S
skinnfell
Guest
Dear forum
This is my first post so let me introduce myself: I work full-time as a photojournalist, but I also do some fine art/architecture projects in my spare time. For work I have a complete set of canons l-lenses, and for my private projects i am using a Leica M9 with various lenses.
The reason I am posting here is that the M9, while delivering incredible image quality, just doesnt have the resolution to make the larger prints I desire for my personal projects. And since leica has started charging 8000 dollars for a normal lens, and including video and other features I do not need in their bodies, I am seriously thinking about jumping ship.
I am not a fan of up-ressing too much and hence I am in need for a system that can deliver 40-50mp at least. Since I pay for my own equipment and since the fine art bit is not bringing any money for the moment, options are somewhat limited.
I have never used a digital back before but I have used medium format (most brands and formats) before. I no longer shoot film (I live in the boondocks), even if I realize that a large format camera would be a shortcut to high resolution.
However, I think I might be able to scrape together enough funds to to afford a Hasselblad CFV-50 plus a body and a couple of lenses.
So, dear forum, If you could contribute some insight about wether the CFV-50 would be a good solution for me.
Here is what I view as advantages:
- Small and light
- Good sensor (essentially the big brother of that in my leica)
- Uses good and cheap sony batteries
- Large and bright waist level finder
- Lenses are good, reliable, abundant and inexpensive (compared to leica)
- Relatively inexpensive (it seems I can get a whole set for less than $20K)
- No winder-grippy-protrusion thing helps keep it small.
- Almost full frame 645 but still crop in regards to 6x6.
- Ability to mount on a view camera.
And here is what I think of the disadvantages
- ISO. I rarely shoot my leica above base ISO. Always tripod.
- Focussing issues. As with all digital cameras. (canon is the worst!) I usually shoot at F8 or above for DOF and maximum image quality.
- Discontinued bodies might not be serviceable in a few years time.
- Lack of live view. I never used it with my canons and never missed it on leica.
- Slow. I would not shoot sports and fashion with such a camera. However, portraits in natural light would be nice to do.
- Portrait orientation. 99% of my shots are in landscape orientation.
Here are my questions:
1 - Am I in any way misinformed in the assessment of pros/cons? are there any other major issues with this setup I need to be aware of?
2 - Are there any other systems which offer similar image quality at a similar price?
Thanks for any input!
This is my first post so let me introduce myself: I work full-time as a photojournalist, but I also do some fine art/architecture projects in my spare time. For work I have a complete set of canons l-lenses, and for my private projects i am using a Leica M9 with various lenses.
The reason I am posting here is that the M9, while delivering incredible image quality, just doesnt have the resolution to make the larger prints I desire for my personal projects. And since leica has started charging 8000 dollars for a normal lens, and including video and other features I do not need in their bodies, I am seriously thinking about jumping ship.
I am not a fan of up-ressing too much and hence I am in need for a system that can deliver 40-50mp at least. Since I pay for my own equipment and since the fine art bit is not bringing any money for the moment, options are somewhat limited.
I have never used a digital back before but I have used medium format (most brands and formats) before. I no longer shoot film (I live in the boondocks), even if I realize that a large format camera would be a shortcut to high resolution.
However, I think I might be able to scrape together enough funds to to afford a Hasselblad CFV-50 plus a body and a couple of lenses.
So, dear forum, If you could contribute some insight about wether the CFV-50 would be a good solution for me.
Here is what I view as advantages:
- Small and light
- Good sensor (essentially the big brother of that in my leica)
- Uses good and cheap sony batteries
- Large and bright waist level finder
- Lenses are good, reliable, abundant and inexpensive (compared to leica)
- Relatively inexpensive (it seems I can get a whole set for less than $20K)
- No winder-grippy-protrusion thing helps keep it small.
- Almost full frame 645 but still crop in regards to 6x6.
- Ability to mount on a view camera.
And here is what I think of the disadvantages
- ISO. I rarely shoot my leica above base ISO. Always tripod.
- Focussing issues. As with all digital cameras. (canon is the worst!) I usually shoot at F8 or above for DOF and maximum image quality.
- Discontinued bodies might not be serviceable in a few years time.
- Lack of live view. I never used it with my canons and never missed it on leica.
- Slow. I would not shoot sports and fashion with such a camera. However, portraits in natural light would be nice to do.
- Portrait orientation. 99% of my shots are in landscape orientation.
Here are my questions:
1 - Am I in any way misinformed in the assessment of pros/cons? are there any other major issues with this setup I need to be aware of?
2 - Are there any other systems which offer similar image quality at a similar price?
Thanks for any input!