Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: TonyVentourisPhotography on June 19, 2019, 09:56:04 am
-
So...this seems like an interesting solution to use a digital back instead of the x1d. And you gain the benefit of attaching to a v series camera, and to tech cameras. And the battery is finally internal. All that seems great. However...does this look like it will be anything but comfortable to hold?
Too bad it’s not a rotating sensor. It will be a fun option for square crop though. I wonder if this makes the x1d that much more appealing now. Especially with the new version coming down in price.
-
I am sure we will quickly see Hasselblad or RRS coming with some accessories.
A pity they could not add a hot shoe for a 30mm viewfinder. That would be a fantastic combo.
-
Hasselblad once more (Nth time) fails to provide a rotating sensor.
Does Leaf have a patent for perpetuity?
As usual the excitement lasted one minute only.
-
An optional digital EVF that could plug into the top would have been amazing too. I like the idea of the versatility of a digital back, but at the same time... I wonder how often I would use the sensor on a 500cm or a tech cam in reality. Having both the 500 and a tech cam... I have been eyeing mirrorless medium format more for the functionality and ease of use that comes with them, evfs, etc... So everything else seems novelty really. Pricey novelty.
If Hasselblad were to finally open up autofocus on their H adapter though... that might make the X1D even more appealing.
-
Hasselblad once more (Nth time) fails to provide a rotating sensor.
Does Leaf have a patent for perpetuity?
As usual the excitement lasted one minute only.
I don’t know about the patent, but with the current pixel pitch a higher precision of sensor placement is neccesary, and probably they didn’t figure it out just yet how to keep the sensor on the similar distance when it is rotated many times.
I think the closest one could get is to rotate the back and the camera body together (for example the cambo rws 1600), but I think that is a good enough solution for the problem.
-
At the prices these things come in at they should just do that friggin' square sensor, once and for all.
Having used both 500 Series cameras and Nikons most of my career, they were a horses for courses choice, and the beauty of the tripod-bound 'blad was you didn't have to rotate the damned camera.
Rob
-
At the prices these things come in at they should just do that friggin' square sensor, once and for all.
Having used both 500 Series cameras and Nikons most of my career, they were a horses for courses choice, and the beauty of the tripod-bound 'blad was you didn't have to rotate the damned camera.
Rob
I could probably buy a brand new 'caveman' for less than the price of that square 56x56 sensor.
;-)
That said, I'd be surprised if the option to both see and shoot square wasn't an option on the new back.
I can shoot square on the 45MP Z7 and still end up with a 30MP file that would give 56x56 film a run for its money, and some. Let's face it, it's probably all too late.
-
I don’t know about the patent, but with the current pixel pitch a higher precision of sensor placement is neccesary, and probably they didn’t figure it out just yet how to keep the sensor on the similar distance when it is rotated many times.
I think the closest one could get is to rotate the back and the camera body together (for example the cambo rws 1600), but I think that is a good enough solution for the problem.
The Dalsa/TruSense sensor in the Leaf/Phase 80mp Rotating Sensor had a pixel size of 5.2 microns. This new Hasselblad uses the older sony 50mp sensor that has a pixel size of 5.3 microns. In other words the rotating sensor was accomplished in a scenario that required (very slightly)more precision, not less.
-
Anyone see any mention of whether this back can mount vertically, or not?
-
1. I could probably buy a brand new 'caveman' for less than the price of that square 56x56 sensor.
;-)
That said, I'd be surprised if the option to both see and shoot square wasn't an option on the new back.
I can shoot square on the 45MP Z7 and still end up with a 30MP file that would give 56x56 film a run for its money, and some. 2. Let's face it, it's probably all too late.
1. But Keith, you know that you wouldn't! (You'd spend it all wanderlusting.) Neither would I. For me, It's far too late to be able to produce the reflexes that speed requires. ;-(
The problem with cropping what a camera can actually give you is in the head: I'd feel I was being silly and wasteful; second-besting. Once touched with the puritanical ethic, it's indelible.
2. Probably all too late: for me, no doubt about it. At a push, not dependent on lottery but solely on the unlikely event of work, I might stretch to a D850 and a fast 300mm. The one I had was the IFED f4.5 version and seldom saw any use. I did make a couple of scans from Kodachromes where it was used to shoot a bell in a church tower: terrible chromatic aberrations. As bad, the focus was so loose that just letting the ring go was enough to upset focus. It all vanished back into a camera store on one of my ill-fated trades to 6x7.
I bought a new plant for a pot today; felt quite good about that.
;-)
-
But Keith, you know that you wouldn't! (You'd spend it all wanderlusting)...
Quite right. I've long since realised that opportunity is key.
-
Maybe I can now sell my Flexbody (which has been modified to do sideways shifts and swings).
A digital back with great Liveview is all that it needs to become a fantastic technical camera with +/-25° of tilt compared with the limited +/- 10° of modern tech cameras.
Anyone interested?
Roger
-
An optional digital EVF that could plug into the top would have been amazing too. I like the idea of the versatility of a digital back, but at the same time... I wonder how often I would use the sensor on a 500cm or a tech cam in reality. Having both the 500 and a tech cam... I have been eyeing mirrorless medium format more for the functionality and ease of use that comes with them, evfs, etc... So everything else seems novelty really. Pricey novelty.
If Hasselblad were to finally open up autofocus on their H adapter though... that might make the X1D even more appealing.
I was under the impression that you could autofocus with the H lenses with the X1D? As of firmware 1.21.0 according to the Hasselblad website..
Please note that the HC/HCD Lens must have firmware 18.0.0 or later. Lenses with older firmware have hardware that cannot be updated with this firmware. They can only be used with manual focus on the X1D.
As of firmware version 1.21.0, the X1D supports the XH Lens Adapter with auto focus for the following lenses:
HCD 4,8/24, HCD 4/28, HC 3,5/35, HC 3,5/50, HC 3,5/50-II, HC 2,8/80, HC 2,2/100, HC 3,2/150 N, HC 4/210, HC 4,5/300, HC 3,5-4,5/50-110, HCD 4,0-5,6/35-90
Would love to see autofocus with the H lenses on the GFX though, that would pretty much end any talk of needing leaf shutter lenses for the system...
-
Would love to see autofocus with the H lenses on the GFX though, that would pretty much end any talk of needing leaf shutter lenses for the system...
I am not sure it is that relevant with a good EVF on the GFX100.
Focusing lenses manually through back screen live view is a major pain, but manual focus with the EVF is much better.
Mirrorless users, inluding myself, all report a major increase of ease of use of MF lenses after moving to mirrorless from DSLRs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is the 907 compatible with the CFV I back or only the new CFV II?
I thought it was compatible with the CFV I, which is why this looked like a smart move for Hasselblad, but after rereading the announcement they only speak about the CFV Ii.
Is there really a market for new backs for the V bodies just to enable live view focusing through X1 lenses?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is there really a market for new backs for the V bodies just to enable live view focusing through X1 lenses?
You don't think there's a market for a new back with a modern sensor for the V bodies using C/CF/CFi lenses ?
Depending on price there is in my studio.
-
Is there really a market for new backs for the V bodies just to enable live view focusing through X1 lenses?
If you see the crazy prices used CFV I backs are going for, I guess there is still a good market. Now that the battery is integrated and they have a tilted screen, it is becoming much more user-friendly.
I will surely buy one.
-
I could be wrong, but I believe that recent 35mm lenses are so sharp and well corrected that it makes very little sense to use V lenses with a sensor that isn’t that much larger than FF and that hardly offers any resolution advantage.
To me we are in the romantic myths... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is the 907 compatible with the CFV I back or only the new CFV II?
I thought it was compatible with the CFV I, which is why this looked like a smart move for Hasselblad, but after rereading the announcement they only speak about the CFV Ii.
Is there really a market for new backs for the V bodies just to enable live view focusing through X1 lenses?
Looks like CFV II only; details at DPR on page 13: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1158727149/hands-on-with-the-hasselblad-cfv-ii-50c-and-907x?slide=13
An old rationalisation for cropping with old lenses: “they’re not sharp enough in the corners for modern sensors”
-
Looks like CFV II only; details at DPR on page 13: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1158727149/hands-on-with-the-hasselblad-cfv-ii-50c-and-907x?slide=13
An old rationalisation for cropping with old lenses: “they’re not sharp enough in the corners for modern sensors”
And neither were they sharp enough in the central zone to compete with FF 135 film fornat. I once tested it out: I made a headshot using the 135mm on a Nikon and then using the 150mm on the 500C/M, making the actual image on film the same size. Nikon was sharper.
To get better tonality you have to fill the larger frame. It might then also appear as sharp.
Rob
-
Anyone see any mention of whether this back can mount vertically, or not?
Nope, only one mount direction....
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2019/06/CFVII5.jpg)
-
Looks like they want to occupy the Leica space but in MF. Good luck to them. It sure is pretty but then I am getting old and have decades of admiration for Hasselblad baked into me.
-
Looks like they want to occupy the Leica space but in MF. Good luck to them. It sure is pretty but then I am getting old and have decades of admiration for Hasselblad baked into me.
I guess few people would disagree about the appeal of the classic look... i'd love to have one as a collector item in my mini camera museum.
But... I'll personally use a different tool to take photographs be it in the studio or outside in the wild.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess few people would disagree about the appeal of the classic look... i'd love to have one as a collector item in my mini camera museum.
But... I'll personally use a different tool to take photographs be it in the studio or outside in the wild.
Cheers,
Bernard
For sure. I see no use for this camera in my workflow at all. Not saying it isnt lovely and won’t work for someone but there is zero chance I would buy it. Versatility has become a real thing for me. Now if I was retired or was only shooting landscape for myself I might see it differently.
-
And neither were they sharp enough in the central zone to compete with FF 135 film format.
To get better tonality you have to fill the larger frame. It might then also appear as sharp.
Rob
That makes sense and fits with what I have seen from other lens testing: at the high end, the larger format lenses lag on “lp/mm” and need to win on “lp/ph”, tonality, DR etc. by making good use of the larger image that the lens delivers.
And yet none of the backs for use with those “mature” 6x6 format lenses and bodies go bigger than the heavy crop to 44x33mm. My kindest thought is that it serves the cost saving of using those old lenses instead of buying expensive new MF lenses. Personally, I would indulge lens nostalgia with a film back and scanner.
-
If this back comes in at the same price or lower than the X camera, then I will for sure buy it. For me the form factor and size of the old V series is just perfect. I can press my old V gear into service again. That would make me happy.
I understand that some of the comments that it will have limited use and not versatile, etc. I have yet to meet a pro shooter in my years of shooting that had just one system or a carpenter that had just one saw.
-
Well... maybe if someone comes up with a V to whatever the new mount is speedbooster I will get excited.
-
If this back comes in at the same price or lower than the X camera, then I will for sure buy it.
And if it is more expensive? How much would you pay for the back?
-
In my own opinion... I have a hard time seeing the CFC back selling for any more than the x1d now. Especially with the 907 available. There are trade offs with each camera in either direction ... but how different are they really to merit what the cfv last sold for new?
-
And if it is more expensive? How much would you pay for the back?
Depends if it’s hundreds more or thousands more. If it is thousands, I will look at other options.
G