hasselblad v system

[david distefano]

This morning I see that Amazon has the pentax 645d 40 mp camera selling for $6995.00. This includes camera body and lens. Yes the sensor is only 33x44 but if pentax can sell the complete camera for that price, hasselblad should be able to satisfy the v system owners with a digital back besides the cfv-50 for $17,000.00. There are many of us who own the venerable v system, we love the way it feels when we hold it and the manual focus zeiss lenses that feel like works of art when we use them. Most of us who own the v system are not professionals, we photograph for the pleasure it gives us. If hasselblad made a 31mp back or something similar at an affordable price and I mean affordable to the many not just the rich, many of us who own the v system would snatch them up. Instead of wasting their time making the down right ugly and unnecessary lunar camera, they could have satisfied those of us with the v system and at the same time made sales to help their bottom line. I really like the cfv-16 that I own, but the crop factor really does come into play, and the jump to cfv-50 is just to much in the way of money for many of us to make. Hasselblad, IMO, made a very poor decision in relegating the v system to the dustbin of photographic history. Hasselblad, rethink that decision, give us that own the v system an affordable digital back. If Pentax can do it, so could you and your company will be better off by reversing your poor decision.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It doesn't have to be Hasselblad, though.

[tom_l]

why not get a used P25(+) / Aptus22 / CF22 for the V

I used a P25 on my 503cw for years, nobody ever complained about size, colors ...
And, it's a lot of fun too.
The CFV prices are a bit higher, even used, but this still seems to work, people buy them.

But, of course, you are right, there is no logical reason not to put the cheapest currently available MF Sensor (the 40MP sensor?)  in a CFV body and sell it to the large V-System market for 5000€. (well, there's one IMO, Hasselblad should modify the CFV to be able to put it both ways (portrait and landscape) on a 503cw.)


Tom-

[JV]

Hi David,

Rather than starting yet another negative thread on Hasselblad would it not be more effective to start a petition with other Hasselblad V owners.

List their names, the V-system that they own and how much they much they would be willing to spend on a digital back for their V-system.

Try to prove to Hasselblad that there is a demand for this.

Just my thoughts.

Best, Joris.

[design_freak]

They are not at all interested. They have other problems...

[david distefano]

JV, I don't want to be negative. I love my v system. To me It Is hasselblad, and your right money talks. Hasselblad v system users would you be interested in a affordable digital back. Also the reason I haven't picked up a used phase one or leaf digital back is because I like the look of the cfv backs that mimic the film holders for hasselblad. A complete system. Unfortunately it looks that is the way I will have to go unless hasselblad reverses itself.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My guess is that the V-series was a bit to expensive to make and keep alive. Companies need earnings to stay alive.

Regarding backs, there are plenty to choose from, Phase One, Leaf and so on. Unfortunately, neither of those is really cheap, but prices may drop especially on older backs. Sensor surface is expensive, so large sensors will always be expensive.

Best regards
Erik

This morning I see that Amazon has the pentax 645d 40 mp camera selling for $6995.00. This includes camera body and lens. Yes the sensor is only 33x44 but if pentax can sell the complete camera for that price, hasselblad should be able to satisfy the v system owners with a digital back besides the cfv-50 for $17,000.00. There are many of us who own the venerable v system, we love the way it feels when we hold it and the manual focus zeiss lenses that feel like works of art when we use them. Most of us who own the v system are not professionals, we photograph for the pleasure it gives us. If hasselblad made a 31mp back or something similar at an affordable price and I mean affordable to the many not just the rich, many of us who own the v system would snatch them up. Instead of wasting their time making the down right ugly and unnecessary lunar camera, they could have satisfied those of us with the v system and at the same time made sales to help their bottom line. I really like the cfv-16 that I own, but the crop factor really does come into play, and the jump to cfv-50 is just to much in the way of money for many of us to make. Hasselblad, IMO, made a very poor decision in relegating the v system to the dustbin of photographic history. Hasselblad, rethink that decision, give us that own the v system an affordable digital back. If Pentax can do it, so could you and your company will be better off by reversing your poor decision.

[eronald]

Hi,

My guess is that the V-series was a bit to expensive to make and keep alive. Companies need earnings to stay alive.

Regarding backs, there are plenty to choose from, Phase One, Leaf and so on. Unfortunately, neither of those is really cheap, but prices may drop especially on older backs. Sensor surface is expensive, so large sensors will always be expensive.

Best regards
Erik

I don't think sensor surface is that expensive anymore.
We are not in the 1980's anymore.

Best regards

Edmund

[Steve Hendrix]

This morning I see that Amazon has the pentax 645d 40 mp camera selling for $6995.00. This includes camera body and lens. Yes the sensor is only 33x44 but if pentax can sell the complete camera for that price, hasselblad should be able to satisfy the v system owners with a digital back besides the cfv-50 for $17,000.00. There are many of us who own the venerable v system, we love the way it feels when we hold it and the manual focus zeiss lenses that feel like works of art when we use them. Most of us who own the v system are not professionals, we photograph for the pleasure it gives us. If hasselblad made a 31mp back or something similar at an affordable price and I mean affordable to the many not just the rich, many of us who own the v system would snatch them up. Instead of wasting their time making the down right ugly and unnecessary lunar camera, they could have satisfied those of us with the v system and at the same time made sales to help their bottom line. I really like the cfv-16 that I own, but the crop factor really does come into play, and the jump to cfv-50 is just to much in the way of money for many of us to make. Hasselblad, IMO, made a very poor decision in relegating the v system to the dustbin of photographic history. Hasselblad, rethink that decision, give us that own the v system an affordable digital back. If Pentax can do it, so could you and your company will be better off by reversing your poor decision.

*The Pentax is $6,995, but does not include the lens.

I appreciate your passion for the V system. You are obviously not alone.

However, if the sales numbers for the v system were there, it would be continuing.

In the last 5 years, how many V system users have bought new 503CW bodies and new CF lenses? Not enough, I suspect, despite the current availability of 14 unique digital back models for the V system that range from 22 to 80 megapixels.

There are plenty of options for second hand digital backs - for less than $6,995 that will work with the v system. It lives on, but not in the new and current marketplace. For the most part, v users already own the cameras and lenses. They don't buy new in high enough numbers - even when the product was still current. Our typical v customer is someone who has the system, and has had the system for years, but wants to now make it a digital system. For these users, there are plenty of options.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

[david distefano]

Sorry i should have read more deeply on the amazon site. you are correct. my mistake

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just as an example, normal steppers cannot produce a full frame chip in a single exposure. Making a full frame chip needs one dimensional stitching. Making an MFD chip takes two dimensional stitching. So you need to expose several masks and each needs to be aligned with submicron precision (I guess). Going from 24x36 to 55x44 increases the probablility that bad chips by a factor of 2.8, but you also get only the 35% of the yield from a wafer.

Anders Torger estimates that an MFD chip costs around 3000$, but you need to add electronics and software. CMOS sensors probably use commercial processors and signal processors combined with a few ASICS (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) but MFD may work with FPGA (Field Programmable Grid Array). I would expect economics to be different.

Best regards
Erik

I don't think sensor surface is that expensive anymore.
We are not in the 1980's anymore.
[/quote|

[TMARK]

The thing with the V is that it is a limited, albeit lovely, digital platform.  Alignment problems, no exif, no priority modes, no AF.  They are romantic and fun to shoot, but if you struggle to hit focus under 5.6 its a pain in the ass.  For professional applications teh H is a much better alternative.  Its a great camera, especially the H5 series.  Its come a long way from teh H1.

[eronald]

The thing with the V is that it is a limited, albeit lovely, digital platform.  Alignment problems, no exif, no priority modes, no AF.  They are romantic and fun to shoot, but if you struggle to hit focus under 5.6 its a pain in the ass.  For professional applications teh H is a much better alternative.  Its a great camera, especially the H5 series.  Its come a long way from teh H1.

I think it would be quite easy to solve back alignment issues making the back user-adjustable if the back is a new design; as for focus, live view makes it pretty trivial if you have the right sensor, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be some leds on top of the back to indicate correct focus, something that could of course be improved on with a custom finder etc etc. or just clipping a cheap electronic viewfinder or an iphone to the thing.

It's a hack but for all I know it might find some buyers, the old V hassies made really nice images.

Another thing which a lot of people would really like are 4x5 and 8x10 digital quickloads.

Edmund

[BJL]

I don't think sensor surface is that expensive anymore.
We are not in the 1980's anymore

You seem to repeat this "big sensors are getting a lot cheaper" as a mantra, even after apparently dropping your former confident prediction that steppers would evolve towards being able to make these larger sensors without the on-wafer stitching now needed to get beyond about 33x26mm. (Aside: Canon has discontinued its one larger format 0.5micron stepper, in favor of a new model fpa_5510iv with far larger 1.5 micron minimum feature size, even more obviously useless for making MF camera sensors. So more than ever, 33x26mm is the maximum field size that sensor makers must work with.)

Do you have any concrete evidence about pricing of bigger sensors, particularly for the larger sizes like 56x42mm and 56x56mm that come up in these "full frame medium format square sensor" discussions? Bear in mind that
1) There tends to be a factor of three increase from the factory door price of a component to its contribution to the retail price; probably more for low volume items that require higher percentage unit price markups to be profitable. So a sensor that sells for $3000 in orders of 1000 probably adds about $9,000 to the price of the back it goes into.
2) The price that can be charged for a very old model with R&D defrayed [like the old 22MP 48x36mm Teledyne-Dalsa-Phillips FTF4052C] is far lower than the price that must be charged for a newly-developed low-volume sensor.

We are not in the 1980's anymore

No, and one thing that has changed is the continuing patterns of cost reduction through size reduction, with ever worse economies of scale for the outliers of huge IC's, like camera sensors bigger than 33x26mm.

[eronald]

You seem to repeat this "big sensors are getting a lot cheaper" as a mantra, even after apparently dropping your former confident prediction that steppers would evolve towards being able to make these larger sensors without the on-wafer stitching now needed to get beyond about 33x26mm. (Aside: Canon has discontinued its one larger format 0.5micron stepper, in favor of a new model fpa_5510iv with far larger 1.5 micron minimum feature size, even more obviously useless for making MF camera sensors. So more than ever, 33x26mm is the maximum field size that sensor makers must work with.)

Do you have any concrete evidence about pricing of bigger sensors, particularly for the larger sizes like 56x42mm and 56x56mm that come up in these "full frame medium format square sensor" discussions? Bear in mind that
1) There tends to be a factor of three increase from the factory door price of a component to its contribution to the retail price; probably more for low volume items that require higher percentage unit price markups to be profitable. So a sensor that sells for $3000 in orders of 1000 probably adds about $9,000 to the price of the back it goes into.
2) The price that can be charged for a very old model with R&D defrayed [like the old 22MP 48x36mm Teledyne-Dalsa-Phillips FTF4052C] is far lower than the price that must be charged for a newly-developed low-volume sensor.
No, and one thing that has changed is the continuing patterns of cost reduction through size reduction, with ever worse economies of scale for the outliers of huge IC's, like camera sensors bigger than 33x26mm.

Maybe instead of our exchanging words, someone who is a current industry insider could ask for a quote?
As engineers, when opinions differ we are probably both accustomed to go out and get some hard data points.
Anyway, I know and you know that sooner or later we will get huge chips. Whether it will be in our working lifetimes is a different matter.
I just put some film today into a Box camera, and I learnt photography with a plate camera into which I fitted film adapters.
Edmund

[design_freak]

I do not think that the cost of the sensor is greater than $ 1,000. In my opinion, it is better to say that the sensor is more expensive than it was a huge R & D costs. It is more acceptable to the buyer. Of course, there are no illusions - the sensor is the most expensive. The rest of the elements of the camera is very cheap. It costs almost nothing. (H system)

[BJL]

Maybe instead of our exchanging words, someone who is a current industry insider could ask for a quote?

Anyway, I know and you know that sooner or later we will get huge chips.

I agree that it would be great to get a hard quote for the price of various "larger than 35mm" sensors from companies like Teledyne-Dalsa or TrueSense (formerly part of Kodak).

We already have huge sensors, like custom ones for aerial and satellite photography, telescopes and such, in both CCD and CMOS: the only issue is price, and more specifically the price that would be needed when making a sensor so big that it is usable only with discontinued cameras (like Hasselblad V), view cameras, and struggling low-volume systems like what remains of the Hy6 effort. The fact that MF sensors have plateaued at about the maximum size compatible with 54x42mm ["645"] format, with the last few new sensor models staying at existing sizes while improving in other respects, should be a hint.

I think that you and I both know that, outside of medium format and 35mm format photography, we will probably never see IC chips bigger than 33x26mm, and that those two photographic sectors are a tiny, tiny fraction of the chip market, with very little influence on the direction of chip fabrication technology.

[eronald]

I agree that it would be great to get a hard quote for the price of various "larger than 35mm" sensors from companies like Teledyne-Dalsa or TrueSense (formerly part of Kodak).

We already have huge sensors, like custom ones for aerial and satellite photography, telescopes and such, in both CCD and CMOS: the only issue is price, and more specifically the price that would be needed when making a sensor so big that it is usable only with discontinued cameras (like Hasselblad V), view cameras, and struggling low-volume systems like what remains of the Hy6 effort. The fact that MF sensors have plateaued at about the maximum size compatible with 54x42mm ["645"] format, with the last few new sensor models staying at existing sizes while improving in other respects, should be a hint.

I think that you and I both know that, outside of medium format and 35mm format photography, we will probably never see IC chips bigger than 33x26mm, and that those two photographic sectors are a tiny, tiny fraction of the chip market, with very little influence on the direction of chip fabrication technology.

I'm afraid that we both know that what is really driving sensor technology now is the phone cameras.
But a quote on the existing chips would be neat.
BTW, I don't think there is a lot of work in the design of a sensor if you already have the usual stuff -pads, logic etc- then the main part is a very repetitive design I expect, which needs a carefully designed cell and careful simulation and adaptation to the actual process used -but then what would I know. The CFA is more of a specialist job
Very similar to RAM design? When I learnt VLSI design, 30 years ago, that was considered a specialist job for a good but very small team.

Edmund

[Ken R]

I'm afraid that we both know that what is really driving sensor technology now is the phone cameras.
But a quote on the existing chips would be neat.
BTW, I don't think there is a lot of work in the design of a sensor if you already have the usual stuff -pads, logic etc- then the main part is a very repetitive design I expect, which needs a carefully designed cell and careful simulation and adaptation to the actual process used -but then what would I know. The CFA is more of a specialist job
Very similar to RAM design? When I learnt VLSI design, 30 years ago, that was considered a specialist job for a good but very small team.

Edmund

Edmund, while your tone (in writing) is often quite aggressive stemming from the fact that maybe you got badly burned by medium format digital (or frustrated/disappointed) you mention a lot of truths along the way. Kind of reminds me a bit of Jim Jannard who really transformed or "changed the game" (one of his favorite phrases) the digital cinema camera market. He pushed pillar companies like Arri and Sony to up their game. Obviously the fact that he sold Oakley for 2 billion dollars before this endeavor helped but still it was his fire and inconformity with the current digital cinema cameras that pushed his team and products to what they are today. He is a photography enthusiast (shoots Canon btw) but focused his energy and money in the digital cinema world. Some use his awesome Red cameras for motion covers and editorials but generally they are not the best for stills. Although Peter Lik used it for his awesome mesa arch panorama.

With a little fire and agility Medium Format Digital could have been MUCH better than it is today and much more widely used. The market was there.

[eronald]

Edmund, while your tone (in writing) is often quite aggressive stemming from the fact that maybe you got badly burned by medium format digital (or frustrated/disappointed) you mention a lot of truths along the way. Kind of reminds me a bit of Jim Jannard who really transformed or "changed the game" (one of his favorite phrases) the digital cinema camera market. He pushed pillar companies like Arri and Sony to up their game. Obviously the fact that he sold Oakley for 2 billion dollars before this endeavor helped but still it was his fire and inconformity with the current digital cinema cameras that pushed his team and products to what they are today. He is a photography enthusiast (shoots Canon btw) but focused his energy and money in the digital cinema world. Some use his awesome Red cameras for motion covers and editorials but generally they are not the best for stills. Although Peter Lik used it for his awesome mesa arch panorama.

With a little fire and agility Medium Format Digital could have been MUCH better than it is today and much more widely used. The market was there.

Ken,

 What a thoughtful reply!
 I'm afraid that my aggressive tone is just what comes naturally however I do think that MF shooters have been unlucky in that the lack of funds scuppered any real progress, as only a complete redesign with a new sensor with liveview would really change things. For all I know RED may one day make his planned 645 Monstro camera, thereby solving the problem

 I don't think it's an accident that all the kids are using their phone cameras, the flexibility of liveview, focus where you point, choice of video or still, instant panoramas etc, is amazing. Liveview essentially allows the software guys to go to work.

Edmund