Black
Photographer.
You've obviously never shot with a Pentax 645D/Z.
Freakscene
Obscure member
I have tested one. Getting it to attach to a film Hasselblad with the sensor adequately parallel to the image plane is basically impossible. Get a used S2.
Marty
Marty
igi
Well-known
Those are all legitimate reasons. Why do you think they are not legitimate?
Because it is not hard to do?
mrak
Member
Personally I find the ability to being able to zoom into the picture and see all the small details amazing. I hope we will get 200MP sensors in the future.
x-ray
Veteran
I own a CFV39 back and debated whether to buy the 50 at the time I bought it. I use it for commercial work and just couldn't see a reason to spend an extra $4k at the time. The difference in final size print was insignificant. The CFV39 native print size at 300 dpi is 24 inches on the long side whiz is plenty for me.
I'm actually selling my back because I'm retiring, have back problems due to an accident and want to move away from digital for my personal work. I get more joy from film because I'm old school. If I were not retiring I would most certainly keep it. The CFV39 has a CCD with no AA filter. It is without any question the best color I've seen from any digital device. I profile my camera and system so I'm getting everything out of it with the most incredible color I've seen. It has a depth of color unlike anything I've owned and is true 16 bit capture. I compare it to a painter using watered down pigments vs one using pure pigments. The depth is obvious. People will say just increase saturation in a 12 or 14 bit file but that isn't the same. It's just hard to put into words, you have to see the difference. Sharpness is remarkable too. The Zeiss glass has a classic look of being smooth in tone but they are razor sharp especially the 100 and 180 but all are excellent.
I bought a Nikon D800 and find myself using it simply because I'm getting lazy in my old age. The D800 is amazing and beats the dynamic range by about two stops (14.5 vs 12.5) but simply can not match the color or sharpness. Honestly I've never seen a CMOS that can match the color of a CCD. My M9 that I just sold was a good example of that too but it too did not approach the CFV39 in color depth.
My take on the CMOS CFV50, I'm guessing it's cheaper to make the CMOS plus you can have a better live view which is very important in studio work. In the studio I used my CFV39 on a Technikardan 23 and tethered it to my computer. Unfortunately the live view was bad but it was usable. I'm just guessing the 50c will have a good live view. Also the CFV39 and 50 were limited to 64 seconds exposure and high ISO above 400 was not great. The new back has a 15 minute max time I think?? and probably has much better high ISO. For most of us commercial guys these are non features. I never used over 30 seconds exposure and never used above 200 ISO. Base Iso at 50 was where I shot in and out of the studio.
I'm guessing the new back is driven by either CCD's going away or CMOS sensors being cheaper. Probability is you won't be able to see much difference in the images in the end.
I didn't see the sensor size but if the sensor is larger in the older backs that is what I would choose. I'd love to have a square FF back but they aren't around and don't think we'll see one. In my back there's only a 1.1x crop factor which isn't bad if you can live with a 6x45 format.
I commend Hasselblad for keeping the V system alive. There are many thousand V cameras out there and they're viable in the digital age. With the CFV backs they still function like a film camera which for may of us is what we're comfortable with. It gives us one more great choice.
I'm actually selling my back because I'm retiring, have back problems due to an accident and want to move away from digital for my personal work. I get more joy from film because I'm old school. If I were not retiring I would most certainly keep it. The CFV39 has a CCD with no AA filter. It is without any question the best color I've seen from any digital device. I profile my camera and system so I'm getting everything out of it with the most incredible color I've seen. It has a depth of color unlike anything I've owned and is true 16 bit capture. I compare it to a painter using watered down pigments vs one using pure pigments. The depth is obvious. People will say just increase saturation in a 12 or 14 bit file but that isn't the same. It's just hard to put into words, you have to see the difference. Sharpness is remarkable too. The Zeiss glass has a classic look of being smooth in tone but they are razor sharp especially the 100 and 180 but all are excellent.
I bought a Nikon D800 and find myself using it simply because I'm getting lazy in my old age. The D800 is amazing and beats the dynamic range by about two stops (14.5 vs 12.5) but simply can not match the color or sharpness. Honestly I've never seen a CMOS that can match the color of a CCD. My M9 that I just sold was a good example of that too but it too did not approach the CFV39 in color depth.
My take on the CMOS CFV50, I'm guessing it's cheaper to make the CMOS plus you can have a better live view which is very important in studio work. In the studio I used my CFV39 on a Technikardan 23 and tethered it to my computer. Unfortunately the live view was bad but it was usable. I'm just guessing the 50c will have a good live view. Also the CFV39 and 50 were limited to 64 seconds exposure and high ISO above 400 was not great. The new back has a 15 minute max time I think?? and probably has much better high ISO. For most of us commercial guys these are non features. I never used over 30 seconds exposure and never used above 200 ISO. Base Iso at 50 was where I shot in and out of the studio.
I'm guessing the new back is driven by either CCD's going away or CMOS sensors being cheaper. Probability is you won't be able to see much difference in the images in the end.
I didn't see the sensor size but if the sensor is larger in the older backs that is what I would choose. I'd love to have a square FF back but they aren't around and don't think we'll see one. In my back there's only a 1.1x crop factor which isn't bad if you can live with a 6x45 format.
I commend Hasselblad for keeping the V system alive. There are many thousand V cameras out there and they're viable in the digital age. With the CFV backs they still function like a film camera which for may of us is what we're comfortable with. It gives us one more great choice.
x-ray
Veteran
Hasselblad has a 200mp multi shot back. The 8 bit files are 600 megs each and 16 bit where most of us work are 1.2 gigs each. Storage and computing power become a factor when you get up here.
Most of us don't ever use above 40 mp. I'd rather see 16 bit capture in all cameras and wider dynamic range. Nikon has 14.4 stops in the D800/810 and D600/610 and that's about where we need to be.
Spicy
Well-known
N.delaRua
Well-known
Freakscene brings up a good point. I wonder how you get this sensor to be in perfect sync with an old Hasselblad body.
My understanding is that digital sensors need to be close to perfect with respect to being on axis with the lens in use. Would you have to bring both back and body into a machine shop to get it perfect?
Also are the older lenses up to snuff for this back?
Its just on this level, to realize the performance, it sounds like some serious serious technique is needed .
My understanding is that digital sensors need to be close to perfect with respect to being on axis with the lens in use. Would you have to bring both back and body into a machine shop to get it perfect?
Also are the older lenses up to snuff for this back?
Its just on this level, to realize the performance, it sounds like some serious serious technique is needed .
Pioneer
Veteran
Lets see. How many rolls of 120 film coupled with developing and drum scans does $15,000 pay for?
x-ray
Veteran
I own the CFv39 and the V bodies sync through the little finger that releases the film back so it can wind when you push the release button to fire the shutter. It works extremely well. This wakes up the back causing the electronics to sweep the previous bata out to ready for the new data. No problems at all, works perfectly. On the previous backs, don't know about the cmos back but longer exposures than 1/8 second require that you make a setting in the menu to tell the back to stay awake longer than 1/8 second. It's simple to do.
If you use the back on a view camera you can either run a sync cord from the back to the flash connector and that wakes it up or use a release button before shooting the exposure to wake it up. Some brand backs stay on all the time and others have to be awakened. Staying on can cause heat issues that have to be felt with. Waking it up generally causes no issues.
Yes the old Zeiss lenses are up to the task. They are spectacular even wide open. Leica has nothing on the best of the Zeiss. I own both and favor the look of the Zeiss although it's a matter of taste. I saw a comparison of some of the Zeiss critically compared to the new Hasselblad / Fuji lenses for the H series cameras. This test was done by Hasselblad. They tested the 100mm CF and 180 CF against a (I think it was) 110mm and 210mm H series. The two held rich with the new lenses. I think the V Zeiss were a little better at infinity and the Fuji H series were better close up but it might have been the other way around. Anyway they were very comparable. I own both the 100 and 180 and can honestly say they are the very best I've used in MF. The 40 fle, 50 fle, 120 micro planar are stunning as well and the 60 and 80 are no slouches. The 250 is also very god and the 350 good. There are two super acrobat Zeiss lenses if you can go $6-12K. There's a 250 and 350 that are unbelievable. They're only available for the old V cameras.
Hasselblad bodies are calibrated very well at the factory. Out of 4 bodies including a SWC/M only one had to go in for adjustment. it was an old very heavily used 500CM that I bought used that needed calibration. I think it was $80 to do it. Focus on all bodies is perfect wide open on every lens.