the iq250 and Hasselblad 50c has 16bit color, but pentax only offer 14bit file.
iq250 and hass are modular backs, meaning they can be adapt to any tech cameras. for the pentax 645z, because of the body added flange distance, rear tilt is limited, could be a big problem when you try to adjust DOF with rear tilt
and the last reason of course, you pay a bit for the brand.
1. 16bits - really - from the same sensor - people still believe that marketing BS - the last 2 bits are junk, they're all effectively 14bits.
2. The DB is modular, but it's just a dumb back when attached to anything that can't communicate with it electronically ... and yet it's priced (not costs) substantially more than a full on bells-and-whistles camera that is garnering high praise. P1 has been practicing the 'reassuringly expensive' pricing model (also know as 'we can charge what we want 'cause where else are they gonna go') for so long now I guess this is just another example of that.
3. Paying a 'bit' for the brand ... where a 'bit' = $20k+. I don't see that myself.
3 Member(s) liked this post
it's priced this way because of the market
A used CFV 16 fetches 4k, CFV39 around 7k, and a CFV 50 around 9k.
A brand new CFV50c will sell a lot at 15k. It's just a fact. Hassey V not only has a big user base of pros and amateurs, it's is also very collectible. price of a mint 503cw kit has nearly doubled in past year or two.
Oh, I see this on Linhof Techno! Great news! 11000 euros - way better then before!
1 Member(s) liked this post
Not trying to be negative here, but this reminds me USB 3.0 on the IQ back.
Last time I checked on Phase One web site it actually said IQ-250 is 14 bits, more or less.
IQ2 series digital backs | Specifications
Exactly. I believe it when its here.
www.flickr.com/yatlee2 Member(s) liked this post
Will wide angles (say 47 and wider) and shifts work well with this back? Regardless, kudos to HB for attending to their V cameras. Nicely done.
Last edited by Geoff; 24th July 2014 at 15:08.
My point exactly! Hasselblad have not made any promises about Live View so I fail to see the comparison between the IQ USB3 announcement.
I was going to tell you all something you wanted to hear but since the atmosphere seems still quite hostile towards Hasselblad I'll keep it to myself
In all seriousness, I don't think there is any great hostility here*.
What HB are doing with the CFV-50c is to be applauded; hopefully the aggressive pricing will have the effect that it should - i.e. be beneficial to the long term health of the segment, and us along with it (regardless of what we shoot).
*Of course, if you just dropped $35k on an IQ250, you probably have every right to look for some place to vent your spleen.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Good to see them back on track.
7 Member(s) liked this post
No hostility from me, only enthusiasm for the products they DO offer.
Amazing Flextight scanners – of which I have bought 2.
The best modular DMF camera body on the market – IMHO, of course.
This great new CFV back, which I very much intend to buy IF if works well with Rodenstock's 32HR using movements AND firmware is upgraded to have on back live view. Even if it isn't though, I'm really happy V system users have the option of this new back. It's a great sign that Hasselblad are listening to their customers and committed to delivering great products.
Mate, if they can enable live view in the H5d-50c they'd be a few people who aggressively bagged 'Blad about being horribly behind Phase with egg on their faces. How much more is an IQ250 than the H5D-50c?
2 Member(s) liked this post
Is it true that Zeiss once approached Hasselblad with a full working design for how to make auto focus V lenses and bodies and that 'Blad turned them down? I read that a while back but can't remember where. Imagine if they had of said yes...
A non-square sensor on a V body isn't very interesting - the form factor assumes a square format - it will be quite awkward to use in portrait orientation. The "square" option with the back will be a 33x33mm crop - on a system designed for 60x60.
Yawn. This is why Hasselblad hasn't done this before now.
rectangular is actually not so great a problem on the SWC, which does not have a viewfinder. of course one would want live view...
You hold the camera *exactly* as you do for horizontal shooting, and simply use the vertical-rectangle in the cross-style mask.
I find that preferable even to shooting systems like Canon 1Dx or Nikon D4 or DF+ with VGrip which have a provision to turn the camera 90 degrees with sort-of-seamless continuity of tools. Because no matter how good the vertical grip it always seems to me to be secondary to the horizontal orientation in ergonomics.
It's kinda mind-boggling that Hasselbad never made their CFV backs with a rotating sensor, it seems like such an obvious thing to do. Also, the external battery protruding underneath always bugged me, it ruins the aesthetics of the camera and it prevents it from sitting flat when you put it down. Hasselblad knows this, which is why they never show the backs with a battery inserted in the product shots.
not only are the hassy backs non-rotating, they are in landscape mode when the camera is in it's normal position. makes a vertical orientation, a' la Woody, uncomfortable. as far i know, the only rotating backs are Leaf; does phase make a fixed vertical orientation mounting plate?
In other words, through various means, you can take any Leaf or Phase back and make a vertical picture or a horizontal picture on any 500 series body.
(exception made for the square-sensor backs. They don't allow rotation on the mount, but there would be no point in rotating a square)
http://www.keithlaban.co.uk1 Member(s) liked this post
Doug, why haven't Phase re-designed the backs to work with the Hasselblad V bodies using the linkage to activate the sensor?
The cable always makes it feel like an adapted back, rather than a first choice.
I don't really get why people are so excited over this and applauding Hasselblad. Many wanted a true 6x6 sensor for years now and what you get instead is a quick rework of an existing back so it can be used on a V-series camera. Not only is it not a square sensor it is not even close to a 645 sensor in size.
There are larger than 645 sensors out there, but none that have suitable properties for traditional photography. Hasselblad is in no situation to have Dalsa or anyone else to make an exclusive 56x56mm sensor that would be used by only them for a camera system that is already discontinued. Only Hy6 and tech cameras would benefit from 56x56mm of the current systems, and the manufacturers of those systems don't do digital backs, except Sinar, but they're into narrow tethered-only multi-shot solutions these days.
Making the back not super high-end is a good step, I think. So it will be in reach of mere mortals and businesses (think wedding photographers and other commercial photographers), but it needs to have a bigger sensor.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Hasselblad's Photokina marketing email is headed "Back to the future with Hasselblad..."
Now, once bitten twice shy, but I wonder what this means?
IMO its just pithy remarks and does not mean anything .
Quite common for marketing to impress people .
Regards . Jürgen .
been a square format fan for a long time, and love the 500's. and for some reason, could never seem to mask and crop the rectangular format of the CV-39 in the gg. no reason except guilt ridden about wasting pixels.
just put in a sq crop mask, there are plenty of 'em, that is back to the future. and i have an SWC; could also carry the film back if i really needed the wider fov in that one direction
1 Member(s) liked this post
Maybe they now see their future as more connected to that storied past … only for real this time rather than stuff like the "Lunar" trying to parasitically gain prestige from past glories?
One can only hope.
2 Member(s) liked this post
On one hand, wishing for an exclusive 6X6 Hasselblad digital back …
On the other hand, wishing it were so affordable as to make it attainable for mere morals and businesses.
Hasselblad does not make sensors. It depends on sensors from companies that do.
No one makes a production 6X6 sensor. Hasselblad would have to commission one. Care to guess what that would cost, (especially in the relatively small quantities MFD would command)?
There is a reason that the MFD camera makers (Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax) all selected the Sony 50 meg crop-frame CMOS sensor … it is because Sony made one.
Longing for a 6X6 sensor would be better aimed at the companies that make sensors, not the camera companies that can only use what those sensor companies choose to R&D and produce.
As things stand at the moment, the Hasselblad 6x6 cameras are discontinued. Their 6x6 competitor, Rolleiflex, which also offers AF and a camera that is currently being manufactured, would obviously be all over such a sensor. While Hasselblad's sales potential is limited to the digital backs, DHW is able to deliver modern cameras and lenses for such a back. There's enough room for both in the market, but I'm quite sure that DHW would be the company getting the most profit from this.
Somewhat repeating what Jörgen says;
Hasselblad H system does not cover 6x6. Except for this digital back the Hasselblad V system is already discontinued (and virtually dead in the pro market), and the resolution of the V lenses is not up to what digital MF users has come to expect.
Hy6 is the only digital platform out there for which a 6x6 (=56x56mm effective area on film) seems logical.
I'm also a bit skeptical about how popular a square format would actually be among modern photographers though. If you're going to crop it to rectangular 99% of the time, who wants to pay the extra for a custom 56x56mm sensor when you can get 56x41mm for a much lower price? Some artists surely would like the square format, but for general professional photography where the bulk sales need to be, is square format any good?
I think most people looking for a 6X6 back are intent on using it for an existing Hasselblad V kit. The V user base is enormous compared to Rollie.
The problem is cost/price, not that there aren't plenty of potential CFV digital back buyers.
For V users, it would have to be a "custom" larger square sensor and be modestly priced. Thus, the non sequitur.
However, as they say … "Never Say Never" … but I sure wouldn't even bet a penny on it ever happening.
I commercially used a V for 40 years and frankly it was a delight to work with. You develop an eye for square composition, yet still could crop a rectangle either way without turning the camera or flipping the back or anything. Just shoot and crop … or not. Very nice work flow.
I shot all my wedding stuff as a square, and all the album makers made a square slip in mat. Commercially, the square allowed the Art Director to select the image format at will to fit all the various magazine and collaterial aspect ratios and still allow for bleed or gutter drop.
There is a reason the V was so popular, and why there is still a trillion of them out there. IMO, that's partially why Hasselblad discontinued the V, who would pay for new when there so many working Vs to be had at a fraction of new prices?
As to lenses, yes some may not hold up to excruciating 200% corner examination, but some do … and many others have a character that is still highly desirable. The 40IF is quite good, as is the 100/3.5 and the 180/4 … not to mention some of the APOs. I used some V lenses on 39 and 50 meg H cameras, and they brought a lot to the party on their own. There is a look and feel that is less antiseptic than many modern lenses deliver.
But that's exactly my point, Marc; Hasselblad won't invest a penny in a purpose made sensor that won't help them sell a single camera body or lens. The CFV backs (except the first square one) all use off-the-shelf sensors and must generate a very healthy profit when you look at what Pentax can sell the same sensors for and include a complete camera body for free.
The fact that there are much fewer Rollei bodies out there is only an advantage for DHW. That increases the potential for selling new bodies should such a sensor appear.