More Price Wars?

[Shelby Lewis]

OT...

Hey Shelby

Hope you guys are all doing well after the violent weather.

Woody

Fine here... thanks for asking.

Less than a mile away? Not so good. Looks like a bomb was dropped in the middle of out town. Sad stuff.

 

[bensonga]

...A CFV sensor needs to be square..... If one of the sensor makers comes up with a 48X48 or larger sensor, then maybe ... but I double doubt that'll happen either.

I agree...any future CFV (if there is one) has got to be a square sensor if they wanted to target the market of existing users (and surely there are alot of them).

Re the ideal square sensor size.....would the "full frame" equivalent of the 6x6cm film size be something like 58x58mm? I think 48x48 would still result in a focal length crop factor....less than the current CFV, but I'm not sure by how much.

A "full frame" square sensor with 30+ megapixels of resolution....I'll bet there are a more than a few V-series owners who would pony up the $$$ once the economy is back on it's feet.

I know....not likely.

Gary
Alaska

 

[jerryreed]

I believe that reviewers have held that the IQ of T* lenses are inadequate to render the MTF quality that is achievable with current technology sensors. If that is the case, would there be economic value to produce a sensor say half again as large as those currently available, with the likely rejection rate associated with ever larger chips, without the resultant image quality that the purchaser might reasonably expect for their money?

I say this as a owner of a Hy6 which is ready for a square sensor, but puzzled about the adequacy of even Schneider lenses (non-digitar).

Jerry

 

[fotografz]

I believe that reviewers have held that the IQ of T* lenses are inadequate to render the MTF quality that is achievable with current technology sensors. If that is the case, would there be economic value to produce a sensor say half again as large as those currently available, with the likely rejection rate associated with ever larger chips, without the resultant image quality that the purchaser might reasonably expect for their money?

I say this as a owner of a Hy6 which is ready for a square sensor, but puzzled about the adequacy of even Schneider lenses (non-digitar).

Jerry

I'm not sure about that. I've used Zeiss T* lenses with a 33 meg Leaf Aptus 75s and the image IQ was pretty spectacular for most applications. The 40IF, 65/3.5, 100/3.5, and 180/4 in the CF/CFE line-up seemed to keep pace with that particular Dalsa sensor. Surpassed only by my view camera and digitar lenses, but I really had to pixel peep to see any real life difference.

IMO, a 48X48 sensor that maintains the 10 micron pixels would be a real gain when working with these 6X6 sytems ... providing about 22 meg and increasing the wide angle ability enough ... at least for me. I think the crop factor would drop from 1.5X to 1.16X ... so a 40mm would be around a 47mm field-of-view.

 

[jerryreed]

I am not in disagreement with you. I have seen that that T* lenses create great images with the current digital backs. What I am saying is that there is a level achievable of IQ higher than currently being created with the SAME back were better lenses to be used. Stated slightly differently, the lenses are not creating the level of IQ that the backs are capable of recording. I hope that you can agree with my re-stated position, which is not intended to to disparage the T* lenses.

Jerry

 

[fotografz]

I am not in disagreement with you. I have seen that that T* lenses create great images with the current digital backs. What I am saying is that there is a level achievable of IQ higher than currently being created with the SAME back were better lenses to be used. Stated slightly differently, the lenses are not creating the level of IQ that the backs are capable of recording. I hope that you can agree with my re-stated position, which is not intended to to disparage the T* lenses.

Jerry

Yep.I agree with that since I can see it somewhat when using digital view lenses with the same digital back.

 

[robertwright]

looking at it this way Hassy could open up a whole new market for the V series by introducing a line of V glass newly optimized for digital. with different focal lengths perhaps to match the square format, whatever it ends up being, 55x55, 48x48, 50x50.

I really don't understand why they have abandoned the square, especially after being such a staunch defender of the format. Whole careers have been built on the square.

And looking at the new economic environment, introducing a new cf-v back that would be near full frame, and announcing a new line of V series digital glass, you leverage the existing base of V users, who can start to buy in piecemeal, less investment, using their existing glass and accessories but upgrading as time goes on. Eventually you swap out your body for a digital body with electronic lens contacts and get the benefit of digital lens corrections.

I know the way of the past has been to get users to push all of their "old" crap across the table in trade for the "newest" best entire system. this was how it was done, at substantial (financed) investment. Seems to me now there is a good case to be made for smaller investments building towards a complete system.

please hassy-just for me

 

[bensonga]

looking at it this way Hassy could open up a whole new market for the V series by introducing a line of V glass newly optimized for digital. with different focal lengths perhaps to match the square format, whatever it ends up being, 55x55, 48x48, 50x50.

I really don't understand why they have abandoned the square, especially after being such a staunch defender of the format. Whole careers have been built on the square.

And looking at the new economic environment, introducing a new cf-v back that would be near full frame, and announcing a new line of V series digital glass, you leverage the existing base of V users, who can start to buy in piecemeal, less investment, using their existing glass and accessories but upgrading as time goes on. Eventually you swap out your body for a digital body with electronic lens contacts and get the benefit of digital lens corrections.

I know the way of the past has been to get users to push all of their "old" crap across the table in trade for the "newest" best entire system. this was how it was done, at substantial (financed) investment. Seems to me now there is a good case to be made for smaller investments building towards a complete system.

please hassy-just for me

And for me too!

Gary
Alaska

 

[fotografz]

Does anyone know what the resolution capabilities are of the current Zeiss V lenses? Are current MF Digital backs really more capable than the V lenses ability to resolve detail?

I suppose I could test this theory myself with my 39 meg back ... since I can mount 500 series Zeiss V lenses on the H3D-II/39 ... which I do use but have never done a full test of the lens range against the HC lens line up. The one "bench test" I did do was the older 40CFE against the HC/35 and the HC was a bit sharper in the corners ... but I didn't test for resolution (not that I would even know how to). I now have the Zeiss 40IF and I think the results may be significantly different.

BTW, DAC software lens corrections should be possible even with 500 series V lenses since the H3 and H2F camera knows what lens is on the camera. The CF Lens Adapter makes that possible ... any CFE lens and E type extenders are automatically recognized, and you can manually program in any other focal length. I doubt that development would ever happen ... but in theory it could be done.

That is another strength of the V system lenses. They can be used on 500 series cameras and any H camera.

When I use the 645 H2F Camera with film, I still prefer using the V lenses for the character we all know and love. I can take a 503CW and the H2F (or H1/H2) and use the same lenses on both. The H2F is actually faster and easier to use since in-viewfinder focus confirmation and metering works with the V lenses. I highly recommend this combo to V camera users. BTW, if you put a CF digital back on the H2F you get DAC corrections with HC lenses, and you could use the same digital back on your 500 V camera using a V mount iAdapter. With all the cross compatibility, the V/H systems are all very versatile.

 

[bensonga]

That is another strength of the V system lenses. They can be used on 500 series cameras and any H camera.

When I use the 645 H2F Camera with film, I still prefer using the V lenses for the character we all know and love. I can take a 503CW and the H2F (or H1/H2) and use the same lenses on both. The H2F is actually faster and easier to use since in-viewfinder focus confirmation and metering works with the V lenses. I highly recommend this combo to V camera users. BTW, if you put a CF digital back on the H2F you get DAC corrections with HC lenses, and you could use the same digital back on your 500 V camera using a V mount iAdapter. With all the cross compatibility, the V/H systems are all very versatile.

Great info Marc. I think you've commented on this before, but after a quick search I couldn't find the post....would everything you've said above about the H2F apply also to the H2? Basically, what are the differences between these two cameras? I see there is a H2, 80mm HC lens, 90x finder and film back available in the For Sale section for $2,500.

Gary
Alaska

 

[fotografz]

Great info Marc. I think you've commented on this before, but after a quick search I couldn't find the post....would everything you've said above about the H2F apply also to the H2? Basically, what are the differences between these two cameras? I see there is a H2, 80mm HC lens, 90x finder and film back available in the For Sale section for $2,500.

Gary
Alaska

Gary, both can use leaf shutter V lenses with the CF lens adapter. Both cameras can be used with film or digital.

The basic difference is that the H2F is currently only CF/CFH digital back compatible ... WITH the DAC corrections in Phocus available when using H/C lenses ... the H2 can also accept the CF/CFH backs but cannot take advantage of DAC corrections.

On the other hand, the H2 can also use Phase One H mount backs where currently the H2F cannot.

If the plan is to use the Zeiss lenses then the H2 is probably more economical.