The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

[David Grover / Phase One]

The design of the lenses is only half the story. The other half is what message is sent to users, and when. Do you have a date on when Hasselblad announced the new full format (36x48mm) and a date on when Hasselblad knew that full frame sensors were coming?

No.

 

[ptomsu]

Folks,

actually this thread repeats the same wishful, hopeful but useless discussions about what would be if Hasselblad had known, published, will know, will publish etc. etc......

I think this does not move anybody anywhere.

Sorry if this sounds rude.

 

[s.agar]

Originally Posted by carstenw
The 28mm and the 35-90mm zoom are HCD lenses (as opposed to HC) and won't cover full frame, i.e. they cannot cover the H4D-60, AFAIK, at least not at the same quality level. However, the difference is minimal, so they might still be acceptable for some uses.

Personally, I find it to be an acceptable limitation, although one does have to wonder about Hasselblad management's ability to foresee their own future. In short order they have moved from one full-frame definition to another (at least the 28mm lens's focal length is actually equivalent, on a 36x48mm sensor, and not the real focal length) and then back again, and in the short time in between, released two lenses which are not fully compatible with the latter definition. Not so impressive, but again, not so serious, in this case.

--------------------------

I don't know how the topic changed to so many other things, while the main concern had started with the 2 HCD lenses.

I'm not writing something theoretical. I have these 2 lenses, and it hurts me somewhat to learn that while on one hand I can use these (at least) with the new cameras, but there will be limitations. I have spent a lot of money just a few months before there were any rumours about the new DB's and H4D. When I bought the lenses, I don't recall if Hasselblad had any notices regarding usable DB sizes either for near future models.

Now I wonder also about the performance at the corners, which is an additional worry.

Therefore in principle, I agree with Carsten regarding the portion of his post pasted above.

This is despite the fact that I love these 2 lenses, and the fact that there are no better alternatives for these in the Hasselblad range (or in any other system at present). But theoretically, I might not have bought these, if I had knew in advance. That's Carsten's view too.

BTW, I don't like the camera colors too, but that doesn't keep me from sleeping well at night. For some reason, I think I like black better. It may be an age problem.

Seyhun

 

[carstenw]

Carsten, there will never ever be a square sensor to 6x6 from Kodak or Dalsa. So if this is your dream, I think you need to rethink it.

There is a square mode in the CFV so if you want to shoot square then you can.

I understand that at this point in time a 56x56mm sensor would be prohibitively expensive. I do think that a 48x48mm sensor would be interesting, and as Leica has shown with the 30x45mm sensor, and as Phase has shown with the P65+, it is certainly possible to go to one of the sensor manufacturers and ask for a certain dimension.

The will to do so is something else, of course.

By the way, I see no need to revise my dream. It may not be reality, but it is still something I would love to have.

This is as close as it will ever be.

I take this to mean that 36x48mm is the squarest large sensor Hasselblad will ever use in a back to fit the V camera. Is that an official statement, or your opinion?

In addition to the V cameras, there are the Rollei 6008 cameras and the Leaf AFi and Sinar/Rolleiflex Hy6. The owners of all these cameras are potential buyers for a large-square-sensor back. I hope that one day one of the remaining back manufacturers make a proper gamble on this market. The CFV/CFV-II were nice, but the crop factor was much too large. The CFV-39 is nice, but a hedged bet, halfway there only. Maybe when the economy recovers...

 

[carstenw]

I'm not writing something theoretical. I have these 2 lenses, and it hurts me somewhat to learn that while on one hand I can use these (at least) with the new cameras, but there will be limitations. I have spent a lot of money just a few months before there were any rumours about the new DB's and H4D. When I bought the lenses, I don't recall if Hasselblad had any notices regarding usable DB sizes either for near future models.

Now I wonder also about the performance at the corners, which is an additional worry.

Therefore in principle, I agree with Carsten regarding the portion of his post pasted above.

BTW, I don't like the camera colors too, but that doesn't keep me from sleeping well at night. For some reason, I think I like black better. It may be an age problem.

Seyhun,

I am very happy to see someone speak out on the same side as me. I know that my presentation has been somewhat confrontational, and that makes it harder to side with me, but I know several photographers who share these views.

I know the colour scheme isn't crucial, but I still find it fascinating to watch Hasselblad's stubbornness over such a supposedly minor issue. I think from day one people have been expressing the wish for a black camera, but so far, nothing.

The lens issue is far more serious, of course. I hope that not too many people were caught out by this, like you may have been.

 

[Dale Allyn]

Now that sensor resolution has reached 60MP, it would make more business sense to me to provide optional (on the fly) viewfinder masking to square, and support same in the software – rather than develop a square sensor for a niche. The software support would just be an automated application of a crop to match the squared view of the scene.

While there are those who would love a true square sensor, you'd not get my money to do it if I were funding the product development. I feel that it would be a mistake from a business point of view.

 

[dougpeterson]

Now that sensor resolution has reached 60MP, it would make more business sense to me to provide optional (on the fly) viewfinder masking to square, and support same in the software – rather than develop a square sensor for a niche. The software support would just be an automated application of a crop to match the squared view of the scene.

While there are those who would love a true square sensor, you'd not get my money to do it if I were funding the product development. I feel that it would be a mistake from a business point of view.

The issue is more with the viewfinder crop. A 645 sensor cropped to square is a 4.5x4.5 crop out of a 6x6 viewfinder (please accept my rough rounding to avoid confusing readers who don't know/care about mm differences - it's a big crop regardless).

Your point stands however that a 6x6 specialty square sensor is not likely to gain much traction in R+D budgets.

 

[gdwhalen]

I'm sorry but, for me, I have a very hard time taking suggestions or listening to criticism's from people that complain about the look of the camera. When I see this I just assume that the camera is jewelry to them. If it was lime green or pink or stripped yellow I would be more inclined to go along with it. But, in absolute honesty I have no idea what my H3d's color scheme is. I would have to get it out of my bag to even tell you. I think it is funny beyond belief that anyone would care unless of course it is more about showing the camera than taking pictures. But it is one hell of a heavy necklace if that is what it means to you.

The color of the camera!!! What next - it doesn't have a color co-ordinated strap. :wtf::wtf::wtf:

 

[Dale Allyn]

The issue is more with the viewfinder crop. A 645 sensor cropped to square is a 4.5x4.5 crop out of a 6x6 viewfinder (please accept my rough rounding to avoid confusing readers who don't know/care about mm differences - it's a big crop regardless).

Your point stands however that a 6x6 specialty square sensor is not likely to gain much traction in R+D budgets.

Right, Doug. And I was not really referring to the idea of a back produced for the installed base of 6x6 square viewfinder bodies, but looking at it with an eye forward. I will guess that the viewfinders of modern digital MF cameras will likely be mostly rectangular and I was fantasizing about a concept that simply masked the ends of the view for composition purposes. (And therefore I veered a bit off-topic.)

IMO this would better support R&D cost issues regardless of how large the sensors grow. As sensors become cheaper we may see more of the types of things that RED are working on in terms of sensor size. (Not wanting to get in to optical limits, etc. here.) It's obviously a ways out, but I can't be convinced that all of this will stop at a 645 sensor size.

 

[hcubell]

I'm sorry but, for me, I have a very hard time taking suggestions or listening to criticism's from people that complain about the look of the camera. When I see this I just assume that the camera is jewelry to them. If it was lime green or pink or stripped yellow I would be more inclined to go along with it. But, in absolute honesty I have no idea what my H3d's color scheme is. I would have to get it out of my bag to even tell you. I think it is funny beyond belief that anyone would care unless of course it is more about showing the camera than taking pictures. But it is one hell of a heavy necklace if that is what it means to you.

The color of the camera!!! What next - it doesn't have a color co-ordinated strap. :wtf::wtf::wtf:

Carsten, since you are a guy who neither owns nor has any interest in owning an H3D or H4D, I am amused by your hosting a mini-forum about all that is wrong with Hasselblad. :wtf:

 

[carstenw]

Well, it was another thread where it came up, and the OP didn't really want his thread hijacked, understandably, so I started a new thread. To be honest, I am already fed up with the whole thing. I would wish that one could just post an opinion, clearly marked as such, and not be taken to task over it, but that isn't the case.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well glad I stayed out of this one but let me add ANY MF system you buy it is exactly like getting married. It cost a lot , it's a lifetime decision ( at least the thought is) it won't do exactly what you ask it to do and it is all about what compromises you are willing to accept.

Just like marriage you start it today and 5 years later maybe one part of it does not fit the future part of it anymore.

I have been married 20 years and trust me my wife is not the same girl I married and neither am i and don't expect it to be the same.

I hate to use this analogy but frankly it is dead on the money but the bottom line is you can't blame anyone it is what evolves from the past.

Very simple case in point with radio remotes limits around 1/1000 well who would have thought now you can get a 1/1600 leaf shutter which just made those devices obsolete . Until someone has one fast enough you are going to have to use a hard wire sync cable( just as a example something may actually work here but just making a point)

 

[KeithL]

To be honest, I am already fed up with the whole thing. I would wish that one could just post an opinion, clearly marked as such, and not be taken to task over it, but that isn't the case.

The problem here is that the title of your thread on this discussion board suggested that this was to be a discussion

Best

Keith

 

[gdwhalen]

Well, it was another thread where it came up, and the OP didn't really want his thread hijacked, understandably, so I started a new thread. To be honest, I am already fed up with the whole thing. I would wish that one could just post an opinion, clearly marked as such, and not be taken to task over it, but that isn't the case.

I don't know you Carstenw but it sounds like you want to criticize others but receive no criticism yourself. Seems rather one-sided to me.

 

[carstenw]

Gary, I am quite willing to receive critique. It must be well reasoned though, and not just a knee-jerk reaction based on differences in opinion.

 

[fotografz]

Gary, I am quite willing to receive critique. It must be well reasoned though, and not just a knee-jerk reaction based on differences in opinion.

Well, I can keep it balanced I think. Just a perspective from a long time owner/user of both the Legacy V and the H systems. You can apply it "for or against" your comments at will. Sorry for the long post, but you made a number of points I can offer a personal perspective on ... and intelligent responses may require a longer POV.

I am in the process of going to the (near FF) H4D/60.

I am not put off by the minor crop of the HCD lenses on the H4D/60.

As a H3D-II/39 owner, and previously other 1.1X sensor cameras (H2D/22, H3D/39), and especially the 1.3X crop frame H3D/31 & H3D-II/31 cameras ... the HCD/28 provided me with the wide angle coverage I needed for my work.

To get that same W/A coverage on those cameras using a Full Frame lens, it probably would have been a 25 or 26mm ... which MOST certainly WOULD have cost substantially more and been larger or slower (if even possible). A true 28mm FF lens on a 1.1X camera is a 31mm field-of-view, and on a 1.3X crop sensor is a 37mm field-of-view which was NOT wide enough for some of the industrial photography I do. I often barely got by with the 28mm.

RE Camera color:

I honestly don't care that much. Camera color has nothing to do with what I do. Would I have bought into it if it were black? ... yes. Would I have bought into it if it were grey? ... I did. What does matter to me is that the components cosmetically match ... which they do. Would I have liked it to be all black, yes. But it isn't, and I don't care that much. In 30 years shooting, not one single client has every said anything about the color of my cameras To me, it's a "lite" issue.

The criteria at the time I bought into the H system was AF. It was the fastest, surest MFD AF out there bar none, and now has been substantially improved compared to anything else out there bar none. That criteria still stands, so I am moving to the H4D.

RE: Legacy support ...

Every manual focus, mechanical CF, CFi and CFE Zeiss lens I own (10 of them) work on my H cameras via the CF adapter. This not a gerry-rigged, dumb adapter ... it is a fully integrated, fully auto aperture, auto stop down adapter. The H camera provides focus confirmation, and the Phocus software corrections support the legacy Zeiss lenses. Cameras are just boxes to me, what counts is the huge investment in lenses ... a legacy investment that Hasselblad protected well into the digital age. Try adapting a legacy Mamiya RZ lens to a Mamiya 645 AFD.

I have opted out of the legacy CFV program. Great solution for V users and nice on-going support for the long discontinued 200 series cameras. But redundant to me, and I no longer wish to support 2 separate MFD systems. I will use the 203FE system as it was intended ... as a film camera ... or sell off the entire kit (TBD).

My take on the so called "Closed System".

Don't care about others who use different backs on a H camera. As the benefits of a fully integrated system are revealed, it's clear Hasselblad saw well into the future and bit the bullet while taking some flack in the process. They are big boys. Personally, I hope they continue integrating the components even more because the benefits out weight the negatives IMHO and direct experience. Backwards compatibility has it's limits IMO, and should not be the criteria if it hampers what is really possible going forward.

Fan Boy?:

If personal preferences tag me with the "Fan Boy" moniker, I honestly couldn't care less. The fact is, if something else came along that met my criteria substantially better, and I could afford it, I'd drop Hasselblad in a NY heart beat.

I am watching the S2 carefully, but have determined it is a candidate to totally replace my 35mm DSLR systems (the way I use them) more than the fully modular H kit which I use on a studio view camera, and use with the waist level finder. Sony and Nikon may be history to me in the future (TBD).

Gripes about the H system:

Wish they would produce a focal plane shutter body so I can use the H/C lenses like the 100/2.2 in bright available light. But that's a pretty minor occurrence. A focal plane shutter H would also allow possible use of the legacy FE lenses.

Improve the 50mm H/C lens ... either a new lens or better DAC corrections.

Allow DAC corrections to migrate with DNG conversions for further work in Lightroom, ACR, or Aperture. This is gripe #1.


-Marc

 

[ptomsu]

@Marc and also the others ....

very well said and great explanation. I really value your thoughts, findings and opinion, as reading through it I find some of my own experiences and thoughts reflected.

I must say that there is theory and praxis - some will most time remain in the theoretical area, while others will be faced to move into reality. Both is fine and both must be honored and accepted here. I think everyone needs once to finally decide for any photographic solution and it should be based then hopefully on experience, comfort with the chosen system, perspective for the future and well integrated and also future proven workflow - maybe I forgot something to mention, but these are the main criteria.

Coming back to Hasselblad and the H system, this system has definitely a big number of "First's" and is thus a very good and mature system. Do I like all? Definitely NO! Would I like different features? Definitely YES!

But what are the alternatives (and I am still on the theoretical ground here, as I did still not buy into any digital MF system) - the only real alternative in MF is Phase - PERIOD! The S System, as nice as it seems still on marketing and on paper, is no MF equivalent and will never be, maybe enough for many purposes, but I do not let myself fool with those nice marketing messages, it is not MF and never will offer the flexibility of Hasselblad or Phase.

So which to choose? Difficult question. Still on theory here, although hoping to soon get into reality.

On the Phase side I like most C1Pro, which provides for a really great workflow which I am used to and which will further improve with next versions. For the camera (even the new one) and the glass it is a choice to make and I think I can live with that. For the backs, they are simple market leading edge, but I would love to see a bit more different lineup and more attractive pricing.

On the Hasselblad side I cannot become friend with Phocus, especially because it is closed to Hasselblad. Will this go away? I think not. The camera and the lenses I would consider superior to what Phase currently offers, but that is because of the choices and not because if IQ etc. But I could live with either solution. For the backs it is a very interesting and straight forward lineup and clearly moves away from Crop 1.3 and goes FF or at least Crop 1.1 and all of this for a very attractive price.

So it will come down in the end of the day to a great offer I get for one of these 2 systems. I think this will then make me decide and get married - like Guy explained somewhere else most probably for lifetime

 

[dougpeterson]

The criteria at the time I bought into the H system was AF. It was the fastest, surest MFD AF out there bar none, and now has been substantially improved compared to anything else out there bar none. That criteria still stands, so I am moving to the H4D.

You've used the H4D or are just (fairly) speculating based on the presumption that each new body ups the anti for focus abilities?

When both the Hassy H4D and Phase DF are shipping it will be interesting to see which real world system has better AF.

The AFD3 and H3 are very close in most situations.

RE: Legacy support ...

Every manual focus, mechanical CF, CFi and CFE Zeiss lens I own (10 of them) work on my H cameras via the CF adapter. This not a gerry-rigged, dumb adapter ... it is a fully integrated, fully auto aperture, auto stop down adapter. The H camera provides focus confirmation, and the Phocus software corrections support the legacy Zeiss lenses. Cameras are just boxes to me, what counts is the huge investment in lenses ... a legacy investment that Hasselblad protected well into the digital age. Try adapting a legacy Mamiya RZ lens to a Mamiya 645 AFD.

The RZ > 645 AF is apt analogy. However, the issue here is not that Mamiya/Phase does not decide to offer "support" for these lenses but a fundamental issue of technology; the RZ requires bellow focusing which is not practical on a 645 sized body. However, you can use the SAME digital back on both an RZ Pro IID and a Mamiya or Phase One 645 body which means you have native access not just to those lenses (as with V lenses on an H body) but to the body itself.

However, EVERY Mamiya 645 lens from 1975 (the first one produced) to the currently produced D series lenses are compatible and newer lenses like the 75-150mm D and 28mm work even on older bodies like the AFD1 (HCD lenses cannot be used on older bodies such as the H1/H2). In addition every one of your CF, CFi, CFE lenses is compatible, as well as the FE lenses that you hunger to use with digital. As a bonus there are adapters for Pentacon 6 glass. It is very true, and should be noted, that the H can use the CF/CFi/CFE with aperture stop down while the Mamiya/Phase require manual stop down of the lens.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The reality is all these system no matter how good they truly area, there will always be in some area a place you have to make a choice and decide if you can live with that compromise. Let's just use Focal Plane and leaf shutters for instance. People in the past had to make that big choice do you go one way or the other and maybe one of our first big decisions was go Hassy for leaf or go Phase for Focal plane. Now maybe 2 years ago or a year you decided to go Hassy. Well now Phase finally has leaf shutters but that did not make your decision less valid 2 years ago either. Things change and are more fluid today . Just look at Canon and Nikon before you blink your eyes something new is out but your decision at the time was a sound one , now you face another decision. ZYou just can't go back and point fingers at Hassy in this example for building a new system that always has to be retroactive to the past. Although Hassy is famous for this but in this case it really in my mind at least is not a big issue you buy a 60 mpx back and have to crop very slightly for a lens BIG DEAL. Trust me I take my 28mm to a P65+ back i may see all the way out there but is it truly usable . No it basically is not without getting into C1 and correcting those corners and even than you still may have to crop to a 30mm lens. Myself i see this as no big deal. New technology comes and companies need to improve and they always can't look back and say we HAVE TO make that lens work, well if they did that than they may not improve either. It's clear to me Hassy made the best sound choice to upgrade there system but still keep there existing lenses from being completely obsolete as well. Seriously do you think they truly like dealing with this issue and if it was a even worse situation say you had to crop to 35mm they would NEVER hear the end of it.

In the end it's about compromise and doing the best you can do for your customers . From my seat I think Hassy was completely responsible given the technology to there customers. I'm like Marc show me something better and i will switch in a NY heartbeat as well and most of us will but Hassy makes a great system and i do respect that even though I own a Phase system and happy with that decision. End of the day we are buying the best solution for you as the photographer and it's not always a pretty one.

 

[s.agar]

Well said.