I love the photos I took with my (2006 used) CFV16, still way better than my 5D landscape shots, but I don't want to go CFV anymore. Last July I had an error 9022 message on it, sent the back to Hassleblad for service and it took them 7 months to finally send me a 5000$ quote for repair. Seriously !!
Took them 7 months to send me a quote, and this is the price of a used CFV39
I am about to get an iQ180 Phase one V Mount, for a fair 10,000 Canadian Dollars.
Actuations are 55,000. I need your opinion, is this OK or too many for a used digital back ?
the motherboard was replaced one year ago owner said to me,
I may not have all the information, so please excuse me if I misjudge where you are in your process and what research you have already done. But from what I can see you're about to make the most common mistake I see first time MFDB buyers make.
FIRST they find a "deal" (a back they think is "cheap" or a "good price"), and THEN they evaluate whether that back is a good fit for their needs.
This is a highly problematic for many reasons, but the largest is that you don't know what you don't know.
Instead I strongly suggest you FIRST evaluate which back(s) would be a good fit for your needs and THEN look for a good deal. A "good deal" should include a variety of factors other than hard cost, including the condition of the back, your confidence in that condition, any training or support that comes with the back, whether you're able to try the back in the real-world before committing to the purchase, and warranty (if any), accessories (both whether they are included and whether they are in new condition or used condition). Notably, for example, the support network matters. We (DT / P1) would *never* accept the kind of repair timeline that you experienced; we have legally-binding support contracts which forbid it. What did the dealer from whom you purchased your CFV have to say about the 7-month repair timeline??
A thorough examination of what back is right for you is something that, if you were a client, would take several hours of conversation and evaluation, but here are some quick points of feedback on why the IQ180 is almost certainly NOT the best fit for you:
- Very few V-mount lenses will get the most out of the 80mp sensor
- You said you don't care about large print size*
- You want long exposures (the IQ180 does not have good long exposure characteristics)
- You say you want "big fat pixels" (the IQ180 has among the smallest pixels available)**
- Focusing 80mp through a Hassy 500 viewfinder is challenging
If you were my client we'd be discussing whether an IQ150, IQ250, or IQ260 was the best fit. Or whether a tech camera or XF (with adapter for your 500 series lenses) was a better fit than the Hassy 500 or SWC. A tech camera shares some in common with a 500 or SWC in so far as the physical experience of shooting it is more mechanical, methodical, and slow than modern "gadget" electronic cameras, and the XF offers numerous features and capabilities that would be useful for long-exposure photography. Either tech camera or XF would also open the possibility of an IQ 100mp or IQ3 100mp depending on how flexible your budget is.
FIRST figure out what you should be buying, and then go looking for it. Going at it backwards is the single most consistent cause of buyer's remorse I see among our customers. Whether from this point you work with a good dealer in person or remotely (which, in my heavily biased opinion, is the way to go) or whether you simply back up and do more internet research on the basics, that is your choice. Of course it is your money and your choice, but I think you should really consider whether you are really ready to make a purchase; I think you should spend time on more and better research to make a more informed choice.
Ultimately a "good deal" is more than price.
*Notably, during consultations I always want to evaluate such statements further by showing actual prints of different sizes from different backs; many people have never had the ability to make a large print which was detailed and dimensional so don't know what they are missing.
**I would also want to evaluate this statement further by showing images from backs with different pixel sizes. In my opinion (it's just an opinion, but I base it on an enormous amount of experience) the idea of "fat pixels" is highly over rated, and likely what you mean is that you want a back with great dimensional rendering, smooth tonality, and beautiful color.