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!

Using CFV 100 handheld

sjg284

Member
I've been debating this myself.
I am primarily a Leica M shooter for 20 years who dabbles in mirrorless from time to time (including the X1D ~6 years ago).
My heart wants the 907x 100C but my mind dwells on the lack of IBIS, which draws me back to the X2D.
I say this as someone who, again, has shot 99% of photos in my life without IBIS or OIS, with focal plane shutters producing more vibration than leaf.
And I would be using lenses no longer than the 55 or 65mm.
 

darr

Well-known member
Here's a recent handheld image I captured using the 907x + 45P combo, which is a lightweight setup.
I didn't apply any sharpening in post-processing, and I cropped it to a square because I had configured the camera that way when I took the shot.

Achieving sharp results at 1/40 isn't always guaranteed for me, but occasionally, I manage to do so.
While I currently shoot more film than digital, I'm thinking this balance will shift soon.

 

ThdeDude

Active member
Don't necessarily agree with Henri Cartier-Bresson here but, IMHO, Ansel Adams may have stated well the relative importance of sharpness.

“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”
Henri Cartier-Bresson

'It is worthwhile ... to consider sharpness and related concepts in physical terms, but in discussing mechanical or optical issues we must not lose sight of the much greater importance of image content-emotional, aesthetic, or literal. I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!"
Ansel Adams, The Camera, p.73
 

ThdeDude

Active member
... If I choose to use a tripod in good light, I do so mostly because I prefer to have a more considered control over composition rather than because I think the tripod is necessary to avoid camera shake.
"I do so mostly because I prefer to have a more considered control"

Like your carefully chosen words.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
The relevance of 'sharpness' ( or anything else) all depends on the use case doesn't it or artistic 'intent'?
 

darr

Well-known member
This discussion is focused on the technical aspects of using the CFV 100 handheld, not delving into art-related jargon.
Why should we be concerned with what Cartier-Bresson or AA had to say about sharpness?
It's 2024, and we can access a Hasselblad 100-megapixel digital back. Now that is exciting!
 

ThdeDude

Active member
This discussion is focused on the technical aspects of using the CFV 100 handheld, not delving into art-related jargon.
Why should we be concerned with what Cartier-Bresson or AA had to say about sharpness?
It's 2024, and we can access a Hasselblad 100-megapixel digital back. Now that is exciting!
Yes, you have a point here.

What I meant is that some possible loss of sharpness, for example, due to being handheld, may not be of importance.

P.S. Meant "may not be of great importance".
 
Last edited:

tcdeveau

Well-known member
The nice thing about the CFV100 and X2D is we’ve got two solutions to get to where one needs to be. I’d say if lack of IBIS is a concern for one’s shooting, just go with version that has IBIS.

I’ve had plenty of sloppy and blurry results with IBIS too though haha, and technique is still important IBIS or not. The face detect feature is more important for the hit rate of my subjects anyway than IBIS. I’m curious how the CFV100/907x does with the handgrip and face detect AF.
 

Jager

Member
I quickly fell in love with the original CFV-50c. When attached to a 500CM and put on a tripod, that 50mp sensor rendered the most beautiful files. Detail, sharpness, color fidelity... it was all there. Artistic merit was still completely on me, of course. But I knew that if I managed to bring that aspect to the party, the digital back would do its part.

Take it off that tripod, though, and even with careful technique the difference was discernible. Didn't matter how slight, how subtle the difference in that handheld file was. Didn't matter if the resulting picture was still excellent. Artistry will nearly always trump the technical details of photography, after all. But I knew. I would forever after know that that picture wasn't as good as it could have been.

And so on the tripod it remained.

The surprise I had with the 907x / CFV-100c was that in good light, with the one XCD lens I own... handholding the camera is entirely straightforward, with no discernible difference with a comparable file taken off a tripod.

Will that good fortune continue to hold with legacy V-system glass, using the electronic shutter and readout off the sensor? I dunno.

Will it continue to hold in low light? Almost certainly not.

Will it continue to hold when the back is mounted to a legacy V-system body? Undoubtedly not.

But shot natively, with good light, the 907x makes a most excellent walkabout, handheld camera.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Yes, you have a point here.

What I meant is that some possible loss of sharpness, for example, due to being handheld, may not be of importance.

But for most, it would be a preference to not have the loss of sharpness. You can make a sharp image less sharp, but you cannot make an unsharp image sharp. Or to put it another way, you can make clearly defined detail less clearly defined. But you cannot make unclearly defined detail clearly defined. Or at least not as effectively as capturing it so in the first place. And thus for handheld, this becomes a very legitimate consideration when purchasing equipment.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

ThdeDude

Active member
But for most, it would be a preference to not have the loss of sharpness. You can make a sharp image less sharp, but you cannot make an unsharp image sharp. Or to put it another way, you can make clearly defined detail less clearly defined. But you cannot make unclearly defined detail clearly defined. Or at least not as effectively as capturing it so in the first place. And thus for handheld, this becomes a very legitimate consideration when purchasing equipment.

Steve Hendrix/CI
Yes, I agree. I make a conscious effort to use a tripod or monopod even when not strictly needed. But sometimes this is not possible or practical, and some loss of sharpness/resolution is inevitable, but, depending on the type of image, might be acceptable.
 
Last edited:

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Yes, I agree. I make a conscious effort to use a tripod or monopod even when not strictly needed. But sometimes this is not possible or practical, and some loss of sharpness/resolution is inevitable, but, depending on the type of image, might be acceptable.

Yes. From my standpoint, my job is to identify and consider the photographic objectives of my clients and consult with them on the best solutions for achieving them. So almost everything gets mentioned and quantified, and in the case of someone asking about handholding limitations, it's then my responsibility to quantify those capabilities for any given system my client may be considering and share the likelihood of success/failure for how they intend to use the equipment. Since David Suchoff mentioned that concern up front, indeed as the primary concern of the thread, my responses have been pointed toward applying the focus there.

Certainly anyone who primarily shoots landscape on a tripod, for example, would have far fewer concerns about handholding tolerances (though some other concerns would be presented).

Not to put too fine a point on it, just sometimes I feel like I'm getting on my high horse, and I don't intend to so much, there's all different sorts of photographic endeavors, but my discipline often comes to the fore in those instances when someone brings something up as David did.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Personally, I'm usually fine shooting with the CFVII 50c on my 500CM hand held, even with the 120mm macro lens fitted. I like nice, sharply focused photos, but sometimes the emotional content of a photo outweighs achieving the ultimate quality the lens and back can produce. That said, to me any Hasselblad SLR is a large heavy camera that I prefer to use with a sturdy tripod, if for no other reason than that it doesn't tire my arms out as much.

Would/will the CFV 100c prove any different? I won't know until I buy one ... if I buy one. Reading everyone else's estimation of the hand-holdability nets no information of value, in my opinion, since everyone has a different take on what is or isn't important, what is or isn't "sharp enough", etc. If I decide to buy one, because of the cost of a new 907x/CFV 100c, I'll rent one for a week first and exercise it with all my bodies and lenses to see if it is suitable for my use.

Nothing beats first hand knowledge. :D

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Forum sacrilege!
So, continuing in my heretical thoughts, I took out my 907x/CFVII 50c and fitted the new-to-me Hasselblad CF Sonnar 180mm f/4 to it. I put it on my usual sturdy tripod and took a quick photo of the fence on my patio (after opening all doors and screens in the way ..), then took it off the tripod and shot the same photo again hand held.


ISO 1600, 1/2500 vs 1/3000 sec, f/5.6
200% magnification on detail


I'm happy with that.
Will the CFV 100c prove greatly different? I dunno.

G

Oh, just another snap ... this one using the tripod:


Chair & Table on Rainy Patio — Santa Clara 2024
Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c + CF Sonnar 180mm f/4
Electronic shutter
ISO 800 @ f/4 @ 1/100, tripod mounted


I still love this camera. :)
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
So, continuing in my heretical thoughts, I took out my 907x/CFVII 50c and fitted the new-to-me Hasselblad CF Sonnar 180mm f/4 to it. I put it on my usual sturdy tripod and took a quick photo of the fence on my patio (after opening all doors and screens in the way ..), then took it off the tripod and shot the same photo again hand held.


ISO 1600, 1/2500 vs 1/3000 sec, f/5.6
200% magnification on detail


I'm happy with that.
Will the CFV 100c prove greatly different? I dunno.

G

Oh, just another snap ... this one using the tripod:


Chair & Table on Rainy Patio — Santa Clara 2024
Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c + CF Sonnar 180mm f/4
Electronic shutter
ISO 800 @ f/4 @ 1/100, tripod mounted


I still love this camera. :)

Odd that your tripod capture seems less sharp than your handheld. Hands of steel! Though 1/3000th of a second isn't too tough a test. But your 1/100th looks good (on that table) edge, especially given that you have the 180mm lens mounted, so you're surpassing the conventional handheld formulas.

Generally, the way I would think, is that there's nothing inherent in the hardware of the CFV 100c vs the CFV 50c that would present any additional challenges or benefits. There's no IBIS, nor are there any changes to the form factor. The weight is slightly less, but probably not enough to matter much with regard to hand holding. In other words, the hardware conditions are mostly the same, other than your results may be viewed (or printed) much larger, due the increased pixel count and any weakness that might have been obscured or less noticeable with the CFV 50c will be less so with the CFV 100c - to some degree.

As Godfrey said, first hand knowledge is the best testimonial. Keep in mind that our evaluation rentals are creditable toward purchase. (self serving factoid)


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

Jager

Member
A couple of quick handheld shots today. 907x/CFV-100c with XCD 45p.

Slave Quarters, Rappahannock County, VA.
ISO 64, 1/320 @ f8.Slave_Quarters_2048.jpg

crop
Slave_Quarters_crop.jpg



John Mosby Grave, Fauquier County, VA.
ISO 64, 1/500 @ f4.

Mosby_2048.jpg

crop
Mosby_Crop.jpg
 
Top