Richard Marks
Rexel
I think ultimately the discussion of M9 vs MF back is interesting because price may be similar but both offer completely different shooting styles. Hand held the Hasselblad may actually be inferior to an M9 especially in low light. To get the best from a 'blad demands a tripod and a very considered approach. The appeal of M cameras is their spontanaity in my opnion. One thing which is nice about the blad option is that the same system can still shoot film as well. But realistically an M9 user might pack an M6 in the bag as well for relatively reasonable money.
Personally I have bought a D700 whilst waiting to see how things go with the M9. I will certainly give it a try when a demonstration model appears but I am certainly not ordering one without a thorough evaluation. My Hassy gear isnt going any where. I hope MF backs become more available.
Richard
Personally I have bought a D700 whilst waiting to see how things go with the M9. I will certainly give it a try when a demonstration model appears but I am certainly not ordering one without a thorough evaluation. My Hassy gear isnt going any where. I hope MF backs become more available.
Richard
palker
Established
Spanner in the Works.
Spanner in the Works.
What a load of miss information - or even bollox.
As with all the best lies there is some hint of truth - of course there are many software titles other than Photoshop, and you can turn anything into a gorgeous print. You can also ruin everything. I never use Photoshop because I'm NOT a graphic designer - I take photos and so I like a simpler application.
But it isn't dangerous - jeeze - dangerous?
There are also many good applications, like Lightroom or Aperture which offer comprehensive RAW conversion in a simple interface - there is never a need to destroy the image in the pursuit of finesse - but if one person does it does not mean that I have to or anyone else does.
I like a little banter on these sites, but if you really want to know what I think? Buy what you want and be damned, stop reading and take pics .. be them of the family or professional. If you need to buy then buy shoot and enjoy. There is a saying - ask enough people and somebody will tell you what you wanted to hear ...
Spanner in the Works.
A RAW file straight out of the camera is useless. Actually, worse than useless, closer to dangerous. Software skills and more software titles than Photoshop can turn useless RAW files into large gorgeous prints. Heck, printing digtial files is a sub-skillset all it's own. The best PSD file in the world will look like dog-pooh if the person printing the file doesn't know what they are doing. Or picks a bad paper. Too many variables if you ask me. But you didn't.
Cheers!
What Frank said.
Spend money on becoming a better photographer. Take your cameras on trips.
What a load of miss information - or even bollox.
As with all the best lies there is some hint of truth - of course there are many software titles other than Photoshop, and you can turn anything into a gorgeous print. You can also ruin everything. I never use Photoshop because I'm NOT a graphic designer - I take photos and so I like a simpler application.
But it isn't dangerous - jeeze - dangerous?
There are also many good applications, like Lightroom or Aperture which offer comprehensive RAW conversion in a simple interface - there is never a need to destroy the image in the pursuit of finesse - but if one person does it does not mean that I have to or anyone else does.
I like a little banter on these sites, but if you really want to know what I think? Buy what you want and be damned, stop reading and take pics .. be them of the family or professional. If you need to buy then buy shoot and enjoy. There is a saying - ask enough people and somebody will tell you what you wanted to hear ...
palker
Established
yup yup yup
yup yup yup
ha ha - I have the D700 too - and then I added a GF1 for the sheer fun, small change in the scope of things, but great fun ..
yup yup yup
ha ha - I have the D700 too - and then I added a GF1 for the sheer fun, small change in the scope of things, but great fun ..
Richard Marks
Rexel
Strange! I looked at a GF1 a canon G11 and the PEN option but on the second hand shelf a Contax G2 with 3 lenses for £650 proved irresistable.
Richard
littlejohn
Newbie
Cfv 39
Cfv 39
Hello , I am new to this forum. I am also shopping around and considering.
I would rent the CFV39 and see if you like it. I have read recent reviews about it , and from what I saw in the review samples ,,, well stunning , and superb !
I also have read that it is very easy to comprehend, and use. I am hitting my 50s soon, and film is all I know. So for me , what ever I purchase , must be simple to understand and use.
I have a very extensive commitment to Hasselblad v series and 205fcc , both lenses and bodies. I see the reasoning for purchasing a digital back . Much more cost effective .
I have a Leica MP and M-7 . I love Leica rangefinders and glass. I think any one who has shot a roll through Leica , would feel the same.
I also have the Leica D LUX 4 small point and shoot . This is a very nice camera , and the quality of the digital files excellent. A big surprise for such a small Camera. The glass is Leica and so it is of course the best.
The big surprise is the cost $700. Not bad for a Leica.
I understand the M-9 is supposed to outstanding . I have not seen any review samples that convey this claim . Has any one seen quality image samples on the web from the M-9 ?
Any way good luck , it will be a tough decision to make.
LITTLEJOHN. NEW FORUM MEMBER.
Cfv 39
Hello , I am new to this forum. I am also shopping around and considering.
I would rent the CFV39 and see if you like it. I have read recent reviews about it , and from what I saw in the review samples ,,, well stunning , and superb !
I also have read that it is very easy to comprehend, and use. I am hitting my 50s soon, and film is all I know. So for me , what ever I purchase , must be simple to understand and use.
I have a very extensive commitment to Hasselblad v series and 205fcc , both lenses and bodies. I see the reasoning for purchasing a digital back . Much more cost effective .
I have a Leica MP and M-7 . I love Leica rangefinders and glass. I think any one who has shot a roll through Leica , would feel the same.
I also have the Leica D LUX 4 small point and shoot . This is a very nice camera , and the quality of the digital files excellent. A big surprise for such a small Camera. The glass is Leica and so it is of course the best.
The big surprise is the cost $700. Not bad for a Leica.
I understand the M-9 is supposed to outstanding . I have not seen any review samples that convey this claim . Has any one seen quality image samples on the web from the M-9 ?
Any way good luck , it will be a tough decision to make.
LITTLEJOHN. NEW FORUM MEMBER.
littlejohn
Newbie
Cfv 39
Cfv 39
Hello , I am new to this forum. I am also shopping around and considering.
I would rent the CFV39 and see if you like it. I have read recent reviews about it , and from what I saw in the review samples ,,, well stunning , and superb !
I also have read that it is very easy to comprehend, and use. I am hitting my 50s soon, and film is all I know. So for me , what ever I purchase , must be simple to understand and use.
I have a very extensive commitment to Hasselblad v series and 205fcc , both lenses and bodies. I see the reasoning for purchasing a digital back . Much more cost effective .
I have a Leica MP and M-7 . I love Leica rangefinders and glass. I think any one who has shot a roll through Leica , would feel the same.
I also have the Leica D LUX 4 small point and shoot . This is a very nice camera , and the quality of the digital files excellent. A big surprise for such a small Camera. The glass is Leica and so it is of course the best.
The big surprise is the cost $700. Not bad for a Leica.
I understand the M-9 is supposed to outstanding . I have not seen any review samples that convey this claim . Has any one seen quality image samples on the web from the M-9 ?
Any way good luck , it will be a tough decision to make.
LITTLEJOHN. NEW FORUM MEMBER.
Cfv 39
Hello , I am new to this forum. I am also shopping around and considering.
I would rent the CFV39 and see if you like it. I have read recent reviews about it , and from what I saw in the review samples ,,, well stunning , and superb !
I also have read that it is very easy to comprehend, and use. I am hitting my 50s soon, and film is all I know. So for me , what ever I purchase , must be simple to understand and use.
I have a very extensive commitment to Hasselblad v series and 205fcc , both lenses and bodies. I see the reasoning for purchasing a digital back . Much more cost effective .
I have a Leica MP and M-7 . I love Leica rangefinders and glass. I think any one who has shot a roll through Leica , would feel the same.
I also have the Leica D LUX 4 small point and shoot . This is a very nice camera , and the quality of the digital files excellent. A big surprise for such a small Camera. The glass is Leica and so it is of course the best.
The big surprise is the cost $700. Not bad for a Leica.
I understand the M-9 is supposed to outstanding . I have not seen any review samples that convey this claim . Has any one seen quality image samples on the web from the M-9 ?
Any way good luck , it will be a tough decision to make.
LITTLEJOHN. NEW FORUM MEMBER.
horosu
Well-known
To revive this thread, what is striking me as a major difference is the dynamic range of the CFV-39, which is 12 stops, versus M9's 6-7. That would be something I would love to have.
Last edited:
borrel
Børre Ludvigsen
For the cost of a MF digital back and all the adapting, V-lenses, etc., you could get both an M9 for your LM lenses AND a Canon 5DII which can use both your Nikon and Hasselblad lenses with adapters. Both are full frame ~20Mpx cameras, light and easy to use. The 5DII also has a sealed body.
gavinlg
Veteran
I would get a digital medium format back anyday over an m9. A canon 5d can do the same thing as an m9 (in my opinion), the MF digital is steps above both.
I love the mamiya ZD. Don't know if it's a little old or something now, but I'd love that style of camera. Or a pentax 645d.
I love the mamiya ZD. Don't know if it's a little old or something now, but I'd love that style of camera. Or a pentax 645d.
Nokton48
Veteran
I picked up a CFV16 for my 503CW a while back... It's a lovely combo. The problem with the CFVs is crop factor, as mentioned earlier. The CFV16 has a square format, whereas the CFV39 has the common, rectangular format of today's MF backs. It's only 39MP in full rectangular mode. If you switch it down to square, it drops to 29MP... Something to consider as well. As for the IQ, I have no complaints - the files are very rich, 16-bit. Great DR.
The ol' lenses are quite nice. But if you're a bokeh man, the five-bladed apertures do make themselves known, sometimes in a big way (which I think looks neat):
The sharpness is certainly there:
As is the color:
Michael,
These look really impressive on my screen. Looking forward to finding a CFV16 back in the future, for a decent price. Mixing film and digital with my 'blads will be awesome. Can't wait.
rolo
Established
December '09, I purchased an M9 trading my M8 and following the later sale my CFV-16 c/w 203FE to fund the M9, I immediately added a 50mm Asph.
Before mailing the Hass gear to the new owner I tested the standard lenses head-to-head expecting the M9/50 combination to win. It didn't; it didn't actually come near the Hass in terms of resolution until I matched the focal lengths 80Z/75Lux and then the M9 showed that it's sensor was more than a match for the CFV-16, but the format was tiny in comparison from the same shooting position. You'd need to stitch more than 4 M9 frames to equal the view of the Hass.
Within two weeks, I'd replaced the 203FE to enable shooting to continue with my FE and CFE lenses. TBH, that hasn't happened as often as expected because I just grab the M9 when shooting for pleasure. I did use the CFV more when I owned it, but the LCD was poor in daylight, and awful in the sun, preventing viewing the image content. It was fine for the histogram, but it slowed down a hand-held shoot too much, IMExp. Using it on the street fitted to the SWC was fabulous, but the crop really bit too much into the very wide 38mm lens.
For me, the major benefit of the M9 is good quality images in a VERY portable package, but the desire for a CFV-39 continues to churn and threads like this don't help at all :bang:
Further, I had hoped that the M9 would help me dispense with my DSLR's for my professional work, providing a significant financial recovery , but that now seems unlikely as AF and spot metering have become more important for me. In effect, I've now got £12k of Leica gear for personal use where results could largely be replicated with existing 1D4 dslr gear. That £12k, if recovered, would easily fund a mint condition, used CFV-39 and I'd broaden my kit base. I'll keep reading this thread for a while longer.
Before mailing the Hass gear to the new owner I tested the standard lenses head-to-head expecting the M9/50 combination to win. It didn't; it didn't actually come near the Hass in terms of resolution until I matched the focal lengths 80Z/75Lux and then the M9 showed that it's sensor was more than a match for the CFV-16, but the format was tiny in comparison from the same shooting position. You'd need to stitch more than 4 M9 frames to equal the view of the Hass.
Within two weeks, I'd replaced the 203FE to enable shooting to continue with my FE and CFE lenses. TBH, that hasn't happened as often as expected because I just grab the M9 when shooting for pleasure. I did use the CFV more when I owned it, but the LCD was poor in daylight, and awful in the sun, preventing viewing the image content. It was fine for the histogram, but it slowed down a hand-held shoot too much, IMExp. Using it on the street fitted to the SWC was fabulous, but the crop really bit too much into the very wide 38mm lens.
For me, the major benefit of the M9 is good quality images in a VERY portable package, but the desire for a CFV-39 continues to churn and threads like this don't help at all :bang:
Further, I had hoped that the M9 would help me dispense with my DSLR's for my professional work, providing a significant financial recovery , but that now seems unlikely as AF and spot metering have become more important for me. In effect, I've now got £12k of Leica gear for personal use where results could largely be replicated with existing 1D4 dslr gear. That £12k, if recovered, would easily fund a mint condition, used CFV-39 and I'd broaden my kit base. I'll keep reading this thread for a while longer.
Last edited:
DrDick
Member
I am lucky enough to have both M9 and an old Hasselblad 503Cx. The problem with Hasselblads Digital backs is they are rectangular so for portrait shots you have to turn the camera on its side - no mean feat! I think they really missed a trick here. I like the 45 degree finders that let you cradle the camera at chest level and work quickly. I went for a factory refurb Phase One P25+ back. This back can be rotated 90 degrees on the body simply by unclicking turning and putting it back on. The lens factor is 1.1 so my 50mm Distagon is still a wideangle. For your print sizes you won't notice any MF benefit and the M9 gives you access to much wider angle lenses and automation of exposure which you mention. We all get older and the M9 is more likely to be carried everywhere with you than 10kg of Billingham bag and Hasselblad! Go for the M9 - I love mine
Last edited:
Nokton48
Veteran
I'm looking for a deal on a CFV back, and they are not that common. Phase 1 is an option, but I think I want the CFV. For wideangle shooting, I'll need to continue using film. Since I have four bodies and all the lenses from 30mm to 350mm, it makes a great deal of sense to me. I also like the fact that it is square format. I'm saving my pennies
Last edited:
Geoff
Newbie
Forgive the late addition - have a few things to add to this:
1) use of the M8 - I have had one for a few years, and must say it really is a fine piece of gear. Happen to really like its "out of camera BW" jpg, esp. when shot with RAW as well, giving best of both worlds. jpgs for quick prints, RAW for tinkering. And the quality is right there, as is the form factor. The main issue for me is composition, which continues to be a bit loose with the rangefinder. The M9 is probably better (the M8 has the older alignments) but then again, that's $7k, plus having to change the current happy 28/50 mm lens setup for 35/75.... So it all adds up.
2) have little experience with Hassy, tho used a 500C for a couple of years some time ago. Couldn't get my mind around all the bits, and migrated to the Rollei platform instead. Must say the H series is a heck of a package, but I prefer WLF.
3) had the Rollei 6008 with dp20 16 mp back, and it was a fine combination. A bit awkward for handholding - as it wasn't small, and with magnifier viewer, just got a bit bigger. The files were glorious, but as has been said before, needs "fat light". Between focus issues and lower ISO, fine for studio work, not so good for walkabout. Liked the square format, and the file quality far exceeded expectations. I believe it is still a very useful back, especially with those wonderful Schneider lenses.
4) found a great deal on a Leaf AFI system (won't tell, but less than half of list...). Love the rotating back - so its 3:4 ratio either vertical or horiz. Focus confirmation is just fine with manual lenses, so no chimney viewer is necessary. AF is right on target. Its not as compact as the Hassy V - and I actually would prefer the Hassy size and manual situation, but the AFI just does so much more. Mirror damping is also much improved.
All this to say that the later MFDB cameras do offer a signficant level of improvement. The color is seductive, the quality amazing. Its like magic.
OTOH, MF cameras, especially digital ones are big, heavier and slower. Take a couple of lenses, and your backpack is now serious weight. Add a tripod, and .....
In contrast, the M8 with a couple of lenses is truly pocketable. Keep this in mind - as I don't use the MFDB as much as I'd like (size, weight), but there are more "keepers" when it is used.
Choices, choices.
1) use of the M8 - I have had one for a few years, and must say it really is a fine piece of gear. Happen to really like its "out of camera BW" jpg, esp. when shot with RAW as well, giving best of both worlds. jpgs for quick prints, RAW for tinkering. And the quality is right there, as is the form factor. The main issue for me is composition, which continues to be a bit loose with the rangefinder. The M9 is probably better (the M8 has the older alignments) but then again, that's $7k, plus having to change the current happy 28/50 mm lens setup for 35/75.... So it all adds up.
2) have little experience with Hassy, tho used a 500C for a couple of years some time ago. Couldn't get my mind around all the bits, and migrated to the Rollei platform instead. Must say the H series is a heck of a package, but I prefer WLF.
3) had the Rollei 6008 with dp20 16 mp back, and it was a fine combination. A bit awkward for handholding - as it wasn't small, and with magnifier viewer, just got a bit bigger. The files were glorious, but as has been said before, needs "fat light". Between focus issues and lower ISO, fine for studio work, not so good for walkabout. Liked the square format, and the file quality far exceeded expectations. I believe it is still a very useful back, especially with those wonderful Schneider lenses.
4) found a great deal on a Leaf AFI system (won't tell, but less than half of list...). Love the rotating back - so its 3:4 ratio either vertical or horiz. Focus confirmation is just fine with manual lenses, so no chimney viewer is necessary. AF is right on target. Its not as compact as the Hassy V - and I actually would prefer the Hassy size and manual situation, but the AFI just does so much more. Mirror damping is also much improved.
All this to say that the later MFDB cameras do offer a signficant level of improvement. The color is seductive, the quality amazing. Its like magic.
OTOH, MF cameras, especially digital ones are big, heavier and slower. Take a couple of lenses, and your backpack is now serious weight. Add a tripod, and .....
In contrast, the M8 with a couple of lenses is truly pocketable. Keep this in mind - as I don't use the MFDB as much as I'd like (size, weight), but there are more "keepers" when it is used.
Choices, choices.
