CFV100C on Technical Camera

[Ben730]

Thank you Paul for sending the sample images. I'm not making up a narrative, these are issues that I have seen when using these same lenses on the IQ4. All copies included the center filter that was designed for the lens.

My issue is not with these lenses, it is with exaggerated claims at how perfect they are. If someone believes these claims they will be very disappointed when using them in the field and expecting that they can get 22mm of clean sharp rise with the 35XL or 43XL or anywhere near that with the 28XL.

Here is an example of a RAW image taken with the 28XL with about 12-15mm rise:
View attachment 210404

Here is the LCC
View attachment 210403

Here is the LCC after applying processing it in C1
View attachment 210401

Here is the image after applying the LCC correction in C1
View attachment 210402

The top of the image was completely unusable because the light falloff was too severe for C1 to fix with LCC. I had to crop the image and completely rebuild the sky to get something out of it.
View attachment 210399


Here is the same scene with the GF30TS after automatic lens corrections and minimal exposure/color adjustments were applied in C1
View attachment 210400

Here is the final edited file from the GF30TS
View attachment 210398

Yes. The 28XL, 35XL, and 43XL SK lenses can be fantastic tools for architectural photography, but it comes with a cost. You have to be prepared to deal with issues like I illustrated above. If using a lens with no distortion outweighs all the other associated costs, then you will be happy. If dealing with these types of issues doesn't sound good to you then I would recommend going in a different direction.

...and don't forget: The CFs are very problematic.
The Schneider center filters are mirrored on the inside.
Backlighting, such as windows, streetlights, lamps, etc. lead to internal reflections that often show up as foggy spots in the file.
These errors are often not visible on the small digital back display and it is only during post-production that the entrance to hell opens up.
It's absolutely no fun, and it's not easy to fix such spots in image processing.
However, if you have all light sources behind you and avoid the drama of backlighting they work well,
but under such conditions my phone is also good.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Nobody uses preset LCC plates in C1? I wanted to profile my SK glass long-time ago, need to find the time ...

I'd say in landscape mode the following would make sense on an IQ4, add 7mm for CFV100c and round down to nearest 5mm. Get shift rails and an Alpa!

Max rise preset for 5mm increment landscape plates on IQ4 using CFs (OG or known alternatives):
- 28XL up to 15mm (for no CF maybe 10mm)
- 35XL uo to 15mm (II CF as alternative)
- 43XL up to 20mm (the Rodie CF alternative)
- 60XL up to 25mm (no CF needed)

 

[ruebe]

There is a Sensor Calibration function in the Service menu. This may correct your issue with some pixels not being properly displayed in live view. See pages 123 and 124 in the CFV 100C user manual.

You can also see how Sensor Calibration functions in this video at the 13:00 minute mark. If that doesn't correct the issue, contact Hasselblad support.

i just tried but it doesn’t even show the calibrate menu when not coupled to the 907x with xcd lens. unfortunately i don’t own such a lens …

 

[daz7]

@Ben730
Are all center filters so highly reflective as the Schneider's one and unusable with lights on?
Sounds like a proper nightmare for interior, dusk and night photography when using SK lenses.

How about using third party filters matched to the f-stop reduction and size? Are there any CF brands better in that aspect?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

You can also just use a shade to block incident light if you have problems with bright light sources. On Alpa cameras you have ample screws to add clamp arms which can hold a black flag plate ...

The biggest problem I see with the CFV100c is the lack of compatibility with C1 with all the problems which come along, incl. lack of lens distortion correction tools.

 

[TechTalk]

i just tried but it doesn’t even show the calibrate menu when not coupled to the 907x with xcd lens. unfortunately i don’t own such a lens …

A Hasselblad dealer could help you by attaching a lens to enable sensor calibration or contact Hasselblad support. I suspect it's an easily resolved issue.

 

[MGrayson]

The biggest problem I see with the CFV100c is the lack of compatibility with C1 with all the problems which come along, incl. lack of lens distortion correction tools.

To me, the biggest problem with C1 is its lack of compatibility with the CFV100c (and X2D) despite its (excellent) lens distortion correction tools. I am *not* disagreeing with you, only pointing out that one's view of the landscape depends on where one is standing.

We live in an age of wonders.

 

[Ben730]

@Ben730
Are all center filters so highly reflective as the Schneider's one and unusable with lights on?
Sounds like a proper nightmare for interior, dusk and night photography when using SK lenses.

How about using third party filters matched to the f-stop reduction and size? Are there any CF brands better in that aspect?

No, the Rodenstock CFs are much better, they play in a different league.
With the Schneiders, the darkening is sprayed onto the glass.
Yes it is a "proper nightmare for interior, dusk and night photography".
The Rodenstocks are much more elaborately manufactured.
They consist of two glasses. The lenses are ground, curved on one side, one dark, the other clear and then joined together.
Unfortunately, these filters do not fit the SK lenses.
Although they can be mechanically adapted with step-up rings,
the compensating effect is not sufficient. However, I have not tested all combinations.
I had the 24XL, the 28 Super XL and the 35XL.
I struggled and fretted with work arounds for far too long before replacing all the wide angles with Rodenstocks.
From 72 mm upwards, however, I am a Schneider fan.

 

[rdeloe]

Yes. The 28XL, 35XL, and 43XL SK lenses can be fantastic tools for architectural photography, but it comes with a cost. You have to be prepared to deal with issues like I illustrated above. If using a lens with no distortion outweighs all the other associated costs, then you will be happy. If dealing with these types of issues doesn't sound good to you then I would recommend going in a different direction.

These examples, and your opinion as a working professional, are extremely relevant and helpful. Thanks Warren.

 

[Adammork]

I had the 24XL, the 28 Super XL and the 35XL.
I struggled and fretted with work arounds for far too long before replacing all the wide angles with Rodenstocks.
From 72 mm upwards, however, I am a Schneider fan.

Exactly the same here and for more and less the same reasons - 23-50mm Rodenstock, 72-210 Schneider.

The flaring issues with the Schneider CF can really ruin one’s mood.

But Rodenstock is not perfect either - I remember my disappointment at the first shoot with my new Rodenstock 23HR just to discover the orange flair/spot in the centre on the first interior motive….

The first generation of that lens was very phrone to that, before Rodenstock changed the coating on some of the lens elements to get it under control.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

But did you shoot the SK lenses on BSI? I only re-discovered the 43XL after the IQ4 came out. It is a game changer.

 

[Ben730]

The BSI has no influence on the flaring and ghosting caused by the CF.
However, the 100 MP BSI from Fuji sometimes causes a strange color pattern
when shooting directly into a hard light source (e.g. the sun). This does not happen with the 50 MP and the IQ3 100.
I don't know how the IQ4 and the Hassy behave.

 

[Adammork]

No I have not - but I suspect that the sensor have nothing to do with the unwanted effects created by the Schneider centre filter.

But of course it's an other story if the BSI sensor eliminate the need for a centerfilter - but on the example shown by diggles yesterday - showed quit clearly the limitations that you have to take in account when using the Schneider wides.

I know this is not likely going to happen, but could be intersting to see what the result would be if there where new lens designs for wideangles for tech cams - the ones we have today is around 15 years old or more? And when you experience what fuji have achieved with the 30mm ts - you could only dream about what new Schneiders or Rodenstock could do, besides empty you bank account

 

[FloatingLens]

Strange patterns most likey due to Phase Detect AF points (property of the 100c sensor). It has been reported in some reviews of the BSI back.

 

[vjbelle]

I have never been able to shift more than 7mm with my 35 XL (which has been calibrated by Schneider) without smearing. 'That' has always been the issue with me. Color cast has mostly been a non issue but once the lens starts to smear movements have to stop. On a crop sensor I was able to shift around 10mm but that was it.

Victor B.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

So on the 28 XL in portrait mode with a 54mm sensor I get the following with CF:



That's 5, 10, 15mm rise in portrait.

C1 cleans up:



All except 15mm rise in portrait are cleaned up. At 15mm there remains noise in the topmost section and you can see some faint remaining tiling. At 10mm it also is there very, very faintly, but it gets cleaned up to my eyes fully.

If you use frame averaging and carefully expose you should be able to get somewhere between 10mm and 15mm rise out of the 28 XL in portrait mode on the IQ4.

It looks to me that you shifted around 15mm with a 54mm chip (judging the pattern in the sample you posted) which is beyond the limits of this lens and outside the IC as the borders of the chip are beyond the circle already. At 15mm the top left and right parts should hit the ICs end and be very dark. The post work could have been avoided by stepping a bit back and keeping it at slightly above 10mm in portrait.

If you work within 12.5mm in portrait or just 10 that's still very wide and should work without problems.

You can make presets in C1 and then its a one-click fix after ingesting as long you always rise by the same amount.

By extension it means you have significant headroom already with the 28XL on the new Hassy chip. The long ends of both chips differ by 10mm! Which means you could go for 22.5mm (even more if you take into account that the chip is also shorter on the short side) in theory at 28mm ... which is also significantly more than the TSE30 on a like for like basis if you crop to crop MF – while being fully rectilinear.

I will do some testing with blue sky, etc. once I have time, but I think 10-12.5mm should be fine ... which is a lot on a 54mm sensor, which is 10mm longer than the Fuji sensor ...

Once you go beyond the intended product specs while shooting you get tiling and LCC can't fix that and then you basically end up in PS and need a lot of retouch.

I looks to me that within spec this lens is great on BSI, especially on Hassy backs you will be able, if you can manage LCC, to work these SK lenses in a good way.

I mean 20mm or a tad more of rise on a CFV100c with 28mm is exceptional.

 

[corvus]

X

Thank you Paul for sending the sample images. I'm not making up a narrative, these are issues that I have seen when using these same lenses on the IQ4. All copies included the center filter that was designed for the lens.

My issue is not with these lenses, it is with exaggerated claims at how perfect they are. If someone believes these claims they will be very disappointed when using them in the field and expecting that they can get 22mm of clean sharp rise with the 35XL or 43XL or anywhere near that with the 28XL.

Here is an example of a RAW image taken with the 28XL with about 12-15mm rise:
View attachment 210404

Here is the LCC
View attachment 210403

Here is the LCC after applying processing it in C1
View attachment 210401

Here is the image after applying the LCC correction in C1
View attachment 210402

The top of the image was completely unusable because the light falloff was too severe for C1 to fix with LCC. I had to crop the image and completely rebuild the sky to get something out of it.
View attachment 210399


Here is the same scene with the GF30TS after automatic lens corrections and minimal exposure/color adjustments were applied in C1
View attachment 210400

Here is the final edited file from the GF30TS
View attachment 210398

Yes. The 28XL, 35XL, and 43XL SK lenses can be fantastic tools for architectural photography, but it comes with a cost. You have to be prepared to deal with issues like I illustrated above. If using a lens with no distortion outweighs all the other associated costs, then you will be happy. If dealing with these types of issues doesn't sound good to you then I would recommend going in a different direction.

When I look at these results here and in the other current threads with comments on such lenses, the GF30TS seems to me to do almost the best job... of course with the limitation that I can't use it like on a tech-cam/view-cam.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Which means also not on the CFV100c ...

 

[vjbelle]

My point on the 35 XL was that I think in landscape orientation you can go to somewhere between 12-15 without any issue. amera.

I have purposely deleted all of the rest of your original post to highlight your ambitious claims of the ability of the 35XL to shift 12-15mm without any issues. NEVER!! My lens has been calibrated by Schneider (sent back to them for calibration) and there is no way on a 54 X 40 sensor that any shifting can be made to those extremes without smearing at the edges. I know this from lots of experience. Just don't get where you are coming from with your wild claims.

Victor B.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I have purposely deleted all of the rest of your original post to highlight your ambitious claims of the ability of the 35XL to shift 12-15mm without any issues. NEVER!! My lens has been calibrated by Schneider (sent back to them for calibration) and there is no way on a 54 X 40 sensor that any shifting can be made to those extremes without smearing at the edges. I know this from lots of experience. Just don't get where you are coming from with your wild claims.

Victor B.

Have you shot it on IQ4? What do you mean with smearing? Corner sharpness loss?

I always shift in landscape mode and was referring to correctable color cast.

With which sensor have you shot it and what was your max?

A lot of the bad rep comes from pre IQ4 posts, on BSI its not bad! I hope to find time to do some thorough testing, I literally picked it up this week and what I saw astounded me given how bad this lens was talked about in the past.

Could be series variance? IQ4 vs CCD?

Let me revert with some more data – I also need to get to learn the limits of this lens. In terms of CC a lot can be recovered via LCC on BSI.

I also have the original CF – IIF ... with all SK glass I use the intended CFs.

Remember this post?

Schneider 35mm APO-Digitar XL with 60mpx CCD

Hi Paul, in practice do the HR-S lenses hard-vignette at exactly 70mm? Or rather at exactly 80mm? More to the point, do you get dark corners if you use them on 6x6 film or can you just barely use them? (I know you're supposed to use screw-on filters on the rear ends to adjust for the lack of...

www.getdpi.com

Back in the day people also were puzzled about the fact that 35XL could deliver such nice results as in the example. The credo 60 is a full frame chip.

Some lenses might not be calibrated right and should be sent to Greiner in Germany before one day you can't repair them anymore. The copy I have is a mint Alpa one with very good performance. I was astounded, as I say.