Hassleblad to digital

[gus_gus1]

I use a Hassleblad 500 cm. I am not into digital. I process my own b&w film and prints. But it is getting difficult to get

my color processed. Is there someway to get my 500cm to do digital? Does Hassleblad make digital attachments for

the 500cm? I tried processing my own color film and paper once, but it was a flop. I might just have to try again. Any

input will be appreciated. Thanks. Gus.

[paul_gardener]

For the 200 and the 500 series Hasselblad makes a CFV digital back.

Easy to sue no loose cables.

The sensor is a bit small leading to 1.6 x the original focal length i.e.

a 40 mm lens becomes 64 mm.

 

Image quality is excellent at 16 Mp. It better be because the back costs 8000 euro.

A 503CW and the CFV and the new 40 mm IF are offered for a special price.

Still ist is a lot of money.

 

The new Leica S2 may be a good alternative more pixels excellent lenses but not

a cheap camera.

Digital is dominated by large figures meaning lotst of pixels and lots of money.

[graham_mitchell]

There are better backs than the CFV, both in terms of having larger sensors and having better features. Fortunately, all back makers make something that fits Hass V: Sinar, Phase One, Leaf and Hasselblad.

[paul_gardener]

But no back maker makes a back that will function without a cable to the lens to trigger the back. No one makes a

back that will work with (modified) 200 series cameras and F/FE lenses.

 

There are some older backs that will work with a 555ELD without external cables.

The only disadvantage of the CFV is the sensor size.

A 22 Mp sensor is essentialy a rectangular shaped CFV sensor.

[david_henderson]

The only disadvantage of the CFV is the sensor size.

 

I can think of three more. First the crop sensor in essence means no wide angle digital photography.

 

Second the size and apparent quality of the LCD screen on the back leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Third, here in the UK Hasselblad don't seem all that keen to sell them. During a prearranged demo the salesman

repeatedly plugged the H series to the CFV's detriment, and even implied that support for the V series could not be

guaranteed long term, which I took with a pinch of salt. But I concluded that if Hasselblad don't have enthusiasm for

this product then why should I buy it.

 

Sadly whilst the answer to your question is "yes" it is pretty expensive to get there in a useful way. Of course if

you use the Hasselblad for weddings/portraits etc where there might be a reduced need for wide angle, the CFV

might meet your needs quite well.

[paul_gardener]

The cropfactor is determinned by the sensor size. It is the same thing.

 

Pictures are taken by looking at the viewing screen . The display on the back is nice to read information about the back, look at histograms etc.

Many high end backs do not even have a display.

 

I just checked my crystal ball.

Long after the H series cameras are gone the V series will still be used.

Right now there are more V series cameras used daily than there are H series being used.

I admit there are not all that many left but even 1600F and 1000F cameras are still being used by a select group of people who enjoy a good working early Hasselblad.

These cameras are still going strong after a good service by a qualified technician.

Any idea when the H series will be obsolete or no longer being used?<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

There was one back; "back";)! in 1996 that was 2048 by 2048 pixels; a 32x 32mm sensor that cost as much as a new car!

[paul_gardener]

Hi Kelly,

 

Depends on what car you drive but a decent 33Mp back is 24000 euro or 35000 USD now.

I am sure you can buy a decent car for that kind of money.

 

A friend of mine had one of those early backs although I think it was not 1996 but longer ago.

He made a fortune with that back because all ad agencies wanted digital files instead of trannies.

[Ed_Ingold]

Gus,

 

Practically every digital medium format back ever made has an adapter to fit an Hasselblad "V" camera. The typical synchronization uses a cable to the PC port on the lens. The CFV back can work without a cable on a 500 camera (including the 500cm), a 555ELD or a modified 200 camera. However the sync cable is foolproof and not that much of an inconvenience. The CFV back is designed to resemble a 500 chrome back, and is completely self-contained with CF memory and a battery.

 

The cropping factor of a CFV sensor is 1.5 compared to a 6x6 film gate. In practice, this means a 40mm lens is a necessity if you want anything remotely wide. By the time you crop to an 8x10 aspect ration, you are down to about 13MP. By comparison, a 22MP back is rectangular and has a 1.1 cropping factor relative to a 645 frame. For about 20% more money you get nearly twice the number of useable pixels in an 8x10 crop. Only recent, high-end digital backs rotate in place, so you have the inconvenience of turning a 500 camera on its side to change the orientation.

[stephen_pitts]

Have used the CFV back (with a 205 and 203) and can highly recommend it. Heres two sample photos...

[paul_gardener]

Photos?

[kparratt]

Gus - I would suggest taking a fresh look at processing your film. Jobo outfits are all over eBay - the world over.

 

If you can look closely at what caused your first attempt to "flop", and solve it, you can then still have the full use of

the lens coverage. Which is simply not possible, and won't ever be, without an absolutely huge chunk of money.

 

Film processing under control, you can then invest in a scanner, and one of the best deals on the market is the

Epson V700 or slightly better V750. There is a considerable discussion on these and the more expensive alternative,

Nikon 9000. Whichever, a good scanner will be a valuable asset regardless.

 

Then all you need is printer, and the money to feed it.

 

End result? Full control (with lots of help from your friends here at Photo.net) ... at a fraction of the price of a digital

back, which still requires a printer anyway.

 

You can also modify your scans, and crop to suit, and deliver them to a digi lab on a CD, or as many places in

Europe offer, by email.

 

As I'm inclined to go bush with my Hasselblad, I'd rather go battery-free, and not risk environmental damge to a

pricey digital back. And again, I want to enjoy the full advantage of my wide angle Zeiss lenses, not cropped by a

stupid little sensor.

 

Cheers, Kevin

[kparratt]

Correction of the above: should have read: "Which is simply not possible with a digital back, ..."

[gus_gus1]

Hi Kevin. I have been thinking on the same lines as you. I do own a jobo CPE-2 Plus. Processing the negatives are

no problem. They come out great. It was the prints that was such a terrible flop. The print work was what got me

pissed off. I am going to check out your idea more closely. It sounds good. Thanks for the input. Gus.

[wclark5179]

Just a thought to help:

 

http://www.aandi.com/

[kelly_flanigan1]

Paul; the early back I mentioned was 4 megapixels! Imagine having a 4 Megapixel back that costs the same as a new car!.

[paul_gardener]

Hi Kelly,

 

I have seen results from this 4 Mp back.

They clearly show pixel count is not everything.

 

Cars have more horsepower now and backs do have more pixels for the same amount of money .

Not a bad development I think.

[kparratt]

Yes Gus, to "It was the prints that was such a terrible flop", my early attempts were also failures, and so expensive. With a good Kaiser colour head, and an excellent temp controlled printer, after making all the colour cast adjustments for the paper on hand, we opened another box of the same paper product and found our work needed to be done again. Even though the paper we used for testing and the first couple of prints, was (what we thought) identical to the second pack opened, they were from different batches!?! ... a mug's game I thought. OK fine, if one is going to spend hours at it every day, and buy paper in bulk. But from packet to packet, every now and then? ... nope.

[paul_gardener]

Hi Kevin,

 

That is why photography is an art and not science.

The best lab with the best qualified and experienced people to do the printing will not be able to give two identical prints if you ask for a second print after another month has passed.

 

Right now we have 60 Mp digital backs but printing, digital or conventional, is still a variable factor.

[kparratt]

Sigh .... I do really feel better on days when people say things like "That is why photography is an art and not science."

 

Thank you Paul.

 

(Venturing off on a tangent, but, something I often say is that "I am going out to make photographs" ... rather than "take photographs". The former suggesting a contribution to the art of photography.)

[thomas_wilson1]

"The negative is the score and the print is the performance..." I recall reading that somewhere...

[stephen_pitts]

Lets try again (its new for me to get them on this site). I'm trying to figure out how to get the size down a lot more...<div></div>

[stephen_pitts]

And another....<div></div>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Stephen,<br><br>I think you would better reduce image size, and not compress so much. You could post a smaller cropped and uncompressed image to show 1:1 detail.<br>The way these pictures look now (posterization/color zones, jpeg artefacts, and more such bad thingies), i wouldn't want a CFV even if they were given away free. ;-)