Medium Format Family

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

medium format vs DSLR 35mm

polypal

New Member
Funny words

I am noticing all kinds of funny words like leica, summilux etc.
What is happening here?


Paul
 

fotografz

Active Member
Trust me, I've shot with the S2 ... don't count on a XPan Digital "killing" the S2 even if a Xpan digital came to be a real product ... which will be the same day they open an Ice Cream Parlor in Hades.

The Leica M9 is also a phenomenal camera. Sometimes "size" does count in a reverse manner ... because: 1) it's a camera you are likely to take with ... compared to a big one that you may not ... 2) it is a camera that actually exists (I shoot with one).

Horses for courses : -)


-Marc
 

fotografz

Active Member
I'd rather dream big ... a 6X6 square sensor CFV with about 60 meg. and the "Come Back" of the 200 series camera with AF Zeiss lenses using Hasselblad's True Focus technology.

Heaven on earth.

: -)
 

polypal

New Member
V series AF

About twenty years ago engineers at Carl Zeiss made a series of prototype AF lenses for the V series.

Hasselblad management in those days decided the world was not yet ready for this.
Zeiss designers used a heavily modified 2000FCW body to mount the lenses.
Some early TCC lenses show a double row of databus contacts to make AF possible.


A pity this was not to be.
 

Dick Roadnight

New Member
i use a hasselblad 501cm with a 40mm cfe lens, and have the trannies (50 Velvia) scanned;...
My daughter uses Digital Nikon D2X, and A large format film camera; needless to say, LF blows the rest out of the water !

Many people move up from 35mm to Mf and start using fast films, but to get the best out of MF film you need fine grain film.

The H4D-60 will not get blown out of the water by LF, even if you do not use apo-digitars and a stitching back.

I am thinking of going back to the square, using hex-stitch on a Sinar P3 with a H4D-60... 9* 9 cm, giving about 250Mpx!!!
 

najobskalf

Member
Yes, but ...

I am deeply impressed by the image quality of digital Hasselblads. I gave up my film Hasselblads and turned the proceeds into a Canon 5D MkII and several Canon L-series lenses. The results I get are technically far better than I could get from my film Hasselblads (with lenses from the CF 40 to the CF 180). It has been a revelation as I was very sceptical about the almost universal move to digital. Naturally, if my lottery ticket is a winner I shall probably be heading to my nearest Hasselblad dealer, but realistically I do not regret the exchange I made, which was not a downgrade at all.
 

Ronazle

New Member
HI, I'm new to this forum and am seeking advice/info. For the most part I have been using a Leica M8 for the past few years. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the results. Having said that, most of my best photos have been taken by 2 1/4 SLRs. I am dusting off my Hassy gear and ready to get back into medium format. I have three questions: What is the best developing time/procedure for Efke 25? What is the best available slow speed film for my Hassy?

Now (please don't laugh), are there any great mobile digital backs available for less than the price of a Leica M9 (this question, of course, assumes that the old Hassy/new digital back would produce an image superior to the M9. If need be, I guess I could replace my completely functional 500C/W with a 503.
 

najobskalf

Member
Sell your gear and start again

This is probably not what you want to hear - but it is an honest opinion. I was a Hassel user for many years, my favourite combination being Velvia 50 and the 40mm CF Distagon. I decided that I could not afford the 40+ digital back I would have liked and sold the whole collection of 503CWs, lenses from 40 to 250 etc. I bought a Canon 5d MkII and L-series lenses from 16 to 400mm instead. And an Epson 3800 printer.They let me stay in the forum, though! I have never regretted it. As soon as I had taken my first few batches of photos I realized that they were at least as good technically as anything I had ever taken on film. Actually, they were much better! This is with a 21MP sensor. I am hoping that Canon will bring out a 36 to 40MP soon. If I win the lottery and if Hasselblad start using Zeiss optics again, and if they incorporate autofocus and exposure-bracketing etc, etc - I will buy a new Hasselblad outfit with at least 60MP. Meanwhile - forget film and go for a good DSLR. It's not cheap but much cheaper than Hassel and better than trying to put a sensor on a 503. A Leica is the ultimate male jewellery but the photos are not that good - trust me!
 

Ronazle

New Member
I don't mind in the least hearing it. I doubt if I will quit Leica in the near future-I do shoot with two M8s. I suspect they do a somewhat better job than you believe, but strokes and folks. I am in agreement in that I would like a quality digital back on a Hassy; although I truly do not like autofocus-I'm probably somewhat of a control driven person.

Yes Canon and Nikons are impressive, result wise. I have tried a Nikon and really missed the simplicity of a Hassy or Leica. Perhaps sometime in the future I'll take your advice, but for now will continue with digital Leica, film Leica and film Hassy. ron
 

Victorh

New Member
A V series Hasselblad camera with CFV 39 digital back and selected lenses like the 40 IF, the 100mm CFi and the 120 CFE/CFi will beat any 35 mm based camera as far as IQ is concerned.

There are quite a number of posts here from users that come to the same conclusion.
MF digital with Hasselblad be it V or H system has a right of its own to exist.
Nobody would spend 50 K+ USD on digital MF unless results would justify this investment.


Vic.
 

blowupster

Member
In 1987 I got a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and a Hasselblad broken 1000F. From 1988 I use CM500 and CF 60mm + 150mm. I made a great number of weddings with Hasselblad with 2 A-70

The M2 was out of order one year after and just began to survive 2 years ago. I succed to repair the 1000F but it was out of order 2 years after.
In 2007 I got a new M8 and was very satisfied with it. Anyway I use the Hasselblad time to time. In 2009 I tried to make same pictures with M8 35mm Asph. and Velvia 50 on 202FA+ 110mm. And blowups some picture to 50x50cm.
Hasselblad was better. For portrait, Hasselblad is far better.
October 2009 I could try a M9 and print portraits made from M8, M9 M6 and Hasselblad V in 50x75cm The M9 was better than Hasselblad. Hard to say between M8 and M6. Digital gave more details but some details are to close to digital artefact witch are Ok for landscapes but not for portraits and Velvia give strange colours too. In November 2009 I had the opportunity to get a second hand CFV-39 when M9 was impossible to buy.
BTW I got a 450D Kit +
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1.4 in 2009 I never use and a Xpan+ 90mm in January 2010 I only use for 24x65mm portraits on T-max at 800 asa for printing at 25x40cm

In 2010 I build a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and is what I use most of time when I do not use the CFV.
 

najobskalf

Member
Whoops

Actually, I was writing rubbish! I was tired and it was late, but still no excuse. I thought wrongly that you were still on film Leicas. My apologies - the M8 results you are getting should be fine! Definitely NOT male jewellery! I hated parting with my Haselblads - if there had been a way to get a good digital back I would have taken it. But a small sensor on a 40mm lens did not make sense. I had (and still have) a Nikon 9000 Coolscan but all the films that I would have continued to use were being discontinued. An affordable 54 x 54 sensor wouild have been marvellous, of course. With all the automation available on todays DSLRs, it is a trivial procedure to switch to manual and to switch off autofocus and IS / VR. When it comes to wide-angle lenses, however, how is that to be achieved with a V series? On a "35mm" DSLR it is simple to get a good 16mm rectilinear lens (eg Canon L-series). Again, at the long end - what about a 300 or 400 mm f/2.8? What I did disapprove of, rightly or wrongly, was the Oriental Hasselblad H cameras failing to adopt new Zeiss optics, in favour of software-corrected ones. I concede that that may be my prejudice. I am only an amateur and content with sharp A2 prints.
 

Victorh

New Member
With digital recording media there simply is no need for larger sensors like the actually used 56x56 mm with 6x6 cameras.
Unlike 35 mm based systems Hasselblad Zeiss did not develop a suitable WA lens for the CFV or the CFVII digital backs.
The price of such a WA lens and the resulting low volume prevented this.



Vic.
 

najobskalf

Member
Interesting ...

I do take the point about cost - but cost considerations never stopped Leitz! I am interested in your comment about there being no need for a larger sensor. But there certainly is a quality advantage in 35mm DSLRs using full frame sensors over those using the smaller APS-C. (I use both) So, why not with MF? Also, if that were the case, why are Hassel digital images superior to Canon/Nikon DSLR ones (and they are)? Many years ago somebody published a paper which compared film formats and concluded that the area of the film was of central importance, because of the amount of information it could hold. As formats became larger, this advantage tended to be offset by the difficulty of making lenses that could yield the required resolution. Which was why Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses had a central role in making Hasselblad what it was. They went about as far as was feasible in optical quality for the format (not to mention their superb micro-contrast).
 

blowupster

Member
I don't think that Zeiss lens are not good enought for digital. (BTW Zeiss is the first lens maker for digitals ...Nokia and other phones !) Perhaps very "old" lens like 80mm CF 250mm, CF 350mm and apo 500mm are not as good as new IF 40mm, 100mm and 180mm (and what about S-A lens !!!). Anyway that's not the point as Hasselblad V use Schneider and fujifilm (FE 60-120mm) as well.
They could use Apo rodenstock now as they use kodak lens at the begining.

These days I re-discover my light CF 60mm witch was perfect at film time. A light "35mm" lens to covers 90% of my films needs. Now, I need a 40mm to do the same: a heavy lens that only the center of the job is used for digital.(In fact I use the 50mm 2.8)
No chance in fact, what the V users wants is just enought pixels (say 30Mpix) on 56x56mm aera to continue to use F 1/11 for portraits without diffraction effect that distroy any good picture made with digital 24x36mm 20Mpix sensor.
 

najobskalf

Member
Really?

I think it was almost entirely Zeiss lenses that gave the original (V series) Hasselblad the high reputation it had. By the way, I am not trying to "knock" current digital Hasselblads at all. (However, reviews of the Leica S2 did not seem all that enthusiastic to me when I read them.) Legend has it that there are portrait / wedding photographers out there who actually use 35mm DSLRs professionally! I don't know whether this has any basis in reality, not being one myself. Seriously, why on Earth would anyone want to stop a 35mm format portrait lens down to f/11 (if I reads you correctly)?
 
Top