Weighing my Options for Hasselblad CFV-39 (Need Help)

<p>Over the last year as I have been building out my 503CW system I have asked questions here and always received helpful and quality responses based on experience. I need your help in making sure I am considering all of the factors when thinking about getting a CFV-39 digital back. First, this is the equipment that I currently have: 503CW, Acute-Matt D screen, PME-45, WLF, 40mm CF, 50mm CFi, 80mm CF, 150mm CF, 250mm CF and two A12 backs. My style of photography is mostly landscape and nature fine art. I shoot black and white the majority of the time. I still do a lot in the darkroom and plan to continue that independent of any digital back. My workflow for digital is a scan of my negatives that are brought into Lightroom for cataloging and minor edits and Photoshop for any other edits. <br>

A new CFV-39 is about $14,000 US and that is a lot of money to me. I want to make sure I am thinking clearly before making this type of investment.<br>

Here are my current thoughts and questions at this point. Please add or correct as needed:</p>

<p>1.) Is it reasonable to assume the CFV-39 will be viable 5 years from now? I have been using my film equipment for many years (in some cases 25+ years) without ever requiring an update or upgrade. I am concerned about spending $14k and not being able to get service or repair in 5 years. I am not worried about the quality issue because I am sure the CVF-39 will meet my quality and artistic standards indefinitely. </p>

<p>2.) I use Lightroom and would like to leverage the 3FR and lens correction support there vs having to use Phocus software. Any experience or comments on this? If you recommend Phocus then what format do export from Phocus to Lightroom?</p>

<p>3.) I am not replacing my film work, just adding digital as a medium. From my understanding there are no adapters required for the cfv-39 on the 500 series so I am assuming it is a reasonable idea to swap the digital back and A12 backs between exposures without too much of a hassle. Anyone with experience confirm my thinking?</p>

<p>4.) According to the specifications there is a maximum of 64 second exposure for the cfv-39. That is a limitation for some of my work and will preclude me from being about to use the digital back for that. Does anyone have experience with long exposures on the cfv-39 and if so what do you find the practical limitations to be? I assume noise and quality issues will be the problem at some point. </p>

<p>5.) Based on experience what do you find the optimal ISO range of the cfv-39? I know what the specifications say, but I was hoping to get some input based on real-world experience. Keep in mind I mostly photograph landscapes and nature. </p>

<p>6.) Last, but not least, for $14,000 should I even try and make digital work on my 500 series and just consider another option? My initial thought is to leverage my current equipment as a base and continue to use it with my film work. I am not opposed to pursuing another system or option as long as it is not more money because the $14k is actually more than I want to go at this point. I would say that the vast majority of my work is wide and ultra wide angle if that matters in your opinion when considering cameras and lenses. </p>

<p>If there are other points I should consider please add them here. I appreciate your time and thoughts.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The thing that makes the back so viable is that it is 16bit, not the 14bit you find in high end DSLRs. That's a heck of a difference in real life use. I think the CFV-39 is a tremendous value, when you consider its size and the ability to couple it with the rest of the V system.</p>

<p>As for service and repair, Hasselblad just recently changed hands again. But I think the digital equipment is relatively safe in the ability to be repaired. I use digital H systems from time to time (renting them), and often think about buying the CFV. For that much money, it could be obsolete in 5 years. While I would love to buy one, I don't think I will make enough use of it to make it pay for itself (at least in comparison to shooting film and scanning it). So I compromised by sticking with film, and buying a higher end, drum scanner.</p>

<p>I have borrowed a friends CFV-39 and love it. The images are breathtaking, especially for color, and the noise is well controlled. The Hasselblad Phocus software is very good at getting images ready for manipulation in Photoshop/Lightroom. I have not shot exposures as long as you are talking about. The longest was about 4 seconds, and it looked great.</p>

<p>As for optimum ISO, I usually leave everything at 100 because it makes calculations pretty easy. But then I was using it for product shots, not landscapes, and I was using Broncolor lighting with tons of power. As for swapping backs, I was using my 555ELD camera with bus contacts, so you should have a similar scenario with your 503CW. Removing it is easy, but you have to take care in storing it. That's where your biggest time would be lost. But yes, it is pretty quick.</p>

<p>As for $14k: You could buy a Pentax or Mamiya, with less MP (I believe), but with all your lenses, you would have a hard time replacing them with the other systems, and I do believe that Zeiss lenses have a character that is hard to replace at all. Most other systems in the 39mp range are far more money anyway.</p>

<p>To me, it comes down to what are you going to get for your money, and how long would it take to pay off. I believe I would have a hard time justifying the money, as most of my personal work is done with V system, and professional work is either with an H system or 4x5. But I have considered whether to stop renting H systems, and simply start using a V system and CFV back to ultimately save money. It's just that I prefer the ergonomics of the H. If $14k isn't that big of deal to you, I'd go for it. I would go for it if the economy was better, and I was willing to throw fate into the wind, but I've been on a Dave Ramsey reduction plan in recent years, and rather enjoy not having any debt.</p>

<p>Tim:</p>

<p>You have good questions here and I can answer a few of them.</p>

<p>1) No problem. I just brought a 7 year old Hasselblad back in for service and when I mentioned that I planned to get another five or ten years out of it, the rep said "no problem." Indeed, there were older backs being sent in.</p>

<p>3) Digital backs attach to the V Series bodies with a setscrew, so you'll need to carry the special screwdriver with you. Otherwise, no problem.</p>

<p>4) I suspect this number is optimistic and would recommend sticking with shorter times. Older Phase 1 backs (which can be bought for relatively low prices second hand from dealers) claim to allow very long exposures. Check this out for yourself before plunking down money.</p>

<p>6) If you're presently scanning film, you're going to be quite surprised by the quality of the back. Of course, even though the files are fantastic, they don't look like film - not better or worse, just different.</p>

<p>I suspect other people will have answers for the rest of your questions.</p>

<p>Tim, I can give an opinion on a couple of your points.<br>

Many have tried to not use Phocus but, in the end, it is <strong><em>the</em></strong> way to get the best from your digital images. I export as PSD from Phocus while lots of people use TIF. Either way, you get the best out of the image with all corrections. Phocus now has dust removal which can be batch applied.<br>

If you want long exposures as I do, then the current Hasselblad star is the H4D40 at 256 seconds. I had an H3D which I think is the same chip as the CFV and it is exceptional at 64 seconds as is the H4D at 256.<br>

I would consider an H4D and the CF adapter but most people who go that way end up dumping their V lenses and going for the H lenses but it is something to consider.<br>

I would also suggest hasselbladdigitalforum.com There are a lot of folks there with more knowledge on the CFV than me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3) Digital backs attach to the V Series bodies with a setscrew, so you'll need to carry the special screwdriver with you. Otherwise, no problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm... Don't know where that idea came from, but it's not true.</p>

<p>The CFV-39 attaches to the body exactly the same way as an A12 magazine. You can easily change from film to digital and back whenever you wish, with no issues or aggravation.</p>

<p>There is an additional interlock button that you must press in order to release the back, to prevent it from coming off if you bump the release button, but it requires no tools.<br /> ----<br /> A strong +++++ for the Phocus program. It's very intuitive, easy to use, with a wide assortment of features. It even has optical correction built in for all the 500-series lenses. Download for free from Hasselblad at www.hasselbladusa.com and get free updates.</p>

<p>I have Lightroom, but would never consider using it with the CFV-39. I also have PS/CS5 but almost never use it.<br /> ----<br /> Do you need long exposures due to film speed or because of subject issues? You can always user a higher film speed. If there's an exposure issue I just use more light. :D<br /> ----<br>

I always shoot at ASA 100. That's the same speed I use for film in 120, 4x5, and 8x10, so I'm accustomed to all the issues.<br /> ----<br /> My decision to add the CFV-39 was based on the fact that I have a full set of V-series lenses, from 40mm through 500mm, and I think they're the best optics available. That's why I started shooting Hasselblad over 40 years ago, and nothing has happened since to change my opinion.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>Here's what I wrote here three years ago on this before giving up on the idea and buying a lower pixel count but more flexible dslr system instead</p>

 

 

<p>"I've been seriously considering the CFV as an alternative to my film MF system. The things that I really can't get round are the fact of a 1.5 crop that makes wide angle close to impossible; the tiny lcd screen no bigger than that on my 10D; and the fact that the MF composition process involving big, expansive views through the finder is emasculated by the fact you don't with the CFV get all you see on the finder. Personally i can't function without a wide angle capability and the prospect of a film/scan for wide, digital for everything else route to be unacceptably clumsy.<br>

Added to which is a very definite impression created by the people at the Hasselblad London showroom, that their heart is in the H series not the V series with all sorts of mutterings about the V series lenses "not being optimised for digital" and support for the V series not being endless. In short, despite being told repeatedly that I wasn't interested in a H series they seemed quite content to prejudice the possibility of selling a decent used V system plus a back costing several thousand pounds on the off chance of an epiphany about the H series. If the V system/CFV is a long way down their pecking order I can't help feeling that it should be a long way down mine too."</p>

<p>If as you say most of your work is wide or ultra-wide then how are you going to get that when the widest lens you own gives you the field of view of a 60mm?<br>

I know it seems neat and tidy to have just one system handling your needs, but it can onlt be effective if you can photograph how you want. Seems to me that you have such a system now. </p>

 

<p>David,</p>

<p>I hope you'll pardon a blunt reply, but your entire post is pure nonsense, apparently based on a combination of spec sheet review and comments from a sales staff that makes most of their commission selling new lenses.</p>

<p>Wide angle is certainly not impossible. I use the 40mm and 50mm lenses just like on the 500C/M for that style. The digital image is very slightly narrower than the film image, not enough to even notice.</p>

<p>What does the LCD size have to do with anything? You still focus and compose using the regular ground glass and viewing system on the camera body. The LCD is just for image review and histogram assessment, if you wish.</p>

<p>I think Hasselblad desrrves a strong round of applause for suporting their legacy systems with this product. Most mamufacturers would just tell owners of their older products to toss them and buy all new stuff. After all, they don't make a whole lot of money selling a single digital back to somebody who already owns all the lenses and accessories, then giving away the excellent support software for free.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>I agree on the applause for Hasselblad. Phase makes a lot more noise but I never regret that I am shooting with the best MF body, back and lenses which work as one together with software to complete the workflow. It's a superb combination.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think Hasselblad desrrves a strong round of applause for suporting their legacy systems with this product.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Especially considering that various owners could have neglected the V system users altogether (though to a degree they did).</p>

<p>Also, I believe the newest backs are something like 50mm square, which is pretty darn close to full frame film.</p>

<p>As for the release mechanism, I believe they can be screwed in, but the couple that I've worked with have had an adapter plate (maybe just a mounting plate) that allowed them to be easily removed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the release mechanism, I believe they can be screwed in, but the couple that I've worked with have had an adapter plate (maybe just a mounting plate) that allowed them to be easily removed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand where these comments are coming from.</p>

<p>The CF<strong>V</strong>-39 has a standard V-series attachment, identical to that on all the film magazines for that camera.</p>

<p>You mount and remove the back exactly the same as a film magazine, no differences except for the safety interlock that I mentioned previously.</p>

<p>There may be adapters or whatever available for the CF-39, which is a different product.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>That's my understanding Leigh. I had a V96C which came with a V series adapter, just the same as a film back. Anything with V in it means direct connection as I understand it, so any CFV will attach to any 5 series body.</p>

<p>I appreciate the input and comments from everyone so far. Some very good points that I will add to my list: <br>

CFV-39 is 16-bit vs. 12 or 14 bit in DSLR systems.<br>

I should visit hasselbladdigitalforum.com for more info.<br>

The images from film and digital do indeed look different so that was a good reminder. I need to really think about that aspect. <br>

I will assume that Phocus is the best route to go for optimum images from the back. </p>

<p>Thanks so far and hopefully I will get some more replies.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tim, you may be a lot different to me but, once I started with a digital back, it was the end of film for me. I was never a great lover of film, and couldn't wax eloquent about grain etc. To me, it was a PITA.<br>

It's very difficult to assess but you may find that your love of film is shallower than you think.</p>

<p>I am not sure I want to jump into this whole thing about P1 vs Hasselblad, I guess I would say, having used a 503CW for a good while with a digital back, I think it can be a great system for landscapes, I had trouble focusing on people with it quickly and ended up switching to an H system after using the V for many years. mostly for the autofocus, but I miss the 500 series for doing landscape stuff, just easier to carry around. You might find that you are not comfortable taking the digital back on and off like switching film backs, there is always the possibility of scratching the uv glass on the sensor,dropping it and or getting dirt inside it. It does not have a dark slide and you have to fumble around with the protective cover. With any 39mxp sensor back, you will have a slight loss on the wide angle side of things but not too much, capture integration has a lens angle calculator on their website that will give you an idea. The P1 backs do have a better long exposure capability at least the 39mxp 45+, but you also have to use a cable to the sync post on the lens which is a total pain as it seems to come loose and is in the way a lot. The sensor in the P45+ and CV39 are basically the same, it has been around for about 4 years now. They both would do a great job, I have almost 50,000 captures on mine, there are no moving parts. Some of the newer model backs are supposed have not only more megapixels but much more dynamic range, and the newer sensors go edge to edge on the width of the frame same as film. But they are really expensive, about 2-3 times what you are looking at. </p>

<p>Well I don't have an answer for you, but one might take issue with some of what's been said, and you may want to consider what follows.</p>

<p><em>The things that I really can't get round are the fact of a 1.5 crop that makes wide angle close to impossible.</em></p>

<p>That's an important difference between the older CFV he was discussing and the current CFV-39 you're considering. The Older CFV's had 36.7 x 36.7 mm sensors, which is a 1.53x crop factor relative to 6x6. However, the CFV-39 has a 36.7 x 49.1 mm sensor, so if you're printing US-standard larger print sizes with a 4:5 aspect ratio (8x10, 16x20, and 24x30; and 11x14 and 20x24 are close), then the CFV-39's effective crop factor is only 1.22x. So if you normally use a 60mm, with the CFV-39 you'd need to use a 50mm, and if you normally use a 50mm, with the CFV-39 you'd need to use a 40mm. (Now if you normally use a 40mm or 38mm, I suppose it isn't the solution for you.)</p>

<p><em>16-bit vs. 12 or 14 bit in DSLR systems</em></p>

<p>I would not get too hung up on that--people confuse bit depth with dynamic range. Dynamic range is how far you can go (from dark to light), and bit depth is how precise / small you can make each step of your travel (tonal gradations). The dynamic range captured is independent of the bit depth. One important thing that the CFV-39 should give you over a typical DSLR is the ability to capture scenes with more dynamic range (greater range of brightnesses) without the highlights blowing out white and/or the shadows fading to black. But what 16 bits realistically gives you over 12 or 14 bits is only somewhat more ability to make radical changes in the contrast and/or color without seeing artifacts like banding. (Theoretically it gives you slightly more subtle / delicate / detailed tonality, but I bet you can't see that in any print.) Frankly if you're not making sizeable changes in color or contrast, 8 bits is usually okay, and 10 or 12 bits can cover all but the most radical / demanding changes. Is 16 bits a real advantage over 14 or even 12 bits? Once in a great while, probably so, but not often for the way most people work.</p>

 

<p>Let's debunk this 1.5 crop factor nonsense once and for all.</p>

<p>That number comes from 35mm cameras, not the CFV-39.</p>

<p>The factor for the CFV-39 is 1.12, based on its 49mm sensor width.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>I have two questions please.<br>

1. The difference in price between a CFV-39 and CFV-50 is around Eu 3000. Is the differece worth it? Apart from higher resolution what are the benefits of the CFV-50?<br>

2. Any solutions for using the CFV backs in portrait mode? (I believe Phase One and Leaf can be rotated and used in both landscape and portrait).<br>

Your valuable comment will be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Let's also debunk this 16 bit nonsense once and for all.</p>

<p>Dave is basically right, but he hasn't told the full story. To do that you have to take the sensor specifications into account. The KAF-39000 CCD in the CFV-39 has a full well depth of 60,000 electrons, so 16 bits output means an ADC gain of 0.9 electrons/ADU. The KAF-39000 has a total per pixel internal noise of 21 electrons rms, which, in 16 bits, is +/- 19 ADU rms. This means that even before we consider any other noise sources (signal and dark shot), every real intensity is scrambled in a gaussian distribution with a characteristic width of 38 ADU. This is a crazy degree of redundant intensity oversampling.</p>

<p>If the CFV-39 worked in 14 bits, the gain would be 3.7 electrons/ADU, which is still sampling the noise floor by an overly (but not stupidly) generous factor of 5.7. You could torture the data as much as you want and still not see banding.</p>

<p>There is not a single MF back since the Leaf Volare/Cantare which has had the full well depth to readnoise ratio to warrant 16 bits.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Apart from higher resolution what are the benefits of the CFV-50?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Carlo, the CFV-50 is a later design generation of chip, based on a 6 micron process rather than a 6.8 micron process. Readnoise per pixel in the KAF-50100 is marginally lower than the KAF-39000 (13 electrons rms as opposed to 16), although the readnoise per unit area is the same. The real benefit however comes in the dark current, which is around 4x better (depending on temperature) in the KAF-50100. This matters if you take long exposures.</p>

<p>Apart from that, there is little difference in the sensors. The KAF-39000 has slightly (0.2 stops) higher dynamic range, the KAF-50100 has slightly higher quantum efficiency.</p>

<p>There may be features in the back interface which are better in the CFV-50, but I am not addressing those aspects.</p>

<i>"Apart from that, there is little difference in the sensors."</i><br><br>There's also that thingy about one resolving the image presented to its 36.7 x 49.1 mm large area into 39 MP, the other into 50 MP. ;-)

<p>Q.G. -</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's also that thingy about one resolving the image presented to its 36.7 x 49.1 mm large area into 39 MP, the other into 50 MP. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you actually read the question which I was answering? I quoted it, after all. Looks like I'll have to quote it again! Carlo asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Apart from higher resolution </strong></em>what are the benefits of the CFV-50?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...so of course I did not address the 39 MP vs 50 MP difference. He told us that he already knew about that.</p>

<p>Thank you for the answers so far. For example, I did not know it was a new generation chip. Because it is physically the same size I assumed it was the same chip with maybe different software implementation. One question is, is it worth the extra cost?</p>

<p>"Worth the extra cost?" is a much harder question to answer - there is no physical formula for "worth"!</p>

<p>I guess it is worth it if you do a lot of long exposures. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. I expect that 50 MP is not that different to 39 MP really unless you print very, very large, and are consistently good at nailing focus. Hopefully an actual CVF-50 user can chip in here.</p>

<p>If you shoot landscapes and fine art mainly B&W, what benefits are you expecting by adding a 39mp back to your film workflow?</p>

<p>Less resolution, dynamic range, spectrum capture options, huge cropped format (i.e. film captures 75% more than the digital back of the lens projected area), etc.</p>

<p>I suggest you compare a 39mp capture side by side to a film scan of the same landscape first, if you havent yet, especially on b&w.</p>

<p>Regarding long-term support, Hasselblad is top notch. That said, you can use this life cycle advantage and get a new scanner from them for the same money. Films will continue to be upgraded for you for free.</p>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly about Hasselblad support. It's simply excellent. That's where my agreement ends,<br>

I have also done the comparison that you suggest and am now shooting with an H4D 40 and am very happy. I have no interest in a film vs digital debate, digital simply works better for me.<br>

You mention dynamic range so I assume that you mean colour neg. No argument there but what a limited palette you get and grain to sand walls with.<br>

As for size, I used to get about a 280MB scan with film on a 503CW, now I get a 240MB file from the H4D. There is no competition, the digital image can be poked, prodded and resized and still come up smiling. Try that on film.<br>

I also wouldn't count on film being upgraded forever, either.<br>

My portfolio is full of both film and digital images her on PN. I don't think that my work has suffered or been limited by going digital, but that's just me.</p>