Choosing between M8 or H'Blad digital back

Way to go Jaapv- that's about all I could ever hope for in a Tele shot (I can't see myself carrying around a huge "cannon" for tele work) but then I'm more of a commando then a sniper. Bring on the macro shots and a very Merry Christmas to you sir!
 
nrj said:
Hi I'm very interested in your comparison of the M8 and the CFV back, thanks for posting so far its really valuable information. Could you please give some more information on the DR, colour and resolution differences between the two. Is IR a factor with the CFV? I'm particularly interested also in how you find the CFV to use, and the files to process. Thanks a lot

Nik
Click to expand...

Me too.

I just finished reading this thread and moved to LUF to discover a new 'black horizontal band' issue. When will this end ?

Have users of the CFV back experienced any similar problems, or does it work trouble free straight out of the box ?

Going back to the original question posed, I suggest you look at the pictures you want to take and have been taking, with emphasis on the former. If it's high quality portraits and landscapes in fairly low volumes then maybe the Hasselblad should continue to be the tool of your choice.

For me in the past, framed prints from the Hasselblad has far outweighed prints from 35mm. Of the hundreds of images seen from the M8, there are only a couple that I would want to own. Most shown are 'snaps' and whilst I accept that they are predomiminatly tests, there are users that now have 5000 frames under their belt and top work should be coming through. If I'm missing great work please put me right and direct me to the folios.

If what you want to do in the future involves waiting for a 'moment', requires a tripod then the Hass might more readily fit. If portability is key, the Leica wins providing you are prepared to accomodate the many IQ problems.
 
Hello Sunil,

The Hasselblad 203FE camera (which I work with myself) is not compatible with the Phase One digital backs.

I have considered myself to get the Leica M8, since I also work with M6 TTL´s, but I will wait until the M8 problems are resolved.

Best regards,
Thomas
 
Regarding compaatibility of MF backs with the 203FE Hasselblad, although it is not compatible with the Phase One, it is compatible with the Hasselblad backs, from the 16 meg CFV, to the 22meg 132C, 538C, 22CF and 39megg 39 CF...all of them will work.

All of them will not only work on the 203, but all of them, except the CFV—which crops top and bottom as well as left and right with its 16meg square sensor— will also give full wide angle files (left to right) with all of the Hasselblad wide lenses from the 30 Distagon to the 38 Biogon on the SWC to the 40s and 50s. Some lenses are easier to use with the Hass/Imacon backs, such as the CFE series, but they will all work on the 203FE.

Simply put, the 132C and 22CF and 39CF produces such large files that I don't like working with them, which is the main reason I got the CFV. Its files are smaller and more manageable and storable and easier to manipulate in PS. I have held on to the 132C with the ability to upgrade it ($5k for the CF22 or $10K for the CF39) because I thought I would miss the left/right wide angle view of the 132C that is not achievable with the CFV.

The reason I am interested in this thread is (1) I have the M8 and would not give up my CFV for it (2) I have used the 132C and 22CF and can confirm what they can do and that they can be used on the 200 series cameras (205TCC, 205FCC, 203FE).

I am probably going to sell the 132C, however, as I would prefer to have the smaller super high quality files of the CFV than the much large and wide angle super high quality files of the 132C, CF22 or CF39).

I am not a digital photography expert, so the following may not be accurate, but as I understand it, the reason the 16 meg sensor of the CFV is better than the 16meg sensor of the Canons iis the the pixels of the Hass/Imacon are bigger and therefore contain much more information, which translates into greater detail and dynamic range.

No Hasselblad is as quick and easy to use as the M8, however, nor as quiet, small and light as the M8. Think about it this way, the M8 is a thoroughbred (or a quarter horse) and the Hasselblad is a Percheron or a Clydesdale (how's that for a metaphor?)
 
edlaurpic said:
No Hasselblad is as quick and easy to use as the M8, however, nor as quiet, small and light as the M8. Think about it this way, the M8 is a thoroughbred (or a quarter horse) and the Hasselblad is a Percheron or a Clydesdale (how's that for a metaphor?)
Click to expand...
It's a metaphor alright, but not a particularly helpful one or useful one, however.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
I guess it will be like swearing in church to give you this clear advice here on rangefinderforum; 'buy the Phase One 16 Mpixel digital back for your Hasselblad 203FE!'

If you can get hold of a 2.hand Phase One Back to almost equal the price of a M8 - you buy a product that will keep it's value. I have missed several occations to buy a 2.hand digital back for my 203FE. They are ripped off whenever offered 2.hand.

Leica will be in no other posistion than to offer the M8 with a larger and larger discount. You'll see. So, if you regret buying the back, you can always re-do the whole thing without loosing a much money. Economically it will not be so favourable to do it the other way.

Buy the Phase One Back before it is too late!
 
Last edited:
edlaurpic,
Since you shoot both what have you learned about the M8's image quality? How does it compare to your MF gear and how does it compare to other digital cameras you've used in the past?

Olsen,
The answers here are empirical and specific to who ever finds themselves in such a quandary dependent on their particular needs as weighed against the aggregate of responses to this thread. Say that five times fast- yikes!

Ted
 
Last edited:
The M8 is unsuitable for night photography I've learnt from reading the Internet....
M8, ISO 1250, Summilux75 wide open, 1/60th...

night.jpg
 
Yes,there is some slight sensor blooming around some of the highlights,-but then it was a bit foggy, that has some effect- yes, a bit of noise, but err.... what would it look like on 1600ISO film, I wonder....(or, for that matter, any other high-end digital camera)
 
jaapv said:
what would it look like on 1600ISO film, I wonder....(or, for that matter, any other high-end digital camera)
Click to expand...

Well on my R-D1s the sensor light blooming would be far more pronounced- that's for sure. As to the grain it seems film like to me and from my perspective that's a good thing. No?
 
nice shot Jaap, shows what the M8 can do. Now I'd love to see the same one (or similar) from the CFV back. Edlaurpic could you post some of your CFV files, it would be very useful to see them? From your last post it sounds like you prefer CFV files to M8 - is that a fair representation? Thanks for any information

Nik
 
What bothers me about this discussion is the underlying implicit assumption that the higher resolution and less evidence of noise or grain, the better the camera. According to Sean Reid's reviews the M8 already has the image quality of medium format film, but for many posters here that is not enough and they want medium format digital backs. That may be necessary for some commercial applications, but seems to me to be overkill or counterproductive for other uses, such as that of Sunil I would imagine — and for my photography as well for that matter.

From what I've seen the M8 not only has very little grain for speeds up to ISO 640 but also extremely smooth gradation. This can easily lead to a "plastic" digital look that I don't like at all, but which has been highly praised in some pictures recently posted on the LUF. But grain can be attractive not only in B&W but also in color: to see some excellent color photography by Harry Grauyaert, a Magnum photographer, that is grainy, go to the following site:

http://www.magnumprototype.com/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StoryDetail_VPage&pid=2TYRYDDWUYMQ

It'll take a few seconds for the page to load and you'll see some beautiful grainy seascape and horizon photographs, in which the grain is part of the aesthetic. These pcitures were obviously not made with a medium format back.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
Hi Mitch

my interest is in whether the M8 can really substitute an MF back, not merely be a better 35mm camera. I have an M6 plus lenses which I think are great, and an RD1 from which I got shots I like a lot, but still 35mm like. So when I want that type of photo I know what to choose. But some of the M8 shots look fantastic and I'd like to know whether those able to do a comparison really rate them like MF. The reason is I already have Hasselblad equipment for when I want an MF approach and look, so although I'm some way from affording either an M8 or MF back I'd like to get a sense of the relative image quality, then I can decide on one or the other for my MF like shots. The plastic thing seems more like film vs digital, I'm in the camp that thinks they are different but both have their purposes, although some digital seem more plastic than others.

Nik
 
nrj said:
my interest is in whether the M8 can really substitute an MF back, not merely be a better 35mm camera. I have an M6 plus lenses which I think are great, and an RD1 from which I got shots I like a lot, but still 35mm like. So when I want that type of photo I know what to choose. But some of the M8 shots look fantastic and I'd like to know whether those able to do a comparison really rate them like MF. The reason is I already have Hasselblad equipment for when I want an MF approach and look, so although I'm some way from affording either an M8 or MF back I'd like to get a sense of the relative image quality, then I can decide on one or the other for my MF like shots.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Nik, but for me the M8 medium format film look that Sean Reid writes anout would be sufficient if I were going in that directions: I wouldn't need a medium format digital back.
The plastic thing seems more like film vs digital, I'm in the camp that thinks they are different but both have their purposes, although some digital seem more plastic than others.
Click to expand...
I certainly have no problem with digtital as such, but I was reacting to some very plasticky - looking M8 pictures that some people were admiring because of the high resolution and smooth gradation, which can be better handled in the post-processing (obviosly a value judgment here!).

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
Wow. All good stuff in this thread and plenty to learn from here. Someone mentioned that in all likelihood a gadget freak would end up with both eventually and I can see myself headed in that direction once I line up the money (could be a while). I am probably going to take the plunge with the M8 to start with because, as has been rightly noted, it is the more portable, less obtrusive way to go. Some of the images I see here done with the M8 are very impressive and the problems with banding, magentas and whatever are not going to be of importance for 95% of what I'll be doing. So thanks all for the input. It's great to be able to have the ability to finally find a digital platform that can make use of the lenses I have spent a fortune on.
 
You can get a good idea of the dynamic range advantage and detail of a Hasselblad MF back by going to the Hassselbladinfo.com forum. There is an excellent thread there that Marc Williams originally posted. EVerything that he says there about the 16 meg CFV is accurate and it is all applicable to the 22meg 132C and 22CF as well as to the 39CF except that these three backs not only deliver the same or better IQ, they also provide full left/right wide angle coverage of which the SWC and the 30, 38, 30 and 50 Hass lenses are capable.

I don't want to post this message on this particular forum without repeating that the M8 is a great camera in its own right. It cannot deliver the same DR as the MF backs, but it's much easier to use for all of the reasons noted elsewhere. And it (the m8), IMO, beats all of the other smaller sensor DSLR's (35mm or smaller) of which I am aware, my own experience being limited to the full frame and smaller Canons and the older Kodaks. I also used the D200 for a while and it doesn't even come close to the M8, but you know that.
 
Here is the URL for Marc Williams thread about the Hasselblad CFV MF back—

http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/discus/messages/4/26201.html

Keep in mind that the Hasselblad Imacon back that are larger that the CFV produce equal or better results than those shown in Marc's thread, just more of the same and as wide as your Hasselblad lens will produce on a film back, but cropped top and bottom, as per a 645.
 
edlaurpic said:
You can get a good idea of the dynamic range advantage and detail of a Hasselblad MF back by going to the Hassselbladinfo.com forum. There is an excellent thread there that Marc Williams originally posted. EVerything that he says there about the 16 meg CFV is accurate and it is all applicable to the 22meg 132C and 22CF as well as to the 39CF except that these three backs not only deliver the same or better IQ, they also provide full left/right wide angle coverage of which the SWC and the 30, 38, 30 and 50 Hass lenses are capable.

I don't want to post this message on this particular forum without repeating that the M8 is a great camera in its own right. It cannot deliver the same DR as the MF backs, but it's much easier to use for all of the reasons noted elsewhere. And it (the m8), IMO, beats all of the other smaller sensor DSLR's (35mm or smaller) of which I am aware, my own experience being limited to the full frame and smaller Canons and the older Kodaks. I also used the D200 for a while and it doesn't even come close to the M8, but you know that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I'd already read through Marc's posts on the CFV so I'm interested that you agree with him on DR. Whats your view of the CFV on resolution and usability? I hear you about the other backs for the Hasselblad, but the CF is interesting because of its integration with the V bodies.

Nik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom