vieri
Well-known member
So it seems. PM me an email address and I will send you Leaf's own price list. Seeing is believing
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hasselblad CFV-39 digital back and a missed opportunity to sell thousands of them.
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Carsten -- we should talk about this when I am in Berlin! Unfortunately, I will not be able to bring the S2 with me. But I came from a similar background as you -- having used the 200 series, 6008AF and Hy6 before getting the S2. I still use the 203FE for film (and love it for that...I don't really have any of the complaints about it that you have, but maybe I am just used to it.), but I got rid of the Hy6 and 6008. From my perspective, the Hy6 would have been an incredible camera to shoot 6x6 with, but I had it for more than a year, all the while begging for a 6x6 film back...I had sold it before they ever got around to putting one out (and everyone I asked said it was unlikely to ever happen). Evidently they are now out there somewhere, but I still have not so much as seen one on the web, outside of DHW's own pictures. While the S2 is extremely expensive, from my view it is a far far better system than the Hy6 was with digital (at least with the Sinar back I used). While the Hy6 has some nicely integrated features, it cannot match the integration and ergonomics of the S2. And while it is expensive, I managed to completely cover the cost of the S2 by selling the Rollei system and my older Leica R system. If you tally up how much money you have sitting in gear, it might surprise you, especially if you have any Leica stuff -- I sold most of the Leica lenses I had for more than what I bought them for...sometimes a lot more!
But I would also say there is no reason to make this sort of decision today if you don't have to. The equipment keeps getting better, and in some sense it keeps getting cheaper too. It is not impossible to find a good deal on a demo or used S2 (though it does require some digging), and of course a lot of the older Phase, Hassie and Leaf backs can be had for a decent price. Sinar backs are really cheap now (though based on my experience, I cannot recommend them for most people).
But I would also say there is no reason to make this sort of decision today if you don't have to. The equipment keeps getting better, and in some sense it keeps getting cheaper too. It is not impossible to find a good deal on a demo or used S2 (though it does require some digging), and of course a lot of the older Phase, Hassie and Leaf backs can be had for a decent price. Sinar backs are really cheap now (though based on my experience, I cannot recommend them for most people).
carstenw
Active member
We can chat more about this when we meet, but I do think that the Sinar backs are a little old at this point, and a modern Leaf back would be much nicer to work with, also giving the option of using Capture One. I do like the S2, and have handled one on a couple of occasions, but I am leaning towards having a tech camera, as well as shooting film, and I think the Hy6 combines all these options in one system, while offering great lenses. The S2 is also just very expensive. The Hy6 6x6 film back is now freely available on eBay, although it does cost 1600 Euro! Even the most expensive Rollei lens (maybe the 90 Macro) now costs about half of an S2 lens.
At optimistic prices, I do have a lot of money sitting in gear, maybe even 25k Euro, but that is just the base price of the S2, and I would have to sell a lot of nice equipment, including my entire Nikon system, which I really don't want to do. The Hy6 would allow me to keep more, even if I sell my M stuff and buy a couple of nice Rollei lenses. I am also simply looking to reduce my total investment in photo equipment. There are other priorities too. Another option would be to keep the 6008i for film and keep my Contax 645 and get an older Phase back for that, maybe a P45+. The Sinar back didn't work well with my Contax, I am not sure why, but I suspect the adapter. The same back worked fine on a Hy6 for the previous owner.
Anyway, as you say, I am not making any decisions today. For now I am still happy with MF film and my D3, or possibly an upgrade to the D3x or the new D4, and I am just eyeing the possibilities. I have some really nice shots made with the eMotion 54 LV I had, which make me think I would like to own another back.
At optimistic prices, I do have a lot of money sitting in gear, maybe even 25k Euro, but that is just the base price of the S2, and I would have to sell a lot of nice equipment, including my entire Nikon system, which I really don't want to do. The Hy6 would allow me to keep more, even if I sell my M stuff and buy a couple of nice Rollei lenses. I am also simply looking to reduce my total investment in photo equipment. There are other priorities too. Another option would be to keep the 6008i for film and keep my Contax 645 and get an older Phase back for that, maybe a P45+. The Sinar back didn't work well with my Contax, I am not sure why, but I suspect the adapter. The same back worked fine on a Hy6 for the previous owner.
Anyway, as you say, I am not making any decisions today. For now I am still happy with MF film and my D3, or possibly an upgrade to the D3x or the new D4, and I am just eyeing the possibilities. I have some really nice shots made with the eMotion 54 LV I had, which make me think I would like to own another back.
Last edited:
Well, don't give up so soon my friend ... you are informing and convincing meMarc, read again. The Aptus 10 sells for about $24K AT 56 MP. The CFV-50 sells for $16K AT 50 MP. I mentioned the Aptus 8 as a reference to better situate a possible 50 Mp price between the two Aptus, the 56Mp & the 40Mp; IMO there isn't much of a difference, and IMO Hasselblad could sell a R version of the CFV-50 for what I mentioned in my previous post, TAKING THE MP DIFFERENCE INTO ACCOUNT. Think about it with a non-prejudiced mind, if you can
Exactly. Leaf has 8 different backs you can put on a Hasselblad V camera, two with rotating sensors, and Hasselblad has only (a crippled) one. I think Hasselblad is moving in the wrong direction, seeing that the V is actually Hasselblad own system! :ROTFL:
Anyway, whatever you say Marc, we shall agree to disagree and I am off this futile polemic now, since we each keep repeating pretty much the same things over and over. A very Happy New Year to you!
I need not be entrenched in my thinking either. In reality, I fully understand the devotion to of the V system. It was what many passionate photographers aspired to, and once secured became an unwavering partner in making quality photographs, often for decades. As digital became mainstream for most all commercial work and a lot of advanced enthusiasts, there was a constant hope that the V could adapt .... at first it seemed to be doing that ... I held onto a pretty vast collection of bodies and lenses until only recently myself.
Frankly, I don't know what financial demands, market pressures and politics lead to weak support for the V system, but it looked to be half-hearted and waning. Would a high spec CFV with a rotating sensor be possible? Would it infringe on patents? Could they afford engineering it? Would it be too little to late? Could it compete with already existing backs that already do all that, and survive? Could the V with it's fairly demanding quirks continue to conquest new converts in the face of advanced technological demands from new MFD users? I personally have no idea. All I know is what they did do.
We can all lament what some of these companies actually do compared to what WE THINK they could have done. "IF ONLY", is an often heard refrain from experienced and dedicated photographers across the internet.
If only Kyocera had held on a bit longer, and if only Phase One had bought the Contax platform and improved on that (frankly, that is what I'd be shooting today had it happened).
If only the Xpan had not been killed, and a digital version had been developed.
If only Leica had not killed the R (although it is now perfectly clear that decision was probably correct ... and is the basis of my argument against further investment in the V system to "take advantage of legacy owners" ... there was a huge base of R lens holders out there just waiting for the DMR replacement.
If only the Hy6 had been a raging success. If only they had made it easier to swap platforms upon introduction.
We all have our "If Only" and "Why Didn't They." Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It is what it is, and as it is, it isn't all that bad ... damned good stuff from all these companies, and getting better every year ... plus a fair amount of choice is emerging .... Pentax 645D price/value all the way to the astounding IQs ... to even a Leica MFD choice (which, BTW, for many owners promotes that elusive "love" thing beyond just being a tool ... damned thing is not only winning minds, it's winning hearts).
Peace pal, we are both right and there is no wrong when it comes to our own "What Ifs"
A very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to you also!
-Marc
vieri
Well-known member
I completely agree on the half-hearted support Hasselblad gave to the V system; you know, they still put money in it (CFV-16, 39, 50) and due to the blotched way they did I am not sure that was a sound move, financially. To me, besides all the woulds and just looking at what they did, after the 16 they took the worse possible choice: a neither/nor, which still costed money but was engineered in the worse way to get that money back... Leaving practically the whole pie to Leaf, basically, after spending money in it. It would probably have made more sense to just let others do it.Well, don't give up so soon my friend ... you are informing and convincing me
In reality, I fully understand the devotion to of the V system. It was what many passionate photographers aspired to, and once secured became an unwavering partner in making quality photographs, often for decades. As digital became mainstream for most all commercial work and a lot of advanced enthusiasts, there was a constant hope that the V could adapt .... at first it seemed to be doing that ... I held onto a pretty vast collection of bodies and lenses until only recently myself.
Frankly, I don't know what financial demands, market pressures and politics lead to weak support for the V system, but it looked to be half-hearted and waning. Would a high spec CFV with a rotating sensor be possible? Would it infringe on patents? Could they afford engineering it? Would it be too little to late? Could it compete with already existing backs that already do all that, and survive? Could the V with it's fairly demanding quirks continue to conquest new converts in the face of advanced technological demands from new MFD users? I personally have no idea. All I know is what they did do.
This is definitely what I would have done, too, no questions about it
Again, I'd buy one in a second
Well, Leica did better than Hasselblad on this one; the Module R was a very good platform for what it was, just as the CFV-16, in their time: Leica, though it made a lot of R users pissed, did definitely the right choice in letting the R system go and focussing on something else. Plus, they had the advantage of not having a MF legacy system to preserve. Again, Leica model is what Hasselblad should have done IMO after the CFV-16...
Definitely, is all in good fun - what would we do without all the shoulda/woulda
plus I am pretty sure that companies follow all our ramblings and use these fora as a thermometer and a part of their market analysis as well. At least I hope they would Oh, and yes that S2 is damn sexy! :ROTFL: As is the M9, which I own; Leica certainly know a thing or two about winning hearts...
Again, Happy New Year, might 2012 be the very best yet!
Last edited:
carstenw
Active member
Don't forget that Hasselblad, like so many companies, rested on their V laurels for way to long and nearly went out of business, and only barely managed to stay alive with the H system. Their hands were financially tied for a long time. More recently, they have had more options, and have continued to release more CFV backs. All that is missing is a square-sensor back which nearly fills the format and gives reasonable MP and a good interface. Since they can't dual-develop this for H and V, I don't know if it will ever happen. The fact that there isn't a square sensor being made by Kodak or Dalsa (to my knowledge) might also have something to do with it
None of this is insurmountable, ultimately, but it certainly needs to be a clearly good move before such a large effort and investment would be made.That looks like a Mac or iOS spelling correction
Happy New Year!
vieri
Well-known member
Indeed, Hasselblad is one of these companies that failed to see digital coming in all its mightDon't forget that Hasselblad, like so many companies, rested on their V laurels for way to long and nearly went out of business, and only barely managed to stay alive with the H system. Their hands were financially tied for a long time. More recently, they have had more options, and have continued to release more CFV backs. All that is missing is a square-sensor back which nearly fills the format and gives reasonable MP and a good interface. Since they can't dual-develop this for H and V, I don't know if it will ever happen. The fact that there isn't a square sensor being made by Kodak or Dalsa (to my knowledge) might also have something to do with it
Well, what they could do to easily fix the CFV-50 blunder at practically zero cost is this: take off the body/back connection (which works iffy at best), make the back attachable both in landscape & portrait orientation. This way it will be at least usable on the V system. Then see how many you sell, and if the numbers are right, invest in developing a rotating mount for the CFV-xx. If the numbers aren't right, they'd just drop it overall, without losing much if at all more than they already did. Easy & painless Indeed, one of these perfect "corrections"!! :ROTFL: fixed!That looks like a Mac or iOS spelling correction
Happy New Year!
vieri
Well-known member
Is not primarily the Mp, is mainly the sensor size that wouldn't do. 36.7x36.7 square means a crop factor of 1.5x, so no WA left (even the 38 Biogon of the SWC/903 will be a 57mm equivalent). Plus, coming to the Mp, if you need to shot in portrait orientation you'll get to crop to a 24x36 image with 26Mp. Basically a D3x with no wide angles and very slow lenses
Not a great bargain, IMHO.On the other end, a 40 Mp 56x56 square sensor would be a pretty good start
johnnygoesdigital
New member
I agree with this quote from Stuart Richardson...
"But I would also say there is no reason to make this sort of decision today if you don't have to. The equipment keeps getting better, and in some sense it keeps getting cheaper too".
The last couple of years for MFD, seemed more like beta versions for me, as none of them were reliable. Some had features the others lacked, but none of them had the best in one DB. Most don't have the luxury of buying multiple camera systems, so this becomes very personal when finally making a choice. The price point for MFD, is insulting too, considering the time most take to make these decisions, and then have an upgraded version released shortly after.
For most of my editorial work or faster workflow photography, the Sony Alpha, 35mm FF, has been amazing. For the big gallery prints, Tech cameras using film, is always my choice. And for those who consider film not useful, consider a recent Andre Kertesz photo that sold for over $300,000. I've owned the H3D, H4D, CFV, Phase DF, and have never bonded with any of these cameras, (except the S2, but too pricey). The CFV/16 seems the only DB from Hasselblad to have that mystic quality for V users. The CFV/39 for portraits was not thought out either, as you can't use a 90 degree finder, except the RM-2, which is quite heavy. And shooting square was kind of pointless too, sort of like buying an IQ series with sensor plus.
"But I would also say there is no reason to make this sort of decision today if you don't have to. The equipment keeps getting better, and in some sense it keeps getting cheaper too".
The last couple of years for MFD, seemed more like beta versions for me, as none of them were reliable. Some had features the others lacked, but none of them had the best in one DB. Most don't have the luxury of buying multiple camera systems, so this becomes very personal when finally making a choice. The price point for MFD, is insulting too, considering the time most take to make these decisions, and then have an upgraded version released shortly after.
For most of my editorial work or faster workflow photography, the Sony Alpha, 35mm FF, has been amazing. For the big gallery prints, Tech cameras using film, is always my choice. And for those who consider film not useful, consider a recent Andre Kertesz photo that sold for over $300,000. I've owned the H3D, H4D, CFV, Phase DF, and have never bonded with any of these cameras, (except the S2, but too pricey). The CFV/16 seems the only DB from Hasselblad to have that mystic quality for V users. The CFV/39 for portraits was not thought out either, as you can't use a 90 degree finder, except the RM-2, which is quite heavy. And shooting square was kind of pointless too, sort of like buying an IQ series with sensor plus.
Shashin
Well-known member
But he is dead and not really benefiting from the sale. But I am not sure the price is because of film. If he has a digital camera when shooting Paris at Night, I am sure the print would get as much. I am also sure if I made pictures at night around Paris, I would not get the attention he did.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Valid points.
I'm not trying to make this about film vs digital, but the high end art buyers seem to favor the film process over digital when considering photography as an art investment. The manipulation of an image in camera and the variables in processing and printing, have an appeal that have more character and warmth than the 1's and 0's of digital. This is not to say that MFD shooters don't sell high end photographs, it's just that to many art buyers, film feels more like an expression of creative skill and imagination. With MFD, you can take 100 photographs in 10 minutes and eventually get what you want. Film takes a certain amount of skill and theory to achieve a kind of, "limited edition" photograph. Besides there are far fewer complaints about gear too.
I got caught up in the MFD technology hype. I was convinced that the workflow and format would outweigh the inconvenience of film. However, after coming full circle in digital photography gear, so to speak. I find that 35mm FF digital, as the technology stands now, is far more reliable, and thus more superior for me, in my kind of shooting. If I need absolute detail for table top or other studio/fashion shoots quickly, i'll rent a MFD, but I would never purchase one. Soon Sony and Nikon are going to give MFD, shooters more to consider.
Last edited:
NicholasRab
New member
A very debatable statement. The most prolific and successful 'fine art' photographer in my area is 100% digital and has been for quite a while. What do I know though, If I knew what people wanted in fine art purchases maybe I could sell more of them
.As usual it's about solid vision & execution along with even more solid marketing.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
And that success will probably evolve too, as more become familiar, and accustomed to digital. I'm speaking from experience with certain NYC gallery owners specifically. They have a definite preference for film over digital...for nowA very debatable statement. The most prolific and successful 'fine art' photographer in my area is 100% digital and has been for quite a while. What do I know though, If I knew what people wanted in fine art purchases maybe I could sell more of them
As usual it's about solid vision & execution along with even more solid marketing.
carstenw
Active member
I think more to the point is that investors favour artists who are dead rather than alive
They won't be putting out any more originals, so the value is stable. Famous photographers who are dead mostly used film.I do agree that a D3x would be a great camera for what I do, but I had a digital back, and the results, on those occasions when I could control the back properly, were superior. I long for that experience again, but without the flakiness this time.
Tell that to Cindy Sherman ... 09-11-11 auction, untitled # 282: $818,500I think more to the point is that investors favour artists who are dead rather than alive
Hmmm, I have an early print of "Satiric Dancer" by Andre' Kertesz signed on the back and dated Paris 1926 that I bought from a highly reputable gallery in 1981 while Kertesz was still alive.
Today's ArtDaily.org just announced one sold for GBP 228,500! What is the conversion to US Dollars? Is that like over $300,000?
http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=24280&int_modo=2
-Marc
Shashin
Well-known member
When you can sell your unmade bed or a pickled shark for lots of money, I am not sure it is easy to peg "art" buyers. An art buyer collecting the work of a photographer usually does not care that much about how the photographer got there--I am sure Salgado will sell plenty of his digital work taken during the Genesis project. An art buyer collecting a process, would have other criteria like if it was shot on film or made with egg whites.
I have not found the skill to make a good photograph any more difficult in one process or another. "Warmth" and character of a process is the result of the individual photographer, not the particular technology.
I can also shoot 100 film frames in 10 minutes. But working deliberately is not a film/digital thing. My Hexar AF was a P&S and my Phase 25+ on a Linhof C679 is really slow. I have found my Pentax 645D just as reliable as any DLSR from Sony or Nikon. MFD is no silver bullet. But it is no more difficult to shoot MFD than MFF.
I guess I am just not seeing your argument. Film works really well for you. It is an excellent and vital process. And you like it. That is enough of a reason for me to use any process. I was shooting 6x6 and 6x12 until last year when economics and practicality made me move over. MFD is just another technology/process in a long line of other technologies and processes. There is nothing really special about it.
But I think I might be a little bit of an odd duck around GetDPI. My images need no apology as I really enjoy making them and showing them. Shot today with the 645D, handheld, and in focus, although I am sure most around here would tell me I need a tripod...
Shashin
Well-known member
He's not dead?This is all tongue-in-cheek anyway, but saying that investors favour dead artists doesn't mean no living artist is earning good money. Case in point: Gursky
