It Happened! 500cm Woes

OK so I guess I got into a bit of a rush the other day. I was at a drag strip and was excited to shoot some cars and whatnot. My 500cm had an extension tube on it with the 80mm Planar lens attached. I didn't realize this at home in a more controlled environment. I cocked the camera and removed the tube and lens. Looked briefly at the lens back to see if the shutter mechanism bit was slotted in the proper direction, more or less horizontal. It was but what I did NOT realize was that the shutter in the lens was NOT cocked!

 

And so "it happened" that my camera and lens are jammed! I tried to turn the tiny screw inside the body (with a tiny screw driver) and got some motion out of it- most of a complete turn of the screw, enough that the lens did rock around a bit but not enough to release the lens from the camera body.

 

I am bummed beyond words. I LOVE shooting that camera, I've never before enjoyed a camera so much.

 

So what now?

 

PS: I fortunately have a 2nd body, a 500c. I'm not in love with the viewfinder glass tho, and not sure I can take the much improved, split screen, gridded VF glass out of the 500cm and put it in the 500c. Plus I'm down my lovely 80mm Planar lens.

 

Again, what am I to do, send the camera somewhere?

 

Thanks in advance.

You must turn the "screw" and lens at the same time so that the shutter coupling slips out of engagement. The fact that it can be turned at all makes it likely the maneuver will be successful.

Ed, I'lll give it a try. Might wait to have s second pair of hands to hold the camera steady tho.

It might be worth $15 for the right tool. It won't slip when you turn it with one hand on the body and the other on the lens and lens release.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Camera-Repair-Tool-Hasselblad/dp/B002KEL9T0/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=hasselblad+tool&qid=1595628320&sr=8-1

It might be worth $15 for the right tool. It won't slip when you turn it with one hand on the body and the other on the lens and lens release.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Camera-Repair-Tool-Hasselblad/dp/B002KEL9T0/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=hasselblad+tool&qid=1595628320&sr=8-1

Wow! I'm seriously amazed that someone makes a special tool for that job, and that, presumably, there's enough of a market to make it profitable.

 

It's a wonder I'm not seeing 'blad users at every turn.

It might be worth $15 for the right tool. It won't slip when you turn it with one hand on the body and the other on the lens and lens release.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Camera-Repair-Tool-Hasselblad/dp/B002KEL9T0/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=hasselblad+tool&qid=1595628320&sr=8-1

 

 

Increasingly hard to find, but these are still available here and there. Not really at Amazon, unless one wants to pay out the nose. Have one in my sights and will buy asap

Wow! I'm seriously amazed that someone makes a special tool for that job, and that, presumably, there's enough of a market to make it profitable.

You can't mount or remove a lens unless both the camera and lens are fully cocked. The lockup problem mostly occurs when the shutter is accidentally discharged in the middle of the process. I suspect this occurs when you hesitate removing or mounting the lens, or change directions. In my case, the latch holding the shutter open was worn and easily discharged. It happens often enough to merit a special tool and widely disseminated procedures, especially with lens made 1980 and before.

 

In order to re-cock a jammed lens you must hold the lens firmly, while depressing the lens release and turning the lens with one hand, and holding the body while turning the screw with the other. It's easier to walk and chew gum ;)

 

The trick is to apply some force to turn the coupling without the screwdriver slipping off the head and gouging the lens. Any suitably sized screwdriver with a screw-centering collar will work. The special tool is a concession to those who want a compact tool to carry, just in case.

Why does anyone put up with the quirks of an Hasselblad V? For starters, you got 72 MP quality from film in an age where most DSLRs were 12 MP or less. Secondly, you have an elegantly if retro styling and solid feel that I find appealing. As an added benefit, people walk around rather than in front when you put it on a tripod. One person confessed that he thought I was shooting video.

I gave up on the extension tubes a long time ago. Too complicated and too prone to cause problems. Instead I have more lenses: 60, 100, 120, 150 etc. More expensive but more satisfying.

Attach the extension tube(s) to the camera, one at a time, then the lens. Remove them in reverse order, outside in.

For starters, you got 72 MP quality from film in an age where most DSLRs were 12 MP or less.

Only if you wet printed it!

There's still no affordable scanner that will give you a true 4000 ppi resolution from 120 film in digital file format. Nor in less than a thumb-twiddling and mind-numbingly slow time.

 

And digital cameras have now come a long way from being limited to 12 megapixels.

Edited July 26, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

There's still no affordable scanner that will give you a true 4000 ppi resolution from 120 film in digital file format. Nor in less than a thumb-twiddling and mind-numbingly slow time.

I used a Nikon LS-8000 scanner, which at the time was relatively affordable. Yes, it was slow, and you couldn't fit a whole roll of scans on a single DVD. In terms of resolution, scans were roughly equivalent to 16 MP, limited by the medium not the scanner. I base this on A/B comparisons after buying a 16 MP digital back.

 

The largest prints I made were 16"x24", which is roughly 35 MP at 300 DPI. Both MF film and digital look pretty good at that size. I was using a Nikon D2x at the time (2007), which had a paltry 12 MP, and was state of the art for DSLRs at the time. In the interim, digital has improved greatly, while film has virtually disappeared. I am somewhat tempted to get a CFV-50 back, for old time's sake, but it costs about the same as a Sony FS7m2 video camera, which I could write off as a business expense.

It was a long time ago that i have posted images that showed image information at pixel level in Nikon LS-8000 scans.

It's there. Maybe that at pixel level, the images aren't that 'clear', but in admidst the noise from grain and scanner, image information is visible. The scanner + film's resolution is indeed 4000 ppi.

It was a colour image. Black and white is better still (i.e. not necessarily finer detail, but more distinct from the noise).

The combination delivers considerably more than 16 mp true image information. About 80 mp from square 6x6. Even more from 6x7, and larger. Even when the film image was not perfect, and the scan too was not quite what it could have been (bulging film, dust on the optics), half of that (i.e. 40 mp and up) was still easy to achieve.

Edited July 26, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker

Well, here's a tiny crop shot on a 12 megapixel DSLR at 100 ISO -

And the same small crop on TMax 100 film -

Personally, I perceive the digital image as having better tonality and detail. For example, the lettering on the Retina top-plate is easily legible in the digital image.

 

Now if we multiply that 12 megapixels by the area factor between 24x36mm and 56x56mm we get 43 megapixels. But if we want a similar rectangular aspect-ratio, then a lot of that 6x6 film frame is wasted and we come back down to 32 megapixels from a 645 frame.

 

So, 70+ megapixels - of good, clean image - from a 6x6cm negative? I don't think so!

Yes, more grain and digital noise. But you can indeed get more detail.

70+ mp from a 6x6 cm negative? Absolutely.

 

Mathematics revolving around image aspects have nothing to do with it. That Nikon scanner will resolve the 4000 ppi Nikon promised. And film can provide the 80 lp/mm that requires easily. So do most lenses.

Talking about any MF format, "roughly equivalent to 16 mp" is far from being true.

Edited July 27, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker

But you can indeed get more detail.

70+ mp from a 6x6 cm negative? Absolutely.

Then show us the evidence Q. G.

Show us the evidence.

And not on some less-than-useful stuff like Tech Pan.

 

I've scrutinised large prints from 120 negatives, and can vouch for the fact that a good digital copy, which the above is, having been done at 2:1 magnification and with an effective 'resolution' of > 6000 ppi, adds almost no digital noise. The grain of that T-max 100 is reproduced almost exactly as it would be seen on a big enlargement print, or through a powerful loupe.

 

Your evidence to the contrary, please. Words is cheap.

If we enlarge a 4000 ppi scan so that individual pixels are visible, we see that sharply defined edges in a fine-grained film like Velvia are actually spread over about 6 pixels. This is consistent with the same transparency when examined with a 25x magnifier. Similar edge detail from a digital camera seldom span more than two pixels, even at 42 MP. (The advantage of a Sony A7Riii is I can use the same lens, e.g., a Summicron 90, for both film and digital.

 

For this reason 35 mm film images on typical color slides and negatives are equivalent to about 6 MP, and 6x6 at about 16 MP. Photos made on micrograph film of glass resolution targets may be better, but of little practical use.

I have posted evidence, Rodeo. Many years ago already. I did mention that. I'm not going to try to find it again.

 

Ed, what you say/calculate about Velvia suggests it is a 13 lp/mm film. It, of course, is not. You're off the mark by a factor of approx. 12. That means that you need double the Nikon's resolving power to get every detail from a Velvia slide.

Film-makers lppmm figures are got by contact-printing a resolution plate onto the film, giving a huge contrast ratio that simply can't be got from a lens-projected image.

 

A lens-projected image also has a single plane of best focus and all colour film has a considerable emulsion thickness; making it impossible to get all of the layers in exact focus. Not to mention the turbidity of the emulsion causing light spreading.

 

All of this conspires to reduce real-world resolution considerably from what either the lens or the film are theoretically capable of.

I have posted evidence, Rodeo. Many years ago already.

Well at least give us a clue as to where we might find it.

I really would, Rodeo, if i knew myself. I just know that i did, and know the image i used to show. Have no clue when or where, nor where that image has gone in my storage.

 

'Real life' (i.e. film in camera, lens on camera, etc.) lp/mm numbers were determined and published by Zeiss, also many years ago, in one of their Camea Lens News issues. You can trust the 160 lp/mm or thereabouts that is claimed for Velvia. TMax is better, obviously.

 

Zeiss also published a paper on MTF and why that is a good measure to use. Even longer ago. It contained illustrations of a high resolution, but low contrast and noisy image, and a low resolution, but normal contrast and less noisy image.

The latter - and this is its relevance for the discussion above, in particular the images you showed - would be everybody's choice if asked to select the sharper image.

 

Anyway, the suggestion that a scanned MF film image is no better than a 16 mp digital image is not very truthful. Not even when the scanner is a humble Coolscan

The resolution of Velvia is described in two ways: high contrast (1000:1) targets, and for normal (6:1) contrast scenes. The resolution is cited at 160 and 80 lp/mm respectively. This is the extreme limit, where the transfer function is extrapolated to zero contrast. At a more practical contrast of 50%, the resolution is about a third the ultimate value.

 

The "affordable" LS-8000 resolves close to 4000 ppi, or 160 p/mm, a good match for Velvia. It requires the equivalent of about 25x magnification to make those pixels visible to the eye. At that point detail in a transparency is seen to be far less than the scanner can resolve. Even at 10x, you can see the "peppercorn" grain characteristic of Velvia.

 

That is a pedantic answer. In practice it is not the resolution but the appearance of "sharpness" or acutance that counts. In theory resolution of digital is limited by the size of the pixels. In practice, each pixel counts, giving high acutance.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Ed_Ingold

 

The "affordable" LS-8000 resolves close to 4000 ppi, or 160 p/mm, a good match for Velvia. It requires the equivalent of about 25x magnification to make those pixels visible to the eye. At that point detail in a transparency is seen to be far less than the scanner can resolve. Even at 10x, you can see the "peppercorn" grain characteristic

At that point, Ed, you see that among the noise and grain, there is still a change in pixel

content that is due to a (resolved and recorded) change in the subject.

The resolving power of the Nikon is not wasted on dye clouds.

 

I'm almost tempted to find that example i posted many years ago...

 

Pointing out that - as Zeiss reported before, as mentioned by me - people tend to appreciate contrast and cleansiness more than resolution, hence mistake a clean low resolution image (your 16 mp thingy) for the 'sharper' one will explain your mistake.

A mistake it still is. A scanned MF image holds much more detail than a 16 mp image.

And it can and will look much better too. If you want to compete on appearance, you need much more than 16 MP. About 3 times as much (and then you will still be lacking in resolving power).

I attach a comparison between MF film and (almost) the same scale taken with a 16 MP digital back. In the sub-panel, film is on the left and digital on the right. Different balloons and several years apart, but the closest I can find of similar scenes. Even the weather is pretty similar (film does not do as well against a bright cloudy sky). Compare the detail in the basket, lines, and faces. The original images were 8400x8400 px and 4080x4080 px respectively, resized for comparison.

 

If you had a digital back, would you want to spend $20-$28 per roll for film?

 

There is a lot of good information about film resolution. Some of the easiest reading is here:

 

8×10 film vs IQ4 150mp Comparing 8x10 to a 150MP Phaseone and Nikon D850

 

 

Big Camera Comparison 2011 comparison but information about various sized film. 120 Tmax rated from 50Mp to 152 Mp

 

So it does appear film has a fairly high resolution, much more than 16Mp. But digital is much easier, faster and cheaper in the long run.

It is significant that the tests cited by David Hoyle were made using extreme wide angle lenses for each medium, 8x10, MFD, and the Nikon D850. 110 mm was used for the 8x10 camera, 23 mm for the Phase One and 12-24 for the Nikon D850. The lens designs require major compromises in order to allow relief for the mirror. I suspect lens quality is a significant factor in the relatively soft results. The Nikon D850 has 36 MP, but is handicapped by an anti-aliasing filter, which deliberately reduces resolution to about 50% below that of the sensor.

 

Luminous Landscapes website is probably the most prolific source for practical MF digital photography. The came to the conclusion than reflex bodies and lenses were not up to the challenges of high resolution (>36 MP) digital photography. Their tests at 100 to 150 MP were conducted using mirrorless technical cameras like the Alpa and lenses specifically designed for digital.

 

One expects aliasing when the target frequency exceeds that of the sensor, as seen in the second example using resolution targets. In this case, the sharper the lens, the more pronounced the aliasing, including diagonal color bands. They did not occur in this example, which suggests the lens had significantly less resolution than the sensor.

 

Vignetting in the 8x10 examples, supposedly caused by a filter mount, are not what I would expect of a careful technician trying to benchmark and compare cameras and media.