Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Okay, understand now. Yes, we limit attachment image sizes to 389K to help keep the page loads fast. MF backs tend to put more detail in an image, even a downsized jpeg, and so sometimes you'll need to change the quality to an 8 or 9 to get it under that 398K limit. You'll see that option on the save dialog box that comes up for you to name the image, default is set to 10 and may ned to be dropped. If you want to permanently lower that value, open an image then double click on that step in the action, when the dialog pops up, any value you enter in the box becomes the new default for the actionjack: when i check CS3, it says my jpgs are 750 x750; the bumped ones show as 405kb and the message says the limit is 375kb
Regarding magenta cast images:had a weird thing happen with the back: several shots (maybe ten) came in very magenta, as if the green channel was dead. interspersed with good ones when i was shooting a focus series. happened with the blad and the horse. then the problem went away.
when i went out a couple of hours later, the image preview was not working, though the screen indicated shots were being stored. i changed out the battery and all was well, including no more magenta shots.
also, how do you get the 205 body/CFV to mark the correct date in exif? It isn't still year 2000, is it?
John,Al:
i hooked the back up to my macbook pro and it charged overnight and is now shoeing today's date thanks the PC firewire connection does not supply charging...i haven't yet tried to see if it works otherwise (only flex is available for the pc right now)
i was frantically hitting that i button, that was not the problem.
I have been selecting SWC mode for my back and cabling it into one of the flash syc ports on the back, on the side of the firewire port. maybe oi had the wrong socket, as i now see there is one on the other side (unlabeled)
The SWC has a longer throw of the actuating (Red dot actuator) arm than the 500C by about 1/8th of an inch. When you use the "old" habit of squeezing the shutter, the arm is extended and activates the CFV to wake up and start capturing a bit sooner. With a setting <1/8 you have short window for the exposure to take place. If you extend the capture time to 1 sec then you have a longer time to expose. Using the flash sync does cure the magenta problem but I don't like to walk around with a cable attached all of the time.did you see the note about quick pressing the shutter button?
And "Me" makes "Three."Al and Jim,
After I sold the CFV + 205TCC to Jim (I am glad to see Jim do so well with CFV/205TCC) and tried many other medium format systems and optics, I finally came back home to the old classic Hasselblad V system where I first begun my photography in 1999. I am glad to join with both of you in this beautiful and classical system. The 205TCC and 205FCC are among the few of my most favorite cameras of all time.
Best Regards,
-Son
The conversion is now done in the USA Woody. I spoke directly to service and they now have the kits to make the 200 series work with the CFVs.and my 203FE is also now off to Sweden for the mod to make it work with digital backs.
I will be ordering the CFV II back soon so that when the 203FE returns I will be all set. I sold the CWD in order to fund the intial purchase of the H3DII-39.
Woody
Son, my 40CFE is gone. When I got the new 503CW/CFV & 40IF bundle I sold one of my other 503CWs and 40CFE. So I never had a chance to compare the two side-by-side. I did consider keeping the CFE because it is smaller than the 40IF ... but there is a limit to how much redundant gear I can warehouseMarc, how could I forget the Godfather of Hasselblad who sent us to hell to cure the 7 sins but only coming back for even more. I am glad to see you and Woody with the 40 CFE IF. You are the only other person that I know beside myself that own both the 40 CFE and the CFE IF. However, I own the CFE in the film day so I was not able to do a comparison. Based on your experience now with both lens and the existing sensor can you see the differences between the two lens?d
Woody, like Marc mentioned the conversion now can be done in the USA at Parsipany NJ. I simply do not have the heart to convert all of my 205 so I sent the 205TCC to get convert and keeping the 205FCC to shoot film and Sinar back. If Hasselblad make a full square sensor for the CFV III we all be extremely thankful for no more external cable.
-Son
Marc, I would join you with a 9 micron pixel size full square sensor on the CFV and I guess I have to plunge into the bank account again for the F-Distagon T* 3.5/40 CFi if that back exist.Son, my 40CFE is gone. When I got the new 503CW/CFV & 40IF bundle I sold one of my other 503CWs and 40CFE. So I never had a chance to compare the two side-by-side. I did consider keeping the CFE because it is smaller than the 40IF ... but there is a limit to how much redundant gear I can warehouse
The comparison I am more interested in is between the HC 35 and 40IF. You may recall I did a bench comparison between the 40CFE and HC 35 using the H3D-II/39 that allows use of both lenses ... and the HC was sharper @ the edges. I want to see if the 40IF cures that. In effect, that will tell me what the differences are between the the two 40 mm lenses.
I agree wih you about yearning for a larger sensor CFV version. There is so much pent up demand for a larger sensor CFV back that I was surprised when the CFV-II was announced as a 16 meg. I had hoped for a 22 meg 645 senor ... but understand why is would be so hard to make that work for portrait orientation due to the camera's mechanical activation of the CFV.
Frankly, a 6X6 sensor in a CFV with 9X9 micron pixels ... and I'd be done for a long time to come. :clap: