softer. It is rather like going from ISO 400 film on MF to ISO 25 on a 10x8 view camera. And we find, to our horror and dismay, that what was good enough in terms of focus and DOF for film falls far short on a high-end digital back.
John
-
Well John, I've pondered this focus probem for quite some time, and though I do think I had the reason understood, I had never really articulated it to myself in quite those terms. Thanks for giving me the mental short cut!
Regarding the 'blads, all my lenses were of the silver school and yes, I rmember how painful the fingers felt after a long studio session with any of those lenses! Not only the lenses, but also the filmwind knob can be a source of sore fingers after a long session. And yet, the machine was a beautiful camera to use.
Another writer mentions the trick of focussing on a brilliant highlight: that was one of the side-benefits of the era of large junk-jewellery when the model could just put her hand on her waist, chest, face or wherever and you got those points of sharpness glowing at you off the reflected modelling light. However, it isn't just the stiffness of the lenses but the relatively small maximum apertures that caused hassle with the Hassel - just too much dof in front of the lens and too little certainty in the dim screen.
But, accepting all of this argument about the differences between a sensor and film, I still believe that it all comes down to the same thing: on a given size of print, either film or digi look much the same and it's at 100% where the nonsense begins. I do not buy that your 10ins x 12ins print is going to look any less accurate from digital than from film. The 'masking' effect of film probably only comes into effect at the point of magnification where grain on a print becomes noticeable - prior to that magnification I imagine both media give the same degree of perceived focus accuracy. Like anything, when you take things to extremes they tend to fall down. Possibly like discussions on this very topic!
If I might divert the topic to one side for a sec - I have been looking through some early-80s magazines I'm weeding out in an effort to tidy up my life, and it is amazing to see how many double-page shots were used (French PHOTO) where by today's standards, they are mush! I can't say for sure if I thought them poor at the time, but as I bought the mag for many years, I must have thought them acceptable; I guess we do have rose-tinteds about past technology...
; - )
Rob C
-
All of the V-System 500 series cameras were manufactured to the same (very high) tolerances. The same collimation tools are used to set them all up. You won't get a better result from a 503CW than a 500C just because of the age difference per se.
John,
In fairness I do not know a fact answer on the above. Same time in all respect but I find difficult to buy what you claim with it. It seems illogical that a 500C made in 1957 had same fabrication tolerances as a 503CW made today. Likewise it does not appear sense that they have used exact same machinery and fabrication tolerances over all these years without improvements.
Further, specifically regarding focus exactness; for film it was adequate with tolerances of film flatness of 0.2mm, while for digital a common tolerance is 0.02mm. That is ten times more exact. What I refer is not the DOF that is critical but the depth of focus, which is on the camera side of the lens. Thus, since newer Hassy 500 series are also made for digital backs, one would expect that they were made to stricter fabrication and adjustment tolerances.
I would also assume they improved on groundglass over the years which ought to help. As example, for 4x5 I use the Maxwell screen and it made world of different in focus.
---
At current I am reading up on the Hassy all out of curiousity because I find a camera with groundglass folding viewer interesting as compared to staring down pipe of my Mamiya 645 system. Thus it would be interesting to read comment if someone have had extensive experience on use of high res digital back on a newer Hassy V camera. I know it is outside O.P. but any info is much appreciated.
Regards
Anders
-
John,
In fairness I do not know a fact answer on the above. Same time in all respect but I find difficult to buy what you claim with it. It seems illogical that a 500C made in 1957 had same fabrication tolerances as a 503CW made today. Likewise it does not appear sense that they have used exact same machinery and fabrication tolerances over all these years without improvements.
Further, specifically regarding focus exactness; for film it was adequate with tolerances of film flatness of 0.2mm, while for digital a common tolerance is 0.02mm. That is ten times more exact. What I refer is not the DOF that is critical but the depth of focus, which is on the camera side of the lens. Thus, since newer Hassy 500 series are also made for digital backs, one would expect that they were made to stricter fabrication and adjustment tolerances.
I would also assume they improved on groundglass over the years which ought to help. As example, for 4x5 I use the Maxwell screen and it made world of different in focus.
Anders
Only someone from the factory in Sweden could answer this for sure. It may be, that the recent 503 which was sold as a set with the CFV back as part of the package was indeed set up to higher tolerances with the included sensor. But I somehow doubt it. All the 500 (and 2000 and 200) series cameras are set up with exactly the same lens mount to film plane geometry. They have to be, because you can use the oldest lens on the newest cameras and the newest lens on the oldest cameras. And all the film magazines are totally interchangeable, right back to 1957. To make this possible, the tolerances in manufacture have to be very tight indeed. One of the ways in which this was done is that the camera itself is a seperate body within an outer shell. The inner body can be removed for CLA without disturbing any of the crucial mounting points between lens and film plane, mirror and focus screen, and these planes of reference are protected from wear or damage by the rugged outer shell.
For what it is worth, my observation through purchasing and using a great deal of 'Blad V-system gear is that quality of design and manufacture actually declined over the years. The early magazines are better made and finished than the later ones, for example, and that goes for a lot of the rest of the range. A great deal was re-designed, simplified and cheapened as time went on. And I say this from the perspective of having dismantled and serviced most of my kit. I sold and traded all my later V-system gear for the older original versions over time because of this.
The focus screens were indeed improved over the years. Hasselblad eventually went to Minolta for the Acute-Matte screens, which are an essential upgrade for any 500 - I have three, and they are light years ahead of the old standard screens.
The problems I have had with my old 500 kit are nothing to do with manufacturing tolerance, I am sure. I can shoot off a tripod with my ancient 120mm S-Planar on the most critical of still-life subjects and get razor-sharp results. It is out in the field where you can't spend half an hour setting up each shot that the snags arise.
John
-
Anders
Only someone from the factory in Sweden could answer this for sure. It may be, that the recent 503 which was sold as a set with the CFV back as part of the package was indeed set up to higher tolerances with the included sensor. But I somehow doubt it. All the 500 (and 2000 and 200) series cameras are set up with exactly the same lens mount to film plane geometry. They have to be, because you can use the oldest lens on the newest cameras and the newest lens on the oldest cameras. And all the film magazines are totally interchangeable, right back to 1957. To make this possible, the tolerances in manufacture have to be very tight indeed. One of the ways in which this was done is that the camera itself is a seperate body within an outer shell. The inner body can be removed for CLA without disturbing any of the crucial mounting points between lens and film plane, mirror and focus screen, and these planes of reference are protected from wear or damage by the rugged outer shell.
For what it is worth, my observation through purchasing and using a great deal of 'Blad V-system gear is that quality of design and manufacture actually declined over the years. The early magazines are better made and finished than the later ones, for example, and that goes for a lot of the rest of the range. A great deal was re-designed, simplified and cheapened as time went on. And I say this from the perspective of having dismantled and serviced most of my kit. I sold and traded all my later V-system gear for the older original versions over time because of this.
The focus screens were indeed improved over the years. Hasselblad eventually went to Minolta for the Acute-Matte screens, which are an essential upgrade for any 500 - I have three, and they are light years ahead of the old standard screens.
The problems I have had with my old 500 kit are nothing to do with manufacturing tolerance, I am sure. I can shoot off a tripod with my ancient 120mm S-Planar on the most critical of still-life subjects and get razor-sharp results. It is out in the field where you can't spend half an hour setting up each shot that the snags arise.
John
John,
I have written Hasselblad in Goteborg, Sweden to ask them - in Swedish. By the way Goteborg is my hometown of birth and where I grew up, which is an interesting spice to my curiosity about the Hasselblad V!
Basically if I interpret what you have written above, your above post highlight (apart from focus screen);
1. System dimensions / standard for critical dimensions of the system.
2. Fabrication and adjustment tolerances.
3. Changes in materials and assembly of other than the above.
Of the above three, 1 is mandatory, while 2 is critical for digital, and 3 will not effect the photos.
I will post their reply, assuming I will receive it.
Regards
Anders
-
Anders
The reply from Hasselblad will certainly be very interesting. I look forward to it.
As an aside - if indeed the tolerance for digital sensor focal plane is 0.02mm (and Joseph Holmes says something like the same thing) then I really can't believe that any MF camera with a removable back can be within that tolerance. Just the mere fact of being able to remove and replace the back would mean that you could never achieve such close measurements, as even the slightest wear in the mount would throw it off. Just the expansion of the body between winter and summer temperatures would be more than that. Surely only a fully integrated camera could be so precise? However Phase or anyone else does it, I would be pretty certain that no 500 series Hasselblad could get close to 0.02mm, whatever the back. Well, I bet mine aren't, that's for sure
John
-
Until you have actually experienced this for yourself, it is very hard to believe. And only those who have shot film for years on a particular camera/lens combination and then put a digital back on the same camera will have encountered it. But the fact is that your effective and usable depth of field appears to simply evaporate into thin air with a MF DB. And your ability to focus accurately seems to vanish along with it.
As you and the OP point out, DOF is DOF. The laws of physics are immutable and apply equally to whatever emulsion or medium the light from the lens falls on at the point of the focal plane. However, there seem to be other factors at work. All of us here, as photographers, have a highly developed sensitivity to focus and sharpness in a print. Much more so than non-photographers. In fact, rather similar to musicians who develop a refined sensitivity to pitch and can instantly tell when one of a group of instruments is out of tune.
There is actually no such thing as DOF. There is only one plane of focus in any photograph where the subject is perfectly sharp, a plane which has no physical depth. Everything else is out of focus to a greater or lesser degree. What happens is that the grain of film masks this. All film has some grain, and it covers the whole of the image, unlike digital noise. If you can imagine printing a photograph through ever coarser litho screens, then what you will observe is that the apparent depth of field increases because your ability to judge sharpness is progressively impaired by the screen. The sharp and soft parts become more equal, as resolution is diminished by breaking the image down into coarser chunks of information.
Film grain works in the same way as the litho screen. We don't really see it most of the time (except perhaps in skies) but it is all pervading, and has the effect of expanding the area of apparent sharpness, which is what we call DOF. With a digital back of say 39 MP on a MF camera, grain suddenly ceases to exist for all practical purposes at low ISO. There is the granularity of the sensor photosites, of course, but the demosaic algorithms are designed to process this out and interpolation ensures that we never see it.
With (effectively) no grain, we can see for the first time exactly where true focus is. Without the screening effect of grain, the sharp parts of the image appear sharper and the soft parts appear softer. It is rather like going from ISO 400 film on MF to ISO 25 on a 10x8 view camera. And we find, to our horror and dismay, that what was good enough in terms of focus and DOF for film falls far short on a high-end digital back.
John
John: Thanks for the quite thorough explanation. This does not bode well for my planned Pentax 645D body to use with my four manual focus Pentax 645 lenses (45mm, 55mm, 75mm & 80~160 zoom). My intended use is ONLY lanscape/seascape, where I would use my present method of shooting, namely f11 or 16, focused (manually or AF) on some object about one third into the scene. It works perfectly with manual & AF lenses with Full Frame 1DSIII and Alpha 900. Also, I wonder out loud if the Pentax lenses might use an electronic in-focuse light/beep when using MF Pentax lenses (the MF lenses do have contacts on the lens mount). I suspect I will hold off on a 645D purchase, until someone has had a chance to review the performance with MF lenses (I suspect sooner or later, someone will make some tests/trials and report back)
Thanks again for taking the time to explain
Dave
-
Dave
There was a little write-up in our Amateur Photographer journal this week by Damien Demolder, who has handled and taken some shots with the new Pentax. One of the things he mentioned was how good the viewfinder and focusing screen was. If the prism has a good magnification, and the screen is indeed very good, you may find that manual focus is perfectly OK using your existing lenses. There will still be less subjective DOF than with film, but if your focus is good, half the battle is won. This is a 2010 camera, after all, and my 'Blads are the 1957 version.
John
-
Dave
There was a little write-up in our Amateur Photographer journal this week by Damien Demolder, who has handled and taken some shots with the new Pentax. One of the things he mentioned was how good the viewfinder and focusing screen was. If the prism has a good magnification, and the screen is indeed very good, you may find that manual focus is perfectly OK using your existing lenses. There will still be less subjective DOF than with film, but if your focus is good, half the battle is won. This is a 2010 camera, after all, and my 'Blads are the 1957 version.
John
Thanks again John. Naive question: lately I have made some really wonderous blow ups to 20"x30" using A900 files, and using "Exposure" or "Filmpack" and emulating Fuji Velvia, complete with grain. Would this help the "focus issue" because of lack of film grain?
Thanks again
Dave
-
Anders
The reply from Hasselblad will certainly be very interesting. I look forward to it.
As an aside - if indeed the tolerance for digital sensor focal plane is 0.02mm (and Joseph Holmes says something like the same thing) then I really can't believe that any MF camera with a removable back can be within that tolerance. Just the mere fact of being able to remove and replace the back would mean that you could never achieve such close measurements, as even the slightest wear in the mount would throw it off. Just the expansion of the body between winter and summer temperatures would be more than that. Surely only a fully integrated camera could be so precise? However Phase or anyone else does it, I would be pretty certain that no 500 series Hasselblad could get close to 0.02mm, whatever the back. Well, I bet mine aren't, that's for sure
John
John,
Actually it is not as difficult as you outline. The camera and lens can be built to the old 0.2mm tolerance but lens need perfect adjusted to be parallel to mounting plane for back. Then there need to be certain exactness in focus chain. As of course optic members in lens need be mounted parallel too.
Hassy V lenses start from 40mm (not counting fisheye), and have respectable distance from sensor. That makes relative ease. Compare this to Scheider 24mm Digitar XL large format lens which have only sits with flange ca 24mm from sensor and has thus 0.3mm total focus travel from 5m distance to infinity. That makes more difficult. Longer lenses is more simple I guess, because depth of focus is larger - if I got it all right. Thus important is really mounting of lens parallel to back.
I hope Hassy replies, I think interesting.
Regards
Anders
-
Anders
The reply from Hasselblad will certainly be very interesting. I look forward to it.
As an aside - if indeed the tolerance for digital sensor focal plane is 0.02mm (and Joseph Holmes says something like the same thing) then I really can't believe that any MF camera with a removable back can be within that tolerance. Just the mere fact of being able to remove and replace the back would mean that you could never achieve such close measurements, as even the slightest wear in the mount would throw it off. Just the expansion of the body between winter and summer temperatures would be more than that. Surely only a fully integrated camera could be so precise? However Phase or anyone else does it, I would be pretty certain that no 500 series Hasselblad could get close to 0.02mm, whatever the back. Well, I bet mine aren't, that's for sure
John
For what it is worth, the need for a very accurate positioning of sensor vs lens mount was cited by Pentax as a major reason why they decided to go the integrated route with the 645D.
The fact that Leica took the same design decision with the S2 makes me think that it does indeed make sense.
I had interesting conversation with Nikon engineers a few years back who were focusing on improving all the aspects of the imaging chain at the same time:
- sensor
- physical positioning
- accuracy of AF
- ...
The weakest part basically defines image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
John,
Actually it is not as difficult as you outline. The camera and lens can be built to the old 0.2mm tolerance but lens need perfect adjusted to be parallel to mounting plane for back. Then there need to be certain exactness in focus chain. As of course optic members in lens need be mounted parallel too.
Hassy V lenses start from 40mm (not counting fisheye), and have respectable distance from sensor. That makes relative ease. Compare this to Scheider 24mm Digitar XL large format lens which have only sits with flange ca 24mm from sensor and has thus 0.3mm total focus travel from 5m distance to infinity. That makes more difficult. Longer lenses is more simple I guess, because depth of focus is larger - if I got it all right. Thus important is really mounting of lens parallel to back.
I hope Hassy replies, I think interesting.
Regards
Anders
I have four "V" bodies EL/M, 503CW, 203FE and SWC. The EL/M is rarely used but using the other three, I think that my 40 year old SWC gives the best focus and perceived DOF with my CFV back. With SWC, the rear of the 38mm Biogon is ~25mm from the sensor.
Steve
-
Hi,
I agree with what John is saying, with some more comments.
The first issue is that there are two major differences between film and digital sensors regarding DOF. The first one is that film is not really fat and has also a significant thickness. What this essentially means that focus on film is less well defined than on a digital sensor. The other factor is that the digital image is often studied at very high resolution. In the film days I used a 15X loupe to check sharpness but I'm quite confident that 30X or 40X would be more adequate. In younger days I checked Kodakchrome slides on a Leitz microscope under 100X and 400X magnification. So the issues are:
- Film not necessary less incriminating than digital but the uncertainty of focus is larger
- We normally evaluate digital images under more discriminating conditions than we used to have with film
So DoF is actually the same on film and digital as long as you look at prints.
Let's look at things like this. The DoF scale on the lens barrel is normally based on a CoC (Circle of Confusion) of 0.066 mm (1/15 mm). If you regard a high resolution back, like the P65+ it will have a pixel pitch less than 6 micron (0.006) mm. This essentially means the normally used CoC would cover 11 pixels across or it would cover 97 pixels. So as long you look at the screen at 1:1 magnification the Circle of Confusion would be 11 pixels across. The situation would not be better if you scanned film at 4200 PPI. (Note: 1/15 mm is typically used for DoF calculations for MF film, 1/30 mm has been used in practice for 135 film.) DoF scales are based on the assumption that we would look at small prints (like 5x7") and convenient viewing distance.
Normally, when I used film I would use the f/22 DoF markings when using f/8. Also consider that we loose sharpness due to diffraction when we stop down beyond f/8, my experience is that the loss of sharpness is acceptable until f/16 but sharpness really starts to drop beyond that. See it this way, f/22 turns your 40 MP back into a 10 MP back.
I would recommend that you check out the following articles:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
This lengthy thread started by 'Anders HK'
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&pid=153549 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&mode=threaded&pid=153549)
Some testing I have done:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...-sony-alpha-900 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...ng-the-dof-trap (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap)
Best regards
Erik
John: Thanks for the quite thorough explanation. This does not bode well for my planned Pentax 645D body to use with my four manual focus Pentax 645 lenses (45mm, 55mm, 75mm & 80~160 zoom). My intended use is ONLY lanscape/seascape, where I would use my present method of shooting, namely f11 or 16, focused (manually or AF) on some object about one third into the scene. It works perfectly with manual & AF lenses with Full Frame 1DSIII and Alpha 900. Also, I wonder out loud if the Pentax lenses might use an electronic in-focuse light/beep when using MF Pentax lenses (the MF lenses do have contacts on the lens mount). I suspect I will hold off on a 645D purchase, until someone has had a chance to review the performance with MF lenses (I suspect sooner or later, someone will make some tests/trials and report back)
Thanks again for taking the time to explain
Dave
-
I have four "V" bodies EL/M, 503CW, 203FE and SWC. The EL/M is rarely used but using the other three, I think that my 40 year old SWC gives the best focus and perceived DOF with my CFV back. With SWC, the rear of the 38mm Biogon is ~25mm from the sensor.
Steve
That's interesting Steve, but the Biogon is noted as one of the best lenses Zeiss ever made. And you need to compare like with like, really - the SWC versus the 40mm on the 503. Also, which CFV back are you using? Because the SWC apparently has more issues on the 39 MP than on the 16 MP, which is what you would expect.
John
-
Digital on the 501 with a P20 can be easily summarised:
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882)
"And when she was good, she was very, very good,
But when she was bad she was horrid."
-
Thanks again John. Naive question: lately I have made some really wonderous blow ups to 20"x30" using A900 files, and using "Exposure" or "Filmpack" and emulating Fuji Velvia, complete with grain. Would this help the "focus issue" because of lack of film grain?
Thanks again
Dave
It can, and does, Dave. You can make the experiment yourself using a very low ISO grainless digital file, and add progressively larger amounts of gaussian noise to it using PS. If you then print enlarged sections from the centre of the file, you will see an apparent increase in DOF as the "grain" gets larger and heavier. However, this is something I avoid, because one of the reasons for spending huge sums of money on a digital back was to get better IQ than film on MF, and rather more like the super-smooth tonality from a view camera. And when everything goes right, the 39 MP back delivers just that.
"And when she was good, she was very, very good,
But when she was bad she was horrid."
Nice one, Chris, that just about sums up a conclusion for this topic
John
-
That's interesting Steve, but the Biogon is noted as one of the best lenses Zeiss ever made. And you need to compare like with like, really - the SWC versus the 40mm on the 503. Also, which CFV back are you using? Because the SWC apparently has more issues on the 39 MP than on the 16 MP, which is what you would expect.
John
I agree...my response was more directed to the comment ".. and have respectable distance from sensor. That makes relative ease. Compare this to Scheider 24mm Digitar XL large format lens which have only sits with flange ca 24mm from sensor"..
I'm just a hobbyist but in "controlled" situations, ie inside, D-40 flash, tripod etc., any "V" body + any lens + CFV produces repeatable, spectacular, sharpness and "fall into the image" "apparent" DOF. Out in the "wild" similar results are much less frequent and seem to be more "hit or miss". At least my "inside" pictures reassures me that the basic camera/sensor geometry is OK. (I think)
steve
-
@ John R Smith and @vandevanterSH
The problems I have had with my old 500 kit are nothing to do with manufacturing tolerance, I am sure. I can shoot off a tripod with my ancient 120mm S-Planar on the most critical of still-life subjects and get razor-sharp results. It is out in the field where you can't spend half an hour setting up each shot that the snags arise.
Coincidentally my 645AFDIII is at Mamiya in Japan for adjustment of focus. Primarily the manual focus is out of adjustment. However that was not much noticeable at very close range. Putting your issues together with this and the tolerances required for digital, could it simply be that you have is a similar issue, and that perhaps would benefit of a very detailed adjustment of the cameras? My agent tested AF as near perfect and offered adjust manual focus based on that. I still wanted Mamiya in Japan to test also autofocus to rule out any errors. My last addition is the Hassy 110/2 with very shallow DOF, thus need focus be perfect adjusted.
Also, I came across this by Alain Briot, http://www.mattsuess.com/2008/12/17/phase-...eport-part-one/ (http://www.mattsuess.com/2008/12/17/phase-one-p45-experience-report-part-one/)
He there states that he uses 503CW and SWC, and writes of focusing:
"Focusing must be done very carefully with the P45. This is true with any lens, and more so with V-Hasselblad lenses. V-Lenses were designed to be used with film. Since the P45 sensor is sharper than film (the P45 has a higher resolving power than medium format film), the focus tolerances are smaller as well.
It is therefore a good idea to test your lenses to see if they focus properly. Doing so is easy. Here’s how I did it: focus on a stationary object, with the camera on a tripod and with the aperture wide open (set at the widest f-stop for each specific lens). Focus very carefully using magnification if your camera offers it. After taking photographs with each lens, open the captures in your raw converter and check for perfect focus on the area where you focused. This will tell you right away if your lenses are focusing on the proper plane or not. By comparing photographs you will also learn how sharp your lenses are. I did this test and found that my lenses were focusing properly with the P45, except for the 250mm lens which is not very sharp with the P45 and is also hard to focus precisely."
Further do you use screens with microprisms to assist in nailing focus ?
I hope above is helpful to narrow down.
Regards
Anders
-
For what it is worth, the need for a very accurate positioning of sensor vs lens mount was cited by Pentax as a major reason why they decided to go the integrated route with the 645D.
The fact that Leica took the same design decision with the S2 makes me think that it does indeed make sense.
I had interesting conversation with Nikon engineers a few years back who were focusing on improving all the aspects of the imaging chain at the same time:
- sensor
- physical positioning
- accuracy of AF
- ...
The weakest part basically defines image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
@ Bernard,
Yup, weakest part can define image quality. However, if fabrication tolerances are strict enough, what is added is the combination of deviation from each parts exact dimension. In no way does that rule out that the concept of using a digital back works. It is only one part in chain and requires exact positioning. The more difficulty is on Cambo, Alpa, Sinar and Horseman technical type camera where things can slide and shift, thus require strict tolerance in order to move within a specific plane and thus not to deviate tolerance within such plane.
Both Pentax and Leica appear locked into smaller than FF 645 sensors, while Nikon is locked into 35mm such. The smaller the sensor, one can assume the stricter the tolerance is required. Now... if we compare that to P&S, the AA make images on all more or less not sharp... thus perhaps to hide the problem...
This has admittedly slipped far from O.P.
Regards
Anders