The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Some P45+/Hasselblad V series samples

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

There seems to be a lot of interest about Hasselblad V-series with the arrival of the new CV50c back.

I have some samples shot with my Hasselblad 555ELD and my P45+ back with several Hasselblad lenses. There are three shots from each f/4, f/8 and f/16. THe intention was to find strength and weaknesses from each.

The lenses were:

Distagon 40/4 CF FLE (not the newest IF variant)
Diastgon 50/4 CF FLE
Planar 80/2.8 CFE
Macro Planar 120/4 CFi

I have also a Planar 180/4 CFi that is not included as I ran out of distance. But that one is a very good lens.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/

All images available at actual pixels and also in raw.

I would mention some points:

  • These images were shot using manual focusing
  • I feel that some lenses may perform better in this test than in real life
  • There are some very good lenses I don't own, like Distagon 40/4 IF, and
    the Planar 100/3.5.
  • The Macro Planar 120/4 is intended for close up work, where it performs very well, but it suffers in this test that is shot at infinity.
  • There is a Macro Apo Planar 120/4 for the Contax 645, but that is an entirely different lens, having two extra lenses and a floating group to compensate field curvature at different focusing distances. So the Contax lens is a completely different animal.

Best regards
Erik
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
I have the newer 40 IF and shoot it with Credo 60. I do not have any 'testshots' but if anybody is considering this combination, feel free to ask for specific setups (zeroed, movements, tilts) and I can shoot that and send rawfiles for scrutiny!
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I have also added some problem shots. I don't know the exact lenses or conditions as the EXIF data doesn't contain info from the lens.

The problem areas are marked in red. Some reference areas that are good are marked in green.

At the time the images were shot I felt these problems were pretty bad, but looking now I feel they are much less an issue than originally thought.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Issues/

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

A sample taken with the 180/4 has been posted here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/180_4/

The spider is a crop from the larger image.

I will also add a page with 'problem shots'.

Best regards
Erik
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Aliasing and Moiré

Hi,

I may point out that I have seen a lot of aliasing and moiré on my P45+ shots. This depends in part on me using Lightroom. Phase One's own Capture One is very good at suppressing colour aliasing artefacts, even if it does not eliminate them all the way.

Stopping down to f/16 seems to remove all aliasing problems, obviously by reducing resolution (*) so much that aliasing is not any longer a problem.

What I want to mention is that the sensor in the new CMOS back in all probability has gapless microlenses which much reduce aliasing. This was very much visible in Doug Peterson's library shots, with the IQ-250 having much less aliasing compared to the IQ-260 and the IQ-280. The probable reason is that the gapless microlenses increase the fill factor enough to act like a very mild OLP filter. A small fill factor increases perceived sharpness as a small feature is either detected or not while a larger sensor area can detect a detail weakly. I have problems finding a good source, but I am pretty sure that the new CMOS sensors may be less prone to moiré.

I have added two aliasing samples, with problem areas marked in red. I feel that the indicated areas on the skin jacket may have aliasing. Small areas that have texture within areas lacking structure. It doesn't look very nice in print. These problems may be less pronounced on CFV50C, in part due to the higher resolution but also because the microlenses.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Issues/Aliasing/

(*) More correctly MTF at the pixel level.
(**) Some discussion here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/i...g-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good

Best regards
Erik
 
Last edited:

darr

Well-known member
So far I have not seen anything that has changed my mind about possibly moving back to a V system (replacing my RZ IID) and going to a CFV50C.

Thank you again Erik; I appreciate your effort and sharing your lovely pictures!

Kind regards,
Darr
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Thanks for the kind words!

I would mention a couple of things:

  • Hopefully you have noticed that the CFV50C would have some issues with some wide angles on a technical camera. In case you are interested in technical cameras.
  • The Canon T&S lenses are actually usable with the CFV50 on a Hartblei HCam or an Alpa FPS.
  • When I bought my P45+ the seller recommended the 555ELD model, that was the last generation of the 555 and it is made for digital work. Tighter tolerances and some integration with Phase backs. But the CFV50 is supposed to work with most (all?) bodies.
  • Focusing is not easy. I have a PM5 viewfinder with a custom made ocular. I also have a Zeiss 3X mocular, that gives 9X total magnification on my PM5, but doesn't work with my custom ocular :-(.
  • Mirror pre release is a must.

You can check this: My medium format digital journey

I will probably do a follow up article after having used the system for 15 months. I am certainly "warming up" to it.

Best regards
Erik
So far I have not seen anything that has changed my mind about possibly moving back to a V system (replacing my RZ IID) and going to a CFV50C.

Thank you again Erik; I appreciate your effort and sharing your lovely pictures!

Kind regards,
Darr
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

If you start on a voyage into MFD, I wish you best of luck. I would think that the Hasselblad V-route is a realistic one. It would also be possible to mount a digital back on your RZ IID.

One thing to consider is that the CFV50 has a small sensor, so it essentially has a crop factor. My P45+ has a crop factor of 1.1X but the CFV50C would be 1.3X. With the P45 my Distagon 40/4 is like something 24/28 mm on 135, it seems I can live with that.

Phase One backs also work Hasselblad V, but need sync cable from lens to back. The Hasselblad backs don't need this. It may be that Leaf doesn't need a sync cable either.

If crop factor is important to you, these other options may be interesting.

A nice thing with V-stuff that used equipment in good shape is available at low price and good quantity. I bought my stuff from a small company called ClassicCamera here in Sweden, the owner is very nice to work with.

In the year I had the camera I had a repair, and it was around 100€, a spring in the aperture mechanism was replaced on the 120/4 macro.

I also looked at some of your pictures, very nice, I guess some of them were taken on Iceland?

Best regards
Erik



So far I have not seen anything that has changed my mind about possibly moving back to a V system (replacing my RZ IID) and going to a CFV50C.

Thank you again Erik; I appreciate your effort and sharing your lovely pictures!

Kind regards,
Darr
 

darr

Well-known member
Erik,

I have been shooting MF digital for a few years. I use a P45 with an ALPA Max, Schneider lenses and also with the RZ DII for portraiture. I sold my Arca Swiss ML2 that I initially used with the P45 as I slowly made my way through the film to digital transition. I am trained as a commercial photographer (food, product, portraiture) from the days of 4x5" transparencies. I am semi-retired, but work still finds me.

I starting shooting with the Hasselblad V system in the early 80's, but gave it up when I went digital, thus the RZ IID entered my studio. When it came to digital, the V system at the time was not meeting my needs. I am also interested in the CMOS back and do understand the technical reasons one needs to consider when using it with wide lenses. I do not shoot a lot of landscapes with my MF system, but do use a 28XL that I do not shift with (the reason I went so wide was so I did not have to shift).

BTW, focusing is an issue with the RZ + P45 as well. I use the Mamiya focusing magnifier with the prismfinder, but choose to shoot tethered in the studio for critical work. My guess is there is something amiss when we bolt on a digital back to the older film cameras. I am hoping the CFV50C has been designed to closer match the camera body.

I appreciate all the resources you have provided me with!

Kind regards,
Darr

PS: Yes, some of my photos posted are from Iceland, but there are so many more that I just have not had time to process. I am working in the year 2006 currently in my catalog! :) Thank you for the compliment.

Hi,

If you start on a voyage into MFD, I wish you best of luck. I would think that the Hasselblad V-route is a realistic one. It would also be possible to mount a digital back on your RZ IID.

One thing to consider is that the CFV50 has a small sensor, so it essentially has a crop factor. My P45+ has a crop factor of 1.1X but the CFV50C would be 1.3X. With the P45 my Distagon 40/4 is like something 24/28 mm on 135, it seems I can live with that.

Phase One backs also work Hasselblad V, but need sync cable from lens to back. The Hasselblad backs don't need this. It may be that Leaf doesn't need a sync cable either.

If crop factor is important to you, these other options may be interesting.

A nice thing with V-stuff that used equipment in good shape is available at low price and good quantity. I bought my stuff from a small company called ClassicCamera here in Sweden, the owner is very nice to work with.

In the year I had the camera I had a repair, and it was around 100€, a spring in the aperture mechanism was replaced on the 120/4 macro.

I also looked at some of your pictures, very nice, I guess some of them were taken on Iceland?

Best regards
Erik
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Erik,

I have been shooting MF digital for a few years. I use a P45 with an ALPA Max, Schneider lenses and also with the RZ DII for portraiture. I sold my Arca Swiss ML2 that I initially used with the P45 as I slowly made my way through the film to digital transition. I am trained as a commercial photographer (food, product, portraiture) from the days of 4x5" transparencies. I am semi-retired, but work still finds me.

I starting shooting with the Hasselblad V system in the early 80's, but gave it up when I went digital, thus the RZ IID entered my studio. When it came to digital, the V system at the time was not meeting my needs. I am also interested in the CMOS back and do understand the technical reasons one needs to consider when using it with wide lenses. I do not shoot a lot of landscapes with my MF system, but do use a 28XL that I do not shift with (the reason I went so wide was so I did not have to shift).

BTW, focusing is an issue with the RZ + P45 as well. I use the Mamiya focusing magnifier with the prismfinder, but choose to shoot tethered in the studio for critical work. My guess is there is something amiss when we bolt on a digital back to the older film cameras. I am hoping the CFV50C has been designed to closer match the camera body.

I appreciate all the resources you have provided me with!

Kind regards,
Darr

PS: Yes, some of my photos posted are from Iceland, but there are so many more that I just have not had time to process. I am working in the year 2006 currently in my catalog! :) Thank you for the compliment.

When mounting digital backs onto (especially) legacy cameras, many things come into play with regard to focus accuracy.

If you think in terms of the sum of all possible tolerances, there's a long list. And the more items in the list, the more potential for tolerance deviation (after all, they add up). The objective of course is to be able to look through the viewfinder, obtain focus, and that exact focus point you've acquired in the viewfinder will also be represented in the final image. But that list of infractions would include:

*Digital back sensor position
*Machining of digital back mounting interface
*Machining of camera rear mount interface
*Position of ground glass
*Position of mirror module
*Front camera bayonet mount for lenses
*The rear mounting bayonet of every lens
*The position of all optics in every lens


Did that scare everyone? Don't be scared. The best bet is to first perform a focus test with your digital back on your camera body with each lens. In many cases, the focus accuracy is acceptable (remember, perfection doesn't exist). In the instance where there is focus inaccuracy, if the various lenses produce variable results, you can be pretty sure some or all the lenses need to be re-conditioned back to factory spec. This is a good first step - though I don't recommend doing it unless you determine there is an actual issue (I've had some clients who are buying a digital back ask if they should send in all their lenses before they receive the digital back). With all lenses at spec, that drastically reduces or isolates any other potential issues with the camera body or digital back.

In any case, the issue is resolvable - and that is the important bottom line.

Although I did not mention one other variable, which is, guess - the eyesight of the user. That needs to be taken into account as well.

And if live view is in play, as is becoming more the case, this removes many of the obstacles, since you are seeing exactly what the chip sees. It does not completely absolve user eyesight, though.... :)


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Steve,

Thanks for chiming in, your input is always appreciated! I absolutely agree with the parameters you listed.

We are discussing Hasselblad V here, so we don't have auto focus, so I am pretty sure lens tolerances do not affect focusing. Lens centering and alignment is a different issue. So, alignment on back, sensor, mirror focusing screen and bayonet matters a lot. Tolerances on the Hasselblad V are 30 microns (AFAIK) and on Phase 1 backs 12 microns.

The approach taken by Hasselblad HDX/XX, Pentax and Leica make a lot of sense. The sensor and camera are seen as a single aligned unit.

Regarding live view, I would suggest that magnified live view is needed for accurate focus and that essentially eliminates eye sight as a parameter, if you have something like normal vision with corrective lenses and large enough magnification.

Focus shift may play a role, though. With spherical aberration present, cutting peripheral rays by stopping down shifts best focus. So focusing at maximum aperture and stopping down may shift focus. But my guess is that this is a minor issue on MFD lenses.

Just to mention, with the Hasselblad 555ELD I see mirror lock up to be essential, I don't get usable pictures without MLU.

Best regards
Erik

When mounting digital backs onto (especially) legacy cameras, many things come into play with regard to focus accuracy.

If you think in terms of the sum of all possible tolerances, there's a long list. And the more items in the list, the more potential for tolerance deviation (after all, they add up). The objective of course is to be able to look through the viewfinder, obtain focus, and that exact focus point you've acquired in the viewfinder will also be represented in the final image. But that list of infractions would include:

*Digital back sensor position
*Machining of digital back mounting interface
*Machining of camera rear mount interface
*Position of ground glass
*Position of mirror module
*Front camera bayonet mount for lenses
*The rear mounting bayonet of every lens
*The position of all optics in every lens


Did that scare everyone? Don't be scared. The best bet is to first perform a focus test with your digital back on your camera body with each lens. In many cases, the focus accuracy is acceptable (remember, perfection doesn't exist). In the instance where there is focus inaccuracy, if the various lenses produce variable results, you can be pretty sure some or all the lenses need to be re-conditioned back to factory spec. This is a good first step - though I don't recommend doing it unless you determine there is an actual issue (I've had some clients who are buying a digital back ask if they should send in all their lenses before they receive the digital back). With all lenses at spec, that drastically reduces or isolates any other potential issues with the camera body or digital back.

In any case, the issue is resolvable - and that is the important bottom line.

Although I did not mention one other variable, which is, guess - the eyesight of the user. That needs to be taken into account as well.

And if live view is in play, as is becoming more the case, this removes many of the obstacles, since you are seeing exactly what the chip sees. It does not completely absolve user eyesight, though.... :)


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Darr,

Funny enough, I was also visiting Iceland 2006. If you see a guy with a Konica-Minolta 7D in your pictures it could have been me :)

I want to go get back to Iceland again…

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

PS: Yes, some of my photos posted are from Iceland, but there are so many more that I just have not had time to process. I am working in the year 2006 currently in my catalog! :) Thank you for the compliment.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Hi Steve,

Thanks for chiming in, your input is always appreciated! I absolutely agree with the parameters you listed.

We are discussing Hasselblad V here, so we don't have auto focus, so I am pretty sure lens tolerances do not affect focusing. Lens centering and alignment is a different issue. So, alignment on back, sensor, mirror focusing screen and bayonet matters a lot. Tolerances on the Hasselblad V are 30 microns (AFAIK) and on Phase 1 backs 12 microns.

The approach taken by Hasselblad HDX/XX, Pentax and Leica make a lot of sense. The sensor and camera are seen as a single aligned unit.

Regarding live view, I would suggest that magnified live view is needed for accurate focus and that essentially eliminates eye sight as a parameter, if you have something like normal vision with corrective lenses and large enough magnification.

Focus shift may play a role, though. With spherical aberration present, cutting peripheral rays by stopping down shifts best focus. So focusing at maximum aperture and stopping down may shift focus. But my guess is that this is a minor issue on MFD lenses.

Just to mention, with the Hasselblad 555ELD I see mirror lock up to be essential, I don't get usable pictures without MLU.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, but all the components are dependent.

If you have 2 lenses and one is out of spec, then how would you know if your ground glass/mirror assembly is in correct position?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

If we assume that we can focus correctly we either lens than we can also focus correctly with the other lens. As only the alignment of sensor/mirror/focusing screen matters for focusing. We focus on the screen, and that is not moved in relation to sensor by changing lens.

If the focusing screen is correctly aligned to the sensor, any lens that is focused on that focusing screen will also focus correctly on the sensor.

Infinity focus stop may be decalibrated, of course, and it may also be that a lens is not able to achieve correct focusing, due to tolerances.

With autofocus the lens is involved in focusing, so individual with lenses calibration may be needed. It is not very obvious while.

It may of course be the case that a lens is not perpendicular to sensor, but in that case it would not be able to achieve good sharpness in all four corners.

Best regards
Erik



Yes, but all the components are dependent.

If you have 2 lenses and one is out of spec, then how would you know if your ground glass/mirror assembly is in correct position?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

darr

Well-known member
Hi Darr,

Funny enough, I was also visiting Iceland 2006. If you see a guy with a Konica-Minolta 7D in your pictures it could have been me :)

I want to go get back to Iceland again…

Best regards
Erik

So that was YOU! :D

I too hope to return to Iceland. I have family that are native Norwegians and plan on visiting them on my next Iceland trip as well.

Thank you again for all your assistance.

Kind regards,
Darr
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Hi,

If we assume that we can focus correctly we either lens than we can also focus correctly with the other lens. As only the alignment of sensor/mirror/focusing screen matters for focusing. We focus on the screen, and that is not moved in relation to sensor by changing lens.

If the focusing screen is correctly aligned to the sensor, any lens that is focused on that focusing screen will also focus correctly on the sensor.

Infinity focus stop may be decalibrated, of course, and it may also be that a lens is not able to achieve correct focusing, due to tolerances.

With autofocus the lens is involved in focusing, so individual with lenses calibration may be needed. It is not very obvious while.

It may of course be the case that a lens is not perpendicular to sensor, but in that case it would not be able to achieve good sharpness in all four corners.

Best regards
Erik

You're right, if the ground glass is in proper position, then you could achieve focus on the ground glass with all lenses. But how do you then know if the ground glass is in correct position? And if your ground glass is not in the correct position, then it won't matter if you can focus it on the ground glass, because if the lenses are all different, the resulting images will also display differences. This is why having your lenses at the same spec is also a critical component.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Have to say after many years shooting the Hassy V and also still having those images in my portfolio and owning just about every piece of gear on it since it was company money spent I bought stuff by the truck load and today I have zero interest in owning any of it today. It was nice gear for the film era but in today's world I really question its value and IQ given the technology we have now. I understand maybe the throw back feelings but for the money spent even cheaply it makes me wonder if its even worth it. Sure a couple nice lenses in the system but the maintence of it in today's world seems hardly worth the time.

Maybe it's just me so feel free to ignore my comments. I remember all my gear constantly in the shop getting repairs .
 

torger

Active member
IQ is not only about resolving power. Bokeh and look can be really good. I've seen more RZ results than V but I'm most impressed by the look when the depth of field is a bit shorter. Still I think nostalgia or economics (or both) are the main reasons why one would want to use a V system. There's some charm in using an old-school camera while not having to mess with film, and that's why Hasselblad keeps making digital backs to an otherwise discontinued system.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Thanks for posting. That is definitively an issue. Experience may of course vary. I had my stuff for 15 months now, so it is not much of experience.

I had a repair, but that was an 100€ issue resolved in 48 (*) hours, much better than the battle that Anders Torger had with Leaf costing him like 3000€ and better part of the year. Scared me a bit off Leaf…

My take on the issue is that it seems that there are quite a few repair facilities for Hasselblad, but they are not for ever. So that is something anyone buying into V-series should consider.

Just to put things in perspective, I had a single repair on my Minolta/Sony stuff in 44 years. I don't abuse my tools, but I had water pouring out of my cameras and lenses a couple of times. Been lucky, of course, I know…

The great ting with the V-system is that all stuff is available at low cost. I have paid something like 15 k$ US for my full kit, Hasselblad 555ELD, P45+ back and five lenses.

(*) Automatic aperture was lost on my Macro Planar 120/4 CF, I was a bit unfortunate that this happened in the spring season, when I am shooting much macro, so I decided to upgrade my 120/4 CF to a 120/4 CFi instead for 250€ (250 $US or so), as I knew from Zeiss that it would be a much improved lens. Of the 250€ something like 70 € was repair cost. After asking back my dealer told me that repair costs were 100€ so I sent him an additional 30€. My dealer sent my the lens before I returned the old one that was still working, so I was not without a working macro lens for a second.


Best regards
Erik

Have to say after many years shooting the Hassy V and also still having those images in my portfolio and owning just about every piece of gear on it since it was company money spent I bought stuff by the truck load and today I have zero interest in owning any of it today. It was nice gear for the film era but in today's world I really question its value and IQ given the technology we have now. I understand maybe the throw back feelings but for the money spent even cheaply it makes me wonder if its even worth it. Sure a couple nice lenses in the system but the maintence of it in today's world seems hardly worth the time.

Maybe it's just me so feel free to ignore my comments. I remember all my gear constantly in the shop getting repairs .
 
Top