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

darr

Well-known member
I'm glad the gear is working out for you, but that doesn't mean that it can or could stand up to the type of wear and tear that comes with professional use. Guys who used Bronicas never complained. Mamiya 645 series were not as durable as the Bronicas, but they withstood the knocks better than the Hassys did. And that's a fact.

I don't quite understand why people take this gear stuff so personally. You're not married to it and it's not like I'm talking crap about your momma. It's just stuff and when we pay a lot for stuff, we sort of expect it to work reliably and perhaps more so than the cheaper type of stuff. I don't see what the issue is.
I have used Hasselblad gear for over thirty years. It was “the workhorse” in my business. Besides normal maintenance, the only repairs I had were flash syncs on “C” lenses because I was using flash for well over five hundred shots in a work week. The Hasselblad system earned its reputation by working professionals, and I have never heard any complaints from the pros I have known using them.

I briefly owned two Bronica cameras that a client gave me towards a barter. They were 645 models with the newest light metered prisms (ETRS I think). They felt thin and plastic compared to the Hasselblads. Shot two rolls of slide film on a family weekend trip and the frames looked nice, but there was no way the Bronicas were going to last through the work I was doing. Breaking down and setting up gear on various locations throughout the work week puts demands on a camera system that many do not do well in. Plastic and thin camera bodies need to be babied to last, not my choice for pro gear.

As far as why some of us take our gear seriously, all I can say is the Hasselblad V system provided me with a good income and was dependable and predictable. I have had many cameras, but I still shoot with a Hasselblad V system because it proved to be “the workhorse” throughout my career and now also into retirement.

Best to you,
Darr
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
One of my pro friends went through hell with his Bronica A system cameras, and dumped them in favor of Hasselblad, to quote "... because at least I could get through a wedding without the shutter jamming every third exposure."

I had Mamiya 645 gear in the 1980s. I had to have the body repaired five times in two years, various problems with the auto return mirror, the shutter, the light seals, etc. I had Fuji GS645, GA645 stuff too, and they all needed repair on relatively frequent occasion. I liked them anyway (still have a GS645S Wide 60) but I'd never count them as being particularly well made or reliable. At the time, I was shooting weddings, portraits, some other commercial work part time.

Sorry. Hasselblad was and is both more reliable for me and for everyone else I knew who owned them than most of the other stuff, most of the time. Despite all the comments about problems, they were the majority player by a factor of 2:1 or better in most professional MF SLR use—there had to be a reason for that. The wide spread majority they had in use might be why you heard more problems about them.

What equipment were you using "back then"? Do you have any personal experience, or are you just relaying what you heard other people say?

G

I had shot weddings and stuff for about 8 years in the mid-80 to mid 90s and prior to that, I assisted for about 3 years, so I worked with a lot of guys who had various equipment. Despite how it felt, Bronica equipment was very reliable. The backs or the inserts hardly ever broke. I don't know about A Bronicas, but the ETR(s) and SQ(A) were solid. The shutter was in the lens. Mamiya 645 were ok, but not as rugged, as the inserts required servicing more often, as the frames wouldn't be spaced properly. The Hasselblads were the worst. The gears on the backs would go and they would stop advancing the film. A lot of the guys that I worked with would curse Hasselblad constantly and as an assistant, I had to be more careful with and take much better care of the Hasselblad backs than any others. The flocking inside the cameras was a bit of a problem as well as lint would come off and attach itself to the mirror or the back. That was much less of a problem though than the backs.

When I was about to go off to shoot on my own, I asked the guys that I had assisted which system I should get. The advice I would get consistently was: Bronica or Mamiya if you can't afford a Bronica. DO NOT get a Hasselblad. Given my experience assisting them, I could understand why they would say that.

I think that a lot of the fashion pros used Hasselblads, but they were mostly in the studio, so I don't think they beat up their equipment as much and in that industry, that was the standard, all the rental houses had it, so you sort of had to use it whether you liked it or not.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Seems you/your friends' experience and advice differs from most of the other photographers on this thread, and mine. You're welcome to your opinion.

Can we please get back to discussion of the CVFII 50c now? Ratholing on that opinion is a waste of everyone's time and energy, given that it seems you don't own any Hasselblad V system gear yourself and are not inclined to buy one of these backs anyway. For those of us who already have them, and for those who have V system gear and are considering buying one, more useful topics of discussion will prove valuable.

Thx,
G
 

docholliday

Well-known member
I had shot weddings and stuff for about 8 years in the mid-80 to mid 90s and prior to that, I assisted for about 3 years, so I worked with a lot of guys who had various equipment. Despite how it felt, Bronica equipment was very reliable. The backs or the inserts hardly ever broke. I don't know about A Bronicas, but the ETR(s) and SQ(A) were solid. The shutter was in the lens. Mamiya 645 were ok, but not as rugged, as the inserts required servicing more often, as the frames wouldn't be spaced properly. The Hasselblads were the worst. The gears on the backs would go and they would stop advancing the film. A lot of the guys that I worked with would curse Hasselblad constantly and as an assistant, I had to be more careful with and take much better care of the Hasselblad backs than any others. The flocking inside the cameras was a bit of a problem as well as lint would come off and attach itself to the mirror or the back. That was much less of a problem though than the backs.

When I was about to go off to shoot on my own, I asked the guys that I had assisted which system I should get. The advice I would get consistently was: Bronica or Mamiya if you can't afford a Bronica. DO NOT get a Hasselblad. Given my experience assisting them, I could understand why they would say that.

I think that a lot of the fashion pros used Hasselblads, but they were mostly in the studio, so I don't think they beat up their equipment as much and in that industry, that was the standard, all the rental houses had it, so you sort of had to use it whether you liked it or not.
I agree about returning to the subject at hand. However, I'll say the following first:

If those are the problems that the guys you were assisting complained about, they failed the number one key to any professional usage of gear, maintenance. If they had inconsistent framing, the backs were definitely not being maintained. Before anybody says it, no, mismatched shells/inserts rarely caused an issue. I had all of mine mixed up and would only re-match them during a mass cleaning. Of all the backs I used, I never had out of whack spacing or "broken gears", not even after dropping backs on concrete. Never. Flocking? Lint? Again, maintenance. I've had palpas crack, but never to any extreme where it was floating around the body. A simple sprayout with a compressor or canned air solved lint problems.

I wasn't going to expand on this, but I'll say that you should've seen the parts bin at many camera shops: Bronica filled many more junk bins and parts bodies were much more prevalent than Mamiya. Why? Unserviceable failures. Mamiya was usually simple fixable problems or extreme physical damage. Hasselblads could be almost always be fixed and resold.

And most fashion, catalog, and editorial people shot Mamiya RB/RZ. The neg size was correct for their output medium dimensions.

I knew a lot of Hasselblad shooters and Mamiya RB/RZ or 6/7. Wedding guys shot C330/220. I knew not a single pro who shot 645 Mamiya (MF). I knew not a single pro who shot Bronica except for one who shot GS-1. And I knew some Mamiya 645AF shooters. The only Bronica ETR(s)(i)/SQ(a)(i) or Mamiya 645 (pro/super) shooters were hobbyists, students, and beginning studios.

Now back to the subject at hand...
 

PSS

Active member
I agree about returning to the subject at hand. However, I'll say the following first:

If those are the problems that the guys you were assisting complained about, they failed the number one key to any professional usage of gear, maintenance. If they had inconsistent framing, the backs were definitely not being maintained. Before anybody says it, no, mismatched shells/inserts rarely caused an issue. I had all of mine mixed up and would only re-match them during a mass cleaning. Of all the backs I used, I never had out of whack spacing or "broken gears", not even after dropping backs on concrete. Never. Flocking? Lint? Again, maintenance. I've had palpas crack, but never to any extreme where it was floating around the body. A simple sprayout with a compressor or canned air solved lint problems.

I wasn't going to expand on this, but I'll say that you should've seen the parts bin at many camera shops: Bronica filled many more junk bins and parts bodies were much more prevalent than Mamiya. Why? Unserviceable failures. Mamiya was usually simple fixable problems or extreme physical damage. Hasselblads could be almost always be fixed and resold.

And most fashion, catalog, and editorial people shot Mamiya RB/RZ. The neg size was correct for their output medium dimensions.

I knew a lot of Hasselblad shooters and Mamiya RB/RZ or 6/7. Wedding guys shot C330/220. I knew not a single pro who shot 645 Mamiya (MF). I knew not a single pro who shot Bronica except for one who shot GS-1. And I knew some Mamiya 645AF shooters. The only Bronica ETR(s)(i)/SQ(a)(i) or Mamiya 645 (pro/super) shooters were hobbyists, students, and beginning studios.

Now back to the subject at hand...
I went through photo school then assisting in NY and then on my own in NY and LA, Bronica might be the only system i never even handled, I don’t remember even seeing one....it was all hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ/RB (never saw a 645 either) and some Pentax (because Bruce Webber and peter Lindbergh shot that)....still guys shot 4x5 and 8x10...the central shutters of V lenses had to be maintained....I never ever heard of any of the problems described here in regard to backs....I had several bad experiences with hasselblad H bodies much much later with digital backs....
I again agree completely that the X1D as it was released first was buggy which is unacceptable....
The slow AF and overall shooting is partly because of the old sensor and why the GFX really isn’t that much better in that regard...
The X1DII is an overall much, much faster system then any of the highest end film cameras mentioned above providing Way more keepers and 4x5 like IQ....and it is at least as reliable and not much more then the V system was to buy but obviously a lot cheaper to shoot with....
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
I agree about returning to the subject at hand. However, I'll say the following first:



I knew a lot of Hasselblad shooters and Mamiya RB/RZ or 6/7. Wedding guys shot C330/220. I knew not a single pro who shot 645 Mamiya (MF). I knew not a single pro who shot Bronica except for one who shot GS-1. And I knew some Mamiya 645AF shooters. The only Bronica ETR(s)(i)/SQ(a)(i) or Mamiya 645 (pro/super) shooters were hobbyists, students, and beginning studios.

Now back to the subject at hand...
Funny enough, the only guys who NEVER complained were the C220/C330 shooters. The only issue with those cameras was that they didn't have interchangeable backs or inserts, so you couldn't change film on the fly. However, the cameras themselves were indestructible.
 

docholliday

Well-known member
Funny enough, the only guys who NEVER complained were the C220/C330 shooters. The only issue with those cameras was that they didn't have interchangeable backs or inserts, so you couldn't change film on the fly. However, the cameras themselves were indestructible.
I did shoot some C330F bodies when I did weddings. Twin lens was great for telling when somebody closed their eyes during strobe firing! Yes, no removeable backs, but it was just as easy to carry 3 bodies, each with a "dedicated" lens: 55, 80, 180mm. The poke through WL "sports" finder was also great for action shots. And...they were cheap and light!

I still used V gear for formals, creative shots, and portraits, though. For studio/product work, it was V system or 4x5.
 

JAB

Member
Hello!

Back to the subject…

I have been following this thread as well as a number of others in GetDPI for many months. Taking in many images and the variety of equipment used. Many talented people here! I think I have mentally spent $100k by now with all of the virtual purchases I’ve made with the help of those in this site. I am a retired engineer that has dabbled in photography since being a small boy. My main interest has been landscape and wildlife. Anything that gets me outside!

I’m jumping in the CFV II 50c forum since that is one of my current items I hope to purchase. I started my Hasselblad world back in 1992 with a 500 C/M, 80mm, and 2 A12 magazines. Over the years I have added a 40mm, 50mm, 250mm, 350mm, and recently a 150mm. I’ve also added the 503CW to get the floating mirror for my telephotos as well as a flexbody. I have spent the last 10+ years shooting Canon DSLRs and left my Hasselblad pretty much alone. I did add a CFV16 back in 2013 which I bought used that I have shot off and on. I have liked the images that come from that but I have had issues with temperature and tint bias. I have to slide the tint to ~64 to get the correct tint and the temperature a bit warmer via a ColorChecker. Once corrected, the images are really nice. I do have many slides that I have taken over the years of which I have digitized some using a Minolta Dimage ScanMultiPro. A project for my retirement, maybe with techniques described on other threads in GetDPI. That all brings me to the 907x/CFV II 50c. I have debated heavily about the moon version but all of my bodies are chrome. My desire is the chrome since my obsessive tendencies cause the need to match!

I have thoroughly enjoyed the postings from Godfrey. His postings have helped me realize that the new body and back will be an excellent addition. I, like many others, continue to have high hope that Hasselblad will announce the chrome version soon. BTW, I think I will also add the 45p, at least!

The tripod thread has been very detrimental to my spending thoughts. I’ve been debating heads between the AS Cube, DP4 or possibly the p0 hybrid. Does anyone know a marriage counselor?!
I hope to post some of my film shots and CFV16 “Fat Pixel” in the near future.

Sorry for the long post, but I am totally excited about getting more involved again in medium format. My Canon has been great, but I have been shooting way to fast and don’t spend enough time enjoying the outside and putting more into my photography.

Jeff
 

nameBrandon

Well-known member
Hello!

Back to the subject…

I have been following this thread as well as a number of others in GetDPI for many months. Taking in many images and the variety of equipment used. Many talented people here! I think I have mentally spent $100k by now with all of the virtual purchases I’ve made with the help of those in this site. I am a retired engineer that has dabbled in photography since being a small boy. My main interest has been landscape and wildlife. Anything that gets me outside!

I’m jumping in the CFV II 50c forum since that is one of my current items I hope to purchase. I started my Hasselblad world back in 1992 with a 500 C/M, 80mm, and 2 A12 magazines. Over the years I have added a 40mm, 50mm, 250mm, 350mm, and recently a 150mm. I’ve also added the 503CW to get the floating mirror for my telephotos as well as a flexbody. I have spent the last 10+ years shooting Canon DSLRs and left my Hasselblad pretty much alone. I did add a CFV16 back in 2013 which I bought used that I have shot off and on. I have liked the images that come from that but I have had issues with temperature and tint bias. I have to slide the tint to ~64 to get the correct tint and the temperature a bit warmer via a ColorChecker. Once corrected, the images are really nice. I do have many slides that I have taken over the years of which I have digitized some using a Minolta Dimage ScanMultiPro. A project for my retirement, maybe with techniques described on other threads in GetDPI. That all brings me to the 907x/CFV II 50c. I have debated heavily about the moon version but all of my bodies are chrome. My desire is the chrome since my obsessive tendencies cause the need to match!

I have thoroughly enjoyed the postings from Godfrey. His postings have helped me realize that the new body and back will be an excellent addition. I, like many others, continue to have high hope that Hasselblad will announce the chrome version soon. BTW, I think I will also add the 45p, at least!

The tripod thread has been very detrimental to my spending thoughts. I’ve been debating heads between the AS Cube, DP4 or possibly the p0 hybrid. Does anyone know a marriage counselor?!
I hope to post some of my film shots and CFV16 “Fat Pixel” in the near future.

Sorry for the long post, but I am totally excited about getting more involved again in medium format. My Canon has been great, but I have been shooting way to fast and don’t spend enough time enjoying the outside and putting more into my photography.

Jeff
Welcome, Jeff!

I think we're all curious to see when the chrome CFV II 50c get's announced (and if it will be separate from the 907x, and a few other details). Definitely get the 45p, it makes the 907x/CFVII50c a joy to use.. it's like a little cube of fun.

Speaking of cubes, the tripod thread will definitely hurt your wallet. Stay away, if you can. :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
The tripod thread has been very detrimental to my spending thoughts. I’ve been debating heads between the AS Cube, DP4 or possibly the p0 hybrid. Does anyone know a marriage counselor?!
I hope to post some of my film shots and CFV16 “Fat Pixel” in the near future.
...
Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the compliment! And welcome!

I presume you're thinking of getting both the CFVII 50c AND 907x if you want the XCD 45P. It's a nice lens, for sure! :)

I use the Arca-Swiss P0 Hybrid head most of the time with the 907x and 500CM (mounted on Manfrotto legs), but my longest lens is a 150mm. For longer, I'd likely want something a bit more robust. I'm also using the Peak Design Travel Tripod with the 907x a bit of the time, and it's sufficiently sturdy to do a good job.

G
 

JAB

Member
Yes, definitely the 907x as well. I look forward to using my 503CW and putting my flexbody to use. The 907x brings in more possibilities as well and the 45p compactness is very attractive. The nasty part is the 21 mm is also very attractive, it only requires more money!

I like the compactness of the p0 hybrid, but I have been concerned about issues with mounting the 503CW with the 350 mm. The D4 may be the direction I go since I spend my time outside in whatever weather there is. The C1 Cube is cool, but may a bit over the top for me.

Jeff
 

Hausen

Active member
Wow that was a heavy read that page. Even with all of the tribalism, I always learn a lot reading all of the opinions. I though am happy with my CFVII50c/907x kit. :p
 

docholliday

Well-known member
Yes he does: anyhing that OWC does is perfect.
I wonder why :)

Best regards,
You're not talking about the OWC that sells overpriced, crappy (and often nothing more than rebadged) accessories and hardware for Mac users, are you? That would say all I needed to hear about his perceptions of quality...
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Yes, definitely the 907x as well. I look forward to using my 503CW and putting my flexbody to use. The 907x brings in more possibilities as well and the 45p compactness is very attractive. The nasty part is the 21 mm is also very attractive, it only requires more money!

I like the compactness of the p0 hybrid, but I have been concerned about issues with mounting the 503CW with the 350 mm. The D4 may be the direction I go since I spend my time outside in whatever weather there is. The C1 Cube is cool, but may a bit over the top for me.

Jeff
Sounds like a good plan. I'd like to try a Flexbody too. Perhaps next year.

Yes, the XCD 21 is a very fine lens! It was the primary lens I bought with the 907x SE because the 907x + 21mm nets my long desired "all digital SWC" when cropped to square. :D The 45P was an add-on when it was announced: of course, I use it more than I use the 21mm...

I know I want one more lens at this point, likely the 80/1.9 or maybe the 120 or 135; another possible for next year. I'll continue with the two XCD lenses for this year, and adapt my V system lenses (and Leica R) in the meanwhile. That should be more than enough to keep me busy: Photo intents are much harder to figure out than what cool equipment might be fun to play with.

G
 

med

Active member
You're not talking about the OWC that sells overpriced, crappy (and often nothing more than rebadged) accessories and hardware for Mac users, are you? That would say all I needed to hear about his perceptions of quality...
The very same. I don’t regularly read his blog, but at a glance OWC look like sponsors of his, and he sounds like a shill for them.
 

nameBrandon

Well-known member
Godfrey.. or anyone actually..

What are you using for a 4x3 viewfinder mask on the 500 series bodies? Focusing is difficult enough as it is with my eyes starting to go on me (bifocals time..) but I can't seem to get composition down in my head with the large viewfinder.. I'm alway cutting off heads and legs.. :facesmack:

I'm guessing I can probably just get some cardboard and cut it out to size, but I'd love if there was a mask thin enough that could live in there with the viewfinder closed.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Godfrey.. or anyone actually..

What are you using for a 4x3 viewfinder mask on the 500 series bodies? Focusing is difficult enough as it is with my eyes starting to go on me (bifocals time..) but I can't seem to get composition down in my head with the large viewfinder.. I'm alway cutting off heads and legs.. :facesmack:

I'm guessing I can probably just get some cardboard and cut it out to size, but I'd love if there was a mask thin enough that could live in there with the viewfinder closed.
Didn't it come with a mask? Mine did...I think.
 

docholliday

Well-known member
Godfrey.. or anyone actually..

What are you using for a 4x3 viewfinder mask on the 500 series bodies? Focusing is difficult enough as it is with my eyes starting to go on me (bifocals time..) but I can't seem to get composition down in my head with the large viewfinder.. I'm alway cutting off heads and legs.. :facesmack:

I'm guessing I can probably just get some cardboard and cut it out to size, but I'd love if there was a mask thin enough that could live in there with the viewfinder closed.
I've always printed my own masks on a color laser using transparency film, then cut it out and slipped it on top of the screen under the two retainer tabs. I just set the file up in Illustrator, printed a bunch of them on a sheet, and cut using a ruler and scalpel.

Here's one that I used often with all the crops and meter areas (both 203FE and PME45/51).
Asset 1@4x-80.jpg

I usually cut out the center completely so that it was transparent for composition and leave all the lines around the frame intact.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The 907x/CFVII 50c comes with a thin viewfinder mask that you can fit into the V system viewfinder. Check your 907x package documentation for it ... it's in there.

I've never used it. When I was precise framing and am using a V system body, I flip to Live View and the electronic shutter. I know you like to use a strobe lighting setup so you want to use the lens shutter, but there's nothing to keep you from turning on Live View and then opening the shutter on Bulb to adjust the focus and framing, then closing the shutter, recocking the camera, and making the exposure. It just takes a few seconds to restore your exposure settings for the exposure, not a problem for the kind of still life/studio work that your lighting setup implies.

Another facet of this is that I tend to shoot with a waist level finder (or magnifying chimney) most of the time when I'm shooting with the V system bodies. The focusing screen I use fairly often has a "super slide" framing square scribed into it ... I find this scribed square fits the 33x33 cropped format of the CFVII 50c pretty closely, and that it's also pretty easy to mentally visualize the slightly more oblong 33x44 format with that in view ... it's just a 5mm addition to the framing lines on each side.

Of course, you can easily create a mask template in any simple graphics application, print it out precisely on some thin card stock or opaquefoil, cut it out with a hobby knife, and drop it in on top of the focusing screen before you slide the viewfinder you choose in place. Just create a 56x56 mm square, then a 33x44 mm rectangle, center the latter over the former, and print it out for the template. Use that as a cutting guide to make the mask. (My preference is for just a simple mask, without all the other format lines and such that docholliday does, but there's nothing wrong with either approach..). :)

Fun fun fun...!

G
 
Top