Hasselblad CFV-50

[Steve Hendrix]

You also have to remove the Phase back and rotate it manually. It is not a rotating mount like a Mamiya RZ. That is an idea I like even less than a PC cord connection from lens to back. I remove digital backs from the camera as few times as possible. These backs love to attract dust, and outdoors even more so ... plus the prospect of scratching the sensor filter by mis-mounting it when in a hurry is real ... I know three photographers that did that ... unfortunately, I was one of them

What is needed is a 90º V finder with a mask defining the taking area.

-Marc

Certainly a subjective issue, whether to tolerate a sync cable and be able to rotate the back to vertical orientation, or turning the camera sideways to shoot a vertical without a cable. My perspective - we have tons of users who have rotated their backs for years without incident, and backup sync cables are very cheap.

On the other hand, if one is not comfortable removing and rotating the back, there is another solution:

http://www.leaf-photography.com/products_aptus210r.asp


Steve Hendrix

 

[sinwen]

Hasselblad are ENTIRELY in the hands of the chip manufacturers who are not going to make a 56mm square chip that will only be supported on one platform. I shot V system for years and loved it but it's time has passed and NO ONE is going to spend millions in R&D on a chip for this system only. Hasselblad is not the bad guy here.

Nick-T

OK.... then bring out shorter lenses to compensate the croping factor and take this opportunity to make them "digital compatible" as the old ones aren't supposed to be.

If Hassy want to cuddle their old "V " customers they can, I am not sure they want.

I am surprised that nobody took advantage of this existing "V" market when Hassy decided to drop it and went "H". There was digital backs & new lenses to offer.
Hassy themselves are surprised of the demand for the V platform, isn't that silly that none in there understood the power of a forty years+ system and its many customers.

The very same way, I am surprised nobody rush into the Leica "R" market left vacant.

Personnally I believe the MF backs are way over priced, when you see that Canon & Sony have produced FF cameras for 2000$, I cannot admit someone couldn't produce a 40x40mm 25Mp square back for 2000 bucks.

 

[fotografz]

OK.... then bring out shorter lenses to compensate the croping factor and take this opportunity to make them "digital compatible" as the old ones aren't supposed to be.

If Hassy want to cuddle their old "V " customers they can, I am not sure they want.

I am surprised that nobody took advantage of this existing "V" market when Hassy decided to drop it and went "H". There was digital backs & new lenses to offer.
Hassy themselves are surprised of the demand for the V platform, isn't that silly that none in there understood the power of a forty years+ system and its many customers.

The very same way, I am surprised nobody rush into the Leica "R" market left vacant.

Personnally I believe the MF backs are way over priced, when you see that Canon & Sony have produced FF cameras for 2000$, I cannot admit someone couldn't produce a 40x40mm 25Mp square back for 2000 bucks.

Hasselblad didn't make the lenses for the V ... Zeiss and Schneider did/does. Send them an e-mail with your shorter digital lens desires :thumbup:

How do you know that Hasselblad was "surprised" by the demand for the V platform? And when did Hasselblad "drop" the V? Isn't this thread about the brand new CFV/50 digital back ... from Hasselblad?

It seems that there is a huge pressure on these MFD companies to survive ... they have to concentrate their relatively limited resources where the market is spending the most money.

When the English bank robber Willy Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied "It's where the money is."

-Marc

 

[sinwen]

Hasselblad didn't make the lenses for the V ... Zeiss and Schneider did/does. Send them an e-mail with your shorter digital lens desires :thumbup:

Good you find the idea interesting. I didn’t know Zeiss and Schneider were producing lenses for Hasselblad without Hasselblad consent:salute:

How do you know that Hasselblad was "surprised" by the demand for the V platform?

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...7/hasselblads-v-system-cameras-digital-option

Speaking at a press conference at Photokina, Peter Stig-Nielsen of Hasselblad says that the launch of the CFV-50 was sparked by the huge success of its 39 megapixels predecessor. “It took us by surprise when we received tons of positive response from customers around the world,” he explains. “This success was not just because it was a new digital back, but also because it offered compatibility with the Carl Zeiss lenses, which took the platform to another level.”

Come back to the reasons which made you switch from V to H, wasn't it because the V platform wasn't digitally upgraded, which was to be equivalent to abandoned, proof is you dropped it.

Hasselblad expected their customers to be blind followers and switch from V to H, spending big bucks.
They realise their mistake and that is good.

These backs for the V platform go the right way for many, and some desire more, for example a bigger 56x56 sensor to avoid the croping factor.
I was suggesting that another way could be a new line of lenses.

(By the way, I didn't expect to be out of the thread subject as you seem to point out. Numerous threads here are brought far away from their original subject, strange you blame me for this)

 

[fotografz]

Good you find the idea interesting. I didn’t know Zeiss and Schneider were producing lenses for Hasselblad without Hasselblad consent:salute:



http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...7/hasselblads-v-system-cameras-digital-option

Speaking at a press conference at Photokina, Peter Stig-Nielsen of Hasselblad says that the launch of the CFV-50 was sparked by the huge success of its 39 megapixels predecessor. “It took us by surprise when we received tons of positive response from customers around the world,” he explains. “This success was not just because it was a new digital back, but also because it offered compatibility with the Carl Zeiss lenses, which took the platform to another level.”

Come back to the reasons which made you switch from V to H, wasn't it because the V platform wasn't digitally upgraded, which was to be equivalent to abandoned, proof is you dropped it.

Hasselblad expected their customers to be blind followers and switch from V to H, spending big bucks.
They realise their mistake and that is good.

These backs for the V platform go the right way for many, and some desire more, for example a bigger 56x56 sensor to avoid the croping factor.
I was suggesting that another way could be a new line of lenses.

(By the way, I didn't expect to be out of the thread subject as you seem to point out. Numerous threads here are brought far away from their original subject, strange you blame me for this)

The question is whether the V lens mount is now public domain Like the M Leica mount and F mount for Nikon. There sure seems to be a lot of V mount adapters on the market ... did Hasselblad approve all of them? If in the public domain, then anyone could make V mount lenses as you desire. The other question is will the R&D and Production cost be justified? Perhaps it would now with a 50 meg back dedicated to the V system ... and IF a lot of people buy it.

Thanks for the info on "Hasselblad's surprise".

I didn't imply you were out of the thread subject ... you implied Hasselblad had abandoned the V, and this thread about the CFV/50 shows they haven't.

No, I didn't leave the V system just because the digital platform wasn't improving. Just the opposite ... I left when they brought out the CFV/39 and it became apparent I couldn't support constant upgrades for two systems ... one had to go and it was the V because I want/need AF, and the AF of the H was constantly being improved right up to the H4D with True Focus ... and stuff like the HTS/1.5 and 35-90 D Zoom ... all of which makes maintaining the H system a more versatile return on investment for my applications and uses.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Certainly a subjective issue, whether to tolerate a sync cable and be able to rotate the back to vertical orientation, or turning the camera sideways to shoot a vertical without a cable. My perspective - we have tons of users who have rotated their backs for years without incident, and backup sync cables are very cheap.

On the other hand, if one is not comfortable removing and rotating the back, there is another solution:

http://www.leaf-photography.com/products_aptus210r.asp


Steve Hendrix

Yes Steve, that is a genius solution ... won't the 80 meg version also rotate? With a rotatable sensor the sync cord would be a bit more tolerable. However, that's a considerably more expensive solution than the CFV/39 ... (don't know the cost of the CFV/50 yet).

I just never like it because the cord has to be long enough to reach a 180, 250 or 350mm lens sync port, and hangs down and gets easily snagged when a 35 or 80 is mounted ... I suppose you could have a bunch of sync cords of different lengths ... big PITA IMO.

As to whether backs are in danger when removed to rotate ... here's a quote from someone who repairs them, and see's a fair amount of them ...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19767

Hassey once made a 90º tube type finder ... which would help when shooting in portrait orientation with the CFV, and I think would still allow you access to the release for the digital back. I have one that was designed for the 70 film back ... but I think there was also a shorter barrelled one ... Jurgen would know better than I would.

-Marc

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

Good you find the idea interesting. I didn’t know Zeiss and Schneider were producing lenses for Hasselblad without Hasselblad consent:salute:



http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...7/hasselblads-v-system-cameras-digital-option

Speaking at a press conference at Photokina, Peter Stig-Nielsen of Hasselblad says that the launch of the CFV-50 was sparked by the huge success of its 39 megapixels predecessor. “It took us by surprise when we received tons of positive response from customers around the world,” he explains. “This success was not just because it was a new digital back, but also because it offered compatibility with the Carl Zeiss lenses, which took the platform to another level.”

Come back to the reasons which made you switch from V to H, wasn't it because the V platform wasn't digitally upgraded, which was to be equivalent to abandoned, proof is you dropped it.

Hasselblad expected their customers to be blind followers and switch from V to H, spending big bucks.
They realise their mistake and that is good.

These backs for the V platform go the right way for many, and some desire more, for example a bigger 56x56 sensor to avoid the croping factor.
I was suggesting that another way could be a new line of lenses.

(By the way, I didn't expect to be out of the thread subject as you seem to point out. Numerous threads here are brought far away from their original subject, strange you blame me for this)

Since the H system was introduced there has always been a solution for V customers from Hasselblad so I don't where this argument is coming from.

Additionally, Zeiss have very little interest in producing V system lenses anymore, least of all new ones, and prefer to concentrate on other aspects of their business.

But Mark is right, if you want shorter lenses then I am afraid you must take it up with Zeiss.

As Nick says, no manufacture is every going to produce a 56mm square sensor for MF use. Also to have a small enough micron pixel size for quality AND fill the entire 6x6 area you would have very many megapixels, and a very high cost.

It is a shame, but there is no easy solution.

In terms of migrating from V to H, there is also the option to use your V system lenses on the H platform.

David

 

[redrockcoulee]

I am asking this more for my own clarification than as guidance towards a eminent purchase. I now have a 500 /M with a 100 T*, a 150 CF and soon a 60 Cf lenses. If I want to go digital I could go with a CFV-16 back and if I want wide angle I can use a SCW/M for that, if I go with the CFv-39 back the lenses I currently own would work but would need the 40mm instead of the SWC/M however if I was to purchase the CFV-50 back would I need all new lenses. Is this correct?
Not complaining about Hasselblad or Zeiss lenses if this is the case, just would like to know if I am reading the thread correctly. As it is my current medium format "digital back" is a Nikon CS8000

Ivan

 

[fotografz]

I am asking this more for my own clarification than as guidance towards a eminent purchase. I now have a 500 /M with a 100 T*, a 150 CF and soon a 60 Cf lenses. If I want to go digital I could go with a CFV-16 back and if I want wide angle I can use a SCW/M for that, if I go with the CFv-39 back the lenses I currently own would work but would need the 40mm instead of the SWC/M however if I was to purchase the CFV-50 back would I need all new lenses. Is this correct?
Not complaining about Hasselblad or Zeiss lenses if this is the case, just would like to know if I am reading the thread correctly. As it is my current medium format "digital back" is a Nikon CS8000

Ivan

No you would NOT need all new lenses. What you have would work just fine ... and even better in digital with the CFV/50 because the Phocus software has DAC corrections for all your current lenses.

Marc

 

[redrockcoulee]

No you would NOT need all new lenses. What you have would work just fine ... and even better in digital with the CFV/50 because the Phocus software has DAC corrections for all your current lenses.

Marc

Thanks Marc.

I guess I should have said I used to have a 500 C/M however my wife has an out of province 4 month job teaching fine art and "borrowed" it. If I ever got a digital back I am not sure I might ever get to use the system again.:ROTFL:

 

[bensonga]

As Nick says, no manufacture is every going to produce a 56mm square sensor for MF use.

Understood....not enough people/companies dedicated to shooting square format (always was a minority), means not enough of a market to make it economic.

Also to have a small enough micron pixel size for quality AND fill the entire 6x6 area you would have very many megapixels, and a very high cost.

By my calculations, taking the 16 megapixel CFV-16 (36.7 x 36.7 cm sensor) as a guide and sticking with that 9 micron pixel size, a 56 x 56 cm sensor (most discussed as a "full frame" square sensor size) would contain approximately 39 megapixels (of 9 micron pixel size). Not that many, by today's standards. Maybe my math is wrong.

I would be delighted with a 40 megapixel 56x56 cm square sensor using 9 micron pixels.

It is a shame, but there is no easy solution.

Doesn't seem like a technical problem but a marketing and product economics problem....for which there may indeed be no easy solution, given the few (none really) companies that are devoted to the square format now.

Gary

 

[tetsrfun]

Hassey once made a 90º tube type finder ... which would help when shooting in portrait orientation with the CFV, and I think would still allow you access to the release for the digital back. I have one that was designed for the 70 film back ... but I think there was also a shorter barrelled one ... Jurgen would know better than I would.....
***********
Jurgen will have the definitive answer but for what it is worth, top to bottom viewfinders: HC 4 (52086)... HC 3/70 (52043) modified to fit 203..RM-2 (52183)

Steve

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Yes Steve, that is a genius solution ... won't the 80 meg version also rotate? With a rotatable sensor the sync cord would be a bit more tolerable. However, that's a considerably more expensive solution than the CFV/39 ... (don't know the cost of the CFV/50 yet).

I just never like it because the cord has to be long enough to reach a 180, 250 or 350mm lens sync port, and hangs down and gets easily snagged when a 35 or 80 is mounted ... I suppose you could have a bunch of sync cords of different lengths ... big PITA IMO.

As to whether backs are in danger when removed to rotate ... here's a quote from someone who repairs them, and see's a fair amount of them ...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19767

Hassey once made a 90º tube type finder ... which would help when shooting in portrait orientation with the CFV, and I think would still allow you access to the release for the digital back. I have one that was designed for the 70 film back ... but I think there was also a shorter barrelled one ... Jurgen would know better than I would.

-Marc

Yes, I believe the 80MP is also supposed to be available in an R version (internally rotatable), just didn't see a handy link for it. It is more expensive than a CFV-39, or CFV-50, but you get more.

As far as sync cords, and whether the lack of a sync cord is preferable to having to turn the camera sideways to shoot a vertical, that's really a completely subjective situation. Since I do not sell a solution that requires you to turn your Hasselblad on its side to shoot a vertical, I can only address the sync cord issue, and my take there is that sync cords are cheap ($29), easy to have backups, and whether you'd need different lengths or not would depend on the lenses you use. Not everyone shoots with 250mm/350mm lenses. But to be fair, YMMV. Very subjective issue.

As far as disaster is concerned, I have had, I don't know...maybe 2 (?) customers that have ever had the mispleasure of smashing their back. And that's from many years and many hundreds of users. So, it can happen, sure. Just like any other accident. But it seems careful handling generally rules the day. And there is this thing also, called insurance.

At the end of the day, if someone wants an 80MP product to hang off their V Series Hasselblad, that internally rotates, so they can shoot horizontal or vertical (with a waist level finder!), that provides the most lens coverage of any digital back on a Hasselblad, there's only one game in town, the Leaf Aptus-II 12.


Steve Hendrix

 

[jotloob]

Hassey once made a 90º tube type finder ... which would help when shooting in portrait orientation with the CFV, and I think would still allow you access to the release for the digital back. I have one that was designed for the 70 film back ... but I think there was also a shorter barrelled one ... Jurgen would know better than I would.....
***********
Jurgen will have the definitive answer but for what it is worth, top to bottom viewfinders: HC 4 (52086)... HC 3/70 (52043) modified to fit 203..RM-2 (52183)

Steve

I had the chance to try all of the three finders , Steve shows in his image above .
I found only the HC3/70 or the RM-2 of any use for me and as I have to wear eyeglasses the RM-2 is the one for me .
Unfortunately that finder was not for sale , is very hard to get , but I got one about half a year later through *bay , rather cheap and in very good condition .
These long tubed finders were actually designed for the use with a 70-film back and are rather bulky .

View attachment 35831

It is no trouble using the 503CW + CW winder + RM-2 + CFV-X . It is a solution , altough not a comfortable and elegant one , but handy when using the winder CW .
As the RM-2 can not be usued with the 203FE , unless you modify the finder as Brad did , I use the winder CW , which was also modified by Brad for the use with the 203FE + the WLF .
This of course does not allow to use the CFV-39 in a comfortable way for portrait and landscape orientation .
Therefore for portait orientation I only use the "crop to square" function or the CFV-16 and must accept the crop factor .
In that case I do prefer the CFV-16 with its fat pixels , which give a wonderful film-like result .

I know , what I said above is nothing new , has been discussed before , but its just a little bit from my experience .
I can do with the two described "solutions" , but I am not very happy with them .
But I do not see an other chance either .

 

[fotografz]

Understood....not enough people/companies dedicated to shooting square format (always was a minority), means not enough of a market to make it economic.



By my calculations, taking the 16 megapixel CFV-16 (36.7 x 36.7 cm sensor) as a guide and sticking with that 9 micron pixel size, a 56 x 56 cm sensor (most discussed as a "full frame" square sensor size) would contain approximately 39 megapixels (of 9 micron pixel size). Not that many, by today's standards. Maybe my math is wrong.

I would be delighted with a 40 megapixel 56x56 cm square sensor using 9 micron pixels.



Doesn't seem like a technical problem but a marketing and product economics problem....for which there may indeed be no easy solution, given the few (none really) companies that are devoted to the square format now.

Gary

I think the economics problem would be with the end users as much as the companies. Even a 9 micron 56X56 sensor would be astronomical in price compared to the CFV/39 or 50 which gains economy of scale due to usage in so many backs. A big square has no application for the 645 cameras that dominate the market. So, while it's great to dream on ... I wonder how many would pony up for the cost? I sure wouldn't.

Plus, 9 micron sensors are pretty limited in usage for commercial applications ... a market segment which would have to be part of the consideration to get the numbers up enough justify production. I think even the previously mentioned tech camera users would be hesitant to use a 9 micron back with their super-high performance Rodenstock or Schneider optics.

As any CFV users knows, the only real issue with the CFV/16 is super-wide coverage in lenses. Currently, assuming a 1.1X crop factor, a CFV/39 or 50 provides a 45mm field of view with the 40mm when the rectangle format is used.

A whole line of new lenses isn't needed, one good wide one with digital coverage would do the job. Assuming a 1.5X crop factor, a 28mm would get CFV/16 users back to a 40mm field-of-view with the CFV16 ... and (again, assuming a 1.1X lens factor) CFV/39 or 50 users would have the luxury of a 30mm field-of-view when using the full rectangle. I wonder who makes a 28mm mechanical lens for full 645 coverage that could be adapted or re-tooled?

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Yes, I believe the 80MP is also supposed to be available in an R version (internally rotatable), just didn't see a handy link for it. It is more expensive than a CFV-39, or CFV-50, but you get more.

As far as sync cords, and whether the lack of a sync cord is preferable to having to turn the camera sideways to shoot a vertical, that's really a completely subjective situation. Since I do not sell a solution that requires you to turn your Hasselblad on its side to shoot a vertical, I can only address the sync cord issue, and my take there is that sync cords are cheap ($29), easy to have backups, and whether you'd need different lengths or not would depend on the lenses you use. Not everyone shoots with 250mm/350mm lenses. But to be fair, YMMV. Very subjective issue.

As far as disaster is concerned, I have had, I don't know...maybe 2 (?) customers that have ever had the mispleasure of smashing their back. And that's from many years and many hundreds of users. So, it can happen, sure. Just like any other accident. But it seems careful handling generally rules the day. And there is this thing also, called insurance.

At the end of the day, if someone wants an 80MP product to hang off their V Series Hasselblad, that internally rotates, so they can shoot horizontal or vertical (with a waist level finder!), that provides the most lens coverage of any digital back on a Hasselblad, there's only one game in town, the Leaf Aptus-II 12.


Steve Hendrix

I suspect price would be a big consideration here. HOWEVER, it should be noted that for those who love using a waist level finder, the Leaf "R" solution is the absolute best choice on the market today ... bar none ... sync cord or not.

Steve, nice try in glossing over the trials and tribulation of using a sync cord :ROTFL: ... they are a PITA :angry: The best solution I ever found to mitigate the connection issues over time was Gold tipped sync cords from Paramount Cords.

With the CFV, I was super grateful to be rid of sync cords from lens to back when using my Imacon and Kodak backs on a V. As it was, there was enough trouble with the sync ports in Zeiss CF lenses without constantly changing them every time you changed lenses. While YMMV, the CF lens sync port issue is well known. Even the improved sync ports on the CFi lenses didn't cotton to frequent usage of that type ... I had to get two relatively new lenses repaired for sync port issues.

-Marc

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I suspect price would be a big consideration here. HOWEVER, it should be noted that for those who love using a waist level finder, the Leaf "R" solution is the absolute best choice on the market today ... bar none ... sync cord or not.

Steve, nice try in glossing over the trials and tribulation of using a sync cord :ROTFL: ... they are a PITA :angry: The best solution I ever found to mitigate the connection issues over time was Gold tipped sync cords from Paramount Cords.

With the CFV, I was super grateful to be rid of sync cords from lens to back when using my Imacon and Kodak backs on a V. As it was, there was enough trouble with the sync ports in Zeiss CF lenses without constantly changing them every time you changed lenses. While YMMV, the CF lens sync port issue is well known. Even the improved sync ports on the CFi lenses didn't cotton to frequent usage of that type ... I had to get two relatively new lenses repaired for sync port issues.

-Marc

Ah well, you're right Marc - who likes sync cords? I don't think anyone. And you targeted the real issue to me, which is the quirky sync posts on the lenses. But again, everything is a compromise. You can line up systems with all their pros and cons for the Hasselblad V Series and have 25 people make their choice and there likely wouldn't be a consensus. That's what makes the world go round.


Steve Hendrix

 

[fotografz]

Ah well, you're right Marc - who likes sync cords? I don't think anyone. And you targeted the real issue to me, which is the quirky sync posts on the lenses. But again, everything is a compromise. You can line up systems with all their pros and cons for the Hasselblad V Series and have 25 people make their choice and there likely wouldn't be a consensus. That's what makes the world go round.


Steve Hendrix

A consensus among photographers? Yep, the world would stop spinning it that ever happened :ROTFL:

Like I said, I'd put up with sync cords to get a 80 meg back that rotated the sensor inside the back ... yummy!

-Marc

 

[tetsrfun]

I found only the HC3/70 or the RM-2 of any use for me and as I have to wear eyeglasses the RM-2 is the one for me .
*********
In my much more limited experience, with glasses, the HC-4 is not very good. Because the HC-3/70 seems to be more available than the RM-2, I modified that one for the 203FE rather then the nicer RM-2. I still only have a 16 MP square back, so I have rather limited need for a 90 degree viewfinder, however, with the Mutar doing horizontal shifts, the 45 degree viewer confuses my aging neurons. :>)

Steve

 

[anGy]

Does anyone knows if a CFV back can be turned in portrait mode on, say, an ALPA SWA or an Arca RM3D for instance ?
I believe 'yes' due to the adaptor plate part - but am not sure that all those adaptor plates can be rotated 90°. It was so on my cambo sliding back (the back is placed on the adaptor plate and the adaptor plate is placed in 0° or 90° position on the sliding back).