The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hasselblad Planar T* 2.0/110 FE + Modified 5D
- Thread starter PSon
- Start date
Well Son, as far as I know there isn't a 35mm digital camera on Earth that could resolve and capture the offset printing dots from that far away : -)
Freaking amazing.
I don't know the absolute answer to that question. Hasselblad/Zeiss makes minor changes to stuff without saying anything. I'd say the CF and CFi are identical, except that the flare resistance might be a tad better with certain CFi
lenses. The Flash Sync port is most certainly better. The CF one was more prone to damage and failure. If you get a digital back that requires a sync cord from lens to back, then it might be worth the money, since that the weak point of sync'ing a digital back.
My quest is the CFE lenses. They have all the CFi upgrades, PLUS the data bus contacts for use with my 203FE, and more importantly my H3D cameras when using the CF adapter. The H camera automatically reads which lens is mounted so I don't have to manually input it on the H grip.
I have all the CFE lenses except the 180CFE ... I have the CFi version of that lens.
gogopix
Subscriber
think i estimated wrong then (47x pixels x 19 is what i did, but full image was not quite that big.)
however, that's a 22MP back, same resolution as the MIII canon. So, seems that the MFDB gets better resolving (as was seen in other tests on LL etc.)
Resolving the print mask is maybe understandable; i think even 35mm 22MP would do that. What makes MFDB better? It may be as simple as this; when pix site is larger, when you are close to CoC the larger site keeps the m'bleed' down and so appears more resolved.
Son, you should be able to figure this out from aperture FL and site sizes of MF vs 35mm
If I remember my optics correctly the image will be the same (from lens) but the 22MP of canon are in a smaller area, thus closer to CoC.
This may be the fundamental item going on.
Is that reasonable?
Victor
gogopix
Subscriber
Marc
CF vs CFi I have always wondered about. I have mostly older CF lenses (that match me!
) but when buying new, esp with the P45+ I wonder whether the CFi would be better (I also have FE lenses which are great. the "F" lenses like the 50mm 2.8 and the 110mm are really specially, as we see here)regards
Victor
PSon
Active member
Victor,
You are thinking too hard my friend. It is simple in this case. Currently there is no digital sensor whether 35 mm or medium format that has a 4.5 micron pixel size. When 16 shots are done the Piezo fine control mechanism shift a half a pixel size to give a 4.5 micron. In addition, assumed that one day a digital sensor that has a 4.5 micron pixel, the physical challenge for noise and color is not going to compare to a physical 9 micron pixel size and shift half to give a 4.5 micron pixel size.
best regards,
son
You are thinking too hard my friend. It is simple in this case. Currently there is no digital sensor whether 35 mm or medium format that has a 4.5 micron pixel size. When 16 shots are done the Piezo fine control mechanism shift a half a pixel size to give a 4.5 micron. In addition, assumed that one day a digital sensor that has a 4.5 micron pixel, the physical challenge for noise and color is not going to compare to a physical 9 micron pixel size and shift half to give a 4.5 micron pixel size.
best regards,
son
PSon
Active member
Victor,
Despite the file is not with Marc but he saw something that he has not seen before. The 22 megapixel Canon will not come close to resolve this picture. The reason I chose the wide angle to do this is to demonstrate you do not need macro if your sensor has this kind of resolution. The dots are clearly defined and at this distance. I will post more for you to see the point Marc spoke above.
best regards
son
PSon
Active member
and here with a different lens mounted on my customed made auto bellows for the Contax 645 system. Can you guess which lens is this one this time Marc?
best regards
son
Full view crop size image
100% view
100% view
btw: I took Dr. Kay advise and went with ThinkTank for my travel bags.
best regards
son
Full view crop size image
100% view
100% view
btw: I took Dr. Kay advise and went with ThinkTank for my travel bags.
PSon
Active member
Jack,
These were shots with my Contax 645 system. I also shot them with the Hasselblad 205 and the Rollei 6008 system. Yes these are the highest resolving power you are witnessing now.
Best Regards,
Son
gogopix
Subscriber
Son
seems you have the 54H. Is that a 1,4,16 shot UNTETHERED back?
The files, with the shift and full frame would make a 16 shot resolution equivalent to a single shot 40MP or more!(with the shift etc.)
Since many of us do not need 39MP all the time I would be interested to see a Sinar-Pahse comparosin.
With Lance here, if theirry would join we could get some real perspective on where these two are going. With a Leaf advocate (and I will admit to being a Phase booster!!) we could get some real insight
But maybe they don't want that :angel:
seems you have the 54H. Is that a 1,4,16 shot UNTETHERED back?
The files, with the shift and full frame would make a 16 shot resolution equivalent to a single shot 40MP or more!(with the shift etc.)
Since many of us do not need 39MP all the time I would be interested to see a Sinar-Pahse comparosin.
With Lance here, if theirry would join we could get some real perspective on where these two are going. With a Leaf advocate (and I will admit to being a Phase booster!!) we could get some real insight
But maybe they don't want that :angel:
T
thsinar
Guest
hi Victor,
Still, it is an amazing back and the quality reached in multishot is difficult to surpass, with the right lenses.
The 16-shot and its 1/2 pixel move after each shot does increase the resolution by for: in consequence of what one reaches an optical resolution of 88,8 Mpx.
Best regards,
Thierry
The SB 54 H needs to be tethered: this particular back is from the 2nd generation of digital backs and was the first (and exclusive) 22 MPx at the time when released, for nearly one year.
Still, it is an amazing back and the quality reached in multishot is difficult to surpass, with the right lenses.
The file size with the 4-shot is the same as for the single shot, BUT with one big difference: it is not interpolated colors like the single shot, thus producing true colors without interpolation artifacts.
The 16-shot and its 1/2 pixel move after each shot does increase the resolution by for: in consequence of what one reaches an optical resolution of 88,8 Mpx.
It all depends on the subject and its details: if you want to shoot a white piece of paper, ANY single shot will do it. The more details the more difficult it will basically be for the single shot. And some subjects are simply impossible to render with all details and colors like a multishot does.
Why not? As said, it is an optical and physical matter, one being calculated (interpolated) colors (single shot), a kind of "guess-work", the other being true un-interpolated colors (multishot).As good as the current interpolation algorithms are, and they are pretty amazing IMO (so much that it makes sometimes wonder how what get get such good results when the color information of 2 pixels out of 3 is missing with the single shot!), there are simply subjects which can be taken only in multishot mode.
Best regards,
Thierry
Last edited:
PSon
Active member
Yes via Hasselblad CF22 (1,4,16 shots) or CF39 (1,4 shots).
