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!
Hasselblad 100C and 35XL
- Thread starter diggles
- Start date
rdeloe
Well-known member
Let's hope so! The more great choices the better.
jotloob
Subscriber Member
As we can see the PDAF lines even when using a HR 32 mm unshifted , I just wonder if the lines can also be seen when using the 907x 100c in "native mode" just using a XCD 21 or 30mm lens . Has anyone of the owners of the 100C tried this ? ? ?
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Ok! Time to get out the torches and pitchforks. 
Here's an LCC I just shot with an X2D and an XCD 28P. 100% crop from UL corner. The processing in LR is EXTREME. I included the LR screenshot so you can see just HOW extreme, but ....
Clarity is 100%, FWIW.
For the record, this issue does not concern me at all for use with the X2D. But I have done extreme BW conversion and it *is* there.
Matt
Here's an LCC I just shot with an X2D and an XCD 28P. 100% crop from UL corner. The processing in LR is EXTREME. I included the LR screenshot so you can see just HOW extreme, but ....Clarity is 100%, FWIW.
For the record, this issue does not concern me at all for use with the X2D. But I have done extreme BW conversion and it *is* there.
Matt
Last edited:
Alkibiades
Well-known member
this is the point: I used the Fuji gfx100S as also Sony A7RIV - both have the same Sony BSI sensor, afcouse sony in other size-and both shows no stripes issues at all!!!
tested also with Schneider Apo Digitars 35, 43, 47 and some Digarons with extra large movements.
I never seen this issue, even these are camera bodies, not backs, with all restriction of this bodies. But they work on technical cameras with all lenses that allows it mechanicly. So it was logical for me that with the new hasselblad back we get the ultimativ BSI sensor, where all the Schneider wides can be used at full movements...
But What have Hasselbald done!!!!
it is - as Imacon- one of the pioneer of digital backs!!!!
and they produce a first back ever that dont work with no one wide technical lens?
I cant imagine that technician at hasseblad did not see this. never, never!!!! these cant be all idiots!!!
I am sure that they see this problem, but other people decide what a company do.
some people there have decided that this is not so important,
nice advertising campaign, the moon story and the job is done.
Then some trolls and some youtube campaign and who cares so stupid things like technical cameras....
tested also with Schneider Apo Digitars 35, 43, 47 and some Digarons with extra large movements.
I never seen this issue, even these are camera bodies, not backs, with all restriction of this bodies. But they work on technical cameras with all lenses that allows it mechanicly. So it was logical for me that with the new hasselblad back we get the ultimativ BSI sensor, where all the Schneider wides can be used at full movements...
But What have Hasselbald done!!!!
it is - as Imacon- one of the pioneer of digital backs!!!!
and they produce a first back ever that dont work with no one wide technical lens?
I cant imagine that technician at hasseblad did not see this. never, never!!!! these cant be all idiots!!!
I am sure that they see this problem, but other people decide what a company do.
some people there have decided that this is not so important,
nice advertising campaign, the moon story and the job is done.
Then some trolls and some youtube campaign and who cares so stupid things like technical cameras....
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
This was an issue with the original GFX 100 (as reported by Jim Kasson), and seemed to be resolved with the GFX 100s (and eventually on that same original GFX 100 with a firmware update, if I recall). And no sign of it on the GFX 100 II. So, it can be resolved by the original manufacturer, and it is my hope that it will be in this case by Hasselblad.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
No manufacturer is immune to having shipped a product with an issue that seemed obvious that they somehow missed. If you knew the amount of sausage that we see in our kitchen with the manufacturers we work with, it would maybe boggle your mind. It is not restricted to Hasselblad. We do quite a bit of behind the scenes reporting. And remember, Fuji also had an issue with PDAF banding with the original GFX 100, as I noted above.
The positive is there's no possibility they are not aware of it now. We've reported this to Hasselblad, and I'm sure others have as well, and yes, they do follow forums and other public outlets for discourse concerning their products.
It's now an obvious issue with the ball in their court, and hopefully they resolve it and sooner than later. It will take some time, but this only came to light less than a month ago, and the product only began shipping about 2 months ago.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
That's interesting that Fuji was able to fix it. Thanks for the insight.
Is it completely gone, even with tech cam lenses shifted on bellows type cameras?
Is it completely gone, even with tech cam lenses shifted on bellows type cameras?
Alkibiades
Well-known member
Dont forget that Fuji GFX is not a back and was not produce for use with technical cameras!
And this problem was solved years ago. So this issues were known.
So how a company like hasselblad can reapead it some years later, with same sensor, when one of the main reason to buy this back it is the use on technical cameras.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
This may be. But when I say that we've seen a lot of sausage being made, what I mean is we have certainly seen many mind boggling lapses by manufacturers. It doesn't mean they shouldn't happen, it just means ... they happen. What is important is that when they do, whatever the issue was gets resolved.
Steve Hendrix/CI
rdeloe
Well-known member
No sign of it shifting a S-K APO-Digitar 35mm 8mm on a GFX 100S.
rdeloe
Well-known member
OK then, what have we here? This is from a 25mm shift shooting an LCC panel with a S-K 35mm f/5.6 and a GFX 100S. I had to pull the lens back far enough to clear the Rotafoot, which otherwise limits me to 8mm of shift. On the left is straight from the camera, no edits. On the right I juiced it up with clarity to +100. I see stripes! But let's not get too excited... This is not a real world situation.
I have never seen this in a real photo. For example, I was curious what things looked like from 8mm to 20mm, and the only way to see that is to be close enough for the rear of the lens to clear the Rotafoot on my GFX. Here's the test image. It doesn't look too bad if you don't click on it... But if you click on it, the left and right sides are a bit dubious. In fairness, this is not a lens that was designed to shoot at 1:2.5, which is about 10mm from the rule.
The point though is there are no visible stripes in the out of focus background area in the far-shifted zones. This is the top-right corner of the above image with the ruler. For all real-world intents and purposes, it looks like there are no issues shifting this technical lens on GFX.
I have never seen this in a real photo. For example, I was curious what things looked like from 8mm to 20mm, and the only way to see that is to be close enough for the rear of the lens to clear the Rotafoot on my GFX. Here's the test image. It doesn't look too bad if you don't click on it... But if you click on it, the left and right sides are a bit dubious. In fairness, this is not a lens that was designed to shoot at 1:2.5, which is about 10mm from the rule.
The point though is there are no visible stripes in the out of focus background area in the far-shifted zones. This is the top-right corner of the above image with the ruler. For all real-world intents and purposes, it looks like there are no issues shifting this technical lens on GFX.
TechTalk
Well-known member
There's always at least a few villagers ready to grab their torches and pitchforks. Some eagerly volunteer if it's their favorite villain being chased!Ok! Time to get out the torches and pitchforks.
Where there's on-sensor PDAF, you can find varying degrees of either banding or striping with the right (or wrong — depending on your point of view) combination of: scene and lighting conditions, lens and settings, processing adjustments, and magnification. PDAF banding or striping have different causes, but both can be mitigated in post processing.
PDAF striping might result from reflections onto imaging pixels from the masks which partially cover neighboring PDAF pixels. PDAF banding appears to result from manufacturers' attempts to mitigate PDAF striping thru in-camera filtering. Discussions of these artifacts began long ago with the earliest PDAF sensors and include every brand incorporating on-sensor PDAF technology to improve mirrorless camera autofocus performance.
Doppler9000
Active member
There’s always at least one villager who defends the King, no matter what he has done.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
To be clear, I just did that test and posted it because the question would come up eventually and I wanted to close off that avenue of endless speculation (and argument). We seem to be closing in on "Hasselblad failed to correct a well known problem, and we expect they'll get on it soon. Heck, we can even demand it." I consider that real progress. Yes, it should have been attended to before now but, as @Steve Hendrix said, a lot of things make it out the door that shouldn't have.
TechTalk
Well-known member
I appreciate you posting your results and comments along with Rob's regarding his GFX. I also appreciate the results and accompanying comments which others have shared as they are individually and collectively informative.
I just wanted to point out that as you, Rob, and others have discovered with a variety of other cameras over time; under the right combination of conditions you can find PDAF sensor artifacts. Those artifacts can be mitigated with processing, but the possibility of their appearance cannot be entirely eliminated due to PDAF sensor architecture combined with the variables of light angles and conditions of use.
Over many years of using a variety of brands and models of digital backs with various sensor sizes and resolutions (from 4 to 400 megapixels), constantly shrinking sensor pixels, the addition of microlens arrays and evolving sensor architecture, and with differing lens designs and focal lengths, etc. — I've had to deal with a variety of image artifacts which result from or are exacerbated by specific combinations of sensor, lens, and shooting conditions. Moiré, lens color casts, aliasing — the've all been on my plate as issues to mitigate and correct. I've never expected lens manufacturers to design lenses which work equally well with any type of sensor and I haven't expected the various sensor designs to work equally well with any kind of lens I use. Lenses vary, sensors vary, applications vary — I just need to be aware of those variables and choose what's most practical for my imaging needs.
I've suggested that a CFV 100C may be the wrong choice for some — at least currently — and some might prefer to buy or use some other camera or back for their needs. Some others have called that trolling or defending Hasselblad and their new CFV 100C. I'm not sure how my suggesting not buying a CFV 100C and using some other brand or model fits those characterizations, but it doesn't bother me nor alter my point of view. Others are entitled to their own perceptions and can express them however they like. I'm fine with differences of opinion and perception. How others choose to react or express themselves is not for me to decide.
Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate them as always.
Last edited:
The problem just comes when you see those stripes in real world situations, not just in extreme, constructed cases. Why did no one complain about the 21mm on the X2D? Right, the likelihood that you will see those in normal use is very low.
That’s a different story with the CFV100c. Hence the complaints.
Edit: And I personally don’t like the rhetoric above - the fellow members here and myself who have a problem with the product could also be seen as the ones who did part of Hasselblad’s work, the testing. But yeah, everything said.
Edit2: I feel the citation from Techtalk below omits an important part of what I tried to convey: nobody complains about the X2D and 21mm, as there seems to be nothing wrong with that combination
That’s a different story with the CFV100c. Hence the complaints.
Edit: And I personally don’t like the rhetoric above - the fellow members here and myself who have a problem with the product could also be seen as the ones who did part of Hasselblad’s work, the testing. But yeah, everything said.
Edit2: I feel the citation from Techtalk below omits an important part of what I tried to convey: nobody complains about the X2D and 21mm, as there seems to be nothing wrong with that combination
Last edited: