Thanks all for the advice so far.
They say a picture says a thousand words, so here are some examples. Some are quite well focused and supplied to show that I can do it, but the others show the frustrations I am referring to. The ones named "badX" are the ones I wish were focused better. The ones named "good" are the focused ones that I am happy with. The most frustrating example is the one of the girl under the chair. You can see the chair is pin sharp in focus, but just as I pressed the shutter the girl moved back just a few inches and the result is she is out of focus. Then the one of the girl sat on a bench...you can see that her shoulders are in focus but her face is not. Yet through the WLF, it looked OK.
https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=VZdsWSZRG02XVKzCDmndjk6iwOiAYDUn5w7
I know many will say "just inc the DOF" but with a blad, I take a meter reading with the Sekonic then set the EV and generally go for about f5.6 to f8 were light will allow. Several of these were taken with my 150mm which I have since learned is almost as bad as a Macro lens for punishing DOF, but nonetheless...you see my point?
As for glasses, yes, I have eye tests each year and wear glasses. I wore them for this. And yes, the camera was serviced and I specifically asked them to check focus alignment of the mirror plane.
It isn't correct to assume that Zeiss Hasselblad V lenses are always equivalent to Zeiss Contax 645 lenses. For example, the Contax 645 Carl Zeiss Apo-Makro-Planar T* 120mm f/4 is reported to be optically better ("outperforms by far") than the Zeiss Hasselblad Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 CF lens for Hasselblad V.
I did essentially the same thing years ago and regretted it within a month,and still regret it.I have not decided for sure to sell my Hasselblad 501CM, so please don't abondon me yet, fellow Hasselblad users, as a lost cause. But I am considering it, and am seeking fellow APUG'ers wisdom and consult.
I've owned my 501CM for several years. I have an 80mm, 120mm and 150mm CZ lens and 2 x A12 backs with matching inserts. It has an Acutte Matt D WLF screen. I have shot some amazing photos with it and was surprised at the simplicity of it overall once I got used to it and really do love the camera. I had it serviced just a few weeks ago as well.
But I continue to be plagued by focus problems. I shot a wedding with it recently and although I got several nice shots with the Blad, I got a lot of failed ones because of focus problems. Either my inability to get it right or due to last-second movements of the subjects for which I was too slow to respond to. If it weren't for my use of my Nikon F5 in addition to the Blad, the wedding couple would not have the selection they have now. In addition, I photograph my kids a lot, and they too, all too often, result in focus failures with the occasional stunning shot where everything was bang on.
So I am mulling over selling it\exchanging it for a MF camera that can auto-focus in the hope I get more 'keepers'. I still want the benefit of big bright negatives, and the feeling of using MF cameras with awesome high quality lenses and the visual stunning'ness of MF. I just want to be able to get more of my shots in focus under quick or time critical situations without losing them due to focus problems.
I am looking at either a Contax 645 or a Pentax 645N. Both are, I gather, very reuptable brands of medium format, and both can auto-focus. And I know that Jose Villa (great wedding photographer from the USA) uses a Contax 645 a lot. I'm also curious to know what the lens quality is like for these compared to the CZ lenses for Hasselblad?
What are your thoughts? Would any of you do the same or would you just stick with the Blad and just keep trying?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?