I find I like most images coming from the CFV II 50C better with the lenses’ natural rendering preserved.
I reckon, one application where a near flawless, digitally corrected representation may suit the subject matter better could be architecture.
Do you mean V system lenses used on a Hasselblad SLR body? on a 907x with adapter? Do you mean X system lenses used on a 907x body? Do you mean H system lenses used on a 907x with adapter? Do you mean technical camera captures used with the CFVII 50c back fitted with .... V system lenses, what others?
You see: there's not enough information in what you stated to determine what you mean by
"most images coming from the CFV II 50C better with the lenses’ natural rendering preserved" because there's no basis for understanding what
"the lenses’ natural rendering" means without the context of how they're being used and what they're imaging onto. And because the CFVII 50c is a recording back, not an entire camera, that can be used in a variety of configurations.
As example, Leica provides lens profiles for most of their M and R lenses, old and new, for use on the digital system bodies (M and L mount). The intent of their lens profiles isn't to correct the lenses to a "perfect" rendering, but to maintain the lenses' original rendering intent which varies depending upon the age and original cameras that they were designed for. If you compare various lenses on the camera they were originally designed for and results from the same lens on a digital Leica body with the profiling turned on, the results are very recognizably the same lens.
Hasselblad's lens profiles provided in Phocus do a similar thing with Hasselblad V system lenses used on their SLR bodies and on the XCD cameras with adapter, and of course XCD lenses were designed to be used with X system digital bodies and lens profiling so the "lenses' natural rendering" really ought to be what is presented after you apply the lens profile in Phocus for those. That's what makes sense to me, anyway.
However, my V system lenses, in adaptation to the 907x or on the 500CM with the CFVII 50c fitted, produce lovely results that do not seem to need further lens profile application, although there are some technical improvements when I apply a profile, in some cases. It's up to the photographer to know how the look changes and to pick processing workflow that renders results that please and satisfy their eye. For some, even minor lens aberrations are awful; for others, part of the charm of an image may be the aberrations in the rendering. Both aesthetics can produce wonderful results ... which is why my answer was what it was.
G
