What is best way to convert film to digital on Hassblad 503CW

I had a Hasselblad 503 CW and shoot film long time ago. Since technology transition to digital, I did not have chance to shoot Hasselblad since. Now I want to use my medium format, is there any recommendations to convert to digital, ie buying a digital back, or continue shooting film.

Thank you very much for all advice and Merry Xmas.

--JT

Hasselblad CFV backs, 16 MP to 50 MP, fit directly in place of the film back for a 503cw. You can use them without a sync cable, but a cable is more versatile and reliable. Unfortunately they have been discontinued. There are other compatible backs, but in the $20K or more bracket, compared to $8.5K for the CFV.

 

For the relatively low cost of $6500, you can get a 50 MP Hasselbad X1D, and use V lenses with a simple adapter. The aperture must be preset with the DOF slider engaged. The X1D uses it's electronic shutter option for the Aperture Priority shot.

A far less expensive alternative, is to continue to shoot film, buy a good scanner, and do it yourself. You can save around $5.5K. There's still a lot of 120 film out there, both transparency, color and B&W negative.

If you use the camera a lot then the digital back idea makes economic sense. If you don't, then continuing to shoot film and scanning will be cheaper. Bear in mind that any digital alternative is a chip that is smaller than the film you were using in your 503 CW, so the angle of view you will get with your lenses is effectively smaller.

The answer I posted to a recent similar thread regarding digital options for Mamiya RB/RZ67 applies here as well. Before plunging into a potentially very expensive digital back rabbit hole, ask yourself three vital questions: what price can you comfortably afford to pay, how much format cropping are you willing to tolerate, and how much shooting do you do at higher ISO?

 

Digital MF backs for Hasselblad fall into four categories: cheapish with old small CCD sensor, expensive with newish small CMOS sensor, affordable with old large CCD sensor, and utterly, insanely expensive with newest small or large CMOS sensor. There is some blending of categories here and there, depending on used backs vs brand new, etc. The most significant distinctions (aside from price) are small sensor vs large, and CCD tech vs CMOS tech.

 

The oldest Hasselblad backs have square 37mm x 37mm 16MP CCD sensors. The crop factor is dramatic: your 80mm Planar becomes a short tele or portrait lens, and your 50mm or 60mm Distagon wide angle becomes your new "standard" lens. CCD sensors offer beautiful color, but quality declines noticeably at ISO 200 and significantly at ISO 400 or above. Such backs made by Imacon, Hasselblad, Phase One and Leaf now sell used for approx. $2000, a typical example being the Phase One P20. Slightly larger CCD sensors in (approx) rectangular 33mm x 44mm size and approx 18MP to 40MP are also available from the same brands, for a bit higher price. Same caveats about crop factor and ISO apply, example would be the Phase One P21+ (the "+" means the back can do decent ISO 400 by setting a lower resolution).

 

The best compromise back for most Hasselblad enthusiasts is an older CCD back with larger approx 37mm x 49mm sensor like Phase One P25+ or P65+. This gives you a digital sensor close to the size of the Hasselblad 645 (rectangular) film back, which only crops your lens AOV slightly. These backs can be found from $4000 and up. Again, high ISO is tricky, and you would need to adjust your shooting style from square to horizontal landscape format. The waist level finder is useless for verticals, you would likely need a prism finder.

 

The most recent and/or brand new backs feature modern CMOS sensors of 50MP and up, in either 33mm x 44mm or 40mm x 54mm size. Backs with the smaller sensor run $7000 minimum second hand, the larger sensor will easily set you back $20K used or up to $40K new. The sensor technology is similar to what you'd find in a Sony A7RII or Nikon D810, scaled up to medium format. High ISO works well, the backs have better built-in screens and are more responsive. But, they are expensive.

 

Some other points to consider: the beloved Hasselblad Carl Zeiss lenses that worked so well on film don't always perform as well with digital backs. Depending on the specific back and sensor, you might discover the previously-great 60mm Distagon wide angle makes for a mediocre "normal", and the classic 80mm Planar can morph into a disappointing portrait lens. The only lenses universally agreed to be equally good on both film and digital are the 40mm IF Distagon, 100mm Planar, 120mm Makro Planar, and 250mm Super Achromat. All the others are potentially disappointing: to some degree this is related to how precisely the body, mirror, back, focus screen and lens mount are aligned. While a beautifully made instrument, the Hasselblad was designed for film: with age, tolerances between all the pieces of the camera can drift enough to cause problems with digital.

 

Also note there isn't a wide choice of "modern" backs that integrate seamlessly with a Hasselblad 503cw. Aside from the Hasselblad CFV series (which looks like an A12 and communicates directly with the camera rear plate), most backs will require a coiled cable running from lens flash socket to the digital back.This can make handheld use a bit clumsy. Focusing accurately enough for a digital back can be very difficult, even with an Acute Matte split image screen (or the camera tethered to a laptop).

 

So...aside from the nostalgia thrill of using our Hasselblads digitally, realistically it isn't worthwhile today. Removable digital backs have always been an absurdly expensive studio-optimized product, and today most are either 10-15 years obsolete or cost as much as a small Mercedes (with no guarantee of flawless performance on random Hasselblad bodies). The most practical way to use the classic Zeiss lenses on the latest sensors is to buy one of the recent fully-integrated mirrorless medium format digital bodies from Hasselblad or Fuji. These can cost as little as $6000 brand new, offering the very latest 33x44 sensors and live view focusing thru electronic eye-level finders. There is much less chance of alignment issues since the sensor is integrated into the body and viewfinder. At the moment, the Hasselblad X1D isn't quite as usable with Zeiss lenses due to it not having a focal plane shutter (it relies on a tricky electronic shutter). The Fuji GFX-50 and upcoming R50 have standard electro-mechanical focal plane shutters.

Edited December 26, 2018 by orsetto

I've owned and used a Hasselblad CFV-16 back since 2007. While 16 MP doesn't seem like much these days, it is equivalent to 24 MP on a camera with a 3:2 aspect ratio. Since it has no anti-aliasing filter, you get all the resolution of the sensor, which happens to be about twice what you get with MF film. I was never tempted to return to film, even though is takes no effort. Scanning is not an idyllic solution to bridge film and digital. It is very time consuming, even with a dedicated film scanner (I have a Nikon LS-8000), and color negatives can be challenging to produce good color. With a digital back, good color is achieved almost without trying.

 

I also disagree about the image quality of existing Hasselblad lenses. There is a 1.5x cropping factor, which means the new "normal" kit starts with 40, 60 and 100 mm lenses. The CF60/3.5 is a very nice lens, only a little slower than the 80/2.8 and very sharp with little distortion. You get the equivalent of 90 mm, which is to close enough to "normal" to bother anyone.

 

There is nothing special about the 100/3.5 mm lens except its extremely low linear distortion. It's no sharper than the 80 or 60, but roughly the same size and weight. The 40/4 is a necessity if you want anything close to wide angle With the effective focal length of 60, the 40 gives about the same field of view as 28 mm on a 35 mm camera. I have the FLE version, which has better resolution than the standard lens, and is considerably smaller than the vase-shaped C40. The 120 Makkro is primarily for closeups. It can be used at any distance, but is not as sharp as other Hasselblad medium-tele lenses.

 

I have doubts that these legacy lenses will get the most out of a 50 MP sensor, but not many lenses from any manufacturer or format do either.

The 80mm vs 100mm debate is endless, but basically futile in the age of 50MP and 100MP digital MF sensors. On film the 100mm is slightly better in certain applications, primarily detailed distance shots at infinity. Its extremely low (nonexistent) distortion made it invaluable for aero and architecture in the days before easy PhotoShop correction. The 80mm Planar is the more general purpose lens: the focal length is more versatile (with film anyway) and its better in the closeup range than the 100mm. It has a little bit of distortion and isn't quite as good wide open as the 100mm (but then again, the 100mm can't open up to f/2.8 either). Using older lower-resolution backs with smaller sensors, there is little to distinguish between the performance of the 80mm vs 100mm. The sensor crops the middle sweet spot of the image circle of either lens, and any slight distortion remaining in the 80mm is easily corrected in post. All of the classic Hasselblad Zeiss lenses will perform nicely on the older 16MP-22MP sensors: in fact, they were the default digital platform in professional photography for nearly a decade.

 

But times change. The larger "full frame" CCD backs and recent high-resolution 50, 60, 80, and 100MP backs are not forgiving of even the smallest optical flaws (which get compounded by the maddening difficulty of nailing utterly precise focus with the Hasselblad body). With these sensors, performance of each individual copy of a lens varies, but there are approximate trends: the 80mm Planar tends to go off the rails more often than the 100mm, if for no other reason than the 100mm was always a perfectionist statement lens in the first place. The 60mm is sharp with low distortion, and was a genuine wonder on film, but many of them reveal nasty aberrations when slapped in front of a 50MP sensor hanging off a who-knows-how-well-aligned film body.

 

The 50mm FLE fares slightly better than the 60mm, but not by much. All the 40s except the final IF have issues, and even the IF has some not-thrilling aberrations to deal with on some backs. The 150mm and 250mm can be mediocre, the 120mm fine for closeups but not much else. Saying the entire lens line is all bad or all good is equally false: in each case, it depends on the specific lens-body-back combo. Condition and service history are everything if you're gonna use a Hasselblad V for digital today.

 

As a general rule of thumb, the oldest all-metal silver and black "C" Compur-shutter lenses are known to be problematic with some popular digital backs due to their flash sync mechanism not being able to consistently trigger the sensor. Its usually best to go with later Prontor-shuttered CF, CB, CFi or CFe versions. Of these, the only ones I have rarely heard a complaint about on any sensor are the 40mm IF, 80mm CB (the simplified CB optic is weirdly better on digital than other 80s), 100mm, 120mm (closeup only), 160mm Sonnar, and 250mm/350mm Super Achromats. The 50s, 80s, 150s, 160 CB Tessar, non-APO 250s and longer teles are much more unpredictable: if you favor these lenses, audition them carefully on any "full-frame" back (or smaller sensors above 30MP resolution).

 

As Ed_Ingold said, scanning isn't really a great alternative in 2019. The age of medium-format film scanners is dead and gone, the best "affordable" ones (Nikon, Minolta, Polaroid) were always fragile high-maintenance beasts that became a very risky investment once their mfrs went out of business or stopped all service. Hasselblad still sells frightfully overpriced scanners that cost more than a good used high-res digital back, so pass. Flatbeds like the Epsons are cheap and serviceable, but results are mediocre compared to all-analog or all-digital workflows. In every case, you'll pull your hair out trying to get colors and tones right, and the amount of time spent scanning/processing each film frame is daunting: its drudge work. If you want to use your classic Hasselblad digitally, go with a good second-hand back of moderate resolution (below 40MP). Ideally, buy it from a specialty dealer who will offer a warranty, trial period/rental options, and a variety of models.

Edited December 27, 2018 by orsetto

For just an occasional hobbyist user, it makes no sense to invest in a digital back for Hasselblad, which will not be cheap and not pay itself off unless you are producing work for sale to provide some sort of recompense over the investment. Continue shooting film if you are not using the camera day in, day out.

There's still a lot of 120 film out there, both transparency, color and B&W negative.

 

Well, it would be nice to think so, but the walls are closing in. The end may not be nigh, but choices are fewer and fewer compared to the heyday.

 

The other thing is that 24x36mm and other small format is steadily climbing up to pixel totals equal to digital backs for medium format.

I had 3 bodies and 7 or 8 lenses when Hasselblad cut the price on a CFV-16 back to a point I could just manage to afford. While substantial, my investment was a fraction of the cost of this gear when new (the CFV is my only "new" Hasselblad item). Film had lost its luster to me, so the CFV gave me another 8 years of use, mainly for landscapes, groups and portraits. With rare exceptions, it was never a "working" camera for events, publicity or even weddings.

 

That said, I wouldn't recommend building a system around a digital back unless you can turn a profit from its use, or put a high price on sentimental value. Small format digital systems, especially mirrorless, are too good to ignore, and far cheaper. My kit was built around film, so digital just gave it a new life. Now, who knows? I ask myself, what does digital MF offer that I can't pass up. I'm hearing crickets.

It really boils down to whether you have enough discretionary money to burn on indulging your desire to keep using your Hasselblad lenses and camera in their original configuration. As Ed_Ingold indicated from his personal history, it is hard to justify today unless you already own a fairly complete Hasselblad kit and are deeply committed to continue using it in its original form (as opposed to adapting the lenses to modern eye-level mirrorless cameras).

 

The price of second-generation (circa 2006) "full-frame" CCD backs like the Phase P25+ have come down to approx $3500 (US), which is not entirely insane compared to the cost of a new Fuji or Hasselblad mirrorless MF body. The new bodies have the benefit of high-ISO capability, higher resolution, and eyelevel unreversed live view "prism" finders, but the sensors are smaller (taking more of a crop) and handling is unusual with the old large Zeiss lenses. If you can live within the limitations of an ISO 100 sensor, something like a Phase One P25+ will let you shoot your classic Hasselblad in the classic manner (aside from losing square composition to rectangular).

 

My reservations about some of the Zeiss lenses posted above are from the standpoint of today's typical unrealistic pixel-peeper (or working pro who needs perfection from every image). For those less demanding of perfection, most of the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses retain much of their charm on digital sensors. Whatever one chooses to call the differences in imaging between mfrs, whatever uniqueness the Zeiss glass had in the film era is still there: it just doesn't always come thru exactly the same way on digital as it did with film. This applies to all film-era lenses, even the almighty Leica: what worked a certain way on film doesn't always translate to digital. In some respects performance degrades, but the overall character of the lens can override perceived flaws to still make distinctive images unlike those we get with the latest 'perfect' (but somewhat sterile) lenses. Personally, I find the color depth I get from vintage Hasselblad Zeiss lenses on digital is something I can't easily replicate with my Nikkor, Zuiko or Mamiya lenses: its wonderful and addictive.

 

However: the old Hasselblad bodies are not always the best vehicle. In the heyday of digital MF backs, when pros gladly forked over $30K per back, specialist techs at the dealers would routinely align each back to a specific Hasselblad body, adjusting that body's back mount and mirror to precisely match. You will not get that type of alignment service with a used back unless you pay extra for it, and some dealers won't do it at all for "obsolete" gear. This is less of a problem for the 501cm and 503cw, because of their more durable mirror geometry, but body alignment can still be an issue even with those final V models. If you have an earlier 500cm, 501c, or 503cx: expect mirror drift focus errors. Nailing proper focus for digital to be worthwhile can be a difficult chore with the typical classic Hasselblad body.

 

All things considered, "amateur" use of a classic Hasselblad for digital today might be more fetishistic than practical. You can get similar (or even better) imagery using smaller-format Zeiss lenses on smaller-format cameras. The Milvus, Loxia, ZF.2 or ZE lenses on Nikon, Sony or Canon full-frame can deliver the Zeiss goods handily. The smaller cameras can't quite equal the overall "look" of the medium format focal length + sensor combo, but they make up for that with out-of-the-box usability (no alignment worries, and even AF with the Sony). The Hasselblad or Fuji 33x44 MF mirrorless cams split the difference: they cost more, but let you use your existing Hasselblad lenses on a larger (tho not quite "real mf" ) sensor.

 

The other thing is that 24x36mm and other small format is steadily climbing up to pixel totals equal to digital backs for medium format.

 

Imaginary. Not a chance at all of that happening. The format is simply too small.

This is the Power of Canon's 120MP Camera Sensor

(APS-H size, not even 'full-frame')

vs

Fujifilm’s next medium format camera has 100 megapixels and in-body stabilization

Although a bit more work, you can always purchase a decent medium format scanner and turn 120 slides into 150MB files. I use a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED which I bought new many years ago.

 

Although a bit more work, you can always purchase a decent medium format scanner

That was already suggested in the 2nd post and 20 months ago!

 

Finding an affordable 'decent' medium format scanner is the issue these days. Many people have now turned to digital camera copying to digitise their film. I have.

That was already suggested in the 2nd post and 20 months ago!

 

Finding an affordable 'decent' medium format scanner is the issue these days. Many people have now turned to digital camera copying to digitise their film. I have.

 

 

I think this would be the best solution. Then buy yourself a good calibrated monitor and several large hard drives and you are good to go. But the question remains, where are you going?