• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / X2D / Hasselblad XCD 38 field flatness

Hasselblad XCD 38 field flatness

September 30, 2022 JimK 4 Comments

This is the 12th in a series of posts on the Hasselblad X2D 100C camera and the XCD lenses. You will be able to find all the posts in this series by looking at the righthand column on this page and finding the Category “X2D”.

It’s hard to see because of the falloff in sharpness of the XCD 38 wide open off axis, but it appears that the focal plane of the 38 is pretty darned flat.

 

 

 

These are using Roger Cicala’s Q&D field flatness test.

 

X2D

← Leica Q2 Monochrom, XCD 38 on X2D, monochrome foliage Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time →

Comments

  1. Robert says

    September 30, 2022 at 11:27 am

    Hello Jim
    Belatedly, but thank you for this series. You certainly are „at it“! Interesting findings. I think for my use as a hiking and self-carrying landscaper X2D will be replacing H6D in future.
    Best regards, Robert

    Reply
  2. Samuel Chia says

    October 2, 2022 at 8:48 pm

    Hi Jim,
    I’ve found that stopping down the lens 2 stops from wide open often tells a more revealing story about the field curvature, especially when the off-axis sharpness is not that great wide open. Sometimes, the field curvature shape even changes. And it helps to focus a little closer, so that the far edge of the depth of field is not too lost in the distance background, to get a better overall sense of the curvature shape.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 2, 2022 at 8:50 pm

      I’ve not gotten good results from Roger’s test stopped down to f/5.6 or so. The focal plane is too ill-defined. Is that what you’re suggesting?

      Reply
      • Samuel Chia says

        October 6, 2022 at 2:32 am

        I guess you mean the Find Edges filter would start to pick up too much detail everywhere, making it hard to see the shape of the focal plane.

        My chosen test subject for this kind of “Giant Ruler” test is a large flat field of grass, like in a football stadium. I’ve also found that a giant empty carpark at something like Walmart is ideal. Your chosen subject is not sufficiently uniform structurally from near to far, making judgement harder already.

        I would also try focusing a little closer, and lower the camera height from the ground a little. If 2 stops down from wide open is too much depth of field, try one stop down.

        Also, try increasing the contrast a lot of these images by clipping the white and black points of a curves adjustment. I’ve found this method very effective for enhancing the shape of the focus plane.

        Sam

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.