[Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9?M8

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

I do believe your friend might be standing on the sidelines 
theorizing without access to all the information.

There are some films which can capture a lot more resolution than 
most current digital sensors. If we're talking about general purpose 
film that we'd be using for pictorial purposes, that's not the case.

The AA filters are to prevent moire. The strange thing is that while 
AA filters made a fair bit of sense when we were shooting with 2 and 
3Mp sensors, they don't make as much sense now as often the lenses 
can't keep up with the sensors. Again strangely, the Leica M8 which 
has as its disposal some of the highest resolution lenses doesn't 
have an AA filter.

The Digitar and Digaron lenses for MF are by no means 'dumbed down'. 
They would work exceedingly well on film, except they are overkill 
and cannot be fully exploited due to general purpose film's inability 
to resolve what they can deliver and it's inability to lie flat 
enough during the process.

Yes, Hasselblad lenses were as good as anything else for the most 
part (other manufacturers also had a lot of just as excellent lenses, 
but Hasselblad probably had the most consistently good lenses from 
the 60's to the 90's). But most lenses from the 60's and the next 
couple of decades are not fully up to the demands of high end 
digital. That goes for Hasselblad Zeiss lenses as well as Leica, 
Nikon or Canon. Schneider and Rodenstock LF lenses from that period 
are also not up to the task. That's why the new series have been 
developed. They are better. They are of higher performance all 
around. And the only reason they would not work better on film than 
the old lenses is that they have image circles designed for current 
sensor sizes and that the old lenses already everything out of the 
film used, and didn't need any more resolution.

Using a Hasselblad 500 series can be very satisfying, and putting a 
16Mp back on one might be very useful and bring back fond memories. 
But don't expect the quality to be on the cutting edge, and not 
necessarily even better overall than the best 35mm.



At 4:03 PM -0400 8/13/09, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>A friend of mine says:
>
>Digital sensors, regardless of how tightly packed the pixels are, are
>not even close to film when it comes to capturing 'resolution'. That's
>why sensors require low pass (dumbing down) filters. To reduce the LP/
>MM down to be 2x to 4x lower than the pixel spacing. Schneider Digitar
>lenses are 'reduced' resolution (reduced LP/MM) lenses to match
>digital sensors. These lenses don't work worth a damn on film.
>
>
>
>I think nothing happened to the MTV graphs of our Hasselblad Zeiss lens when
>we turned out back. They were the standard of the industry from the 60's
>through the end of the millennium. I think Zeiss Hassy bellies are going
>strong.
>I too miss the Hasselblad way of working.
>Slower. Often on a tripod. Square.
>And making for some great images.
>
>I choose to do it again! And do the other thing!
>
>
>Mark William Rabiner

-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com