Hasselblad digital

[BJL]

William,

   I had not noticed in all the talk of digitial backs for Hasselblad that these are mostly or entirely for the 500 series (and the H1). Can you list specifically which digital backs, if any, are available for the 200 series?

[larryg]

Boy what a sore subject.
I purchased an entire 205FE system in 1999 with every conceivable lens, including the 350FE  major major bucks.
Reasoning.  This is the best there is and will last a lifetime!!!!

I didn't see much innovation from Hassy for quite some time, including their popular Panoramic camera, outsourced to Fuji.
When digital came on scene (with sufficient resolution to equal film) I decided that this would be a move for me to consider, however, Hassy no where on scene to support my electronic 205FE
I finally sold all on Ebay and purchased the Contax MF with the Kodak DCS back.  I am really satisfied with the results I have attained with digital and would not consider going back to film.  I also would hesitate paying the overpriced and overrated Hasselblad name.
I will say the 205FE body was well designed and did a very good job while I used it with film.

[BJL]

I have read that some years ago, the financially troubled Hasselblad made an arrangement with Fuji that essentially moves all new product development to Fuji. This is at least consistent with the fact that the two most recent and actively developing Hasselblad product lines, Xpan and H series, are primarily Fuji designs with the lenses entirely Fuji, and they are sold under the Fuji brand name in Japan, using "Hasselblad" elsewhere perhaps primarily for its prestige.

If it is true that recent Hasselblad equipment uses rebadged Fuji designs, the unfortunate stalling of development of the old "V" series models, 200's in particular, makes sense, even if it is no less palatable. Just be thankful that you are not heavily invested in Rollei MF equipment, since their development is even more stagnated. (Apologies to any adopters of the Rollei AF system and its three lenses.)

[Kenneth Sky]

Unless your a professional or rich (maybe crazy helps) stick to scanning MF film. Some of the newer negative scanners will produce a file size that is bigger than most of the digital backs.

[BJL]

You're exactly right. That's why the next horsepower race in digital is about Dmax. Presently the new generation of slide scanners are using 16 bit technology and quoting the potential Dmax of 4.8 . Who knows if the CCD's are capable of this? But scanners have a wider range than DSLRs.

Firstly, I agree with your main original point that for anyone who does not intend to take very large number of images in medium format, scanned roll film is likely to be more cost effective than digital backs.

However, Dmax dos not measure the Subject Brightness Range that scanned film can handle, much as pixel counts do not measure resolution.  Reversal films like Velvia typically have high contrast (gamma significantly greater than one on the film's response curve) meaning that contrast in the image recorded on the film is significantly greater than in the original subject matter.

This can make for impressively "snappy" projections, and requires scanners to be able to handle very wide density ranges in order to deal well with such films, but the actual SBR handled by most reversal films is not great; good DSLRs now match or better reversal films. Negative films still seem to be the leaders in handling high SBR, but scanning negative film does not sem to be a popular approach, even when dealing with subjects of high brightness range.


P. S. Maybe the best digital backs can match or exceed all films now for SBR; any comments from digital back users on that?

[williamrohr]

Little has been said (particularly by Hasselblad) about its commitment to owners of the 200 series and FE lenses.  Much of Hasselblad's promotion in the past has been that they retain backwards compatibility, a feature that made many of us buy Nikon over Canon for many years (but of course, not true today).

Understanding that occasionally technology develops that totally precludes (primarily for practical reasons) retaining such compatibility, it is not at all clear why Hasselblad is abandoning 200 series cameras and FE lenses.  It appears that to date they have used the sync from the in-lens shutter for contolling the digital back (my guess?) which of course is absent in the FE lenses.  Realizing that no 35mm lenses have in-lens shutters and function just fine with the digital camers, the lack of shutters in the FE lenses should not be a problem with the correct design of a body or interface.

To make matters worse, many of us Hassy users bought the H1 and now find that the new digital H1D back is NOT available to retrofit to the H1 .... obviously the new owners don't understand the importance of customer loyalty (and they get away with it because the independent MF back manufacturers also seem to be ignoring the 200s and FE lenses, probably because of the market size?).

I'd be interested in what other owners of 200 series bodies and FE lenses are doing/contemplating with regard to digital.  At present I am using the 1Ds Mark II with the IS telephoto lenses for wildlife and love the system but would dearly love to make use of all those wonderful Zeiss FE lenses for landscapes and portraits.  Thoughts from the forum??

P.S. Hasselblad had better realize that once even the most loyal customers are forced to look at other solutions, they may never come back (especially at Hasselblad's prices).

[williamrohr]

BJL:
I am still in the process of polling the different back manufacturers and what I have found out to date is as follows:

Imacon (now Hasselblad) - will work on 203 or 205 with FE if you purchase a $400 cable from Kapture Group ... but multishot is not possible

Phase One- none of their backs support the combination and they don't seem interested

Kodak - discontinued DCS and DCS Pro - but no support if you can get one

Leaf - no support

Sinar - supposedly works but no confirmation yet and very slow replies

Jenoptik - supposedly both the older models and the new emotion22 will work but without the multishot capability.  They give excellent responses and have offered to demonstrate...first impression is that these folks have their act together.  Since their back fits different cameras with different adapters buying a 503 series for the times multishot is needed would be reasonable.

What I can't figure out is why Hasselbald is dropping the FE series of lenses since they are great and at least a stop faster than any other Hasselbad lenses (even for the H1) ... maybe it's political or contractual because of their new relationship with Fuji (who also make great products).

[Sfleming]

Very interesting.

The camera company that went to the moon says 'get lost' to it's loyal customers.  They probably thought no one would notice.

[williamrohr]

The interesting aspect to Rollei (I also own a 6008i) is that almost all MF digital back manufacturers support it and Rollei provides many other interesting paths such as the X-Act2 which even allows use of the current Rollei backs and lenses intermixed with LF lenses and even Hasselblad accessories as well as digital backs.  Note that the X-Act2 can even be used with the Control S shutter system which brings a level of automation to the LF lenses (and with a 6450 back, even auto film advance).  Backward compatibility even goes to SLX lenses which can be used with a digital back!

[BJL]

Some of the newer negative scanners will produce a file size that is bigger than most of the digital backs.

File size does not necessarily measure image quality; beyond a certain level of scanner PPI, the scanner is mostly just telling you more about the structure of the grains or dye-clouds on the film.

I imagine that it is technically possible to scan film with a laser at down to about the wavelength of light (under 1 micron), giving over 25,000ppi and thus huge files, but that would not help much since the resolution of the image on the film is far less than that.

[Kenneth Sky]

You're exactly right. That's why the next horsepower race in digital is about Dmax. Presently the new generation of slide scanners are using 16 bit technology and quoting the potential Dmax of 4.8 . Who knows if the CCD's are capable of this? But scanners have a wider range than DSLRs.