Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: henrikfoto on April 12, 2011, 04:00:46 pm
-
I want to buy a new 80 mp back and am tempted to use it on my V-system since I have a lot of lenses.
I wonder if it wil be hard to focus correctly with MF lenses when the back is so large and the pixels so tiny?
-
You will have to have your camera focus tolerances calibrated and even then, i yhink it will be a hell of a job making really sharp images handheld deu to the 500 series construction. I have never seen a person making 8 scharp images out of 10 when the subject moved itself ( and stood still during exposure). Good night and good luck. ;)
-
You will have to have your camera focus tolerances calibrated and even then, i yhink it will be a hell of a job making really sharp images handheld deu to the 500 series construction. I have never seen a person making 8 scharp images out of 10 when the subject moved itself ( and stood still during exposure). Good night and good luck. ;)
It is of course a lot harder to focus quickly without af, but is it harder with an 80mp back than with a 22 mp back?
-
I find it a challenge to get correct focus with a 16MP back, with film it was/is fine. You just see the focus point/plane so much more accurately (acutely) on digital and I suspect an 80MP back would make it easier again to see it, and by how much you missed it. ;D
I had the body serviced first to check tolerances were OK BTW. Mirror up or at least 250th if hand held is mandatory. Yes it is nice to use that classic glass and the nostalgic body but it is a frustrating experience, and that's as an amateur. If I was shooting for cash it wouldn't be my choice.
-
I have experience with an Aptus-17 on a 503cw.
Its working fine focus-wise (and otherwise) with steady objects.
The 120mm macro, for example, works great on portraits; I can get images sharp even when close.
Hit rate in term of correct focus is not 100% of course, but fully acceptable.
Light levels need to be OK of course.
... That said this back is at much lower resolution than a 80 MP.
I am posting this since Chris mentioned that he has experienced some issues with his 16 MP back.
Best - Peter
-
I shoot with a P65+ on a Hasselblad 555ELD. Am going to get the IQ180 in V mount.
The large sensor size does make the focus a lot more critical and I do think you need good eye sight. But even if you don't you can use a chimney finder with what ever diopter you eye needs. You might find there is a bit of getting used to. But really, by the end of a decent sized shoot you will have found your method. It really makes you concentrate rather than switch off which I think is an added bonus. I would definitely recommend shooting tethered so you can keep an eye on it and a focus light helps where possible but it's not essential. By the way if a shot looks OOF on the monitor, just zoom in and you may find it's tack sharp. Something to do with the way that it renders on the monitor when viewing the full image at certain res at times. WLF is easier to focus with it has more magnification. 45 prism is find though but the discernible difference between super sharp and not so sharp isn't as great. Use the acute screen. Only thing I would like is a bright screen that you can't see any fresnel lines but it's not going to happen. I'd never really noticed the fresnel lines in film days but now that I'm alot more critical with focus i really notice them and find them a little too distracting at times. Not so much now after a while of using it. I use a split field screen which helps in lower light. I quite often hand hold it but am usually using flash.
I shoot everything from full page editorial to billboard on it. and what I gain in quality I would never consider a compromise for a bit more of involved shooting. Personally I think the V System is the best option still. Think about hiring a P65 or wait till a 180 becomes available to hire if you think it may really be an issue.
-
Hi DeeJay!
What do you think about the V-lenes for digital?
Henrik
-
Hey!
They are certainly older in design and you do see that at times. Either way, it's never been a problem and in terms of anything else I've used in the past it blows it all out of the water. When you nail it you seriously nail it. It's insanely good. I like the tones, more flattering for my line of work. I started a post recently for the same reasons as you. I am reviewing the system with the back upgrade. I'm not so keen on the look of the H Lenses nor the Mamiya lenses a great deal. They are OK but I find both cameras particularly uninspiring so combined it's not so great. Haven't tried the Phase Schneider lenses yet. I would consider the Rollei but the IQ backs aren't covering the Rollei mount. Am going to have to make some time to try out V, H and Phamiya systems side by side but it's not easy to arrive at a single conclusion as each have their merits and weaknesses to some degree and it's strange that we have ideal world in capture but compromised camera system.
The softness that you do see from time to time in the lenses is easily corrected with some USM. It seems to be more diffraction when shooting at 16's 22's which the older lenses are known for.
I am, by all means, happy with the P65 V System but I do see it's flaws or limits at times which makes me want to review the system as I Obvs want the best possible particularly as I hear the new 180 is a step up from the P65 (which is hard to fathom as it's so good!) so maybe the V lenses will have past their limit...I'll wait to get my hands on one and see and I probably won't buy until I try in this case. But I'm happy so far with the V System.
I wish someone would develop a camera that is technically outstanding AND also inspiring design. I just wish they bought this V System into the modern age instead of the clap trap H system they moved too.
-
Just for the record I am using acutte matte screen/ split image and either pme 90 or wlf.
I suspect the "problem" is me not the back. I tend to shoot mostly hand held so exaggerate the problems, if I was locking down on a tripod I am sure my hit rate of focus would increase and, as an amateur, I don't have the daily throughput of say DeeJay where constant use improves consistency.
As I posted don't underestimate the quality of the old glass, some of it not so old really, you can pay so much more for the newer stuff and not get the look you love/need. For landscape work in particular remember the new glass is optimised for a closer working range the old for infinity (macro-planar excepted ;D).
Wouldn't it be interesting if a new light tight box, optimised for digital, could be made, to fit between the new high res. backs and our legacy glass ?
-
From the posts in this section in the past we know that there are still a lot of people out there shooting with a V-System Hasselblad gear and using digital backs of one sort or another. There is no doubt that using these backs demands a lot tighter technique than we were used to with film, for all sorts of reasons. But it is nonetheless perfectly possible to get an excellent result, and there is nothing much wrong with the old Zeiss glass either.
Quite how this might work out with the new 80 MP backs is hard to say, but I would guess that using them will just raise the bar another notch. Probably the easiest way to think about it is to treat the camera (and your technique) as if you were shooting 5x4 film, rather than MF. This is because you pretty much end up with 5x4 DOF, critical focus, and fussiness about shutter speeds and tripods. If you can be content with that, you will be OK.
John
-
Thanks everybody!
Do you all think the mirror of the V-system is making more vibrations than the H-system and other
"digital" systems?
I used it last time with the Phase H20 with great results, but now the pixels are much smaller and the sensor bigger..
I now use the H, but don't like the glass much.. miss the old I guess ;)
-
I do hand hold my 555 alot. I like it that way infact. I use my feet and body to fine focus rather than the focus knob making it more fluid shooting. But you need to get into the habit of training yourself compose first focus after. If you focus first and then compose it will be soft. Using a tripod certainly helps nail it though. If you are having problems I would suggest renting or borrowing another lens and body as the manufacturing of the older gear disn't have the demanding tolerances of today.
As far as a broad system goes though, when you nail it, man it's phenominal and more sharpness that you even need. `Strangely though you would think it needs more retouching, but I have found that it is easier to retouch because you can really pick the detail out. Work on your technique and try lots of different things. I think the hand-eye-mind thing improves with use in time just in the same way a golfer becomes more accurate after practice.
Henrik,
No I don't think it's a problem with the mirror. The softness is not vibration movement it's definitely glass related. I'm shooting with flash nine times out of ten so it's not the issue. When you see it, it's an ever so soft haze. It goes away with a bit of Radius based USM. I do think it's internal diffraction and flare from shot to shot as it's not always there and even still the good majority of people won't even see it.
Perhaps though it's different from body to body as I know the 555ELD has enhanced mirror dampening and is recommended for digital use. I would say that the older the body and lens you ahve the more probability of error you will have.
-
If it is just the glass, you might want to try the CF adapter? At least you will have the focus confirmation (AFAIK) helping you with getting focus where it needs to be. I have gotten rid of my V after I got the 39 and never looked back. I prefer my files to be sharp to begin with and the H simply gave me a higher hit rate with less effort.
Personally I find the V highly overrated with the ergonomics of a brick.
-
If the H Series wasn't a closed system then I'd consider it probably a bit more.
I have heard a rumour though that Hasselblad are close to opening it up again.
-
If the H Series wasn't a closed system then I'd consider it probably a bit more.
I have heard a rumour though that Hasselblad are close to opening it up again.
Any particular source you got this from?
-
I use some MF lenses with my phaseone camera, i also have an hasselblad lens. I can use the AF confirmation also with my cheap adapter, a Fotodiox, and is the only way to get sharp images with my p45.. 80mpx will be simply worse. You really need a kind of focus confirmation. I suggest you to go with the mamiya afd and keep using your hasselblad glasses
-
No source as such to give, I have heard it from many people over the last couple months.
-
Does the Hasselblad v need a cable from the back to the lens?
-
Unless you are using a CFV back (or a CF back on a 555ELD) the answer would be 'Yes' on this question.
-
Unless you are using a CFV back (or a CF back on a 555ELD) the answer would be 'Yes' on this question.
Ok
So there is no way to attach a Leaf back on a Hasselblad V without this cable?
Does it make any differense if it's a 555, cwd or anything else?
-
No.
-
If you use a 203FE or 205FCC that's been modified by the factory ... no cable is necessary. Bill
-
If you use a 203FE or 205FCC that's been modified by the factory ... no cable is necessary. Bill
Even if the back is not Hasselblad?
Henrik
-
I have never tried to use another focusing screen than the one they use as standard.
But for digital use it might be vise to find the best possible focusing screen?
What IS the best screen possible?
-
I have never tried to use another focusing screen than the one they use as standard.
But for digital use it might be vise to find the best possible focusing screen?
What IS the best screen possible?
If you have one of the Acute Matte Hasselblad screens (and all the most recent 503s came with them) then you already have the best screen, IMO. There lots of variants on these screens, too, some with central split prisms etc, or plain. Manual focus with a MF camera on a high-res back is always going to be a challenge, that's why the H-Series cameras have very sophisticated AF systems incorporated into the design. You can do it on a 500 or 200 series 'Blad, there is no doubt, but to really nail focus takes a great deal of care. It is so easy to get fooled by apparent sharpness in the viewfinder, and with film we would get away with it (most times). With digital you can clearly see the tiny differences between focus at infinity and focused just a fraction closer in the file at 100%, which you simply can't see in the finder whatever screen you use.
Sometimes it is no problem at all. Shooting hand-held with the 250mm and a prism, wide-open at 1/500 sec, I can nail focus and sharpness pretty much every time. But with the 80mm close in at f8 or wider, I am often a foot or so out (usually back-focused), which is quite enough to ruin a lot of shots. The wider the lens, the worse it gets. You would think that DOF would be on your side as you go wider, and cover up your sins, but a 40 MP back has other ideas. I think the 80 MP back would simply multiply the problem x2.
Most of the time, if I am shooting hand-held, my 39 MP sensor is out-resolving the limits of my technique. Just now and then, I get a hand-held result which fully exploits all of those megapixels (see post below). If I use a heavy tripod, really locked-down, mirror-up and cable release, then I start to see what the back is capable of. But there may well be a case for saying that, for general use on a 500 series camera, there is no real point in going beyond 40-50 MP. Interestingly, both Leica and Pentax seem to feel the same with their MF offerings, both of which are ergonomically designed to encourage hand-held work.
Just suppose that you could buy a 200 MP MF back for say $5,000 dollars (maybe you will be able to in 10 years time). If you just wanted to take what I would call normal photos on an old 'Blad it would be a nightmare, and quite honestly you would be better off with 40 MP.
John
-
Just to explain my viewpoint on this a little further –
This picture is a selective crop from the full-frame image, and is just a quarter of the full picture, so it is only 10 MP in size. It was shot hand-held with the 80 mm Planar with the WLF at a distance of about 20 feet, and I got lucky – for once I focused spot-on, there was no camera shake, and in the original file you can read all the writing on the harness and see every individual hair and whisker. This one actually does exploit the potential of the CFV sensor. I can print the crop to 16x12 ins and it looks terrific, so I could print the full-frame to 32x24 ins with the same quality. For my purposes I can’t imagine ever needing anything larger, so 39 MP is good enough for me. The problem, as we have debated, is getting it this well-focused and clean every time.
John
-
Hi John!
Nice picture.
I was suprised to hear that the wide lenses are more difficult to focus than the longer ones. :-\
I also wonder if the 80mp will be much harder to focus than the 39? Isn't the most important factor
for dof the size of the sensor?
36.8x49.1 is the size of the 39mp
40.4x53.7 is the size of the 80 mp
So the differense in size is not that great. And if you use it like an old Hasselblad you will have 60 mp
squere sensor which will be about 40x40 mm. Thats smaller than the 39mp sensor. Then it should be
more easy to focus???
Henrik
-
John, a very good summation and charming image.
Unfortunately after a lifetime of peering through cameras and working on detailed artwork my eyes aren't anything like as good as they once were and this for me was a significant factor when deciding between the H and V series cameras.
Hi Keith
I find that an odd result: I'd have thought that working close-up would strengthen the muscles of the eyes, not the other way around. I'm not disputing your point at all - I find the same only worse - but it seems wrong, contrary to what I'd have expected. Like yourself, I'd been a devoted user of the 500 series machines over many years, and I still can't resolve the academic question of would I rather I had not traded them... no, that's not quite true: I know that I should have kept them, if only as reminders of what was a lovely past.
Why do we so often learn too late?
Rob C
-
I also wonder if the 80mp will be much harder to focus than the 39? Isn't the most important factor
for dof the size of the sensor?
36.8x49.1 is the size of the 39mp
40.4x53.7 is the size of the 80 mp
So the differense in size is not that great. And if you use it like an old Hasselblad you will have 60 mp
squere sensor which will be about 40x40 mm. Thats smaller than the 39mp sensor. Then it should be
more easy to focus???
Henrik
Henrik
I am afraid this is all a complete misconception. The problem of evaluating focus, camera shake and DOF is nothing to do with sensor size alone. It is affected by the size (which is really Format) combined with the resolution of the sensor, and the number of megapixels on it. It is perceived as being an MF problem because, up until now, only MF sensors have had that sort of resolution – that is likely to change in future, as 35mm DSLRs increase in resolution too.
The problem lies not so much with taking the photograph, but in evaluating and editing it afterwards, and this is an issue we rarely see discussed. It hinges on the way that we are dependant for every operation on our computer monitor display, a display that can only accurately represent the image at 100%. Have you ever noticed the way that your photo looks different when you make it “fit screen” in LR, or PS Elements, or Windows Picture and Fax Viewer? That is because each piece of software uses a different algorithm to down-rez the image onto your screen (literally dumping pixels to make it fit). The bigger the input file, the more pixels have to be thrown away. You simply cannot judge critical sharpness and DOF on a down-rezzed image. So the only way to assess the IQ of any file is at 100%, or pixel for pixel on your display. Not 50%, or 80%, or anything below the full monty.
With very high-res DBs, we therefore end up looking at a highly magnified and very tiny part of our photograph. With 40 MP it is bad enough. With 60, and now 80 MP it is getting pretty silly. The image is magnified so far that what would be perfectly crisp in a 10x8 print looks soft, but we have no way of judging that without doing a test print. The tiniest errors in focus or camera shake become glaringly obvious, but it is increasingly difficult to tell whether they will be significant in the final print.
Lightroom, in particular, presents us with a real problem when using 60 or 80 MP files. You have to do your sharpening and NR at 100% in LR. This means that you end up working with sharpening and NR on tiny fragments of your image, with no idea of how the adjustments are affecting the other parts of the picture. It is all too easy to completely miss a part of the frame which has a noise problem, thinking you have dealt with it all somewhere else.
In the future, larger monitors with much higher pixel densities may solve this editing issue. But for now, technology has some way to go to catch up. And that is why most sensible folks with MF offer up a prayer of thanks for auto-focus.
John
-
Lightroom, in particular, presents us with a real problem when using 60 or 80 MP files. You have to do your sharpening and NR at 100% in LR. This means that you end up working with sharpening and NR on tiny fragments of your image, with no idea of how the adjustments are affecting the other parts of the picture. It is all too easy to completely miss a part of the frame which has a noise problem, thinking you have dealt with it all somewhere else.
John
That is indeed one of the reason why I never do the sharpening in a Raw dev and rarely sharpen uniformily but using a brush where I want the things to be sharpened.
-
Anyone have any opinions on camera/DB sync cables? i.e. PhaseOne, Kapture Group etc. For use with a P1 DB and 503CW.
-
That is indeed one of the reason why I never do the sharpening in a Raw dev and rarely sharpen uniformily but using a brush where I want the things to be sharpened.
You can do that in Capture One on the RAW file...
-
Henrik
I am afraid this is all a complete misconception. The problem of evaluating focus, camera shake and DOF is nothing to do with sensor size alone. It is affected by the size (which is really Format) combined with the resolution of the sensor, and the number of megapixels on it. It is perceived as being an MF problem because, up until now, only MF sensors have had that sort of resolution – that is likely to change in future, as 35mm DSLRs increase in resolution too.
The problem lies not so much with taking the photograph, but in evaluating and editing it afterwards, and this is an issue we rarely see discussed. It hinges on the way that we are dependant for every operation on our computer monitor display, a display that can only accurately represent the image at 100%. Have you ever noticed the way that your photo looks different when you make it “fit screen” in LR, or PS Elements, or Windows Picture and Fax Viewer? That is because each piece of software uses a different algorithm to down-rez the image onto your screen (literally dumping pixels to make it fit). The bigger the input file, the more pixels have to be thrown away. You simply cannot judge critical sharpness and DOF on a down-rezzed image. So the only way to assess the IQ of any file is at 100%, or pixel for pixel on your display. Not 50%, or 80%, or anything below the full monty.
With very high-res DBs, we therefore end up looking at a highly magnified and very tiny part of our photograph. With 40 MP it is bad enough. With 60, and now 80 MP it is getting pretty silly. The image is magnified so far that what would be perfectly crisp in a 10x8 print looks soft, but we have no way of judging that without doing a test print. The tiniest errors in focus or camera shake become glaringly obvious, but it is increasingly difficult to tell whether they will be significant in the final print.
Lightroom, in particular, presents us with a real problem when using 60 or 80 MP files. You have to do your sharpening and NR at 100% in LR. This means that you end up working with sharpening and NR on tiny fragments of your image, with no idea of how the adjustments are affecting the other parts of the picture. It is all too easy to completely miss a part of the frame which has a noise problem, thinking you have dealt with it all somewhere else.
In the future, larger monitors with much higher pixel densities may solve this editing issue. But for now, technology has some way to go to catch up. And that is why most sensible folks with MF offer up a prayer of thanks for auto-focus.
John
GREAT post. I've been wanting a larger higher res monitor or this reason for some time. Shame that monitors haven't advanced in this regard for many years.
-
*** TOLERANCES ***
Hi,
It is interesting to read that some focus well with a Hasselblad V and others do not, and the discussion of the preciseness requried for digital and high resolution backs... yet... what about adjustment of the critical tolerance that you CAN adjust in that system?
If I missed it in above, please forgive me. But it seems one outmost critical aspect is left out: calibration of the focus screen. While I do not use Hassy V I have with interest considered doing so. The Hassy V has four screws for focus screen adjustment in the corners of the focus screen. Thus... you can calibrate the camera to the lenses that appear most consistent (or ask Hasselblad to do so, and to the tolerance that they should be to) and likewise could service lenses for them to be adjsuted within tolerance I believe. Assuming tolerances at mirror are suffice small, this should assure of precise focus with a reasonable eye sight, in particular if using split image focus screen.
Someone said it is easier with AF in one of earlier posts? Is it? It depends on IF your AF is equally calibrated within acceptable tolerances for digital. Read up on all focus problems with DSLRs, or I can tell you of my Mamiya lens back from Japan for adjustment and it is now 2 1/4 inch front focusing using AF and MF!
Lens Align is a good product to test focus accuracy. Tolerance per Phase One for 80mm lens at 800mm distance and f/2.8 is what I read max +/-3.5mm in the focus plane (not along ruler). Thus... why should it be more accurate with AF if both adhere to same tolerances, provided that your eye sight, e.g. using split image viewer on groundglass will assit?
I hope above helps.
Regards
Anders
-
GREAT post. I've been wanting a larger higher res monitor or this reason for some time. Shame that monitors haven't advanced in this regard for many years.
Yes. Well what I'd like would be a 23 in panel with the ppi of an Iphone. But I shan't hold my breath.
If I missed it in above, please forgive me. But it seems one outmost critical aspect is left out: calibration of the focus screen. While I do not use Hassy V I have with interest considered doing so. The Hassy V has four screws for focus screen adjustment in the corners of the focus screen. Thus... you can calibrate the camera to the lenses that appear most consistent (or ask Hasselblad to do so, and to the tolerance that they should be to) and likewise could service lenses for them to be adjsuted within tolerance I believe. Assuming tolerances at mirror are suffice small, this should assure of precise focus with a reasonable eye sight, in particular if using split image focus screen.
Anders
I believe it is only the 500C (earliest 500 series cameras) which have a non-interchangeable focus screen with the four adjusting screws. The 500 C/M, and all later models, have interchangeable screens which sit on four metal posts. The position of the screen is therefore not adjustable. Personally (and I have two 500 C/M bodies and seven lenses to play around with) I don't believe that camera and lens tolerances are a big problem, otherwise I would see more consistent variation in results. In other words, a certain lens and body combination would always be crap, and this just doesn't happen. My problems are, I am certain, caused by user error ;)
John
-
If you have one of the Acute Matte Hasselblad screens (and all the most recent 503s came with them) then you already have the best screen, IMO. There lots of variants on these screens, too, some with central split prisms etc, or plain. Manual focus with a MF camera on a high-res back is always going to be a challenge, that's why the H-Series cameras have very sophisticated AF systems incorporated into the design. You can do it on a 500 or 200 series 'Blad, there is no doubt, but to really nail focus takes a great deal of care. It is so easy to get fooled by apparent sharpness in the viewfinder, and with film we would get away with it (most times). With digital you can clearly see the tiny differences between focus at infinity and focused just a fraction closer in the file at 100%, which you simply can't see in the finder whatever screen you use.
Sometimes it is no problem at all. Shooting hand-held with the 250mm and a prism, wide-open at 1/500 sec, I can nail focus and sharpness pretty much every time. But with the 80mm close in at f8 or wider, I am often a foot or so out (usually back-focused), which is quite enough to ruin a lot of shots. The wider the lens, the worse it gets. You would think that DOF would be on your side as you go wider, and cover up your sins, but a 40 MP back has other ideas. I think the 80 MP back would simply multiply the problem x2.
Most of the time, if I am shooting hand-held, my 39 MP sensor is out-resolving the limits of my technique. Just now and then, I get a hand-held result which fully exploits all of those megapixels (see post below). If I use a heavy tripod, really locked-down, mirror-up and cable release, then I start to see what the back is capable of. But there may well be a case for saying that, for general use on a 500 series camera, there is no real point in going beyond 40-50 MP. Interestingly, both Leica and Pentax seem to feel the same with their MF offerings, both of which are ergonomically designed to encourage hand-held work.
Just suppose that you could buy a 200 MP MF back for say $5,000 dollars (maybe you will be able to in 10 years time). If you just wanted to take what I would call normal photos on an old 'Blad it would be a nightmare, and quite honestly you would be better off with 40 MP.
John
Depth of "Focus" gets less with a wider lens, that is probably the problem.
Kevin.
-
You can do that in Capture One on the RAW file...
Yair, I don't know about the latest version, haven't upgraded yet but the 5 (my version) is not exactly what I like.(and not an issue for me)
Basically I find the focus mask indication usefull although the default threshold is located in preferences not on the working area.
It does not give full control over any area but simply acts with the threshold level wich is a global intervention.
I can't paint the focussing with changeable values on the brush and that includes the brush itself style (for ex harsh or smooth).
It is not a luxury to work on layers when the basic Raw corrections are accepted.
Actually I don't ask C1 to be able to do it. This is PS power, not a Raw devellopper task IMO.
Also, there is (that I know) no posibility to use one tool and switch to full sreen image so all the working windows disappear wich gives a bigger area. (we desperatly need that)
With high-end resolution this is indeed a prob, or anoying. We would need bigger screen size and screen resolution.
I've been told that C1 #6 is a good upgrade and so far haven't checked the enhancement although I have all the newsletters in my mail. Maybe they did something on that aspect.
-
Hi John!
Are you using the original release on your Hassy or the Winder?
I have tried both and find it much easier to get the images sharp with the winder
which requiers a lot lighter touch.
Henrik
-
Are you using the original release on your Hassy or the Winder?
I have tried both and find it much easier to get the images sharp with the winder
which requiers a lot lighter touch.
Henrik
A very interesting point. Using the winder release might indeed be beneficial for hand-held work. I can't use a winder on my 500 C/Ms, it only fits the later 500s, so I can't experiment with this option.
John
-
I have been using an Aptus 75 with a V series Blad , and i would never do it again.
I just stopped using it for moving images totally and i only use when i get the occasional
food shoot tethered.
It is just too stressful never being sure if you have the shot or not.
Regards
Terence
-
How do people make the Alpa work, do you have to be tethered for every shot?
Kevin.
-
Anyone have any opinions on camera/DB sync cables? i.e. PhaseOne, Kapture Group etc. For use with a P1 DB and 503CW.
BUMP. Serious question. Are some cables better than others or are they all pretty much equal? Have just dug out my old 503.
-
BUMP. Serious question. Are some cables better than others or are they all pretty much equal? Have just dug out my old 503.
Hi!
Normally you can get this sync-cable from Phase one dealers everywhere.
Henrik
-
I'd like to continue a couple of issues raised earlier in this post:
1. Cabling from lens to back. I'd love to know if others have a misfire problem and what they do about it. I have an Aptus 54S on a 503CW, and nearly everything I shoot is with strobes (so I'm also cabling from the back to a transmitter). The lenses are mostly great (40CFE isn't stellar at wider apertures, and the 60 for some reason seems less sharp than it ever did with film. But the 50, 80 and 120 are just great). My biggest problem with using a DB on the analog Hassy is the occasional misfired shot due to a poor cable connection. Sometimes there can be a frustrating number of misfires in a row, even when I manipulate and tweak and move the cable between shots. If I stay on a tripod, there are usually very few misfires. If I go handheld, they increase dramatically, since the cable seems to get nudged by my hands. On an editorial shoot, it's frustrating and can cause a missed great shot. On a commercial shoot, it is an absolute deal-breaker. If it were the DB-transmitter connection creating the problem, the shots would just be dark from the strobes not firing. But the problem is almost always that the back hasn't received an image at all, so it seems to be the lens-DB connection.
I've had the sync ports cleaned on all my lenses, and I have gold-tipped sync cords special ordered from Paramount. Has anyone else found a better solution? When this happens, it makes me want to chuck all the stuff out the window and buy an H system.
2. Using the 203FE. If I had my 203FE modified by the factory, could I use it without a lens-to-back cable (considering that my back is a Leaf, not a Hasselblad)? And what do I lose from the body if I do this?
thanks
ethan pines
-
Critical focus on moving subjects with medium format digital is a challenge, with or without AF. Personally I don't much value in AF for my kind of work, especially a single centre point system, so you just need to improve your focusing technique and expect some missed shots, especially under f4.
I have heard a rumour though that Hasselblad are close to opening it up again.
That would be interesting!
-
I'd like to continue a couple of issues raised earlier in this post:
1. Cabling from lens to back. I'd love to know if others have a misfire problem and what they do about it. I have an Aptus 54S on a 503CW, and nearly everything I shoot is with strobes (so I'm also cabling from the back to a transmitter). The lenses are mostly great (40CFE isn't stellar at wider apertures, and the 60 for some reason seems less sharp than it ever did with film. But the 50, 80 and 120 are just great). My biggest problem with using a DB on the analog Hassy is the occasional misfired shot due to a poor cable connection. Sometimes there can be a frustrating number of misfires in a row, even when I manipulate and tweak and move the cable between shots. If I stay on a tripod, there are usually very few misfires. If I go handheld, they increase dramatically, since the cable seems to get nudged by my hands. On an editorial shoot, it's frustrating and can cause a missed great shot. On a commercial shoot, it is an absolute deal-breaker. If it were the DB-transmitter connection creating the problem, the shots would just be dark from the strobes not firing. But the problem is almost always that the back hasn't received an image at all, so it seems to be the lens-DB connection.
I've had the sync ports cleaned on all my lenses, and I have gold-tipped sync cords special ordered from Paramount. Has anyone else found a better solution? When this happens, it makes me want to chuck all the stuff out the window and buy an H system.
2. Using the 203FE. If I had my 203FE modified by the factory, could I use it without a lens-to-back cable (considering that my back is a Leaf, not a Hasselblad)? And what do I lose from the body if I do this?
thanks
ethan pines
Assuming that the cables and the back are OK, I would suggest having the lenses serviced and the sync ports replaced with new ones, including the little coil spring inside. This is a rather inexpensive repair and I think it is well worth it
-
Critical focus on moving subjects with medium format digital is a challenge, with or without AF. Personally I don't much value in AF for my kind of work, especially a single centre point system, so you just need to improve your focusing technique and expect some missed shots, especially under f4.
I agree. I found that I had missed alot of shots or had the model hanging between poses while the autofocus hunted so killed the connection and fluidity of the shoot so stuck with MF. I found focus and reframe with the Centre point system was counter productive too. These two reasons were main contributing factors that helped me make my mind up about V or H Systems. The final straw was the closed system....we'll wait and see about that.