Hasselblad CFV ll 50c

[tcdeveau]

What is the advantage of that over an X1D besides it looks cool, in a steampunk kind of way.

An X1D won’t work with a 500 series body.

For me, tech cam compatibility is the big one. It will play much better with my existing Alpa gear. The CFVII is also a mixed bag in this regard though since they went with the old 50mp FSI sensor instead of the newer 100mp BSI sensor of the GFX100.

 

[jng]

The CFV II will play with tech cams (small market), V system bodies and lenses (possibly a larger market but a dead end in terms of ancillary sales), and XCD lenses (presumably expanding future market). Yes the form factor may seem funky by modern standards but for any of us who have or still use a SWC, it's like Hasselblad has finally come home again. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the 100 Mp Sony BSI chip make its first (and perhaps only) appearance for H in the CFV II back, which I'm guessing is far less constrained than the X1D chassis to accommodate the demands of the new sensor and can probably borrow a lot of existing tech from Hasselblad's aerial cameras (note the family resemblance?). I don't shoot video but it seems to me that a 100 Mp CFV II mounted on the 907x would be quite welcome in this domain. In this regard, it may be telling that the HDMI port was removed from the updated X1D but included in the CFV II prototype. Good times ahead!

John

 

[DB5]

I dunno, I think it’s kinda slick looking.

I also don’t know about the classic V system lenses not performing well. When I played with my 500CM and my ancient Sonnar 150 and Planar 80 on the original CFV50c, they seemed to work pretty well. Maybe not state of the art, but who cares about that?

I’ll arrange a demo or rental as soon as there is product to try out.

G

I agree it looks very slick looking. This is what the H should have been, IMO, (tech wasn't possible though of course) and I think this will sell exceptionally well. The V System is just one of those iconic heritage designs, extremely successful and simple—one of the best of all time.

Some of the V lenses work OK and even quite well on digital especially up to 50MP. But after that, 60MP and above, the images fall apart and are looking very glassy and wide open they have a lot of CA. All the charm of something like the 110 f2 gets lost in CA and colour issues. It really is a shame, it's one of the best ever lenses in my opinion. But a newer alternative design would never be the same.

This is why I reluctantly moved to the H when my resolution went up to 60MP and beyond, and there was a significant advantage with the (at the time) newer H Lenses. But now on the 100MP the H lenses are straining in the same way.

Does anyone know the covering circle of the X lenses? It would be amazing to some day see a square back—something I believe hasselblad really want but kind find anyone to manufacture.

I am watching this one with a lot of interest.

 

[DB5]

The main disadvantage I see with the new CFV-II back is, still, the inability to rotate the back. It would be nice if they could release an update 90 angle finder for the V series that has high magnification and is very bright. I find at high resolution in particular, the Waist Level finder is really the only thing bright enough to focus properly—and it's more difficult, as it is, because of the texture of the ground glass screen. It becomes a much slower process with a fair bit more guess work—that makes working with portraits and that sort of thing much more involved.

Funnily enough I never really noticed the texture of the screen in the film days! All those years of using the cameras and acquiring focus wasn't something you had to work hard for with film, I suddenly became aware of how tricky it was with high res digital, and that texture became extremely apparent because I was looking much deeper and finer into the image to find focus and that texture of the glass and fresnel, it was all of a sudden quite a distraction.

 

[mristuccia]

The main disadvantage I see with the new CFV-II back is, still, the inability to rotate the back. It would be nice if they could release an update 90 angle finder for the V series that has high magnification and is very bright. I find at high resolution in particular, the Waist Level finder is really the only thing bright enough to focus properly—and it's more difficult, as it is, because of the texture of the ground glass screen. It becomes a much slower process with a fair bit more guess work—that makes working with portraits and that sort of thing much more involved.

Funnily enough I never really noticed the texture of the screen in the film days! All those years of using the cameras and acquiring focus wasn't something you had to work hard for with film, I suddenly became aware of how tricky it was with high res digital, and that texture became extremely apparent because I was looking much deeper and finer into the image to find focus and that texture of the glass and fresnel, it was all of a sudden quite a distraction.

If the new CFV II has focus peaking and ES which can be used with V lenses, that would be of great help when focusing and taking live shots. Actually with my CFV-50c I have serious problems with, for example, the 250 SA, which has a focusing wheel that goes beyond infinity to compensate temperature variations.
Under the bright sun with that lo-res screen resolution it is almost impossible to acquire a precise focus, even at infinity, and I'm not confident regarding the precision of the WLF for this.

If the CFV II can do focus peaking and ES I think I would consider exchanging my original one with the new version.

 

[Godfrey]

...
Some of the V lenses work OK and even quite well on digital especially up to 50MP. But after that, 60MP and above, ...

Perhaps that's why Hasselblad has stuck with 50 Mpixel for the CFV50c II. Remember that that is what we're talking about in this thread...

If I buy one of these, I know with absolute certainty that any higher resolution is irrelevant for me. 50mPixel is way more than I need for my photography, it's one of the reasons I can look at the CFV50c II and easily consider it a 39 Mpixel square format back. Heck, I'm having a ball with the Leica CL + Voigtländer 10mm lens, cropping square to simulate an SWC look.

Of course, considering it a square format 33x33 format back, I have no need for back rotation. Nor did I find any difficulty whatever in focusing my 500CM with Acute Matte screen, with the lenses I have, using the previous CFV50c when I tested one. I tested with the WLF and with the 45° prism finder.

Different priorities, I guess. I have no idea why I'd ever need a 100 Mpixel digital camera; I don't make prints large enough to really need more than 16 to 24 and have happily made large prints (for me) with 5. Super high resolution like that seems to be irrelevant to my photographic subject matter.

G

 

[TheDude]

a 100 Mp CFV II ... would be quite welcome in this domain

A IMX461 sensor CFV II might be welcome in other domains too.

 

[richardman]

As someone who have shot 1000+ sheets of color 4x5 in the last 5 years and starting a project with an 8x10, the 50MP is plenty for *my* needs, as I am not looking for utmost details and resolution, but rather certain look. Yes, I even print large, up to 44" multiple times, and even larger for a few exhibitions.

I very much looking forward to this back.

 

[TheDude]

The main disadvantage I see with the new CFV-II back is, still, the inability to rotate the back.

A rotatable digital back (or a rotatable sensor within the digital back) would be especially useful for use on a technical camera.

If shift/tilt is used, a rotatable back or sensor would allow an image selection (ie, a rotation or angle of the image) which could not be obtained otherwise.

For example, the Linhof Technika had a rotatable back, i.e. revolves in place, but the Linhof Technikardan and the Linhof Techno only have a reversible back, i.e. must be unlatched and turned. (Having to unlatch introduces the danger of dropping the sensor or getting dust on the sensor.) Edit: Linhof just introduced a sliding/rotating back for the Linhof Techno.

 

[MrSmith]

I would imagine Cambo could engineer something for the Actus, the bayonets for Sony etc already rotate.

 

[TheDude]

I would imagine Cambo could engineer something for the Actus, the bayonets for Sony etc already rotate.

Linhof introduced such a sliding/rotating back. It's just very heavy and expensive.

 

[Godfrey]

Very cool stuff! I much enjoy seeing cool gear like this.

Of absolutely zero importance to me, however. I'm only interested in how Hasselblad's new products might affect the photography I want to do, which has nothing to do with technical cameras. Sorry!

I'm interested in how the CFV50c II will further enhance what I can do with my existing Hasselblad equipment, and what other new Hasselblad equipment might integrate well with it.

Other possible uses for the back are beyond my involvement. Whether it suits yours, I leave to your deeper expertise in these matters.

G

 

[TheDude]

I'm only interested in how Hasselblad's new products might affect the photography I want to do, which has nothing to do with technical cameras. Sorry!

Went a bit off tangent here. More appropriate for a separate thread. Sorry for that.

Yes, the traditional Hasselblad square format does have various advantages, one of them is that there is no need for revolving or reversible back!

 

[Shashin]

The idea of a square format was to solve a problem of holding a camera with a waist-level finder in a vertical or horizontal position. Simply make a large image and crop to the orientation you wanted. It was purely a practical design. A rectangular format on a waist-level camera is not ideal.

 

[darr]

I have had the CFV50c for a few years now, using it with my 501CM, Flexbody and Alpa cameras. The closest to a SWC for me is using it with my Alpa TC and SK 28 lens. What a lot of people that have not used the CFV50c aspect ratio are not seeing is the crop factor IMO. I shoot square 90% of the time, and with the 44x33 sensor size, the crop factor gets to be ~1.7 shooting square. How are you going to get close to a SWC aspect ratio? I am thinking using the Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4 lens is more like it. So if that is true (I have never used the 21/4 lens), then using the X1D makes more sense.

Someone correct me please if I am wrong.

Darr

 

[richardman]

I have had the CFV50c for a few years now, using it with my 501CM, Flexbody and Alpa cameras. The closest to a SWC for me is using it with my Alpa TC and SK 28 lens. What a lot of people that have not used the CFV50c aspect ratio are not seeing is the crop factor IMO. I shoot square 90% of the time, and with the 44x33 sensor size, the crop factor gets to be ~1.7 shooting square. How are you going to get close to a SWC aspect ratio? I am thinking using the Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4 lens is more like it. So if that is true (I have never used the 21/4 lens), then using the X1D makes more sense.

Someone correct me please if I am wrong.

Darr

Hi Darr, exactly why I am excited by using the CFV II 50C with the 203FE, and then the 907x+XCD 21mm for a mini-SWC. Perfection!

 

[darr]

Hi Darr, exactly why I am excited by using the CFV II 50C with the 203FE, and then the 907x+XCD 21mm for a mini-SWC. Perfection!

Sounds like a plan Richard!

I want to see the difference in technology (if any) between the 907 and X1D before I make a decision.
If the 50c II + 907 has focus peaking, I might bite as focusing with the 50c mated with older lenses is a thin-thin slice.

Darr

 

[TheDude]

The idea of a square format was to solve a problem of holding a camera with a waist-level finder in a vertical or horizontal position. Simply make a large image and crop to the orientation you wanted. It was purely a practical design. A rectangular format on a waist-level camera is not ideal.

I wouldn't be surprised if the software allows the selection of a square format. An effective 33mmx33mm sensor format (40MP?) would offer enough resolution for the vast number of users and purposes, especially if XCD lenses are used.

 

[jng]

I would imagine Cambo could engineer something for the Actus, the bayonets for Sony etc already rotate.

A rotatable digital back (or a rotatable sensor within the digital back) would be especially useful for use on a technical camera...

For example, the Linhof Technika had a rotatable back, i.e. revolves in place, but the Linhof Technikardan and the Linhof Techno only have a reversible back, i.e. must be unlatched and turned. (Having to unlatch introduces the danger of dropping the sensor or getting dust on the sensor.) Edit: Linhof just introduced a sliding/rotating back for the Linhof Techno.

Dante called. He recommends the Cambo WRS1600, which can rotate 90 degrees around the Arca foot.

John

 

[Paratom]

I know the 907x looks more "classic" but other than that why would one want to use the 907x over a x1d(ii), where I have a smaller sized body, more ergonomic user interface and a nice viewfinder? Did I oversee something?