Hasselblad XV Lens Adapter Questions

[Alan]

"View Cam" was the term for a large format camera in general. It had subdivisions of "field cam", which were typically wooden cameras with less movements and lighter along with "tech cam" or "monorail" which was the studio cameras with full movements.

I always heard "Plate Camera" or "Pancake Camera" used for things like Sinar Handy, Cambo Wide, Silvestri Bicam, and later Alpa, Arca R, etc.

 

[Godfrey]

"View Cam" was the term for a large format camera in general. It had subdivisions of "field cam", which were typically wooden cameras with less movements and lighter along with "tech cam" or "monorail" which was the studio cameras with full movements.

There's no rhyme or reason anymore to the systems, especially considering the X-system was a 35mm pano (XPan). Originally, the systems were named by the lens mount.

The V-system was 500/200/2000/900 series cameras and H system is actually correct. They are calling the 907X a part of the V system because of the back theoretically. But, the body is nothing more than a 900 series with an interchangeable lens that is a whole different mount than both V and X (and the X-system has nothing to do with the original Fuji XPan!). They really should've called the new mirrorless system something completely different, like the M system, but then people'd confuse that with Leica somehow.

Hasselblad calls now 907X and CFV II 50C their V-System, while XCD lenses and X1D cameras are called the X-System. The 5xx cameras and V-mount lenses are apparently the classic V-system. Confusing, IMO.

I agree on "view camera", but I always heard "monorail view camera" and "field camera" rather than tech cam.

Why worry about what they call it? The 907x is a modern extension to the V system in terms of the CFVII 50c back, with the 907x body stub (or lens adapter, if you prefer to look at it that way) that takes X system lenses, X system being the X1D line and XCD series lenses. That makes perfect sense to me, it's not unreasonable at all.

I've never before heard anyone calling the Xpan "X system", it was just Xpan and Xpan lenses.

Most of this stuff just falls into the desire to make up abbreviated names for classes of things, rather than just articulating what things you're talking about by their product name. It's a pretty ephemeral subject to get riled up by.

G

 

[docholliday]

I always heard "Plate Camera" or "Pancake Camera" used for things like Sinar Handy, Cambo Wide, Silvestri Bicam, and later Alpa, Arca R, etc.

I'm going back a ways before those were even invented, like around Ansel's time that took their name from the 8x10 (and larger) sheet film days. The later cams you mentioned were commonly just "wide angle view cams" and later on "medium-large format cameras".

"View camera" was any camera that you 'viewed' through the back. Technical cameras (Arca Swiss classics) had lots of movements plus were more rigid and field cameras (Wisner) were lighter and typically folding, so less rigid.

I still use a monorail tech cam in studio and a Deardorff 8x10 at times in the field.

 

[docholliday]

I've never before heard anyone calling the Xpan "X system", it was just Xpan and Xpan lenses.

When Hasselblad first released the H system, they renamed everything into "V-system", "H-system", and "X-System". I have some of their literature here from those days in which a whole brochure was dedicated to each (I've been shooting Hasselblad a long time and have a lot of "memorabilia" as well as dealer items). Before the multi-systems were around, they classified everything as 500 series, 200 series, 900 series, and technical cameras.

Also, the Wayback Machine captured the hasselbladusa.com website showing the following about the "systems":



So, no, it's not "... stuff just falls into the desire to make up abbreviated names for classes of things."

 

[Godfrey]

...
So, no, it's not "... stuff just falls into the desire to make up abbreviated names for classes of things."

Perhaps. From what you posted , I read it more as marketing people looking for how to make labels that create distinction and brand recollection. The traditional Hasselblad cameras were never referred to as "V system" before the H series cameras came out. They were simply Hasselblads.

G

 

[docholliday]

Perhaps. From what you posted , I read it more as marketing people looking for how to make labels that create distinction and brand recollection. The traditional Hasselblad cameras were never referred to as "V system" before the H series cameras came out. They were simply Hasselblads.

G

Didn't I just say that the traditional bodies were referred to as 500/200/900/Technical cameras before the H system? It may be marketing people that create labels, but those same marketing people are charged with, as you say, creating brand recollection. Those efforts are what sticks with the consumer and public, which then become common place to refer to an object. If marketing does good enough of a job, it can even become the common usage term like "hand me a kleenex", "wanna grab a coke?", or "I'll need a sawzall to cut this".

My brochure for the "Hasselblad X System" says it clear and plain. Explain it as you'd like, but Hasselblad did divide into "systems" after the introduction of the H1/Fuji GX645. There was a article on the old hassebladusa.com where they note that they chose to call the 6x6 bodies the V System because it's "Victor's system".

 

[Godfrey]

I just don't ken to marketing as being worth worrying about what they call things.

I call my cameras by their names, usually, not by whatever facetious category a marketing goon decided to put it in. So my bodies are Hasselblad 500CM and 907x, and I have XCD series lenses and a range of standard old mechanical Hasselblad SLR lenses that work with them. I'll use X system and V system when referring to products that incorporate that nomenclature into their names, like the XV Adapter, because then it's clear what the equipment is.

Another topic not worth wasting any anxiety over, eh?

G

 

[Ai_Print]

I got the Hasselblad XV adapter when I ordered my X2D last week and honestly it is too loose in tolerances. There is a bit of play on the lens end and even more on the body side so the whole assembly sags a fair bit when on a tripod.

It sags so much that lenses 80mm and longer won’t hit infinity unless I support them from underneath.

I will likely return it once I find a replacement but with what is the question. Both Fotodiox and Novoflex make one that are in stock at B&H but the Novoflex one is very expensive at $370 and the Fotodiox one has poor ratings mostly due to the lens not locking in place.

Do I try another Hassy one or go a different route?

 

[jng]

I got the Hasselblad XV adapter when I ordered my X2D last week and honestly it is too loose in tolerances. There is a bit of play on the lens end and even more on the body side so the whole assembly sags a fair bit when on a tripod.

It sags so much that lenses 80mm and longer won’t hit infinity unless I support them from underneath.

I will likely return it once I find a replacement but with what is the question. Both Fotodiox and Novoflex make one that are in stock at B&H but the Novoflex one is very expensive at $370 and the Fotodiox one has poor ratings mostly due to the lens not locking in place.

Do I try another Hassy one or go a different route?

I'm not familiar with the Novoflex adapter but you might try another copy of the Hasselblad adapter first. I had a Fotodiox adapter early on; it was fine but I found the tripod foot to be too flimsy to support the weight of the camera + lens. The advantage of the Hasselblad XV adapter is that you can use the lens collar/tripod foot they sell, which is quite sturdy.

Unfortunately, the adapters - whether third-party or not - appear not to be made to the tightest tolerances - I had to return my first copy of the Hasselblad adapter because none of my lenses would lock in place (not uncommon with other manufacturers' adapters as well, in my experience).

Hope this helps.

John

 

[MGrayson]

In my limited experience (XV and XH), the Hassy-made adapters are as good as they get (for the X system). I've read some complaints about the X2D lens mount tolerance itself, but I'm not sure of the truth of the matter. I'd definitely try another Hassy adapter before going 3rd party. FWIW, I have the Fotodiox Pentax 67 to X adapter and it is perfectly fine. I have a Fotodiox Mamiya 645 to X adapter on the way.

 

[glaiben]

IIRC, I had to file the metal lock catch on the Hasselblad XV adapter to get it to lock the lens in place. However, the lenses fit reasonably snug, so no significant sag with a 250/4 FE + 2xMutar.

Agree with others - try another Hasselblad version before going 3rd party. I have not had good luck with Fotodiox either (except for the auto extension tubes - they were fine).

...gregg

 

[Ai_Print]

Since I still have my soon to be sold 907X, I tried the XV adapter on it and it is snug. So I figured out the mount screws on the X2D it self were not tightened down all the way, gave them a proper torque and all is well.

I’m ordering that tripod collar today to take some stress off the mount for tripod work.

Glad it was a simple fix.

 

[jng]

Since I still have my soon to be sold 907X, I tried the XV adapter on it and it is snug. So I figured out the mount screws on the X2D it self were not tightened down all the way, gave them a proper torque and all is well.

I’m ordering that tripod collar today to take some stress off the mount for tripod work.

Glad it was a simple fix.

Happy to hear that you found a simple fix, but it's more than a little disconcerting to hear that the mount screws on the X2D were not tightened down. Are you using XCD lenses and if so, were they loose as well?

John

 

[Ai_Print]

Happy to hear that you found a simple fix, but it's more than a little disconcerting to hear that the mount screws on the X2D were not tightened down. Are you using XCD lenses and if so, were they loose as well?

John

At the moment I only have the 45P and it *seemed* fine in feel and performance before I tightened the screws.

I bought a 65mm 2.8 off of a member here yesterday so that will be another. I’ll likely add the 30mm and be set since longer than the 65MM will be CFi lenses.

 

[Thyl]

off topic, but still I can't resist: I believe it would be a good idea to develop an active adapter for the fully electronically controlled Rollei 6000 lenses, which are essentially the same as the Hasselblad V system lenses, by Zeiss and Schneider, but require no mechanical interaction. Much simpler to do, I would reckon. So, we would get a third set of leaf shutter lenses for the X system.

 

[UlbabrabB]

I really like the rendering of V lenses for natural light portraits, and I often experienced the rolling shutter effect hand holding the 907x and the XV adapter with 100-150mm V lenses. So I’m just using my old 500cm for that now and kept the XV adapter for shooting on the tripod.

 

[MGrayson]

I really like the rendering of V lenses for natural light portraits, and I often experienced the rolling shutter effect hand holding the 907x and the XV adapter with 100-150mm V lenses. So I’m just using my old 500cm for that now and kept the XV adapter for shooting on the tripod.

This is a great benefit of IBIS. Rolling shutter effects are greatly reduced. A moving subject will still show them, but a stationary one won't - no wiggly doorways. I've used the 110/2 and 250/5.6 this way.

 

[buildbot]

off topic, but still I can't resist: I believe it would be a good idea to develop an active adapter for the fully electronically controlled Rollei 6000 lenses, which are essentially the same as the Hasselblad V system lenses, by Zeiss and Schneider, but require no mechanical interaction. Much simpler to do, I would reckon. So, we would get a third set of leaf shutter lenses for the X system.

I have the setup to start doing this soonish!

 

[sog1927]

I'd never heard of the term "technical camera" until sometime after the world of digital cameras came about. I and my friends always referred to such things as 'studio cameras' or 'view cameras'.

Godfrey,

I've heard the term "technical camera" used since I was a teenager to refer to a metal field camera, with a full set of front movements, but limited of no back movements (like a Linhof Technika), that can be used handheld. I'm 67, so the term is pretty old. ;-)

 

[Godfrey]

LOL ... I'm 68 and been doing photography since I was 8 years old. I had a Linhof Technika 23 back in the day (late 1960s/early 1970s). No one ever referred to it as a technical camera, they referred to it as a field camera, similar to how we referred to a Speed Graphic. There were view cameras and field cameras amongst the people I hung out with. "Studio cameras" were the big bruisers that took 5x7 and larger sheet film, only truly useful in studio situations but occasionally dragged into the field via pack mule...

If you've been hearing technical camera since the 1960s, well, you lived in a different place than I did and people used different nomenclature. I grew up in New York City area. Neither good nor bad, just different experiences!

G