Hasselblad CF-39 at iso800

[Jason Denning]

Hi,

Has anyone used this back at iso 800 and can tell me how good it performs? I'm thinking about upgrading. Does anyone think/know if hasselblad may bring out new CF backs with newer chips?!

Thanks

Jason

[Dustbak]

With enough light it is not too bad. I would never use it unless I really need it or have a creative urge to do so. This is an image at ISO800 from a CF39. I have to look it up in my archive to get a 100% crop, maybe later.

Nobody knows what is the deal with the CF backs.

[Jason Denning]

Thanks, I'm sure it's better than 400 on my 132c.

With enough light it is not too bad. I would never use it unless I really need it or have a creative urge to do so. This is an image at ISO800 from a CF39. I have to look it up in my archive to get a 100% crop, maybe later.

Nobody knows what is the deal with the CF backs.

[rhsu]

Hi Guys,

I'm from the old school, I like to keep things to the sensor optimal rating.  CF39 was @ ISO 100 and then at ISO 50 with the later FW.  But I always rated the sensor @ ISO 100.  As per Dustbak comment, I have never attempted 400 or 800 on my technical camera as I need to keep my shutter speed of my Copal O below 1/125th (for hand held point-n-shoot with my WRS) - YES - even with double cabling.  

I never shot CF39 with H2 (albeit why it had 31 actuation).  I use my CF39 99% on my technical camera.

Caveat:  Hasselblad adgenda is still currently on their H "closed" system.  CF DBs are the only one that allows to shoot on H2, H2D and H2F (and that is it), and other cameras with V-mount (inc CFV39), M-mount etc, because of the various iAdapter mount availability.  Which you know base on your current DB.

Cross-breed a DB and a DSLR camera of different brands, there are other brands DB that have better track records - or you just need to know how to work around issues with band-aid solutions.  I know someone here that I have been talking to who shoots P65+ w/ H2 and he/she loves it.

Dustbak (...you're welcome) and I have our CF39 DBs on sale.  My DB has the only adv in that the new owner can take over with the extended-warranty per said fee under the CPP before the original warranty (non-CPP) expires in May!

I'm selling mine so I can move to P45+.  I need looooonnnnnngggg.... exposure - more than 3 min - so I can make people disappear when doing arch/landscapes photography.  Hard to remove people in post production CS/PS!  

[rolleiflexpages]

Caveat:  Hasselblad adgenda is still currently on their H "closed" system.  CF DBs are the only one that allows to shoot on H2, H2D and H2F (and that is it), and other cameras with V-mount (inc CFV39), M-mount etc, because of the various iAdapter mount availability.  Which you know base on your current DB.

add the H1 to that list ;-)

[rhsu]

add the H1 to that list ;-)

...ooops! ... yes including H1.

Bronica?

[Dick Roadnight]

Hi Guys,
Caveat:  Hasselblad adgenda is still currently on their H "closed" system.  CF DBs are the only one that allows to shoot on H2, H2D and H2F (and that is it), and other cameras with V-mount (inc CFV39), M-mount etc, because of the various iAdapter mount availability.  Which you know base on your current DB.

Can you use the CFV39 as a spare back for the H4D? (not that the H4D backs will ever go wrong)

[Dustbak]

No. A CFV you certainly cannot use on a H3/H4. It is dedicated V-mount. I am pretty certain a CF cannot be used on a H3/4 either.

[rhsu]

No. A CFV you certainly cannot use on a H3/H4. It is dedicated V-mount. I am pretty certain a CF cannot be used on a H3/4 either.

Dustbak is DEFINITELY correct that CF cannot be used on a H3/4.  CFV is a dedicated mount - like P1 DBs.  That's why with P1 VA, they allow you with ONE change-over mount, not interchangeable like that of CF + "n"iAdapter.  The inter-changeable iAdapter mount is ONE of MANY advantages of the CF DB.

[JdeV]

Hi,

Has anyone used this back at iso 800 and can tell me how good it performs? I'm thinking about upgrading. Does anyone think/know if hasselblad may bring out new CF backs with newer chips?!

Thanks

Jason

The CF-39 is frankly terrible at ISO 800. It is not only noisy but has really ugly tonality. A little noise is fine but blocking shadows, reduced dynamic range and so on is not. Of course different people have different standards and it depends upon your subject but in my experience no medium format digital back is any good more than one stop above its base ISO.

If you need higher ISOs you are much better off using a D3x, (definitely good to about ISO 1200).

I just did a location fashion shoot with the Phase P40+, (supposed to be about as good as it gets with higher ISO MF), but the same rule applied. 400 ISO was not acceptable and the D3x shots taken alongside were vastly better.

[Nick-T]

in my experience no medium format digital back is any good more than one stop above its base ISO.

You should have a look at some files from the H4D40 they are very impressive for MF.
Nick-T

[rhsu]

The CF-39 is frankly terrible at ISO 800. It is not only noisy but has really ugly tonality. A little noise is fine but blocking shadows, reduced dynamic range and so on is not. Of course different people have different standards and it depends upon your subject but in my experience no medium format digital back is any good more than one stop above its base ISO.

If you need higher ISOs you are much better off using a D3x, (definitely good to about ISO 1200).

I just did a location fashion shoot with the Phase P40+, (supposed to be about as good as it gets with higher ISO MF), but the same rule applied. 400 ISO was not acceptable and the D3x shots taken alongside were vastly better.

Of course, the P40+/P65+ using the new Sensor+ technology (patent pending) thus allowing to shoot at an extreme ISO (200-3200) without NOISE but at a reduced sensor MP.    I also agree with the Nikon D3x - at least you get a higher than 15MP.  I like to see samples in due course.

[Brady]

The CF-39 is frankly terrible at ISO 800. It is not only noisy but has really ugly tonality. A little noise is fine but blocking shadows, reduced dynamic range and so on is not. Of course different people have different standards and it depends upon your subject but in my experience no medium format digital back is any good more than one stop above its base ISO.

If you need higher ISOs you are much better off using a D3x, (definitely good to about ISO 1200).

I just did a location fashion shoot with the Phase P40+, (supposed to be about as good as it gets with higher ISO MF), but the same rule applied. 400 ISO was not acceptable and the D3x shots taken alongside were vastly better.

what was so bad about the p40+ at 400?  

I've found P30+ and p25+ at 400 have been totally fine for my use.  Couldn't imagine it not being good on p40.