mristuccia
Well-known member
True, every product has its limitations, but high end products should have none, at least within the boundaries of the project goals/specifications.
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!
Let’s hope Hasselblad doesn’t agree with your take, given that 1., the product is targeted to users more likely to find the banding a disqualifying flaw, and 2., the fact that others have solved the problem with relatively little effort. A company with the financial and technical backing of DJI should have solved this by now.The option is to avoid using it entirely and use whatever else may best suit their needs. The CFV 100C has inherent limitations, just like every other piece of equipment we use or own, and we choose what works most satisfactorily for our needs.
Hmm. I dunno. I've had many "high end" cameras that didn't work well with a variety of lenses that other, similar high end cameras worked beautifully with. And some of the cameras that worked well with those lenses didn't work well with other lenses that the first group of cameras worked beautifully with. To me, this seems pretty common for the whole range of digital capture cameras being used with lenses not designed for digital sensors specifically.True, every product has its limitations, but high end products should have none, at least within the boundaries of the project goals/specifications.
The message I intended to convey is simply to recognize the limitations inherent in whatever it is you use and to choose whatever works best for your intended purpose — nothing more. The message is simple and practical as is the person and spirit behind it.Yes, avoiding entirely is an option.
But I generally disagree with the spirit of your response, in this instance. Yes, every product has limitations, but one of the primary purposes of this product is to use it in exactly the way I did today, with a Rodenstock 40 HR-W lens, shifted. That is basic use case for this product. It's nothing exotic, or some kind of extreme use case. It is one of the basic use cases of this product. And the issue has been resolved by some 3rd party software programs. So the way I see it - there's no reason Hasselblad should not respond to this with corrective action and be held accountable to do so. It's one of the primary use cases for this product, it would be like Canon Eye Focus producing image artifacts and saying no product is perfect.
Steve Hendrix/CI
I don't require, nor do I rely on, Hasselblad or any other manufacturer to agree with whatever it is I may think they should do. It's an attitude which saves a lot of mental and emotional energy which would otherwise be wasted and accomplish nothing. If I have a feature request for something I would find useful, I send it to the manufacturer and then proceed to keep moving forward with the tools I have available.Let’s hope Hasselblad doesn’t agree with your take, given that 1., the product is targeted to users more likely to find the banding a disqualifying flaw, and 2., the fact that others have solved the problem with relatively little effort. A company with the financial and technical backing of DJI should have solved this by now.
I've never tested these lenses on the CFV 100C back, but based on what I've seen with other lenses the 35 and 45 probably do have the same issue. The 75, probably not.It does, however, put the question in my head, "I wonder how well the CFV 100C works with the ArcBody?" since the ArcBody is/was available with Rodenstock APO-Gradagon 35, 45, and 75 mm view camera lenses., and whether the same issue surfaces with these lenses.
When a company makes a marketing claim and an unforeseen circumstance arises then they need to fix it.The message I intended to convey is simply to recognize the limitations inherent in whatever it is you use and to choose whatever works best for your intended purpose — nothing more. The message is simple and practical as is the person and spirit behind it.
Because the CFV 100C can be detached from the 907X camera body and attached to any other V mount device or interface, like a V Series camera or a tech / view camera, it will be. That doesn't mean that it should be. Whether or not it should be purchased and used will be (as always) up to the user to decide based on their individual needs, lens choices, subject matter, and willingness to deal with any correction of artifacts (if there are any in the user's specific application) thru post processing.
You can hold Hasselblad "accountable" for offering users a choice of the first ever digital back with built-in on sensor PDAF autofocus capability. It uses a hybrid PDAF + contrast detection system to provide the user with improved autofocus capability which may cause visible artifacts with certain lenses under some conditions — or may not depending on the lens choice and application by the individual photographer.
Photographers can and will decide if they want to buy and use a CFV 100C with its current capabilities, wait for some possible future update, or use something else which fits their needs better. That's the part of the deal for which photographers are "accountable" and responsible. For some photographers a 907X + CFV 100C is likely a great option for their intended uses and for others it may not be. No surprise there.
I prefer to keep life as simple as possible and my approach to it as practical as possible. I don't see the practical benefit to anyone of pointing fingers at Hasselblad or any other manufacturer nor the dismissive, demanding, or occasionally accusatory commentary regarding what manufacturers should or should not be doing or should or should not have done which I sometimes see on forums. Being a simple person, I choose the most practical solutions available for my individual needs and appreciate the options which I have available thanks to the various manufacturers and their efforts.
Like everyone else, I've had my share of frustrations getting the results I needed from the equipment I've had available and have used from time to time over the years. I've had to work to find solutions when that occurs because I'm responsible for the work I produce; not an assistant, nor a dealer, a client, or a manufacturer. I make my choices freely and they make theirs. Wasting time on finding someone else to blame for any shortcomings in my work or the process of producing it brings me no practical benefit or reward. I take the credit for what works and the blame for what doesn't. If some tool from a manufacturer make that job easier, then thanks! If it doesn't, I try to find a better tool to use.
This is great to hear and I am confident that they will come up with a solution … so far I haven't heard back from them and have only receive a tech support satisfaction survey. I haven't filled it out yet.… also hasselblad admitted to me that there is such a problem and that they will act on it
This is a good approach, but man it is not easy to remain unfrustrated when an issue like this arises and seemingly out of nowhere.I don't require, nor do I rely on, Hasselblad or any other manufacturer to agree with whatever it is I may think they should do. It's an attitude which saves a lot of mental and emotional energy which would otherwise be wasted and accomplish nothing. If I have a feature request for something I would find useful, I send it to the manufacturer and then proceed to keep moving forward with the tools I have available.
Uhm. Given the form factor and the way it is advertised, I assume that one of the main goals of this CFV-100c back is being used on technical cameras. That obviously implies the use of tech lenses. So, it should work effortlessly with such lenses.Hmm. I dunno. I've had many "high end" cameras that didn't work well with a variety of lenses that other, similar high end cameras worked beautifully with. And some of the cameras that worked well with those lenses didn't work well with other lenses that the first group of cameras worked beautifully with. To me, this seems pretty common for the whole range of digital capture cameras being used with lenses not designed for digital sensors specifically.
But what do I know? I use Hasselblad V and X lenses with my Hasselblad digital back, and they work very well ... most of them.
G
Which marketing claim? I can't recall seeing a marketing claim for any digital back, including the CFV 100C; which suggests or implies you can use any lens, with any angle of coverage, under any conditions without limitations or potential image issues. There are limits to the compatibility of chief ray angles (CRA) between a lens and sensor. It's a fact of photographic life.When a company makes a marketing claim and an unforeseen circumstance arises then they need to fix it.
It's safe to assume that you can use a CFV 100C on a view or technical camera. It's designed for that possibility.Uhm. Given the form factor and the way it is advertised, I assume that one of the main goals of this CFV-100c back is being used on technical cameras. That obviously implies the use of tech lenses. So, it should work effortlessly with such lenses.
But who knows, maybe there is something wrong with my premise or my chain logical implications.
An illustrated example and explanation of CRA (Chief Ray Angle) mismatch between the lens and the sensor causing color shading can be found here: https://commonlands.com/blogs/technical/lens-chief-ray-angle-and-mismatchThis is confirmed to be a band composed of PDAF points, Due to the the CRA mismatch between the lens and the sensor. Can you give me a raw image of the image you displayed for further analysis.
I understand frustration, I've experienced my share. I had a lot more of them when I was working with digital backs in the 1990s than I've experienced more recently. I used to hold my breath in the morning hoping the system would boot up and work for awhile before I had to stop and troubleshoot something.This is a good approach, but man it is not easy to remain unfrustrated when an issue like this arises and seemingly out of nowhere.
If you say they have to then I guess they must. You can wait for that to happen, fix an image yourself if needed, or use something else in the meantime. Those seem to be all of the available options.Hasselblad has to fix that issue.
Using the CFV 100C on a technical is a part of their Trifecta:Which marketing claim? I can't recall seeing a marketing claim for any digital back, including the CFV 100C; which suggests or implies you can use any lens, with any angle of coverage, under any conditions without limitations or potential image issues. There are limits to the compatibility of chief ray angles (CRA) between a lens and sensor. It's a fact of photographic life.
Marketing "A Trifecta of Imaging Possibilities" seems to be offering "possibilities" to the user, not unlimited or unrestricted compatibility assurances. That said, perhaps there will be some improvements in compatibility with lenses having extremely wide angles of coverage (not to be confused with angle of view) in the future for the CFV 100C.
If it doesn't fit your needs then naturally you shouldn't. You should use something better suited to your individual requirements.Simple as it is, when HB says it is a back for technical cameras it has to be fixed. And speaking for myself, I will not buy with this restrictions.
That's absolutely true and you can do that. Which lens combinations will work for your needs is an additional consideration for potential buyers of the CFV 100C or other digital back and camera options to consider as well as test.Using the CFV 100C on a technical is a part of their Trifecta