fat pixel digital backs

[homeiss]

Mamiya RB67 | Mamiya ZD | 50mm C

 

[MaxKißler]

Great idea to have a thread dedicated to fat pixel backs. :thumbs: I really love my Aptus 22. I even sold all of my 35mm gear and solely shoot MF and LF film (which is pretty stupid, I know). It's funny that I can shoot digital and film which is much newer than my digital solution with the exact same camera...

645 AFD II, 50mm Shift at f8, 30s.

 

[GrahamWelland]

These fat pixel backs are horrible. I don't know why we put up with them

Owen's Valley
P25+ DF, 55LS 2 frame stitch

 

[Pemihan]

That's one helluva pic Graham...

Peter

 

[pyrojim]

These fat pixel backs are horrible. I don't know why we put up with them

I treat mine as a DSLR...

albiet a very slow, and very(very) heavy DSLR...

I love my H25.

 

[GrahamWelland]

That's one helluva pic Graham...

Peter

Thank you Peter. It's one of my favorites (and conveniently already in the gallery) and just goes to prove that you don't need humongous mega pixels. I also shot the same shot with my IQ160 on my Alpa and to be honest I prefer this version. Just different and the clouds were more moody.

 

[torger]

I have not owned a 22 megapixel back, but got to borrow one during the autumn last year. Very good image quality despite the age of the back. The owner bought it second hand for ~$3000 and uses it with vintage cameras like Mamiya RZ and Sinar X. Dead-cheap MFD system and super-fun, and image quality is as good as modern cameras 10x the price, just with lower resolution. It's a great time to be MFD amateur.

Hasselblad CF22, Linhof Techno, Schneider Digitar 47mm @ f/11, with tilt and some fall. (This is just a basic raw conversion, haven't done any local edits, for a print I would darken the sky a bit to balance the light.)

 

[Mammy645]

Awesome shot Mamy645:thumbup:

Thanks Peter.

I don't do much landscape photography, but here's one anyway. I think it was a 4 frame stitch on the Italian riviera. Mamiya 645AFD w. P25, 80mm f/1.9 @f/8.

 

[Shashin]

From a series of portraits done for a poetry festival. Zhou is a Chinese poet. Linhof c679 and P25+ back

 

[KeithL]

Fat pixel backs; the good, and the bad and downright ugly.

The good; incredibly robust and malleable files.

The bad and downright ugly; moiré!.

Despite the bad and downright ugly I still love 'em.

 

[jotloob]

Keith

I agree to the bad and good things . Yes . And I am still trying to get a CFV-16 again after I traded mine in some years ago .
I just missed a good one last weekend . They are very rare .

 

[KeithL]

Keith

I agree to the bad and good things . Yes . And I am still trying to get a CFV-16 again after I traded mine in some years ago .
I just missed a good one last weekend . They are very rare .

Jürgen, good luck with the search. I'll keep my eyes peeled for you.

Best

Keith

 

[jotloob]

Jürgen, good luck with the search. I'll keep my eyes peeled for you.
Best
Keith

Thanks Keith . I hope to be successful the next time .

 

[mmbma]

They are rare which means they are over priced. You could find a Aptus 22mb back with 1.1 crop for much less than CFV16

 

[Shashin]

Aptus 22MP backs have a crop factor of 1.16. And if you are cropping to square, then a square sensor makes things simpler by taking out a step. Rare does not mean "overpriced." That is too simplistic.

 

[bensonga]

The fact that a CFV-16 back is hard to find and is perhaps more expensive than a Aptus 22mb back (or similar) does not mean the CFV-16 is "over priced". There are good reasons why a devoted Hasselblad V system user might prefer a CFV-16 and be willing to pay a premium for it. Seamless integration, no sync cable etc.

 

[mmbma]

I am only complaining because I can't afford one!! In fact I scour the web every night trying to find a bargain on it....so yeah, enjoy them if you have them

 

[jotloob]

The fact that a CFV-16 back is hard to find and is perhaps more expensive than a Aptus 22mb back (or similar) does not mean the CFV-16 is "over priced". There are good reasons why a devoted Hasselblad V system user might prefer a CFV-16 and be willing to pay a premium for it. Seamless integration, no sync cable etc.

:thumbup: not to forget esthetics .
Plus , as I also work with a CFV-39 and CFV-50 , there is no need to change my workflow . PHOCUS works fine for me .

 

[fotografz]

Now that I am reducing demand on my MFD system needs and working primarily in studio, A CFV/39 or 50 on a good old 503CW would be just about a perfect set-up. 40IF, 100mm and a 120 Macro with tubes would do the trick quite nicely.

Simply a beautiful kit with a fabulous tactile feel. Sigh.

-Marc

 

[mmbma]

Now that I am reducing demand on my MFD system needs and working primarily in studio, A CFV/39 or 50 on a good old 503CW would be just about a perfect set-up. 40IF, 100mm and a 120 Macro with tubes would do the trick quite nicely.

Simply a beautiful kit with a fabulous tactile feel. Sigh.

-Marc

I didn't have a good experience with the CF39 on my 503cw. One the looks didn't Jive but most importantly I couldnet get that back to be very sharp. I thought it was a calibration issue but others have experienced the same. The older bodies are not that precise so there are a lot of sample variation I feel