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

[Theodoros]

Theodoros,

This is also incorrect. Surety is not a requirement of assertion.

It may be what you mean, but it is not what 'it' means.

To your mind... Anyway, I'm sure you understand that all this is irrelevant to the subject and the reason why I got upset... If Nick knows the answer, he may as well post it for us to know too (and then we could thank him for it as some of us need to know what the case is) instead of posting "this is incorrect" which is by definition an insulting reply to somebody that has posted a false fact (although not the case)...

[Theodoros]

OK... Talking about P1 pricing, one can't help to mention Leica S (007) pricing too... It seems that the camera was introduced with a reduced price because of the new Hasselblad pricing policy, but now, even  with the reduction in price that it started with, it still sounds expensive doesn't it? IT is almost similar price with the H5-50c and the later is modular, it is 4:3 image area, takes film and it's even got the prestige that the Red Dot carries (and P1 or Mamiya lucks)...

[NickT]

Whilst I agree it is highly probable that the details of the sensor are added to the file by the back and the exposure and lens details written to the same file by the body communicating with the back it is unlikely, IMHO, that any corrections are made to the file by either the back or the body based on those details these are performed by the Phocus software. It is always possible that Hasselblad "cook" the file as is done as we understand it by many DSLR makers but surely this is not going to the sole factor that prevents a body/back combination working?

Do I really need to post the link BTW 

Hasselblad’s modern lens design has been optimised for digital perfection, including full automatic correction of colour aberration, distortion and light fall off. Phocus makes use of its detailed knowledge of the lens design and calculates the optical corrections for every shot at the given distance and aperture setting, providing perfect images, and an ideal basis for optimal image rendering and further processing. Hasselblad digital lens correction technology works automatically with all Hasselblad H System lenses, even with tilt/shift movements and it works with all the Carl Zeiss lenses from the classic V System, using manual settings.


My bold.

What Chris said.

I was in a rush as I'm shooting but I just wanted to point out that what Theodorus suggested was incorrect.

[Theodoros]

What Chris said.

I was in a rush as I'm shooting but I just wanted to point out that what Theodorus suggested was incorrect.

Do you care to enlighten us on what is correct then?  ...and what I suggest that is incorrect also... because I can't remember suggesting anything other than ...suggesting (LOL  !!!) for those who use the system (I don't) to  also check if it applies for other image sensor sizes... I don't know why you insist in provoking... obviously it goes with your character... 

[Christoph B.]

Leica has always been more expensive - even more expensive than P1 considering the capabilities of the Leica cameras vs the P1 system - but that's mainly because Leica is a brand that has created a myth of super slow devaluation because of collectors who'll pay 'top dollar' for used stuff.
However this isn't really the case any more with digital cameras and apart from the analog "M" series the value quickly drops after your purchase (special collectors items and prototypes excluded). It's kind of like a Ferrari, as soon as you drive the car out of the dealers garage it looses half its value. I think Leica already went pretty low for their standards with an initial price point of 17.000$ - but the Pentax 645Z is much cheaper and imho also' better' and much more innovative especially for its "age" (except for the 4K video of the Leica - but that's pretty useless for professional means anyway). Sure the Leica is faster but at a lower resolution and keep in mind that it was released in 2015 - whereas the Pentax was released in 2014.

[NickT]

Theodoros I had no interest in provoking and I resent the ad hominem attacks. I was simply wishing to correct your assertion that the chip size is taken into account when calculating lens corrections.
And no I do not intend on providing any additional information (which would probably violate my NDA) nor do I intend on participating in any further discussions with you.

[Theodoros]

Theodoros I had no interest in provoking and I resent the ad hominem attacks. I was simply wishing to correct your assertion that the chip size is taken into account when calculating lens corrections.
And no I do not intend on providing any additional information (which would probably violate my NDA) nor do I intend on participating in any further discussions with you.

Still... never assumed anything... never posted an assumption either... A possibility that I want for it to be checked out (and still do - as it seems that it has never being checked out), doesn't make an assumption to any other than you... (who keeps ruining a discussion). Thanks for promising that you won't repeat the same behaviour again in one of my O/Ps... I surely can survive without your logic and practice.... As I'm sure all others will do as well... Thanks for spending so much time as to post nothing (or say something) valuable too... I'm sure none will miss that either... Bye...

[Doug Peterson]

 For what it's worth I find NickT  to be one of the most valuable contributor's in this forum, especially as regards anything Hasselblad related.

It's hard to fin forum posters that are well informed, intelligent, and fair.

I greatly respect him.

[eronald]

Doug,

 We are lucky to have you, since you fit the two first here, and only two out of those three are attainable by any human:)
 Frankly, bias is expected, and needs no excuse

Edmund

For what it's worth I find NickT  to be one of the most valuable contributor's in this forum, especially as regards anything Hasselblad related.

It's hard to fin forum posters that are well informed, intelligent, and fair.

I greatly respect him.

[synn]

Give him a broomstick and enough time and Theodoros will pick a fight with it.
What's new?

[landscapephoto]

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...

I have tried to exchange backs and bodies between an H3D-31 (x1.3 sensor size) and an H4D-50 (x1.1 sensor size). Either combination works perfectly: the H3D-31 back on the H4D-50 body and the H4D-50 back on the H3D-31 body. Therefore your assertion is indeed incorrect, as pointed out by NickT.

[Theodoros]

I have tried to exchange backs and bodies between an H3D-31 (x1.3 sensor size) and an H4D-50 (x1.1 sensor size). Either combination works perfectly: the H3D-31 back on the H4D-50 body and the H4D-50 back on the H3D-31 body. Therefore your assertion is indeed incorrect, as pointed out by NickT.

Thanks for posting this... It means that the H3DII & H4D bodies all have multiple interface written in the EPROM and they automatically activate the right interface after the back is attached on them, rather than have an interface only dedicated to the back that accompanies them... I never made an assertion that the second of the above is what happens... I did make a question on the matter as there was a good possibility that it could be different... It's good for possible Hasselblad customers to know that they are not restricted into using the dedicated body with a specific back only... Can you (or other) please also check if the H3 bodies & backs share the same ability? Also, can one please check if the same applies for the bodies with multishot ability? (meaning that if one buys a S/H H4D 50MS or 200MS, can he then use the back -in multishot mode- on an H3II-31 body?)

[landscapephoto]

Thanks for posting this... It means that the H3DII & H4D bodies all have multiple interface written in the EPROM and they automatically activate the right interface after the back is attached on them, rather than have an interface only dedicated to the back that accompanies them...

I believe it is more likely that all backs use the same protocol and that the body only needs one single firmware to communicate with all of them.

Can you (or other) please also check if the H3 bodies & backs share the same ability?

I already did that: in my post above I tested a H3D (first version, not a H3DII) and a H4D.

The H3D still supports the film backs, BTW (but not necessarily third-party digital backs). The H3DII and H4D do not (the H4X does). Then, the H5D supports the film backs again and this is also true for the multishot versions (see page 4 of the H5D manual here: http://www.hasselblad.com/support/manuals/h-system-manuals/).

[Theodoros]

I believe it is more likely that all backs use the same protocol and that the body only needs one single firmware to communicate with all of them.

I already did that: in my post above I tested a H3D (first version, not a H3DII) and a H4D.

The H3D still supports the film backs, BTW (but not necessarily third-party digital backs). The H3DII and H4D do not (the H4X does). Then, the H5D supports the film backs again and this is also true for the multishot versions (see page 4 of the H5D manual here: http://www.hasselblad.com/support/manuals/h-system-manuals/).

Can you (or another in case you don't have access) check one more thing please? If one uses his CF-39MS (like the one I use) on an H3/H3II/H4 camera, will it work (in multishot mode too)? I specifically ask for the CF-39MS as it states in the manual that if used on an H camera body it will perform automatically corrections for aberrations (like it happens with the H3/H3II/H4 dedicated backs...) so there might be that the CF-39/22/MS series of backs (if fitted with a Hasselbla H plate) might be able to work.... This is of particular importance for me to know... Thanks.

[landscapephoto]

Can you (or another in case you don't have access) check one more thing please? If one uses his CF-39MS (like the one I use) on an H3/H3II/H4 camera, will it work (in multishot mode too)? I specifically ask for the CF-39MS as it states in the manual that if used on an H camera body it will perform automatically corrections for aberrations (like it happens with the H3/H3II/H4 dedicated backs...) so there might be that the CF-39/22/MS series of backs (if fitted with a Hasselbla H plate) might be able to work.... This is of particular importance for me to know... Thanks.

I don't have a CF-39MS to test, sorry. But why use an H3D to mount your CF-39MS when an H1 can be had for considerably less money?

[eronald]

I have tried to exchange backs and bodies between an H3D-31 (x1.3 sensor size) and an H4D-50 (x1.1 sensor size). Either combination works perfectly: the H3D-31 back on the H4D-50 body and the H4D-50 back on the H3D-31 body. Therefore your assertion is indeed incorrect, as pointed out by NickT.

Thanks for this point of information. Can it be added to the PDF?

It would seem that more combinations work than not, at least with digital backs, so it might be faster to summarize the failures in words, or state "rules".

BTW does anyone know how to "calibrate" a body for a given back, or is there simply a fine focus adjustment setting that can be set by the user?


BTW

[Steve Hendrix]

I can confirm at least one thing for sure - the chart that I posted earlier did in fact have an error with regard to the possibility of H5D digital back compatibility with H5X. And it is in fact compatible, which makes complete sense as it is indicated by Hasselblad as a feature. I did also try H4D-40 and H4D-60 digital backs on H5X which resulted in "Back not compatible" error messages. I also tried 40/50/60 digital backs on an H4X body, and received "Error ID 1212".

Updated chart has been shared with our team and is attached. We don't have a multi-shot body on hand at the moment, so cannot confirm any body compatibility with those models.

(Thanks Chris for letting me know!)


Steve Hendrix/CI

[landscapephoto]

Thanks for this point of information. Can it be added to the PDF?

It was already in the pdf I posted yesterday (previous page).

It would seem that more combinations work than not, at least with digital backs, so it might be faster to summarize the failures in words, or state "rules".

Yes, but what is the point of all this? Hasselblad backs are normally sold with a body, so people simply use that. Few people actually need to mix unmatched H backs and bodies. I am not ready (or equipped, actually) to test all what has been sold by Hasselblad in the past 10 years.

BTW does anyone know how to "calibrate" a body for a given back, or is there simply a fine focus adjustment setting that can be set by the user?

No calibration can be done outside of the factory, but my experience has been that calibration is already ok.

[Chris Livsey]

(Thanks Chris for letting me know!)

Steve Hendrix/CI

Thank you for checking, without protest, rare here at the moment 

[eronald]

Thank you for checking, without protest, rare here at the moment 

I think we ought to mention that Steve is a dealer of cameras who does his homework, and that no one on this forum has ever complained about him, which is also astonishing when you think of it


Edmund