How will using a Hasselblad CFV50c compare to using my Leica m240 in 30x40 inch

[Torontoamateur]

I am perplexed and need some advice from a person with experience.

I have an extensive Hasselblad V series collection and enjoy it using film. Been shooting the Hasselblad for 45 years. I also have a Leica M240 with the new ASPH lenses. The question is whether adding the CFV50c to the mix will be worthwhile? Will the printed results from it be significantly different, in terms of color and detail when printed to 30x40 inches than doing the same size with my existing Leica M240.

I figure the difference in 16x20 will be insignificant. I am now into larger prints for display.

My hasselbald lenses are the CF and also the CFE series.

[synn]

It is very difficult to get an objective answer for such questions online, so my recommendation would be to rent the back for a day or two, shoot side by side with the Leica, then make prints to see the difference yourself.

[Torontoamateur]

Yes I know but the process of doing that in Toronto is difficult especially when I live two hours north of Toronto. That is why I ask the question. The rent and print solution will cost me about $1,000, to drive, take the time off work, rent and then go back to Toronto amd get the prints done . The time will be two weeks . And that's very expensive to do as an experiment.

[Paul2660]

The creation of large prints was the main reason for my move to MF digital, back in 2008. 

My opinion, is that the more native resolution the better, as there is no better solution to native dpi at 360 for Epson and 300 for Canon.  And it's the same issue if you are having the prints made, either inkjet or dyesub. 

I recently finished a huge job where the customer pulled images from as far back as 2005 mostly 30 x 40 but some larger.  May of these were taken with the 1ds MKII @ 16MP and stitched (most times 3 images Vertical to create 1 horizontal).  They also pulled from many of my Canon 5d MKII shots @ 20MP.   My initial thoughts when working on the quote was "no problem I might have to rework some of these Canon shots, but they can get the job done at 30 x 40).  I was surprised to see that the best images I had to take to this size were from my P45+ and Mamiya 35mm or 28mm and most of them were not stitched.  These files taken to native resolution from C1 and then printed at 360 dpi in LR were amazing in the details.  Working on this project I found myself going back to the customer several times to attempt substitutions Phase for Canon/Nikon as the Phase files were just going to make a larger print easier.  As for interpolation engines, I have tried them all, (currently I still use LR) but none equal a large MP capture at native resolution.

So back to your question, Yes, I feel you will see a difference in the 50MP capture resolution over the 24MP of your Lecia.  I have never used the Lecia but I have used plenty of 21MP, 24MP and 36MP CMOS 35mm cameras.  In the job, I was surprised also to find that some of my best Nikon work from the D800 and D810 @ 36MP resolution still did not rival the work from the P45+ in output resolution.  I can't answer why, as I used the same raw converters on all the files.  The Nikon did much better than my older Canon 5d MKII @ 21MP but the 39MP and 60MP from the Phase backs still had more useable details when taken to 360dpi. 

One other note, my technique is to output to 300 dpi from the raw converter and then print the final image at 360dpi from LR allowing LR to make the final 60dpi uprez.  This works best to me, but is just one way of hundreds to get to a 30 x 40 and I just wanted to pass on my findings. 

I am printing on a Epson 9900.  This particular job involved both canvas and paper.  The largest print was a 36 x 96, (largest single print I have ever made and stretched) and it was from (2) P45+ horizontal images stitched and looked very good in the final print.

Paul

[Jager]

I'm primarily a Leica shooter (M246, M240, MM, M9).  I also have a couple of film M's, but primarily use medium format (Hasselblad, Voigtlander, and Bronica) when shooting film.  The Hasselblad 500-series is far and away my favorite medium format system.  My film gets scanned on a Flextight X1.  So that's my framework.

I don't print 30x40, as the largest my Epson 3880 and P800 will produce are 17x22.  So I can't directly answer your question.

What I can say, after making several hundred images with the CFV-50c, is that the files from that back are the most beautiful I have ever seen.  I've long loved the files I get from my Leica M's, but there's no question the files from the CFV are on a whole different level.  Much greater detail, the most accurate depiction of color I've ever seen, and the files require the least post processing I've ever experienced.  And there's a look, an intangible, I don't really know how to describe.  But it's wonderful.

At 30x40 print size I can't but imagine you would see notable and consistent quality improvement with the CFV versus the M240.

[Doug Peterson]

Yes I know but the process of doing that in Toronto is difficult especially when I live two hours north of Toronto. That is why I ask the question. The rent and print solution will cost me about $1,000, to drive, take the time off work, rent and then go back to Toronto amd get the prints done . The time will be two weeks . And that's very expensive to do as an experiment.

We frequently rent a system by UPS delivery to people across the country. We then count the rental toward the purchase of the system so that the cost of the rental is essentially free.

I like to say that this is especially nice because you either save a LOT of money (i.e. decide that MFD is not right for you and therefore save $10k+) or you spent the same as you would have (since we count the rental toward purchase).

Granted this is our policy and is relevant for US buyers of Phase/Leaf/Mamiya but I would think you could find someone to do this for you in Canada for Hassy.

[synn]

Lula gets Their share from DT, in case you haven't seen the banner ads at  the top of the page.

[landscapephoto]

Will the printed results from it be significantly different, in terms of color and detail when printed to 30x40 inches than doing the same size with my existing Leica M240.

At that size: definitely yes.

Note that you could also get an older H3DII-50 with an adapter for your lenses for less money than the CFV50c. Used, of course.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have been shooting with a 24 MP DSLR (Sony A99) and a 39 MP back (P45+) on the V-system. In A2 (16" x 23") size prints I did not see any difference with the naked eye, but could clearly see an advantage to the P45+ using a 5X loupe on the prints. Going to A1 size I am pretty sure the P45+ had discernible benefits. But, A2 is my standard print size and I never shot a great image I wanted to print larger on the P45+.

Making use of those 39 or 50 MP on the V-series is pretty hard.

So, I would say that you would see a real benefit at 30"x40", but you need to work for it.

Best regards
Erik

I am perplexed and need some advice from a person with experience.

I have an extensive Hasselblad V series collection and enjoy it using film. Been shooting the Hasselblad for 45 years. I also have a Leica M240 with the new ASPH lenses. The question is whether adding the CFV50c to the mix will be worthwhile? Will the printed results from it be significantly different, in terms of color and detail when printed to 30x40 inches than doing the same size with my existing Leica M240.

I figure the difference in 16x20 will be insignificant. I am now into larger prints for display.

My hasselbald lenses are the CF and also the CFE series.

[jng]

There's definitely a benefit to the larger sensor and additional pixels for such large prints.

Some are better than others, but the Hasselblad V series lenses hold up quite well on the high resolution digital backs. Yes you need to work for it, but when going for prints of this size that would be true regardless of the system you're using, IMHO.

[Chris Livsey]

Yes you need to work for it, but when going for prints of this size that would be true regardless of the system you're using, IMHO.

Indeed at those higher count backs in MFD without IS or equivalent technique can have more effect than the last drop of lens goodness, the V system is more of a challenge than the H, even starting with getting the back and focus alignment spot on. Can and is done of course.

[JohnBrew]

There are some videos on YouTube with photographers using the CFV50c on a Hasselblad film body. You would do well to check them out and the conclusions drawn. I have also the M-P and have shot the CFV50c. You can print your Leica images to 30 x 40, heck a television production company once printed some of my M8 images that large. However, personally, I would prefer the resolution of the MFDB. I also have a D810 and being a Sony-sourced  sensor like the Hasselblad, you would think the color would be similar but it's  not even close. Leica color blows away the Nikon and is very close to that of the MFDB.

[buckshot]

Lula gets Their share from DT, in case you haven't seen the banner ads at  the top of the page.

And why are they there ? To keep sales pitches out of posts, and thereby help alleviate the fatigue induced by constantly being sold to.

[Rob C]

There are some videos on YouTube with photographers using the CFV50c on a Hasselblad film body. You would do well to check them out and the conclusions drawn. I have also the M-P and have shot the CFV50c. You can print your Leica images to 30 x 40, heck a television production company once printed some of my M8 images that large. However, personally, I would prefer the resolution of the MFDB. I also have a D810 and being a Sony-sourced  sensor like the Hasselblad, you would think the color would be similar but it's  not even close. Leica color blows away the Nikon and is very close to that of the MFDB.

That makes me think, John: how much is due to sensors and how much to lenses? Way back with film it was always the case that different lens makes produced different types of colour. Shooting Kodachrome on Leica gave one thing, Nikon another and so forth. Worse, not all lenes within the same maker's portfolio produced identical colour matches.

Rob C

[Rob C]

And why are they there ? To keep sales pitches out of posts, and thereby help alleviate the fatigue induced by constantly being sold to.

Hey, be happy we get this site free!

Certainly there are times that I wish we did not: perhaps payment would keep out the trolls (not many here), but I think it might stack the numbers in favour of seriously concerned photographers.

Rob C

[Paul2660]

Not that I am color blind, as I can see green and red.  But I just don't see much difference in colors between a CCD (IQ160/260/P45+/IQ180) and the IQ150.  I found that greens were a bit more saturated on the IQ160, but that was a simple fix in post. 

As for the Nikon's well, I have found I actually love their color, but also love the color from the Phase backs I use.  I only shoot raw, so to me the final palette is either C1 or LR, as that's where the magic happens for me.  I find that C1 seems to have better starting color profiles for Phase backs and to me is a bit less positive on the Nikons but again that can easily be fixed in the software.

I do however, see a huge difference in print quality from a 24MP camera (nikon, or Canon 21MP) and the images I have printed from any of the Phase One backs I have used over the years, be it 50MP, to 80MP.  The difference is something that can easily be seen in CC or LR when viewed at 100%.  The trick is to get the image to 30 x 40 at 360dpi without considerable loss of fine detail to interpolation.

After working on this last project, I did start to realize that (at least to my eyes) the Phase CCD files do seem to have a bit more depth to them when printed, something I really had not noticed until I started printing large files from various cameras and then comparing them side by side.  The images from the Phase backs just seemed more life like, I really can't explain it any other way.  The effect was enough to make me reconsider where I am wanting to go in the future with Phase One, i.e. CMOS full frame when it comes or stay with CCD.  I really don't think I would have said this until I printed this last project where I was able to do so much side by side comparisons.

Again, just one opinion and I realize there is not one right way to do this.  It's what works for you and your budget for sure.

Paul

[Joe Towner]

In short, the 50c files are well worth it.  In looking, I don't see Canada getting the "$10k USD"-esq pricing on the CFV-50c, so I'd bug your dealer up there.

[jng]

The images from the Phase backs just seemed more life like, I really can't explain it any other way.

I agree. And there's more to the look of medium format than I think one can attribute solely to the potential for increased resolution. Call it depth, tonality, whatever. Some will agree and others will debate whether "the look" is real or imagined. However to the eye of this beholder, there is a certain je ne sais quoi about the images that I can pull out of the Phase IQ files. I'm sure that software plays a big role, too, but as a system it just works, especially when printing large (>36" wide).

John

[Torontoamateur]

Thanks to Everyone !  I decided to get the CFV50c. Can't learn unless I try it for a few months, but I expect the best.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just keep in mind that it is a small sensor, having 1.3X crop factor, thus limiting wide angle choices. On the other hand, it has good live view and that would be helpful in achieving correct focus.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks to Everyone !  I decided to get the CFV50c. Can't learn unless I try it for a few months, but I expect the best.