opinions on my thinking

[DanLindberg]

Please tell me if you see something not so good on my thinking here!

Alpa 12 SWA
Rodenstock HR32
Rodenstock HR50
Hasselblad CFV 50

Only money prevent me on going for IQ160. I want the sensor size of the CFV 50 and the price is....almost ok.

The setup will be used as 'bread and butter' assignments in architectual photography, both exteriors and interiors.

It will also be used as a landscape camera.

Out in nature, I will use a distance metre and set focus blindly with HPF rings. On my architectual paid assignments, I will use it tethered with a 13" macbook.

How does this sound?

I find it difficult to find user reports/opinions on the web for the CFV 50. If anyone here uses it I would really appreciate to hear what you think of it??

How's battery life? Can you get focus confirmation after the shot, zooming in 100% and see if I am spot on or not? Anything I should be aware of that you do not read on the net?

Thanks a million in advance

[Jeffreytotaro]

You should consider something wider than 32mm for architectural work, 28mm maybe.

[Dustbak]

The CFV50 has a sensor size of 37x49 which is smaller than the IQ160. Unless you plan on using a Hasselblad V body as well I would not be doing this. For the same amount you could be buying a P45(+) as well for even less probably a CF39 too both of these have the same sensor size as the CFV50.

Your cheapest option for a larger sensor than the CFV50/P45/CF39 would probably be the P65+.

[UlfKrentz]

I may stand corrected but what about shifting? Isn´t the CFV50 back equipped with microlenses? I´d also consider P65 or Aptus backs.

Cheers, Ulf

[Dustbak]

No the CFV50 does not have microlenses. Yes, an Aptus5/7 would have the same sensor size as the P45/CF39.

[DanLindberg]

A HR32 with the CFV 50 should be equal to a 22mm lens in full format 35mm land. That covers my needs for interiors, I actually do not like to be wider because the sense of reality diminishes with superwides imho.

As I understand the CFV 50 is good with shift, no microlenses, which ofcourse would be totally necessary in my case.

A new CFV 50 in Europe is way cheaper than a well used P65+!  I would choose a P65+ before the CFV 50, but it is 80% more expensive.

It really is difficult! yes, I do have an old Hasselblad with a few lenses and this would be a bonus, but it really isn't in my thinking since priority is to maximize quality for the architectural photography.

[Schewe]

It really is difficult! yes, I do have an old Hasselblad with a few lenses and this would be a bonus, but it really isn't in my thinking since priority is to maximize quality for the architectural photography.

Do you ever need to do really long exposures? If so you need to look at the max time exposure for the various backs in question. I know my P65+ is very limited–not really good over a minute or so while the P45+ can do an hour.

[yaya]

A HR32 with the CFV 50 should be equal to a 22mm lens in full format 35mm land. That covers my needs for interiors, I actually do not like to be wider because the sense of reality diminishes with superwides imho.

As I understand the CFV 50 is good with shift, no microlenses, which ofcourse would be totally necessary in my case.

A new CFV 50 in Europe is way cheaper than a well used P65+!  I would choose a P65+ before the CFV 50, but it is 80% more expensive.

It really is difficult! yes, I do have an old Hasselblad with a few lenses and this would be a bonus, but it really isn't in my thinking since priority is to maximize quality for the architectural photography.

There are some interesting promotions runing on the Aptus-II 10R in Europe right now (until the end of the month). With the rotating sensor it is perhaps the most suitable back for architecture right now....worth checking with your local dealer

[yossarians22]

I believe that the Hasselblad CFV backs cannot be mounted in portrait position, something to keep in mind. Or that may just be on the Hasselblad bodies.

[JdeV]

Personally I would prefer to get the following:

Used P45+ (tried and tested, long exposure times, good resale value). Either H-fit or M-fit depending upon SLR system preference. Both systems have their defects,
Schneider 35mm XL (smaller, cheaper, less distortion than the Rodenstock, very hard to use with a ground glass hence camera choice below),
Schneider 43mm XL (good, cheaper than the Rodenstock 50mm),
Rodenstock 55mm (good, reasonably priced),
Arca RM3D with viewfinder (infinitely more practically useful than the Alpa for your purposes).
This should cost about the same as your proposed system and, in my opinion, will work much better.

You could cut the lens count down by just getting the Schneider 47mm XL instead of the 43mm and the 55mm if you wanted.

I've assumed a fixed budget. You could go for those expensive Rodenstock HR lenses if you could live with their defects and had more money but I would definitely take the Arca/P45+ route.

I completely agree with you about the super-wides. On 5"x4" my favourite lenses for architecture are the 120mm and the 150mm.

[DanLindberg]

yaya, if I buy Leaf, then it would be from graphicart.ch and they only have the aptus 6 with special price.

yoss, no probs, with a square fittingplate for alpa either way is as easy to mount. It is only on a native v hasselblad that vertical is a no go.

jdev, interesting indeed. The files from a P45+ would be good enough, this is absolutely true. The Rm3Di is a hell of a body, I am back and forth all the time between the alpa swa and the rm3di. The Schneiders I am sure works fine with the back I am getting in the first place (due to budget) but I do want to buy 'futureproof' lenses and to me it seems that the rodies are better in the long run...