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!

New 39mp CFV back

BradleyGibson

New member
The HC-3/70 also has a full metal ring around the bottom and requires modification to work with the 200-series.

The RM-2 is supposed to have a more generous exit pupil (better for everyone, especially eyeglass wearers), so you may want to go with the latter, since both will require modification.

If someone can confirm the PM90 will physically fit with the CFV backs mounted on a 500 or 200-series V-body (above, it's implied that it will), I will pick one up and see how much trouble solving the interlock problem is.

-Brad

Will the older HC3/70 (52043) work with the 200 series. Nordin specifically says that he RM-2 won't work but make no mention of the HC 3.

Steve
 
Last edited:
T

tetsrfun

Guest
If someone can confirm the PM90 will physically fit with the CFV backs mounted on a 500
*********
Paul Claesson
Hasselblad USA

"The PM-90 and PME90 viewfinders are incompatible with the CFV back."

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35903&st=40&start=40

In the same thread, there is a picture of a PME-90 mounted with an A12 mag. There is a curve on the prism that wraps over the top of the mag. The CFV is said to be too deep for the curve.

Steve
 

BradleyGibson

New member
Hi Steve, thanks.

Yes, I asked that question of Paul over at LL.

But fotografz (Marc?) seemed to imply in this thread that the finder and CFV back and finder may fit, albeit with issues. If the reason Hasselblad's official line that the two are incompatible is due to the interlock issue, that may be solvable. If they physically can't be attached at the same time, that would be quite different.

Anyone tried, first-hand?
 

robertwright

New member
speculating that it might be the cfv back is deeper than a regular A12 and the pm90 finder wraps around the back somewhat. It also has a mechanical interlock thing to access the A12 back release so that may be the other part as you point out. You might get the back on but never get it off!

edit: duh. read the whole thread rob. asked and answered!

Hi Steve, thanks.

Yes, I asked that question of Paul over at LL.

But fotografz (Marc?) seemed to imply in this thread that the finder and CFV back and finder may fit, albeit with issues. If the reason Hasselblad's official line that the two are incompatible is due to the interlock issue, that may be solvable. If they physically can't be attached at the same time, that would be quite different.

Anyone tried, first-hand?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Ok--I've gone ahead and purchased one. It appears that this one can be disassembled and modified. It may take a couple of weeks to put together a test 203FE system, but I will let folks here know of the outcome (RM-2 + 203FE), if there is interest.



So are you saying that it is physically possible to mount a PM90 and a CFV at the same time (if one ignores the interlock issue you point out?) I am curious if the eyepiece blocks the CFV display at all?

Thanks,
-Brad
Please do let us know of your RM-2 modification. Photos please : -)

I don't think the PM/90 will even fit. Even if it did, the way the CVF has to be removed with two buttons at once would be a real PITA to figure out and rig something.
 

BradleyGibson

New member
fotografz:
The RM-2 is on its way. Both the 203FE and viewfinder should be here sometime this week. No problem posting photos of the mod. shortly thereafter.

All indications are that the PM90 won't fit as well. I guess I'll stick with the RM-2 until I either hear otherwise, or get my hands on a CFV so I can make some measurements.

Seascape:
Yep, I saw 'em. But I don't want to buy one unless i can "make it work" on a 203FE. I don't mind a little hobby project, but grinding down the eyepiece or some other major modification wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Thanks, guys,
-Brad
 
T

tetsrfun

Guest
If people are going to work on "modifying" right angle finders, do the prototype work on an HC-4 (RM-1), they seem to be fairly common. The RM-2 finders are much less common.

Steve
 

BradleyGibson

New member
I don't think I'll ruin the RM-2, since the metal ring is removable (famous last words). It appears to be the only part that needs modification. But you're right--if there's any risk, I'll pick up an HC-4 to 'practice' on.

Good thought.
-Brad
 
R

Rafa

Guest
I for one I am very glad Hasselblad developed this back and I hope they continue creating a CFV-50 or CFV60. After all the requests they got from us they finally listened. Unfortunately for me it came out too late. Tired of waiting I made the jump to P45+ and Mamiya 4 months ago. You guys are making me drool, in particular, that modification for the 503CW winder is very sweet! Who knows, I might get one of these backs in a couple of years. My 203FEs are not getting much of a workout lately, but I am not thinking of getting rid of them any time soon.
 

Seascape

New member
Yes, it is great that Hasselblad is bringing out this back, and lets hope there's more in the future (maybe one with a large square sensor).

But does anyone really think that this back, at this price, would have happened without the introduction of the Leica S2 ??

I don't think so, Hasselblad did not seem too interested in producing backs for the V system, when they have no bodies or lenses to sell to the public.

I guess selling a 39MP DB to people who already own bodies and lenses, is better than selling nothing......to what is probably a pretty large market, even today.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Is there any reason to use the CW winder other than the ergonomics? It is .8FPS versus 1.3FPS in the FE winder, right? I am still very curious to see who designed the shape of the FE winder, especially since everything else in the 203FE falls to the hand so nicely.
If Arrested Development was not a tv show, I would think that maybe Buster designed it:
 

BradleyGibson

New member
In addition to ergonomics, the CW winder has a shutter release, and will respond to a wired or infrared remote control.

I'm also baffled by the F-winder--whose idea was that?? :)
 
T

tetsrfun

Guest
I guess selling a 39MP DB to people who already own bodies and lenses, is better than selling nothing.
***********
My guess is that the R&D for the CFV and for the 39 MP sensor and electronics is paid off and the profit margin at a price point of $13,995 is quite good.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I don't think so, Hasselblad did not seem too interested in producing backs for the V system, when they have no bodies or lenses to sell to the public.
No bodies? Last time I checked, a new 503CW was still available. No lenses? Not many available new, that's for sure...which is disappointing. Maybe if there is a strong demand for the CFV-39, Hasselblad will commission Zeiss for another run of lenses. We can only hope and pray. In any case, it's better than the Leica R system....which is dead, dead, dead. :(

Gary
Alaska
Still hoping for a 9 micron full frame 6x6cm sensor (someday)
 
T

tetsrfun

Guest
I don't think I'll ruin the RM-2, since the metal ring is removable (famous last words). It appears to be the only part that needs modification. But you're right--if there's any risk, I'll pick up an HC-4 to 'practice' on.

Good thought.
-Brad
I received an RM-2 and an HC-3 today. I have not had much time to compare but the difference in magnification is noticeable. In doing a little research on hoods and prisms, the standard WLF mag. is 4.5 as baseline. The PM-90 is 2x, the PM45 is 2.5x, RM-2 is 3x and the HC-3 is 4x (the highest mag. prism)..The DBS mag hood is 5.5 (the highest hood).

I was not happy with add on mag. for my PME-45...The 4x HC-3 may stay on my 503. With a 39 MP back focusing is likely to be more critical than the 16 MP. The HC-3/70 may be the best prism for the CFV39.

Steve
 

BradleyGibson

New member
Thanks for the update, Steve. Good to know about the HC-3/70's magnification, too.

My RC-2 arrived today, and I took a look at it and was successful in modifying the silver ring at the base to be 203FE compatible. By taking a look at the PM-51 (a finder that is 200-series compatible) there may not be enough clearance just by modifying the ring (another 1-2mm may be required). One solution would be to grind it from the front of the finder (this is how the PM-51 is built), but a simpler solution might be to reattach the metal ring with 1-2mm of offsets (such as a small washer underneath each screw).

My 203FE is expected to arrive tomorrow, and I'll test it with what I've got so far before going any further. If it works, I'll post a step-by-step how-to with photos. If not, I'll have to figure out the most sensible way to get the extra clearance--which likely won't happen until next week.

Best regards,
-Brad
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks for the update, Steve. Good to know about the HC-3/70's magnification, too.

My RC-2 arrived today, and I took a look at it and was successful in modifying the silver ring at the base to be 203FE compatible. By taking a look at the PM-51 (a finder that is 200-series compatible) there may not be enough clearance just by modifying the ring (another 1-2mm may be required). One solution would be to grind it from the front of the finder (this is how the PM-51 is built), but a simpler solution might be to reattach the metal ring with 1-2mm of offsets (such as a small washer underneath each screw).

My 203FE is expected to arrive tomorrow, and I'll test it with what I've got so far before going any further. If it works, I'll post a step-by-step how-to with photos. If not, I'll have to figure out the most sensible way to get the extra clearance--which likely won't happen until next week.

Best regards,
-Brad
Take photos as you go Brad. Lots of interest in this!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I believe that Hasselblad is only selling remaining stock of the 503CW.
How do you know this?

Not that it would be an issue since there are a billion of them out there and a fair amount of qualified repair people all over the globe ... one advantage of an all mechanical interchangable parts system. :thumbup:
 
Top