Hasselblad 503cwd for Weddings

[mary_s]

Has anyone here tried the new digital Hasselblad 503cwd for weddings? I'd like

to get back to making medium format square photos, but film is so expensive. For

the price of 300 rolls of film - printed, processed and scanned locally I could

purchase this digital back. I already have a full set of hasselblad lenses and

would love to put them back to work. I'm not planning on using it as the primary

camera for weddings. It would be used as a second camera. Any thoughts? Has

anyone even gotten to play with one of these?

[uk]

Nice economics, but I would not include the cost of printing as that is the same regardless

of using film or digital capture if you are including the cost of the scan.

 

Numbers here are quite different as the cost of the back alone is 6,500 GBP and that

requires at least 650 films to counter the cost.

 

Last month, I had a half day presentation and the results are sensational and I much

preferred it to the H series that Hasselblad demonstrated at the same time. The main

issues are the crop factor and relatively low iso, but if you can use it, you'll breath new life

into an excellent outfit. You can use it also with the SWC.

 

Hass will adjust your back to get perfect focus & alignment, if necessary. You will always

have the option of switching to/from film at will.

 

Marc Williams has posted a good deal on the subject and highly recommends it, so

hopefully he will join in your thread. See his posts for examples.

[fotografz]

Yep Mary, it's great solution to extend the functionality of the 500 and 200 series

Hasselblad cameras. No connecting cords ... just pop it on, power it up, and shoot. Looks

just like a film back, only a little deeper.

 

Unlike Gary, I don't prefer it to my H2D/39 for weddings because the H camera is way

faster, and there's virtually no crop factor on wide lenses.

 

However, if you have used the 503CW and love the square format, then it's no problem. In

practice the 40/4 is plenty wide for wedding work. What is interesting is that the 16 meg

sensor at that size seems to be a perfect balance ... providing great tonal gradations and

dynamic range ... it clearly out performs my Canon 1DsMKII which is also 16 meg ...

proving the sensor size ratio to meg count makes a difference.

 

Then of course, there are those fab Zeiss lenses : -)<div></div>

[neilambrose]

<p>I use a V96C which is the precursor to the CWD. It's fabulous outside and in the studio (i.e. anywhere that's fairly bright, or where there's time to set-up off camera strobes) but I think it would be limited for inside use, particularly where it's dark. ISO 50 offers the hightest quality images, and ISO 100 is still very usable, but between 200 and 400 it gets pretty noisy.</p>

 

<p>So, here's a question for Marc:</p>

 

<p>Marc, do you use your back with TTL flash? If so, how do you find it?</p>

 

<p>Regards,<br/>Neil</p>

[fotografz]

Yes Neil I do. Have a D40 I always use when shooting weddings.

 

I find using the CFV about the same as shooting with MF film. I never use films beyond ISO

400 either, so nothing really different.

 

This back has different firmware than my 96C did, and the images are better at higher ISO.

That coupled with the improved Flexcolor software has made ISO 400 pretty usable as

long as you expose properly.

[neilambrose]

Thanks, Marc. That's useful to know. I guess it's time to think about an upgrade.... :-)

[ned1]

Will it work with my CF lenses?

[uk]

CF lenses - certainly will.

 

It's essentially a back replacement, so all your equipment will integrate: prisms, extension

tubes .....

 

That's the beauty of it IMO. Lovely results. Marc has some fabulous images posted from

his kit.

 

My preference for the CFV is based on a very limited time with the camera I know and one

that I handld fo just an hour. No where near enough time to form a valid opinion. I think I

was also influenced by the level of investment required to bring the H' system' in house,

whereas the CFV needed a purchase of just the back and opens up the opportunity to

expand the system with bargain priced 500 Series optics and accessories for less than the

price of a serious Canon DSLR outfit.

 

I can add that I'm not likely to be pursuing this yet and may well add the Canon before the

CFV. Nice consideration though.

[karl_borowski]

Granted most shots from a wedding never go bigger than 8x10, but would you be

comfortable blowing a 16MP file up to 16x20? I wouldn't. . .

 

Also, 120 costs me about 70c to process, and is what, $2.50 a roll? I am not going to

bother how many I'd have to shoot to pay off the back, but it'd be closer to 1000 than 300.

Also, remember that, while digital backs are the latest and greatest thing (they have SOME

history, but the high quality ones for MF are still less than a decade old) they don't last

forever, so viewing it as the last piece of equipment you'll ever have to purchase seems to

optimistic.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[lb-]

<i>but would you be comfortable blowing a 16MP file up to 16x20? I wouldn't. . .</i><p>

 

guessing you haven't actually tried it.

[uk]

Karl,

 

I can promise you that you will be surprised/amazed by what this back produces..

 

I'd expect to see a 40x40 with no loss of quality. I've never actually seen quality like it

from less than 5x4, but you might be expecting more, or have higher standards. Try it

and see, it could be a welcome experience.

[fotografz]

Karl, 16 meg isn't the issue ... it's the sensor size in relation to the meg count. A 24" X 24"

print is a no brainer for this back ... I've done them. It also means being able to crop at will

with out severe consequences.

[neilambrose]

<p>Ditto. I've made large prints (30x30 inch) with a V96C. No problems at all, and there's

a reasonable margin to go bigger if I wished.</p>

 

<p>The back produces a 16 bit 96MB file (4080 x 4080 pixels) without interpolation. But

the software allows it to be scaled up without any evident loss of quality. In fact. I often

export images from the back at 6144 x 6144 pixels.</p>

 

<p>In terms of enlargement, it's well within the tolerances of both the human eye and a

large format printer. I also make scans from 6x6 film, generally at 3000 dpi. This gives me

an output file size that's pretty equivalent - usually about 6200 pixels after trimming. And

the sharper prints always come from the back.</p>

 

<p>Regards,<br/>Neil</p>