fat pixel digital backs

[mmbma]

Hi

I'm thinking of getting a relatively inexpensive back between 16-22MP for my old Hasselblad 503. I do not want to part with my hassey and have a Phase sytem for more serious work. I'm intrigued by the image quality from 9 micro pixel backs such as the CFV 16. Could anyone provide some insight on how do the fat pixel backs compare? CFV 16, Aptus 22, P25, Aptus 54s? Do they all provide the same "pop" or feel of the CFV16? (Crop factor aside)

Thanks in advance

mmbma

 

[shortpballer]

I have a P30+ H mount for sale for a good price if you are interested in buying into the H system.

 

[jlm]

A lot to be said for the seamless connection and sq format for the cv16 backs

 

[fotografz]

Hi

I'm thinking of getting a relatively inexpensive back between 16-22MP for my old Hasselblad 503. I do not want to part with my hassey and have a Phase sytem for more serious work. I'm intrigued by the image quality from 9 micro pixel backs such as the CFV 16. Could anyone provide some insight on how do the fat pixel backs compare? CFV 16, Aptus 22, P25, Aptus 54s? Do they all provide the same "pop" or feel of the CFV16? (Crop factor aside)

Thanks in advance

mmbma

It has been awhile, but I did love the CFV/16 on the good old 500 series camera ... seemed just right.

Planet V - Hasselblad.com

Here is where to see a whole bunch others:

Planet V - Hasselblad.com

Hope this inspires!

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I did like my P25+ quite a bit. Kodachrome 25.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I still have a P25+ back and I like the way that it renders. Compared to a higher MP back it is useful in so far as I can get away with stopping lenses down more and the visual acuity/contrast is higher straight from the camera. (Yes, I know that if you downres a higher MP image it'll look the same ...)

Just watch for moire.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Get the fat pixels, they soak up color like no other! There's not many CFV-16's available and for reason. There more tolerant of bad camera technique too.

 

[mmbma]

Johhny, i kow the CF16s are rare, so my question was, are the other 22mp backs just as nice in terms of image quality as the CF16?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I believe they are the same sensor as the P25+ . Kodak 9 micron. There was also a P20 Square format as well same sensor.

 

[kdphotography]

I gotta say I miss that square format of the old Kodak 645M. If you could work around its limitations, it was great (stuck at ISO 100).

Probably the dumbest easy MFDB I've ever had was the Phase P30. Just a great MFDB and very *ahem* tolerant of fast, hit and run photography.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Speaking of fat Pixels: I really wish someone would do a new firmware and a modern connection and software for the Dicomed Bigshot.
It was so far ahead of time and the chip is still the biggest ever made. it is square and uses the full 55x55mm of the Hasselblad V/F.

Of course this will never happen..........

But one can dream a bit.

 

[Shashin]

I use a P25+ back. Very image images. Very crisp. Nothing like a 35mm 24MP sensor.

 

[bensonga]

Speaking of fat Pixels: I really wish someone would do a new firmware and a modern connection and software for the Dicomed Bigshot.
It was so far ahead of time and the chip is still the biggest ever made. it is square and uses the full 55x55mm of the Hasselblad V/F.

Of course this will never happen..........

But one can dream a bit.

I've never heard of this one....time to search the web.

Gary

 

[Mammy645]

There is something special with the way "fat pixel" backs render, I noticed it rather early and have been hanging on to my P25 ever since. For 7 years this back has been rock solid, and with each new version of C1 the quality of the files have only gotten better. I just bought an rz67 IID to complement my AFD and couldn't be happier.

 

[torger]

I've never heard of this one....time to search the web.

Gary

Here's a review: Dicomed Bigshot Camera (Chip Shop 04/96)

I don't think that chip is so good with today's standards though, I think it has 10 bit dynamic range or something like that.

As far as I understand the first sensors that are *really good* even with today's standards are the 9um sensors seen in P25, CFV-16 etc. I've used a Hasselblad CF-22 a bit, very enjoyable.

Of all opinions I've seen it seems that many fall in love of the Kodak KAF-22000 color rendering (used in most of these backs, Leaf uses Dalsa though), which probably is not that accurate in an absolute sense if compared to the most accurate Dalsa sensors today, but I guess the look is "film-like" in a way many prefer.

 

[KeithL]

I've exclusively used a "fat pixel" back for the last four years and love the files. The only downside is that they are moiré machines.

 

[Geoff]

There was something in those fat pixels - with a P-20 back, the images just fell out of the back with lovely color needing little or no work.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

mmbma-

I think the other DB's you mentioned are excellent. The Aptus 22 has a great reputation for skin tones. I've seen some beautiful examples of that. Shooting with the 503CW, the Aptus sensor is smaller, so no cropping of digital image. I'm keeping my options open for the Aptus 22 or P25+ - 22mp seems like the sweet spot for most Zeiss lenses on the 503.

Also, the P25+ has no cooling fan, and longer exposure capabilities.

 

[mmbma]

appreciate it

 

[Steve Hendrix]

For what it's worth, any digital back that offered either 16 or 22 megapixels, utilized a 9 micron pitch.

This includes products from Leaf/Phase/Sinar/Hasselblad/Imacon/Kodak.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration