paul_ozzello Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Does anyone have any sample images from a SWC using a digital back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_hansen7 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Is the digital back even out yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 What do you mean, "out yet"?<br>There have been digital backs that fit any Hasselblad for many, many years.<br><br>Whether any digital back will work well with a lens sitting so near it, corners rays hitting the sensor under quite an angle, is another matter.<br>However, since sensors still are small, and don't actually reach into the corners, it may be o.k. to use a digital back on a SWC. I don't know. Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrik Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I took my SWC to the Photokina to try just that. But no manufacturer was nice enough to let me test it with their backs. It will come down to what Q.G. said, the larger the sensor, the bigger the vignetting problem may be. Ulrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_henry1 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Unless it is a full-frame 6x6 sensor--and there aren't any of those available yet--what would be the point? The reduced FOV that would result from using a smaller than full- size sensor would eliminate one of the most desirable qualities of this lens-camera, its wide field of view and its remarkable edge-to-edge sharpness with minimal distortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Chris,<br><br>The limited sensor size will indeed lead to a smaller FOV. But it does that with all lenses. Would that make using <i>any</i> lens pointless? ;-)<br><br>Think of it this way, to get the widest possible field of view, you will have to use the shortest lens available. No matter how wide, or narrow that widest possible field of view may be.<br>Since the 38 mm Biogon or the 40 mm Distagon are the shortest (rectilinear) lenses available, they are the obvious things to use.<br>So there's the point. And i can't help it, but it makes a lot of sense to me. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_henry1 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I don't doubt that it could be done, or that even a useful and pleasing result could be obtained from that sort of combination, but the result would necessarily lose the one great advantage of the 38mm Biogon unless, of course, there is available a full-frame sensor. The same could be said of any lens combined with a digital sensor (or for that matter, even a film format) that is less in area than the film format for which the lens has been designed. You get the FOV of a longer focal length (with the DOF of shorter focal length), a center crop. It is probably going to be as wide an angle view as is possible for the format in digital, if that is any comfort. But it won't have the dramatic effect of the 90 deg. FOV on film. Don't get me wrong, I really like digital, but the SWC is still in its fullest capacity a film camera. I can see one advantage: framing with a digital sensor is WYSIWYG, something that requires a ground glass back and a back swap to accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 The thing is that to get a wide field of view when using a smaller sensor and when (!) using film alike, you will have to use a lens that has a wide field of view.<br>Sure, you lose field of view, it get narrower, when using a smaller sensor. But to get the widest possible field of view, you will have to use a lens that provides the widest possible field of view.<br>It is as simple as that. ;-)<br><br>Yes, the excellent corner quality of a Biogon is lost.<br>But you'll lose even more if because of that you decide to use, say, an 80 mm lens instead. With the sensor narrowing it's field of view too, by the same factor, where's that wide field of view you'd get would you use a lens half as long instead?<br>See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_kase Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I actually have done this with my 903 SWC and other Hassy lenses with a Kodak digital back that I recently purchased...the Kodak ProBack Plus...the interesting thing abotu the 903 was that its resolution was immediately apparent in the files when you pulled them up on the computer...I shot some "goofing around" test shots in the back yard with the 30mm distagon, the SWC and the 80mm planar...all were of course sharp but the SWC really stood out...there was a woman painting a table in front of her garage about 2 blocks away and it was amazing how much you could zoom in on her and the details that were pulled out...I'll have to try to dig up what I did with those shots... George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deardorff8x10 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I would really be interested in seeing those pictures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_ozzello Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 Yes, Please Post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deardorff8x10 Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I got the Imacon/Hassy v96c and below have posted images, plus 100% crops from the SWC. The approximate 1.5 "factor" means the lens is more like a 60mm, but it seems a it wider. The back works well with SWC; there is a bit of moire and color fringing on high contrast lines, which I tried to show. The "superslide" finder marks are a bit bigger than the image sensor and are OK for basic framing. One can look at the back to see exact framing once pictures is taken. I made a presentation here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=267637 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now