Some P45+/Hasselblad V series samples

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Anders,

I second that. I find I use my Hasselblad a bit more than my Sony Alpha 99, and it depends in part on having some fun using old gear.

Regarding bokeh, the Sony may be a better choice. It has circular aperture and much less axial chroma. But the P45+ has more pixels and it does deliver on sharpness when the stars are well aligned. Also, weaknesses are often more seen in the "lab" than in the "wild", lab conditions are more critical.

The way things are now, if I feel that I probably nailed the shot with the Hasselblad I don't shoot with the Sony. But I always carry the Sony. It is sort of the tool that I rely on.

Best regards
Erik

IQ is not only about resolving power. Bokeh and look can be really good. I've seen more RZ results than V but I'm most impressed by the look when the depth of field is a bit shorter. Still I think nostalgia or economics (or both) are the main reasons why one would want to use a V system. There's some charm in using an old-school camera while not having to mess with film, and that's why Hasselblad keeps making digital backs to an otherwise discontinued system.

 

[torger]

About my Leaf issue; repairing digital backs are generally expensive, so Leaf is not odd there. I had an issue with the back being unreliable rather than dead (and continued to be unreliable after e-box replacement) and that combined with the not-so-great dealer structure here in Europe made it a real mess. It eventually sorted out though, but it cost me a lot of work and time.

I've got the feeling from my own experience and some other reports seen here that the Aptus series had some sample-to-sample variations in terms of reliability, although Leaf themselves has always denied it. The Credo series is of course a whole different design. Anyway the Aptus series is not the number one second hand back I would recommend if you're working in cold weather... my current Aptus back works fine though, even in -30C.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Initially I was thinking about a used Hasselblad H-series back with an adapter for V-series lenses. But it was suggested to me that a P45+ back was a better option.

"Mr. Rib" the guy I was buying from happened to have a P45+ he was quite happy with and could fix a matching Hasselblad V 555/ELD body, so I went with that.

I have been very happy with the P45+, but I also feel that it was much closer to DxO data and MTF data for the lenses than the hype/myths on the net. So I got what I expected, not less and not more. Lab data is much more reliable than hype on the net!

Best regards
Erik

About my Leaf issue; repairing digital backs are generally expensive, so Leaf is not odd there. I had an issue with the back being unreliable rather than dead (and continued to be unreliable after e-box replacement) and that combined with the not-so-great dealer structure here in Europe made it a real mess. It eventually sorted out though, but it cost me a lot of work and time.

I've got the feeling from my own experience and some other reports seen here that the Aptus series had some sample-to-sample variations in terms of reliability, although Leaf themselves has always denied it. The Credo series is of course a whole different design. Anyway the Aptus series is not the number one second hand back I would recommend if you're working in cold weather... my current Aptus back works fine though, even in -30C.

 

[mjr]

It's an interesting discussion, although every photographer has a different way of working, do you feel that reading and understanding lab data makes you a better photographer? I ask because I regularly seek out inspirational imagery and have very little interest in the equipment used, to me a location, a style of photography, light, passion and creativity always always appeals more than charts and lab data, I'm fully accepting of the fact that my views are possibly different to yours, hence the genuine question, do you feel like a better photographer for all the knowledge and discussions? Is that what drives your photography experience?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am not an artist. What I am is engineer having photography as a hobby since 1965. As an engineer, I look at stuff and try to find out what makes sense to me, it is a very strong urge. If I see something I need a rational explanation.

On the other hand, looking at test cases I can also decide on how to makes best use of my equipment. Questions like?

• Which aperture will I need with that Macro Planar to get decent edges?
• What is the best focusing strategy with the Distagon 40/4?
• How to focus the 80/2.8 Planar for best results?

Analysing pictures and data and learning from mistakes mean a lot to me.

On the other hand, I could just use an Iphone or a Sony RX-100 at fraction of the cost of my MFDB and Hasselblad and get very decent results, but why spend 15k$US on equipment if I don't care about making best use of it?

Best regards
Erik

It's an interesting discussion, although every photographer has a different way of working, do you feel that reading and understanding lab data makes you a better photographer? I ask because I regularly seek out inspirational imagery and have very little interest in the equipment used, to me a location, a style of photography, light, passion and creativity always always appeals more than charts and lab data, I'm fully accepting of the fact that my views are possibly different to yours, hence the genuine question, do you feel like a better photographer for all the knowledge and discussions? Is that what drives your photography experience?

 

[mjr]

I understand what you are saying, I guess I feel that creativity is about more than using equipment at it's optimum, or searching out equipment that has a level of technical excellence on scales that do not account for feel or style or personality, if that makes sense. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't matter to me what you shoot with, it really doesn't but I read so many repetitive and technical posts that somehow feel to me like they miss the point of an artistic endeavour. Obviously the end goal is enjoyment from your hobby, I guess there are people for whom the technical aspects are more important than the creative?

I have been following the impossible film story recently, the polaroid experiments are fascinating, not a technical interpretation in site just a large amount of incredibly beautiful images shot with real feeling, obviously theres a load of crap in there too but somehow it feels more inspirational.

 

[torger]

Is that what drives your photography experience?

Interest in photography gear and technical aspects of photography is separate from interest in photography as an art. As it happens it's also easier to talk about, and many people are wired in a way that art is something they feel and not talk about much.

If you strive to become an artist (which actually not everyone does) you should surely not worry too much about gear. However, knowing the technique is important, and personally I do find it rewarding to shoot an image of high technical quality.

I would not narrow down to one thing that drives my photography experience. It's many aspects. I would surely not carry around 13 kg of tech camera gear in the mountains if I did not enjoy using that particular gear.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, OK. I have a lot of respect for folks making great images. Ed Hurst is a great example, or Guy Mancuso and any great posters on these forums. I am deeply impressed.

Just to say, I am making photographs, some samples are here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com

Best regards
Erik

 

[torger]

I have been following the impossible film story recently, the polaroid experiments are fascinating, not a technical interpretation in site just a large amount of incredibly beautiful images shot with real feeling, obviously theres a load of crap in there too but somehow it feels more inspirational.

Although there is great work I think much of it is the "instagram" effect. The "feeling" comes from a LoFi gimmick. When I see such images I think "how would this image look without the imperfections in technical quality?", surprisingly often it's just an ordinary snapshot. Sure one can appreciate the art in creating a feeling by toning and grading images, but it's not for me.

Still it's an example of gear driving inspiration, just LoFi instead of HiFi.

A photographer truly not interested in gear at all would most likely use a Canon or Nikon DSLR, today the most all-around systems you can get in terms of creative possibilities.

 

[mjr]

Interesting, maybe that's where we can pinpoint differences, of course the equipment contributes to the look but when technical excellent is missing you are forced to be creative with what you have, i.e light and subject and oftentimes the output shows far more than the sum of the parts. I don't see it as in any way a gimmick.

I can appreciate the technical side of photography but I personally view it as a means to an end, on the one hand I don't subscribe to a manufacturer or even a format, I use whatever I want, whenever I want, on the other hand I want the best tool for the job at hand, I just don't feel though that technical brilliance or a huge range of lenses has anything to do with whether the image will be good or bad, it plays a part but a very minor one to my way of thinking.

I'm not picking fault with anyones process or desires, I don't care enough! It does get a little tedious to go through so many posts talking about the same equipment restrictions and inadequacies though with very little regard for the fact that some of those very shortcomings can be what creates the beauty in a shot. Actually something I'm striving for (and not necessarily succeeding at) is to move away from images that are technically adequate and towards something far less measurable, images that tell a story, have meaning or capture some sort of beauty, whether these images are sharp to the corners at a certain aperture or whether some website has tested the equipment used and classed it as good is irrelevant, I don't feel that what I'm looking for is measurable with charts and stuff. Obviously that's just my way of looking at things.

 

[mjr]

A photographer truly not interested in gear at all would most likely use a Canon or Nikon DSLR, today the most all-around systems you can get in terms of creative possibilities.

That's a strange thing to say, I met a guy recently who was solely focused on his equipment and proudly wore a bracelet on his wrist that had Canon written on it, very strange. I don't believe that users of "mainstream" manufacturers in general care any less about there equipment, same as I don't believe that you have to have a huge amount of lenses and a mf system to prove you care more about gear.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The reason I posted this thread and the associated images is that there is a significant interest about the Hasselblad V platform with the introduction of the new CMOS back from Hasselblad.

Buying into an MFD system represents a huge investment for most people, so I feel it is essential to share experience from us who have been there and done that.

That is the main purpose of my posting. It may be helpful in making a decision into buying into MFD or an inspiration to wait for a while to see what comes around…

Best regards
Erik

Interesting, maybe that's where we can pinpoint differences, of course the equipment contributes to the look but when technical excellent is missing you are forced to be creative with what you have, i.e light and subject and oftentimes the output shows far more than the sum of the parts. I don't see it as in any way a gimmick.

I can appreciate the technical side of photography but I personally view it as a means to an end, on the one hand I don't subscribe to a manufacturer or even a format, I use whatever I want, whenever I want, on the other hand I want the best tool for the job at hand, I just don't feel though that technical brilliance or a huge range of lenses has anything to do with whether the image will be good or bad, it plays a part but a very minor one to my way of thinking.

I'm not picking fault with anyones process or desires, I don't care enough! It does get a little tedious to go through so many posts talking about the same equipment restrictions and inadequacies though with very little regard for the fact that some of those very shortcomings can be what creates the beauty in a shot. Actually something I'm striving for (and not necessarily succeeding at) is to move away from images that are technically adequate and towards something far less measurable, images that tell a story, have meaning or capture some sort of beauty, whether these images are sharp to the corners at a certain aperture or whether some website has tested the equipment used and classed it as good is irrelevant, I don't feel that what I'm looking for is measurable with charts and stuff. Obviously that's just my way of looking at things.

 

[freaklikeme]

Have to say after many years shooting the Hassy V and also still having those images in my portfolio and owning just about every piece of gear on it since it was company money spent I bought stuff by the truck load and today I have zero interest in owning any of it today. It was nice gear for the film era but in today's world I really question its value and IQ given the technology we have now. I understand maybe the throw back feelings but for the money spent even cheaply it makes me wonder if its even worth it. Sure a couple nice lenses in the system but the maintence of it in today's world seems hardly worth the time.

Maybe it's just me so feel free to ignore my comments. I remember all my gear constantly in the shop getting repairs .

I agree with you on cameras. I have fond memories of my 500C and film backs, but it's not an experience I feel the need to replicate. I do love the lenses, though, and the thought of using them on a Flex with the live view of the 50c excites the gear head in me to no end.

 

[torger]

That's a strange thing to say, I met a guy recently who was solely focused on his equipment and proudly wore a bracelet on his wrist that had Canon written on it, very strange. I don't believe that users of "mainstream" manufacturers in general care any less about there equipment, same as I don't believe that you have to have a huge amount of lenses and a mf system to prove you care more about gear.

It's not a strange thing to say, it's the truth . That most camera users sees their camera choice like a religion of some sort is a separate phenomenom (so I agree that in general people do care much about their camera, just like many care about their car), but if you really don't care about gear it would be natural that you pick a mainstream product that's everyone knows how it works and can do most things.

I actually know a couple of photographers that don't care about gear, by some reason they happen to be women, and they of course use mainstream products. They see no reason to get exotic gear that cost much or shoot film or polaroiods for the format's sake, they just want a system that can do what's necessary to make the picture and frame and shoot.

 

[mjr]

Torger, to claim anything as the truth seems a little odd, I have very good friends who view the tools they use as simply that, just tools that allow them to create their vision, 1 owns an IQ180 and another owns Leica, they happen to use great equipment but have no interest in it beyond the fact that it produces an image. There are too many people doing too many things to claim your opinion as the truth in any way beyond how it relates to your own views.

My reason for commenting on this thread is that there is much more to a system than the technical aspects, it's obviously fine to be focussed on that but I believe it's a very small part of the overall feel of a product or a system.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My original plan was to start with the 555ELD but upgrade to a Hartblei HCam in due time. Now I am not sure, I may get another 555ELD as a backup.

My finding on lenses and back still hold. The camera is a.just a metal box for mounting sensor and lens, with a mirror box allowing for focusing.

Best regards
Erik

I agree with you on cameras. I have fond memories of my 500C and film backs, but it's not an experience I feel the need to replicate. I do love the lenses, though, and the thought of using them on a Flex with the live view of the 50c excites the gear head in me to no end.

 

[torger]

Torger, to claim anything as the truth seems a little odd, I have very good friends who view the tools they use as simply that, just tools that allow them to create their vision, 1 owns an IQ180 and another owns Leica, they happen to use great equipment but have no interest in it beyond the fact that it produces an image. There are too many people doing too many things to claim your opinion as the truth in any way beyond how it relates to your own views.

My reason for commenting on this thread is that there is much more to a system than the technical aspects, it's obviously fine to be focussed on that but I believe it's a very small part of the overall feel of a product or a system.

I just wanted to provoke a little, added a smiley to be sure.

If you buy an IQ180 and don't care about image quality or handling you buy it for status, which I guess is okay. MFD companies turning to the luxury market is nothing new. But I guess in this case they actully did care about image quality, but not really finding out exactly how good these systems are compared to others, but just went to a dealer and said "give me the best", and then they are satisfied with what they were assigned knowing/beleiving that they use the best. That's fine.

When people have issues with spending huge amounts of money on gear, there tends to be an interest in exactly how good these systems are, ie value for money. That's one major reason why we see endless technical comparisons between various systems (an other reason is of course that many are interested in the technical aspects of photography, just as you can be interesting in electronics, or cars or some other nerdy thing).

How good technical quality a V system can produce compared to other alternatives is a most relevant question, as V systems can be had for cheap, and the CFV-50c back which is substantially cheaper than any other new back on the market.

 

[mjr]

Honestly Torger, you do write some utter nonsense at times, the idea that buying a IQ180 without being interested in gear can only be down to status is absurd, the fact that you guess it's ok is equally ridiculous. It's entirely possible for people to want the best available so they don't have to think about it, they can just get on with the job of creating what they want. Maybe you'll edit and add a smiley face again.

I have no doubt that the V system will have renewed interest with the CFV-50c, I presume they know enough about the market to warrant building it. Having used a 503 for many years, I feel the endless technical stuff and graphs say nothing about the pleasure of using the system or what can be achieved with it.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

One fact remains after teaching 23 workshops, some folks buy the absolute best money can buy because its not about the money but about a no excuse tool mentality. If they don't get the shot its their fault not the gear. I totally understand that thinking for those folks. I buy gear to solve a set of issues, its a different purchase mentality. Both reasoning in purchase thought is very valid. People buy for many reasons, brand, feel, style and the list goes on and on.

 

[torger]

Honestly Torger, you do write some utter nonsense at times, the idea that buying a IQ180 without being interested in gear can only be down to status is absurd

I don't think we really disagree, I guess you only read the first sentence in my message. I went on with "But I guess in this case they actually did care about image quality, but not really finding out exactly how good these systems are compared to others, but just went to a dealer and said "give me the best", and then they are satisfied with what they were assigned knowing/beleiving that they use the best. That's fine."

That is they're not really interested in finding the best price/performance system out there but instead just want the best and can pay for it.

The reality for many is however that you can't afford the best, and what do you do then? Well you check the technical performance of the best, and then compare it to cheaper systems, and then decide if this is good enough. If you have a shooting style that benefit from high technical quality (large prints of detailed subjects, or you just happen to like pixelpeeping) and you feel that you have 90% of the performance of the best, maybe you can be at peace with your system's choice. That's were comparisons come in.

I find it a mildly offensive that we should not be able to discuss technical performance of a system without someone chiming in implying that this is irrelevant, and this in a forum which is about gear. It might be irrelevant to the photographer who's shooting style or interest does not lie in high technical quality, and it may be irrelevant to the user that can simply buy the best. But for anyone that has an interest in high technical image quality but cannot buy the best or don't want to blindly invest in what some dealer say is the best, technical analysis is of great interest.

Back in the 4x5" large format days there was continously comparison with digital to see when digital was good enough to match film. That happened around P45+ for most people, and many then switched to a digital workflow. This was based on technical evaluations, with subjective outcomes. I see no difference now when many people have watched the 135 progress and see when they're good enough to replace more costly MFD systems, but by some reason this is seen as more controversial by some.

Personally I have a mix between buying the best I can afford and also how well the operation of the camera fits my shooting style. Digital back choice is a budget decision, 33 megapixel is adequate but I'd like to have a bit more (mainly to reduce aliasing artifacts, moreso than gaining resolving power). Lens choice and camera choice is what I would have even if I had a huge budget, being a Linhof Techno (view camera) and Schneider Digitar range. Even if the Rodenstocks wides does perform a little better concerning sharpness, I prefer the design beauty of the Digitar wides (symmetric distortion free) and their lower weight, and as I have made thorough technical analysis of their performance can feel relaxed with that I'm not far behind "the best" by using these lenses. View camera fits by shooting style better than a pancake cam, as I work with many focal lengths and lots of closer range tilt/swing shots.

Also, I actually don't mind if someone would have as their main photographic interest to shoot brick walls and analyze those in detail rather than trying to make art. I get more enjoyment out of reading a great technical analysis than watching mediocre art. Those that think of themselves as artists sometimes have a tendency to talk about the technical aspects in patronizing terms, and I'm allergic to that.

I do have an artistic ambition myself, but unfortunately I'm a better critic than artist. That's why I don't have any web page to present my work, I won't put anything out to the general public until I consider it having good artistic quality and I have a message to convey. To me the artistic ambition lies heavier on my shoulders than any worry about technical quality, photography can be a battle in the mind sometimes. If I in say five more years still don't think I reach a sufficient level I'll probably drop any artistic ambition and just shoot casually, shooting becomes like playing amateur golf, a relaxing recreational activity. There's freedom in that too.