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!

Hasselblad CFV ll 50c

Godfrey

Well-known member
Recently I've stuck an H5D-50c back on a tech cam, which I believe has live view capabilities similar to the original CFV-50c.

Live view on the H5D-50c works, but the screen is relatively low resolution, it has a low refresh rate, it doesn't do well in bright sunlight, and can be slow to adjust to changing lighting conditions. I imagine live view on the original CFV-50c is similar. It works, but it's not great.

Live view on the original X1D is much much better than that of the H5D-50c, so if the CFV-50cII has live view on par with or better than the original X1D (or maybe equal to that of the X1DII), IMHO it will be much easier to use and produce better results than the live view of the original CFV-50c.
That makes sense in the context of a technical camera, I understand. I expect the CFV50c II will have much the same capabilities as the X1D II, since it seems for all intents and purposes to be the business end of the X1D II minus the lens mount, grip, and hard controls packaged in a different form factor. Whether this is actually true or not, I will have to wait until there are some of these backs available somewhere so that I can try one out... :D

My query was with respect to the use of the back CFV50c II on a Hasselblad 500 series body, like my 500CM, since that is my primary reason for wanting one of them. I don't believe (at this moment) that I'll be buying a technical camera.

G
 
I don't know if the CFV50c-II will be able to support auto focus of the XCD lenses.
AF capability with XCD lenses is already confirmed in the description at Hasselblad's site: "When combined with the 907X camera body, the photographer gains access to the entire XCD Lens range, providing autofocus and autoexposure".

I assume the new back in combination with the 907X is a X1DII in another form factor and without the EVF. So I don't see why not all functions of the X1DII should be available.

What I really hope is that the new back and 907x with XCD lenses allows for "tap and shoot AF". That in combination with the articulated LCD and faster electronics would make a fine street photography camera.
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
I use the CFV50c on my Flexbody, Arc Body, SWC and 500C as well as a Cambo Technical Camera. Although through-the-lens focusing is possible with all these cameras using a ground glass back as it was it the film days, I have trouble obtaining accurate focus on relatively dim ground glass images. The Live View Feature of a CMOS Digitsl Back has the potential for providing a much better alternative for precise focus and as a result most technical camera photography is now based upon Live View Focusing with CMOS Backs from Phase One and Leaf. Although the CFV50c back uses a CMOS Sensor, the primary application for the original Back was for Hasselblad single lens reflex cameras so the Live View Support Function was not optimized and the back was equipped with a relatively low resolution LCD Screen. Hopefully the new back will have good Live View Capabilities.

I don't know if the CFV50c-II will be able to support auto focus of the XCD lenses. As we discussed previously, the new 907X Body should be able to control shutter and aperture functions through the lens mount electrical contacts but is there is a means of data communication between the CFV50c and 907X to support Autofocus?

The CFV50c II back has inside it the same battery that powers the X1D bodies, so it should have plenty of power for all these things.
I wonder if the CFV50c-II Back will use the same battery as the X1D Series. The back will need some type of connection to provide power to the 907X Body. Alternatively the 907X might have a separate battery.

I am anxious to see the technical details of the new back as well as the price. I paid $10000 for my CFV50C back many years ago - I sure hope the new back has a lower price!
Thanks for the clarity of your first paragraph. It seems from your statements and the rest of the folks talking about Live View on this thread that most of the purpose and need is for technical cameras that can use Hasselblad backs, and as a higher resolution way of obtaining critical focus. I am only interested in use of the CFV50c II back with a Hasselblad 500CM, which I have no problems focusing critically, so the Live View in that case is mostly a nice adjunct only. Where it will be more important to me is for use with the 907x and XCD lenses, since it becomes the primary focusing/framing tool in that case.

The inner quote above was my statement in a previous post.

Based on the Hasselblad video about the CVF50c II and 907x, and other videos on YouTube pointed to in this thread, the battery inside the back is identical to the X1D battery. Hasselblad's announcement press release stated: "The CFV II 50C digital back can be paired with most Hasselblad V System cameras made from 1957 and onwards in addition to technical cameras, making it easy to combine analog and digital shooting. When combined with the 907X camera body, the photographer gains access to the entire XCD Lens range, providing autofocus and autoexposure."

This says pretty clearly that the CFV50cII+907x handles things correctly with the XCD lenses, including control and AF.

Yes, I hope the new back sells for close to what the X1D II will sell for, and that the 907x body isn't outrageously priced as well.

G
 

leejo

Member
I am only interested in use of the CFV50c II back with a Hasselblad 500CM, which I have no problems focusing critically, so the Live View in that case is mostly a nice adjunct only.
If you shoot mostly wide angles, on a tripod, and mostly stopped down then you probably don't notice any focus issues.

If you're using your V system as a walk around camera, with longer lenses, and only shoot one or two stops down then you *will* have focus issues and these *will* be much more evident on digital capture than on film where the grain increases perceived sharpness. I have a split prism screen and I still miss focus from time to time because 99.9% of the things I shoot are not with a tripod, I'm probably going to see a more of this if I go for a digital back.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
If you shoot mostly wide angles, on a tripod, and mostly stopped down then you probably don't notice any focus issues.

If you're using your V system as a walk around camera, with longer lenses, and only shoot one or two stops down then you *will* have focus issues and these *will* be much more evident on digital capture than on film where the grain increases perceived sharpness. I have a split prism screen and I still miss focus from time to time because 99.9% of the things I shoot are not with a tripod, I'm probably going to see a more of this if I go for a digital back.
I mostly only used the SWC as a "walk around" camera, the 500CM is most often used with the Makro-Planar 120/4 on a tripod, although I've wandered about with it using both the Planar 80 and the Sonnar 150 as well. Things seem plenty sharp on film with APX25 and Kodak Technical Pan films, can't see how these films' almost invisible grain add to the image sharpness... ? I was, with these slow films, often at wide open aperture out of necessity to keep a fast enough exposure time.

This is all mystifying to me. I have always enjoyed my Hasselblad cameras and their lenses because of how incredibly sharp and detailed the photos they make are. I don't see how switching to a digital back will make focusing them more difficult, unless there is some misregistration of the sensor plane compared to the film plane.

G
 

leejo

Member
I mostly only used the SWC as a "walk around" camera
Yeah, which is a very wide angle with a max aperture of f4.5. If you focus wide open at 2m you've got a very wide margin of error (+/- 50cm).

This is all mystifying to me. I have always enjoyed my Hasselblad cameras and their lenses because of how incredibly sharp and detailed the photos they make are. I don't see how switching to a digital back will make focusing them more difficult, unless there is some misregistration of the sensor plane compared to the film plane.
It won't make focusing more difficult, it'll just reveal the the misses when you look closer because film has grain and digital doesn't. Barry Thornton covered some of this in his book.
 

mristuccia

Well-known member
If you shoot mostly wide angles, on a tripod, and mostly stopped down then you probably don't notice any focus issues.

If you're using your V system as a walk around camera, with longer lenses, and only shoot one or two stops down then you *will* have focus issues and these *will* be much more evident on digital capture than on film where the grain increases perceived sharpness. I have a split prism screen and I still miss focus from time to time because 99.9% of the things I shoot are not with a tripod, I'm probably going to see a more of this if I go for a digital back.
I fully second this.
Even with a tripod, achieving precise focus by means of the Hasselblad V OVF is really hard.
Firstly the full OVF chain (back + mirror + acutematt screen) must be precisely calibrated by a professional service. Without this, missing the focus is almost certain. Then, even if everything is well aligned, OVF is (IMHO) still not sufficient to notice slight focus deviations, especially when using large apertures and long focal lenses.
When checking the image at 100% magnification even the smallest deviation from the exact focus plane is clearly visible as misfocus.

On film it is a totally different story, in that case OVF works great!
 

MrSmith

Member
Film isn’t even perfectly flat.
I used to assist a photographer who shot a P45 on a 500cm and focus was never a given which was why we always shot tethered and checked focus as we went.
 

sog1927

Member
Getting your body calibrated was always a good idea, particularly if you used ultra high-resolution films like Copex or Tech Pan (both of which exceed the resolution of any currently available digital back), as was using a focusing magnifier. I should think that would help a lot with the new CFV as well. There's still going to be a certain amount of unavoidable "slop" in the system, of course, but that's true of any SLR.
 

fotophil

Member
After watching a couple Hasselblad Videos and reading the posts on this forum I now realize the depth of technical features offered by the new CFV50c-ll Back. By comparison, the old CFV50c Back that I have been using for years on my 500C seems prehistoric; it is a "dumb" back and doesn't communicate anything but shutter release. Per the video, the CFV50c-ll is a "Smart" back which has some gold plated contacts that provide a complete working interface including touch screen, auto focus and controls with the 907X Camera Body. The addition of those controls as well as improved Live View are huge enhancements over the original CFV50c. Now I am worried about the price of the new back - any thoughts on cost?
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Getting your body calibrated was always a good idea, particularly if you used ultra high-resolution films like Copex or Tech Pan (both of which exceed the resolution of any currently available digital back), as was using a focusing magnifier. I should think that would help a lot with the new CFV as well. There's still going to be a certain amount of unavoidable "slop" in the system, of course, but that's true of any SLR.
Same price as an X1D Mark II, $5700? I don't see why it should cost more.
 

sog1927

Member
The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really smart move on Hasselblad's part. I think the back (and probably the 907 as well) is going to sell like hotcakes.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Same price as an X1D Mark II, $5700? I don't see why it should cost more.
Quant: Here's the correct price for that bond.
Trader: I don't need you to tell me the price. I can see the price right here on the broker screen.

Or as someone else said, "I hate the word 'should'. It's the drunken Uncle of the English Language."

Matt (who hopes you're right!)
 

jng

Well-known member
Getting your body calibrated was always a good idea, particularly if you used ultra high-resolution films like Copex or Tech Pan (both of which exceed the resolution of any currently available digital back), as was using a focusing magnifier. I should think that would help a lot with the new CFV as well. There's still going to be a certain amount of unavoidable "slop" in the system, of course, but that's true of any SLR.
I fully second this.
Even with a tripod, achieving precise focus by means of the Hasselblad V OVF is really hard.
Firstly the full OVF chain (back + mirror + acutematt screen) must be precisely calibrated by a professional service. Without this, missing the focus is almost certain. Then, even if everything is well aligned, OVF is (IMHO) still not sufficient to notice slight focus deviations, especially when using large apertures and long focal lenses.
When checking the image at 100% magnification even the smallest deviation from the exact focus plane is clearly visible as misfocus.

On film it is a totally different story, in that case OVF works great!
And I will add a third. :p Based on my experience using a V mount IQ160 (similar pixel pitch to the 50 Mp CMOS sensor IIRC), the resolution of the sensor allows for little if any tolerance for error in focus. The mirror and screen need to be accurately aligned, the body needs to be square, and the photographer must have keen eyes to hit focus reliably. And alignment of the mirror goes off with use, requiring regular calibration and adjustments. After futzing with a PME45 + view magnifier (total 6x magnification but only central portion of image area) I finally settled on the newer WLF (4.5x magnification and much brighter than any of the prisms) on a standard acute matte screen. Never mind shooting in low light but the hard infinity stop on most lenses was a lifesaver on more than one occasion. A brief foray with a split image + microprism ring resulted in inaccurate focus owing to the prisms being just a touch out of alignment with the actual screen. Considering the challenge of hitting focus with the optical viewfinder (one of the joys of using these old cameras) and the kludginess of using live view (requires opening the shutter on B to focus and compose, closing, cocking, resetting shutter, and firing), while I think it would be fun to use the new CFV II back on the old V system bodies for some uses (e.g., shooting portraits), for me at least this would be more a labor of love than anything else. YMMV, of course, but my tired old eyes just couldn't make this work with any reliability. All that said, the prospects of using a MFDB on my 501CM, with my XCD lenses, and tech cam have caused a major relapse in my ongoing case of GAS.

John
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
You folks all make using a digital back sound like a royal PITA rather than the joy of having a nice bit of photographic equipment to extend the use of my existing setup into digital capture. That's very de-motivating to me.

What I'll do is what I always do: Once the back is available, I'll arrange a demo and test session, then maybe rent one for a week or two to put it through its paces on my own. I'll then know whether it works the way I hope, and whether I want to put up with the bother if it doesn't. Who knows? Perhaps I buy just the CVF50c II, 907x, and 21mm lens, shoot with it as a 33x33 square format digital SWC as my once and future Hassy, and sell the rest of the Hasselblad kit.

I have never used microprism or split image focusing aids with my 500CM. I use the Acute Matte screen with grid and nothing else other than the WLF focusing magnifier or the higher-powered focusing chimney finder. And I have no problem focusing critically with it, given using an A12 film back or a Polaroid film back. I hope that this experience remains what I have when I try out the CFV50c II; it seemed to work fine with the CFV50c that I tested on the camera.

Given all the other equipment I already have, I'm not really in need of anything at all ... and I'm certainly not in a hurry. :)

Thanks!
G
 

jng

Well-known member
Apologies - didn't mean to be a buzz kill. I myself am quite enamoured by the possibility of using one back on three platforms. If you had a good experience with the CFV50C on your 500CM there's every reason to believe you'll be fine with the CFV50C II as well.

John
 

nathantw

Well-known member
Apologies - didn't mean to be a buzz kill. I myself am quite enamoured by the possibility of using one back on three platforms. If you had a good experience with the CFV50C on your 500CM there's every reason to believe you'll be fine with the CFV50C II as well.

John
For what it's worth when I purchased a Kodak Pro Back Plus I found it to be really strange to get an exposure initially. Since it was digital you expect the 500c/m with a back to operate like a digital camera, but it doesn't. You need to set everything. It's a really strange thing because with film I had no problem with it, but with digital I found it to be weird. So I sold the back and it wasn't until a couple years ago that I purchased a Phase One back because I just wanted a digital back for the 'blad. I ran into the same problem I had with the Kodak back, but I got used to it. Today I have no problem with it and now I'm looking forward to seeing the new CFV II. If the price is right I might pick it up.
 

Boinger

Active member
You folks all make using a digital back sound like a royal PITA rather than the joy of having a nice bit of photographic equipment to extend the use of my existing setup into digital capture. That's very de-motivating to me.

What I'll do is what I always do: Once the back is available, I'll arrange a demo and test session, then maybe rent one for a week or two to put it through its paces on my own. I'll then know whether it works the way I hope, and whether I want to put up with the bother if it doesn't. Who knows? Perhaps I buy just the CVF50c II, 907x, and 21mm lens, shoot with it as a 33x33 square format digital SWC as my once and future Hassy, and sell the rest of the Hasselblad kit.

I have never used microprism or split image focusing aids with my 500CM. I use the Acute Matte screen with grid and nothing else other than the WLF focusing magnifier or the higher-powered focusing chimney finder. And I have no problem focusing critically with it, given using an A12 film back or a Polaroid film back. I hope that this experience remains what I have when I try out the CFV50c II; it seemed to work fine with the CFV50c that I tested on the camera.

Given all the other equipment I already have, I'm not really in need of anything at all ... and I'm certainly not in a hurry. :)

Thanks!
G

Don't worry.

A digital back or sensor cannot make anything less or more sharp than it is.

To put in perspective, the sensor is the capture medium the resolution of the capture medium can be as high as you want it to be, and it WILL NOT make a difference as to what is projected on to the medium.

It is the same issue when people talk about lenses and MP. "Oh this lens will not resolve 150 MP of resolution or 50mp or resolution etc. etc."

While yes it may be the case that you cannot zoom in to 100% and see razor sharp edges, but at the native resolution of the sensor depending on the medium of output will always resolve to the capability of the lens or system.

So for example if you had lens that say resolved to 50MP of usable data. Then that lens no matter the sensor will always give you that much data. So you could shoot it on a 150MP, 100MP, or even a 20000MP chip and it will give you 50MP of usable data.

That translates to you will simply view your files at less than 100% magnification or you won't be able to enlarge as much as you would if you had a lens that could resolve more.

Point being in real world use cases you will be very happy that you have a digital back that you can use your lenses with. And you get the added benefit of oversampling. Over sampling always helps.
 

mristuccia

Well-known member
You folks all make using a digital back sound like a royal PITA rather than the joy of having a nice bit of photographic equipment to extend the use of my existing setup into digital capture. That's very de-motivating to me.

What I'll do is what I always do: Once the back is available, I'll arrange a demo and test session, then maybe rent one for a week or two to put it through its paces on my own. I'll then know whether it works the way I hope, and whether I want to put up with the bother if it doesn't. Who knows? Perhaps I buy just the CVF50c II, 907x, and 21mm lens, shoot with it as a 33x33 square format digital SWC as my once and future Hassy, and sell the rest of the Hasselblad kit.

I have never used microprism or split image focusing aids with my 500CM. I use the Acute Matte screen with grid and nothing else other than the WLF focusing magnifier or the higher-powered focusing chimney finder. And I have no problem focusing critically with it, given using an A12 film back or a Polaroid film back. I hope that this experience remains what I have when I try out the CFV50c II; it seemed to work fine with the CFV50c that I tested on the camera.

Given all the other equipment I already have, I'm not really in need of anything at all ... and I'm certainly not in a hurry. :)

Thanks!
G
Don't worry.

A digital back or sensor cannot make anything less or more sharp than it is.

To put in perspective, the sensor is the capture medium the resolution of the capture medium can be as high as you want it to be, and it WILL NOT make a difference as to what is projected on to the medium.

It is the same issue when people talk about lenses and MP. "Oh this lens will not resolve 150 MP of resolution or 50mp or resolution etc. etc."

While yes it may be the case that you cannot zoom in to 100% and see razor sharp edges, but at the native resolution of the sensor depending on the medium of output will always resolve to the capability of the lens or system.

So for example if you had lens that say resolved to 50MP of usable data. Then that lens no matter the sensor will always give you that much data. So you could shoot it on a 150MP, 100MP, or even a 20000MP chip and it will give you 50MP of usable data.

That translates to you will simply view your files at less than 100% magnification or you won't be able to enlarge as much as you would if you had a lens that could resolve more.

Point being in real world use cases you will be very happy that you have a digital back that you can use your lenses with. And you get the added benefit of oversampling. Over sampling always helps.
Please don't get me wrong. I personally enjoy using my CFV-50c a lot, and even when I miss the precise focus, I still get usable images till a certain print size limit, or for screen. And my hit rate is growing fast.
I just tried to warn about the fact that it is not so easy to achieve the peak resolution from such a system, if that matters.
I personally am not on the side of who is getting an autofocus alternative. For such kind of photography (street/reportage) I strongly prefer my Fuji X-T2.
For landscape, architecture and portrait photography I want to be slow, it helps me finding the right framing, the right light, the right idea.
I enjoy the V system too much to exchange it, and I still use film as well. instead I will continue exercising and growing my hit rate. I remain convinced that the weak side is always me, not the camera. :)
 

leejo

Member
You folks all make using a digital back sound like a royal PITA rather than the joy of having a nice bit of photographic equipment to extend the use of my existing setup into digital capture. That's very de-motivating to me.
Not trying to be a buzz-kill, just being a realist sorry :D. I expect the new back to be a really good addition to a V setup.

It's my experience that the V series screens aren't very good for critical focusing (this could be said of most screens, it's why I use a loupe when I shoot 4x5 even with zero movements) but you can sort of get away with this on film for the aforementioned reasons, and you don't see the minor issues unless you're getting them drum scanned. When you're shooting digital you're removing another dependent variable from the equation: the scanning, so any minor issues are quickly revealed.

There's also the issue of continued calibration as mentioned by other posters and also myself, which can compound the issues - I'm itching to use this back, but I'm probably going to have to get my V bodies serviced again and will want to do that every two or three years and Hasselblad have to commit to that.
 
Top