Hasselblad 100C and 35XL

[TechTalk]

What constitutes "normal use" and lens choice is different for photographers using a technical or view camera for: architecture, landscape, studio product shots, art repro, etc. Hence the reason a CFV 100C may be a good choice for one photographer but not another. I'd be interested if it fit my needs in its current iteration and disinterested if it didn't.

Personally, I'd keep my pitchfork and torch in the closet in either event but others can decide for themselves. The suggestions to contact Hasselblad and politely request any updates which might improve compatibility with lenses having wide coverage angles I believe has a lot of merit.

 

[TechTalk]

Why did no one complain about the 21mm on the X2D?

Probably because it's a native lens designed by Hasselblad to work with the X1D and the X2D model which followed it. If you watch the Hasselblad Lens Design webinar at about the 37:15 mark they discuss a design iteration of the XCD 30 mm which wasn't approved due to the steep ray angle of that design, so design work and iterations continued.

On the other hand view camera lenses from Rodenstock, Schneider, etc. are generic in that they're not designed to be compatible with any particular digital back or sensor architecture. So, your mileage may vary. The best situation is to have lenses and sensors designed for compatibility with each other rather than the essentially generic lens and sensor designs we currently have for view and tech camera use.

 

[TechTalk]

Edit2: I feel the citation from Techtalk below omits an important part of what I tried to convey: nobody complains about the X2D and 21mm, as there seems to be nothing wrong with that combination

I tried to convey that there seems to be nothing wrong with that combination because they were intentionally designed to work together by the same manufacturer. Perhaps we're talking past one another. That happens sometimes. Best regards to you and please keep posting your views and comments. I've rarely learned much by listening to people who already agree with me.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Why are you again spamming the thread with verbose pointless comments? It’s pages of endless monologue.

The thread should be a statement of facts (problem, samples, lenses affected) and posts like Steve’s where he makes people aware that Fuji was able to implement a fix for their PDAF implementation and that’s it. It remains to be seen how Hasselblad can fix their situation.

I am sure CI will post the required information when the firmware update is out in the coming weeks.

Steve's pointer lets one hope for the best.

 

[Geoff]

With caution, here are a thoughts on this thread and controversy. Stepping back, one question to be asked is: "is this a little problem or a big problem?" It seems the differing conclusions come from very different perspectives.
Initially, it wasn't clear this was a big problem - some have shot happily with this back and not found the problems. All backs offer promise but have limitations. Heck, even other high end products (pick your poison) often follow the line of more refinement or specialized, the more temperamental or limited they can be. Was this one of those? Some years ago, I had a Credo 60 back that showed some banding on some sky shots, A note of concern was sent to Steve H., who calmed me down, and said, yes, in some situations it can happen. So first thoughts were perhaps this was the same and not so critical an issue.
However, this back is promoted as usable on tech cameras AND with the stunning combination of low price, high resolution and BSI sensor, offers the trifecta, a holy grail solution for tech camera users(assuming the crop sensor). Hooray, so many problems and issues solved at once. Many were excited.
This issue shows all the signs of crestfallen hopes, and consequently, anger at the manufacturer. Did they know, why didn't they fix, how could they offer it? But the reality is that these things do happen, not everything is perfect out the gate, and also our tolerance for these situations has clearly diminished.
Personally I have moved my read of this issue from it was a "little" problem to "its sort of big one". It is possible to shoot without incurring the difficulties, and some have found ways to work around it, but it's also quite possible to shoot and have it raise its unattractive head. And as someone said, once seen, you see it. Is it trivial? No, not for this crowd, most of whom are pretty dilligent and use gear to the fullest. Is it end of the product? Not likely. Probably (my guess, no insights) this will get fixed.
The point is that different folks see this differently. The facts were murky in the beginning, it seemed more "within the tolerance of acceptable", but it's now seen more broadly and clearly. Let's all hope Hassy addresses this, and puts this problem behind them, and work together to that end.

 

[hcubell]

All of the samples I have seen where this issue appeared have been of blank areas of sky where there was a clarity push of +100. Is it easy to address this issue by simply applying +100 clarity as a local adjustment and masking out the sky? That's actually part of postprocessing 101 where sharpening should generally be masked out of areas of sky.

 

[MGrayson]

So you are suggesting people should just accept that the product is like it is and just get their act together and follow some "postprocessing 101" – implying that everyone here has no clue? Well for starters, clarity is not the same as sharpening and throwing around "should" is a bit rich coming which from which authority on what again?

Clarity is commonly used in doses to subtly dramatize skies via masks in fact ...

I don't believe that @hcubell is suggesting any such thing. The existence of a workaround is not defense of a defective product, but rather, a technique for amelioration until such time as the defect is addressed by the manufacturer.

Your point on clarity in skies is well taken, though. I do my heaviest manipulation in skies, mostly in B&W, but sometimes in color when I wish for unrealistically threatening clouds.

Matt

 

[hcubell]

So you are suggesting people should just accept that the product is like it is and just get their act together and follow some "postprocessing 101" – implying that everyone here has no clue? Well for starters, clarity is not the same as sharpening and throwing around "should" is a bit rich coming which from which authority on what again?

Clarity is commonly used in doses to subtly dramatize skies via masks in fact ...

You evaded directly answering the question I asked. But, you then suggested clarity can appropriately be used to "subtly dramatize skies via masks." That was the exact point I was making. Use of +100 clarity in an area of continuous tone in a sky serves no useful purpose. A subtle amount of clarity used just in the area of clouds may be desirable, but that's a very different proposition from just cranking up +100 clarity and applying it a continuous tone area.
IMO, a photograph that is oversharpened or has had excessive clarity added is the hallmark of poor aesthetic taste. I will let you do your own research as to whether that is an important part of postprocessing 101.
You are very animated about the CFV 100C. I have seen this movie before.

 

[Bill_Evans]

As someone who has this new Hassy back on my wishlist, I greatly appreciate the time and effort folks have spent finding and exploring the scope of this issue and those working towards a reasonable workaround. This forum is one of the best photography resources available. Kudos to all for that.

The idealist in me would love to have the "perfect" camera system. But the realist knows that's just not in the cards. Every single camera system that I've ever used has required me to adjust my workflow to mitigate "issues" or "eccentricities" to achieve the results that I'm after. Sometimes I just can't get a camera system to mesh with my workflow or produce the results I need and I move on. My previous camera system, before transitioning to Hasselblad, was the Canon R5. The Canon "mob" only needed pitchforks as the R5 provided the fire with its "over heating issue". The over heating wasn't much of an issue for me, it's just that it was a soul sucking camera to use.

When it comes time for a purchase decision for the 100c back I'll way the pros and cons of the PDAF lines issue vs the extreme color cast issue of the 50c back with wide angle lenses. That said, I'd love Hasselblad to sort it all out and give me that "perfect" solution.

 

[diggles]

All of the samples I have seen where this issue appeared have been of blank areas of sky where there was a clarity push of +100. Is it easy to address this issue by simply applying +100 clarity as a local adjustment and masking out the sky? That's actually part of postprocessing 101 where sharpening should generally be masked out of areas of sky.

The example I used to start this thread does not use any clarity.

The example that was by @ruebe is a raw file and the banding is apparent without any adjustments to clarity.

Hasselblad 100C and 35XL

Another data point: I used Phocus to develop an image with 15mm of rise, and applied the corresponding LCC. That didn't work -- perhaps not surprisingly because the pattern is in the LCC too. However, someone is going to ask so there's the answer.

www.getdpi.com

 

[hcubell]

First of all your comment was completely besides the point implying that all samples shown are just unrealistically over-processed and and people should just tone sliders down and on top by mentioning the 101 point you implied that people are basically amateurs which further implies that its fine in practice.

That's ironic because firstly you confused sharpening with clarity – two different things and 101 – and suggested to mask out the sky, which is precisely the area most often re-worked with clarity if clarity is applied at all.

The real point is well summarized by Geoff – its that it was advertised as a holy grail back which works perfectly with tech cams and people as a result bought it immediately like hot pancakes; the reality for now is that for tech cam use it has issues with ALL available tech cam wide angles (SK and Rodie) and that the banding can rear its ugly head as Geoff rightly put on a case by case image basis.

The next firmware upgrade will hopefully solve this, but its not to be minimized – I can understand the anger and frustration of early buyers who especially procured at high cost SK wide-angles in anticipation of this back such as the 35XL or the 43XL ...

Its about calling a spade a spade here and not minimizing it. The ball is in Hassy's court now.

I did not imply it wasn’t an issue. I asked a question to try to understand how serious of an issue this really is in practice and whether there are work arounds that would be quite acceptable to someone who has no interest in dropping $50k for a Phase IQ 150. You evaded answering the question. I won’t ask why. I know the answer.

 

[Doppler9000]

Probably because it's a native lens designed by Hasselblad to work with the X1D and the X2D model which followed it. If you watch the Hasselblad Lens Design webinar at about the 37:15 mark they discuss a design iteration of the XCD 30 mm which wasn't approved due to the steep ray angle of that design, so design work and iterations continued.

On the other hand view camera lenses from Rodenstock, Schneider, etc. are generic in that they're not designed to be compatible with any particular digital back or sensor architecture. So, your mileage may vary. The best situation is to have lenses and sensors designed for compatibility with each other rather than the essentially generic lens and sensor designs we currently have for view and tech camera use.

The references in the video you linked to regarding the 30mm lens were from 2015 and 2016, so the issues with the steep ray angle were particular to the X1D, not the X2D, which uses an entirely different, and newer sensor.

FYI, one of the key advantages to the BSI sensors in the X2D and 100C over the FSI sensor in your video, is the ability to work well with lenses with steeper ray angles. If you read some other posts in the thread, you will find multiple references to this.

If someone wants compatibility with native lenses, and has no interest in the movements possible with a technical camera, then the X2D should work well for them.

The advantage of the 100C has over the X2D is its potential to be used on a technical camera, with movements. The two major suppliers for lenses for these cameras are Rodenstock and Schneider. On its website, Hasselblad has an image of the 100C on an Alpa technical camera with a Rodenstock lens. So while you have said that the problem was up to the users to figure out, Hasselblad should have tested and either made the fix or at least warned potential buyers of the problem.

 

[TechTalk]

The references in the video you linked to regarding the 30mm lens were from 2015 and 2016, so the issues with the steep ray angle were particular to the X1D, not the X2D, which uses an entirely different, and newer sensor.

Right. That's why I said "it's a native lens designed by Hasselblad to work with the X1D" and added "and the X2D model which followed it" because if it works with the former, it will work with the latter.

 

[TechTalk]

So while you have said that the problem was up to the users to figure out...

You have a long-standing bad habit of paraphrasing or attributing quotes, words, thoughts, and feelings to me which are not mine. At no time have I "said that the problem was up to the users to figure out".

It's up to users to decide whether or not it's a workable and useful tool for their particular needs. Depending on individual use and choice of lenses, there may be no problem to figure out.

 

[Doppler9000]

You have a long-standing bad habit of paraphrasing or attributing quotes, words, thoughts, and feelings to me which are not mine. At no time have I "said that the problem was up to the users to figure out".

It's up to users to decide whether or not it's a workable and useful tool for their particular needs. Depending on individual use and choice of lenses, there may be no problem to figure out.

You just repeated what I said. Users had to find the problem because Hasselblad was either unaware of it, or was aware of it but didn’t disclose it. I didn’t say it was up to the user to solve the problem.

 

[TechTalk]

I don't know what circle you're looking for, but now that we've each clarified what we have not said — I'll be moving along.

 

[Doppler9000]

Right. That's why I said "it's a native lens designed by Hasselblad to work with the X1D" and added "and the X2D model which followed it" because if it works with the former, it will work with the latter.

Your reframing of your writing, with two quoted segments, the new underlining to emphasize the first point, your use of the word “added”, and the new explanation of the sequential logic structure is a rather transparent attempt to pretend you included the X2D only parenthetically.

This is what you actually wrote:

“it's a native lens designed by Hasselblad to work with the X1D and the X2D model which followed it.”

Seems like you’re the one rephrasing your words.

 

[TechTalk]

Given the fact that neither the X2D nor the sensor it uses existed at the time the XCD 30 mm lens was designed, I don't think there's anything worthy of debate here either.

The XCD 30 mm lens was obviously designed to work with the X1D. The choice not to use an iteration of the lens design with a steep ray angle was logical for compatibility with future sensors as well.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Given the fact that neither the X2D nor the sensor it uses existed at the time the XCD 30 mm lens was designed, I don't think there's anything worthy of debate here either.

The XCD 30 mm lens was obviously designed to work with the X1D. The choice not to use an iteration of the lens design with a steep ray angle was logical for compatibility with future sensors as well.

Again trolling the thread with pointless content?

 

[TechTalk]

Responding to a comment directed toward me by another forum participant, but thanks for asking.