P1 price list... Will they insist on it?

[Theodoros]

There was a time you could get a H5 kit (back and body) and upgrade to the H5x body.  I loved the options this opened up (film, Phase, even old fat pixel backs), and I hope they drop the 'x' and just do all bodies that way.

-Joe

Yes... H5 bodies and H5X are exactly the same camera mechanically and on electronics, the only difference is with the firmware... I suppose that one can convert an H5 to H5X even today... By the way... film backs work with the H5 anyway... One doesn't need to convert it to H5X for that... The ability to use a film back on an H camera (other than the H3) is an indication that third party backs (or Hasselblad compatible with the H1,H2,H2F,H4X, H5X) will work with the H camera too... (either directly or via a firmware update).

[Steve Hendrix]

Perhaps someone can contribute the definitive answer.

About a year ago, I decided to compile the compatibility data and came up with the attached chart (with IQ250 also for reference).


Steve Hendrix
CI

[Theodoros]

About a year ago, I decided to compile the compatibility data and came up with the attached chart (with IQ250 also for reference).


Steve Hendrix
CI

But Steven... you state in your chart exactly the opposite than what Hasselblad officially states!!!??? ...Hasselblad claims that H5D backs are usable on the H5X... (in fact Haasy promotes the H5X as a "back-up" body for H5 cameras). Are you sure you are not mistaken?

[eronald]

Steve,

 That is a very interesting document.
 Thank you very much for posting it.
 Do you have info about compatibility of the "original" H3d backs - the ones which I believe  still have fans?

Edmund

About a year ago, I decided to compile the compatibility data and came up with the attached chart (with IQ250 also for reference).


Steve Hendrix
CI

[wnichols]

One of the real main reasons the pro bodies don't have moveable screens (or in the case of a C300 / C500 the screen is optional) is most of these bodies are rigged up and use a 3rd party EVF or they are using an external recorder like an Odyssey or Atoms or other much larger / higher quality screen where they can see scopes, LUT's, etc.

The moveable screens may break but I don't think is a big factor in why they aren't on the pro bodies (there is one on the C100 MkII and that is every bit a pro Cinema Camera)

Canon rep told me the rental houses hate movable screens because they break, and this is why the *pro* Canon still cameras don't have them while the consumer models do.

However, anyway in this weight class you won't handhold, and in a static setup you just plug in an external mini HDMI screen/recorder.  Also I'm willing to bet that Hassy have superb video tethering to any tablet running Phocus, with touch focus control, and a very good iPad app.

Edmund

[NickT]

My Ursa has a fold out screen and it's pretty damn good, certainly good enough to see scopes, zebras etc. Maybe its a BM thing?

Oh and way off topic sorry.

[Theodoros]

One of the real main reasons the pro bodies don't have moveable screens (or in the case of a C300 / C500 the screen is optional) is most of these bodies are rigged up and use a 3rd party EVF or they are using an external recorder like an Odyssey or Atoms or other much larger / higher quality screen where they can see scopes, LUT's, etc.

The moveable screens may break but I don't think is a big factor in why they aren't on the pro bodies (there is one on the C100 MkII and that is every bit a pro Cinema Camera)

Well... One can be sure that in the near future MFDBs will be used for broadcast quality productions with external recorders and screens or other peripherals... In my mind, the use of the front standard of a view camera for the lens and an MFDB for recording, will allow much room for creativity to pro users... Convergence of technology is inevitable, IMO, in the (very) near future, there will be less equipment used by pros, yet the ability for more tasks will increase and so will the quality.

For example, if a pro bases his system around an MF camera platform (say Hasselblad H for instance), he will be able to use the same lenses on his DSLR and then use the back part only on a (small size) view camera but still with the same lenses. Many makers will have to redesign some lenses in their line as to increase the image circle to 6x6 film image circle size... But the benefit will be worthwhile.

[Steve Hendrix]

But Steven... you state in your chart exactly the opposite than what Hasselblad officially states!!!??? ...Hasselblad claims that H5D backs are usable on the H5X... (in fact Haasy promotes the H5X as a "back-up" body for H5 cameras). Are you sure you are not mistaken?

Generally speaking, we're inclined to do our own research, rather than rely on manufacturer's stated information. Now, this does not mean we can't be in error. But the results of the data were produced by manually taking each digital back in the X column and mounting it to each camera in the Y column. A Yes meant a capture, a No meant an error stating "incompatible".

I'd be happy to attempt to reproduce the findings.


Steve Hendrix
CI

[eronald]

Generally speaking, we're inclined to do our own research, rather than rely on manufacturer's stated information. Now, this does not mean we can't be in error. But the results of the data were produced by manually taking each digital back in the X column and mounting it to each camera in the Y column. A Yes meant a capture, a No meant an error stating "incompatible".

I'd be happy to attempt to reproduce the findings.


Steve Hendrix
CI

Thx Steve. BTW, is there some sort of tape trick where one can tape up some contacts to lift an incompatibility?

Edmund

[Chris Livsey]

Generally speaking, we're inclined to do our own research, rather than rely on manufacturer's stated information. Now, this does not mean we can't be in error. But the results of the data were produced by manually taking each digital back in the X column and mounting it to each camera in the Y column. A Yes meant a capture, a No meant an error stating "incompatible".

I'd be happy to attempt to reproduce the findings.


Steve Hendrix
CI

So this page is wrong then?
https://captureintegration.com/hasselblad-h5x-compatibility-and-usage/

and this one ?

http://www.hasselblad.com/medium-format/h5x

[Theodoros]

Generally speaking, we're inclined to do our own research, rather than rely on manufacturer's stated information. Now, this does not mean we can't be in error. But the results of the data were produced by manually taking each digital back in the X column and mounting it to each camera in the Y column. A Yes meant a capture, a No meant an error stating "incompatible".

I'd be happy to attempt to reproduce the findings.


Steve Hendrix
CI

Please do! (reproduce the findings) as it is opposite to manufacturer's claiming... It is (obviously) important for customers to know what is compatible and what is not when they are asked to invest a fortune on equipment... By the way... It would also be important for one to check if the cross-exchange complicity of H3/H3II & H4 backs, applies for different sizes of backs (which I doubt) rather than just checking if an H3D31 also works on an H4-40 body (which I suspect it should). You see... there is a strong possibility that the body can recognise a same image area size back (and thus correct for it for lens issues) but it could be that it doesn't recognise a different image area size back because it is "tuned" to only recognise (and apply corrections for) a specific image area size...

[Theodoros]

Never the less, Hasselblad claims officially that the H5X is compatible with all H5 backs and this should mean that the camera has a multiple firmware build in it and then chooses the part of the firmware it's gonna use depending on the back attached (which it automatically recognises). 

[Christoph B.]

I'm pretty sure that means it's compatible with Hasselblads H backs. Not 3rd party.

[landscapephoto]

I'm pretty sure that means it's compatible with Hasselblads H backs. Not 3rd party.

The H4x and H5x are compatible with third party digital backs. It is sold to replace the old H1 that people still used with the P1 and Leaf backs.

It does not need adaptable firmware, just as the H1 does not need adaptable firmware.

[eronald]

The H4x and H5x are compatible with third party digital backs. It is sold to replace the old H1 that people still used with the P1 and Leaf backs.

It does not need adaptable firmware, just as the H1 does not need adaptable firmware.

At this point the old Hassy systems are selling below 2K; we should see a lively used market develop.

[landscapephoto]

At this point the old Hassy systems are selling below 2K

It's more like twice that sum for the more interesting offers, but yes.

we should see a lively used market develop.

This lively used marked has already been active in Sweden or Germany for a few years. Maybe less in France where you live.

[eronald]

It's more like twice that sum for the more interesting offers, but yes.


This lively used marked has already been active in Sweden or Germany for a few years. Maybe less in France where you live.

Could you provide some links?

Edmund

[NickT]

You see... there is a strong possibility that the body can recognise a same image area size back (and thus correct for it for lens issues) but it could be that it doesn't recognise a different image area size back because it is "tuned" to only recognise (and apply corrections for) a specific image area size...

This in incorrect.

[eronald]

It's more like twice that sum for the more interesting offers, but yes.

1500 Euro is now the standard price for the H3D31.

At around 4K you are in H4D territory, but I assume that when the H6Ds hit the street everything will go down by another notch.

Edmund

[Theodoros]

This in incorrect.

There is no such thing as "being incorrect" when one doesn't post a fact, Using phrases like "there is a possibility..." and "it could be..." it automatically means that one posts a ...possibility. So, please be careful on how you refer to people... 

EDIT: Hence, I have to repeat the question (on which the possibility refers in the same statement - because you cropped it off):

 "Please do! (reproduce the findings) as it is opposite to manufacturer's claiming... It is (obviously) important for customers to know what is compatible and what is not when they are asked to invest a fortune on equipment... By the WAY... It would also be important for one to check if the cross-exchange complicity of H3/H3II & H4 backs, applies for different sizes of backs (which I doubt) rather than just checking if an H3D31 also works on an H4-40 body (which I suspect it should). You see... there is a strong possibility that the body can recognise a same image area size back (and thus correct for it for lens issues) but it could be that it doesn't recognise a different image area size back because it is "tuned" to only recognise (and apply corrections for) a specific image area size...