The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Is there an overview somewhere of Hasselblad H cameras?
- Thread starter philipus
- Start date
dave.gt
Well-known member
Here is a good starting point:
Hasselblad - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Then you can read the detailed summary on each model at various review sites and even B&H Photo.
And of course, there are numerous books available online like this:
Amazon.com: The Hasselblad Manual: A Comprehensive Guide to the System: 9781138958623: Wildi, Ernst: Books
Amazon.com: The Hasselblad Manual: A Comprehensive Guide to the System: 9781138958623: Wildi, Ernst: Books
www.amazon.com
It is an extensive system, enjoy the reading!
Last edited:
philipus
New member
Thank you very much Dave and Peter. I feel somewhat stupid for not even having thought of checking the Wikipedia first. The overview of the H cameras on that page is really helpful and exactly what I was looking for. I actually have the Wildi book but it's from 2008 or thereabouts so doesn't cover the later developments.
I'm using Hasselblad film cameras since many years and have a Flextight X1. The reason I'm thinking about the H system is as a backup for digitising my film should the X1 eventually give up the ghost, esp. now that Hasselblad is no longer making them and service is getting trickier due to lack of spare parts. So I'm sort of surveying the system to see how it might fit into a digitising workflow.
I'm using Hasselblad film cameras since many years and have a Flextight X1. The reason I'm thinking about the H system is as a backup for digitising my film should the X1 eventually give up the ghost, esp. now that Hasselblad is no longer making them and service is getting trickier due to lack of spare parts. So I'm sort of surveying the system to see how it might fit into a digitising workflow.
Here is a good starting point:
Hasselblad - Wikipedia
Then you can read the detailed summary on each model at various review sites and even B&H Photo.
And of course, there are numerous books available online like this:
Amazon.com: The Hasselblad Manual: A Comprehensive Guide to the System: 9781138958623: Wildi, Ernst: Books
Amazon.com: The Hasselblad Manual: A Comprehensive Guide to the System: 9781138958623: Wildi, Ernst: Bookswww.amazon.com
It is an extensive system, enjoy the reading!
Godfrey
Well-known member
I have been using the 907x fitted with a Leica macro lens (either Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm or Macro-Elmar-R 100mm) to digitize negatives and instant prints (out of my Polaroids and Instax film cameras) for some time. It does an excellent job. The X1D would do as well.
I don't know that I'd buy an SLR for this task. The liabilities of increased vibration due to the moving mirror and the precision of focusing with the big LCD screen on the X system bodies are both compelling reasons to go with a mirrorless body.
I don't know that I'd buy an SLR for this task. The liabilities of increased vibration due to the moving mirror and the precision of focusing with the big LCD screen on the X system bodies are both compelling reasons to go with a mirrorless body.
docholliday
Well-known member
I use my H's to digitize... I don't get a bit of vibration, especially since the mirror is locked up all the time. I use a copy stand with camera and 120/4 mounted. A Zone VI cold light source sits below with a set of carriers from an old Omega 4x5 enlarger sitting on top of the cold source. I have a old set of 4x5 bellows modded to fit the end of the lens and glued onto the neg carrier to prevent stray light reflections. I use an old Versalab Parallel laser alignment system for enlargers to ensure that the lens plane and carrier is perfectly aligned and parallel.
As far as focusing goes, I have a waist level on camera, but use LV to focus as I'm tethered anyways. I've also modded an old enlarger timer footpedal as a shutter release so that I can have both hands for moving negs in the carrier while I fire with my right foot.
I can do everything from small format to X-Pan to 4x5 with the same setup, just changing carriers (or masking them with Cinefoil).
Last edited:
Most SLRs have a mirror lockup, and the H-lenses have implemented it in a very smart way.
I am currently digitizing negatives with Epson v850, but am thinking of using a camera. If I do that, I would likely use 907x, not my H camera.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't use an SLR, just that if the primary purpose of buying a camera was for digitizing film, I'd pick a mirrorless camera now instead.
I've used SLRs (FourThirds, APS-C, 35mm, and Hasselblad 907x) as well as several other cameras to digitize film over the years. Also film and flatbed scanners. Basically, I've used whatever the best of what I had was. But if I was looking at buying a medium format digital camera with the notion of doing digitization, I'd pick a mirrorless model over any SLR now. Because of the ease of lens adaptation, there are a lot more ways to configure them for high quality scanning and who needs a mirror reflex body when you're going to lock the mirror up anyway?
G
philipus
New member
Thanks everyone for your replies. I think it's inspiring to see that other photographers use similar setups.
The main reason that I am not now considering the X system or other more current camera is cost. I can find the H cameras quite inexpensively in my native Sweden. But hopefully my X1 won't die any time soon, so by then the X cameras etc might be more affordable.
The main reason that I am not now considering the X system or other more current camera is cost. I can find the H cameras quite inexpensively in my native Sweden. But hopefully my X1 won't die any time soon, so by then the X cameras etc might be more affordable.
Godfrey
Well-known member
H system bodies with digital back seem to always be pretty expensive here in the USA—sometimes as much as or more than a new X1D or 907x—and H system lenses aren't inexpensive either. I've seen used X1D bodies going for very favorable prices since the X1D II was released. Another issue is that you cannot adapt other lenses to SLR bodies as easily as to mirrorless bodies, due to the mount registration and other mechanical obstacles, so you usually have to stick to the manufacturers lenses and close up accessories. With the X1D and 907x bodies, I can use my existing Leica R system macro gear ... The 60mm macro lens covers the format with only very slight darkening of the corners, the 100mm lens covers it perfectly, no degradation at the corners of the 33x44 format at all. The Macro-Elmar-R 100mm f/4 plus Focusing Bellows-R nets infinity to 1:1 macro range, super quality, and cost me less than $400 complete, in the box. It also saves money in that it has included into it a geared focusing rail for precision sizing and focus adjustment, as well as the ability to rotate the body from portrait to landscape mode: very very convenient depending upon what kind of film and orientation you need to work the copy setup.
I often use Leica CL body as my copy camera as well. This has some advantages ... it's much lighter than any of the Hasselblad bodies and the smaller format requires much less magnification to achieve a full capture of a film negative. Less magnification means both less weight and less sensitivity to minute camera motion that can dull a sharp negative. At base ISO the dynamic range of its sensor is excellent. The downside is that with 6x6, you're only getting about a 16 Mpixel image to work with. The 907x is a bit more cumbersome in size and weight, and I take some pains to make it equal in stability; the advantage is an additional increment in dynamic range and about a 39 Mpixel scan (of full frame 6x6).
P. Chong's setup looks like those I had as I was learning the ins and outs of doing negative copy work. I've since put some money into a very sturdy and well made copy stand (Novoflex Magic Stand) and a couple of 'made for the task' negative scanning carriers. Setup time and getting assured alignment of the camera and film is both easier and faster to achieve with these fixtures vs a tripod and an adapted enlarger negative carrier. I do a lot of this stuff in small batches so that difference in setting up is important to me.
(I just recently found this set of film carrier fixtures (Essential Film Holder) and have them on order ... My current 120 fixture is the Negative Supply unit, which is really way over the top in price although superbly made, and this setup is far less while it handles 35mm as well. I'm pretty much replacing my flat bed and film scanner units for negative copy now; the scanners are getting old and I'm concerned about their potential failure; the copy camera approach now returns as much or more resolution, more dynamic range, and is far faster in operation.)
Many ways to a solution for this work. I've been doing this stuff for nigh onto 25 years now, so I tend to look at the whole setup ...
G
Last edited:
Depends on where you look, what you want, and it's all relative. Used H3Ds and H4Ds are around the same price as used X1Ds and X1DIIs. or cheaper Used H lenses also are fairly inexpensive IMHO, there are several H 120mm's around 1000 on ebay right now. H5Ds and H6Ds are more expensive, yes, and the orange dot H lenses with the upgraded 1/2000 shutter are as well. Not a huge difference between the H5D and H4D, but the difference between the H6D and older cams is bigger. Some of the H's will even take a film back, which the X1D won't.
As long as one doesn't mind a few generation old camera and dealing a firewire port to tether (which can be somewhat of a pain in 2021), nothing wrong with the H's IMHO. I used to shoot with a H4D-40 and still miss it from time to time. Definitely a different experience than the X1D or 907x.
docholliday
Well-known member
Coming from the Flextight, Leica (as well as other) small format stuff would be a downgrade... the resolution and quality of the Flextights are really good and hard to beat with a lot of at-home setups. And, H stuff isn't as expensive as it seem, even here in the US, if you look in the right places and for the right models.
The older H bodies with CCD sensors at base ISO may actually be an improvement over modern CMOS sensors, since the light is controlled and could give slightly better color fidelity to the copy. The key to meeting the quality of that Flex is to get the sensor/lens/film plane as parallel as possible and using a really good, consistent light source. I use a 100lb copy "stand" from an old 4x5 Polaroid copy camera that I've milled an adapter for to hold the camera onto the head (3/4" bolt to Arca clamp). It stops any vibration and also ensures parallel alignment of the assembly.
Since I copy a lot of B&W 6x6 and 4x5 negs, a cold source produces better quality than a strobe as it tends to blend the grain better. For color, a high-end strobe, Bron or Profoto, through a thick piece of Plexi would do well as the color temp of the source needs to be consistent for batch capture.
You also want to use a flat-plane lens (true macro) and set the aperture to the best resolution for the lens used. I also remove any filters on the lens to further reduce stray reflection in the optical path. I use a piece of UV gel between the Plex and strobe (if shooting color) to ensure a good narrow light spectrum.
The other part of copying is reducing any stray light hitting the neg, as well as masking the neg + lens to only allow the film source to produce an image. Otherwise, you can get uneven exposure at the edges of the neg itself (or you'll have to work with all stray light in the room off - room lights off, windows darkened, etc).
It really depends on how serious of a copy you are making. If it's just to contact sheet and print, than anything would work. For archival or high-res printing, the little things will determine the overall max quality. Since the current scanner is a Flex, I'd assume that the later is the case.
The older H bodies with CCD sensors at base ISO may actually be an improvement over modern CMOS sensors, since the light is controlled and could give slightly better color fidelity to the copy. The key to meeting the quality of that Flex is to get the sensor/lens/film plane as parallel as possible and using a really good, consistent light source. I use a 100lb copy "stand" from an old 4x5 Polaroid copy camera that I've milled an adapter for to hold the camera onto the head (3/4" bolt to Arca clamp). It stops any vibration and also ensures parallel alignment of the assembly.
Since I copy a lot of B&W 6x6 and 4x5 negs, a cold source produces better quality than a strobe as it tends to blend the grain better. For color, a high-end strobe, Bron or Profoto, through a thick piece of Plexi would do well as the color temp of the source needs to be consistent for batch capture.
You also want to use a flat-plane lens (true macro) and set the aperture to the best resolution for the lens used. I also remove any filters on the lens to further reduce stray reflection in the optical path. I use a piece of UV gel between the Plex and strobe (if shooting color) to ensure a good narrow light spectrum.
The other part of copying is reducing any stray light hitting the neg, as well as masking the neg + lens to only allow the film source to produce an image. Otherwise, you can get uneven exposure at the edges of the neg itself (or you'll have to work with all stray light in the room off - room lights off, windows darkened, etc).
It really depends on how serious of a copy you are making. If it's just to contact sheet and print, than anything would work. For archival or high-res printing, the little things will determine the overall max quality. Since the current scanner is a Flex, I'd assume that the later is the case.
Last edited:
Godfrey
Well-known member
Yes ... Understanding the target goal for your output is key to building a satisfying setup that does the job well, efficiently, and to the quality spec you're after. For instance, I'm not a 'gigunda print' maker so I'm not looking for output to match a 6x6 foot sized image, so I don't need 200 Mpixel potential quality. I'm more interested in book-size publication fine-art quality, and grade my output against what I respond to in quality there.
I found that even the Nikon SuperCoolScan 9000 was actually more than I needed for my work (and the Flextight scans I did on a rental system were well past that) and gave it up as it was a storage and setup problem that I didn't get enough useful return out of.
As said before: There are many ways to a solution for this work, influenced by a lot of factors. "Ultimate scan quality" is just one of them. With all the time I've spent at these things, I'm pretty happy with what I am doing now and the results it produces...
G
I found that even the Nikon SuperCoolScan 9000 was actually more than I needed for my work (and the Flextight scans I did on a rental system were well past that) and gave it up as it was a storage and setup problem that I didn't get enough useful return out of.
As said before: There are many ways to a solution for this work, influenced by a lot of factors. "Ultimate scan quality" is just one of them. With all the time I've spent at these things, I'm pretty happy with what I am doing now and the results it produces...
G
KC_2020
Active member
Godfrey I'm curious if you found the Essential Film Holder to be a suitable replacement for your Negative Supply system ?
I just ordered the (very pricey) Negative Supply 120 holder and then found your post. No other references to the Negative Supply products came up in a search here.
Also curious if we're going to see some film images from your trip south soon ?
Godfrey
Well-known member
It's been a month and some chock full of things to do, places to go, etc ... I've not had time to process film, never mind finish off the last couple of frames in the Perkeo II, from the two rolls as yet.
My EFH package arrived while I was out of town last week. When I opened it, I found the package had been badly mauled in shipment: the diffuser plate is cracked at one corner and one of the wing nuts was damaged. While still perfectly serviceable, I wrote Andrew. He responded immediately and had a spare set of wing nuts and a new diffuser plate on the way here within a couple of hours; he also threw in the mounted 2x2 slide mask I mentioned that I'd like to order.
I've tested putting a couple of film strips, both 35 and 120, through the EFH: It works very well indeed.
Compared to the Negative Supply 120 film carrier, the EFH is much much lighter weight. The Negative Supply is quite heavy and, once set up, is easy to work with without it shifting from frame to frame. I find that the EFH needs to be taped down to secure its position accurately for a run of frames so that it doesn't shift and spoil the setup. Easy to do, and that's why I always keep a nice roll of Artist's Tape handy...
It's another crazy week this week. Hopefully I'll get my last frames shot on the second roll and find time to process negatives.. I have two 120 rolls and a Minox 8x11 roll to process. Everything just takes time, but I'll show some photos when I've gotten there.
G
My EFH package arrived while I was out of town last week. When I opened it, I found the package had been badly mauled in shipment: the diffuser plate is cracked at one corner and one of the wing nuts was damaged. While still perfectly serviceable, I wrote Andrew. He responded immediately and had a spare set of wing nuts and a new diffuser plate on the way here within a couple of hours; he also threw in the mounted 2x2 slide mask I mentioned that I'd like to order.
I've tested putting a couple of film strips, both 35 and 120, through the EFH: It works very well indeed.
Compared to the Negative Supply 120 film carrier, the EFH is much much lighter weight. The Negative Supply is quite heavy and, once set up, is easy to work with without it shifting from frame to frame. I find that the EFH needs to be taped down to secure its position accurately for a run of frames so that it doesn't shift and spoil the setup. Easy to do, and that's why I always keep a nice roll of Artist's Tape handy...
It's another crazy week this week. Hopefully I'll get my last frames shot on the second roll and find time to process negatives.. I have two 120 rolls and a Minox 8x11 roll to process. Everything just takes time, but I'll show some photos when I've gotten there.
G
