Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: CFV50c or not!

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    362
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    CFV50c or not!

    The CFV50c back is one I would like to own. But, with a price almost twice that of an entire camera and back in the Pentax, I am going to pass. Evidently Hasselblad made a choice between selling many fewer backs and making a higher margin or selling many backs for less and making the same amount of profit. With all the legacy V systems in the hands of photographers, the market for this digital back is obviously very large. To me, it makes a lot of sense to get digital backs in as many hands as possible, hoping that they would eventually gain Hasselblad loyalty and later move on to an H system where the profit margin is high. Since the Pentax and CFV50c use the same chip, Hasselblad cannot argue that the chip cost makes the price necessarily high.

    Hasselblad could argue that they do not want to devalue the CFV16, CFV39, and CFV50 digital backs, but they have held a high resale value compared to other comparable backs. And, thankfully, they kept the H5D50c at a reasonable price compared to the Phase version. So, that argument is only an excuse in my opinion.

    Hasselblad could sell the CFV50c for $10,000.00-$12,000.00, that would be a compromise between the cost of a Pentax 645Z ($8,500.00) and the current price of $15,500.00. Hasselblad has shown more intelligent decisions lately, so I am hoping that the next version of the CFV system will arrive with a reasonable price with new innovations. And, obviously they can't lower the price now, since they'd have to refund a lot of money to the current owners of the CFV50c.

    My CFV16 was built like a rock with the same build quality as the rest of my V system equipment. So, many (including myself) expect to pay more for Hasselblad quality. And selfishly, I want Hasselblad to have the revenue to continue in business. So, reasonable is the word I'd like to have Hasselblad hear. That was a word Hasselblad lost sight of when they introduced the Lunar and was my main complaint with it. Interestingly, Hasselblad was the only real innovator at this year's Photokina and was a welcome change from the last Photokina.

    Greg

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    There was a CFV-50 demo back listed on the Hasselblad site last night for a pretty significant discount. I don't think it's less than a 645z camera but if you already have the body and lenses it's a great deal.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Perhaps the CFV50c is priced as it is because it is a stand alone item with no other source of revenue like V cameras, CFi/CFE lenses, or any accessories?

    - Marc

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Well, compared to the IQ250 / 150 / Credo, it's a bargain. Compared to the H 50c it's a bargain, too. It's a relative thing, I guess, especially if you want to use on a tech camera. Guys new review is proof that this is possible.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    I wonder how this back works on a V Super-Wide?

    Now that is where live-view and mag focusing would make for a killer combination and make the whole thing worth the $.

    - Marc

  6. #6
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    I'm watching the CFV-50c very carefully when it comes to the live view option. Once I see that I may have an irresistible MFDB lust problem!!
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    I thought about the Hassy Cmos back and also was ready to bite..... but aside from the differences between it and say the Leaf (live view in particular) the main two drawbacks, for me, are V lens performance and potential resale. Any time I have compared the V lenses to anything I have from Zeiss 35mm glass to Digitar's they have lacked in performance. Then, down the road, its resale value. Not only do these backs depreciate quickly but with this one its limited to a V mount - and that's a real limitation. So, for me, what's the sense? YMMV

    Victor

  8. #8
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Horses for courses. The V back option for some is a positive, not a negative. Shooting MF isn't always about optical perfection and the Hassy system and lenses may appeal because of the image look vs latest 2014 ultimate precision.

    Also, you also have more options with tech cameras and various other non-Hassy platforms including even RZ67 and others too. In my own case shooting with my Alpa (or Cambo/Sinar/Arca) is just as possible with a V back as any other mount.

    It would be a boring world if we all just wanted the same thing.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Don't disagree with anything you've said, Graham...... as I said YMMV. BUT..... down the road you will be selling to a smaller audience then if the mount were Mamiya. I'm not taking that chance.

    Victor

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    Don't disagree with anything you've said, Graham...... as I said YMMV. BUT..... down the road you will be selling to a smaller audience then if the mount were Mamiya. I'm not taking that chance.

    Victor
    Isn't the V camera and cameras that take V mount backs the most prolific in the world? Not to mention you can put this back on a 200 series camera with a slight camera modification so you can use FE or CF as focal plane or leaf shutter.

    I think this is just a continuation of the venerated V system that is favored by many. The Zeiss lens performance depends on which ones. The 40IF, 50FLE, 60, 100, and 180 easily stand up to 50 meg.

    Resale is a matter of opinion. All I know is that I got more % of price back from my V mount CFV back than I did from my M mount Leaf Aptus 7s.

    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    CFV backs has good resale value, while say a V-mount Phase One back might not have that. The reason is obvious, the CFV is Hasselblad and looks Hasselblad, and the V system nostalgia out there is probably not going away soon. I would not worry about a CFV-50c resale value more than I would any other new back.

  12. #12
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    part of the V nostalgia is the waist level finder, well suited to sq only format. with live view, you can rotate the camera and peep the LCD at arm's length a blad sight yet to be seen, eh?
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Isn't the V camera and cameras that take V mount backs the most prolific in the world? Not to mention you can put this back on a 200 series camera with a slight camera modification so you can use FE or CF as focal plane or leaf shutter.

    I think this is just a continuation of the venerated V system that is favored by many. The Zeiss lens performance depends on which ones. The 40IF, 50FLE, 60, 100, and 180 easily stand up to 50 meg.

    Resale is a matter of opinion. All I know is that I got more % of price back from my V mount CFV back than I did from my M mount Leaf Aptus 7s.

    - Marc
    I wish I could share your enthusiasm as I own a fair amount of V glass. But my experience has shown that they will not hold up to modern glass. It isn't like I haven't tried as I hate to have this stuff just sitting on a shelf but its a no go for me.

    Victor

  14. #14
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Hi,

    The mentioned lenses are pretty good, except possibly the 50/4 FLE and the 60/4. The 40/4 IF is a new generation, while the 100/3.5 is venerable but truly great. I own the 40/4 FLE (non IF), the 50/4 FLE, 80/2.8 CFE, Macro Planar 120/4 CFi and the 180/4 CFi. The 180/4 CFi stands out between these, but all do the job. I am not sure about the 80/2.8, though.

    Sometimes the lenses fail, badly, sometimes they shine.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    I wish I could share your enthusiasm as I own a fair amount of V glass. But my experience has shown that they will not hold up to modern glass. It isn't like I haven't tried as I hate to have this stuff just sitting on a shelf but its a no go for me.

    Victor

  15. #15
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Hi,

    Personally, I find the WLF useless. What I use is a PM5 with a custom made ocular watching my vision, or standard ocular combined with a 3X monocular.

    A great advantage of my P45+ is that it can be rotated 90 degrees. Don't know if it works with a CFV50c or not.

    I like live view, so I wouldn't rule out that the CFV50c may go on my shopping list, but it is a lot of money for a small sensor. But, accurate focusing with live view, that is something I would love to have!

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    part of the V nostalgia is the waist level finder, well suited to sq only format. with live view, you can rotate the camera and peep the LCD at arm's length a blad sight yet to be seen, eh?

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    I wish I could share your enthusiasm as I own a fair amount of V glass. But my experience has shown that they will not hold up to modern glass. It isn't like I haven't tried as I hate to have this stuff just sitting on a shelf but its a no go for me.
    What does it not hold up? Resolution or look? I'm not an expert in portrait photography, but from what I've seen I get the sense that the older simpler (and indeed softer) lenses often have a nicer rendering for short DoF potography than modern lenses that are more optimized for sharpness.

    That's actually one reason I prefer the simple symmetric Digitar lenses for my tech camera, nice foggy bokeh

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    You can use Hasselblad V lenses on the Pentax 645z no problem. There are adapters available for under $100.

    The Hasselblad CFV50c back looks very nice but it lacks live view and that is just unacceptable in a $15,000 CMOS back.

    I would look into the Phase (or Leaf Credo) IQ160/260 and IQ180/280 backs. The sensor is large enough that a standard 80mm still feels like one instead of a tele lens (like it does with the smaller 50mp sensor).

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    They have announced and demoed the CFV50c live view firmware update. Is to be distributed this month, I believe. That makes it more than attractive Vs. a Phase / Leaf if you consider the price difference, even if the live view functionality is not quite as good.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    362
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    You can use Hasselblad V lenses on the Pentax 645z no problem. There are adapters available for under $100.

    The Hasselblad CFV50c back looks very nice but it lacks live view and that is just unacceptable in a $15,000 CMOS back.

    I would look into the Phase (or Leaf Credo) IQ160/260 and IQ180/280 backs. The sensor is large enough that a standard 80mm still feels like one instead of a tele lens (like it does with the smaller 50mp sensor).
    Of course you would. I would look into Phase too. Hasselblad is bad, bad, bad!

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    What does it not hold up? Resolution or look?
    Resolution..... in a nutshell.

    Victor

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    You can use Hasselblad V lenses on the Pentax 645z no problem. There are adapters available for under $100.

    The Hasselblad CFV50c back looks very nice but it lacks live view and that is just unacceptable in a $15,000 CMOS back.

    I would look into the Phase (or Leaf Credo) IQ160/260 and IQ180/280 backs. The sensor is large enough that a standard 80mm still feels like one instead of a tele lens (like it does with the smaller 50mp sensor).
    However …

    When you put a CF/CFi/CFE Zeiss lens on any 645 SLR FP camera it is stop down metering & shooting, and limited to 1/125th top sync speed.

    Plus, you can't remove the Pentax 645Z back and put it on a tech camera or Hasselblad V SWC.

    The CFV/50C is getting LV just like the H5D/50C did via firmware.

    If you put any other back other than a CFV on a V camera you have to use a PC cord.

    All the current 50 CMOS sensors are crop-frame. If you want the CMOS attributes then the larger Phase or Leaf CCD backs is moot advice.

    If you don't care about the CMOS attributes and want the larger sensor size then there is the CFV50.

    - Marc

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    The 49x37mm Kodak CCD CFV-50 has been discontinued which I think is very unfortunate, I think they should have had in in parallel, just like H5D-50 and H5D-50c.

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    The 49x37mm Kodak CCD CFV-50 has been discontinued which I think is very unfortunate, I think they should have had in in parallel, just like H5D-50 and H5D-50c.
    Thanks, I didn't know that. To bad, but predictable. Hard to sustain multiple backs for a discontinued system with no other source of revenue from that system I suppose.

    Frankly, I'm surprised they even did the CFV 50C … most likely an attempt to goose up the number of sensors bought from Sony.

    - Marc

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    I think the CFV backs can make business sense while the V system as a whole does not. Pro photographers active today buy the H system, but there's a whole lot of V systems out there already, and I think quite many can be interested in using them for personal and or artistic work but maybe don't want to mess around with film any longer. Then there is this back, and it's very attractively priced compared to all other things medium format (except Pentax 645).

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    362
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I think the CFV backs can make business sense while the V system as a whole does not. Pro photographers active today buy the H system, but there's a whole lot of V systems out there already, and I think quite many can be interested in using them for personal and or artistic work but maybe don't want to mess around with film any longer. Then there is this back, and it's very attractively priced compared to all other things medium format (except Pentax 645).
    Your analysis is quite correct, and so it does not make business sense (since most are amateurs) for them to pay $15,500.00 for a digital back. But for serious amateurs it may make sense to invest $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 in a digital back.

    And, Marc made some very salient points as well.

    Greg

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I think the CFV backs can make business sense while the V system as a whole does not. Pro photographers active today buy the H system, but there's a whole lot of V systems out there already, and I think quite many can be interested in using them for personal and or artistic work but maybe don't want to mess around with film any longer. Then there is this back, and it's very attractively priced compared to all other things medium format (except Pentax 645).
    ..or could be that they are flogging the company. They could be courting someone.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    I agree that for an amateur $15k is still a lot of money when you compare to smaller format alternatives and also the Pentax 645z. As the V-mount does not compete with the H-mount products they're free to set any price they want. I'd suspect that almost all R&D is paid by the H5D-50c product, so they can take large risks with the CFV-50c product.

    It would be interesting if they had set an even lower price, say $7k - $8k, maybe they would still win in the end by selling more units? Hopefully they've analyzed their market well though so this is the right price for the product.

    My own limit (I'm an amateur) for a digital back is about $10k, so I'm staying in second hand space for yet some time.

  28. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    "My own limit (I'm an amateur) for a digital back is about $10k, so I'm staying in second hand space for yet some time."
    *****
    Me too...If the CFV-50c was price at ~$9500 I would buy it but not $15000. I still have my CFV-16 for which I paid, IIRC, about $9500.

    Steve

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Very interesting to hear the opinions on lenses, especially about the wide angles. Over the time I heard many people saying how good their 50FLE is or how disappointing, to an amount where it becomes hardly believable that people talk about the same lens. Could it all be put down on sample variation?

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by Slixtiesix View Post
    Very interesting to hear the opinions on lenses, especially about the wide angles. Over the time I heard many people saying how good their 50FLE is or how disappointing, to an amount where it becomes hardly believable that people talk about the same lens. Could it all be put down on sample variation?
    Yes, could be sample variation and how people are using it. Some lenses are superb when focused at or near infinity but poor when focused up close and vice versa. I had a Pentax 645 FA 35mm lens that was awesome when focused close from MFD to say 10-15 ft but when focused further or at infinity it was not that good. So it was pretty bad for landscape use (which is what I got it for) so I sold it. Lens reviews / tests should factor in focusing distance when talking about the performance of a lens. Few if any really do this.

    Generally tech lenses do not suffer from this because the elements are fixed in position and the focusing mechanism of each tech camera moves the whole lens back and forth. That and that the lenses are much better designed / made and calibrated (much lower production volume).

    AF lenses are generally much less consistent in performance. But as usual YMMV with any lens.

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    It would be great if someone could comment on the 80 vs 100 at various distances. From the MTFs it is clear that the 100 performs better wide open. The 80mm becomes pretty close by f8 but still can´t compete in the corners. However, as you said, that is at infinity and I have heard various people saying that the 80mm gains IQ the closer you focus, will the 100mm loses. The data that was provided in Hasselblads "Evolution of Lenses" confirms that for the 100mm, but I have never seen the like info for the 80mm. Would be really interesting...

  32. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by SHV View Post
    "My own limit (I'm an amateur) for a digital back is about $10k, so I'm staying in second hand space for yet some time."
    *****
    Me too...If the CFV-50c was price at ~$9500 I would buy it but not $15000. I still have my CFV-16 for which I paid, IIRC, about $9500.

    Steve
    You may monitor the stocking status of the CFV 50c in Japan. It sounds too good to be true, but Mapcamera is a reputable dealer in Japan.

    https://www.mapcamera.com/item/7392544342207
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    What a beautiful digital back on the V camera.

    There may be merit in the discussions regarding the "clinical" performance of the lens system, but IMO the "presence" of images taken with the V kit (film or digital) has never been in question.

    - Marc

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Holly cow, that's over a third less than the price in NZ...

    Quote Originally Posted by yongfei View Post
    You may monitor the stocking status of the CFV 50c in Japan. It sounds too good to be true, but Mapcamera is a reputable dealer in Japan.

    https://www.mapcamera.com/item/7392544342207

  35. #35
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Hi,

    The difference in image quality at different focus distances is most related to field curvature. It is difficult to make lenses whit flat field at close distance and infinity.

    According to Zeiss, it takes floating elements to achieve flat field across different focusing distances, that is lens groups moving in relation with focusing.

    All Zeiss Distagons for the Hasselblad have FLE designs, there is an extra focusing ring varying airspace between front lens group and the second one.

    Zeiss says that the Planar 100/3.5 is preferable to the Macro Planar120/4 if the subject is larger than one square meter.

    If we check MTF data for the Macro Planar 120/4 at infinity it is ugly:


    But, it is pretty decent at 1:5



    The image below was shot on a Sonnar 150/4 at f/5.6, taken from the edge.


    And the one below on the Macro Planar 120/4 at f/5.6


    Stopping down to f/16 the DoF increases to encompass the curved field and we get an image like this:


    Image centers are pretty similar, BTW.

    Interestingly, the 120/4 Apo Macro Planar for the Contax 645 is an entirely different design, with two more elements added and floating lens design, that is variable airspace. It has superior performance at both infinity and 1:1.

    http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/645/A...r4_120mm_e.pdf

    http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFi120.pdf



    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    Yes, could be sample variation and how people are using it. Some lenses are superb when focused at or near infinity but poor when focused up close and vice versa. I had a Pentax 645 FA 35mm lens that was awesome when focused close from MFD to say 10-15 ft but when focused further or at infinity it was not that good. So it was pretty bad for landscape use (which is what I got it for) so I sold it. Lens reviews / tests should factor in focusing distance when talking about the performance of a lens. Few if any really do this.

    Generally tech lenses do not suffer from this because the elements are fixed in position and the focusing mechanism of each tech camera moves the whole lens back and forth. That and that the lenses are much better designed / made and calibrated (much lower production volume).

    AF lenses are generally much less consistent in performance. But as usual YMMV with any lens.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by yongfei View Post
    You may monitor the stocking status of the CFV 50c in Japan. It sounds too good to be true, but Mapcamera is a reputable dealer in Japan.

    https://www.mapcamera.com/item/7392544342207
    My japanese is a bit rusty, but I guess what it says is a million yen, which is about $9.5k? That's a big difference to $15k. It's unfortunate that the sensor does not fit my needs (little bit too small, not tech wide friendly) otherwise I would consider make a trip to Japan and buy one.

    How is this price possible? Does Hasselblad set different prices in different markets?

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    362
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    The US dollars quoted on a google search of "currency exchange" shows a value of $9,818.63. That is the very close to the price I stated in my original post I would feel comfortable paying. So, can you actually get the CFV50c in Japan for that price?

    Greg

  38. #38
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    here is a V example, shot with the CFV-39, 40mm FE, probably f8, blad 205TCC a while back; gave me no complaints, esp good corner sharpness, but that lens is a legend
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    That's very unusual it must be a quirk in the forward exchange rates which Hasselblad use or someone in Hasselblad realized they can sell thousands of these digital backs to the rich retired Japanese who still have their Hasseblad V cameras. I bet they will sell many thousand at that price. The market is there.

    The price is correct. Link below is from a phase one dealer in Japan. They are the largest dealer in Asia for digital backs.

    HASSELBLAD(

    Neil
    Last edited by neil; 4th October 2014 at 06:22. Reason: Spelling corrections

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    I wonder if they're going to keep that price Japan-only. Couldn't it be a hit also in Europe and US? $10k is low enough that some middle class people could buy it too as an expensive toy, it's cheaper than many motorcycles. Maybe they're testing the new pricing first on the Japanese market?

  41. #41
    Senior Member darr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    985
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Thank you to Erik and jlm for posting images from specific lenses shot on digital V system. I am interested in hearing and seeing anyone's experience with said gear.

    Kind regards,
    Darr
    "Creativity takes courage." ~ Henri Matisse
    Darlene Almeda, photoscapes.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Now the V-back @~$10K is EXTREMELY interesting if I were to get a Hasselblad 203 or 205... of 503CW/501CM.
    Last edited by iiiNelson; 4th October 2014 at 09:54.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Wow, at $10k worldwide price I am sure they would sell a HECK of a lot more.

  44. #44
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    At $10k I'll fly to Tokyo and pick one up. I'm supposed to pay my Asia /Pacific team offices a work trip ... Hmm.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,276
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    At $10k I'll fly to Tokyo and pick one up. I'm supposed to pay my Asia /Pacific team offices a work trip ... Hmm.
    Talk to John M; he might pay part of your fare.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #46
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    some of the boys at carmel last year, heh, heh
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #47
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: CFV50c or not!

    I tried to rustle that FPS and IQ250 in the back pocket of my photo vest but Dave Gallagher and the rest of the CI crew busted me before I could get away.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •