Hasselblad CFV ll 50c

[jotloob]

. . . . .

I went with the B+W Wide Metal Lens Hood in 67mm for the 45P:


907x + B+W Wide lens hood 1


907x + B+W Wide lens hood 2

This lens hood is styled to be almost an exact copy of the original Hasselblad hood for the Distagon C 50mm lens.

G

Goodfrey

You must have a stepup ring from 62mm to 67mm screwed on ? ? ? If so , its not visible .
Can the manual focus ring be rotated free when the hood is screwed on ? ? ?
I still have original and "made for HASSELBLAD" hoods of that type available .

 

[Godfrey]

Goodfrey

You must have a stepup ring from 62mm to 67mm screwed on ? ? ? If so , its not visible .
Can the manual focus ring be rotated free when the hood is screwed on ? ? ?
I still have original and "made for HASSELBLAD" hoods of that type available .

My mistake: It's the B+W Metal Wide Lens Hood in 62mm thread. I make that mistake all the time because the 21mm lens takes a 67mm filter.

Here's the link to B&H Photo for it: B+W 62mm Screw-In Metal Wide Lens Hood

It works perfectly and looks great. Yes, there's plenty of room to work the focusing ring. On the 45P lens, the focusing ring portion that moves is just the rubberized ring section ... the sections fore and aft of that on the lens are stationary. The focusing body of the lens that moves slides fore-aft inside those bits.

G

 

[jng]

Goodfrey

You must have a stepup ring from 62mm to 67mm screwed on ? ? ? If so , its not visible .
Can the manual focus ring be rotated free when the hood is screwed on ? ? ?
I still have original and "made for HASSELBLAD" hoods of that type available .

I have the original old metal screw-in hoods (actually sold by Hasselblad, not the knock-offs) for both the 38 and 50/60. While they are 67mm in diameter the thread pitch is just a bit off from the more modern 67mm filter threads. They'll actually seat OK but it's not the smoothest fit. I eventually ceased using them on my newer lenses for this reason.

John

 

[jotloob]

My mistake: It's the B+W Metal Wide Lens Hood in 62mm thread. I make that mistake all the time because the 21mm lens takes a 67mm filter.

Here's the link to B&H Photo for it: B+W 62mm Screw-In Metal Wide Lens Hood

It works perfectly and looks great. Yes, there's plenty of room to work the focusing ring. On the 45P lens, the focusing ring portion that moves is just the rubberized ring section ... the sections fore and aft of that on the lens are stationary. The focusing body of the lens that moves slides fore-aft inside those bits.

G

Thank you Godfrey . I have the B+W 970/62 on order from a local dealer here . I think its better than using a stepup ring .
The HASSELBLAD and "for HASSELBLAD" hoods with the "67mm" thread fit perfectly well onto a 67mm thread but I really wanted to avoid the stepup solution .
My XCD 4/45 is still on the shelf at my dealer and will be sent with the 907x chrome in September .

 

[Godfrey]

I have the original old metal screw-in hoods (actually sold by Hasselblad, not the knock-offs) for both the 38 and 50/60. While they are 67mm in diameter the thread pitch is just a bit off from the more modern 67mm filter threads. They'll actually seat OK but it's not the smoothest fit. I eventually ceased using them on my newer lenses for this reason.

John

Yes, the old Hassy hood have a different thread pitch. The XCD lenses use the JIS standard thread pitch.

All the other XCD lenses have bayonet hood fittings. They didn't offer that for the 45P, presumably to save on cost and size. I wish they had.

G

 

[jotloob]

Question to the XCD 4/45P users .

Does this lens require an LCC shot ? ? ? ?
Does any of the XCD lenses require an LCC shot ? ? ?
I have not read anything about that topic so far . Has anyone performed LCC shots with the XCD lenses and can share the experience .

 

[mristuccia]

Question to the XCD 4/45P users .

Does this lens require an LCC shot ? ? ? ?
Does any of the XCD lenses require an LCC shot ? ? ?
I have not read anything about that topic so far . Has anyone performed LCC shots with the XCD lenses and can share the experience .

That's an interesting one.
Which leads to a wider set of questions:
- is this new Mk II version more optimized for the newer close-flange-distance XCD optics or for the older long-flange-distance V lenses?
- what kind of microlenses have been installed on it, if any?
- if any, are those microlenses the same as the ones in the Mk I version, or are they the same as in the X1D cameras?

Being an owner of the Mk I version, I'm curious to know whether there are differences in those aspects between the Mk I and the Mk II.

 

[Frederic]

Question to the XCD 4/45P users .

Does this lens require an LCC shot ? ? ? ?
Does any of the XCD lenses require an LCC shot ? ? ?
I have not read anything about that topic so far . Has anyone performed LCC shots with the XCD lenses and can share the experience .

I have, for the sake of testing, and came to the conclusion it wasn't worth the hassle if you intend to use Phocus or Lightroom lens corrections. There was no color issue to fix, only vignetting.

 

[nameBrandon]

That's an interesting one.
Which leads to a wider set of questions:
- is this new Mk II version more optimized for the newer close-flange-distance XCD optics or for the older long-flange-distance V lenses?
- what kind of microlenses have been installed on it, if any?
- if any, are those microlenses the same as the ones in the Mk I version, or are they the same as in the X1D cameras?

Being an owner of the Mk I version, I'm curious to know whether there are differences in those aspects between the Mk I and the Mk II.

It is the exact same sensor in every way as the X1D Mk I / X1D Mk II.

 

[Godfrey]

That's an interesting one.
Which leads to a wider set of questions:
- is this new Mk II version more optimized for the newer close-flange-distance XCD optics or for the older long-flange-distance V lenses?
- what kind of microlenses have been installed on it, if any?
- if any, are those microlenses the same as the ones in the Mk I version, or are they the same as in the X1D cameras?

Being an owner of the Mk I version, I'm curious to know whether there are differences in those aspects between the Mk I and the Mk II.

The sensor/sensor stack is the same between the two backs.

The differences between the CFV 50c and CFVII 50c are the packaging (internal instead of external battery), the LCD, and the firmware/control interface. The CFVII 50c firmware and control interface is essentially the same as the X1D II, with some additions and subtractions given that it is usable on V system camera bodies. The LCD on the CFVII 50c is much larger and includes the ability to position the LCD for waist-level viewing.

Lenses are optimized for the sensor, not vice versa.

G

 

[mristuccia]

[...]
Lenses are optimized for the sensor, not vice versa.
[...]
G

Not quite sure on this...
Being the Mk I designed to be used with V lenses, which were already there before the back, at least in this case your statement cannot be applied. And I'm more prone to think that it was the other way around.
I think that Leica did the same with its M sensor (not sure on this, not a Leica owner/expert).

Now with the Mk II the question arises again...

 

[jotloob]

I have, for the sake of testing, and came to the conclusion it wasn't worth the hassle if you intend to use Phocus or Lightroom lens corrections. There was no color issue to fix, only vignetting.

Which lenses did you test ? ? ?
What about the XCD 21mm and 30mm ?

 

[Godfrey]

Not quite sure on this...
Being the Mk I designed to be used with V lenses, which were already there before the back, at least in this case your statement cannot be applied. And I'm more prone to think that it was the other way around.
I think that Leica did the same with its M sensor (not sure on this, not a Leica owner/expert).

Now with the Mk II the question arises again...

The logic is:

Since the sensor in the Mark II is identical to the sensor in the X1D and X1D II, and thus to the sensor in the Mark I as well, I can't how how it would be different. They're all the same 33x44mm, 50Mpixel Sony sensor.

As far as I'm aware, Hasselblad has never used antialiasing filters and there's nothing special about the microlens array on the sensor.

V system lenses don't require custom sensors .. neither an asymetrical lens array (like Canon did with their first FF DSLR sensor) nor the aspherical lens array (like Leica did with M240 and up sensors)...due to the V system mount flange registration, and handle the issues of the SWC's Biogon 38 (and other lenses if needed) specially in Phocus. The XCD lenses are simply designed for the X system short mount registration, which makes sensor development easier and less expensive.

Leica M lenses, with a mount registration of only 28.5 mm AND an empty box between that and the film plane, required special sensor development (contributing to the high cost of the digital M bodies). Canon EF lenses also have a relatively short mount registration for an SLR type camera (44mm) and they at first considered it important to use a custom sensor. Since then, they've gone with a 'standard' sensor and revised their lens designs to suit.

Hasselblad V system lens mount register is 75mm due to the swinging mirror: lenses have to be designed with that in mind from the beginning and thus the ray trace to edges and center are all very close to parallel, with the exception of the special SWC lens.

I'm happy to be informed otherwise, but would like to see credible documentation of anything different. This is what I've found through all the hunting and searching for information on this topic that I've done, using Hasselblad, Leica, Canon, Sony, and other credible information sources.

G

 

[Frederic]

Which lenses did you test ? ? ?
What about the XCD 21mm and 30mm ?

XCD45P and XCD80

 

[tcdeveau]

Which lenses did you test ? ? ?
What about the XCD 21mm and 30mm ?

I never felt the need to use LCC with the 21mm or 30mm XCD. I never saw cast or vignetting issues like with movements on a tech cam, where LCCs are really required.

There was a thread somewhere (maybe hasselbladdigitalforum but I stopped visiting that forum) about some people that had issues with color cast in the corners of grey skies using the 30mm XCD, and HB recommended doing LCC correction for those that had issues.

I don't think there's harm in using LCCs for XCD lenses if you want to, but I don't think they're necessary with any of the lenses I've owned and used (21/30/45/65/90).

 

[mristuccia]

The logic is:

Since the sensor in the Mark II is identical to the sensor in the X1D and X1D II, and thus to the sensor in the Mark I as well, I can't how how it would be different. They're all the same 33x44mm, 50Mpixel Sony sensor.

As far as I'm aware, Hasselblad has never used antialiasing filters and there's nothing special about the microlens array on the sensor.

V system lenses don't require custom sensors .. neither an asymetrical lens array (like Canon did with their first FF DSLR sensor) nor the aspherical lens array (like Leica did with M240 and up sensors)...due to the V system mount flange registration, and handle the issues of the SWC's Biogon 38 (and other lenses if needed) specially in Phocus. The XCD lenses are simply designed for the X system short mount registration, which makes sensor development easier and less expensive.

Leica M lenses, with a mount registration of only 28.5 mm AND an empty box between that and the film plane, required special sensor development (contributing to the high cost of the digital M bodies). Canon EF lenses also have a relatively short mount registration for an SLR type camera (44mm) and they at first considered it important to use a custom sensor. Since then, they've gone with a 'standard' sensor and revised their lens designs to suit.

Hasselblad V system lens mount register is 75mm due to the swinging mirror: lenses have to be designed with that in mind from the beginning and thus the ray trace to edges and center are all very close to parallel, with the exception of the special SWC lens.

I'm happy to be informed otherwise, but would like to see credible documentation of anything different. This is what I've found through all the hunting and searching for information on this topic that I've done, using Hasselblad, Leica, Canon, Sony, and other credible information sources.

G

What I meant is that even if the sensor model is always the same (I'm aware of that) sometimes the micro-lenses on top of it could be purposely customized. For example a mirrorless camera could need a different micro-lens tilt angle in the periphery in order to catch the more angled rays coming from a lens having the rear element closer to the sensor.
Fujifilm even customized the bayer filter array on top of a standard Sony sensor for its X-Trans technology. So I was curious on whether the introduction of the X lenses lineup made HB change something in the customization of the IMX-161 sensor in respect to what was done on the Mk I version of the CFV-50c.

But since you already hunted, researched and know all those HB internals, I'll take your words for granted.

Thank you for the insights.

 

[Godfrey]

You're welcome. It's the best I could find in all my hunting about this topic. As I said, I'm happy to take other information and correct what I have if any of it is proven wrong. However, given what I've seen and the fact that the logic as I understand it makes sense, I am reasonably sure that there's nothing further to find out.

G

 

[JAB]

It appears that 720 Special Editions were made, at least that seems to be what many have said. Maybe I'm a little slow, but 720 is a rather significant number; the moon landing was 7/20/1969!!

Am I off my rocker?!

 

[nameBrandon]

It appears that 720 Special Editions were made, at least that seems to be what many have said. Maybe I'm a little slow, but 720 is a rather significant number; the moon landing was 7/20/1969!!

Am I off my rocker?!

Wow, nice find.. that is a solid connection.. seems like something Hasselblad would do.

 

[SrMphoto]

I just got the OVF and the grip for the 907X SE (ordered from Hasselblad). Here are my first impressions.

The grip improves the handholding of the camera. Front and rear dial, AF-D button, all the control that I missed are present. The tripod plate contact surface is now much smaller, but it should be OK. I like it a lot!

The OVF is less impressive. It contains lots of distortion; the framing lines are barely visible in dim light; the XCD 30 lens blocks a large part of the bottom area, and the camera becomes a bit cumbersome with the OVF sticking at the top. I do not see myself using it often.

I am waiting for the Bay Area air quality to improve before trying it outside.