If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Had a chance between rain showers (snowed this morning) to get a few shots at the Narita Temple (Tokyo area). Only had a chance to work this one up so far, CFV50 150CF Sonnar, is a small "panorama" to get the square format.
I have found it ever so easy to just rotate the camera up slightly to "round out" the square. I happened to be in Japan again this week and went back over their earlier today, even brief sun breaks, but not hardy any water over the tiny cascade. Unusual as it rained very hard yesterday!
I shot for so many years with the film square, and of course still see square through the finder, even if outlined with the markings on the screen.
Your shot from the bridge is outstanding! Even at a small viewing size it shows wonderful depth and clarity. Would this have been a) the same b) better or c) lower quality with scanned Ektar instead of the digital back?
My experience has been that my Canon 5DII does as well or better than the Hassy with any film and that the Digi back is as good as I could do with 4x5. To realize the potential quality one must be a careful worker. As I used film with the Hassy for some 30 plus years I do have a huge amount of negatives and transparencies, many of which I have scanned and printed. The Nikon scanner I have does as well as traditional printing. Whether or not drum scanning would yield a better image than traditional printing, I do not know.
Tom, thank you for your insight. I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 but have not yet started any scanning of my recent work (I've verified correct operation of the scanner with some existing negatives). Do you feel that I will get the same, or better, quality from my Nikon D800 (36MP) than I would from scanned 120 Ektar? I used to own a commercial lab so I'm not afraid of the amount of work necessary to produce a fine art print, but if the Hasselblad will be a shade less sharp than the Nikon I could save a huge amount of post-production time by going directly to digital. Ideally there would be a Leaf-Aptus II 12R on my V series equipment, but the price is prohibitive. Have you used the Scan Science scanning fluid kits?
I use the Nikon Coolscan 9000, but have also had decent results with the Epson V750. For the Nikon I have the glass neg carrier which works well. I have not needed the fluid kit, but friends that have used it with the flatbed scanner have had very good results. The Nikon is I am sure capable of very good results, I can only suggest doing a trial to see if it is worth it to you. Ultimately some of it will come down to style, working with the Hasselblad imposes its own esthetic. There is a film feel that still comes through from the scans, but with additional controls available.
I was working with a glacier image on my 27" monitor and was looking at spots in the sky to clean up, I saw one and zoomed in, and in and in and it turned out to be a helicopter, with another one behind it! I do like the pixel depth that I get with the CFV 50, though a pricey piece of equipment. If used Hassy V lenses weren't such a god deal now I probably would have sprung for the new system.