Hasselblad 100C and 35XL

[diggles]

It's not safe to assume you can use any lens without limits or potential image issues. Assumptions are one of the few things in life without limits. Most other things require dealing with the consequences of limitations or living within their boundaries.

The Schneider lenses seem to fit the bill of the trifecta perfectly, but since they are no longer in production then it is probably a bit unfair to expect Hasselblad to guarantee that the combination will not require special attention. The Rodenstock lenses on the other hand are pictured in their marketing visuals. The image above appears to be a 32HR. Hasselblad intended for this back to be used with wide angle technical camera lenses.

 

[TechTalk]

And it will be up to the individual photographer to determine whether it works for their needs or whether they need something else. There are no universal solutions for every photographer, every lens, and every situation. That's been my experience at least.

 

[diggles]

And it will be up to the individual photographer to determine whether it works for their needs or whether they need something else. There are no universal solutions for every photographer, every lens, and every situation. That's been my experience at least.

Mine too.

 

[Doppler9000]

It's not safe to assume you can use any lens without limits or potential image issues. Assumptions are one of the few things in life without limits. Most other things require dealing with the consequences of limitations or living within their boundaries.

Dissatisfaction with the problems of the 35mm XL doesn’t reflect boundless, irrational optimism, as you have suggested. As Steve H, who is more familiar with Hasselblad’s target markets and customer requirements pointed out, the issue here is simply unacceptable. Did you miss the fact that very small, third-party firms have solved the problem? Why do you believe it would be acceptable if Hasselblad simply ignored it?

 

[TechTalk]

If you say so. But your paraphrasing is a gross misrepresentation and mischaracterization of what I "have suggested".

By the way, I think Steve is a very knowledgeable and great guy. Of course, that doesn't mean we are in complete agreement all the time.

 

[Doppler9000]

our paraphrasing is a gross misrepresentation and mischaracterization of what I "have suggested".

No it isn’t.

The complaint is about lenses that should work well with the back in the usage for which Hasselblad has targeted, but that don’t. You wrote “There are no universal solutions for every photographer, every lens, and every situation.” No one has suggested anything remotely like this. Your characterization is a straw man.

By the way, I think Steve is a very knowledgeable and great guy. Of course, that doesn't mean we are in complete agreement all the time.

You seem rather far away from being in “complete agreement all the time”. In this case, for example, your disagreement here reflects a divergence of opinion on whether or not an issue reflects Hasselblad falling short on pretty basic functionality versus them not providing a solution for every conceivable user and fringe usage.

 

[TechTalk]

My past experience has been that I generally represent my own point of view with better accuracy than you do. Feel free to present your own point of view and I'll do the same. I'm not going to engage with you in a discussion of what I think, believe, or have suggested. It would provide little enlightenment or entertainment to very many others. I wish you a pleasant evening.

 

[anyone]

We are going nowhere in the last few pages of this thread. Therefore I suggest to move on. I try a summary.

There is an issue a number of actual and potential users of the new back, including myself, do not want to accept and therefore raised our point to the Hasselblad customer service. We do so because we bought the back exactly for the promise / wish / hope that the BSI sensor allows the use of Schneider wide angles. Therefore, Warren was so nice to open this thread to discuss the issue and point it out to future users, backed by images and inspiring others to contribute their experiences.

Then there are others who do not deem this important because of other ways of using the equipment and/ or not being in the market for this back. From my perspective, that’s completely fine to think that way.

However, this thread is about troubleshooting, telling that our experience is an edge case (which it isn’t) and we should accept it (which we don’t) does not really help.
It would be nice if we could maintain in this forum a civil, empathic approach.

To come back to the topic, unfortunately I haven’t heard from Hasselblad customer service any news on this issue.

 

[SrMphoto]

I wrote before CFV100 was launched, how great it would be if it came without PDAF. The focusing speed of CFV50 is plenty for its usage.

 

[vjbelle]

Which marketing claim? I can't recall seeing a marketing claim for any digital back, including the CFV 100C; which suggests or implies you can use any lens, with any angle of coverage, under any conditions without limitations or potential image issues. There are limits to the compatibility of chief ray angles (CRA) between a lens and sensor. It's a fact of photographic life.

Marketing "A Trifecta of Imaging Possibilities" seems to be offering "possibilities" to the user, not unlimited or unrestricted compatibility assurances. That said, perhaps there will be some improvements in compatibility with lenses having extremely wide angles of coverage (not to be confused with angle of view) in the future for the CFV 100C.

It's more than obvious that something is wrong when using this back with even moderately wide angle lenses. Granted Hasselblad never advertised that this back could be used with any lens under any circumstance with perfect results. But..... this issue will affect sales of this back. They've lost my purchase and for sure will lose others. Hopefully that is enough to motivate Hasselblad to mitigate this issue.

Victor B.

 

[dougpeterson]

If one never shoots in color then I don't see how the color rendering would matter.

Steve Hendrix/CI

When shooting color cameras for black and white output the underlying color can matter a great deal if you are using larger B+W slider adjustments. For example if you’re darkening the sky by pushing down blue tones (roughly equivalent to using a yellow filter in the field) then blue color noise or blue banding or blue vignetting or blue artifacts will also get darker.

I have no experience with or opinion on the main object of this thread. My reply is general to the question of whether color-only artifacts/noise/banding matter if you’re shooting for B+W output.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

There's no guarantee that algorithmic filtering of underlying banding artifacts produced by physical obstacles atop the sensor can ever lead to 100% removal in post across the full range of tech cam lenses; looks like it is merely a path to mitigation of the problem on a case-by-case basis. The PDAF filters I've seen just lessen the impact, but are not in the end the same like using a sensor without PDAF array like the Phase backs. Ie if you look close, its still not 100% gone.

Hasselblad has to prove that it can get a 100% clean result in varying shot scenarios across Rodie and SK wide angles, which I doubt will be possible, to have an equivalent solution to Phase in terms of underlying raw file quality and therefore win tech cam user's business.

It therefore looks like an absolute deal killer for tech cam users and a extremely annoying for those who immediately purchased this purely on flashy marketing on a pre-order basis. And this does not include other aspects such as incompatibility with C1 which leads to annoying multi raw processor workflows and metadata hacks ...

It goes to show that its crucial to await first user's real world feedback if one is a tech cam user before committing to a new system.

I'd say this includes also he upcoming IQ5, which I hope will still be compatible with SK lenses and where I'd only commit to once dealers / users re-confirm compatibility with the lens base.

Any purported word here on the forum that "Hasselblad knows about it and will fix it" (for example by some local sales rep someone spoke to or whoever who has no real way of knowing or deciding anyway) awaits true, hard proof in the raw files -ie, it seems unlikely to me that you can get more than a lessening of the effect out of a hardware based element on the sensor which physically affects the light reception if the image is projected in a steep enough angle in post processing. Wouldn't bet on it that its gonna be fully resolved ever. Just mitigated.

Let's hope Phase reads this and makes sure that the IQ5 has no PDAF shenanigans on the sensor. Seems like P1 remains the only real game in town for universal tech cam use with late-gen Rodie and SK wide angles and UWs.

The easiest way for Hasselblad to solve this would be to offer a PDAF free version of the back and a free or low cost PDAF array removal feature at the factory for early buyers who got burned here.

Of course if a software solution could remove it 100% this would be great – but how would that be achieved perfectly across all glass in all scenarios ... ?

The ball is in Hasselblad's court now.

Offering PDAF free variant and a pathway for PDAF based early units to become PDAF-free would be the best solution IMHO.

 

[usm]

Dreaming of an online configuration for different features of a camera. Just like car manufacturers where you can choose different engines, gearing and so on.
Let’s say choosing image stabilizer, pdaf, Bayer filter or monochrome, 50 or 100 megapixel,…

 

[Godfrey]

We are going nowhere in the last few pages of this thread. Therefore I suggest to move on. ...

I agree.

To me it is obvious what the primary use of the CFV 100C is intended to be: the fact that they do not sell it without a 907x body which has an X series lens mount makes that clear to me. And the fact that it extends the use of Hasselblad reflex bodies/lenses into the digital domain simply by clipping on the back of the body sets the second most probable use priority. Use with technical cameras as well creates the "Trifecta", which is clever marketing but assuming that it will be perfect for all possible such configurations is simply an unfounded assumption/expectation.

It is unfortunate that it is not immediately so perfect for these lenses that you love so much. Perhaps the problem will be solved in Software or new Hardware will be created to accommodate these lenses.

But to go on and on about it seems a bit over-the-top to me. It's a lot like the whining I see on various forums when someone like Leica or Nikon comes out with a new product that doesn't exactly meet what a few prominent Forum participants wanted.

G

digression: I wonder if Hasselblad will come out with a film back usable on the 907X...?!?

 

[peterm1]

"It's a lot like the whining I see on various forums when someone like Leica or Nikon comes out with a new product that doesn't exactly meet what a few prominent Forum participants wanted."

Hmmm... I just invested a lot of money in buying the CFV100c, Alpa STC and Rodenstock 32mm specifically based on the promise of the new back working well with tech cams as reflected in Hasselblad's marketing - if it can't fulfill this very basic requirement, that's a real problem Hasselblad needs to address as it falls squarely within that promise. I should receive the Alpa V adapter tomorrow and will see how it performs next week....

 

[anyone]

But to go on and on about it seems a bit over-the-top to me. It's a lot like the whining I see on various forums when someone like Leica or Nikon comes out with a new product that doesn't exactly meet what a few prominent Forum participants wanted.

Please note: nobody here bashes the product for being inferior. It indeed works beautifully for some other use cases. That’s quite a difference to other forums.

I can only speak for myself, but it was the only reason I bought this back: BSI to use Schneider wide angles. Everything else, I could have easily accomplished with a CFV50cII. So this is disappointing.

But yeah, I agree, cannot do much else than waiting and contacting the Hasselblad support.

 

[Godfrey]

Rather than spending all that money up front and then complaining, I would have rented the back and the lenses I had in mind, and then tried it out first to be sure it was suitable for my needs, since it *is* a good chunk of change to spend and then find that it wasn't the best solution. But that's me ...

... And if I found it wasn't quite what I needed/wanted, I'd have written Hasselblad what my use case had discovered and told them that I'd be waiting for an update before purchasing.

G

 

[Paul Spinnler]

That’s not how the reality works here.

The point here is that it is a major f*** up by Hasselblad that questions their product testing approach as the marketing also addressed tech cam users. They published marketing materials showing an Alpa Plus with Rodie glass and for YEARS people have been looking at the upcoming 100c as a sort cheap way to get access to the Sony BSI chip to have less colour casts and specifically to use SK glass.

No one had this on the radar - the dealers, including tech fam manufacturers, have for years been discussing the advent of a sub 10k BSI back as the big thing to wait for. People even sold their IQ4s in anticipation of a perceived potential value loss and to make some cash to get the new Hassy back and maybe a lens or two.

Dealers especially pushed the tech cam angle with this product on this forum so people had no reason to doubt that the product will hold up to its promise. That this is now so problematic should have not slipped through the product testing process.

I think it may even be the case that they didn’t have access to the right gear (!) to properly test it and potentially only did a cursory assessment with a few Rodie lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if the very basic reason this slipped through the cracks is because neither Hasselblad in Sweden or in Hong Kong had a full set of current gen Rodie lenses and, even more difficult to procure, SK glass, to test this. Very few own a whole range of Rodie products and tech cam manufacturers also don't stock all lenses.

You can spin it like you want. A digital back that can’t play well with tech cam lenses is disappointing.

Filtering will mitigate it, but it’s doubtful that you will have clean raws. Add to that the convoluted workflow via metadata hacking, re exporting, etc and you have one messy product. Suddenly the P1 value proposition is not that bad anymore.

Its just very surprising that nobody tested this properly before pulling together some marketing videos and documents showing tech cam use.

I really hope they can fix this, I would assume the factory removal of the PDAF array would be the best option as any post processing most likely won’t be perfect. It may be good enough in the end, but, as said, Hasselblad now needs to respond in the coming weeks and months or potentially lose a lot of potential business from the tech cam crowd if no workable solutions are found.

Looks like P1 is the only way to really exploit tech cam glass in full and especially the holy grail SK symmetrics.

 

[peterm1]

Rather than spending all that money up front and then complaining, I would have rented the back and the lenses I had in mind, and then tried it out first to be sure it was suitable for my needs, since it *is* a good chunk of change to spend and then find that it wasn't the best solution. But that's me ...

... And if I found it wasn't quite what I needed/wanted, I'd have written Hasselblad what my use case had discovered and told them that I'd be waiting for an update before purchasing.

G

I didn't think I would need to rent gear just to confirm it would work. I previously had a Rodie 32mm, a Phase One back and Cambo tech cam, so I reasonably assumed a similar setup with just the Hassy back instead of the Phase One back would also be suitable for my needs. I think you have to stop blaming the people on this forum for making reasonable assumptions.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

It’s ridiculous how people will troll to defend Hasselblad here. I mean it’s super clear:

1. This is a forum full of tech cam users
2. Many waited for this back to finally get BSI sub 10k given IQ4 is so expensive - it has been a topic for YEARS literally
3. Hasselblad used Alpa gear and Rodie glass in their marketing materials. Tech cam use is mentioned in the manual and there is a video of the cam in use on an Alpa by Hasselblad even
4. Dealers and tech cam manufacturers put a lot of hope in this product to drive a bit of sales finally given how slow innovation has been in the digital back space
5. Because no one really tested this Hasselblad sold a digital back which creates ugly PDAF banding artifacts which negates the benefit of BSI especially for SK glass
6. You might have a software filter for the problems, but it is doubtful that this will completely make it the same as using a P1 back without PDAF array atop the sensor

It’s a deal killer.