Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 121

Thread: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

  1. #51
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Bad design?

    The Sonnars and the Planar 100/3.5 do not have this issue. When shooting landscape, I would say that flat field is a good thing…

    What about the Schneiders and Rodenstocks? Do they also have field curvature? Sorry for asking, but I do not have those lenses so it is hard to find out…

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    No problem, just make sure to account for field curvature with your MF lenses as by design they have more than M4/3 or DSLR glass does


    Cheers,

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    I have to reply even though I never used a traditional V body with digital -- but that caveat stated, I did use V and F lenses adapted to other systems for MF DB as well as DSLR capture

    First comment -- P45+ was my first serious DB and I still have many images from it hanging on my studio walls. At it's current price-point, I have considered getting another one to use on a 203...

    Lenses in general -- especially with MF, I think absolute sharpness is over-rated; and perhaps even more so, corner sharpness gets over-rated. There is so much more to making a "great image" than optical perfection, especially in the corners. In fact, I believe that some optical imperfections can be magnificent when used to advantage. Several legacy Hassy V and F lenses have pleasing aberrations (as does most Mandler era Leica glass).

    My only point here is to forget about optical perfection -- most any MF lens is more than good enough optically to make great images -- and focus on making images that exploit your particular lens anomalies.

    My .02...
    Jack -

    Much wisdom in this post. Thank you for this. The purpose of raising the issue of calibration is that it seemed rarely mentioned with regards to the beloved V cameras, and yet it may well be an issue for some folks out there, thinking they can put on a back, a lens and shoot away easily. The higher res the back, the more the precision required...

    Your post brings up the concept of "good enough", which is oft overlooked in our zeal for pixel peeping, but is one to keep in mind. The shot below was taken with a 33mp back and a 47XL lens, not the top of the heap by any means - yet it will produce a razor sharp 16 x 20 image (equal to 4x5), and larger. Good enough is a good idea.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	LC_Dayton_6_2014_017369 sml.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	796.9 KB 
ID:	119730
    Geoff

    www.gigi-photos.com
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1028

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Bad design?

    The Sonnars and the Planar 100/3.5 do not have this issue. When shooting landscape, I would say that flat field is a good thing…

    What about the Schneiders and Rodenstocks? Do they also have field curvature? Sorry for asking, but I do not have those lenses so it is hard to find out…

    Best regards
    Erik
    Actually in my landscape work, I find curvature a benefit as foreground corners usually sharpen up from the curvature.

    Note that there is no free lunch in lens design -- as you eliminate linear distortion in a lens, you increase curvature; as you correct out curvature, you gain distortions (usually barrel) along with astigmatism and spherical aberrations... Planars* got their name from their symmetric design that specifically limited curvature -- which at the same time limited chromatic aberrations. And why they've been popular since their development in the late 1800's. But they are also known for adding spherical aberrations -- traditionally considered a negative trait, however Mandler put them to glorious purpose in his designs, at least IMHO *Basic design is a double-gauss with a 3rd element in each gauss pair.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  4. #54
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1028

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Jack -

    Much wisdom in this post. Thank you for this. The purpose of raising the issue of calibration is that it seemed rarely mentioned with regards to the beloved V cameras, and yet it may well be an issue for some folks out there, thinking they can put on a back, a lens and shoot away easily. The higher res the back, the more the precision required...

    Your post brings up the concept of "good enough", which is oft overlooked in our zeal for pixel peeping, but is one to keep in mind. The shot below was taken with a 33mp back and a 47XL lens, not the top of the heap by any means - yet it will produce a razor sharp 16 x 20 image (equal to 4x5), and larger. Good enough is a good idea.
    No argument, and I am an adherent of precise calibration -- really the only way you can get the maximum from ANY high resolution sensor.

    To wit: My first "digital back" was a BetterLight scan back. It was ahead of its time and had a true "live digital focus" capability -- measured per color channel inter-pixel contrast. Anyway, I remember using it on a landscape shot in Yosemite where I had my 210 lens mounted. (The BetterLight had a 75mmx100mm sensor scan area so the 210 was a slight telephoto, like about a 120 in MF parlance.) I used an 8x loupe on the GG to get very close initial focus, then took a scan. I then turned the live focus on and saw I needed to make a small correction -- very small in LF terms -- by tweaking my focus knob approx 0.5mm to get the channels to peak. In the final image comparisons at 100% view, that 0.5mm extension "moved" the exact PoF from the roughly 300 meters distant horizon to the 30 meter distant tree I was actually wanting to focus on. We never had accuracy better than a good loupe with film, and moreover sheet film was never within 0.5mm of flat corner to corner anyway -- it's amazing we ever made any worthwhile images before digital !
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Actually in my landscape work, I find curvature a benefit as foreground corners usually sharpen up from the curvature.
    Jack,

    You make a great point here. Ultimately it's about understanding the properties of your tools and applying this knowledge to make the images you want, in this particular case turning a bug into a feature. I mentioned in an earlier post that I sold off my 50mm FLE because of excessive field curvature, but in fact two of my favorite recent images were made with it, taking advantage of the field curvature to bring the foreground into focus.

    - John

  6. #56
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1028

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    John,

    Exactly -- while "curvature" doesn't pencil out well on technical lens specs or when used to photograph flat test charts, brick walls or for copy work, it is in fact a non-issue for most real-world general photography uses. (How often do you need perfect corners in a typical image?) And then as described, it can be a feature for many applications.

    Take Geoff's image above -- who gives a crap if the clouds in the upper corners aren't crisp? Yet the 47SA has a minor curvature which may have helped the extreme lower corners. Regardless, the image is stellar and appears laser sharp corner to corner, all from a lens that does not have a stellar "digital" reputation.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  7. #57
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Putting things a little bit in perspective

    Hi,

    When I got my Canon 16-35/L for the Sony A7rII I did a few comparisons with the Hassy P45+ combo. The Canon 16-35/4L is a remarkably good lens.

    This link shows a comparison between the Canon 16-35/4 at 24 mm on the Sony and the Distagon 40/4CF on the P45+: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...+_vs_a7rII/WA/

    Here are some of the images, the whole image (P45+):


    Now, lets look at the centre, the P45+, image looks pretty sharp although it has aliasing:


    Now, moving a bit to the right, we see that the Distagon 40/4CF looses significant sharpness:


    While the the Canon 16-35/4 is still very sharp:


    Extreme corner is better on the Distagon 40/4CF:


    Than on the Canon zoom:


    If we check the foreground in the bottom area, the Canon lens (on the right) is clearly better than the Distagon (on the left)
    Distagon/P45 Canon 16-35/4 A7rII

    I also made such a comparison with the Distagon 60/3.5 CF, and that lens could also not keep up with the Canon zoom.

    Now, this is all pixel peeping. I am absolutely sure that I could make an absolutely good A2 size print from that Distagon / P45+ image. Would it hold for 30"x40"? I guess so. It may need a bit more sharpening outside the central area. It could be the case that my Distagon is a bad sample, but Hasselblad published MTF curves for the lens and they were not so great. Not showing any MTF curves here, but here are data for most lenses: Hasselblad Historical - Zeiss Lens Data Sheets

    Best regards
    Erik

  8. #58
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,293
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    741

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    We never had accuracy better than a good loupe with film, and moreover sheet film was never within 0.5mm of flat corner to corner anyway -- it's amazing we ever made any worthwhile images before digital !
    Reading through some of the posts on this thread, I have had those same thoughts.

    I was just looking at some of my prints from 4x5 and medium format negatives shot 30-40 years ago and then realized it was sheer luck they turned out as well as they did.

    Gary

  9. #59
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi,

    But, I guess that you shot large format stopped down. Let's assume f/16. The defocus of 0.5 mm would cause a CoC of 0.031 mm, about what would be regarded sharp on 135 film, according to the DoF tables, on the P45+ the same CoC would cover about 16 pixels.

    Another thing is that with film we had several steps, loosing some sharpness in all of those. With digital, we suddenly have sharpening in the mid of the processing pipeline. So I guess times are changing.

    But, I would agree that we put a bit of to much emphasis on image quality.

    This interview with Ctein may be interesting (membership required): https://luminous-landscape.com/video...rsation-ctein/

    Around the middle he says that 4/3 or APS-C is about optimum size. He can compare his 16"x20" die transfers to his 17"x22" Epson prints from the 4/3. Is it MF quality? Absolutely?

    Do I agree? I don't know. I started with a 6MP Konica-Minolta and I am at around 40 MP now. I made many of my best images with 12 MP APS-C, good enough for A2 size (16"x23"), but I would rather make a 30"x40" print from 40MP than from 24MP.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    No argument, and I am an adherent of precise calibration -- really the only way you can get the maximum from ANY high resolution sensor.

    To wit: My first "digital back" was a BetterLight scan back. It was ahead of its time and had a true "live digital focus" capability -- measured per color channel inter-pixel contrast. Anyway, I remember using it on a landscape shot in Yosemite where I had my 210 lens mounted. (The BetterLight had a 75mmx100mm sensor scan area so the 210 was a slight telephoto, like about a 120 in MF parlance.) I used an 8x loupe on the GG to get very close initial focus, then took a scan. I then turned the live focus on and saw I needed to make a small correction -- very small in LF terms -- by tweaking my focus knob approx 0.5mm to get the channels to peak. In the final image comparisons at 100% view, that 0.5mm extension "moved" the exact PoF from the roughly 300 meters distant horizon to the 30 meter distant tree I was actually wanting to focus on. We never had accuracy better than a good loupe with film, and moreover sheet film was never within 0.5mm of flat corner to corner anyway -- it's amazing we ever made any worthwhile images before digital !
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 12th July 2016 at 23:37.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    I've shot large and medium format film for most of my professional life with many cameras. I have shot the same camera and lenses on my Linhof Techno with both MF film and digital. I learnt very quickly that digital capture stresses the lenses far more than film ever does. With my lenses on MF film, I could go right out to the edge of the IC and see almost no image degradation. Film grain hid a multitude of sins, and looks attractive, even on big prints. With digital I can clearly see when I've missed focus a fraction and when the lenses are stressed, even in moderately sized prints and when shooting at f11. Like it or not – and I don't like it as I was dragged into the digital realm kicking and screaming – things have got more complicated in my transition to digital. I'm not obsessed with achieving perfect everything by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time I paid a massive chunk of change for my digital gear and I want to get the best out of it or at least equal what I got from what I was using before.

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Reading through some of the posts on this thread, I have had those same thoughts.

    I was just looking at some of my prints from 4x5 and medium format negatives shot 30-40 years ago and then realized it was sheer luck they turned out as well as they did.

    Gary

  11. #61
    Member Seascape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    As the owner of a Hassy V/P45 kit, a Leica M240 and Monochrom, I can only say that the results I get (using Capture One), exceed anything I can hang on my wall.
    At this point a 24" wide print is my largest, and I'm fast running out of wall space.

    Neither the the P45 or Leica rigs are taxed by a 24" wide print, and my printer of choice agrees totally.

    I would say lens quality and technique do factor in as well as focus accuracy. I only have 3 V lenses and all perform extremely well (50 FLE, 120 Macro, 180 CFI).
    I have found even with a 5 series carbon fibre tripod, and a very heavy AS head, that mirror lock up is an absolute necessity to get the best results from the V optics.
    Additionally I use the highest magnification viewfinder with an adjustable diopter.

    While the P45 will never duplicate the Leica spontaneity in shooting, I am very satisfied with the Hassy V/P45 kit and do not see the need for a higher MP sensor for medium format shooting
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #62
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi,

    My hunch of a feeling is that I get about the same image quality from my 24 MP Sony that I got from 6x7 Velvia scanned on my Dimage Scan Multi Pro. In one case I happened to compare two 70cm x 100cm prints shot from the same place with ten years in between and the Velvia and the 24 MP Sony image was very similar.

    With around 40 MP I expect a little bit more.

    When I got my first 24 MP 135 camera I did compare A2 size prints (16"x23") between my 24 MP full frame and 12 MP APS-C. What I saw that the 24 MP prints were better, but not a lot of difference. In a case I couldn't tell them apart. In the files there was a lot of advantage to the larger format.

    Moving up to 39MP I could not observe any difference in prints at A2 size, unless I used a loupe. Eye sight may matter… So, I absolutely think that a good 24MP camera is good enough for excellent A2-size prints.

    The issues I can see with the Distagons and the Planars 80 and 120 may not be visible in A2-size prints. Printing larger, some issues may be visible, but I don't think they would matter.

    Accurate focusing is easiest using magnified live view. It seems, from what Hasselblad H owners say that the H-system has very accurate AF.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    I've shot large and medium format film for most of my professional life with many cameras. I have shot the same camera and lenses on my Linhof Techno with both MF film and digital. I learnt very quickly that digital capture stresses the lenses far more than film ever does. With my lenses on MF film, I could go right out to the edge of the IC and see almost no image degradation. Film grain hid a multitude of sins, and looks attractive, even on big prints. With digital I can clearly see when I've missed focus a fraction and when the lenses are stressed, even in moderately sized prints and when shooting at f11. Like it or not – and I don't like it as I was dragged into the digital realm kicking and screaming – things have got more complicated in my transition to digital. I'm not obsessed with achieving perfect everything by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time I paid a massive chunk of change for my digital gear and I want to get the best out of it or at least equal what I got from what I was using before.

  13. #63
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,287
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi Erik

    the Zeiss Distagon 4/40 IF is delivering a much better sharpness than the older floating version.(we use it for our Zeiss Superrotator, Sinar has used it for the M as digital lens)
    But using it only in the center and putting it on a Sony A7RII will further improve output.
    Zeiss has measured the 4/40IF with [email protected]% contrast and it IS crazy sharp.
    But - for a wider image the Canon f4/16-35mm is perfect. It also has a very usable angle of beams when shooting into direct light, being very
    resistant to flare compared e.g. with the TSE24mm /there is some light pingpong happening back from the sensor to adapter and back to the sensor.

    About the DR of Digital compared to Velvia 6/7: that is a tricky question. I´d say a good Highend drumscanner scan like from a Linotype/Hell could "maybe"surpass the digital file.
    But not with a normal flatbed or even with a Nikon Slidescanner. Just a feeling . It is already such a long time ago and I never really tried that.

    Greetings from Germany
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  14. #64
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    . . . . . .
    Zeiss has measured the 4/40IF with [email protected]% contrast and it IS crazy sharp.
    . . . . . .
    Yes it is CRAZY SHARP but it is also a monster in weight and size .
    The image is part of my camera portrait project . The ACRATECH head is beautiful but I use it for that project only .

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0023.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	373.8 KB 
ID:	119742
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    My hunch of a feeling is that I get about the same image quality from my 24 MP Sony that I got from 6x7 Velvia scanned on my Dimage Scan Multi Pro. In one case I happened to compare two 70cm x 100cm prints shot from the same place with ten years in between and the Velvia and the 24 MP Sony image was very similar.

    With around 40 MP I expect a little bit more.

    When I got my first 24 MP 135 camera I did compare A2 size prints (16"x23") between my 24 MP full frame and 12 MP APS-C. What I saw that the 24 MP prints were better, but not a lot of difference. In a case I couldn't tell them apart. In the files there was a lot of advantage to the larger format.

    Moving up to 39MP I could not observe any difference in prints at A2 size, unless I used a loupe. Eye sight may matter… So, I absolutely think that a good 24MP camera is good enough for excellent A2-size prints.

    The issues I can see with the Distagons and the Planars 80 and 120 may not be visible in A2-size prints. Printing larger, some issues may be visible, but I don't think they would matter.

    Accurate focusing is easiest using magnified live view. It seems, from what Hasselblad H owners say that the H-system has very accurate AF.

    Best regards
    Erik
    I think the kind of photography one prefers would mandate the camera equipment, IMHO. Thus, if you are able to take it slow and make a deliberate image with the camera on the tripod, with careful attention to focus even if it is manually done, then yes, an APS-C size sensor with 24MP would be enough for most printing needs.

    The problem is when you may need to crop the image taken on such a sensor and if there is not enough light and tripods are not possible. That's when having the luxury of high resolution and larger sensors comes into play. I often find myself cropping, sometimes throwing away as much as 50% of the image in order to get the composition right. Yes, the best strategy would be to get it right in camera, but it is often just not possible when the subject is moving about or you are rushed to take the photo because of rapidly changing light conditions or distractions that are moving into your fov. You need to leave a lot of room for possible action and to orient the subject in the frame in a pleasing manner. Having the Sony A7RII or my Pentax 645z makes a big difference in such instances.

    So yes, if the final image is the size of an APS-C sensor at 20+ MP, it is enough for a decent sized print. It is getting there that may require a larger sensor.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

  16. #66
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi Stefan,

    I am aware of the Distagon 40/4 IF being vastly superior to the FLE. I have indicated that before, in what happens to be posting #1 on this thread. But, it is not the Distagon I have, it is the CF/FLE version.

    What I see is that all the Distagons I had, 40/4 FLE, 50/4 FLE and 60/3.5 loose quite a lot of sharpness off axis. That doesn't mean they are bad just that they don't match the Distagon 40/4 IF.

    I feel it is good info, that should be shared.

    I have both the 16-35/4 and the 24/3.5 TSE LII, i very clearly feel the 16-35/4L is the better one at 24 mm.

    For me, the Sony A7rII is sort of a pretty smart option. It can take a lot of lenses. With the HCam Master TSII I can shoot a three way shift stitch, so it works like an 80 MP 36x48 camera. It can also shift and tilt and all that in a pocket size package. You can of course put a 4/3 or APS-C camera on the Master TS, too.

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    Hi Erik

    the Zeiss Distagon 4/40 IF is delivering a much better sharpness than the older floating version.(we use it for our Zeiss Superrotator, Sinar has used it for the M as digital lens)
    But using it only in the center and putting it on a Sony A7RII will further improve output.
    Zeiss has measured the 4/40IF with [email protected]% contrast and it IS crazy sharp.
    But - for a wider image the Canon f4/16-35mm is perfect. It also has a very usable angle of beams when shooting into direct light, being very
    resistant to flare compared e.g. with the TSE24mm /there is some light pingpong happening back from the sensor to adapter and back to the sensor.

    About the DR of Digital compared to Velvia 6/7: that is a tricky question. I´d say a good Highend drumscanner scan like from a Linotype/Hell could "maybe"surpass the digital file.
    But not with a normal flatbed or even with a Nikon Slidescanner. Just a feeling . It is already such a long time ago and I never really tried that.

    Greetings from Germany
    Stefan

  17. #67
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1028

    Re: Putting things a little bit in perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    When I got my Canon 16-35/L for the Sony A7rII I did a few comparisons with the Hassy P45+ combo. The Canon 16-35/4L is a remarkably good lens.
    >> Blahblahblah <<
    Now, this is all pixel peeping.
    Exactly, and that's the point you seem to be missing. At pixel comparisons, you will find m4/3 lens/cam combos that will beat mf/db combos. But when taken as a whole in an actual image you want to pay to have printed and hung, it's hard to beat the total impact the mfdb combo generates. I'll go out on a limb and say I've never made even one big print from my D810 and best glass that has the impact even my early P45+ prints do, let alone my 60 and 80 MP backs and mf do.
    I am absolutely sure that I could make an absolutely good A2 size print from that Distagon / P45+ image. Would it hold for 30"x40"? I guess so.
    yeah it would, and if you compared it head to head with your 16-35/sony, you'd see more tonal smoothness, more subtle color gradations and probably an overall more pleasing print in general than the sony/canon combo. But you can't judge it well by comparing corners at actual pixel view.

    Have fun,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    My take-away from Erik's posts here and elsewhere is that he isn't feeling the medium format magic, and as an engineer he is sharing his quantitative investigations to account for his experience. As a scientist myself I have no quarrel with this. And yet...

    Sensor technology has certainly come a long way to narrow the gap between formats. One can certainly create stunning images with just about any format in use today. But as Jack points out, the end result often involves more than just megapixels and resolution. The tonality of the images is in a different league when one steps up from 135 to medium format. This was/is true for film and it's still true for digital. IMHO the bottom line is the same: size matters. I'm not saying that MF will always give you a "better" image - it's far more complicated than that and different situations are often best served using different tools. But at the limit (e.g., when printing big), there's more goodness to be found in those big MF files, if one is inclined to go after it. Some people talk about the medium format "look." I find that images I make using medium format can have that "je ne sais quoi" feel about them. This is all subjective, of course. YMMV.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #69
    Senior Member Jamgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    With proliferation of image making devices (phones) and their increasing capabilities, many photographers & photography enthusiasts are conflicted/frustrated. Photographic prints are no longer made and images are mostly shared/viewed/consumed via electronic devices. For such electronic consumption it essentially matters very little which image making device (DSLR/MF or even a Phone) is used. Consumption of mementos simply will no longer be via print, as electronic media offer a far more convenient viewing/sharing experience.

    The difference between photographic print and a photographic image/memento is the key.
    Photographic Print is the real justification for medium/large format.

    IMHO - those who are clear on this point can avoid the anxiety & frustration.
    Last edited by Jamgolf; 15th July 2016 at 11:33.
    IQ3 100 H • Cambo 1600 • Rodenstock 23,32,90 • Zeiss 350SA
    UnTroubled Land
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamgolf View Post

    The difference between photographic print and a photographic image/memento is the key.
    Photographic Print is the real justification for medium/large format.

    IMHO - those who are clear on this point can avoid the anxiety & frustration.
    Agree on this point. Nevertheless, monitors getting better every year. With 5K monitors (15MP) a la Apple we are already approaching resolution limits of digital cameras (doubling that we would have 60MP). Question is wether the MF magic will be visible on that kind of monitors as it is with print; I assume yes.

  21. #71
    Member Seascape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Putting things a little bit in perspective

    [QUOTE=Jack;698864]Exactly, and that's the point you seem to be missing. At pixel comparisons, you will find m4/3 lens/cam combos that will beat mf/db combos. But when taken as a whole in an actual image you want to pay to have printed and hung, it's hard to beat the total impact the mfdb combo generates. I'll go out on a limb and say I've never made even one big print from my D810 and best glass that has the impact even my early P45+ prints do, let alone my 60 and 80 MP backs and mf do.

    yeah it would, and if you compared it head to head with your 16-35/sony, you'd see more tonal smoothness, more subtle color gradations and probably an overall more pleasing print in general than the sony/canon combo. But you can't judge it well by comparing corners at actual pixel view.



    I have been meaning to include comments on the ultimate "where the rubber hits the road" result……..The Print.

    I my experience the final creative exercise starts when the printing begins.
    I use an extremely talented printer, who just blows me away with his end product, that is not a straight file to print transition.
    There is a tremendous amount of creativity in the process.
    While I respect his talent, I do not quiz him on how the results are achieved, it is his livelihood, and I am thrilled with the results up to whatever size print is made.

    I agree with Jack absolutely that a P45 is capable of stunning large prints, results that may not be obvious at the pixel level.
    Last edited by Seascape; 15th July 2016 at 12:18.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  22. #72
    Senior Member Jamgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by siddhaarta View Post
    Agree on this point. Nevertheless, monitors getting better every year. With 5K monitors (15MP) a la Apple we are already approaching resolution limits of digital cameras (doubling that we would have 60MP). Question is wether the MF magic will be visible on that kind of monitors as it is with print; I assume yes.
    Yes, bigger monitors will be another medium for displaying an image and possibly the MF difference might still be evident there.
    However - a print is the real thing. We've all activated a camera's shutter hundreds of thousands of times (or more) - but we can't even remember/find a fraction of those images.
    IMHO - a print is real, it hangs on a wall to be seen and appreciated. An image is seen and "liked" on social media and then mostly forgotten.
    IQ3 100 H • Cambo 1600 • Rodenstock 23,32,90 • Zeiss 350SA
    UnTroubled Land

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    I said something to this effect in another thread, but I'll restate and elaborate here...

    Right now I use a Linhof Techno and Credo 60. I don't have any other form of camera save for my iPhone (which I love.) I bought my Techno when I was still shooting film only, scanning with an Imacon. I wanted to retain the workflow and tactile feel I was used to with a Linhof Technika 4x5" camera, but "invest" in a system that was up to digital when I could afford to go that way.

    Reading many threads here and elsewhere in the past, one would think that it is impossible to focus a Techno on GG and that compared to an Alpa it's a piece of crap. In reality, it's very easy to focus accurarely on the GG and offers many creative options in terms of movments that don't come easy with other systems, or at least come at insane prices. It's a given that by design it's not as tight in tolerances than some of the competition (namely parallelism of the front standard,) but in use, where working aperture is between f8 and f16, it's more than adequate. Suffice to say I have never noticed any image degradation that can be blamed on anything but user error.

    How does this relate to the V series? Lets assume that one has a V body and lenses that are "in spec", is using the Acute Matte screen and a tripod, and is employing a deliberate workflow. I can't see how one wouldn't arrive at great results with knowledge and practice. If you want to use it handheld and in fading light; or you want to shoot hand held wide open portraits, etc., then you've got the wrong tool for the job. It's all about expectations, isn't it? With the correct selection of lenses and working methods, in the right set of use cases – just like my Techno is not intended to be used for everything – I can't see how a V camera wouldn't produce great results.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  24. #74
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Putting things a little bit in perspective

    Hi Jack,

    I have used the P45+ in parallel with my Sonys for three years. Just to say, I am not stupid, I don't do pixel based comparison between sensors of different MPs (*). I have not done m 4/3 comparisons with MFD. What I have done was to compare systems I actually use. Not so many comparisons, perhaps half a dozen, and mostly I have done them on prints, too. But prints are hard to share over the internet.

    Most of that time I was shooting Alpha 99 (24MP) mostly with the P45+ coming close second and an Alpha 77 (APS-C) being far third.

    Normally I print A2 (16" x 23"), for practical reasons. I have also made some larger prints, typically 70cm x 100cm. But, most of my printing comes from the Sonys as I have limited wall space. That may change, though, as I may be invited to decorate a large wall space. It may be that quite a few P45+ images may be hung there.

    Anyway, at A2 size I have not seen an advantage for the P45+ vs the 24MP Sony Alpha 99, with the naked eye. With a 5X loupe I could see the P45+ image was superior.

    I have taken the "pixel peeping image" and made a 50% crop that I printed in A2 size, that corresponds to roughly 80cm x 120cm, 31"x47" or so.

    Processing was essentially identical, both images developed in Lightroom CC 2015.6 using DCP camera profiles generated by DCamProf. (I copied all image processing settings from the P45+ image to the A7rII image, except WB and Camera Profile. After that I made the Sony A7rII image slightly warmer and decreased exposure 0.05EV.)

    Viewed at say 1.2m distance, I would say the prints were near identical. There may be small differences in colour rendition, even if I would say colours were almost identical.

    Viewed closer say 0.4-0.6m the central part was quite similar, very sharp in both cases. Off center the Sony was clearly superior, essentially offering a sharp image.

    So, I would say that I would be happy to hang either on the wall, but for close inspection the Sony image is clearly superior.

    Judging after a single copy of the lens may not be just, but I have trough three Distagons, the 40/4 CF FLE, the 50/4 CF FLE and the 60/3.5CF and all had a similar weakness. This can also be seen in Hasselblad's and Zeiss own MTF curves. The weakness of the 40/4 CF FLE was the probable cause that Zeiss developed the Distagon 40/4 CFE IF, I would guess.

    Now, the images were processed in Lightroom, which I am aware is regarded to be the ultimate sin by Phase One users. But, Lightroom has been my workflow tool since it's inception. I did not find that Capture one worked well for me for the versions I have tested.

    Just to say, not everyone loves P45+ colour rendition. Tim Parkin and his friend Joe Cornish had serious issues with P45+ colour rendition, from a mail by Tim Parkin:

    "I spoke with Joe about the P45 endlessly and he had a whole workflow to try to 'fix' the colour which all went out of the window when the IQ180 came in. He now does almost nothing to the files to get what he wants. It's definitely mostly grassy stuff but quite often skies and reflected colour that are problematic. Also shadows in geology can be an issue (I presume infra red effects as well).

    They're not a problem for some subjects and an absolute nightmare for others. I can still 'see' Joe's P45+ files as long as they have some greenery in them (or sometimes from the sky). "


    Joe Cornish is featured in some of the Phase One videos, like this one: https://youtu.be/2KFCCw4YA-0

    So, my experience differs from yours. What I could see in my pixel peeping is very obvious in decent size prints if viewed close. That is close, not extremely close. Close viewing, the Sony wins on knock out.

    It is a good time to get feet wet in MFD as used backs have dropped to affordable price levels. Most Hasselblad lenses are quite affordable with the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE being on the expensive side. The Distagon 40/4 CFE IF is rare and priced in the "Otus range". Discussing strengths and weaknesses of different lenses is a good thing in my view, as all Hasselblad lenses are not created equal.

    No doubt, the new H-series lenses are better with possible some exceptions.

    Best regards
    Erik

    (*) The correct way to that in my view is to scale the image to a reasonable PPI for a give print size. What I have found that 180 PPI is a pretty good reference when viewed on screen at actual pixels.






    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Exactly, and that's the point you seem to be missing. At pixel comparisons, you will find m4/3 lens/cam combos that will beat mf/db combos. But when taken as a whole in an actual image you want to pay to have printed and hung, it's hard to beat the total impact the mfdb combo generates. I'll go out on a limb and say I've never made even one big print from my D810 and best glass that has the impact even my early P45+ prints do, let alone my 60 and 80 MP backs and mf do.

    yeah it would, and if you compared it head to head with your 16-35/sony, you'd see more tonal smoothness, more subtle color gradations and probably an overall more pleasing print in general than the sony/canon combo. But you can't judge it well by comparing corners at actual pixel view.

    Have fun,

  25. #75
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Putting things a little bit in perspective

    Hi,

    Yes, printing hides a lot of weaknesses of an image. An image that is almost there on screen, at actual pixels, can make a perfect print. But, the actual pixels is the real image. The printing process rescales the image, sharpens it, rasterises it and dithers it. That said, the printing process does a very good job at transferring image detail.

    Best regards
    Erik

    [QUOTE=Seascape;698921][I]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    I agree with Jack absolutely that a P45 is capable of stunning large prints, results that may not be obvious at the pixel level.

  26. #76
    Member Seascape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Now, the images were processed in Lightroom, which I am aware is regarded to be the ultimate sin by Phase One users. But, Lightroom has been my workflow tool since it's inception. I did not find that Capture one worked well for me for the versions I have tested.


    I only used Capture One, I find it superior to any other processor of RAW files……by a large margin!

    I am talking Ver. 8 or the current Ver. 9, and I certainly would never use anything other than C1 for a Phase One back…..YMMV.

    When ver. 8 was released it was considered 30%+ better than previous versions of C1, a total redesign of the way it processes files.
    I would highly recommend it or Ver. 9 to anyone, not just for Phase gear. It is my go to for Leica M files as well.....love the results!!
    Last edited by Seascape; 15th July 2016 at 16:29.

  27. #77
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Comparing "large" prints...

    Hi,

    A bit agitated by Jack's comment I made a pair of large prints from both my sample images. How large? around 80cm x 120cm, that is 31"x47". At that size the images were very close in most respects but at bit away from the centre the Sony won hands down. The prints looked very close to what I have seen on the screen.

    Viewed at longer distance, like 1m (or so) the image looked very similar, I could not tell them apart.

    Just to say, I did not print the full image, I took 50% crops and printed at A2 size, using as much of the surface as possible. I kept processing between the two systems almost identical. (Copied image settings from P45+ image to Sony image, except WB, used DCampProf generated profile, warmed up the Sony image a notch and reduced contrast on the Sony image a notch, also adjusted exposure -0.05 EV on the Sony).

    They used to say that around 180 PPI is needed for excellent prints. That corresponds "exactly" to 20/20 vision at 50 cm. So if you look at a 180 PPI print at 50 cm you can essentially see all pixels.

    Both sensors have around 5400 vertical pixels. If you multiple 31" with 180 PPI you arrive at 5580 pixels. So, if you look at an 31"x47" print from either a P45+ or a Sony A7rII you see the same as actual pixels on screen. If you print smaller, the prints will show less detail than what the camera delivers. That also applies if you view farther than 50 cm away.

    The Distagon 40/4 is the weakest of my lenses. The Sonnar 180/4 and the Planar 100/3.5 are really shining. The reason I used the Distagon 40/4 in this comparison was simply because it worked for the subject. The lens I compared with was the Canon 16-35/4L on the Sony, a remarkable good and affordable lens, offering a quite generous shift over much of the focal range when used on my HCam Master TSII.

    One of the reasons I make this kind of comparisons is to find out the strengths and benefits of both systems.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 15th July 2016 at 15:55.

  28. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    I just want to add to my post above that I've found this thread informative and thank all those who have contributed thoughts, information and ideas. I've been reluctant to dip my toes in the V system water (despite thinking it the most elegant system for film use,) and the info here has made me think I'll try it out so I can use my Credo on a different platform when the Techno is overkill.

  29. #79
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    I just want to add to my post above that I've found this thread informative and thank all those who have contributed thoughts, information and ideas. I've been reluctant to dip my toes in the V system water (despite thinking it the most elegant system for film use,) and the info here has made me think I'll try it out so I can use my Credo on a different platform when the Techno is overkill.
    Choose your lenses well and I think you'll find that the Credo will sing on a V system. Good luck!

    - John

  30. #80
    Senior Member JohnBrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    434
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by siddhaarta View Post
    Agree on this point. Nevertheless, monitors getting better every year. With 5K monitors (15MP) a la Apple we are already approaching resolution limits of digital cameras (doubling that we would have 60MP). Question is wether the MF magic will be visible on that kind of monitors as it is with print; I assume yes.
    Not sure it matters. All that will do is satisfy the pixel peepers. Yes, it might be about resolution but what about tonality? What about the print? This seems a bit off topic, maybe best addressed in a separate thread?

  31. #81
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Erik,

    My own workflow involves raw conversion and then final editing in Photoshop. I introduced myself to Capture One for raw conversions when I first started using my IQ160 a few years ago. Let's just say that we did not make a good first impression on each other! Compared with ACR, I was having a terrible time managing the colors, which was particularly frustrating since I knew that others were using C1 with great success. I kept at it and I'm glad I did. I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means but once I got off the steep part of the learning curve I could really see the potential that lay in the images that ACR just couldn't touch. The images are just more alive, for lack of a better description. So, for me this is part of the "magic."

    Of course, Capture One won't help with the somewhat poor corner resolution of the older Distagons. Of note, however, Capture One includes lens profiles for the 40/4 IF, 60/3.5 80/2.8 and 120/4 Makro, so you may consider giving it another go. Capture One is up to version 9.x right now, and it works quite well once you become accustomed to it (I started with v8).

    The project you have to place large prints at your workplace sounds exciting. This, of course, is what the larger formats really excel at.

    Cheers,

    John
    Last edited by jng; 15th July 2016 at 19:32.

  32. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    A two lens setup will suffice for me, I think.
    A 501cm body, 60mm and 40mm IF.

    For those that know, does the acute matte d screen come with split prism? What are the different options for bright and sharp focusing screens? I ask because with older screens with split prism the surrounding GG area is often a lot darker.

    Quote Originally Posted by jng View Post
    Choose your lenses well and I think you'll find that the Credo will sing on a V system. Good luck!

    - John

  33. #83
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    A two lens setup will suffice for me, I think.
    A 501cm body, 60mm and 40mm IF.

    For those that know, does the acute matte d screen come with split prism? What are the different options for bright and sharp focusing screens? I ask because with older screens with split prism the surrounding GG area is often a lot darker.
    The D screens do come with split prisms and in various configurations (with and without grid, with and without microprism collar, etc.), so your best bet is to search around on the web to familiarize yourself with the different iterations. Some people contend that the older style, non-Acute Matte ground glass screens gave the most precise focus, but using them can be challenging in low light. I have an Acute Matte ground glass screen in my 501CM and I find that it works quite well. I've read that the D screens have "snappier" focus than the non-D Acute Matte screens but haven't compared this carefully myself.

    Screens are easy to swap out so it's anyone's guess what screen you'll find in whatever used body you come across. The split prism screens aren't rare, in any case. Note that on the older 500C bodies, the screens are not user interchangeable (and the older style screens are dark compared to Acute Matte) so if you want interchangeable screens you'll need to stick to the newer versions (500CM and later).

    Hope this helps.

    John
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi,

    I am quite sure that monitors are more critical regarding tonality than prints. Why? Because prints have very limited density range. Glossy paper on Epson may have about 2.15 (DMax - DMin) that is around 1:140 and monitors are well above 1:400. If you check "soft proofing" in Lightroom or Photoshop there is a checkbox to "Simulate paper & inc". Checking that box emulates the print, note how much dull it gets.

    Jeff Schewe calls that button "the make my picture look like crap button". What Jeff says is that you need to look away while pressing that button. Jeff has a couple of nice videos on softproofing. He suggest to process the image for screen, take a duplicate and turn soft proof on for the duplicate, emulating the print media and printer. Than you adjust the duplicate to match the "for screen" image.

    Another advantage with 4K screens is they have a larger gamut volume than printers. 4K calls for a new colour space called 'Rec 2020' that has pretty large volume, it fully encompasses the gamut of an Epson 3880, for example.

    What screens don't match is resolution of the print. To make the samples I posted justice would need an 8K monitor with 57" screen (and they would still be cropped…).

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrew View Post
    Not sure it matters. All that will do is satisfy the pixel peepers. Yes, it might be about resolution but what about tonality? What about the print? This seems a bit off topic, maybe best addressed in a separate thread?
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 15th July 2016 at 23:16.

  35. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    I just want to add to my post above that I've found this thread informative and thank all those who have contributed thoughts, information and ideas. I've been reluctant to dip my toes in the V system water (despite thinking it the most elegant system for film use,) and the info here has made me think I'll try it out so I can use my Credo on a different platform when the Techno is overkill.
    This makes a lot of sense - you have a pretty good handle on what it can/cannot do, and its an inexpensive way (relatively speaking) to expand the usage of your back. Good luck and let us know how it comes out. A well-calibrated V system, on a tripod, with MLU - it would be nice to know how it compares.
    Geoff

    www.gigi-photos.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #86
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi,

    My camera came with accute matte screen and split image. I find the split image very accurate on smooth edges like a street lamp or flag pole, but far less accurate on say the trunk of a tree. The reason for this is (in my view) is that with a smooth sharp edge we can make use of vernier acuity, the human vision being very sensitive to broken lines. The bark of the tree breaks up the edge enough to disturb vernier acuity.

    I am using the PM5 prism with a 3X monocular. That gives me 9X magnification in total. That gives me a decent success rate.

    I chose the 3X monucular inspired by this article: Joseph Holmes - News: Medium Format Methods for Sharpness

    One thing to keep in mind that even 9X viewing matches the resolution of the sensor. The image below is a shot of a distant USAF test target at actual pixels. I marked the patterns I could resolve in the viewfinder with 3X, 4X and 9X magnification. So you don't see the actual pixel details, but focus on maximal apparent detail contrast.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-05-26 at 20.51.11.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	18.5 KB 
ID:	119813

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by jng View Post
    The D screens do come with split prisms and in various configurations (with and without grid, with and without microprism collar, etc.), so your best bet is to search around on the web to familiarize yourself with the different iterations. Some people contend that the older style, non-Acute Matte ground glass screens gave the most precise focus, but using them can be challenging in low light. I have an Acute Matte ground glass screen in my 501CM and I find that it works quite well. I've read that the D screens have "snappier" focus than the non-D Acute Matte screens but haven't compared this carefully myself.

    Screens are easy to swap out so it's anyone's guess what screen you'll find in whatever used body you come across. The split prism screens aren't rare, in any case. Note that on the older 500C bodies, the screens are not user interchangeable (and the older style screens are dark compared to Acute Matte) so if you want interchangeable screens you'll need to stick to the newer versions (500CM and later).

    Hope this helps.

    John
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 15th July 2016 at 23:06.

  37. #87
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi John,

    Thanks for your input.

    Regarding lens profiles I don't think they help with help with resolution loss. They would mostly handle vignetting, distortion and lateral chroma.

    What I have done at times was to use the radial filter to apply extra sharpening to the outer area of the image. I have used that technique on both the Distagon 50/4 and the Planar 80/2.8 CFE with good success.

    Regarding C1 vs. LR, I have always used LR with my own colour profiles. Anders Torger's DCamProf allows making colour profiles for Capture 1, but that takes some tricks. With the A7rII I found that DCamProf generated profiles can improve the images significantly.

    There was an interesting thread on LuLa discussing LR vs. C1: Capture One on the A7RII giving me disappointing results

    The discussion above is quite interesting. A short summary would say that the original poster tried to use C1 on his A7rII but couldn't really get the same results with C1. It sort of reflects my own experience. I have a way of working with LR and I am happy with the results. So why fight with C1 to get LR like results.

    The great benefit with C1 that I see is that it has a cleaner demosaic algorithm than Lightroom's which is about the worst I have seen. So if I would print a subject with significant aliasing large, than I would probably convert in some other program, but post process and print from Lightroom. Lightroom's printing is pretty good.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by jng View Post
    Erik,

    My own workflow involves raw conversion and then final editing in Photoshop. I introduced myself to Capture One for raw conversions when I first started using my IQ160 a few years ago. Let's just say that we did not make a good first impression on each other! Compared with ACR, I was having a terrible time managing the colors, which was particularly frustrating since I knew that others were using C1 with great success. I kept at it and I'm glad I did. I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means but once I got off the steep part of the learning curve I could really see the potential that lay in the images that ACR just couldn't touch. The images are just more alive, for lack of a better description. So, for me this is part of the "magic."

    Of course, Capture One won't help with the somewhat poor corner resolution of the older Distagons. Of note, however, Capture One includes lens profiles for the 40/4 IF, 60/3.5 80/2.8 and 120/4 Makro, so you may consider giving it another go. Capture One is up to version 9.x right now, and it works quite well once you become accustomed to it (I started with v8).

    The project you have to place large prints at your workplace sounds exciting. This, of course, is what the larger formats really excel at.

    Cheers,

    John
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 16th July 2016 at 04:05.

  38. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Question according to a Phase 645 with a p45+
    Is it possible to use the P45+ back ( which comes with a used Maymia 645) - on a 501cm with an adapter?
    [ no picture ]

  39. #89
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    I wish I knew…

    In theory it would be possible to change the mounting frame, but my understanding is that "mount replacement" actually mean they send you a different back.

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by gmfotografie View Post
    Question according to a Phase 645 with a p45+
    Is it possible to use the P45+ back ( which comes with a used Maymia 645) - on a 501cm with an adapter?

  40. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Phase will send you a different back. Cost is 2500 last time I checked for a back out of value add warranty. Even under warranty you get a different physical back for a mount swap.

    Paul C

  41. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    For those that know, does the acute matte d screen come with split prism? What are the different options for bright and sharp focusing screens? I ask because with older screens with split prism the surrounding GG area is often a lot darker.
    You should be aware there are two types of Acute Matte screens. The original was brighter than the standard screens but there were complaints it was harder to focus. They brought out the D variant, (both designed by Minolta) the one with two cut outs that look like a D, these were easier to focus (allegedly) but not just quite as bright. They also corrected, to some extent, the excessive vignetting of the first series which I assume is what you have read about. Both AM types give the same light reading on a PME metering prism so the "less bright" may relate to the moulding of the plastic I am told and the subjective appearance.

    It is not the case that a brighter screen is easier to focus. It is easier to see and compose the subject if in subdued light but manual focus without a split screen say or aid is dependant on contrast and a very bright screen, as in the first issue of Acute screens, coupled with photographers not being used to them, actually reduced contrast and made focusing harder, for some. This type of screen, because it does not diffuse the image as much as ground glass also has a higher degree of vignetting in the corners with longer lenses even in the D version. The plane of the image is also less well defined in the Acute Matte screen type and that can lead to error. You will find descriptions of focussing not on the screen but using what appears as a floating image, this is harder maybe impossible on the newer screens.
    There are also third party screens by Beattie or Maxwell which are unmarked with numbers as are all the Hasselblad screens which makes identification problematic. There was also a plain screen with cross and fresnel still made in the Acute-Matte era for photomicrography work, due to the vignetting I alluded to earlier, the 42200.
    A tip:
    Never rely on a S/H box to positively identify BTW. People bought a new screen and placed the old one in the box, that then gets sold years later perhaps as the "new" screen type as per box!! Many people have bought D screens that were not that way.

    For completeness there was, for a very short time, and therefore for completest collectors collectible forcing them to be valued more highly, an optofiber/ optifibre screen. A slice of a bundle of optical glass fibres. It does not have a reference cross. It was prone to dark spots, like dead pixels, where a fibre had failed. They are rare and I have never handled one.

    Note that at f4 or faster both fields of the split image will only be clear when the eye is spot on the optical axis, using a chimney finder can be useful for that.

    Acute-Matte D with microprism and slit image 42215
    Acute-Matte D with grid and split image 42217
    First generation AM screen 42170 with grid and split image

    There are many other AM screens with other markings and grids/spots but those are the split screen ones AFAIK.

    BTW, disclaimer, this is all presented as personal opinion and not fact.

    Just remembered for Edit: Hasselblad never made a 45 degree split prism, you can of course mount the screen horizontal or vertical, there are 45 degree examples but are third party variants. again AFAIK.
    Last edited by ChrisLivsey; 16th July 2016 at 07:26.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Great information, Chris. Hasselblad is still selling Acute Matte D split/microprism screens new - part number 3042264 with cross hairs plus markings for the 33x44 crop sensor, and 3042262 with similar markings for the older 36x48 sensors. The format markings of course don't correspond to the full format backs (need a mask for that) but can be used to help line things up when composing. I think that the grids on some of the older screens might come close to the 40x54 framing but this is just a guess as I haven't checked this myself. From the current prices on B&H these new screens are quite a bit less expensive than used 42215 and 42217 screens I've seen for sale on the web. Go figure.

    John
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  43. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by jng View Post
    Great information, Chris. Hasselblad is still selling Acute Matte D split/microprism screens new - part number 3042264 with cross hairs plus markings for the 33x44 crop sensor, and 3042262 with similar markings for the older 36x48 sensors. The format markings of course don't correspond to the full format backs (need a mask for that) but can be used to help line things up when composing. I think that the grids on some of the older screens might come close to the 40x54 framing but this is just a guess as I haven't checked this myself. From the current prices on B&H these new screens are quite a bit less expensive than used 42215 and 42217 screens I've seen for sale on the web. Go figure.

    John
    Maybe if they have remaining stock, the current list (July 2016 V1) only gives the 3042264 for the CFV 50c sensor, but yes that is very much cheaper than on a certain auction site for the "old" screens. Yet the H screens which are AM are reasonable S/H.

    http://www.procentre.co.uk/pricelist...uly2016_v1.pdf
    Last edited by ChrisLivsey; 16th July 2016 at 10:15.

  44. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLivsey View Post
    Maybe if they have remaining stock, the current list (July 2016 V1) only gives the 3042264 for the CFV 50c sensor, but yes that is very much cheaper than on a certain auction site for the "old" screens. Yet the H screens which are AM are reasonable S/H.

    http://www.procentre.co.uk/pricelist...uly2016_v1.pdf
    Both are listed on the B&H site (US). 42262 shows as in stock and 42264 is special order.

    I have found that shopping for V system parts can be a bit of a treasure hunt. It's amusing when I have time to spend (waste), frustrating if I really need (i.e., want) something that's hard to find. However there's a lot of old V system gear floating around and things have a way of appearing if one is patient enough to wait while keeping an eye out.

  45. #95
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by jng View Post
    Both are listed on the B&H site (US). 42262 shows as in stock and 42264 is special order.

    I have found that shopping for V system parts can be a bit of a treasure hunt. It's amusing when I have time to spend (waste), frustrating if I really need (i.e., want) something that's hard to find. However there's a lot of old V system gear floating around and things have a way of appearing if one is patient enough to wait while keeping an eye out.
    Indeed, for my "new" f4 50mm C lens (not T*) I found quite quickly an original hood and a 63mm series 8 yellow filter, boxed as well, sometimes it drops lucky. Sometimes it doesn't, when I bought my H I wanted/needed/was desperate for the CF adapter, none around S/H, so desperate I rang round for new, still none, one did pop up later S/H but then required repair (under guarantee, the wisdom of using a reliable dealer for S/H not that auction site) not always lucky.

  46. #96
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1028

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Erik:

    Without quoting your numerous comments and answering each, I will answer a few of them indirectly for thread posterity...

    1) P45+ file processing -- if you're using LR and not C1, you simply won't get the best results out of a Phase back -- ANY Phase back! I understand you may prefer the workflow in LR and that is fine, but if you're going to compare and comment on the file's technical merit, you really should become facile with C1 to extract the maximum from any Phase back.

    2) P45+ color -- profiles were greatly improved in C1-7, moreso in 8. However, if you're still using 6, try the "flash" profile for outdoor as well as studio -- it is superior to the others for overall color fidelity and accuracy.

    3) Taking a small area of an image to print and compare technical merits is not much diferent than comparing 100% crops, so I am not at all surprused you saw the same things in both. You really need to compare a good, "fine-art capable" image form each, printed full size -- that is where the subtle advantages show. (I will state here however that most non-photographer clients and most non-photographer art buyers won't notice the subtleties and hence won't care what system you used to take the image )

    4) It's clear you are an engineer and not an artist -- this is not a dig in any way, just an observation. As such however, it makes sense you will to make your own personal decisions based solely on technical merits you can easily compare/measure, and perhaps cannot even see artistic merits. My point here is simple -- if your Sony A-whatever and Canon lenses generate more pleasing images for YOU, then that's the best system for YOU to use

    Final comment re gear. In the end, WHAT you take images of can dictate which gear is best. The following images are examples. The first was one of the first images I took with the D800; the second is one of the first I took with the IQ180 -- BOTH prints have sold, though for obvious reasons the IQ180 image has sold far more. The point here is the D800 image could not have been made with the Phase/IQ system -- it was a handheld shot at 1/8th second snapped in a gap between literally hundreds of tourists walking up and down the tower hall; by contrast the IQ image was on a tripod, mirror locked, though I was tucked in-betwen roughly 50 other photographers who I left there still waiting for the "perfect light" to happen. The Nikon image prints well at A2, but the IQ image can easily go 40 inches and hold exceptional detail.

    Nikon:


    Phase:


    So, in my case, I can see benefit to multiple systems.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  47. #97
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post

    2) P45+ color -- profiles were greatly improved in C1-7, moreso in 8. However, if you're still using 6, try the "flash" profile for outdoor as well as studio -- it is superior to the others for overall color fidelity and accuracy.
    Jack,

    I agree that one can (only) get the most out of the P1 files using C1. At the risk of dragging this thread off topic (but in the spirit of getting the most out of a V system/MFDB set-up), can one generalize about the benefits of using the C1 "flash" profiles for the other backs as well? I'm shooting on an IQ160 and seem to get pretty pleasing results with it although I certainly don't work with a flash on this particular rig.

    Thanks.

    John

    P.S. Beautiful images, both!

  48. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    I struggle with C1 and getting the best out of it, particularly with colours, which seem to me to have the life sucked out of them when using the Leafy colour profiles. I've been using ProPhoto as the profile instead, then dealing down saturation globally or on selected colours, but assume many here would consider that crazy?

    And again, all in the spirit of getting the most out of s V mount back! 😎

    Quote Originally Posted by jng View Post
    Jack,

    I agree that one can (only) get the most out of the P1 files using C1. At the risk of dragging this thread off topic (but in the spirit of getting the most out of a V system/MFDB set-up), can one generalize about the benefits of using the C1 "flash" profiles for the other backs as well? I'm shooting on an IQ160 and seem to get pretty pleasing results with it although I certainly don't work with a flash on this particular rig.

    Thanks.

    John

    P.S. Beautiful images, both!

  49. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    For what's it worth, and financially not a lot as I don't sell prints, Flash Easy Grey is the best "base" profile, started with that on the V P20 and now on the H P45+ as well, no IQ (yet). Non attributable source, take that how you want.

  50. #100
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

    Hi Jack,

    This thread is sort of intended to give information on V-series Hasselblads and P45 class backs. I would say that all information is benefitial wether positive or negative.

    It is quite impressive that a 2007 (?) generation back still yields good results in 2016.

    Getting back to your comments, I take some issue with some of your statements.

    3) Looking at an A2 size crop from a 31" x 47", it is half the image or a quadrant of the whole image. It would be difficult to compare two 31" x 47" images hanging side by side as you would need walk back and forth between them. So the crops I use are a reasonable compromise. I wouldn't say it is a small area.

    4) I never said anything else that I am an engineer, but it is not the same as saying that I lack artistic vision. But critical and edvidence based evaluation comes with an engineering profession. Some folks think I have an artistic vision. But my possible lack of vision doesn't affect image quality of a Distagon.

    So, you have an opinion based on a lot of experience. I have great respect for that, but still it is a biased opinion. Biased and opinion are terms that sort of go hand in hand.

    I also have an opinion, and that is obviously also biased, opinions always are.

    The image below shot on the A7rII has some nice tonality, I think. Full image is here: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel...-1/i-5dT7hnM/O

    Best regards
    Erik




    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Erik:

    Without quoting your numerous comments and answering each, I will answer a few of them indirectly for thread posterity...


    3) Taking a small area of an image to print and compare technical merits is not much diferent than comparing 100% crops, so I am not at all surprused you saw the same things in both. You really need to compare a good, "fine-art capable" image form each, printed full size -- that is where the subtle advantages show. (I will state here however that most non-photographer clients and most non-photographer art buyers won't notice the subtleties and hence won't care what system you used to take the image )

    4) It's clear you are an engineer and not an artist -- this is not a dig in any way, just an observation. As such however, it makes sense you will to make your own personal decisions based solely on technical merits you can easily compare/measure, and perhaps cannot even see artistic merits. My point here is simple -- if your Sony A-whatever and Canon lenses generate more pleasing images for YOU, then that's the best system for YOU to use
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 18th July 2016 at 15:19.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •