Best entry level digital back for Hasselblad V system

<p>As a dedicated amateur, over the last two decades I have principally used film for my landscape photography, usually shooting with my Hasselblad 503 CX and 50mm CF f/4 and, more recently with an SWC/M 38mm Biogon, which I saved a long time to purchase. Like most Hasselblad nostalgics, I am very attached to the 6X6 format which film affords. However, I am also discovering the art and benefits of digital and am seeing that there are more and more digital backs available, if using a 645 format, on the market. Most still seem in the high price professional range. However there do seem to be some backs that are more approachable price-wise. Is there a best option entry level back for an amateur looking to explore the digital turf? </p>

<p>I suggest an Hasselblad CFV back. The 16 MP versions go for about $5K, perhaps even the version II. The level of integration can be very good (e.g., 555ELD and 501cm), and of course it looks like it belongs on the camera. The CFV is self-contained, including a Sony battery and a slot for a CF memory card. You can also tether the back to a computer via FireWire (800/400). In the case of a 555 ELD you can trigger the shutter via the tether.</p>

<p>A CFV16 back and a 500cm, 205 TCC or 555 ELD served as my go-to travel camera for nearly 10 years.</p>

"Entry level" and "MF digital back" form an

oxymoron, and don't belong in the same sentence

together.

 

For the price of that sparsely pixelled CFV back you

could buy a very good full-frame DSLR and a

couple of prime lenses, whose image quality would

shame anything you can get from scanned rollfilm.

<p>The resolution of that "sparcely pixelled" digital back is equivalent to a 24 MP camera, but has less noise and cleaner corners of the image. The Sony A7Rii is the first full-frame 35 mm pattern camera I've owned which does better. If you have Hasselblad gear, a digital back is the best way to prolong its useful life.</p>

<p>Size matters. There are 12 MP cell phones on the market. Do you suppose those compare well to a Nikon D3?</p>

<p>I should mention that digital backs do not work well on an SWC body. The lens is too close to the sensor, and light reaching the corners is too obtuse, resulting in distortion and color shifts. This does not occur with the roughly equivalent CF40, which has a much longer back focus, making it relatively telecentric.</p>

<p>I agree with Rodeo, but realize that is probably not an option for you. The point to consider, as with all of these things, is whether the end result or the process of getting the image is what matters, or what combination of these factors is important to you when you engage in photography. For about that price you could get a Sony A7RII, Nikon D810 or Canon 5Ds etc. etc. and have resolution and image quality in spades and in excess of MF film. It's not really what you want to hear I suspect on an MF forum, but it bears thinking about.</p>

<p>Image quality requires good lenses, not just an high resolution sensor. Hasselblad C, F and CF lenses are more than equal to the 16 MP back, but I suspect would limit the performance of a 50 or 100 MP back. A similar situation exists for small format cameras. While I can easily mount and use Nikon lenses on my A7ii and A7Rii, none are really "pixel sharp" on that camera, nor I suspect, with a Nikon D810. The only exception has been an AIS 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.</p>

<p>I started using so-called legacy Leica and Nikon lenses on my Sony cameras. Over the course of two years I have gradually replaced them with Sony and Zeiss lenses which sre better integrated and significantly sharper, especially in the corners. Going "digital" in medium format will require similar measures to get the best performance.</p>

<p>If you have not dabbled in medium format photography, what is a stretch goal for small format, in terms of image quality, is routine for medium format. It is another world, albeit a more contemplative world of photography.</p>

<p>I am suggesting the OP seriously considers a high res FF 35mm digital with 2 or 3 top tier lenses rather than going the 16MP back route. I suspect the OP does not want to do this because of the emotional investment in the 'blad and its lenses, but sometimes it is worth considering all options. They are all just cameras after all. You can contemplate just the same with a "miniature" camera if you want.</p>

<p>An high-resolution "small format" camera and three lenses of appropriate quality will cost as much as $7500. If you have a substantial investment in Hasselblad gear, a digital back is not far out of line. Plus you have flexibility. For about $9000 (a new CFV50c) you can convert a 35 year old camera into 50 MP digital.</p>

<p>An Hasselblad is is an obligate "contemplative" camera. Nothing is automated (except perhaps winding), and without a tripod (or kilojoules of flash) you have an expensive box camera, ala 1950. Even the latest X1D falls into that category.</p>

<p>There is weight to consider. My kit with a 555 ELD, 45 deg prism and 7 lenses from 40 to 250 mm (and stuff) weighs about 40 pounds, and barely fits in an overhead compartment on a plane. My "small format" A7 kit weighs 20 pounds and fits under the seat, with 7 lenses from 16 to 200 mm (or 6 with an extra body).</p>

<p>Many thanks to all for the thoughtful responses and, especially to Edward Ingold for his guidance. Yes, a CFV16 back may be a good first, step as I certainly don't have the means to invest in a CFV50C at this time. Because I am using my SWC/M body progressively more, Edward's precautions about using a digital back with the 38mm Biogon leads me to think that I should stick to BW film until some new digital back technology appears on the horizon.<br>

My best, Joseph</p>

<p>Many thanks to all for the thoughtful responses and, especially to Edward Ingold for his guidance. Yes, a CFV16 back may be a good first, step as I certainly don't have the means to invest in a CFV50C at this time. Because I am using my SWC/M body progressively more, Edward's precautions about using a digital back with the 38mm Biogon leads me to think that I should stick to BW film until some new digital back technology appears on the horizon.<br>

My best, Joseph</p>

<p>Do you have a Nikon Coolscan 9000? Getting one would be cheaper than any Hassie-compatible digital back, and at least you'd be getting the most you can out of your film, short of drum-scanning. (And if you're able/willing to by a 2000ish era PC or Mac, there are affordable drum scanning options, too)</p>

Joseph, I used film for more

than 40 years, in formats

from 135, through rollfilm and up to 5x4

sheet. I can categorically

state that a modern full

frame (I.e 24 x 36mm) DSLR

will easily outresolve and

outperform any medium format

film. The question of lens

quality doesn't really enter

into it. You pretty much get

what you pay for. Except that

modern aspherical designs

will also outperform "legacy"

lenses.

 

So what I'm suggesting is

that your cash will be better

spent in a smaller format

digital sensor, which will

give far better results that what

you were getting with film.

 

Sure, you might be able to

get marginally better quality

from a modern MF back, but it

will be a small return for a

hugely greater outlay. That

an old 16Mp back can beat a

newer generation 36Mp sensor

is highly debatable and very

doubtful.

 

If you want to see the

quality of cameras compared,

using the same high quality

of lens, then I suggest you

look at imaging resource's

"camera comparometer". I

think you'll be surprised at

some of the results.

<blockquote>

<p><em>I suggest an Hasselblad CFV back. The 16 MP versions go for about $5K</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>IMO they are in the 1k to 2k range</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Entry level" and "MF digital back" form an oxymoron, and don't belong in the same sentence together.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just because digital medium format backs are more expensive than 35mm or smaller digital equipment, doesn't negate the fact that the most affordable ones, might fairly, and accurately, be described as entry level. I appreciate that it may be a novelty for you, but why don't you try answering the question the thread starter actually asked, for a change? If he wants to put a digital back on his Hasselblad, there is certainly no law against his doing so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>three lenses of appropriate quality will cost as much as $7500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but I was suggesting the OP considers <em>replacing</em> his whole 'blad system (i.e. selling it all). I can see it won't happen, but as Rodeo and I agree, I think the OP could should seriously consider it if it is basic image quality he is considering and is wanting to go digital. I have to ask whether Edward still uses his 'blad system. I get the impression this has essentially been replaced by a Sony A7RII, just as my 'blad system was replaced by the Canon 5DII in 2009. If true, this rather makes our point.</p>

<p>Joseph,<br>

First of all, I presume that in targeting the entry level DB segment, you are ok with buying something from the used market.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like most Hasselblad nostalgics, I am very attached to the 6X6 format which film affords. However, I am also discovering the art and benefits of digital and am seeing that there are more and more digital backs available, if using a 645 format, on the market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you most want to get from using a relatively affordable DB on your Hasselblads?<br>

(1) A native square-format image?<br>

(2) The particular experience of using classic medium format camera bodies and lenses?<br>

(3) The ultimate image quality and versatility within your budget?</p>

<p>If you answer (1), go for a used DB using the square 37 x 37 mm Kodak KAF-16802 CCD sensor. In Hasselblad V mount, and not counting DBs which can only be operated when tethered to a computer or laptop, there are the Kodak DCS Proback/Proback Plus, Imacon iXpress [V]96C/384C, Hasselblad CFV16/CFV-II, PhaseOne P20/P20+. The P20+ is the best of these.</p>

<p>If you answer (2), and (1) is not that important, there is a much wider range of used DBs. All bar 1 or 2 have a 4:3 aspect ratio.</p>

<p>If you answer (3), then pay heed to those pointing you towards the recent full-frame, high-MP DSLRs and CSCs.</p>

<p>I currently use 3 cameras for digital - a Canon 5DII, a Fuji S5 Pro, and a Mamiya 645AFD with a Kodak Proback DCS645M (another with the Kodak KAF-16802 sensor). On paper, the 5DII is the best, but I use it the least - it's for astrophotography only. I like its high ISO and resolution, but nothing else. The others beat it on handling, interface, colour, film-like grain/noise, spectral range.</p>

<p>And of course the Mamiya + Kodak DB combination allows me to shoot in native square format. Running my Mamiya 24mm fisheye images through de-fishing software, I can replicate (indeed, slightly surpass) the 92-degrees wideangle over a square format that your SWC/M delivers on 6x6 film. Here are a few examples:</p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img905/7240/qUSxqi.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img907/948/2LQz0X.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img911/7557/T3gsF9.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Well, I'll chime in just so you have another anecdotal data point to make your decision.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D810. Great camera. And I've got very good lenses to go on it. When I'm doing a shoot that involves a fast pace, action, the need for freedom of movement, and unpredictable/difficult conditions, I shoot with it. And it does a very good job indeed.</p>

<p>However, sometimes I like to slow down--to get everything just right, to take my time, to not have a camera stuck in front of my face and to be able to talk with, look directly at, and interact more fully with the person I'm shooting. (I know you shoot mostly landscape; I'm more into portraiture.) For those times, I love using my Hasselblads (I have a 500CM and a 553ELX.) I really love the viewfinder, focusing on the ground glass, and the satisfying tactility I get when I fire the shutter with those cameras. (Hey, I'm not the only one--I once read an interview with Araki where he said "When I work with a model, I like to use five or six different cameras. I like one with a good clicking sound.")</p>

<p>Whenever I'm shooting someone interesting, I generally run a couple of rolls of black and white film through the camera along with the digital stuff.</p>

<p>To get to your particular point, when I want to use my Blad, and I want to shoot digital, I use an ancient Sinarback 54M on it. It's over a decade old, and a dinosaur: it has no card slot, no screen and no battery. So you have to shoot tethered with it. And it's only 22 megapixels--but it's 22 glorious megapixels. Physically, the sensor is approximately 48mm x 36 mm, so roughly double the area of a full-frame DSLR. I can change it from landscape to portrait orientation almost instantly. And I got it for the bargain basement price of $795 on eBay. (They are out there, and occasionally available, if you are patient and search hard enough.) If you'd like to see what a portrait made with the 553ELX, 150CF lens and the Sinarback looks like, here is one I made just last night: <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/drelarge.jpg">Portrait of Dre</a>. </p>

<p>Could I have done that with my D810? Sure. But it would have had a different *feel* to it, both in terms of when I was composing, lighting and shooting it, and in the final image. It may or may not be better, but I enjoyed making it the way that I did, and I think it was different from what I'd have done with my Nikon. And considering the camera cost me about $350 (another eBay special), the lens another $375, and the back just under $800, it's actually rather cheaper than a D810 with 70-200 lens would have been.</p>

<p>Another option, although far more expensive than my Sinarback, is something along the lines of the PhaseOne P30. You can probably pick up one of those for between $3500 and $5000 (so not exactly what *I'd* call entry-level, but still fairly reasonable) and it's a lot easier to use in the field. The quality, with legacy Hasselblad V gear, is stunning. I'd recommend you check out the work of a good friend of mine, <a href="http://www.robinbharaj.com">Robin Bharaj</a>.</p>

<p>Many of the images on his website were made with the same camera I have (the 553ELX), and the PhaseOne P30. I played human light stand for him at several fashion shows and music festivals, and he was able to shoot in pretty chaotic and fast-moving conditions and get great stuff indeed. (He's used to that; when I met him for the very first time several years back, he was shooting a rave in a venue that was basically a cave under some London railway arches, holding a flash in his hand, and shooting Provia 100F in his old 500CM.)</p>

<p>So I don't think, by any means, that your desire to use Hasselblad V gear with a digital back, and to take it outside and do landscape work with it, is as masochistic or as quixotic as some posters here seem to have implied. There *is* still a place for this classic old gear, if you enjoy making images that way--as many of us do--and the quality, feel and impact of those images will not surrender anything to the latest and greatest from Nikon, Canon or Sony.</p>

<p>soon we are at the basic question CCD vs CMOS</p>

555 ELD as travel camera? Do you have a gear sherpa? :D