ondebanks

<p>Justin, if you "think it's just a bit too big", does that mean you are leaving medium format entirely?</p> <p>One way to make it somewhat smaller and considerably lighter would be to replace the PDS prism with a WLF. The really big, really bright view of the entire focusing screen through the WLF with its magnifier up has to be experienced. I sometimes just gaze through mine...not necessarily taking photos, just appreciating the view!</p>

<p>Benny, you could try RawTherapee, which works with <a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/">all RAW formats covered by the dcraw engine</a>. This includes Hassleblad DB formats.</p> <p>I use it for my old Kodak DB; it is better than Kodak's own Photodesk software (which I can still run). RawTherapee has the <a href="http://rawtherapee.com/blog/features">features</a> that you said are missing from Phocus. And it's free!</p>

<blockquote> <p>The lens aperture selector is at 'A' not 'M', right? That is, you're not metering with the aperture stopped down?</p> </blockquote> <p>That's what I suspect also.</p> <p>If the lens is on "M", then every time you think you are making a 1 stop change, you are actually making a 2 stop change:<br> - a 1 stop reduction in the amount of light directly reaching the meter (the lens on "M" is physically closed down a stop, there and then - but the meter still "thinks" it is wide open and simply meters whatever it receives);<br> - and another 1 stop that the meter adds, because the aperture pin tells it that the lens is going to be stopped down at the moment of exposure (the meter cannot realise that this stopping down has already happened, thanks to "M"!)<br> <br />Thus, setting an f/2.8 lens to f/8 is not a 3 stop change in the meter, it's a 6 stop change.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I was actually hoping to identify the particular camera which left this particular imprint</p> </blockquote> <p>That's from a Contax 645 (hence the "P80/2" imprint...Planar 80mm f/2).</p> <p>The Mamiya 645AF(D) series can also do this. </p>

<blockquote> <p>But no one ever has any solutions or answers as to what he problem actually is...</p> </blockquote> <p>Robert, you may have overlooked <a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/00ddKt">this thread</a>: problem identifed and solution given!<br> It is a light leak. It happens when the original foam light seals around the film chamber's door turn into goo. Had it on one of my M645 1000s bodies, fixed it easily myself. I just replaced the foam.<br> Pre-cut foam replacement kits for the whole body are just $12 here: http://aki-asahi.com/store/html/Mamiya_M645/Foam/Mamiya_M645_seal.php</p>

<p>Joseph,<br> First of all, I presume that in targeting the entry level DB segment, you are ok with buying something from the used market.</p> <blockquote> <p>Like most Hasselblad nostalgics, I am very attached to the 6X6 format which film affords. However, I am also discovering the art and benefits of digital and am seeing that there are more and more digital backs available, if using a 645 format, on the market.</p> </blockquote> <p>What do you most want to get from using a relatively affordable DB on your Hasselblads?<br> (1) A native square-format image?<br> (2) The particular experience of using classic medium format camera bodies and lenses?<br> (3) The ultimate image quality and versatility within your budget?</p> <p>If you answer (1), go for a used DB using the square 37 x 37 mm Kodak KAF-16802 CCD sensor. In Hasselblad V mount, and not counting DBs which can only be operated when tethered to a computer or laptop, there are the Kodak DCS Proback/Proback Plus, Imacon iXpress [V]96C/384C, Hasselblad CFV16/CFV-II, PhaseOne P20/P20+. The P20+ is the best of these.</p> <p>If you answer (2), and (1) is not that important, there is a much wider range of used DBs. All bar 1 or 2 have a 4:3 aspect ratio.</p> <p>If you answer (3), then pay heed to those pointing you towards the recent full-frame, high-MP DSLRs and CSCs.</p> <p>I currently use 3 cameras for digital - a Canon 5DII, a Fuji S5 Pro, and a Mamiya 645AFD with a Kodak Proback DCS645M (another with the Kodak KAF-16802 sensor). On paper, the 5DII is the best, but I use it the least - it's for astrophotography only. I like its high ISO and resolution, but nothing else. The others beat it on handling, interface, colour, film-like grain/noise, spectral range.</p> <p>And of course the Mamiya + Kodak DB combination allows me to shoot in native square format. Running my Mamiya 24mm fisheye images through de-fishing software, I can replicate (indeed, slightly surpass) the 92-degrees wideangle over a square format that your SWC/M delivers on 6x6 film. Here are a few examples:</p> <p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img905/7240/qUSxqi.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img907/948/2LQz0X.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img911/7557/T3gsF9.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>With Fuji having a record of "innovative" (read weird) sensor designs</p> </blockquote> <p>I would say "innovative" (read superior)!<br> I love the results from the Fuji S5 Pro I picked up three years ago. It's like the perfect 35mm film camera, even though it's an APS-C DSLR! </p>

<p>I've bought a significant number of used photography items from Japanese ebay outlets, and never had a problem. They have been professional and courteous.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Looks like it's for use with a CFV 16 Mp back.</p> </blockquote> <p>Or any other back with the Kodak KAF-16802 sensor. There were many...from Kodak themselves, Sinar, Phase One, Imacon.</p> <p>But if this screen dates from before 2001, then it is for composing "superslides2 on a 645 film back.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The fact that the shutter will open without a battery and close if you press the battery check is not really a camera that "works".</p> </blockquote> <p>It is working in a very limited sense: this is the procedure for using the camera in long exposure T mode.</p> <p>Two of the strengths of the M645 are that the battery lasts "forever" (months to years of normal usage) and that battery consumption is the same tiny amount at all shutter speeds, even including B mode. But B mode requires a cable release to keep the shutter open. T mode is more convenient because you can use the built-in self timer to start the exposure and you don't need a cable release.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You need to remember, also, that 35mm lenses were always sharper than medium format lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is a generalization which is not true in many cases - and it is also unfair to apply it to lenses of widely different generations. <br> The RB67 lens here is a 90mm non-C...this is the oldest variant from 1970, with less sophisticated coatings than the 1974 C version, and less sophisticated design and glass types than the 1990s K/L version. So the non-C contrast is understandably low in comparison to a 1990s Nikon D lens.<br> The K/L version would give the D lens a real run for its money.</p>

<p>Hi Eric, thanks for that. Looks like they are doing ok, working away under the radar.<br> Is it the case that Leaf is the only digital back maker which supports the Hy6 mount? Can it take any of the new CMOS backs?</p>

<p>There is a way to distinguish whether the problem is in the body or the lens. The body sends the image plane to two separate locations (focus screen when the mirror is down; film plane when the mirror is up) - so if the image looks the same at both locations, it's not the body.</p> <p>So I would recommend that you get a piece of clear perspex, cut it to size so that it can sit on the inner rails of the film back, and rough it with fine sandpaper to make a "ground glass". Alternatively, get one of the cheap replacement plastic screens for 6x6 cameras and trim it a little to fit on the 645 rails.<br> With the camera tripod mounted, and the shutter open on B or T, examine the image on the film plane screen (with a magnifying loupe...a reversed camera normal lens can be a good substitute). Does the appearance correspond to the image of the same subject seen on the viewfinder focus screen, when you close the shutter and drop the mirror?</p> <p>Another possibility is that the AE prism was fitted with a diopter lens which is not the normal neutral one. You would be focusing your camera based on someone else's long or short sight!<br> The way to check this is to remove the prism and focus directly on the screen (again using the loupe).</p>

<p>As someone who has basically done what you are considering, here are my thoughts.</p> <p>1) Not one single digital back in the past 20 years has been larger than 645 format. So buying a 6x6 or 6x7 camera is ill-advised for two reasons: (1) unnecessary bulk/weight, and (2) lack of wideangle lens options, given the larger crop factor of the digital back vs. the native film format.<br> But someone might consider those factors to be less important than other ones, like handling, "dumbness", cachet, or whatever.</p> <p>2) Digital back sensors saw very little real performance improvements from 1999 to 2013. They got a little bigger, and they got more subdivided into smaller pixels, but that's about it; the gains in quantum efficiency, readout noise and so on were marginal. There was nothing like the pace of technology change seen with smaller format sensors in that time.<br> The step change in medium format digital came in early 2014, with the first CMOS sensors larger than 35mm-format size. So unless you get a new(ish) CMOS back or integrated camera, then anything back to the first "bigger than 35mm-format" Kodak backs of 2001 will give you a dated but nonetheless impressive standard of imaging. The Sinarback 54M recommended above is a good example, although I did notice that you didn't want a tethered-only back. The Phase One P25/P25+ is a portable back using the same sensor.</p> <p>I myself use a Mamiya 645AFD and a square-format Kodak Proback DCS 645M back; I got them in 2010 when they were already at least 6 years old. This camera has a nice level of automation, but it can also be as "dumb" as you want it. I use loads of manual focus lenses, and just one autofocus one (a zoom, for convenience).</p> <p>The Mamiya 645/645AF ecosystem gives more lens choice than any other in medium format - and that's before you even consider how its short flange distance permits adapters to many other systems' lenses. I like proper wideangles, and the square format, so my Mamiya 24mm fisheye digital images can be "de-fished" to give exactly the same image as the Hasselblad SWC Biogon of old did on 6x6 film. I also like fast telephotos, so my latest acquisition, a Mamiya 300/2.8 APO, is a dream.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Can someone explain this phrase in bold within a quote from Thom Hogan today regarding some difference between the implementation of a medium format sensor vs. smaller formats?<br /> The low volume of medium format sensor production, coupled with <em><strong>the need to stitch the sensor in place on the fab, coupled with the extra wasted space on the expensive silicon wafer,</strong></em> all means that medium format sensors are just not going to be big sellers in the casual photography world any time that I can imagine.</p> </blockquote> <p>David, I'll offer an explanation.</p> <p>CMOS and CCD sensors are constructed from essentially the same silicon semiconductor wafers as computer processors and memory chips. "<strong>The fab</strong>" means the facility where the silicon wafer is being fabricated: specific areas and layers of the wafer are selectively "doped" with charge carriers, or populated with silicon dioxide insulation or metal contacts. This constructs a grid of pixels and their associated input power lines and readout electronics. The process for laying down these structures is called <a href="http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/lithobasics.html">photolithography</a>. Each photolithography manufacturing unit can only make structures down to a certain minimum width (measured in nanometers) and a certain maximum width (measured in mm).</p> <p>"<strong>Stitching the sensor in place</strong>" is a reference to the medium format sensors being larger than the maximum width of the largest photolithography units. So the sensor has to be "stitched" by moving the photolithography head at least once, to start a new part of the sensor right beside one that has just been laid down, so that there are no gaps.</p> <p>"<strong>The extra wasted space on the expensive silicon wafer</strong>" is another reference to the size of the medium format sensor. Wafers are circular disks, so when you cut out a large rectangle from a circle, there is a lot of wastage around the edges. A 645 medium format sensor is about 6 times bigger than an APS-C sensor, but if you wanted to cut out as many APS-C sensors as possible from the same circle, you could arrange the smaller rectangles to make better use of this space - so you might fit in 8 rather than 6. These numbers are just to explain the concept...an actual wafer is much bigger than that and could produce a number of medium format sensors (and a load of APS-C ones).</p> <p>There is also the concept of "<strong>yield</strong>" - not mentioned in your quote from Thom Hogan, but very relevant to this question. This means the percentage of sensors produced per wafer which pass quality control. Impurities or defects in the wafer can render a sensor junk. Staying with our putative small wafer, a single defect on that wafer might junk the only large medium format sensor it produced; a 100% loss or 0% yield. The same defect might junk just 1 of the 8 APS-C sensors it produced; a 13% loss or 87% yield. Therefore, the lower average yield adds further cost to the production of medium format sensors.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The FF manufacturers go for the pop, a higher contrast look to give it a more "wow" effect, while the MF manufacturers go for a lower contrast to give it the sense of greater tonality.</p> </blockquote> <p>But sensors have no contrast differences; they measure light linearly, and proper RAW frames preserve that measurement.<br> Anyone can tweak contrast in post processing - it's not a manufacturer property.<br> Tonality depends more the on the signal to noise curve than on anything else. That <em>is</em> a function of the sensor.</p> <blockquote> <p>MF digital allows us two very distinct and uncontroversial advantages that are the function of the sensor size:</p> <ol> <li>Greater resolution at a given pixel density</li> <li>The lens/camera geometry that results in shallower DOF, greater focal length at a given angle of view.</li> </ol></blockquote> <p>You're forgetting this one:<br> 3. Greater MTF at a given pixel count.<br> That was the one I was alluding to when I talked about 1.7x larger print sizes being better - I didn't mention the pixel density, nor pixel count, because 1. and 3. together mean better image quality regardless.</p> <blockquote> <p>Curvature, in what sense?<br> In a sense that the smaller the sensor, the more "stretched" the wide angle images look, whereas the bigger the sensor (or film format), the less stretched and the more natural wide angle images look.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks for clarifying that. However, there is nothing in image formation theory which backs up this idea of more "stretched" wide angle images being a property of using smaller formats. I don't know where you're getting that from.<br> It could be that the cheaper lenses made for smaller format cameras & camera-phones tend to have designs with worse geometrical distortion; but that is not to say that equally distortion-free lenses cannot be made for both small and large formats.<br> Or it could be that people often shoot their fixed-wideangle-lens small-sensor cameras (especially in phones & tablets) too close to their subjects, in order to get a decent headshot closeup or selfie. But again, that is not a property of the format itself. It's a usage issue.</p>

<blockquote> <p>And since it is pictured with a H system lens, I doubt and adapter for V system lenses will ever exist.</p> </blockquote> <p>Lubos, I imagine that <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362313-REG/Hasselblad_3043500_CF_Lens_Adapter_for.html">the V (CF)-to-H lens adapter</a> for their H series of 645 cameras would also work on this; I think the body just needs a standard PC flash port. However, it's a $1650 gizmo. </p>

<p>Alexander:</p> <blockquote> <p>How is it any better than FF? At 1.7x of FF</p> </blockquote> <p>You've just answered your own question: It is 1.7x better. You can make a print 37 x 27 inch print that looks as good up-close as a 30 x 20 inch print from a 35mm-sized sensor, and has a bigger "wow" factor from a moderate distance. </p> <blockquote> <p>it doesn't look any different than FF</p> </blockquote> <p>Don't forget, near-identical 50MP 44x33 mm CMOS sensors are already in use in 5 other cameras or backs from Pentax, Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad. Check the images that are out there...in many cases they are obviously different to FF outputs.</p> <blockquote> <p>Additionally, the bigger the sensor, the less curvature you see within wide angle lenses, so wide angle shots look more natural.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't understand what optical principle you're referring to here. Curvature, in what sense? </p>

<p>Theodoros,</p> <blockquote> <p>But... Seiko 0 shutter IS compatible with Copal 0... no?</p> </blockquote> <p>It is....but the Mamiya 7 lenses actually use an even smaller size 00 electronic shutter.</p> <p>If you are thinking of adapting Mamiya 7 lens cells onto a lensboard-type shutter, you wouldn't be the first to have that (clever!) idea. But I think it's really hard to find a suitable mechanical 00 shutter. When I looked into it, all but the most ancient were embedded in 1950s fixed-lens 35mm compacts like the Agfa Silette; the camera's internal mechanisms cocked and fired the shutter, and it couldn't be used in isolation like a normal Copal shutter.</p>

<p>Diego, I fixed the break in your link:<br> <a href="http://www.hasselblad.com/inspiration/4116-2/v1d-4116-concept">http://www.hasselblad.com/inspiration/4116-2/v1d-4116-concept</a></p> <p>Interesting concept.</p> <p>It is definitely not a 6x6 camera, as it is pictured with a standard 645 format H-mount XCD 45mm f/3.5 lens.</p> <p>Despite its boxy shape, it is also definitely not an SLR. It is mirrorless: the top is shown with a replica of the rear LCD screen; this electronic screen is what you view the image on with the "EVF" prism or "WLF" finder.</p> <p>As to the 75MP sensor, it stands to reason that if you cut a square from their 4:3 aspect ratio 100MP CMOS sensor, you get 75MP with 40 x 40 mm.<br> This is only marginally bigger than the square 16MP CCD backs of old (just under 37 x 37 mm), but of course it will have much higher resolution and much better high ISO & long exposure performance.</p> <p>I'm a big fan of the square format (I shoot one of the aforementioned old 16MP backs on my Mamiya 645AFD). But with all Hasselblad digital or digital-compatible cameras in the past 15 years, the need for dedicated leaf shutter lenses is a total no-no for me. The depiction of a H-series leaf shutter lens on this concept body is a very bad sign that it doesn't have a focal plane shutter...</p>

<blockquote> <p>when i spoke to the CEO of Pentax USA at a show last year, he stated that full frame true 645 digital sensors are at least a few more years away. this is all due to yield. just to costly at this point to make a full frame MF sensor.</p> </blockquote> <p>His response was surprising, because full-frame 645 CCD backs have been on the market since 2008 - he must have known this, as it's his business to know -, and CMOS ones have been on the market since January of this year - he must have known this was coming as his two main competitors (PhaseOne/Leaf, and Hasselblad) were developing backs for this "big brother" to the sensor used in his Pentax 645Z.</p> <p>These are 53.7 x 40.3 [or 40.4] mm sensors; the film gate in the Pentax and Mamiya 645 cameras is 56.0 x 41.5 mm; so pedantically, yes, the digital sensors are very marginally smaller - but remember that a mounted 645 slide or a 645 negative in an enlarger loses about 1mm of real estate around the perimeter in any case, so the usable image area is basically identical between film and digital 645.</p> <p>I suspect that the Pentax CEO knew all this, but was just tired of people asking why Pentax 645 digital models don't use the larger sensors, so he fobbed you off with the yield excuse.</p> <p> </p>

<p>It gets better! Video from Photokina shows that the new Fuij's prism-shaped EVF viewfinder is articulated - it can be swivelled horizontally and vertically, enabling WLF-type vertical viewing in both landscape and portrait camera orientations. It can also be detached altogether. Kudos to Fuji!</p>

<p>Anyway, for me, this is excellent news. I got excited about the Hasselblad X1D mirrorless 50MP model a few months ago, before realising that it needed native Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. So that's useless for someone like me with a lot of nice M645 glass.<br> This Fuji has a focal plane shutter, so it's open to using any lens one pleases on it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>although I don't get the whole idea of a crop MF sensor other than lowering costs and marketing</p> </blockquote> <p>Lowering costs is almost the <em>only</em> reason. The size and weight of the lenses to cover the larger sensor (for a starting-from-scratch system) might also be a factor.</p> <blockquote> <p>Phase One seems to be the only company making 645 cameras/backs.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hasselblad are still doing it too.</p> <blockquote> <p>I wish they didn't call it medium format because that label is causing the controversy.</p> </blockquote> <p>There have been several backs and cameras with this 44 x 33 mm size of sensor since 2004. All have been called medium format, and nobody really complained. I don't know what the fuss is now.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Ian - indeed, we seem to be back-to-the-future in V1, after all that changeover fuss! </p> <p>Yes, with that revision of adding the C, Ming Thein's H5D-50C does have the same sensor as the CFV-50C.</p> <p>Sorry, I've no experience of using the Hasselblad backs. It must be exciting for you to be close to a purchase decision.</p>