CFV50c or not!

Ken_R said:

You can use Hasselblad V lenses on the Pentax 645z no problem. There are adapters available for under $100.

The Hasselblad CFV50c back looks very nice but it lacks live view and that is just unacceptable in a $15,000 CMOS back.

I would look into the Phase (or Leaf Credo) IQ160/260 and IQ180/280 backs. The sensor is large enough that a standard 80mm still feels like one instead of a tele lens (like it does with the smaller 50mp sensor).

Click to expand...

However …

When you put a CF/CFi/CFE Zeiss lens on any 645 SLR FP camera it is stop down metering & shooting, and limited to 1/125th top sync speed.:thumbdown:

Plus, you can't remove the Pentax 645Z back and put it on a tech camera or Hasselblad V SWC.:thumbdown:

The CFV/50C is getting LV just like the H5D/50C did via firmware.:thumbup:

If you put any other back other than a CFV on a V camera you have to use a PC cord.:thumbdown:

All the current 50 CMOS sensors are crop-frame. If you want the CMOS attributes then the larger Phase or Leaf CCD backs is moot advice.:thumbdown:

If you don't care about the CMOS attributes and want the larger sensor size then there is the CFV50.:thumbup:

- Marc

The 49x37mm Kodak CCD CFV-50 has been discontinued which I think is very unfortunate, I think they should have had in in parallel, just like H5D-50 and H5D-50c.

torger said:

The 49x37mm Kodak CCD CFV-50 has been discontinued which I think is very unfortunate, I think they should have had in in parallel, just like H5D-50 and H5D-50c.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I didn't know that. To bad, but predictable. Hard to sustain multiple backs for a discontinued system with no other source of revenue from that system I suppose.

Frankly, I'm surprised they even did the CFV 50C … most likely an attempt to goose up the number of sensors bought from Sony.

- Marc

I think the CFV backs can make business sense while the V system as a whole does not. Pro photographers active today buy the H system, but there's a whole lot of V systems out there already, and I think quite many can be interested in using them for personal and or artistic work but maybe don't want to mess around with film any longer. Then there is this back, and it's very attractively priced compared to all other things medium format (except Pentax 645).

torger said:

I think the CFV backs can make business sense while the V system as a whole does not. Pro photographers active today buy the H system, but there's a whole lot of V systems out there already, and I think quite many can be interested in using them for personal and or artistic work but maybe don't want to mess around with film any longer. Then there is this back, and it's very attractively priced compared to all other things medium format (except Pentax 645).

Click to expand...

Your analysis is quite correct, and so it does not make business sense (since most are amateurs) for them to pay $15,500.00 for a digital back. But for serious amateurs it may make sense to invest $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 in a digital back.

And, Marc made some very salient points as well.

Greg

torger said:

I think the CFV backs can make business sense while the V system as a whole does not. Pro photographers active today buy the H system, but there's a whole lot of V systems out there already, and I think quite many can be interested in using them for personal and or artistic work but maybe don't want to mess around with film any longer. Then there is this back, and it's very attractively priced compared to all other things medium format (except Pentax 645).

Click to expand...

..or could be that they are flogging the company. They could be courting someone.

I agree that for an amateur $15k is still a lot of money when you compare to smaller format alternatives and also the Pentax 645z. As the V-mount does not compete with the H-mount products they're free to set any price they want. I'd suspect that almost all R&D is paid by the H5D-50c product, so they can take large risks with the CFV-50c product.

It would be interesting if they had set an even lower price, say $7k - $8k, maybe they would still win in the end by selling more units? Hopefully they've analyzed their market well though so this is the right price for the product.

My own limit (I'm an amateur) for a digital back is about $10k, so I'm staying in second hand space for yet some time.

"My own limit (I'm an amateur) for a digital back is about $10k, so I'm staying in second hand space for yet some time."
*****
Me too...If the CFV-50c was price at ~$9500 I would buy it but not $15000. I still have my CFV-16 for which I paid, IIRC, about $9500.

Steve

Very interesting to hear the opinions on lenses, especially about the wide angles. Over the time I heard many people saying how good their 50FLE is or how disappointing, to an amount where it becomes hardly believable that people talk about the same lens. Could it all be put down on sample variation?

Slixtiesix said:

Very interesting to hear the opinions on lenses, especially about the wide angles. Over the time I heard many people saying how good their 50FLE is or how disappointing, to an amount where it becomes hardly believable that people talk about the same lens. Could it all be put down on sample variation?

Click to expand...

Yes, could be sample variation and how people are using it. Some lenses are superb when focused at or near infinity but poor when focused up close and vice versa. I had a Pentax 645 FA 35mm lens that was awesome when focused close from MFD to say 10-15 ft but when focused further or at infinity it was not that good. So it was pretty bad for landscape use (which is what I got it for) so I sold it. Lens reviews / tests should factor in focusing distance when talking about the performance of a lens. Few if any really do this.

Generally tech lenses do not suffer from this because the elements are fixed in position and the focusing mechanism of each tech camera moves the whole lens back and forth. That and that the lenses are much better designed / made and calibrated (much lower production volume).

AF lenses are generally much less consistent in performance. But as usual YMMV with any lens.

It would be great if someone could comment on the 80 vs 100 at various distances. From the MTFs it is clear that the 100 performs better wide open. The 80mm becomes pretty close by f8 but still can´t compete in the corners. However, as you said, that is at infinity and I have heard various people saying that the 80mm gains IQ the closer you focus, will the 100mm loses. The data that was provided in Hasselblads "Evolution of Lenses" confirms that for the 100mm, but I have never seen the like info for the 80mm. Would be really interesting...

SHV said:

"My own limit (I'm an amateur) for a digital back is about $10k, so I'm staying in second hand space for yet some time."
*****
Me too...If the CFV-50c was price at ~$9500 I would buy it but not $15000. I still have my CFV-16 for which I paid, IIRC, about $9500.

Steve

Click to expand...

You may monitor the stocking status of the CFV 50c in Japan. It sounds too good to be true, but Mapcamera is a reputable dealer in Japan.

https://www.mapcamera.com/item/7392544342207

What a beautiful digital back on the V camera.

There may be merit in the discussions regarding the "clinical" performance of the lens system, but IMO the "presence" of images taken with the V kit (film or digital) has never been in question.

- Marc

Holly cow, that's over a third less than the price in NZ...

yongfei said:

You may monitor the stocking status of the CFV 50c in Japan. It sounds too good to be true, but Mapcamera is a reputable dealer in Japan.

https://www.mapcamera.com/item/7392544342207

Click to expand...

Hi,

The difference in image quality at different focus distances is most related to field curvature. It is difficult to make lenses whit flat field at close distance and infinity.

According to Zeiss, it takes floating elements to achieve flat field across different focusing distances, that is lens groups moving in relation with focusing.

All Zeiss Distagons for the Hasselblad have FLE designs, there is an extra focusing ring varying airspace between front lens group and the second one.

Zeiss says that the Planar 100/3.5 is preferable to the Macro Planar120/4 if the subject is larger than one square meter.

If we check MTF data for the Macro Planar 120/4 at infinity it is ugly:


But, it is pretty decent at 1:5



The image below was shot on a Sonnar 150/4 at f/5.6, taken from the edge.


And the one below on the Macro Planar 120/4 at f/5.6


Stopping down to f/16 the DoF increases to encompass the curved field and we get an image like this:


Image centers are pretty similar, BTW.

Interestingly, the 120/4 Apo Macro Planar for the Contax 645 is an entirely different design, with two more elements added and floating lens design, that is variable airspace. It has superior performance at both infinity and 1:1.

http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/645/Apo-Makro-Planar4_120mm_e.pdf

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFi120.pdf



Best regards
Erik

Ken_R said:

Yes, could be sample variation and how people are using it. Some lenses are superb when focused at or near infinity but poor when focused up close and vice versa. I had a Pentax 645 FA 35mm lens that was awesome when focused close from MFD to say 10-15 ft but when focused further or at infinity it was not that good. So it was pretty bad for landscape use (which is what I got it for) so I sold it. Lens reviews / tests should factor in focusing distance when talking about the performance of a lens. Few if any really do this.

Generally tech lenses do not suffer from this because the elements are fixed in position and the focusing mechanism of each tech camera moves the whole lens back and forth. That and that the lenses are much better designed / made and calibrated (much lower production volume).

AF lenses are generally much less consistent in performance. But as usual YMMV with any lens.

Click to expand...

yongfei said:

You may monitor the stocking status of the CFV 50c in Japan. It sounds too good to be true, but Mapcamera is a reputable dealer in Japan.

https://www.mapcamera.com/item/7392544342207

Click to expand...

My japanese is a bit rusty, but I guess what it says is a million yen, which is about $9.5k? That's a big difference to $15k. It's unfortunate that the sensor does not fit my needs (little bit too small, not tech wide friendly) otherwise I would consider make a trip to Japan and buy one.

How is this price possible? Does Hasselblad set different prices in different markets?

The US dollars quoted on a google search of "currency exchange" shows a value of $9,818.63. That is the very close to the price I stated in my original post I would feel comfortable paying. So, can you actually get the CFV50c in Japan for that price?

Greg

here is a V example, shot with the CFV-39, 40mm FE, probably f8, blad 205TCC a while back; gave me no complaints, esp good corner sharpness, but that lens is a legend

That's very unusual it must be a quirk in the forward exchange rates which Hasselblad use or someone in Hasselblad realized they can sell thousands of these digital backs to the rich retired Japanese who still have their Hasseblad V cameras. I bet they will sell many thousand at that price. The market is there.

The price is correct. Link below is from a phase one dealer in Japan. They are the largest dealer in Asia for digital backs.

HASSELBLAD(

Neil

I wonder if they're going to keep that price Japan-only. Couldn't it be a hit also in Europe and US? $10k is low enough that some middle class people could buy it too as an expensive toy, it's cheaper than many motorcycles. Maybe they're testing the new pricing first on the Japanese market?