What now for 503CW digital backs?

[paul_loveteck]

<p>Marc, Jake,<br>

The original question was regarding the 503CW, P1 and CFV's digital backs. This what my answers were related to.<br>

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.<br>

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 . . .<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

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.

[fotografz]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>DAVE:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>BTW, RE: 50mm ... the new Hasselblad HC50/3.5-II is phenomenal. No doubt the best 50mm MF lens I've ever used.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[jake_bryant]

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.

[fotografz]

<p>Yes, you are right Jake. My bad.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>I answered the OPs question right away in an effort to share, not to argue.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

 

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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 ...<em>et voila! ...100% dead accurate 16X mictrostep with a painting only 3 yards away, and the 120mm macro on f5.6 for testing purposes... </em>(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! </p>

[fotografz]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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... <em>wouldn't "kill" the S/H backs they take as part exchange, </em>the O/P wouldn't have to worry about DB provision on his Hass V, ....would he? Regards, Theodoros.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

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.

[paul_loveteck]

<p>It sure is foolish, and your last post is the decisive proof.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Hello Paul. Back again?

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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 <em>forgot to add, is that <strong>those backs where no new designs to them</strong></em><strong> </strong>(which would mean development of new backs), <em>but rather, already existing designs in all their electronics for the H-series... </em>So what they did, was that <em>they stopped the provision of already existing products to other makers and now to ....their own customers of the V-series! ...</em>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, <em>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"!</em> <em> </em> </p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>If I may add a few Qs to the above for you Marc...<br>

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? <br>

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?<br>

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? <br>

Regards, Theodoros. </p>

[fotografz]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Again, you have a habit of mis-quoting me ... I <strong>NEVER</strong> 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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <strong>never</strong> 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.</p>

<p>So your definition of "trapped" and mine differ greatly. Let's just leave it at that.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p> </p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>Marc, there is no mis-quoting... The point was not if Hass did or why they stopped the CF backs... It simply is that <em>having the CF backs, is no additional </em><em>effort than converting the fit of their already existing backs for the H system...</em> I' m surprised you didn't understand that from my post... As for the rest of the questions that I've addressed.......?!! </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Here is your quote right from your post:<br>

<br>

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

<br>

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. <br>

<br>

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. <br>

<br>

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. <br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

As to all the other "conspiracy" questions you asked ... my answer is buy something else that does what you want.<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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.<br>

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....</p>

 

[fotografz]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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? </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <em>used</em> 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.</p>

<p>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? </p>

<p> </p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>So... (I thought of not commenting back but... I'll bite!) the argument for you is quality of the H-system ....no? <em>But nobody argues on the quality of a high-end system Marc .... It's the policy against customers that we are talking here! </em>...In other words, can you tell me why <em>they don't sell the H4x(!) while they make the camera? ...</em>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? ...<em>Because we share the same passion</em> (at least here on the MF forum)<em> for creative photography, ...friends don't have to agree, they have to explain why they have the position they have though. </em></p>

[jake_bryant]

<p>Well said Theodorus!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Theodoros and Jake,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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 <strong>them</strong> why, because neither you nor I know for sure, and can only speculate as to why. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p> </p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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, <em>you need a wide base... </em>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 <em>no where near the price difference, especially if there was the wide </em><em>availability of older MFDBs that should have been in the market by now, if the makers wouldn't "kill" the older backs... </em>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, <em>they are not MF - even if compared with the 528c. </em>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 <em>with </em><em>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. </em>Regards, Theodoros.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

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...

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>