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!

Some reflections on my V-series Hasselblad/P45 kit…

ChrisLivsey

New member
How many versions of the 60mm V mount lens are there?.

Distagon f/5.6 60 mm C
Distagon f/4 60 mm C small production run no T* AFAIK
Distagon f/3.5 60 mm C and T* version
below all are T*
Distagon f/3.5 60 mm CF
Distagon f/3.5 60 mm CFi
Distagon f/3.5 60 mm CB

AFAIK there was no E - electronic databus version or F version although that is not strictly true there was a 60mm f5.6 for the 1600F, 1000F bodies (1948-57) and there was also a 60mm f/5.6 MK Biogon for the MK70.

You could keep yourself well occupied just collecting all those variants :D

I have no hands on experience with any but I'm actively looking for a f3.5 C uncoated, just into non T* look at the moment.
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Active member
Hi Rob,

I have paid considerable thought to it and I simply don't know. There are a few obvious factors:

  • I have just used the system for the latest three years
  • Although I am essentially tripod bound, I also shoot freehand
  • I shoot everything from fisheye to extreme telephoto
  • Recently I am shooting a lot of tilt and shift

There are some other factors, the MFD images are often:
  • A bit boring
  • Static - lacking dynamics
I would suggest this is not a technical quality issue, more about zooming with your feet instead of zooming with your lens.

I am essentially tripod bound. The way I work more often than not the camera is in the backpack, with no lens. So, when I see a subject I walk around, looking for a good vantage point. Finding my vantage point I set up the tripod. Once tripod is set up I choose the lens, tune the composition etc.

On the other hand I can often just lift the camera of the tripod and shoot some folks standing around.

The third factor is that the MFD gear tends to be left behind when I go to places. If it's a long walk, it is MFD that is left behind.

Here are some samples:

P45+ shoot at Max Valier observatory: (Carrying both P45+ and 135)


Sony shot at Max Valier observatory:


Sony shot at Giau Pass:


Phase One shot at Karersee:


Sony shot:


Phase One shot:


This Phase one shot almost made it to an exhibition, but anded up standing in kitchen…


P45+


P45+


P45+


Sony;


These small images don't show any relevant image quality differences. But I would say is that I don't see any significant differences in prints, up to A2-size (16" x 23"). Printing larger the 39 MP P45+ is "better" than the Sony A99 at 24 MP. To me it seems that the Sony A7rII has a small lead over the Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ combo with regard to image quality, both these cameras are around 39 MP, with the Sony cropped to P45+ dimensions, so comparing is easy.

But, I don't think technical quality decides what goes on the wall.

That is what I can say right now.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,



You have written this on several occasions, but have you considered why it is the case?

Could be important.
 

algrove

Well-known member
Even though my SWC/M with my P45+ was my favorite HB, I always remembered my first HB, the 500C, which I bought in the early 70's. I had to 80 and 250 at the time, as no more funds to get more lenses.

When I got the P45+ I later looked for a 503CW and skipped any wides due to owning the SWC, but did get the 100 (lovely), the 150 (nice), 250 (my favorite perhaps due to 70's nostalgia) and 350 (loved it, but became just too large to backpack along with my other gear). I basically used all my HB gear for landscapes.

At the same time I used the HB system, I also used my 5D3 for studio and sports and M's for street and occasionally landscape, especially the Monochrom plus a Q later for both street and landscape.

Images available under the recent thread about whether Leicas can be used for landscape or only street.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/59009-leica-really-just-street-people-system.html
 

PeterA

Well-known member
[/url]_DSC3787.jpg by Peetey, on Flickr[/IMG]

I've been shooting with a 205TCC and 503CW for many years now ( Marc will recognise the CFE 4/40 IF) [ 50 FE, 100/2 FE, 80 CFE, 150 Cfi and 180 CFi ]. My observations regarding all these lenses is that they are ok-ish when shooting digital but were all designed to shoot with film. The 503CW has a CFV11 -16 on it and the 205TCC [ thanks Phon] I have used with both the CFV11 and a Sinar 75LV with adaptor. The Leica S2 can mount via adaptor as well.

Below is a shot cropped to pano ( 75% size of native file used ) with the CFE 40/4 IF and Leica S2 - great detail at focal plane and good corner sharpness is to be expected, however ( from my experience) absolute hyperfocal sharpness is significantly below the quality of what you get from Hasselblad HC lenses for the H series camera - and miles behind a Rodenstock. You get a 'reverse' tele view of the world with the 40....pushes objects away somewhat. however for a no corrections applied outcome - the quality of the lens is very high. Yes it is a big boy.

[/url]scraper.jpg by Peetey, on Flickr[/IMG]

For me all this Hassleblad V gear along with Hy6 kit and RBZ full kit are great for studio work, poor for walk around work and all really designed for a film world. I have decided to clean out my cupboards- because quite frankly, I don't use the stuff as much as it should be used and there are people out there who will use the stuff.

All that said - I have some special shots and memories made and preserved using the Hasselblad V lenses - and lens perfection isn't really that important to image making - gear is great , but making shots and memories is better.

Below is an image made with 205TCC CFV11-16 and the famous FE 110/2.

 

tjv

Active member
Great thread, thanks for all who are involved in posting!

If one is trying to amass a V series kit for digital (in my case a Credo 60) which body do people generally think is best to look out for? From my understanding the 501C/M and 503C/W are the latest model 500 series camera bodies? I don't care for using an auto winder, so the 501C/M seems better – and cheaper – but would I do well to look out for older models?

Essentially I'm thinking if I buy from somewhere like Pro Centre in London I could ask them to check calibration before sending? Or is it hit and miss with calibrating the screen in these cameras regardless?
 

Geoff

Active member
The V system is a lovely compact modular design, with a lot of appeal. But is there a need for a bit of discussion about focus calibration? It would be interesting to know how folks have tackled calibration of focus screen to back, and the differing lens requirements. Is focus shift ever an issue? Anyone done "screen to tethered" inspections to see how this all works out?

Perhaps the concern about aging eyes is about getting an older mech'l camera calibrated to precision levels required by higher res backs. Are fat pixel backs more forgiving?
 
Last edited:

MomentsForZen

New member
Hello All.

This is a wonderful thread, even for someone of my ilk who has little technical knowledge of the optics of cameras. I have a 500C/M and an assortment of lenses. I use them because I enjoy the look of them, and I enjoy the brilliance and feel of the mechanisms.

I have noted in some of the latest posts that there is a recognition that so many (most?) of the cameras around produce images that are "good enough", be they film or digital. The differentiating element for good photography lies in the subject matter, not the camera. Many of my "best" photographs are technically poor, but the subject is compelling as far as the viewer is concerned.

I was also wondering with respect to the question about which body to purchase that the body played very little part in the process as long as it basically worked? The light passes straight through the body when the shot is taken?

:) ... MomentsForZen (Richard)
 

tjv

Active member
I guess this is at the heart of my question. Is there a particular model of 500 series body that is easier to calibrate for focus or is known to better maintain calibration after it is adjusted perfectly? I'm assuming that the newer models like the 501cm / 503cw are better, so long as they weren't abused?

In other words, do the newer models allow for tighter calibration tollerances due to better materials, etc?

I'm asking this question because I mounted my Credo on a very well used 500C a while back and the focus screen was quite clearly out with resulting photos very much back focused. It depressed me a bit – although I'm quite happy using my back only a technical camera only – because I realised it might be hard to find a body with acceptable focus calibration. Who do people send these bodies to for adjustment? Do Hasselblad still do this, or do they farm it out to people in different countries? I'm in the antipodes, so that's where things get tricky for me.

The V system is a lovely compact modular design, with a lot of appeal. But is there a need for a bit of discussion about focus calibration? It would be interesting to know how folks have tackled calibration of focus screen to back, and the differing lens requirements. Is focus shift ever an issue? Anyone done "screen to tethered" inspections to see how this all works out?

Perhaps the concern about aging eyes is about getting an older mech'l camera calibrated to precision levels required by higher res backs. Are fat pixel backs more forgiving?
 

Pradeep

Member
But, I don't think technical quality decides what goes on the wall.

That is what I can say right now.


Erik

Erik,

I don't think it's ever the technical quality although obviously at a certain point it does become relevant. It is always about what kind of photography you can do with a camera and how easy it is.

I've found that traveling with friends and family makes it almost impossible to carry and use heavier equipment. There is not enough time to 'do your own thing' and fiddle about with settings and lenses. You tend to hold people up and delay the proceedings. The luxury of a slow, measured approach to landscape photography is only possible when you are alone or on a special trip with like minded photographers.

Many of the locations I have traveled to are difficult to go back to again on my own, so I now tend to simply use the most portable and yet high resolution system, which is the Sony. Except for wildlife action, it is almost perfectly suited for all my imaging needs.

Naturally, in my case too, very few of my MF prints have made it to the wall.
 

ChrisLivsey

New member
I guess this is at the heart of my question. Is there a particular model of 500 series body that is easier to calibrate for focus or is known to better maintain calibration after it is adjusted perfectly? I'm assuming that the newer models like the 501cm / 503cw are better, so long as they weren't abused?

In other words, do the newer models allow for tighter calibration tollerances due to better materials, etc?

I'm asking this question because I mounted my Credo on a very well used 500C a while back and the focus screen was quite clearly out with resulting photos very much back focused. It depressed me a bit – although I'm quite happy using my back only a technical camera only – because I realised it might be hard to find a body with acceptable focus calibration. Who do people send these bodies to for adjustment? Do Hasselblad still do this, or do they farm it out to people in different countries? I'm in the antipodes, so that's where things get tricky for me.
I don't think newer bodies are better because of manufacture as such, I speculate that, like Leica, over the years plastic parts have made their way into the mechanisms which may not be detrimental just saying.
The primary issue is how they have been cared for. If you look at the pictures of bodies on line, ignoring those that cover the rear mount with a back or cover, always suspect, you will note those that have the silver scuff marks from the rough and approximate mounting of backs usually from pro use opposed to those that are, usually, from careful amateur owners who attach backs slowly and precisely. On the other hand those professionals often routinely retuned bodies for factory service sometimes annually as Hasselblad recommended for constant usage, two to three years otherwise,a cost amateurs are unlikely to have undertaken.
For some of idea of the complexity look here:
Service Manual 503CW
http://www.galerie-photo.com/manuels/hasselblad-500-503cw.pdf
You will note special tools for focus calibration.
You will also note the film plane tolerance ± 0.03 mm, and the rather complex instructions for the screen: Position the microscope V-2236 on the screen adapter V-4705. Adjust (all four screws) the screen height with V-4704 until the green line is central between the two red lines. Use the engraved cross on tool as reference.

Personally mine went to Hasselblad for service and calibration with a note saying it was for digital back use, that may or may not have affected tolerances I have no issues. I have owned the body from new so am aware of any abuse it may have suffered, usually swearing at it when the dark slide is still in.
I have not read that some bodies are "better" than others in focus or maintaining it.

If you are looking at ProCentre look also here:
http://www.cameramuseum.uk/
They have on site repair facilities and as a customer I have found them good.

I don't think if buying secondhand you can beat actually handling the camera to gauge its condition but understand that may not be possible.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I guess this is at the heart of my question. Is there a particular model of 500 series body that is easier to calibrate for focus or is known to better maintain calibration after it is adjusted perfectly? I'm assuming that the newer models like the 501cm / 503cw are better, so long as they weren't abused?

In other words, do the newer models allow for tighter calibration tollerances due to better materials, etc?

I'm asking this question because I mounted my Credo on a very well used 500C a while back and the focus screen was quite clearly out with resulting photos very much back focused. It depressed me a bit – although I'm quite happy using my back only a technical camera only – because I realised it might be hard to find a body with acceptable focus calibration. Who do people send these bodies to for adjustment? Do Hasselblad still do this, or do they farm it out to people in different countries? I'm in the antipodes, so that's where things get tricky for me.
Hasselblad opted for matched back to camera a few models ago - in their H series. Leica opted for permanent mounting of the chip IN the camera - we have ample anecdotal evidence on the board regarding issues with mounting mirror boxes properly and even the chip itself from Nikon in the 800 series cameras...Alpa provide a set of shims with each Alpa - so that your desired back can be 'calibrated' to infinity or whatever distance you choose ( with one lens) ....

It is a very good question posed by Geoff and picked up by yourself....

think about the tolerances that have to be dealt with when you are looking at a plane of focus ( the chip) whose individual components ( pixels) are measured in microns (1000's of a millimeter) and this plane has to be fixed to a housing which then has to be fitted to a camera- Hasselblad V series cameras were not designed for such tolerances ...

In order to test the 'fit' of 'a' back to 'a' camera body - first one would test the back's mounting ( assuming the chip or capture plane ) is mounted perfectly within the body of the back one would place the back on a fixture which secured it to parallel to a granite surface plate and then use a test indicator to sweep across and around the actual mounting plate to test for how 'flat' or parallel to the surface plate ( your reference datum) is - and then repeat for camera body. I have no doubt whatsoever that no camera back or MFD back will be perfectly flat relative to each other....it comes down to how flat is good enough which comes down to what is good enough...

and the best answer is provided by Alpa who provide those shim sets and then you go through a complicated 'calibration routine' ...for' a lens' at 'a' given distance ( usually infinity ) and to test you do some pixel peeping - rinse and repeat until you are happy or just fed up and say well that will have to do...

and then you have to remind yourself that metal expands and contracts according to temperature - the colder it is the more it contracts and the hotter it is the more it expands- oh yes only tiny amounts for sure - but enough to make any calibration less than the optimal that was decided on when it was decided that the calibration was good enough...

When one is dealing with microns or hundreds of microns - all it takes is a finger to touch the metal and your measurements will be off.

Now for the good news - you can see that any depth of field or hyperfocal set of tables for a given lens to film plane distance will produce a given 'theoretical' circle of confusion around a theoretical perfect focus point - so one can figure out how much difference X amount if out of perfect plane for a chip or a back will actually make.

For wide angle shooting ( forgetting diffraction issues) no big deal because your camera back would actually not be mating properly with the digi back - before it makes any difference shooting at say f8-11 for hyperfocal maximisation of good enough focus.

I wouldn't use a HAsselblod V for macro work OR telephoto work OR portrait work of the type which sees one eye in focus and the other not - people show these shots - precisely because it isn't easy with this type of gear.

Sorry for the long winded response I thought I'd touch on some of the issues pertinent to the conversation.

and in conclusion the holy grail of photography ( at least for technical shooting) would be decent live view and zoom for focus - where the photographer can see exactly where the plane of focus lies on each shot....CMOS tech allows for much better live view - and is precisely the resonm I am finally considering 'updating' my digiback to an elephant gun size in terms of megapixels.
 

algrove

Well-known member
This discussion has now reminded me that I might have one last item:

-Hasselblad Acute Matte D PN 42215 with HB case for 503CW. If interested let me know and will try to dig it up.
 

jng

Well-known member
As Chris mentions, the decision whether to purchase a newer vs older body is muddled by how much abuse the body has taken and whether it was recently (and properly) serviced and aligned, issues that are not always obvious by casual inspection. I have two 500 series bodies - an old 500C that I've had for 40+ years and a newer 501CM. After a recent service by a local technician my 500C back-focuses slightly and when I purchased my 501 - in excellent shape otherwise, at least cosmetically - it front-focused substantially. I recall looking through the 501 on my tech's collimator and the test image appeared perfectly sharp. At that point I realized that alignment with a more sophisticated calibration method was needed. To make a long story short, an overhaul by Hasselblad-Bron in New Jersey (I'm in the US) completely resolved the issue. I will admit that I drove myself (and the senior tech at Hasselblad) a little crazy sorting this out but in the end the camera is now set up perfectly, at least until the mirror works its way out of alignment again from normal use. Screen height and screens also play a role although I imagine that once your screen is properly dialed in, it shouldn't drift out of alignment too easily. I found some variation from screen to screen, or at least between my specific copies of a matte screen and split/microprism screen. So, it's important to have the body aligned with the screen you intend to use most, and to verify that any other screens you use are within your tolerance for focus error. It's also important to verify that the lens and back mounts are aligned and true - something that requires a special jig from what I understand. Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that the person doing the adjustment needs to have the right tools and knows how to use them.

Responding to a previous query, shooting tethered allows one to check focus pretty easily, although I can tell you from experience that this can be a deep, deep rabbit hole in its own right...

I don't know how alignment of the sensor in the back is determined but mine was checked and adjusted by Phase One shortly after I purchased it as a "refurbished" unit.

As for the aging eyeballs... for me this has been a slow and losing battle but adjusting the eyepieces to my eyes and having the camera working properly certainly helps. Hopefully I'll be able to pick up a CMOS back or camera before all of my images go blurry. The new X1D certainly opens up some possibilities...

- John
 

ErikKaffehr

Active member
Focusing accuracy

Hi,

Regarding focusing accuracy, I would say it makes some sense to discuss the focusing accuracy at the film plane. Let's assume that we have P45+ sensor, it has a pixel pitch of 6.8 microns. My experience/opinion is that the image starts to degrade when CoC exceeds something like 1.5X the pixel pitch. So, for optimal sharpness the P45+ would require a CoC of 10.2 microns. The amount of allowable defocus at f/8 would be 8*10.2 -> 81.6 microns, say 80 microns. At f/2.8 the limit would be 2.8 * 10.2 -> 28.56 microns say 29 microns.

Factory calibration on the Hasselblad is +/- 30 microns and on the P45+ back +/- 12 microns. So worst case would not be OK for f/2.8 but very much OK for f/8.

How can you check focusing accuracy? Simply:

  • Take your fastest lens set focus at infinity and shoot a quite distant subject at full aperture at infinity stop. If you get a good image, the body is well aligned.
  • If you have a split image viewfinder you can check that it indicates perfect focus on the distant object.

If possible, you should use a viewfinder magnifier for this.

How do you know that you have good focus? If you can see aliasing effects you probably have decent focus.

For good sharpness, don't rely on DoF markings. They are calculated for 66 microns, or so.

It is quite OK to stop down a bit. With the best Hasselblad lenses, like the two Sonnars, you would probably need f/5.6 for best performance and you essentially get rid of aliasing at f/16. But you can sharpen an f/16 image quite a bit.

Many Hasselblad lenses have some field curvature. In general, I found that f/11 is a pretty decent compromise. Sonnars and Planar 100/3.5 achieve peak performance at around f/5.6. Some degradation of image quality is visible at f/8.

The DoF scales on the lens are based on small prints and they will mislead if you want to make large prints that hold up to close scrutiny.

One thing to consider is that most good lenses will perform about the same at f/8. So, if you are shooting small apertures, you don't need expensive lenses.

Best regards
Erik
 

ErikKaffehr

Active member
Hi Pradeep,

I am fortunate to have tolerant family and friends. Also, I am very much in favour of a tripod base workflow.

Still, I find that a small and flexible system like the A7rII is preferable. It may not be the ultimate pleasure to work with, but it does the job and can deliver excellent image quality. Add to that, being able to do "Scheimpflug" in a small package matters a lot to me.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

I don't think it's ever the technical quality although obviously at a certain point it does become relevant. It is always about what kind of photography you can do with a camera and how easy it is.

I've found that traveling with friends and family makes it almost impossible to carry and use heavier equipment. There is not enough time to 'do your own thing' and fiddle about with settings and lenses. You tend to hold people up and delay the proceedings. The luxury of a slow, measured approach to landscape photography is only possible when you are alone or on a special trip with like minded photographers.

Many of the locations I have traveled to are difficult to go back to again on my own, so I now tend to simply use the most portable and yet high resolution system, which is the Sony. Except for wildlife action, it is almost perfectly suited for all my imaging needs.

Naturally, in my case too, very few of my MF prints have made it to the wall.
 

Geoff

Active member
Re: Focusing accuracy

Hi,

Regarding focusing accuracy, I would say it makes some sense to discuss the focusing accuracy at the film plane. Let's assume that we have P45+ sensor, it has a pixel pitch of 6.8 microns. My experience/opinion is that the image starts to degrade when CoC exceeds something like 1.5X the pixel pitch. So, for optimal sharpness the P45+ would require a CoC of 10.2 microns. The amount of allowable defocus at f/8 would be 8*10.2 -> 81.6 microns, say 80 microns. At f/2.8 the limit would be 2.8 * 10.2 -> 28.56 microns say 29 microns.

Factory calibration on the Hasselblad is +/- 30 microns and on the P45+ back +/- 12 microns. So worst case would not be OK for f/2.8 but very much OK for f/8.

How can you check focusing accuracy? Simply:

  • Take your fastest lens set focus at infinity and shoot a quite distant subject at full aperture at infinity stop. If you get a good image, the body is well aligned.
  • If you have a split image viewfinder you can check that it indicates perfect focus on the distant object.

If possible, you should use a viewfinder magnifier for this.

How do you know that you have good focus? If you can see aliasing effects you probably have decent focus.

For good sharpness, don't rely on DoF markings. They are calculated for 66 microns, or so.

It is quite OK to stop down a bit. With the best Hasselblad lenses, like the two Sonnars, you would probably need f/5.6 for best performance and you essentially get rid of aliasing at f/16. But you can sharpen an f/16 image quite a bit.

Many Hasselblad lenses have some field curvature. In general, I found that f/11 is a pretty decent compromise. Sonnars and Planar 100/3.5 achieve peak performance at around f/5.6. Some degradation of image quality is visible at f/8.

The DoF scales on the lens are based on small prints and they will mislead if you want to make large prints that hold up to close scrutiny.

One thing to consider is that most good lenses will perform about the same at f/8. So, if you are shooting small apertures, you don't need expensive lenses.

Best regards
Erik
Erik -
There is some good information in the above post, especially regarding tolerances at both wide open and at f8, and the factory tolerances. But I wonder if something is missing here - as this is in general assuming that the focus set at the GG is working with the focus plane of the sensor.

The other issues to be addressed might include:

- variation in focus settings by each lens
- mirror shift
- focus shift in each lens (near to far)
- what is acceptable tolerance for focusing at the GG

Some of these could be put to rest by taking the GG out the equation, and just examining the shots by tethering, and looking at 100%.

Best,
Geoff
 

ErikKaffehr

Active member
Re: Focusing accuracy

Hi,

The two test I suggest take both issues into account. The first one, the infinity test confirms that sensor is in proper register with lens. The second confirms that lens, mirror and ground glass are aligned at the focusing point. But that test is limited by your vision. Split image makes use of vernier acuity, so it extends the practical resolution of human vision.

But, I agree that a tethered set up is more accurate, but shooting in the field you are still limited by your vision.

With CMOS backs, you can use magnified live view. But even magnified live view has some issues and one of them may be focus shift. I don't think there is much focus shift on Hasselblad lenses, but I don't know.

Also important, if focus is accurate, aliasing is present. On the P45+ you need f/16 to eliminate aliasing, at f/11 it aliases a lot. So if you can detect aliasing in a lot of your pictures you probably have good focusing. If you don't it may be that you or your subjects are not prone to aliasing.

The link below shows to images shot with the 100/3.5CF probably at f/11, the one on the left is a three way stitch shot with the Sony A7rII, downsized to 5433 pixels width the on the right side is from the P45+.

The area marked on right shows a kind of colour aliasing. That indicates that the "CoC" (including defocus, residual aberrations and diffraction) doesn't smear the image enough to cover significantly more than a single pixel.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/DivSamples/Aliasing.png

Best regards
Erik

Best regards
Erik


Erik -
There is some good information in the above post, especially regarding tolerances at both wide open and at f8, and the factory tolerances. But I wonder if something is missing here - as this is in general assuming that the focus set at the GG is working with the focus plane of the sensor.

The other issues to be addressed might include:

- variation in focus settings by each lens
- mirror shift
- focus shift in each lens (near to far)
- what is acceptable tolerance for focusing at the GG

Some of these could be put to rest by taking the GG out the equation, and just examining the shots by tethering, and looking at 100%.

Best,
Geoff
 
Last edited:

PhiloFarmer

Member
Dear All,

I couldn't resist jumping-in here.

We all have different Hassy-V bodies.....lenses.....viewfinders.....backs...techniques..
...experiences.

But...what we all have in common is one thing: the final image.

Unlike film, with a MFDB I can check my focus after each exposure.

Sure, if light and fleeting-image demand...that's where my personal experience with each body-lens-viewfinder-back comes into play.

I know my various cameras.

I know my various lenses.

I know my 2-MFDB's.

Now...what do I do with "this" body"..."this" lens...."this" viewfinder..."this" back....
"this" setting....????

That's the trick.

I have some written notes. I have volumes of unwritten notes. I use my intuition. I use (sometimes) brute force....like a light-meter!

Sure...I've spent hours aligning...refining...defining. But in "the moment," those hours are only as good as I am, right then.

I share my humble reflections with you....as we all enjoy the wisdom and experiences of the posters thus far!

Cheers,

Hank
 

jerome_m

Member
I don't get this discussion on focus, tolerances, etc... I use an H4D which was calibrated by Hasselblad a few years ago. When I take a picture, I point the AF at the subject, let the camera focus and focus is perfect. Each time.
 

ChrisLivsey

New member
I don't get this discussion on focus, tolerances, etc... I use an H4D which was calibrated by Hasselblad a few years ago. When I take a picture, I point the AF at the subject, let the camera focus and focus is perfect. Each time.
The clue lies in the thread title- V-series, not H series. :D
 
Top