Scratched the sensor of my CFV 100c - now what?

[Godfrey]

...The average turnaround time for Hasselblad service to and back from Sweden is about 3-4 weeks. Some case have exceeded that, but in my experience a Hasselblad IR filter replacement is not commonly a candidate for extended time away, it's a pretty standard service. ...

That sounds about right. My 907x needed a backplate and internal board replacement a year and some after I got it. Hasselblad USA sent a shipper, it went to Sweden and was completely overhauled, and came back in about 6 weeks total... adding in the extra time getting back and forth across the USA.

G

 

[tcdeveau]

If you don’t want to deal with the wait time with HB, look at lifepixel as well as
Kolari. It’s probably just the cover glass and not the sensor itself.

Someone else might have mentioned it, but I’d have lifepixel or kolari replace the sensor cover glass with a uv/ir passing sensor so you can do full spectrum (UV/vis/IR) but that part is up to you.

I know the feeling. It’s fixable though.

 

[Precision]

Dude.

don’t have the cover glass replaced….put a clear glass sheet instead of the IR cut filter, and convert to full spectrum.

i dare you!

 

[bab]

Not really a difficult decision you need urgent care sooner than later.

 

[buildbot]

Dude.

don’t have the cover glass replaced….put a clear glass sheet instead of the IR cut filter, and convert to full spectrum.

i dare you!

+1 to this, I paid a bunch of money to take a perfectly good IR filter out of my GFX 100s! If you are already paying the money make it more capable

Though with a GFX the rear filter mounts make it really easy to swap back and forth, front filters are more annoying; in that you need many sizes often times.

 

[P. Chong]

I had my H sensor IR filter replaced by Hasselblad. Cost then was USD 1k, about 6 weeks turnaround. I understand that the process is quite simple to DIY. There are a few YouTube tutorials if you are into that. Or you can send to hasselbladrepairs.com, the chap is ex-Hasselblad, is authorized by H and he is just across town from the H.

 

[peterm1]

Thanks all. My camera is already at Kolari for repair so I’ll go with that - not going with the full spectrum conversion since I don’t want to deal with all the filters and color correction. I don’t love the IR look for my photography personally, and don’t do Astro or other types of photography that could benefit from it.

 

[peterm1]

Just a brief update - received my CFV 100c back from Kolari today and now I am just waiting for the Arca-Swiss adapter I bought to use with it to arrive - it's been stuck in a USPS black hole for 8 days so hopefully it will get moving soon. Kolari was great to deal with and good to know they are nearby and quick in case something ever happens again.

 

[f8orbust]

Good to hear it all worked out ok.

As an aside: I wonder what the impact (on IQ) of putting one of those crystal clear tempered glass (removable) screen protectors directly onto the cover glass of the sensor would be? My guess is that it'd be negligible, and potentially avoid scenarios like this happening again.

 

[Godfrey]

...
As an aside: I wonder what the impact (on IQ) of putting one of those crystal clear tempered glass (removable) screen protectors directly onto the cover glass of the sensor would be? My guess is that it'd be negligible, and potentially avoid scenarios like this happening again.

My guess: "probably a mess." Adding more air-glass surfaces in front of the sensor will undoubtedly cause imaging issues of some sort. An issue like this is rare ... how many people have had it happen to their digital back, I wonder...?

G

 

[f8orbust]

My guess: "probably a mess." Adding more air-glass surfaces in front of the sensor will undoubtedly cause imaging issues of some sort. An issue like this is rare ... how many people have had it happen to their digital back, I wonder...?

G

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it ...

Given a quality filter, fitted correctly in close proximity to the sensor, I don't think there would be much perceivable image degradation at all.

How often does it happen ? No idea, but I suspect it's more often than you would imagine, particularly within the world of rented gear.

 

[Godfrey]

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it ...

Given a quality filter, fitted correctly in close proximity to the sensor, I don't think there would be much perceivable image degradation at all.

How often does it happen ? No idea, but I suspect it's more often than you would imagine, particularly within the world of rented gear.

Adding another filter to ALL sensors will undoubtedly raise the price of the camera yet another increment. Will the filter be user replaceable? Add another increment of cost, and another increment of risk. And what about the downsides of adding another pair of air-glass surfaces to the sensor stack ...?

How often does damage that requires service occur? Probably more for rented gear than privately owned gear. I own all my gear, don't rent anything. Am I the only one that does this? I'm pretty sure I'm not. What does that say about the total cost scenario? What are the percentages of buyers vs renters? ... I have no idea.

So many questions and ambiguities. But I can say with some surety that adding yet another component to the sensor stack will cost everyone a good bit of money in original cost and in repairs, regardless of whatever advantage or disadvantage it lends to the camera.

G

 

[darr]

I’m with @Godfrey, keep it simple. Every new gadget is just another thing to fix. My old refrigerator recently proved the point: the water filter system was the weak link, and after two messy leaks, the repair guy basically said, “Retire it before it retires you.” So this time around, I went back to basics with the fridge, which has no indoor water dispenser and filtration system.

Cameras aren’t much different. Manufacturers pile on features like an all-you-can-eat buffet, but not everyone wants dessert. I picked the Sony A7R IVa over the latest model precisely because it does less. I don’t need Hollywood video specs for stills in the studio. Great camera so far.

One thing about this forum (and probably every other one) is that there’s always a tribe of gearheads. I actually appreciate them. They test-drive all the new toys so I don’t have to. Over time, I’ve noticed they come in two flavors: the kid-in-a-candy-store type, and others who just complain about cavities. It’s kind of like dating: you learn to enjoy the enthusiasm, tolerate the complaints, and carry on.

 

[f8orbust]

I don't think a sensor screen protector is a big deal, it's about as low-tech, simple, and effective as you can get. They've saved me $$$$ over the years in cracked iPhone screens. And of course, the user could choose to shoot with it on or off if they're too worried about the 'degradation' of the image. Always thought it an odd omission on a DB costing thousands of dollars, until you realise it's an easy way to get juiced by the manufacturer once disaster strikes. Places like rental houses, govt. institutions, universities etc. all have insurance / maintenance contracts etc. that get billed down the line, so they don't really care if the user drops their gold-plated false teeth on the sensor and cracks the cover glass. But, if the user is the owner, and has thus buried their own hard earned cash into the DB, it's a whole other kettle of fish; that's when you wish the manufacturer had incorporated that $20 removeable screen protector into their design.

 

[mristuccia]

There is a big difference between putting a piece of any glass to protect a 320dpi smartphone display while still keeping a "good enough clarity" and putting another air-glass surface on top of a 4600 dpi sensor. The thickness of the original protection glass will increase, refraction coefficients may vary to the point that lenses may need to be re-designed according to this new filtering effect.
Moreover, if the production of such protective screens will be open to the free market, rest assured that 80% of them will be crappy cheap ones, causing a decrease in image quality which will in turn severely ruin the reputation of a camera manufacturer only because of the "ingenuity" of the average user.

Phone screens are way more prone to get scratches by design, as they are always exposed and used as human-to-device interface. Camera sensors are mostly kept covered and handled with great care.

I personally don't even use any screen protection on my iPhone as I hate ruining the quality of a beautiful retina display with a piece of cheap glass, even if the deterioration is only 1%

 

[f8orbust]

You could discern a 1% difference? Well, you've got better eyesight than me, that's for sure.

Bet a pound to a penny no one would notice any difference whatsoever in the final image from a DB that utilised an appropriate screen protector - but in the digital age people do like to fret over such things, don't they? Curious. My guess is that this 'digital angst' is preferable to worrying about not getting a great photo.

 

[mristuccia]

You could discern a 1% difference? Well, you've got better eyesight than me, that's for sure.

Bet a pound to a penny no one would notice any difference whatsoever in the final image from a DB that utilised an appropriate screen protector - but in the digital age people do like to fret over such things, don't they? Curious. My guess is that this 'digital angst' is preferable to worrying about not getting a great photo.

Small differences are only noticeable in comparison. You may not even notice it until you see the original intended result. But why should I spend thousands of euros to get state of the art quality and then ruin it, even if only by 1%?

That's what I see all the time, people who spend a lot of money to get an object having the best quality and the best design, optimized by years of research, and then "decorate" it with crappy stuff. A display protector on an iPhone, for example, totally ruins the perfect continuity of the screen bonding with the chassis. A crappy case makes a beautiful slim design look bigger and bulkier, just horrible. Small details that make a difference, and justify the high price we pay for them. It's the law of diminishing returns.

As for the DB glass protector, IMHO this would surely deteriorate things by way more than 1%.

 

[Godfrey]

You could discern a 1% difference? Well, you've got better eyesight than me, that's for sure.

Bet a pound to a penny no one would notice any difference whatsoever in the final image from a DB that utilised an appropriate screen protector - but in the digital age people do like to fret over such things, don't they? Curious. My guess is that this 'digital angst' is preferable to worrying about not getting a great photo.

A 1% difference on the recording sensor equals about a 10% change on a 10x enlargement of the captured image. UNLESS the "appropriate screen protector" is made to the same exacting specifics, and installation, as the sensor itself, and the whole system is balanced to a higher quality spec to make up for the additional glass and air surfaces. Translate that to "more cost", likely a good bit more cost.

How many times have you damaged the sensor in your digital back? I've been using my Hasselblad CFVII 50c digital back for five years now, made thousands of exposures with it, and it's as pristine as it was when I bought it. Should I have paid some unknown but non-trivial extra money for protection that I have never needed?

The question is moot: I wouldn't have been able to afford it.

G

 

[anyone]

A 1% difference on the recording sensor equals about a 10% change on a 10x enlargement of the captured image. UNLESS the "appropriate screen protector" is made to the same exacting specifics, and installation, as the sensor itself, and the whole system is balanced to a higher quality spec to make up for the additional glass and air surfaces.

Is that not exactly the cover glass of todays' sensors? I wouldn't be up for another layer of glass surface.