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!

Need a "definitive" answer: Sinar eMotion on a 203FE?

fotografz

Well-known member
Can the eMotion digital backs be used on a Hasselblad 203FE.

I know there is a Hasselblad V adapter, and that the exclusively tethered backs can be used, but can the eMotion portable, untethered backs be used on a 203FE?

The Sinar site specifically does not list the 200 series, only the 500 series.

Yet people keep telling me that it can be used on the 200 series as a focal plane camera with FE lenses that do NOT have a sync port on the lens.

As I have had it explained to me, a sync cord is run from the sync port of the 203FE camera body to an "in" sync port on the Sinar eMotion back. Is that all that needs to be done?

Is this true or not?

Any help here would be most appreciated.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The linked quote:

Marc,

David is right: it works this way.

However, we do purposely not mention about the eMotion backs on the 200 series and these configurations are officially not supported by Sinar, mainly because of timing issues.

Best regards,
Thierry


Thanks guys.

What specifically are the "timing issues"? Is there a sync problem?
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Marc,

What our product manager mentioned to me is that sync problems COULD happen, but not NECESSARILY. In case it happens, you might get around by choosing another time. It seems to be unpredictable to have reliable sync times with this model and from one body to another.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thanks guys.

What specifically are the "timing issues"? Is there a sync problem?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
likely shutter ghosts
like the Kapture truewide system (need 1/30s and longer)
Holy Moly, that's really a crippling factor.

I guess it's film and the Imacon 949 for the 203FE "Digital" ... which ain't all bad since I love both the camera AND to shoot film with it.

(203FE, 50/2.8FE, Kodak Portra 400 @ 320)
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
there is still a color richness in film...

it aint always about resolution and sharpness.
Believe me, the resolution is there for images to 40X40 with no problem ... and so is the sharpness from the Zeiss 50/2.8FE ... plus, it never looks "digital" ... LOL !

In fact, I still like the look of film more than digital ... especially B&W, but it's just not practical for commercial work any more.

One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was selling my XPan.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
Very nice captures Marc -

Digital is definitely not film digital it is too 'clean' and no 'randomness of grain' which are lovely characteristics of film. You can copy certain film looks pretty well as long as contrast isn't too high and whites aren't too brilliant - as long as it is a fine grain film...sure..but when you want the brilliant blacks and deep shadow tone luster as well as brilliant whites..- its got to be film man. I cant use words to describe what it is about colour film vs colour digital..but it is there too.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Very nice captures Marc -

Digital is definitely not film digital it is too 'clean' and no 'randomness of grain' which are lovely characteristics of film. You can copy certain film looks pretty well as long as contrast isn't too high and whites aren't too brilliant - as long as it is a fine grain film...sure..but when you want the brilliant blacks and deep shadow tone luster as well as brilliant whites..- its got to be film man. I cant use words to describe what it is about colour film vs colour digital..but it is there too.
Thanks Peter. BTW, it's "Shots" with film, and "Captures" with digital ... :ROTFL:
 

irakly

New member
Peter, what are you talking about? With correct processing digital backs yield noise that can easily be mistaken for film grain (as it usually happens when I send my pictures to a gallery selling me in Moscow: the curator screams every time that it could not possibly be digital).

Very nice captures Marc -

Digital is definitely not film digital it is too 'clean' and no 'randomness of grain' which are lovely characteristics of film. You can copy certain film looks pretty well as long as contrast isn't too high and whites aren't too brilliant - as long as it is a fine grain film...sure..but when you want the brilliant blacks and deep shadow tone luster as well as brilliant whites..- its got to be film man. I cant use words to describe what it is about colour film vs colour digital..but it is there too.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Peter, what are you talking about? With correct processing digital backs yield noise that can easily be mistaken for film grain (as it usually happens when I send my pictures to a gallery selling me in Moscow: the curator screams every time that it could not possibly be digital).
Irakly - sure clever processing can go a long way - but never really be there in the end. My test would be to show you a scan and see if you can copy the grain effect on post processing..- good luck :angel:
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Irakly - sure clever processing can go a long way - but never really be there in the end. My test would be to show you a scan and see if you can copy the grain effect on post processing..- good luck :angel:
I think Peter is right. The 'look' of film is in the cap... I mean SHOT.

just like audio (sorry again, but I am a physicist) what is called 'dithering' actually helps the brain find detail in noise. Fim, with grain has three characteristics that are different from digital sensors;
the sensors are random, not regular
the grain in in 3d that is not in the same plane This is what causes the 'dithering' input that helps the brain integrate and see a sharp image even though in actaulity the lpm charts may not show it.
The third difference is that the color dyes are richer in what they can produce compared with filters that have artificial cut offs.

although subtle all these play in the capture/shooting and no post processing of grain injection will duplicate.

The starkest difference is seen in the look of even analog video vs film, where the regularity and the frame arrangement look more 'lifelike' but also duller.

Life should be like film; grainy scattered, but FUN

:clap:

Regards
Victor
 

gogopix

Subscriber
To be clear, you'd need a Shutter speed of 1/30th, or 1/15th or 1/4 second to avoid "Shutter Ghosting" ... right?
that's the way i interpret what Kapture group says for their system
but if you go to their site they explain in their section on the 'truewide' I think?
been a while
anyway, it put me off for location work sounded like a studio only solution
 

woodyspedden

New member
To be clear, you'd need a Shutter speed of 1/30th, or 1/15th or 1/4 second to avoid "Shutter Ghosting" ... right?
Marc

It would be great if one of us could find an e54LV set up for a Hasselblad to truly determine its fitness before committing to buy. I will look in the Denver area and with some other sources as well.

Woody
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc

It would be great if one of us could find an e54LV set up for a Hasselblad to truly determine its fitness before committing to buy. I will look in the Denver area and with some other sources as well.

Woody
Great Woody! It still isn't quite clear is it? Maybe together we can figure this out.

There isn't a Sinar Dealer around here to see for myself. Here I am with the means and will, but no way to clearly digitize what IMO, is still the greatest focal plane camera and set of lenses ever made ... Grrrrrr. :mad:

There is aways the CFV-II ... but I was hoping for better utilization of the wides with a 645/22 meg back.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Marc,

FYI: I have asked again our product manager, for some more details.
I shall come back asap.

Thierry

Great Woody! It still isn't quite clear is it? Maybe together we can figure this out.

There isn't a Sinar Dealer around here to see for myself. Here I am with the means and will, but no way to clearly digitize what IMO, is still the greatest focal plane camera and set of lenses ever made ... Grrrrrr. :mad:

There is aways the CFV-II ... but I was hoping for better utilization of the wides with a 645/22 meg back.
 
Top