CFV back on SWC, my first examples

bladdered

Member
After shooting my new CFV on a tripod last Sunday I was left wondering how I'd take to a digital SWC. Today, i took the opportunity to walk around the city centre with the SWC in hand and was delighted with the outcome.

Here's a few examples that I trust several members might be interested in. All shots were handheld, all at 200 iso. These samples were shot whilst looking through the viewfinder, but many more were shot from waist level.

Having seen the results I'm delighted with the combination.

Gary
 

Attachments

simonpg

New Member
Thanks for sharing the results Gary.

The images are lovely - the CFV seems to my eyes to be very "film-like" with terrific details resolved evenly from centre to the outer edges of the frame.

Maybe this is a benefit of the Kodak sensor - "film-like" attributes.

When Marc shared his first CFV images I commented that the sensor had one obvious benefit - it does not have the "plasticity" look of other digital images.

So, even though the CFV back is only 16MP, its image quality is superb. Better that than a 22MP back with not so lovely image attributes.

You should be delighted with it.
 

Swissblad

Member
Hi Gary
Great shots - I have to agree with Simon - I find the quality o the CFV stunning - indeed very film like. Guess I'll have to start saving!
Thanks for sharing and have fun with your new toy!
Sinuhe
 

bladdered

Member
Are high iso really usable ?
Swc and sharp 16mpix allow you to focus right ?
BUp,

There are others here far more experienced with this back than I, so perhaps someone else can give you a more considered response.

The SWC lens is renown for its sharpness and with the CFV only the centre portion is used. Seems to me that it retains all its characteristics with digital, within the limits of a digital media.

Depth of field on the lens is extensive and when used at over 6 feet the rotation needed on the barrel to reach infinity is very small. Yesterday, I stood with the camera at waist level shooting passersby and making minor adjustments to the lens depending on whether their route past me was 6 or 10 feet away. Hit rate was high.

When shooting a view, as above, focus is just not an issue and shutter speed is easy to keep over 125/250 sec.

Hope that answers part of your question and somebody else chips in for the other.

Gary
 

fotografz

Active Member
ISO 400 is quite usable and in some cases for certain subject matter preferable for that "film" look.

When Hasselblad's new proprietary RAW processing software "Phocus" gets here, it will increase all Hasselblad backs' high ISO by one stop. So the CFV will increase to ISO 800.

Simon, the pixel pitch of the CFV is the same as a 22 meg back. In theory, a 22 meg back would produce the same look since all Hasselblad sensors are made by Kodak.

I think the 9 micron pixels combined with existing Zeiss lenses that were developed for film use are the optimal shooting mates.

In my experiments using the Zeiss lenses with a 39 meg back on a H3/D camera, some of the characteristics are there but don't have the over-all feel they do when using the CFV. Using the 39 meg back, the H/C lenses actually outperformed the Zeiss counter part in a recent test between the 120 macros. The HC shot was more 3D, and produced better detail. The edge was slight, but there.

Both were beat when compared to the H3D/39 back on a Rollei Xact equipped with digital Rodenstock optics.
 

simonpg

New Member
Marc wrote: **In my experiments using the Zeiss lenses with a 39 meg back on a H3/D camera, some of the characteristics are there but don't have the over-all feel they do when using the CFV. Using the 39 meg back, the H/C lenses actually outperformed the Zeiss counter part in a recent test between the 120 macros. The HC shot was more 3D, and produced better detail. The edge was slight, but there.

Both were beat when compared to the H3D/39 back on a Rollei Xact equipped with digital Rodenstock optics.**


Thanks Marc. Your experiments reveal fascinating information. The performance of the H Fujinon lens is very revealing. I was also amazed by the Rollei/Rodenstock lens combo performance.

So, do we take from your experiments that a 16MP back can outperform even a 39MP back under the right equipment circumstances - attributes versus quantity of pixels?

Did you conclude that we now have a "new dimension" in imaging - the effective matching of lens attributes to digital sensor attributes? Maybe that is simply logical or am I reading too much into it?

Finally, do you see any similar sensor traits between the Kodak M8 sensor and the Kodak CFV sensor?
 

fotografz

Active Member
I wouldn't go that far Simon. It may be more the matching of the Zeiss optics to an optimum pixel size .... where beyond that the playing field evens out. I believe a larger square sensor with the same pixel pitch as the CFV would kill many higher meg backs out there now.

The digitar optics were no surprise to me since view camera lenses are fixed.
I had read a report where in every case a view camera with digital APOs beat anything and everything out there using the same digital back ... which I tend to agree with.

The CVF is a better back than the Kodak DCS Proback ... but that back is no slouch and is still in service with some pretty good photographers.
 
Top