Anyone with hands on experience with Hasselblad V-Series and CFV-50C Digital Back?

[maxs]

Hi Everyone

I am seeking to hear from folks who have had hands on experience with any of the V-Series Hasselblad camera (500, 501, 503 bodies) and CFV-50C digital back.

Of interest to be as a hobbyist are things like:
1. Lenses - How well does the sensor produce images with the common lenses like the 80MM, 120MM, 150MM and 50MM and the less common 40MM and 60MM. I am including the C, CF, CFE land CFI lenses here. for discussion. I have heard all sorts of things from the images when in focus being mind blowing to the lenses are unable to produce the resolution for the aforementioned sensor.

2. Focussing - Yes I am aware everything is manual, but even then is it a nightmare to focus. I preliminary like to do portraiture and a little landscape sprinkled in. I have used the H5D in the past and love the TrueFocus. Will focusing and recomposing be a no no with this or any manual focus camera?

3. Body - Is a certain body of the V-series better suited to this digital back then the others? I have not bought a body yet.

4. Crop factor - I also am aware the image produced will not be square and can be cropped. Has that been an issue for those of us that have this system and digital back? 

5. External strobes - I am assuming using external lights is fairly straight forward.

Bottom line is my reason for purchase is part to own something that has the 'iconic' value and bigger part to take pictures. If I purchase this setup will it be enjoyable :-)

For those 'lucky' enough to own a H series, or even a Phase, how is this comparable (other than price)? Are the images of equal quality?

If you do own this setup I would appreciate if you would post some pictures taken with the setup portraiture or even fashion!

Thanks
Max

[Jager]

Assuming a properly calibrated body, the CFV-50c works exceptionally well on any of those V-system cameras.  The only one I would avoid is the very early 500C, as the focusing screen on that model is not easily removable (and if you get the CFV you'll want to replace your camera's screen with the screen included with the back).

To get optimum results you'll need to exercise good technique, but otherwise the CFV-50c does a great job.  I routinely use it with 50, 80, and 150 lenses.  The lenses are more than up to the task of obtaining "mind-blowing" images, but getting such images has everything to do with a photographer's vision, intent, and skill... and very little to do with equipment.

Focusing has to do with the camera system itself and very little to do with the back.  Most of us certainly don't consider it a "nightmare to focus" - quite the contrary - but, yes, it is manual and it is slower than your typical auto-focus system.  Much depends upon whether you use a waist-level finder or a 45 or 90 degree prism finder.  They each have their strengths and their weaknesses. 

I don't find the sensor's crop factor to be an issue.  You just end up using a wider focal length to achieve a similar field of view, than you would with film.

Yes, using strobes is straightforward.

The bottom line... if you like shooting a V-system Hasselblad with film backs, you'll be delighted with what the CFV-50c brings to the table.  If on the other hand you're frustrated by the system's deliberative, thoughtful pace, the CFV-50c isn't going to do anything to change that.

If you do end up buying a 500-series 'blad, I'd recommend a CLA as part of the purchase, or as soon as you receive it. 

[maxs]

Jeff - Thanks for your comments

[jng]

I would echo these comments based on my experience using a full frame 60 Mp IQ160 back on my V system. If your eyes are good and the camera body properly adjusted and calibrated, the CFV-50C will do quite well. Not all of the legacy glass will hold up quite so well (the Distagons in particular, with the exception of the newer 40/4 IF CFE which is superb corner to corner but rare and very expensive) but the 100, 120 for macro, 150 and 180 are all excellent. The main ingredient you'll need is patience and acceptance that the setup is great for some subjects (e.g.,landscape and still life) but not so great for others (e.g., moving subjects). Others may suggest you're better off with the current generation of high pixel-count 35mm full frame sensors, but I prefer taking my time shooting with the larger format.

You might also search around the Lula (and other) forum(s) for other threads, which have touched on this topic previously...

John

[maxs]

John

I had also heard about the excellent optical qualities of the 40MM along with a impressive price tag :-)

Max

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My experience is with the P45+ that has a slightly larger sensor than the CFV-50C.

I would echo what is said about the lenses. The Distagons have some weaknesses with the 40/4 IF probably being the exception. Regarding the three Planars the 100/3.5 is very good at long distance and the 120/4 is a "macro lens" intended for close up. At infinity it has significant field curvature. Stopping down to f/11 may "mask" that field curvature.

The Sonnars are very sharp.

In general, I would say that all lenses can deliver very good images at f/11, that is the aperture I am mostly using. Here are some sample shots: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/

Focusing is absolutely critical to get best sharpness out of that sensor. I use a PM5 viewfinder with a Zeiss 3X monocular for focusing. My guess is that live view may be the best way to focus.

Regarding the weakness of the Distagons, you may see it or you may not.
This is something like midfield area on a Distagon 40/4 FLE shot on the P45+:


And here is one shot with my Canon 16-35/4 on my Sony A7rII:


As you can see the Canon/Sony A7rII is much sharper on this building. Here are more crops from that shot: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/WA/

Now, I cropped down the images to half and made A2-size prints from the crops. Looking close, say from 50cm the prints look just like the screen shots. But, moving back to 100 cm viewing distance no difference can be observed and the Hasselblad/Distagon/P45+ may look a tiny bit better.

These prints would correspond to something like 31"x47" uncropped.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Everyone

I am seeking to hear from folks who have had hands on experience with any of the V-Series Hasselblad camera (500, 501, 503 bodies) and CFV-50C digital back.

Of interest to be as a hobbyist are things like:
1. Lenses - How well does the sensor produce images with the common lenses like the 80MM, 120MM, 150MM and 50MM and the less common 40MM and 60MM. I am including the C, CF, CFE land CFI lenses here. for discussion. I have heard all sorts of things from the images when in focus being mind blowing to the lenses are unable to produce the resolution for the aforementioned sensor.

2. Focussing - Yes I am aware everything is manual, but even then is it a nightmare to focus. I preliminary like to do portraiture and a little landscape sprinkled in. I have used the H5D in the past and love the TrueFocus. Will focusing and recomposing be a no no with this or any manual focus camera?

3. Body - Is a certain body of the V-series better suited to this digital back then the others? I have not bought a body yet.

4. Crop factor - I also am aware the image produced will not be square and can be cropped. Has that been an issue for those of us that have this system and digital back? 

5. External strobes - I am assuming using external lights is fairly straight forward.

Bottom line is my reason for purchase is part to own something that has the 'iconic' value and bigger part to take pictures. If I purchase this setup will it be enjoyable :-)

For those 'lucky' enough to own a H series, or even a Phase, how is this comparable (other than price)? Are the images of equal quality?

If you do own this setup I would appreciate if you would post some pictures taken with the setup portraiture or even fashion!

Thanks
Max

[pflower]

I second the requirement for a CLA for any V series camera before using the CFV-50c.  I had no problems with my 503cx with film but was hugely disappointed when I first put the CFV on it - most early images were way out of focus even at f11 or even f16.  I had the body calibrated for focus - the screen, mirror and the alignment of the back of the camera body all needed adjustment.  Now things are vastly improved - but you need sharp eyes and mine are probably not what they were 15 years ago.  Handheld is challenging - whereas I am confident handholding with film on 50mm and 80mm lenses at 1/60th and above with the camera braced by the strap and against my body (and with the mirror up) - with the CFV 1/250th is preferable.  Fortunately the high iso capabilities of the back make that easily achievable in reasonable light.

On a tripod with a cable release and mirror up shutter speed is irrelevant - and live view is definitely the way to go.  Sometimes it is a bit choosy - particularly in very bright light I sometimes find it difficult to get sufficient contrast to focus even stopped right down but nonetheless it mostly works wonderfully and is great.

The cropped sensor is not as much of a problem as i had anticipated.  I usually use the 50mm and 80mm lenses on film - on the CFV the 50mm becomes the standard lens. I don't have a 40mm which, I think, is pretty much the widest lens you can get for the 503 series.   What is slightly disconcerting is that the back comes with a new focusing screen with etched lines which show the limits of the sensor.  Those limits are far less than the full 6x6 screen one is used to with a film back.  So initially all you aware of is the amount of real estate that you are losing as against 6x6 film.  But after a while you learn to ignore everything outside of those lines and it doesn't really matter.

The files are great - even up to 3200iso.  Unlike my H3D-39 (which isn't so good above 100iso) I normally just leave it on 400 or 800 iso as a standard and forget to change down to 100 or so even when it is appropriate.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Some other points…

Phase One or Hasselblad? One goes with C1 the other with Phocus. Colour is probably pretty good with Phocus, but it is more of a raw converter than a workflow tool.

The 555/ELD model interfaces with Phase One backs.

Leaf shutter is simple, at least with Phase One backs. You connect the sync cable from the lens to the back and from the back to the flash.

Getting accurate focus is difficult, but probably not more difficult than manual focus on any other camera. Magnified live view probably helps.

Focusing is very, very critical.

Regarding focusing, it is simply hard. Using the split wedge on a clean vertical shape is a no brainer, and it will be accurate. Focusing on subtle things in the dark is very difficult and my results have been disappointing.

For me, it would be very hard to come up with a compelling reason to shoot the P45+ over say my Sony A7rII. It is fun to shoot with, though…

Best regards
Erik

Hi Everyone

I am seeking to hear from folks who have had hands on experience with any of the V-Series Hasselblad camera (500, 501, 503 bodies) and CFV-50C digital back.

Of interest to be as a hobbyist are things like:
1. Lenses - How well does the sensor produce images with the common lenses like the 80MM, 120MM, 150MM and 50MM and the less common 40MM and 60MM. I am including the C, CF, CFE land CFI lenses here. for discussion. I have heard all sorts of things from the images when in focus being mind blowing to the lenses are unable to produce the resolution for the aforementioned sensor.

2. Focussing - Yes I am aware everything is manual, but even then is it a nightmare to focus. I preliminary like to do portraiture and a little landscape sprinkled in. I have used the H5D in the past and love the TrueFocus. Will focusing and recomposing be a no no with this or any manual focus camera?

3. Body - Is a certain body of the V-series better suited to this digital back then the others? I have not bought a body yet.

4. Crop factor - I also am aware the image produced will not be square and can be cropped. Has that been an issue for those of us that have this system and digital back? 

5. External strobes - I am assuming using external lights is fairly straight forward.

Bottom line is my reason for purchase is part to own something that has the 'iconic' value and bigger part to take pictures. If I purchase this setup will it be enjoyable :-)

For those 'lucky' enough to own a H series, or even a Phase, how is this comparable (other than price)? Are the images of equal quality?

If you do own this setup I would appreciate if you would post some pictures taken with the setup portraiture or even fashion!

Thanks
Max

[eronald]

Erik,

 There are two nice things about the CFV:
 - it is the cheapest back with liveview and hi iso
 - it does NOT need a cable with the Hassy bodies AFAIK because it picks up on the darkslide interlock.

One can of course use a P1 back, as I believe you do ...

I think the Focal Plane models might work too, and allow the use of cheap russian and east german lenses, eg the fisheye.
Edmund

Hi,

Some other points…

Phase One or Hasselblad? One goes with C1 the other with Phocus. Colour is probably pretty good with Phocus, but it is more of a raw converter than a workflow tool.

The 555/ELD model interfaces with Phase One backs.

Leaf shutter is simple, at least with Phase One backs. You connect the sync cable from the lens to the back and from the back to the flash.

Getting accurate focus is difficult, but probably not more difficult than manual focus on any other camera. Magnified live view probably helps.

Focusing is very, very critical.

Regarding focusing, it is simply hard. Using the split wedge on a clean vertical shape is a no brainer, and it will be accurate. Focusing on subtle things in the dark is very difficult and my results have been disappointing.

For me, it would be very hard to come up with a compelling reason to shoot the P45+ over say my Sony A7rII. It is fun to shoot with, though…

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks Edmund,

I was over excited about explaining how things work. The major aspect I had on mind was that the latest models like the 555/ELD were modified for digital but I guess that those modifications are not needed or less needed with the CFV backs.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

 There are two nice things about the CFV:
 - it is the cheapest back with liveview and hi iso
 - it does NOT need a cable with the Hassy bodies AFAIK because it picks up on the darkslide interlock.

One can of course use a P1 back, as I believe you do ...

I think the Focal Plane models might work too, and allow the use of cheap russian and east german lenses, eg the fisheye.
Edmund

[beano_z]

Just my $0.02 from a slightly different perspective.

I was shooting P45+ on a 503CW with standard lens, because I liked how the 503 was as a film camera (e.g. waist level finder, the shutter cocking mechanism, the bright finder and smooth lenses) and wanted to move away from film as it was becoming more and more tedious to have film developed locally where I live.

Major comment was that when using film, focus wasn't that critical, I mean I thought I did a pretty good job at focussing and everything......until I mounted the digital back.  With digital you tend to go overboard on the pixel peeping, and then, all of a sudden, it seems that 75% of my portraits are simply OOF, especially those shot at closer distance with shallower DoF (the P45+ was only usable at ISO50, so basically not much stopping down was allowed).  Your own body movement and the subjects body movement (both inevitable) is very tough to control.  And that's for subjects who are cooperating with you, so forget about shooting your kids or basically anything moving.

And another thing that wasn't mentioned was the quality of the lenses for landscape, of the few lenses I've tried (I've tried on the 100MP CMOS as well), the sharpness of the 80mm standard lens was the best, I also tried the 40mm and the  350mm, the 40mm was soft in the corners and the 350 a bit soft overall, but then again the 350 is very hard to shoot.  So what I want to say is, for landscape / cityscape, you'll never get the crispness as you would from technical camera's and associated lenses, especially in the wider range.

Anyway, just two point, which might help you in your decision before you spend your hard earned cash on these toys...

BB

[Jager]

My experience, with something north of 1000 frames through my CFV-50c, is that focusing is not an issue.  Technical hit rate with tripod-mounted shots is identical to film (which is to say, approaching 100%).  Hit rate with handheld shots does suffer compared to film, but that's because the back's high resolution and smaller sensor area will illuminate even the most infinitesimal camera movement, not because of focusing problems.

It's probably also useful to point out that the CFV-50c, being a CMOS back, offers Live View if focusing is questioned.  I personally don't find it much necessary, as my 500C/M's optical focusing works just fine.  But it's there, and easy to use.

[maxs]

Thanks everyone for your comments. This has given me a better understanding of the limitations and strengths of the setup.

Just out of curiosity the X1D also has the ability to shoot square format. Would that camera shoot better square format than the V setup and CFV back?

Regards

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The lenses are optimised for the smaller format, so yes I think so.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks everyone for your comments. This has given me a better understanding of the limitations and strengths of the setup.

Just out of curiosity the X1D also has the ability to shoot square format. Would that camera shoot better square format than the V setup and CFV back?

Regards

[rent]

Max,

Message me I can share some 3FR files with you from my 503CW + CFV-50c with the IF version of the 4/40 as well as the CFi 3.5/100. Both are superbly sharp. I am also very happy with the DR of the CFV.

-alex

[DiamondsDr]

Max, 120 cf makro should be great, i've used this one with cf adapter on 60mp and performs really great.

[Rob C]

Max,

I used a 500C and a 500C/M for decades - side by side, with, of course, film. I have never used one with digital backs fitted.

BUT: even with film, I gave up trying to use either of the 500 cameras hand-held. My work was all professional, and sharpness was obviously of great importance. My two bodies lived on tripods after the initial tests showed that the old Rolleiflex TLR and Mamiya TLR they replaced were far better tools for hand-held photography (if you had to do that).

Hasselblad themselves published a leaflet that they sent out (I had one), explaining to anyone who didn't realise it, that mirror bounce is a flaw common to all reflex cameras that have a mirror between lens and film (or sensor, today). They showed two shots of the same subject, one with mirror-up activated and the other without, proving their point. If only all other makers did the same. A tripod, of course, is essential.

I found focussing either camera with the 50, 80 or 150 lenses to be as good as the light in which it was being done. In studio work with modelling lights on electronic flash units, I would usually ask the model to hold her hand flat on her stomach and then focus on the highlights that the rings on her fingers would create. On full length shots, that was close enough at about f6.3 or f8 to give wonderfully crips photographs.

The 500 Series were magnificent system cameras. Were they available today, new, with a full 6x6 format sensor, I think they would be worth every penny of whatever the makers chose to ask for them. (I am not so sure I'd want to buy used - but then I never bought used when I was still working; as with a car, I tended to think you were only buying into somebody else's problem, and making them very happy at your expense.)

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would never dream about using the blad (555/ELD in my case) without mirror lock up, except perhaps with studio flash. I use sort of the best tripods (RRS Versa 33 with an Arca Swiss 4D) and shooting 120 mm at 1/125s is a total loss.

In film days there was a tremendous loss of image quality in the tool chain.

- Some image quality is lost due to the lens
- Some image quality is lost due to diffraction
- Some image quality is lost in exposure on film
- Some image quality is lost exposing film on paper
- Some image quality is lost on the paper itself

The digital  information path is shorter, so we have less loss. More importantly, in the digital workflow we can reconstruct part of what have been lost. So digital technology makes higher demands on the original image.

Best regards
Erik

Max,

I used a 500C and a 500C/M for decades - side by side, with, of course, film. I have never used one with digital backs fitted.

BUT: even with film, I gave up trying to use either of the 500 cameras hand-held. My work was all professional, and sharpness was obviously of great importance. My two bodies lived on tripods after the initial tests showed that the old Rolleiflex TLR and Mamiya TLR they replaced were far better tools for hand-held photography (if you had to do that).

Hasselblad themselves published a leaflet that they sent out (I had one), explaining to anyone who didn't realise it, that mirror bounce is a flaw common to all reflex cameras that have a mirror between lens and film (or sensor, today). They showed two shots of the same subject, one with mirror-up activated and the other without, proving their point. If only all other makers did the same. A tripod, of course, is essential.

I found focussing either camera with the 50, 80 or 150 lenses to be as good as the light in which it was being done. In studio work with modelling lights on electronic flash units, I would usually ask the model to hold her hand flat on her stomach and then focus on the highlights that the rings on her fingers would create. On full length shots, that was close enough at about f6.3 or f8 to give wonderfully crips photographs.

The 500 Series were magnificent system cameras. Were they available today, new, with a full 6x6 format sensor, I think they would be worth every penny of whatever the makers chose to ask for them. (I am not so sure I'd want to buy used - but then I never bought used when I was still working; as with a car, I tended to think you were only buying into somebody else's problem, and making them very happy at your expense.)

Rob C

[Rob C]

Hi,

I would never dream about using the blad (555/ELD in my case) without mirror lock up, except perhaps with studio flash. I use sort of the best tripods (RRS Versa 33 with an Arca Swiss 4D) and shooting 120 mm at 1/125s is a total loss.

In film days there was a tremendous loss of image quality in the tool chain.

1.   - Some image quality is lost due to the lens
2.   - Some image quality is lost due to diffraction
3.   - Some image quality is lost in exposure on film
4.   - Some image quality is lost exposing film on paper
5.   - Some image quality is lost on the paper itself

6.   The digital  information path is shorter, so we have less loss. More importantly, in the digital workflow we can reconstruct part of what have been lost. So digital technology makes higher demands on the original image.

Best regards
Erik

1 to 3 are common to all capture - not just film.

4 and 5 can be dabated:
 
4. there are those - myself included - who actually prefer that filmic look;

5. ditto with printing onto 'digital' papers which, as with film printing, vary according to surface qualities.

6. "Reconstruction" is a false name for it: it's fake detail based on best guess. As fake as cloning, if easier to do.

These debates have no logical ending, Erik; they are always subjective and carry so many caveats couching each assumption that, in the end, it hardly matters beyond keeping a person happy in his or her choice of tools.

;-)

Rob

[Jager]

As someone who goes back and forth between film and digital on my 500C/M, there's no doubt in my mind that the CFV-50c imposes greater demands on good technique than does film.  I've long assumed that was due to having a lot of resolution in a small area.  Any kind of movement, regardless of source, really gets amplified.

Yes, indeed, a tripod and mirror pre-release is your friend.