Hasselblad V alternatives for digital

[Stuart Richardson]

I went medium format digital before, and while there are ways to use most systems with a medium format digital back, I would say you will get the best user experience by choosing a system that has been designed specifically with digital use in mind. For me, I would say this means the Mamiya/Phase One camera system, the Hasselblad H series, the Hy6/AFi, ZD, Pentax 645D or Leica S2. While some of these may be out of your price range, you might find one (particularly the ZD or Mamiya systems) in your price range. The reason I say this is that there is a lot to be said for having a camera system that just works without too many cable connections, stop down metering, or other complicated gymnastics. When you are actually taking photos, you will probably be wanting to focus more on the task of image making than on trying to fiddle with equipment. All of the systems are capable of great images when used properly, and the greatest differences between them (particularly at the lower end of the market) is more in user experience than in image quality. As Graham said, I would consider either selling your lenses and getting a new system, or opting for a system that would use them natively. One nice thing about the H system for you would be that you can get a lens adapter that would allow you to use your lenses without stop-down metering. I would look long and hard at this first to see if you can put together a kit with that which would fit your budget. Either that, or just sell it all and get something more dedicated to digital.

 

[rga]

Stuart I think this is really excellent advice.
Bob

I went medium format digital before, and while there are ways to use most systems with a medium format digital back, I would say you will get the best user experience by choosing a system that has been designed specifically with digital use in mind. For me, I would say this means the Mamiya/Phase One camera system, the Hasselblad H series, the Hy6/AFi, ZD, Pentax 645D or Leica S2. While some of these may be out of your price range, you might find one (particularly the ZD or Mamiya systems) in your price range. The reason I say this is that there is a lot to be said for having a camera system that just works without too many cable connections, stop down metering, or other complicated gymnastics. When you are actually taking photos, you will probably be wanting to focus more on the task of image making than on trying to fiddle with equipment. All of the systems are capable of great images when used properly, and the greatest differences between them (particularly at the lower end of the market) is more in user experience than in image quality. As Graham said, I would consider either selling your lenses and getting a new system, or opting for a system that would use them natively. One nice thing about the H system for you would be that you can get a lens adapter that would allow you to use your lenses without stop-down metering. I would look long and hard at this first to see if you can put together a kit with that which would fit your budget. Either that, or just sell it all and get something more dedicated to digital.

 

[ajoyroy]

Until and unless you are bent on acquiring a five year old MFDB, a new DB is a better option. The H system will cost practically the same as a new MFDB, and give you autofocus as well. The H4D31 cost the same or less than the CFV-39, and the H4D40 marginally more. With H System you can use all the V Lenses, using an adapter.

The older DB will not be all that inexpensive, of lower MP and older generation sensors - lower ISO and noisier. The best compromise between MP and cost is still the CFV-II, which at 16 MP square sensor is an excellent DB for the V System.

 

[arionelli]

Thanks all of you so much for all the input...

@ Stuart/Bob/Graham...do I understand correctly that I can get an "H" body + adaptor, with included on-board metering, and then continue to motor along with my V lenses, letting the camera set the shutter speed according to iso and manually-set aperture? That would be all I would ever really need (except for a back of course)...and I could still use a film back, right?

 

[mediumcool]

...and also wanted to ask about digital backs...are the Leaf Aptus 22 or Phase One P25 good enough to keep ahead of full frame digital quality?

I have an Aptus 22 which is slow and heavy, but delivers superb results up to 100. 200 is for me a bit noisy, but some folk think the noise to be film-like and like it.

The A22 has the advantage over some newer backs of being able to shoot as low as iso25, so you can shoot in sunlight with a Mamiya at 1/125 at f5.6 or f8 with the right flash.

The only comparison I can make is with my [relatively] ancient K20D, which suffers in sharpness and dynamic range in comparison.

Smooth yet crisp is my medium-format mantra.

 

[arionelli]

Yeah, right...dumbo here was just reading a bit more about the H system...I see it's a leaf shutter, so all manual metering, probably with focus confirmation. I assume the CF adaptor allows the same functions as the 500 series bodies wrt to the shutter/aperture/wind on mechanisms. Not much different to continuing with the 501 and as I see it, identical to adding a prism meter. Would that be correct?

 

[ghoonk]

I'm with ajoyroy on this. I'm a happy owner of a 500CM, RB67 Pro-SD and RZ67 Pro, each system with at least 3 good lenses, I'm starting to find it hard to use them for anything our of fairly controlled environments, when comparing them with my AFD II with an Aptus 65S MFDB, which pretty cost me as much as a CFV-16 that I'd been eyeing (turns out that CFV-16 has a firmware fault).

It makes more sense to look around for a used H digital system, which will give you the option to shoot with the benefit of AF, and switch over to a V system using an adapter if the nostalgia kicks in

 

[timwier]

I have a 501cm with a CFV back. It works perfect with all V lenses I have (40mm 50mm, 60mm, 80mm and so forth) and is completely integrated with no tethering or sync cords required. The Phocus software is free, easy to use and has built-in adjustments for all V lens. On top of all that it looks like a Hasselblad.

 

[DDudenbostel]

I have a 501cm with a CFV back. It works perfect with all V lenses I have (40mm 50mm, 60mm, 80mm and so forth) and is completely integrated with no tethering or sync cords required. The Phocus software is free, easy to use and has built-in adjustments for all V lens. On top of all that it looks like a Hasselblad.

I completely agree. I have the CFV39 and really love the way it integrates with the V system. I certainly wouldn't use it for action work but I'm a commercial photographer and mainly work in studio and on location under controlled conditions. I find in my type of work auto would be of no value.Even with fully auto cameras like my Canon 1DsII I still use manual focus and exposure unless the conditions warrent the full auto mode.

I can also say the Zeiss glass is spectacular with a digital back. I also love the ability to interchange the back with my Technikardan 23.

 

[djonesii]

I looked for a long time at the V system, even held a few, and at the end of the day, decided the manual focus was just not for me. My application is fine art figure in the studio, and with my shooting style AF is just easier.

That said, I just got an Arsat 30mm, and it's way fun to play with, but as was said above, stop down metering, manual focus, etc ..... It's a bit specialist for me, so $160 vs $1000 for something that I don't use all the time just did not make sense.

If you do think of the P30+, the crop factor does matter, but it's not huge.

The ZD is a great way to get your feet we without breaking the bank, but as the forum title says, abandon hope ...... ( says the man who is already lusting for an IQ )

Dave

 

[ghoonk]

I have a 501cm with a CFV back. It works perfect with all V lenses I have (40mm 50mm, 60mm, 80mm and so forth) and is completely integrated with no tethering or sync cords required. The Phocus software is free, easy to use and has built-in adjustments for all V lens. On top of all that it looks like a Hasselblad.

Would it be the same with a 500CM? I don't recall the 501CM having electronic contacts, but I could be wrong

 

[fotografz]

Would it be the same with a 500CM? I don't recall the 501CM having electronic contacts, but I could be wrong

Yes you are wrong.

The CFV uses the mechanical mechanism from the film back days to trigger the digital back. It is the ONLY digital back that works straight on any 500 series camera without contacts or sync cords.

It also works on a 200 series camera with a slight modification to the camera by Hasselblad service. 200 series cameras that have been modified have a blue decal stating it has been converted for CFV use.

-Marc

 

[arionelli]

Well thanks to all for the many thought provoking PsOV...I have considered most them and weighed the pros and cons for my projected uses. Although it's dead in the water, I have decided to get the Contax 645 with its 35, 55, 80 & 120mm lenses and keep the V 250/adaptor. . I like the Contax and the lenses a lot from previous experience and it will serve me better as a more versatlie, convenient, handheld, semi-auto ttl metering +/- occasional AF than the 501 which in my hands is more restricted to considered photography (which the Contax does equally well I think).
The other factor I took into consideration is the not too distant future acquisition of a digital back. A look at how wide the C645 35mm lens is on 44 & 48mm wide sensors, just to relate to my preferred max of 25mm for 24x36 format, shows 35 x 56/44 x 36/44 = 36.4 & 35 x 56/48 x 36/48 = 30.6mm, respectively, which is just adequate. The Hasselblad 40mm, on the other hand, gives a FOV approx equal to 41.6 and 35mm respectively, which to me is starting to look almost standard. I hope a P25 or Leaf 22 is not too far out of reach with a 5k limit - if that gets me at least on par quality with well-scanned film I would be happy enough. Is that realistic?

 

[ghoonk]

OH. Now THAT is good news. Any idea where I can get my hands on a CFV-16?

 

[arionelli]

A minor point, but revisiting this thread as the OP, I just realised my conversions are flawed wrt to 35mm equivalents. I think it should be:
35mm on 33x44 = 28.6mm, on 36x48 = 26.3mm
40mm " = 32.7mm, " = 30mm
must have been smoking something:loco:

This looks healthier for me, perhaps may even be able to get away with retaining my 50mm

In the meantime I've exchanged words with a few reps, mulled over and over about my needs, read a lot more on this forum.

3 things are standing out mostly for me:

1. As Marc W repeats, application application application...(just as relevant for ams and pros alike)

2. Get some hands-on with these a bit before buying once I've really sorted out what will work best for me

3. Best to buy into digital mf through a rep

Thanks again to all for your help

Martin :salute:

 

[mediumcool]

A minor point, but revisiting this thread as the OP, I just realised my conversions are flawed wrt to 35mm equivalents. I think it should be:
35mm on 33x44 = 28.6mm, on 36x48 = 26.3mm
40mm " = 32.7mm, " = 30mm

Are you using the diagonal to calculate? This is flawed in that the aspect ratios are different, so prints will have different shapes (apples and oranges); I use the shorter side of each format to calculate, which means that 35mm format would be reduced in size to 24 x 32 for eventual output at a 3:4 ratio.

This approach makes for simple calculation with a 36 x 48 sensor — 2/3 or 0.67. So a 35mm becomes equivalent to a 23.33333[recurring] lens. Smaller sensor = 25.45mm eq.

On the other hand, if somebody always crops their prints to a 2:3 ratio, then using the long side of each format would make more sense.

 

[arionelli]

Your point makes sense, but no, I was only considering the long side, mostly to determine the widest AOV for each lens.

I got used to thinking in mf focal lengths with film but now that I'm looking at digital I have been recalculating into 35mm equivalents a bit to level off sensor sizes (not even thinking about dof effects).

Martin

 

[mediumcool]

Your point makes sense, but no, I was only considering the long side, mostly to determine the widest AOV for each lens.

I got used to thinking in mf focal lengths with film but now that I'm looking at digital I have been recalculating into 35mm equivalents a bit to level off sensor sizes (not even thinking about dof effects).

Martin

OK, worked out what AOV means, but you seem to mean wide angle of view; am I right? Because there is vertical angle of view too, of course.

But that approach would require cropping 3:4 images to 2:3, thus losing pixels.