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!

Fun with the Hasselblad 907x

Godfrey

Well-known member
This may be a silly question (intrigued X1D II owner here), but how do you shoot portrait-orientation shots on the 907x? Is there a "rotating back" setup like a Mamiya RB/RZ, or do you just awkwardly turn the whole thing and not flip up the screen?
No rotating back so it's the awkward turn AFAIK.
Note that most of my shooting with the 907x so far has been tripod mounted. Like with my Hasselblad 500CM and SWC cameras, I find the 907x particularly well suited to tripod shooting. In this respect, it's a fundamentally different camera from the X1D models which are much more akin to a 35mm SLR in shape and handling character (much like the*FF Leica SL, Panasonic, and Nikon EVF cameras).

  • Most of the time, I crop to square, no rotation needed like I always had with Hasselblad V system cameras. That's a nice 39 Mpixel camera.
  • When I use full frame, I shoot horizontals most of the time.
  • When I want to shoot portrait orientation, I have used a right angle bracket to keep the camera centered over the tripod.

Hasselblad showed an accessory control grip and an optical viewfinder mount in prototype photos when the 907x was announced. The connections and locating pin are there on the bottom of the 907x body. When these accessories are available, the 907x will be a less awkward hand-held camera, much like my old Mamiya 1000S and Pentax 645 6x4.5 SLRs were in the past; the Pentax had a built in grip and right angle finder as standard, the Mamiya had the same things as accessories. They worked well, but obviously a 35mm SLR design camera, like the X1D, is a better camera for fluid horizontal/vertical hand-held use.

Certainly, if I were looking for a camera with that kind of shooting in mind, I'd choose the X1D over the 907x as a matter of course. I was intent on the 907x as an extension and update to my Hasselblad V system, with the modularity of a separable back being used interchangeably between the 907x and 500CM bodies with their respective lenses.

G
 

gnat

New member
Godfrey, how have you been finding the results compare between the 907x/XCD setup vs as a back on your V gear?

Other than the clearly more compact setup, is there any compelling reason not to just build up V system components around the back?
 

phOtOny teXas

Well-known member
My perspective::cool:
I have not even thought about Awkwardly, the camera is basically a Cube. Rotate it 90degrees shoot...it fits in the Palm of your hand. Shutter button top right if you rotate counter clockwise verses bottom right, No problem...

Its easier than the Leica I use or any standard camera body that would need rotation for portrait view, which you Awkwardly rotate with a hand on top or bottom. Camera shape in hand basically the same except shutter button on top right instead of bottom right.

Your Mileage May Very;)


This may be a silly question (intrigued X1D II owner here), but how do you shoot portrait-orientation shots on the 907x? Is there a "rotating back" setup like a Mamiya RB/RZ, or do you just awkwardly turn the whole thing and not flip up the screen?
 

glaiben

Member
My perspective::cool:
I have not even thought about Awkwardly, the camera is basically a Cube. Rotate it 90degrees shoot...it fits in the Palm of your hand. Shutter button top right if you rotate counter clockwise verses bottom right, No problem...

Its easier than the Leica I use or any standard camera body that would need rotation for portrait view, which you Awkwardly rotate with a hand on top or bottom. Camera shape in hand basically the same except shutter button on top right instead of bottom right.

Your Mileage May Very;)
It would work much easier if the rear screen articulated in 2 axis (axes).

...gregg
 

pegelli

Well-known member
How about bringing out a version with a 38 x 38 mm sensor, which is about the same area as the current sensor.
That would really fit Hasselblad's heritage and as an added benefit avoid having to rotate the camera.
 

Bugleone

Well-known member
Yes!...square image/sensor would give excellent facility as it did in the era of Rollieflex (which I grew up with).....the square image gives printing/display of either horiz. or vert. shots or a square shot (which is very useful for book and magazine illustration) And, as Pegelli says, it lends itself to very efficient camer handling as there is no dithering about with format choices....

......If only they would make a square sensor camera!
 
Yes!...square image/sensor would give excellent facility as it did in the era of Rollieflex (which I grew up with).....the square image gives printing/display of either horiz. or vert. shots or a square shot (which is very useful for book and magazine illustration) And, as Pegelli says, it lends itself to very efficient camer handling as there is no dithering about with format choices....

......If only they would make a square sensor camera!

A digital cameras should have square sensors! Nikon could introduce something like a 30x30mm sensor if they were smart. Or even 36x36 I think. Then just allow the user to select both the orientation and frame ratio.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey, how have you been finding the results compare between the 907x/XCD setup vs as a back on your V gear?

Other than the clearly more compact setup, is there any compelling reason not to just build up V system components around the back?
From a use standpoint, the 907x camera setup offers more shooting options than a 500CM (or any other 500 series body) does, and the XCD lenses are specifically designed and optimized for use with a digital sensor. Plus, given the shallow mount register of Hasselblad X system, and the back's capability to do electronic shutter, it's amenable to plenty of specialty work with easily available and less expensive alternative mount lenses (like my Leica R and M equipment). So on that basis, the 907x is easier to use and probably a bit more capable as a standalone camera than a typical V system camera kit.

The quality of the V system lenses, however, is really very very good to excellent and most of the ones I have (four: 50, 80, 120, and 150 mm) work well with the back and sensor ... AND I already own this kit. So the notion of "building up a V system kit" is kind of a non-issue for me, personally. The biggest justification for that if you don't have a Hasselblad kit already might be that a 500CM body and four lenses like mine is available pretty inexpensively (my entire V system kit cost me less than the XCD 21mm lens, purchased between 2012 and the present); the add-on of the CFVII 50c back alone makes for a pretty compelling digital and film capable system.

But I wouldn't buy just that. Because of the smaller format of the back's sensor, wide angle lens choices are limited ... whereas with the 907x body in addition, you have lens choices down to 21mm in the Hasselblad X line as well as adaptation of other short focal length lenses that work pretty well with the sensor, particularly if cropped to 33x33 format. I haven't tested them yet, but I'm pretty sure my Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 will perform beautifully, and maybe even my Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6, on the square format.

Making square format sensors is an interesting concept but is probably limited by marketability. Most users today want the oblong rectangles and there are production economies that can be taken advantage of that making limited numbers of square sensors much more expensive. The difference between 33x33 and 38x38 are fairly small from an FOV and DOF perspective; so I just crop and everything works well with image resolution of about 39 Mpixel.

And as someone else pointed out, the 907x is basically a cube with a lens on the end. The essential controls in use are minimal and pretty simple too. Rotating it in hand-held use isn't that difficult, really, as long as you work at eye level and look at the LCD from the back. :)

Adding more extensive articulation to the LCD would increase its size and weight, as well as pose more question marks on the durability. Allowing the back to be fitted in two orientations would be interesting, but again more complexity and probably not as nice a tightly-fitted and clean looking design... Plusses and minuses.

I'm quite happy with the design and use of the 907x/CFVII 50c as is, and with the versatility of using the same back with my existing V system bodies. Depending on what I want/need to do, it lends a lot of capabilities that I can take advantage of.

G
 

phOtOny teXas

Well-known member
907X mOOn camera with Macro attachment and XCD 65mm

Plenty of time on my hands with this virtual lockdown so I paint and take experimental macros of my paintings.
I'm not sure how this will translate after I had to knock down the files so much and use Flickr compression crap for posting. I can say for sure the camera is a pure JOY to use and the files out of it blow me away...





mOOn glaSS 2
by tOny endieveri, on Flickr







mOOn glaSS 1
by tOny endieveri, on Flickr
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
907X mOOn camera with Macro attachment and XCD 65mm

Plenty of time on my hands with this virtual lockdown so I paint and take experimental macros of my paintings.
I'm not sure how this will translate after I had to knock down the files so much and use Flickr compression crap for posting. I can say for sure the camera is a pure JOY to use and the files out of it blow me away...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676711141_8e1896194a_c.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676713186_650aa86329_c.jpg
Very interesting, Tony. Hard to say whether these work or not, for a couple of reasons..
  • I have no idea of the scale of what you're showing.
  • There seem to be some sharpening artifacts, etc, in the rendering and some slightly over-saturated highlights. Or is that what the painting has—some radically contrasty bits?

They're certainly curious to look at. Perhaps you can tell us more on what your paint work is about.

G
 

phOtOny teXas

Well-known member
These are very close ups, about 4". Painting on glass thats backlit, high contrast. Im definitely in the experimental discovery process.
Thanks for your input...
back to play:cool:


Very interesting, Tony. Hard to say whether these work or not, for a couple of reasons..
  • I have no idea of the scale of what you're showing.
  • There seem to be some sharpening artifacts, etc, in the rendering and some slightly over-saturated highlights. Or is that what the painting has—some radically contrasty bits?

They're certainly curious to look at. Perhaps you can tell us more on what your paint work is about.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
A near-full-frame image:


Painted Tins - Santa Clara 2020
Hasselblad 500CM + CFVII 50c + Distagon 50mm f/4 T*

enjoy!
G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Yesterday's conversation on another thread led me to play with a couple of lenses that I hadn't yet. The one native lens I have for the 907x at present is the XCD 21mm .. I wondered what a couple of my R and M lenses might do on it. I have the Fotodiox Pro adapters.

So I pulled out two of my extreme wides for the R system and then both my ultra-ultra wide 10mm for the M as well as the 43mm wide-normal.

In each of these panels, the top row is the XCD 21mm as reference. The left column is the full frame rendering; the right column is a square crop to the maximum image area where no vignetting occurs. All exposures at ISO 800 and f/8, shutter speed jiggered around to get commensurate exposure per frame, and processed in LR to make exposures close as I can (quickly). The subject distance (camera to bicycle) is about 4.25 feet.

R Mount - I tried the Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1 and the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5. Given that the 19mm is only 2mm shorter than the XCD 21mm anyway, and vignettes, there's really no point to using it in preference to the 21mm. The 15mm nets a useful additional amount of FoV. Both lenses, in their non-vignetted area of coverage, render very nicely.



M Mount - The two lenses I tried in this test are radically different, both from each other and from the XCD 21mm. And they're interesting: The Pentax-L 43mm, being essentially an SLR lens specially adapted to LTM/M-mount, vignettes only at the corners of the full frame. Cropped vertically, it's perfect. The Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm, an ultra-ultra-wide angle that just barely covers the format even on FF, shows this wonderful view that looks like you're looking out of the mouth of some toothy beast (yup, those are the little stubby bits of the rudimentary lens hood built into it...) in the full frame image. Cropped*square down to just within the hard vignetting, it shows substantially more FoV to work with than the XCD 21mm still. And at full resolution, it's a pretty darn good performer throughout. An impressive lens. :)



Higher resolution versions of these comparison grids are available by clicking through to Flickr.com on them.

enjoy!
G
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
907x with ultra ultra wide lenses ...

Follow on to a prior post I made:

I experimented with test fitting the Leica M-mount Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6 onto the Hasselblad 907x camera, using a Fotodiox Pro "M to X mount" adapter and the electronic shutter. Two exposures to compare: Both of these photos are made from identical camera position, 4.2 feet from the bicycle, at f/8 lens opening @ ISO 800. Exposure time (and post processing) compensated a little bit to make them render to about the same illumination.

First, for reference, a native, full-frame (33x44 mm sensor) shot with the Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4 lens:

#1:


Simply cropping square nets the equivalent field of view of the classic Hasselblad SWC ultrawide camera (Zeiss Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* lens):

#2:


The question I sought to answer was: How would the image differ if I adapted the almost absurdly short Voigtländer 10mm lens to the camera? Here's the full frame capture ...

#3:


... where you can see the rudimentary, tiny stubs of the lense's permanent, built-in lens shade poking into the top and sides of the image coverage. These obstructions are *just* outside the field of view with the lens fitted to a 35mm FF format camera. To me, it looks like I'm inside the mouth of some toothy creature…. :)

Next I cropped this image to a square that fitted just inside the hard vignetting obstructions at top and bottom:

#4:


This presents an "Ultra-SWC" square format FoV, with I'm guessing about 125° diagonal angle of view, a whopping ~30° more subject coverage on the diagonal than the SWC has! (For reference, the calculation is based on the diagonal AoV of a 38mm lens on 56x56 mm format vs what I'm estimating as 10mm lens on 28x28 mm cropped format.) What I'm most amazed at is that the detailing and rectilinear correction of this 10mm lens remains really good right out to the corners! Pretty fantastic performance.

Now to figure out what to do with all this insane field of view. :D

G

"If you're stuck in hell, you may as well roast some marshmallows."
 
Top