Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: DanielStone on April 17, 2012, 08:45:59 pm
-
hey all,
Well as a die-hard film(120, 4x5 and 8x10) shooter for the past few years, I've been considering the purchase of a used/pre-owned digital back sometime in the next year or so. Not 100%, but definitely in-mind. My ideal back would be the Aptus II-12R, but that's way outside my budget. The rotating sensor design makes the most sense to me, and since most of my shooting is in-field(during hiking or day trips), I'd need it to be weather proof as much as possible. The CFV-50 seems to be rarer than hens' teeth on the used market, and again, its still somewhat out of my budget. Currently being 24, and a full-time photo assistant here in LA I'm not one of the richest people on the planet, yet :).
I currently own a 553ELX and a 503CW, along with a 50mm CF/FLE, 80mm CF, and 150mm CF lenses. For film, when properly focused, they're tremendous! I drum scan the transparencies for printing via lightjet, and I love the results.
From some reading here on LuLa and other online forums, there are those that believe that the "latest and greatest" lenses are needed to maximize potential results with these higher-mp backs. The P1 P45+ is on the top of my short list of potential backs to get, primarily due to the ability of >1min exposures, when needed(not often, but I like the option to if needed).
I'm not interested in re-investing in another system(such as the H/P1/Mamiya), since I like my results with film on the V system, and I'll still continue to shoot film.
So are the CFi/Cfe lenses REALLY all that different from their CF counterparts for resolution on a 39mp chip?
thanks
Dan
-
Don't think so,
I just upgraded from a P25 to a IQ160, and the great lenses on P25 are still great on a 60MP too.
I only have cf, cfi, cfe lenses now, I used to have a C 60 (black), which wasn't very good with the P25 IMO.
Now, the CF 50 is perhaps my weakest lens in my collection, the 80, 120, 180 are all great. But still a good lens.
If you are going for a 40mm, most users think that only the latest version can really shine with digital.
For the moment I'm not thinking of switching any of my CF lenses for CFE versions, if I want to add other lenses, I will probably look into more Digitars for my Bicam.
Tom-
-
Dan
There is no optical difference between most of the CF, CFi and Cfe lenses. In fact, certain lenses were unchanged in optical design from the earlier 'C' versions - the 80mm Planar and the 150mm Sonnar, for example. There were engineering changes, of course, but the optical computation stayed the same.
In general, all of the wide-angle lenses will show their weaknesses on a digital back of 30MP plus. The CF versions are better than the C, but still have their problems in the corners and when close focusing the C or CF 60mm. Get the FLE version of the 50mm and obviously the CF/FLE version of the 40mm. But most of the lenses from 80mm upwards will be just fine, age notwithstanding.
John
-
I can't comment on the lenses as I'm still on a P20 on a V but will comment on the CFV backs.
Here in the UK it is much less expensive to buy a used H3DII with a 50 back than a CFV 50 used. With the adapter you lenses will work of course. I am looking at a 39 personally and your usage pattern may not suit the set up but it is just a suggestion.
I started a thread here on hand held shooting which you may find interesting as well.
Best
-
If you are going for a 40mm, most users think that only the latest version can really shine with digital.
I don't know who 'most users' are but their opinions are certainly not reflected in the prices used 40s are getting on ebay.
-
get the rotating back
-
I know it's not what you are asking, but since you
- have budget constraints
- want some weather resistance and suitability for hiking, and
- might need to buy a bunch of new lenses,
Then you really might want to at least dabble with good 35mm format DSLR gear like a Nikon D800 with good prime lenses.
One problem with digital MF in your price range is that the sensor is likely to be distinctly smaller than the 645 film frame, let alone the 6x6 frame, so the FOV of those Hasselblad lenses will be significantly narrowed compared to what they give with the 6x6 film format for which they were designed.
-
I'm not interested in re-investing in another system(such as the H/P1/Mamiya), since I like my results with film on the V system, and I'll still continue to shoot film.
I know it's not what you are asking, but...
BJL never did listen in class. All his teachers were worried that this would continue into his adult life ::)
-
BJL never did listen in class. All his teachers were worried that this would continue into his adult life ::)
I actually did listen, but maybe you did not read so carefully. The OP takes about not wanting to invest in a second (potentially very expensive and certainly bulky) _medium format_ system for digital, and so having to carry two medium format systems, one for film, one for digital. What I was discussing was a different, potentially far less expensive and more portable option. Quite likely not what the OP will opt for, but I am not averse to raising some "outlier" options that might have been overlooked.
-
I shoot a Pentax 645D with film era lenses. You certainly get great results from film lenses. But some lenses are better than others--most are very good with one or two dogs.
One of the problems with digital is pixel peeping. At 100%, I am looking a 9mm x 5mm area on a 24" monitor of my 44mm x 33mm 40MP sensor. You don't normally look at film images that close. But even at 100%, my film lenses (35mm, 105mm, 120mm, and 300mm) are very sharp. How the Hasselblad line fills out, hopefully someone will chime in with their experience.
-
Hi,
The way I would see it, it is possible to buy a D800 with something like three first class lenses (Nikon or Zeiss) for the price of a used P45+. If you put a used P45+ on a used 500C series camera odds are that sensor would not be aligned with lens and focusing screen within the perhaps 0.02 mm needed for optimal quality.
On the other hand. If the original poster finds a P45+ at decent price he might be quite happy with the results and if he is less than satisfied he can probably sell off the P45+ without much loss.
Just to mention, Lloyd Chambers made a first comparison between the Nikon D800 and the Leica S2, and the Nikon probably came out on top. It would be premature to say that Nikon is as good or better than Leica S2 based on a single test, but Diglloyds test clearly indicates that the D800 is competitive with much more expensive MF systems.
So I agree with BJL, it is a point that needs to be made, but the OP of course needs to determine his priorities.
According to MTF data that Hasselblad is publishing on their own lenses the H-series are better then the C-series. Hasselblad also indicated that the C series are optimized for infinity while the H-series are optimized for a wider range. My guess may be that the differences may be academical, unless perfect focus is achieved at near optimum aperture. I'd also suggest that perfect focus may not be easy to achieve.
Best regards
Erik
I actually did listen, but maybe you did not read so carefully. The OP takes about not wanting to invest in a second (potentially very expensive and certainly bulky) _medium format_ system for digital, and so having to carry two medium format systems, one for film, one for digital. What I was discussing was a different, potentially far less expensive and more portable option. Quite likely not what the OP will opt for, but I am not averse to raising some "outlier" options that might have been overlooked.
-
According to MTF data that Hasselblad is publishing on their own lenses the H-series are better then the C-series. Hasselblad also indicated that the C series are optimized for infinity while the H-series are optimized for a wider range. My guess may be that the differences may be academical, unless perfect focus is achieved at near optimum aperture. I'd also suggest that perfect focus may not be easy to achieve.
Best regards
Erik
The MTF data depends totally on what lenses you compare. Some of the old lenses have much better MTF
than the new HC lenses. Also the new lenses have much lower res in the outer part of the circle.
I use both and in many cases the old ones CFe/CFi are better.
The only good reason to use HC lenses are AF. On a 80mp sensor it is very hard to focus manually.
Otherwise I would sell them all.
Henrik
[/quote]
-
Hi,
I am an amateur, and for the past 2 years I am using a 500CM, CFV-39, and a C40mm, CF80mm, and CF350mm.
The quality of the C-Lens (even the "old" C40mm) impresses me. These lenses, in combination with Phocus, are just great.
You may find the experience of a professional, by hitting the link: http://www.olegnovikov.com/index.shtm.
His tests are are really informative!
Regards
Ruediger
-
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/1663143/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/1663143/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf)
And why do you think Hasselblad decides to test their new HC lenses agains an older model of he 250 sa?
I would say that is strange... Maybe they don't have their own newest V-lenses? :D
This test was only done to convince all the Zeiss-fans why they went to Fuji.
Henrik
-
Hey, all I did was provide a link.
Don't shoot the messenger.
It was absolutely not an attack on you :)
Sorry if it could be misunderstood. Just a strange test they did.
Henrik
-
What I find somewhat irritating is that -
* We have rather lost touch with the original topic
* And that this is largely because the OP, Daniel, posted the question and then vanished, with no further input.
So, despite all our best efforts, this thread is spiralling into the abyss . . .
John
-
What I find somewhat irritating is that -
* We have rather lost touch with the original topic
* And that this is largely because the OP, Daniel, posted the question and then vanished, with no further input.
So, despite all our best efforts, this thread is spiralling into the abyss . . .
John
Hey John,
sorry for "disappearing", but I've had a rather busy month, and with other things to do besides babysit a thread I've started, I haven't checked in since posting the original topic.
Thanks for your recommendations everyone. I've decided to just stick with looking for a back, even if it means saving for another few months. That's not a problem with me. I understand the sensor crop factor, and have also put a 40mm CF onto my list of "things to get in the future". I can always rent lenses from Samy's/Calumet here in town if I "need" it, but don't own it. Not a huge problem IMO.
The D800e looks mighty tempting, but I've only picked up my Nikon F4 3x in the past 6mo, so not enough for me to really warrant an expenditure such as that. My hasselblad kit however, that's used multiple times/week :). So a little comparison.
95% of my shooting is tripod based, and I'm NOT in a rush to get to the next shot. I take it easy, and enjoy myself. Sometimes I don't even download a flash card from my D200 for 3-4 WEEKS until after I've shot, boy does that make the models mad ;). Who cares. Right now I'm shooting only for myself, so I'm not in a hurry whatsoever.
I'm also NOT a pixel peeper. I prefer to make sure my lighting is perfect, or shooting conditions/atmosphere is as good as possible BEFORE CAPTURE, rather than lots of post production. I hate sitting and looking at a screen. I'd rather do it before/in capture, less work on the back end.
I'll make sure to check in periodically to see where things go with this, but I'm basically convinced of getting a back vs a DSLR. I don't do video right now, but if I did, I'd prefer to use a Red (2 friends own kits) or a hi-end Panasonic with a Nikon lens adapter(again, can borrow from friends).
-Dan
-
Hey John,
sorry for "disappearing", but I've had a rather busy month, and with other things to do besides babysit a thread I've started, I haven't checked in since posting the original topic.
-Dan
Dan - that's OK, sorry I got a little ratty ;) I think you are absolutely right to stick with the 'Blad 500 because then you can shoot film and digital interchangeably with all your old familiar Zeiss lenses. And, as we have discussed, you will find that most of them will be just fine on a MF digital back.
John
-
It's so good to know! Now we need Hasselblad to come with a rotating sensor CFV back. It would be a killer!
Eduardo
Dan - that's OK, sorry I got a little ratty ;) I think you are absolutely right to stick with the 'Blad 500 because then you can shoot film and digital interchangeably with all your old familiar Zeiss lenses. And, as we have discussed, you will find that most of them will be just fine on a MF digital back.
John
-
It's so good to know! Now we need Hasselblad to come with a rotating sensor CFV back. It would be a killer!
Eduardo
Or better yet, a SQUARE 56x56 chip ;). Even if it was 47mp(7000x7000) and could do a CLEAN 400 ISO, just think of the possibilities! And if it was $15k, and they made the Phocus software easy-peasy to use tethered, man o man!!!
But a decent 2.5" screen, at least a D200-quality level would sure be a welcome thing too :)
Hasselblad, are you reading this ;)?
-Dan
-
Hasselblad, are you reading this ;)?
-Dan
They do not read ;)
-
I don't know the answer, so I am asking because I am curious. People are beginning to compare the new Nikon D800 with medium format backs based on resolution. What about dynamic range? I have a V Hasselblad and have been thinking about a used digital back. I am not going to do billboard size photographs or extreme cropping. What I am interested in is better image quality, which would seem to involve issues of dynamic range and sensor performance.
Thanks for any insights.
-
People are beginning to compare the new Nikon D800 with medium format backs based on resolution. What about dynamic range?
I would say instead that people are comparing the D800 to at least the less expensive DMF options for comparable resolution combined with comparable or better dynamic range, due to the D800's far lower levels of read noise compared to the rather obsolescent CCD technology used in all DMF backs so far.