What now for 503CW digital backs?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by jake_bryant, May 26, 2013.

  1. Now that Hasselblad have have discontinued the 503 camera, will the digital backs be discontinued as well ? Also, what is the consensus
    on second hand prices for backs such as Phase One and the CVF series, will they go up?

  2. There are a number of backs that will work on a V camera. There are so many 500 series cameras made and in use, I seriously doubt any of the back makers will not supply their backs in V mount well into the future. As example, Phase One and Leaf still offer backs for the long discontinued Contax 645 camera.
    Hasselblad may well discontinue the CFV/50, so getting a new one will no longer be an option ... but they currently still make the H5D/50 which uses the same sensor, so it may be awhile before the CFV/50 is no longer available ... or not, since what Hasselblad will do these days is anyone's guess.
    Leaf backs are an excellent alternative, and some even offer an internally rotating sensor that allows landscape or portrait orientation without rotating the V camera.
    I also doubt that V mount backs will go up in price ... maybe the exception will be the CFV/16s and 39s. IMO, if anything, the prices for used V mount backs will stabilize or go down as more folks move to 645 cameras more suited to digital backs, or to higher res 35mm DSLRs.
  3. My opinion is, that Hasselblad did the most unethical approach to the MF market by closing the H-system and then by stoping the CF backs and replace them with the CFV backs.... Clearly, they judged that the market would consider their products as superior and would choose them than those from competitors and then they could blackmail the customer, using trade in policies as media, for future upgrades...
    What they clearly did by discontinuing the CF backs (which had interchangeable camera fitting) was to make sure that the customer would only be able to keep his investment as long as he uses a V body... If a customer would have a CF back, he could any time buy a Mamiya 645 or Contax 645, also buy an adapter for his MFDB and another for his lenses and ...keep all the IQ that his lenses and sensor provided while at the same time having a much more modern and flexible "black box" which would provide him a secure path to the future and with more choices too!!! They even denied the opportunity of their own customer to buy an H4X and fit his MFDB back on it and use a V to H adapter for his lenses... Noooo.... as with the H system, "you can't upgrade your back only or your body only..., neither you can use film and digital if you wish..., you can't even have a back-up body for your MFDB if you are a pro... You have to buy another camera"!
    My advise Jake, is to give them another six months... to put H4X into production (you can't demand from a maker to keep making a system (i.e. the V) that has not enough customers to support it), reintroduce the CF backs and the adapters, stop withdrawing from the market what they take as part exchange and face the competition in direct! Otherwise, buy yourself a used Mamiya AFD or Contax 645, keep your lenses and turn that into digital.. They (Hass) have no disadvantage as far as IQ is concerned... With their current policy, not only they damage the whole MF market, not only they discourage customers, not only they loose their customer image, ...but they loose money too!!! Practically they are taking their own eyes off! Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr

    P.S. As far as future prices are concerned..., don't worry... they will drop to a surprising low level (!!!) ...especially the CFV backs! In fact the best offer a current owner will ever have, I suspect it will come from Hasselblad itself for a brand new H... and then the customer will fall into the trap forever, while his "part exchange" will never see the market again...
  4. Hasselblad did the most unethical approach​

    It might be considered a misguided marketing attempt, but this has nothing to do with ethics.
  5. OK John, I'll take the word back... I must add however, that if one has in mind to "blackmail" the customer later (by repeatedly changing the camera technology or introducing lenses that don't work with past (same-mount) bodies) and takes advantage to the fact that the customer has invested a large amount of money to an extend that changing to another system is out of the question... there are many that don't find this kind of policy "ethical"... OTOH, P1 does the same thing (as Hasselblad) when it comes to part-exchange, (keeps the new product overpriced - doesn't discount the difference to the "new" customer - (in reality "new" customer pays the included value of part exchange discount without giving anything to part exchange) and then the part exchange disappears from the market... I think that there are plenty who don't find much ethics into this policy either... Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr
    P.S. ....Do you know what they offer me to part exchange my Imacon 528c for a 200MS? ....about double than what the 528c would ever get into the S/H market just to destroy it! And it's still more money than the (better) Sinar Exact... Now how do I convince Sinar that they have to add an adapter for Contax 645 too and keep my 528c as a back up to an "Exact"? (they seem to have misjudged the demand, while there is no multishot "open system" left to the market other than theirs), ...or perhaps it's best to keep fingers crossed and wait for (another) one that is fed up with Hasselblad and decides (instead of the "part-exchange") to sell me his MS back while he will change for an "open system" solution himself.
  6. Sounds painful!
  7. Back to the original question, I personally do not think that stopping the 503CW will have a significant impact on the digital backs prices. The 503CW was only a small part of the market as the backs can be used on any V series cameras like 500C/M, 501CM, 555ELD (a LOT of them), 501C etc . . .
    I also doubt that the prices will plunge suddenly as there are still many V series around with perfectly happy users trying to save to afford a digital back.
    Regarding ethics, I disagree with John. I know it is a sad truth today that the word "ethics" has disappeared from the company's jargon but this was not always the case. Bill Hewlett (to mention one of many examples) built HP on teaching ethics to his employees. This is how HP became very successful and respected all around the world. This was, of course, destroyed by a line of marketing dumbos and crook CEO's after he was gone. So was the reputation of HP.
    It is sad that people like John believe that ethics has nothing to do with the way a company operates. It is sad that they don't even know that this had not always been the case.
    We, the consumers, have the choice to not buy products made by a company using un-ethical methods (yes, Hasselbad does it) and they will be punished for their greed.
    No, John, this is not "misguided marketing attempt", it is greed, stupidity, short-term view and un-ethical.
  8. Paul, said it all, .....NO? Very well said Paul, it's the decisions made by "golden boys" of crap that lead legend firms of man kind achievement to vanish... The difference of today and "then", is that "then", photographers where making cameras for other photographers... while today, "stupid golden boys" think that they can direct a photographer's mind in what he wants... and them not being photographers (or being stupid camera users that have no relationship with photography as an art whatsoever), ...they lead (historical) makers to take "their own eyes off". Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr
  9. Its difficult to know what to do now that Hasselblad have adopted a business strategy that appears so draconian.
  10. I wouldn't worry about this at all. Someone will continue to make a high quality digi-back that is accessable to V users. As
    for Hasselblad, what were they supposed to do? How many people do you think were out buying new film Blads.
    Photography is moving on, and it's becoming more and more difficult to even find a good lab to process work that is cost
    effective unless you're doing your own. I have two full work sets of V system HBs here each with 2 bodies and wide-
    normal- tele kits and accessories. I still use them occassionally for certain things and am not selling them either, but
    seriously we have moved on. I don't find any fault with Hasselblad, they too are moving on.
  11. But of course some one else will benefit from their ...naive decisions Dave! ...One that has no competition anymore (being left alone in the market), that will (like Dracula) shuck the blood off the owners that will decide to stay with the system! Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr
  12. Is it really true that if you have a H4D camera with a 31mp back, you can't use a 60mp back on it? You would have to upgrade the camera as well?
  13. Jake,
    Yes, unfortunately it is true. Every H3/H4/H5 is paired (artificially) with a single digital back and not only you cannot use a different back (like a 60 instead of the original 39 for example), but you cannot share a back between two identical bodies.
    The pairing is only an electronic gimmick to force users to buy as many bodies as backs and to keep companies like PhaseOne or Leaf out of the H market as Hasselblad does not publish the interface information required to make a back compatible.
  14. Wow, I thought you could at least keep the camera and upgrade it with a higher mp hasselblad back. So if you upgrade
    you can only keep the lens? I can understand upgrading a DSLR body every few years, but having to change a MF body
    is very different. It's just a box with mirror essentially.

    Are there any advantages to the photographer at all, or is it just one calculated way to force the photographer to spend
    extra money. It seems unfair.
  15. I just saw that PhaseOne do a H fit IQ 140 and IQ180?
  16. That's for the H1/2/2F/4X bodies Jake... By the way, they don't sell the H4X... you have to trade your H1/2/2F and pay something like 5000 to get one (so that they can keep you in the "system" and black mail you again and again)! Also, if you get a S/H H1/2 and decide to use an "independent" MFDB on to it, you'll most likely "loose your brains" with all the bags, termites and digital ghosts that will hit you... P1 does make backs for the H1/2/2F/4X after they won in courts against Hasselblad.... Note that the prices for S/H H3/H3II/H4D/H5 are much less (if you consider the cost of the included MFDB) than getting an "independent" H1/H2... IN THE MEAN TIME P1/Leaf (one brant) are having a real party being the only MFDB supplier in the market... So, either side... you are under blackmail and have to decide which blackmail you prefer! ...Both are "killing" the trades they "buy" (they don't buy them, you pay for it - they get it for free) back, so that you don't have an alternative! In reality MFDB market has turned into an insane "monopoly market" of crooks that rip you off...
    All the "market" that you practically see on the web, (you know, "my IQ 180 this... my H4D50 that..." are in reality "image makers" of two sites that take advantage of the "photographers dream" and make lots of "thin air money" on your back... Pros (or artists) don't use stuff like that... (that's why you'll never see "great pictures" from 80mp back owners or H4D60 owners), they buy S/H equipment or D800E and shoot the hell out of it... Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr
    P.S. Do you know what's the difference between a P25+ and a P180+...? About 15% of resolution.. nothing more nothing less!!! All the (most important) rest is equal. Yet, some "gadget collectors" are paying many 10ths of thousands to buy 15% of resolution while an old 22mp back would provide more resolution than any MF film ever did! No wonder why old back and film users do better photography!
  17. Theodoros, you have a good point here. Yes I agree that the online marketing via YouTube etc is becoming transparent
    now. I feel lucky to still shooting with a 503CW film back. Though, the MFDB are useful in many applications, it's the toss
    up between P1 and H system second hand, because I'm looking for MF 645 auto focus with SLR ergonomics. But that
    said, I may just have to get a DB for my 503 for the time being. I currently also use a D3 ( amazing) and a D800.

    The MF dealers are μαλάκας........lol.
  18. That's about it Jake..., my advice is to look for an as large as possible sensor area S/H MFDB, with "fat enough" pixels to serve your lenses well and superb IQ, pay as less as possible and try your back to have an interchangeable adapter for other cameras... If you change the "black box" for a modern 6x4.5 one and keep your lenses as you should, you'll improve nothing of your images... SO LET IT DIE! - you can do that (change the body) later... (after it dies). I do believe that MF users are all about modularity (that Hasselblad introduced (!!!)) and they are smart enough to condemn any attempt of crooks to blackmail them! ...And yes! ...the MF makers, they are "μαλ..." that! Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr
  19. My my, such vitriol.
    Frankly, one will view each move by a company through the glasses of their own needs, real or perceived. So will the companies making the hardware.
    I've been doing this MF/film/digital back thing for a long time now, and some folks are leaving out the trials and tribulations of the good old days while only focusing on the pollyanna aspects ... personally, I do not miss the fussing with misfitting camera/backs, and the mutual shifting of blame and finger pointing at each other by the back makers or camera makers. Had to add shims for critical register for one camera, which then didn't work on the other camera due to production variances. So much for fast swappable backs.
    This isn't an isolated issue, but a well know one to anyone that has dealt with it. Even the almighty Apla cameras often require shimming the latest greatest P1 backs ... they even made a video on how to accomplish it ... which isn't easy.
    I see it as different philosophies in making a system ... with the choice being up to the user. Hasselblad chose to integrate the whole system, if you think that wasn't needed, there are other choices.
    I preferred it over the " not so good old days" since the only other system camera I used the H4D/60 back on was a well calibrated view camera with a sliding mount made by Kapture Group.
    Integration and individual camera system calibration allowed them to include things like focus adjust that takes into account any micro-minor focus shift while stopping down, and True Focus APL which is still unequalled by any camera company, let alone MF cameras.
    The H is modular in that you can use a different viewfinder (Mamiya 645 and Phase One cameras can't), the back can be used on tech cameras, and untethered with the H4D/60 and H5D/60 which now uses a battery. The H can be used with V lenses via the CF adapter, can use H 24mm to 100mm lenses on the HTS/1.5 Tilt Shift Adapter ... which a the modularity that is very useful.
    BTW, you can't get a P1 back for your Hasselblad V and use it at will on another platform ... the factory has to change the mount ... so how's that open/swappable? I guess it's open to be used on another camera of the same make. BTW, you can get a second body for your H back ... however, you have to send in the original camera and back so they can calibrate the new camera to it, like the original.
    Pricing is a fluid subject ... however, having priced out many different systems over the years, I found that the H camera and back together were often close or the same price as a back alone from other makers.
    Nothing is perfect, but the H system is a nice camera, with great versatility and improved feature set and reliability that comes with sticking with doing one thing well and not splitting limited resources to end up not doing anything well.
    Ethics have little to do with anything here. It is decisions made to assure survival ... and continuing to make low demand products like the V camera is just sucking resources ... but then again so is the Lunitic Camera debacle which I see as far more damning than the discontinuation of the V.
  20. Marc,
    Although I agree with some of your well researched points, I believe you are mistaken in a few areas, particularly the one making some of us so upset.
    If it is true that the early digital backs had alignment problems, that has dramatically changed. I have been using P1 and CFV's on MANY different 500 systems (including 500C's) without ever having a problem, even using the most accurate lenses like the Zeiss 100mm or the 180mm.
    You are mistaken when you thing that Hasselblad pairs mechanically a H with a second back: you fall for their false advertising. They do not: they simply modify the firmware in order for the body to "accept" a different back. This is where we disagree, where I (and many others) think it is not only a dumb marketing decision but it is unethical.
  21. Paul, this isn't my first digital rodeo.
    The reference to digital precision alignment was a historical context as to why Hasselblad went the integrated route ... at least partly.
    My friend was a Phase One dealer for a number of years, and matching them to a Contax 645 was often fraught with issues. I had the same issue with a Kodak back on a Contax ... Kodak blamed Contax, and Contax blamed Kodak ... later I had issues with a Imacon back on a 555ELD ... in short it wasn't all peaches and cream.
    I also never said that Hasselblad mechanically pairs a second back to an existing camera ... I said that Hasselblad will provide a second body for your Hasselblad back. As far as I know, they will not provide a second H back for an existing camera ... at least I've never heard of such an offer ... ever.
    In the firmware of each HD camera is the calibration code which they store for any service work. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through to pull the wool over unsuspecting photographers ... and to what end?
    As I said, one can accept the integrated philosophy, or buy something else. I almost moved from Hasselblad when the Leaf AFi (Leaf's Rollei HY6 variant) was introduced. To my surprise they could not mount my Leaf Aptus 7s back on the new camera, and told me there was no way it would ever happen. To add insult to injury, the trade amount for my 6 month old Aptus 7s was less than half of the retail that I ended up selling it for.
    I could go on and on and on and on ... but I can say it all ended when I just stuck with the H system and went about making photographs rather than screwing around with equipment.
    I retired just recently, sold most all of my H gear, and rewarded myself with a Leica S2 and CS lenses ... kept the Hasselblad HTS/1.5 and HC 100/2.2 to use on the S. The Leica is also an integrated system.
    To each his own.
  22. Marc, what are you saying here? On top you say that the Leaf is an excellent choice, then down here you are dismayed.
    Which one is it... Unless I am missing your point.
  23. Leaf back vs Jenoptik/Leaf camera system, Dave?<br>They made quite good backs. The Hybrid 6 was a bit of a disaster, with too many companies involved, each wanting to distinguish themselves and their version of the product from the other companies involved and their versions. Apparently so much so that you couldn't use existing Leaf backs on the Leaf variant.
  24. All sounds like ball ache to me.
  25. Thank you Mr Bakker.
    Jake, it was!
    Dave, don't confuse what a company does in terms of cameras verses their offerings of digital backs. In fact all of the backs made today are excellent including Leaf (which was once owned by Kodak, and is now owned by Phase One) ... each differing only in how they better fit different photographer's needs and budget. BTW, the Mamiya branded digital backs were/are made by Leaf.
    Along the way, each company has met with criticism because they either did something or didn't do something that some photographers disagreed with.
    In general, the majority of photographers do feel that the Hasselblad H camera is the best over-all system camera. IMO, the HY6 could have challenged that had they come to market in a better, more photographer friendly way. The Phamiya camera is, and has been, Phase One's weak link no matter how many band-aids they slap on it. Of course, anyone associated with the brand will deny it, but that tune will change when and if P1 gets their rumored new camera to market. So, it makes people mad that they can't put any back on any H camera, and that the one legacy Hasselblad that could take any back with the right mount, the 503CW, is now discontinued. The only concession they made was the H4X, which is a low production run camera for them, thus not easy to get, nor inexpensive.
    What is quite interesting is that Leica has taken a lead in user friendly offerings (unfortunately, not easy on the bank account). First off they made a ground up new S camera with no legacy baggage to contend with ... made it dual shutter with lenses that sync to 1/1000, or focal plane to 1/4000 with a flip on a switch ... BUT then made a fully functional H to S adapter with AF and full electronic interface ... and just recently introduced a fully functional Contax 645 to S adapter for the range of Zeiss AF lenses from the Contax 645 system! Boy do I wish I had kept my Contax 350/4 APO.
    - Marc
  26. Marc, Jake,
    The original question was regarding the 503CW, P1 and CFV's digital backs. This what my answers were related to.
    The 503CW (or any V series in fact) never had any problems with any of the relatively recent digital backs from Phase, Leaf or Hasselblad. There are still hundred of thousands of those V series cameras around and, as proved, if maintained properly they can last 50 years. A recent 503CW will outlast ANY H or S system.
    The 503CW has many advantages over the H and the Leica S or almost any MF camera. It is the most reliable, most modular, accepts hundred's of digital backs with no problem (no pseudo calibration needed) has the best lenses . . .
    The Leica S, although a good camera, uses a small sensor and because of that has no real wide angle available. The H has no wide angle coming close to the Distagon 40mm lens and has a dubious quality construction.
    I understand that pro's have good reasons to buy "new", however when I have the choice to buy a new camera which will last a few years or a used one which will last 50 years and is better in so many respect, my choice is easy.
    Last camera I bought new is a D800e. I compared it to the S2. D800e (for me) won on almost all areas, including lens availability, picture quality, color, speed, high ISO etc.
    When I want the best possible pictures, I use my 503CW with a P45 or CFV-50 or even a less expensive older Leaf 75s. With the Zeiss 120mm for portait and a 40mm for landscapes, they all put any S2, D800 or H to shame!
  27. OK, thanks Marc and QG I'm still very confused by all this and for the cost/vs purpose in my life of all this, shooting film and
    sending it out for soup and scan is still the most practical. I have yet to find any wide angle for practical use that touches
    my 50mm CF-fle.
  28. My my, you are getting very personally competitive Paul. Glad you like the D800. That camera was a no go for me, I need a camera with high sync speeds ... which is why I used a V, then a H, and now my "retirement" S, (since I no longer need 60 or 80 meg.) So, a camera that lasts 50 years isn't my concern, one that will get the work done tomorrow is ... which may mean AF, or high sync speeds, etc.
    No wide S lens? The S-24mm isn't wide? (19mm 135 equivalent on the S camera). Or the S30mm? Or the 30-90? The IQ of the Leica S lens line up is like nothing I've ever seen from anyone.
    BTW, I answered the OP's question with the same answer ... there are many backs that will fit the 503CW. All of them except the CFV require a sync cord from the lens to the back ... and sync cords are ALWAYS the weakest link in the imagining chain. The V was and is a great camera for shooting square film ... used one for over 40 years. Loved them, miss them now they are gone from my tool box. Not so practical with rectangular digital backs on a camera with accessories designed for square format.
    If you have no driving need for digital, and are content with using film and all that it entails ... then kick back and be happy.
    BTW, RE: 50mm ... the new Hasselblad HC50/3.5-II is phenomenal. No doubt the best 50mm MF lens I've ever used.
    - Marc
  29. Marc,

    Please don't use the language, 'my my' etc. it is perceived as arrogant and obtuse, which serves not positive contribution
    to the conversation.
  30. Yes, you are right Jake. My bad.
    However, we all should be able to post our experiences, and shouldn't necessarily have to contend with direct, personal attacts on the information being shared that was based on those personal experiences ... which may differ from others who have the right to post their own without comments implying "my camera is better than yours", or phrases like "pseudo calibration" which dismisses those real world personal experiences ... or the use of misinformation like there are no WA lenses for the S system which is flat out false or ill informed in order to win some imagined debate.
    I answered the OPs question right away in an effort to share, not to argue.
    - Marc
  31. Marc, It is important for each one to share his experience here, but as far as I know, your experience is unique... I use 3 different Contax 645 bodies for many years now, I used to own a Sinarback E-motion and now I'm using Imacon 528c on them... I also had numerous of other backs on (P25+, P30+, Sinar 54H... etc) and never had an alignment problem whatsoever... I also know many people that own the camera (some of the backs I've tried were borrowed), none has ever reported an issue... My first e-motion, I didn't even have to do any shimming, it came with a "fixed" plate from factory that had c645 marked on it... My 528c, I bought it S/H and it had an H adapter on it, I bought the adapter for C645 without a shimming plate at all... The shimming plate was provided by another user of C645, who replaced his 96 and the buyer asked him for the C645 adapter too although he was using a different system... I just "sandwiched" the used shimming plate between my back and the adapter ...et voila! ...100% dead accurate 16X mictrostep with a painting only 3 yards away, and the 120mm macro on f5.6 for testing purposes... (I use the mfs-1 screen). OTOH, if problems where so widely spread as you implement, wouldn't there be user complains on forums? ...I don't see any!
  32. Theodoroos, I never said it was wide spread, just implying it was possible ... and is reinforced by what you just wrote about pre-shimmed plates and such. However, obsessing on one post is getting off the subject.
    The OP is looking to just enter the MFD arena ... and it is only fair to share all experiences good and bad if for no other reason than to be aware of the possibility. Many newbies to MFD buy a camera and back separately, often older models, and giving them what to look for may be able to help them.
    Same for sharing experiences about the use a sync cord from lens to back with a V camera, or that removing a rectangular digital back and turning it to portrait orientation on a square format camera isn't an ideal scenario, not to mention fraught with peril ... or that a CFV can't even be rotated, and shooting it on its side is incredibly awkward. These are hard earned lessons, and of little continued value unless shared with the unknowing.
    Again the context of my calibration statement was historical ... the context being in answer to why Hasselblad went to an integrated factory calibrated system a while ago that was being discussed with so much venom. Integration is more than just calibration, it also allowed many other innovations to be produced making the H camera one of the most capable and versatile 645s on the market, if not the most.
    My dealer, who was also a tech guy for a major commercial studio, fielded a lot of issues with Contax cameras and backs ... and not just calibration issues. He never wrote about them on line, and until now neither have I. But they were real and a PITA. With luck no one has to experience the same issue, but awareness is the first defense.
  33. But Marc, the OP's concern is in direct relation with Hasselblad's policy against him ....no? I mean if they would still do the CF backs, provide adapters for them and... wouldn't "kill" the S/H backs they take as part exchange, the O/P wouldn't have to worry about DB provision on his Hass V, ....would he? Regards, Theodoros.
  34. Like the V cameras, there probably was not enough money in maintaining production of the CF backs. The CF DB used a 22 meg or 39 meg sensor for both single shot and Multi-Shot versions ... both sensors were made by Kodak and are discontinued, then Kodak sold their digital division because it was bleeding money.
    In theory, Hasselblad could have made a CF50 & 50MS (which as single shot is basically a CFV) ... but it'd be a lot of effort and expense for how many potential buyers? That would seem to be a losing proposition IMO.
    Hasselblad doesn't "kill" all the DBs turned back in trade ... They have a certified previously owned sales arm ... I bought a CF/39 Multi-Shot directly from them. I do not know how Phase One does their trade deals, but you can buy used ones from Phase One dealers ... so it may be a reseller decision.
    The OP has many choices for a DB on the V camera ... why does it have to be a CF? Granted, you could use a CF on a number of cameras by changing the iAdapter Plate ... but no-one except Sinar makes that type of back anymore ... and how long Sinar will is anyone's guess. Hopefully, there is room for at least one maker of adaptable MS backs.
    Phase One has always made a dedicated mount DB which can't be used on a different make of camera ... why are they immune to criticism for the same issue?
    - Marc
  35. It's about time to lay these silly conspiracy theories to rest.<br><br>Theodoros, when will you be buying more of those Contax 645s?<br>Had you noticed how Zeiss and Kycorea have conspired against you all by suddenly discontinuing the thing, even before most major DB manufacturers had had time to develop backs that would make most use of the excellent features of those machines? The unethical "so-and-so"s...!<br>Have you also noticed how those major DB manufacturers too have conspired against you all by slowly disappearing, one by one? A policy designed, no doubt, at secret meetings in Ulan Bator.<br>I bet you PhaseOne and Hasselblad were the driving force behind that all, eventually pressuring Jenoptik to discontinue the Hy6 in all its guises and adopt a low profile low volume position in the DB market, and driving Leaf to extinction. The immoral beasts that they are!<br><br>Do you know the word "foolish"? If not, there are plenty illustrations of what it means in this thread alone.
  36. It sure is foolish, and your last post is the decisive proof.
  37. Hello Paul. Back again?
  38. I think Marc, that with your last post, you give full marks to my position which happens to be Paul's position too... You said, "they used to do the 22, 39, 50 and 50MS sensor as CF backs"... no? What you forgot to add, is that those backs where no new designs to them (which would mean development of new backs), but rather, already existing designs in all their electronics for the H-series... So what they did, was that they stopped the provision of already existing products to other makers and now to ....their own customers of the V-series! ...In other words, they denied additional sales of backs that could only profit them, just to be able in the future to blackmail the ones that are trapped with the "closed" H-system... In more other words, they even denied the provisin of backs to the Fuji GX645 and lenses, which are the Hasselblad H2 and are still in production, but with no "internal" back provision! I think, I'll take back the ...taking back, of "unethical"!
  39. If I may add a few Qs to the above for you Marc...
    1. What's the point of blocking every back made for an H camera to be used on an H1/2/2F/4X/Fuji GX465...? The backs are "open" to be used on a view/technical camera ...no? Is it that the owner may decide to turn the "closed" system to an "open" one by only "sacrificing" a body?
    2. What's the point of making a "dedicated" back up body for a pro that can only be used with one back only when the time comes for him to upgrade? ...not being able to sell that body to anyone?
    3. Why don't they provide "upgrade" path for the body only? ....they do make back-up bodies on order ...no? So... what is that stops them for making an upgraded body for an existing back that is identical to the one provided for the new body? ...why does the customer have to "trade" his (identical) back too?
    Regards, Theodoros.
  40. Theodroros, at what point did this thread become your personal crusade about Hasselblad's decisions rather than simply answering the OPs question ... which I did in post #2: The V camera will not be orphaned for lack of a digital back anytime soon.
    Again, you have a habit of mis-quoting me ... I NEVER said they made a "22, 39, 50 and 50MS CF back", because they didn't. They stopped making all 22 and 39 meg backs (CF or H) because the company that makes the sensors discontinued them. Hasselblad doesn't make sensors.
    Not every photographer liked what Hasselblad did with the H system. Likewise there are those who didn't care, and use an H everyday in their work. Debating the difference between the two groups is pointless as neither POV is going to be altered.
    BTW, the only time in my entire career that I felt trapped by a system was when Leica decided to abandon the R system and never advanced beyond the 10 meg crop frame DMR unit for R8s and R9s ... and the other was when Kyocera killed the whole Contax line ... leaving me with a 645 camera that would never get better, and a 35mm Contax ND system that also would never get better. Not just the camera, the whole system went dead, and lenses are a big investment in any system. The Contax 645 AF system would never improve, no rumored leaf-shutter lenses, nothing new ever ... so I moved to the H system which proved to be a wise decision, eventually with the best AF system of them all ... True Focus APL to name just one.
    So your definition of "trapped" and mine differ greatly. Let's just leave it at that.
  41. Marc, there is no mis-quoting... The point was not if Hass did or why they stopped the CF backs... It simply is that having the CF backs, is no additional effort than converting the fit of their already existing backs for the H system... I' m surprised you didn't understand that from my post... As for the rest of the questions that I've addressed.......?!!
  42. Here is your quote right from your post:

    ... You said, "they used to do the 22, 39, 50 and 50MS sensor as CF backs"... no? ...

    I never said that ... so there WAS mis-quoting by you ... just like other times. When you do that I will call you on it.

    As the remainder of your last post ... the H back mounts are proprietary to the integrated electronic interface of the H camera just like the Phase One and Leaf backs are.

    The difference is that Hasselblad only makes H integrated backs to fit their cameras ... Leaf and Phase one make theirs in different camera mounts. However, the mount only works on one brand of camera and cannot be used on different brands of cameras without the factory changing the mount to a different one.

    If you do not want the features that that an integrated camera and back combination affords the photographer, you can put any back, including any H digital back on a dumb adapter ... which is why you can use any H back, Leaf back, or Phase One back on a tech or view camera ... just set the menu to sync and connect a PC cord from the out-sync port on the camera to the in-sync port on the back. So, while I have never tried it, in theory you could mount any H back on any MF camera with a H mount or H mount adapter. If no one makes such a device it is probably because no one wants one. I almost bought a rare H to Mamiya RZ adapter for myH4D/60 back, but it sold immediately on e-bay and was already gone.

    As to all the other "conspiracy" questions you asked ... my answer is buy something else that does what you want.
  43. Marc, my suggestion is, that if you are prepared to be involved in a conversation and support a position, to do so on the facts and reasoning that those who disagree with you present you... The conversation here is not about "conspiracy" or to advise me what to buy or to defend your purchase... It is a discussion on "manufacturer support" that the O/P has posted and on how his investment (choice) will survive in the future.... IMO (and most people), the OP's thoughts can be extended to all MF survival and manufacturers behavior is crucial on the matter. Thus, I would suggest that avoiding to support your position when others present specific examples of a makers behavior against customers and in return reply "buy whatever you like" (which is not the subject) makes your (unsupported) position both weak and unreasonable.
    P.S. I won't reply back if you continue to ignore the certain questions I've set against your position, nor I am prepared to reply in "smart - bold" statements. It is simply not the idea behind forums....
  44. I have presented my opinion and supported it with the facts based on using many different MFD solutions, and years of shooting commercial work as well as personal photography.
    The H system served its' purpose, performed as advertised, made me a lot of money, and provided a ton of personal enjoyment along the way. What else is there?
    Over the years, I transitioned from the H2D/22 all the way to the H4D/60 because it was the only system with all leaf shutter lenses and great AF for a MFD camera. I never felt trapped, and each new model brought some new useful feature or capability to aid me in my photography. I didn't care about any of the stuff that bothers you. I like the closed integrated system and all it allowed Hasselblad to add ... I like it with the S2 as well, and if I couldn't afford that, I'd be shooting with an integrated Pentax 645D using some nice Zeiss FE lenses.
    That long positive history is my reasoning, and as such I have no need to defend anything. In fact, I no longer have a horse in this Hasselblad race, so have no purchase to defend anyway.
    Unfortunately, you do not accept those experiences or the calculated reasoning behind them, and counter each with the same counter point-of-view regarding Hasselblad's approach to the MFD market. So it is clear that unless I agree (which I do not, and have said why), you will go on and on and on in your drive to win some pointless and convoluted argument. For every question answered you formulate another question based on a what you already believe ... which only serves to illustrate that none of these MFD systems do everything everyone wants. So what is the point of continuing on?
    As to the MF industry ... I'll leave that to the companies that make the stuff to figure out ... the future of each product line is in their hands with no guarantee that any of it will survive long term no matter what they do.
    Hasselblad is a relatively small company, and if they were making a ton of profit from the 503CW, or the CF digital backs I seriously doubt they would have discontinued them. If they had poured money into advancing the CFs, who would buy them at what they would then cost? People with multiple MF systems in this day of cost constraints? The minuscule group of Fuji shooters? As it was, the CFs cost close to what the same meg back with a H camera and lens attached. But don't let that reality dissuade you from continuing to long for the CF backs.
    Manufacturer support is a simple subject. The companies support discontinued products as long as legally required to. However, after the warranty is expired, you have to pay for it. In the case of used DBs there is none unless warranted by the seller ... usually 90 days, 6 months, or sometimes 1 year. Then you pay. Backs or cameras can be fixed as long as there are parts available, and someone to fix them. Not a complex concept to debate endlessly.
    In the case of the OP's original V question, more than likely it'll be covered well into the future because Vs are mostly mechanical, and so many of them were made and they can be had relatively inexpensively in lieu of an expensive repair. Digital backs are still being made with a V mount, so will be available well into the future. What else it there to say?
  45. So... (I thought of not commenting back but... I'll bite!) the argument for you is quality of the H-system ....no? But nobody argues on the quality of a high-end system Marc .... It's the policy against customers that we are talking here! ...In other words, can you tell me why they don't sell the H4x(!) while they make the camera? ...You know my explanation, I would be glad to hear yours. ...and let's leave that "conspiracy theory" comments behind, ...shall we? We are all friends here Marc... Why? ...Because we share the same passion (at least here on the MF forum) for creative photography, ...friends don't have to agree, they have to explain why they have the position they have though.
  46. Well said Theodorus!
  47. Theodoros and Jake,
    Why do I, or anyone else, need a position on anything that some camera company does? Either they fit what is needed for the work, or not. I do not understand what is supposed to compel me to defend Hasselblad, or any other camera company.
    If it is to only answer your critique of one company, all I can say is I am not you ... I don't need or want what you do. How hard is that to understand?
    Your questions and concerns should be aimed at the company, not me. If they never made a H4X it would not have made a bit of difference to me. From what little I read, I took it as a concession to allow those with aging H1s and H2s to get a new camera regardless of the back used. Why they didn't offer it more wide-spead is anyone's guess ... ask them why, because neither you nor I know for sure, and can only speculate as to why.
    If you speculate that Hasselblad's approach is a "policy against customers", I cannot speak to that, as it has not been my experience. My relationship with them was good for a long time, and I liked that they concentrated their efforts on doing one thing well, which led to stuff like the HTS/1.5 and True Focus APL ... which no one else has, and I found very useful. Had I not retired, I would have continued on and probably eventually been shooting with a H5D/200 Multi-Shot.
    The force in the market is publish or perish ... if Hasselblad doesn't make what enough people want, they will dissappear. However the other market force is that IF enough people want something, and are willing to pay for it ... someone will make it.
  48. OK, lets end this argument here and go back to Jake's concern... Jake, my concern for the (digital) future is more that the makers "kill" most of their trades than what they provide. I believe that "they take their own eyes off" by doing this, it's a law in marketing that if you want a market to grow, you need a wide base... what happens now is that there is no growth of the base which cannot spend a fortune to buy the ultimate. As Jake would verify, his H60 is no where better than his starting H22 as the price suggests... It is better, but no where near the price difference, especially if there was the wide availability of older MFDBs that should have been in the market by now, if the makers wouldn't "kill" the older backs... I happen to use what Marc started with (the same quality in single shot Imacon 528c on Contax 645 & Fuji GX680), and I would like a 33-60mp back (they are all excellent) for single shot, primarily because of the moire issues that the "fat pixel" backs have in single shot. OTOH 16x microstep is absolutely essential for what provides my main income (painting reproduction), so I also worry about having a back up for my 528c... what I did, is bought an adapter for the Sinar 54h to have "just in case" because Sinar doesn't kill their older backs and they are widely available (the 54Hs), as for single shot, I got 2 Nikons D800 (one "plain" & one "E") but although they are up to the task, they are not MF - even if compared with the 528c. So, I am looking for single shot back too, but I am not prepared to spend a fortune for it, if I was to buy new, it would be multishot. I guess each one of us plans with the priorities he has, what I am thinking of (what would have been ideal) would be for me to find a S/H CF39MS, it would be a compromise for multishot, but it would solve the single shot flexibility/movrability the 528c can't provide me, it would give state of the art image quality and would provide a replacement in case something happens with my 528c until it's repaired. If I was in your position Jake and didn't need multishot, I would keep my V, would try to find a S/H back of 33/39mp with interchangeable adapter plates (either a CF or a Sinar emotion) and would also try to collect some adapters for focal plane cameras (M645 or C645) so that if I decide to change the camera body, i would still keep my lenses and my back... but this is just me. Regards, Theodoros.
  49. Theodoros,<br>Now, with all that out of the way, do tell: what is your verdict on Kyocera and Zeiss discontinuing the product you say you would buy anytime? They "killed" their trade completely, left their customers - who loved the products - out in the cold. Such unethical behaviour...
  50. I had a conversation a few years ago with P.H. of P1 during the presentation of P65+ in my country where I was invited, this was just after P1 invested in Mamiya, he said that they offered a lot of money to Kyocera before the Mamiya deal, to buy the rights of Contax from them, but Kyocera refused. He also claimed that Zeiss did support the deal... Now since it is well known that C645 production stopped because Kyocera wanted a less tight lens quality control from Zeiss, which would bring the cost down considerably and thus increase profit for them (which Zeiss refused since they don't like having "lemons" in use from customers), the end for Contax was inevitable.
    I guess we all have to wait until 2015 where the decade expires... Hopefully Zeiss (which still owns the rights for the name Contax, but is under production contract obligations), having being free of contract obligations, will take some action for the historical name of Contax to survive into the future. I have to say though, that other than the three bodies I own, I did buy another 3 bodies with damaged shutters, to have for parts and a service manual at a silly cost... I then came in contact with Priebe in "Tritec" (the official Contax service in Europe) who had no objections to send me 2 brand new original Shutter mechanisms at the cost of 315 Euros (inc. shipping) for both... That's all that is in my knowledge.
  51. Theodoros, in your last post you spelled out some very specific needs in search of hardware. This I understand.
    IMO, it is that kind of very specific set of needs that are becoming increasing hard for the MFD companies to full-fill.
    If a company offers a range of products that includes items that very few photographers are buying new, that's not a wider marketing base, that is a formula for going out of business.
    MFD operates on a different marketing paradigm ... the normal consumer rule is lower demand results in lower prices to generate enough quantities to justify production runs ... with MFD, when demand drops, the price increases because the cost of R&D and limited production increases per unit sold.
    The hope and desire that Hasselblad not "dispose" of trade-ins, so more pre-owned solutions would be available to those without a King's ransom to spend is also understood.
    Frankly, I have no idea how many trade-ins there actually are, or what Hasselblad does with those units. Do you? Do they destroy them? Do they wholesale them to re-sellers? Provide them to schools? I do know they offer a limited amount of gear as certified pre-owned because I bought a CF39MS directly from them.
    Very few manufactures are in the business of selling used products. Car companies generally do not do it, their dealers do. I believe Phase One dealers handle some trade-ins, but I am not privy to their actual practices, and it may vary from dealer to dealer.
    You personally may want some very specific MFD solutions, but if there are not enough people like you, then the company isn't going to make it anymore.
  52. By market base, I mean that there would be much more MF users, and a much wider spread of cameras by now Marc, can you imagine how many owners of Bronicas for example, would have turned their systems into digital by now that the original backs of the 2003-2004 period have dropped in price? This, shouldn't affect new back sales, it would create a future expansion of the MF market, since it's the base that upgrades to higher levels... If the base is not wide enough, then there are much less future customers. This could have happened if there were still backs with interchangeable fitting available... You see Marc, it's in the nature of the photographer to upgrade with time as his photography improves and his needs grow... OTOH, IMO, MF&LF is all about modularity and basic in modularity is to be able to change the kind of imaging area you are using easily... Can you imagine if you where stack with only one film in the past?
  53. Yes I agree, I have avoided buying A P1 or H system due to the changing goal posts in the MF market. Just easier to
    hire them for certain jobs. But my V system should have a D back at some stage, which I hope to can enjoy for years and
    years without the ball ache of throw away digital products. Mobile phone companies are masters at marketing
    upgrades. I understand this reasoning for business but using similar tactics for high grade pro MF cameras is a shame.

    Create a loyalty base not a Monopoli!
  54. The fallacy in all this is the idead that MF manufacturers drive the market, determine what hapens, can create a market base, etc.
    They are not. They are being driven by their customers dropping off, not one by one, but in droves. "It's the nature of the photographer to upgrade with time as his photography improves and his needs grow...", and photographers do, in large numbers. What they "ugrade" to are D800s and Leicas.

    That companies like Hasselblad and PhaseOne still exits is a bit of a miracle.
    And that they do is precisely because they avoid that "formula for going out of business" as Marc identified what you are looking for Theodoros. You may think it unethical to conduct a business such that it can survive in a very difficult market. But they, unlike Contax and Zeiss, still serve their customers.
    Hasselblad is still with us, because - unlike previous owners - Shriro correctly recognized that the market was moving toward digital, that Hasselblad - beit the platform of choice, then, for professional photographers whether film or digital shooters - would be left with very little if they would not join in the part of the market where the money was. Had they not done that, had they not bought Imacon and made it a part of Hasselblad, had they not closed the system and provided a greater integration of camera and their own backs, the Hasselblad company would have been gone the same way as Contax, Rollei and Mamiya. And while doing what they did, they even improved their offering, giving photographers better tools.
    PhaseOne survived, because they make very good digital backs, and avoided the fiasco that the attempts of other MF manufacturers to stay alive by offering an integrated digital camera ended in. From that mayhem they even managed to get both Mamiya and Leaf for just about nothing. (Somewhere here on Photo.net, someone once made the silly remark that it the biggest mistake PhaseOne ever made was not to join in on the Hy6 fiasco. Some people really understand what is going on, i guess... ;-) )

    Now is it unethical to not do exactly what a customer could demand? Even/also if that would mean taking the formula for going out of business? really, Theodoros?
    And (again) why is it not unethical then to pursue a business strategy that makes you go out of business, leaving customers like you having to buy spare bodies and assemblies for when your favourite camera needs spares with none available?

    Jake, if you want to put a digital back behind your V System Hasselblad, there are two very good options. The Hasselblad CFV backs. Or the PhaseOne backs. Get one now, make sure that you have a backup computer to run the software (more likley to be a problem than the back and what it delivers no longer being 'up to scratch', measured by what the market in 10 years will have on offer), and stop worrying.
  55. That Hass, still exists is thanks to one buyer of the company finding a next buyer and then another one that are prepared to loose their money... and due to the recent shrinkage (they closed down all the original Imacon premisses in Denmark) of premisses and personnel.
    That P1 still exists is because they can blackmail all the rest of the "open" market... because Hass abandoned it! They both screwed up with their plans, trying to compete each other in false decisions and courts, just to create a unique monopoly for themselves, ...instead of sitting around a table and look at their common interest which would be to expand the base of the MF market and explain the superiority of it...
    There is a proof for the above... Ask Marc, what's the difference between his CF39 (in single shot of course, H60 doesn't stand a single chance if the scene is still) and his H60? ...but his CF 39 is EIGHT years old technology! These guys ask for fortunes for people only to have INSIGNIFICANT improvement, only taking advantage of some showoffs around the forums that are making conversations "my IQ180 this - my IQ280 that" and some business men that run forums pretending to be photographers ...only without pictures that worth or contribute anything to photography!
    In the meantime, look at at an 8 years old DSLR and a D800... and what will happen 2-3 years later with the D800 successor... Eehh? Now, photographers buy the D800 for "what the Hey" reasons, others because they don't have a clue on the quality difference that MF has to offer, others because they find it more useful and flexible and give MF "what the hey" reasoning... but most important of all, is that MF lost it's character... which is (was) modularity!
    Lets face it guys, great images never where because IQ was slightly better... they where because the photographer could find a solution to the shot! What service does a bigger DSLR provide than a smaller one? What does S2 has to offer more than a D800? ....Put it otherwise, lets imagine a task and then hire two photographers to achieve it, one with S2 (or H60 or IQ180) and another with a D800... who will be up to the task better? ....the more capable photographer or the better camera? Now having the most capable photographer with the better camera is up to the photographer ....IF he cares, or ...IF consider spending a part of his fortune to "new toys".

    Turning MF into only "just better" larger image area DSLRs... will be the death of it! ...or "just a toy" for the ones that can pay! ...just my 2 cents.
  56. "What does S2 has to offer more than a D800?"
    Leica S, from the ground up digital design lenses. Nikon glass isn't my cup of tea. Lenses ARE the most important element in the imaging chain for me, and always have been.
    H cameras are still modular. More modular than a Phamyia.
    I used a CF39 on a H2F because I shot tons of fabrics for my General Motors agency client, and MS eliminated moiré.
    I asked for a test drive of the H4D/60 before buying ... and it was every bit up to the task with one shot, not four ... which even surprised the Hassey tech guy who ran the test with me.

    In short, Q,G, hit the nail on the head.
    Plus, companies like Kyocera/Contax and Bronica were headed toward the dust bin of history well before digital became mainstream. Thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of wedding photographers left MF for 35mm film cameras when customer demand changed to candid photography, to name just one category of photography that sustained MF.
    Once again proving that it is majority customer demand that dictates the market.
    Commercial photography, and any other type of work for pay, swiftly migrated to digital because all printing went digital, and clients no longer would pay for film, processing, and expensive scans. That commercial switch to digital capture was actually a stay of execution for MFD because there were no real 35mm DSLRs up to the task ... yet.
    The main issue that MFD faces today isn't a big used DB user base with obsolete or discontinued MF cameras looking to move up. That ship sailed even before the D800. The Canon 5D started the ball rolling years ago with advanced amateurs who could either buy a 16 meg MFD back, or a 13 meg FF Canon ... and even then, many were questioning the difference, if any.
    While 35mm DSLRs were improving, the demand for higher end imagery was diminishing ... until today the vast majority of photographs both commercial and personal are on the web, not a printed page. It is like a vise closing on MFD ... better 35mm DSLRs and less stringent needs.
    BTW, the GM agency, took the fabric work in house ... and now shoots it themselves with a Canon 5D-II !!!
    Now even die-in-the-wool MFD users are dumping their big, slow and awkward MF systems for the 5D-III or D800 ... and Canon is sure to respond with a monster meg camera soon enough ... so will Sony since they make the D800 sensor.
    Yes, there are still those of us who know the difference a big sensor makes, need the image performance and characteristics of MFD, or the modularity ... but it is a waining crowd.
    So, you can wish that Hasselblad did what you want ... and IMO if they did, there would soon be no Hasselblad at all. Then who would you complain about ... LOL!
    Fortunately, there ARE digital backs we can use on cameras like the 503CW, and can enjoy the camera we love so much well into the future. A nice CFV39 would be lovely.
  57. Theodoros,
    There is really nothing to be gained adhering to silly conspiracy theories like yours. Wake up, and smell the state of the industry. Get out and see what the market is like. To kep this short: get real.
    Your rants may temporarily relieve you of some emotional turmoil you apparently are struggling with, but boy! talk about "INSIGNIFICANT"...! The only meaning they carry, the only thing they convey is that you are a rather upset person, dissatisfied with probably the whole world.

    Now if someone wants to buy a digital back, wants to know if that would still be possible in a few years time, the answer is that you can still get perfectly good digital backs for the camera in question, that they still are expensive and probably will never get much cheaper, and that nobody knows how long it will still be possible to get some.
    Everything else, all that talk about you feeling ill-treated, your view on ethics, the market and such, is meaningless. Useless. Pointless.
  58. Watch your mouth O.G! ...."silly", "get real", "upset person", "conspiracy" (your invention), "emotional turmoil you apparently are struggling with", "boy", ...etc. in a conversation, are tactics of disturbed people, especially if they refer to a well supported and explained opinion which hasn't been objected to any of its points... I advise you to have a look on the language that Marc uses for his arguments (who has a totally different opinion than mine)... you won't be replied back in any of your quotes (not only in this threat) because you are doing this repeatedly.... Bye.
    Marc, you talk about IQ again, which nobody denies in any of the high end systems.... Regards, Theodoros.
  59. Theodoros,
    I'll watch my mouth if you mind your mind.

    Look at what your contributions boil down to. Nothing but anger, not helpful to the OP nor anyone else reading this thread.
    An "opinion" it is? Could be. So what? How does that make things any better?
    It doesn't. If it would be my opinion that Hasselblad or/and PhaseOne should read this thread, contact Jake, and offer him an eternal supply of DBs, customized for whatever camera he likes to be using at the time, and if i underpin that opinion by considerations involving ethics, the state of the economy, the colours of the Greek national flag, the phases of the moon, and what not ("well supported" he says...), throw in a good helping of indignation and anger too, it would closely resemble yours and (still) be as pointless and utterly useless. The fact that anyone has an opinion does by no way of reckoning mean it's a worthwhile opinion. The fact that you employ rather aggressive tactics to champion your opinion doesn't change it for the better either.

    The short and correct answer to Jake's question has been given. But despite the vast amount of words you put together, not by you. Your rants have nothing to do with it. Deal with it.
  60. This reminds me of Monty Python's sketch of 'is the the place to come to for a argument'.
  61. And you didn't come here to get an argument. My point. ;-)
  62. So, you can wish that Hasselblad did what you want ... and IMO if they did, there would soon be no Hasselblad at all. Then who would you complain about ... LOL!​
    He has several topics that he complains about, incessantly, on other sites. He's already brought one of those to photo.net, and I'm sure the rest will soon follow.
    • How Nikon must produce a "true D700 successor" with a D4 sensor in a D700 or D800 body.
    • How Nikon must adopt an interchangeable sensor system for their DSLRs.
    • How Nikon must must must bring back aperture rings.
    • How he is under constant attack from trolls and clowns (names he applies to everyone who disagrees with him).
    • Why his analysis of the Nikon product numbering system proves conclusively that a D400 must be FF, not APS, and why Nikon must be planning on releasing a video oriented D9000.
    Well, you asked.
  63. Nothing better to do on a few chilly June days here anyway. : -)

    However, I do agree that it isn't just about IQ ... there are differences in MF image characteristics ... and for some photographers with very specific needs, MF modularity, in it's most versatile form, has its functional merits. Things lost on many folks who don't see the value, or are no longer willing to pay such a premium for them in enough numbers to justify making them anymore.
    This equipment is so expensive because the window for profit is a small one. These companies must recoup their expenses in a very short time frame, spread out over a much smaller base of buyers, because it will be superseded swiftly.
    Unfortunately, the world of photo commerce isn't a universally altruistic one funded by photo savvy benevolent-billionaire saviors like Dr. Kaufman of Leica.
    Life dishes out disappointments, and so many desires go unfulfilled ... the least of these fall into the camp of photo gear.
    We probably all wish for something other than what is, but those unicorn dreams and cotton candy desires are best left behind with childhood.
  64. Very true Marc, however we must confess that it wasn't long ago that one couldn't have an H60 (or IQ180) or S2 at all ....and he was as happy with his work without ever thinking that he needs an upgrade, it is only after a product is introduced that desire develops...
  65. I think this explains it all..... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
  66. That is VERY true Theodoros. What I call "The Want's and Gimmes' ... the never satisfied desire for just a little bit more of this or that is what keeps these companies in business ... but has little to do with creativity, or satisfaction in making photographs.
    Subjectively, not counting very specific needs, I consider 18 to 24 meg an all around sweet spot for 35mm digital, and 33 to 40 meg for MFD. The camera companies and their retail pushers make a huge deal out of incremental gains beyond that ... ramping up desire for more than some people may need.
    Personally, I'm very satisfied with my current kit, and it will take a lot to move me from it. Less "Wants and Gimmes" leaves more energy for actually taking photos.
    Now, when it comes to glass ... that is a whole other matter : -)
  67. Theodoros,
    Do not waste your time answering Q.G.
    He has been insulting forum members for a long time and won't change. That seems to be his passion.
    I personally do not see the "conspiracy theory" in your messages but only your desire to transmit your experience and feelings about a company acting un-ethically and stupidly.
    Affirming like Q.G. and Marc that Hasselblad would have disappeared if they had not chosen the line they have is a gross unsupported assumption. I do believe that, in fact, they would be much more successful today if they had chosen modularity, compatibility and, above all, ethics.
    My assessment and yours are as good (or as bad depending of the point of view) as people believing the opposite for a simple reason: nobody can prove who is right.
    Like they say in France, if Paris was smaller it would fit in a bottle.
    You and I say "if Hasselblad had not done what they did they would be better off"
    They say "if Hasselblad had not done what they did they would be gone" and, just to make sure their point is known, they insult you. No wonder they support the unethical behavior of a company.
  68. The stupidity with Hasselblad's policy Paul, is not only that they sent away additional customers, which they absolutely need financially (the company has had 5 different owners during the last 12 years and is shrinking all the time), but additionally, they feed the greed of competition by providing them "free space"... thus they affect the whole MF market negatively. What is more surprising, is that they could have (easily) an "open system" policy, while keep the "closed system" unaltered at the same time, with (practically) no new investment... If they would sell the H4x for example and make versions of some existing dedicated backs with interchangeable adapter plates, they would both add more customers and would compete with P1 "in the open field" where they are now absent... there is no logic behind it if one thinks about it.
    Jake, wouldn't the last part of "Time bandits" (the one with the place on fire and Agamemnon as the leading fireman) describe the situation better? Not that "bureaucracy logic" doesn't...
  69. "They" Paul?
    The basics of the logic being used here seems pretty odd.
    That Hasselblad would have been more successful "if they had" is speculation. There isn't one shred of evidence that proves the theory.
    That what they did helped them survive difficult times for MF is less speculative, since they are still here, when many others are not.
    Coulda, woulda, shoulda is always easy to say, but much harder to actually do, and even harder to prove.
    Personally, I don't see the need to label the company "unethical" as it stretches the meaning of the word to fit an argumentative agenda of personal dissatisfaction. When words such as unethical are bandied about loosely like that, it is actually approaching the definition of "unethical behavior".
    Each company is free to position their product line as they see fit, follow a philosophy they think will succeed, and present that to potential buyers.
    Each potential buyer is free to accept or reject what is presented ... that, and that alone will determine success or failure.
    IMO, to constantly attack any of the surviving MF companies does nothing more than degrade and tarnish any efforts they are doing, while hastening the demise of the whole category amongst those even considering entering the world of MF photography.
    All this negative energy would be better spend encouraging people regarding what MFD can bring to their personal photographic trek.
    Coulda, woulda, shoulda, and perpetual whining about some slight, real or imagined, is unproductive. What is ... is.
    Medium Format (film or digital) remains a premier tool of personal expression ... an alternative experiential way of making photographs being utilized throughout the world by many very talented and involved photographers.
    It is they who celebrate what these tools can do in their hands ... not what they may have done, if only this or that had happened.
    Including legions of Hasselblad photographers who's work the company freely celebrates:
  70. Marc, your previous post (the one before the last one) came out in full agreement with my 30 years of experience... So, I would like to ask you your personal opinion since as I said before I am after a single shot back and obviously Jake is in the same situation.
    What would you choose between a CF39 and an e-motion 75LV and why?
    I left Leaf 7/75 and P1 P45+ out intentionally because I prefer and interchangeable plate and to do my own shimming. I also left CF 39ms out, because this would be an ultimate choice for me, even if I would prefer the Dalsa IQ than the Kodak one in single-shot. Please try to think of your answer as if you would own a Contax and would like to keep it (or a V for Jake). If you can share your experience with a friend's system that you may have tried it would be great.
    I have to say, that I've tried the above sensors in different systems and know that they are all great but for different reasons, what I am looking for, is your opinion on the color, the grain in higher Iso's and the possibility of intentional use of it, the DR and the compatibility with lenses character... Thanks in advance.
  71. Theodoros, I agree with Paul wholeheartedly, it's better to ignore those who are belligerent in their posts, there's always

    Marc, this is right about what these tools can do in the hands of photographers. But I think it' becomes a problem when
    the marketing strategy for 'reducing a fluid competitive secondhand market', for these great tools, gets people's goat.
  72. The thing is Jake that both trolls under question, are read by a number of people worldwide, ...people that not necessarily have the knowledge to understand what they read and thus are affecting negatively the meaning of advancing photography.
    The other day, O.G. (i.e. nameless) questioned and tried to humiliate my explaining on the superiority of MS shooting, by claiming in public using the worst possible "names" and attitude against me, that when shooting 16x with 22mp sensor, the requirement from the lens is still to cope with 88mp analysis... which of course is TOTAL NONSENSE, since each shot is made on a 22mp sensor... He even presented a full "Einstein" theory on the matter (backed up with the other troll in question - who "accidentally is aways present" whenever I have an argument), which was totally irrelevant since it was confusing "real printing" with "real capturing"... I am sure that this behavior, is not accidental but rather intentional, in a number of (bad) forums, (usually run by same ignorants) that don't just reject those "Einstein nonsense", but instead, ....praise them as well because they create more ignorance! Not to mention the worst of all forums, that the one that runs it, is a troll himself.
  73. By the way... Marc is also wrong when he said "it was surprising how close H60 was in color, with respect to his 39MS..." it was the subject that made difference calling small... not the result! ...if the subject was more demanding...? ...I can say that, ("small difference in color"), with my D800s too... with certain subjects!
  74. Oops, There you misquoting me again Theodoros. I never said "how close the H4D/60 was in color compared to the CF39MS. Nothing can match a MS back for accurate color rendition and separation. MY reference was about moiré ... but we also found the color from the 60 back to be surprisingly good in terms of separation ... so, as you say, it depends on what you are shooting and where.
    Can't speak to the Sinar MS backs as I have not had the pleasure of directly working with one myself. I've been on shoots, and discussed Sinar with some tech people, and a few preferred the more neutral rendering of single shot Sinars to that of Hasselblad and Phase One.
    A good friend of mine has a very successful studio here, and has tried everything out there in real world conditions ... he prefers the Hasselblad MS backs ... and recently picked up a H3D-II/50MS for $12,000. He has 9 photo stations running 7 days a week. All nine are Hasselblad equipped.
    Unfortunately, the rest of this word play is beginning to sound like a Heckle and Jeckle routine ... so I will respectfully bow out and leave it to the magpies to sort out : -)
  75. Yep. Paul is back again.<br>Nice to see you finally found a friend to play with.<br>Now if you would also manage to start posting some correct, usefull stuff (instead of what you once again show to be the beginning and end of your repertoire), the world will be a better place.<br.<br>But don't strain yourself too much trying. Jake got his answer. No thanks to you and Theodoros. So no thanks, both!
  76. I've tried the Dalsa 33mp sensor twice on two different systems Marc, one was with P3/75H and another was HY6/e-75... the color was so neutral on both... Better than the P65+ I once tried on a Mamiya. Don't know if it was because of the lenses, but it's a stunning sensor... high ISO and DR is very good too. If they could have 75H with card and screen, it would also be a perfect alternative for me than CF39MS... You won't sell me your back ....will you? ...I have the Contax adapter on my 528c at the moment... have you ever tried one of these in 16x with a Fatif (rock solid) tripod?
  77. I come to this thread rather late...
    I agree with you on one thing: it was a stupid move to restrict the H4X camera to H1/H2 trade-ins only. A straight offering of the H4X body on the open market might (I believe, would) have brought new customers into the Hasselblad fold.
    I have irritations with just about every MFD and sensor company regarding decisions in their hardware or firmware design. (That's including my personal favourite, Mamiya, and excepting, oddly, Pentax...can't really fault the 645D; I only wish pointlessly that it could mount Mamiya lenses and maintain infinity focus!). But it doesn't drive me to the sort of distraction that you described here. As Marc says, no one system can make everyone happy.
    BTW, why are you still pursuing incorrect physics with this? -
    that when shooting 16x with 22mp sensor, the requirement from the lens is still to cope with 88mp analysis... which of course is TOTAL NONSENSE, since each shot is made on a 22mp sensor​
    - a number of us already tried to tease out the flaw in your thinking in that thread.

Share This Page