Hasselblad now shows CFV-39 in discontinued Products list on web site

[James Shetler]

I was surprised today to see the CFV-39 show up in the discontinued product list on the Hasselblad USA web site.  Does this mean another back is soon to be anounced?
Also BH Photo is offering a 10% discount on both the CFV-39 and CFV-50 ! Not a bad deal.

[Yanick Dery]

Maybe to fit the new H4X, but I don't think so.

The CFV 50 is still available.

Would be nice to have a CFV "R" 50 

[BJL]

I was surprised today to see the CFV-39 show up in the discontinued product list on the Hasselblad USA web site.  Does this mean another back is soon to be anounced?

Not surprising, since the Kodak KAF-39000 sensor used in the CFV-39 has been discontinued, replaced by the higher resolution KAF-50000 as used in the CFV-50. So the "other back" has probably already been announced, in the form of the CFV-50.

[JV]

it is a bit madness, isn't it?
you sink $14K in a product that is discontinued the week after...
the only option you have is to upgrade  to a higher resolution (and higher price) product,
which you never asked for and which besides that does not offer anything additional,
sigh...

[BJL]

it is a bit madness, isn't it?
you sink $14K in a product that is discontinued the week after...
the only option you have is to upgrade  to a higher resolution (and higher price) product,
which you never asked for and which besides that does not offer anything additional,

I do not understand your complaint:
1. The only way that this "madness" could be avoided is by no product being discontinued, ever; otherwise there will always be some people who buy in the last week before sales end.
2. The product you bought still works just as well whether it is discontinued or not, so in what sense do you "have to upgrade to a higher resolution"?
3. By the time you do need to replace a back, the new higher resolution models tend to be at the same or lower price than the previous model was when you bought it.
4. The higher price when comparing at the same time mostly reflects that the older, lower resolution modeislas been discounted due to lower demand, so the idea that "no one is asking for higher resolution" seems unlikely.
5. The substantially lower read noise of the newer KAF-50000 compared to the older KAF-39000 (12.5e- vs 16e-) means that it almost certainly has better DR and less visible noise in fair comparisons (equal displayed image size and viewing distance) to go with its higher resolution, so it is hard to see much reason to keep the older sensor in production.

[JV]

it would be very nice if there was a company that concentrated on delivering affordable 22-39 MP digital backs,
and on continuously improving them through firmware and other upgrades,
the CFV-39 was introduced only 2 years ago and has never been lowered in price,
if the price had been lowered to around $10-12K it would have been an excellent entry point,
but apparently nobody is interested...
and FYI, V-system users are not asking for higher resolution,
produce a full frame digital back with rotating sensor and without sync cord,
and you have the best selling back of the year!

[EricWHiss]

The bigger issue is that unless I'm mistaken, Hasselblad does not intend to continue the CF line which allows backs to be fit to a variety of cameras using the iAdapters.  

And while the 50mp kodak sensor may have lower read noise, it probably also has a lower well capacity due to its finer pixel pitch.  Thus, I'm not sure it will have better DR and the actual linear DR listed by Kodak are 69.3Db for the 50mp and 71.4 DB for the 39mp - and actually it was 73db for the 22 and 16mp chips.  

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

How would you fit a digital back to V mount camera without sync cord? The back needs to know when the shutter opens ;-)

Best regards
Erik

it would be very nice if there was a company that concentrated on delivering affordable 22-39 MP digital backs,
and on continuously improving them through firmware and other upgrades,
the CFV-39 was introduced only 2 years ago and has never been lowered in price,
if the price had been lowered to around $10-12K it would have been an excellent entry point,
but apparently nobody is interested...
and FYI, V-system users are not asking for higher resolution,
produce a full frame digital back with rotating sensor and without sync cord,
and you have the best selling back of the year!

[John R Smith]

How would you fit a digital back to V mount camera without sync cord? The back needs to know when the shutter opens ;-)

None of the CFV backs (16, 39 and 50MP) require a sync cord from the lens to the back. They are triggered by the little tab which tells the film magazine that an exposure has been made. But you can use a sync cord, too, if you wish, which makes the CFVs usable on a LF camera.

John

[Cineski]

I think the MF digital folks are a bit on the daft side.  A $10K open system back with Mamiya, Hassy, Contax and Pentax mounts would sell like freaking hotcakes.  Especially if the image quality was amazing.  And yes, it can be done.

[BJL]

And while the 50mp kodak sensor may have lower read noise, it probably also has a lower well capacity due to its finer pixel pitch.  Thus, I'm not sure it will have better DR and the actual linear DR listed by Kodak are 69.3Db for the 50mp and 71.4 DB for the 39mp - and actually it was 73db for the 22 and 16mp chips.

I took that into account: down sampling from 50MP to 39MP will easily bring the DR above that of the older sensor. One way to see it is that the read noise per unit sensor area is lower, along with the greater resolution.

Can we please move beyond this nonsense of comparing per photosite specs like the engineering DR (ratio of maximumwithout to dark noise floor) without allowing for the visible effects of different pixel count and thus of different PPI in output at equal image size? Do I have to point out yet again that the individual signal detectors of film [clumps of silver halide] are 0-1 output devices, with abysmally low engineering S/N ratio, but produce acceptable DR and such through dithering of the signals from the massive number of those "chemical photosites".

And to those who say with such confidence that "no V system user wants higher resolution" or "medium format users do not want higher resolution", I can only be skeptical until I see evidence, and i do not mean the repeatedly stated opinions of a few forum posters: it is very hard to believe that the sensor makers and digital back makers persist on investing in the development and deployment of new, inherently more expensive technologies that the customers like less than the old already paid for technology.

[EricWHiss]

Probably half or more of the V lenses won't support higher resolution than 39mp, and most of them will produce axial CA because they were designed before the advent of digital sensors.  To me the real worry is that adapter based digital back platforms will disappear.  I think if HB has done away with the CF line, then only Sinar is making backs that can be fit via adapter plates to different cameras and systems.

And BJL - you haven't and you won't point anything out to us except your own unsupported arrogance without posting some real data and real test pictures.   I shoot with a lot of different backs and post my test results and images regularly here.  I recently tested the 80mp backs against the CF-ii 39MS (both of which I own and shoot with regularly) and I know for sure that it had more dynamic range than the 80mp backs - look for my posts. 

[BJL]

And BJL - you haven't and you won't point anything out to us except your own unsupported arrogance without posting some real data and real test pictures.   I shoot with a lot of different backs and post my test results and images regularly here.  I recently tested the 80mp backs against the CF-ii 39MS (both of which I own and shoot with regularly) and I know for sure that it had more dynamic range than the 80mp backs - look for my posts.

Erik, I was replying to you post in this thread, which did not link to any pictures, but relied only on a rather small (2dB) difference in per pixel engineering dynamic range figures, ignoring the likely effects of the 28% difference in pixels per unit area of image, which with uncorrelated noise would produce almost exactly the same 2dB  improvement in DR from down sampling to equal pixel count. My only point being that there is not evidence in the number you quoted that DR or visible noise levels wold be worse, at which point the resolution increase becomes a "win-no lose" situation. But if you have links to actual image comparisons between the 39MP and 50MP backs, at equal size, not crops to equal pixel count and this to different fractions of the frame, that would of course be far more enlightening than this numbers game.

P.S. if about half or more of the lenses for the V system cannot resolve more than a 39 MP delivers (a strange concept, since lens resolution does not have a brick wall limit the way a sensor does and I would think that most MF lenses have some MTF left beyond the roughly 60lp/mm of 6.8 micron pixel pitch) doesn't that mean that a significant proportion can? And wouldn't that be a reason for some of the owners of some of those more able lenses to be interested in increases sensor resolution? Moiré avoidance in sensors with no OLP filers could be an attraction of a sensor that "oversamples" the lens too.

Of course it might simply be that there is little loss or gain for V system users, and with the DMF marketplace as a whole preferring higher resolution, it eventually became more expensive for Kodak to keep an older, lower resolution sensor in production in addition to newer, higher resolution alternatives.

[EricWHiss]

2db = 1/3 stop

Personally, I don't think the pixel density matters in practice because either you can have detail in the shadows and highlights or you don't.   It's either there in all the pixels or it isn't.  Having twice as many pixels that don't have as much DR as the fatter pixels did doesn't help at all.   When you shoot the Stouffer transmission wedge you don't need to look at the pixel level to see if the DR is there or not because you can see both by numerical averages or on screen if there the step up or down makes can be discerned.   Extra pixels aren't adding in anything to this.   The newer backs can lift the shadows more and pull in the highlights but that is only changing what you can already see is there and not changing the end points or in other words the darkest and lightest the back is capturing is still the same. 

[John R Smith]

Probably half or more of the V lenses won't support higher resolution than 39mp, and most of them will produce axial CA because they were designed before the advent of digital sensors.

Eric is correct. After using the CFV-39 for almost two years, the only way I can actually fully exploit the 39MP sensor's potential with my old 'C' lenses is through perfect technique - heavy tripod, short extension, mirror lock-up, and cable release. That way I am perhaps pushing the limits of sensor resolution - just now and then. However, that will apply only to the best of the 'C' lenses - the 120mm, the 100mm. The old Distagons will not cause the sensor to break sweat. Most of the time, in what I would call "normal" photography shooting handheld, the sensor resolution is ample. The only reason for wanting more would be to print huge enlargements.

John

[James Shetler]

I have an old Kodak 16mp back (DCS Pro Plus) and have been looking at the CFV-39 and CFV-50 as an upgrade.  The largest I beleive I have ever printed a photograph is 20x30, so do you think the CFV-39 can handle that?  I have never printed a digital image that large but I don't see ever needing to print any larger than that so that is what is why I was thinking of the CFV-50 instead of the CFV-39.  IF the CFV-39 can handle 20x30 that would save me some money and hard drive space.

I am currently and will be at a really remote location until the end of the year so I can't go into a store and really check them out which of course would be the best thing to do. I hate to pass up the current offer though at the same time because they sure don't put those backs on sale often.

[John R Smith]

James

My own testing with the CFV-39 would indicate that you can print 24x32 ins from an uncropped RAW file via Lightroom with excellent results. In fact, with current printers, you almost need to be printing up around those sort of sizes to actually exploit the resolution that is in the file, strange as it may sound. And I can't imagine ever needing anything bigger than that for my own work.

PS - I've just had a look at my test prints and even a section at 30x40 ins looks very good, up-rezzed by LR from 180 to 720 ppi and output via Epson. Any problems you see will be with the original capture, not the Kodak sensor.

John

[BJL]

Eric, John and others,
    My apologies for getting of on a tangent about the value or otherwise of increasing pixel count beyond 39MP (reducing pixel spacing below 6.8 microns); I can easily believe that the main reason for Kodak discontinuing the 39MP sensor is the bigger picture of its overall sensor market, not the desires of V system users in particular.

The real question is whether there is any disadvantage to the 50MP sensor. The 2dB change in per pixel S/N ratio is so close to the expected improvement in S/N ratio from down sampling or other processing down to the lower resolution of the older sensor that, as Eric says, the only reliable answer must come from experiments. And it certainly seems fair for the 50MP images to be downconverted to the lower reolution, more so if the higher resolution is not needed, or even not stained due to the limitations of lenses, camera stability, and such.

If a sensor were being designed just for the V system, the best design might be different, but with economies of scale dictating that the sensor design be shared with other DMF backs, and also with a lot of other medical, scientific, military and other uses, keeping the 39MP sensor around could in the end make the backs more expensive to produce than consolidating on the 50MP model.

[EricWHiss]

Yes, I agree there are probably other factors in play with regard to the marketing of the sensors WRT MFDB.   I can't speak for V shooters, but I have and do use the ixpress/CF backs ... and my take on the pixel count is that it really depends on what the use is if the extra pixels are a plus or a minus.    I think the higher pixel backs produce a more film like look, not grain but tonality and color,  obviously they can print larger too or be more highly cropped.  The newer backs seem to have better ISO 200, 400, and 800.   So these are advantages for higher pixel count backs, however for high contrast / high DR scenes, I think the older 9um backs do better ( at least at base ISO ) and they can handle movements on technical cameras or tilt shift lenses better.  The new 80mp backs seem to have a lot of problems with color casts even without any movement. They are just much more sensitive.  Another advantage that could go to the smaller backs is file size - much easier to work, store and ftp the smaller files.    The MFDB makers have advertised improved color on each new back, but I'm not sure its there or not.     I didn't post images, but the other month I compared a hasselblad CF 528 vs the AFI-ii 12 using the same lens on both cameras.   I shot a white plate with a stack of peaches on it.  You can imagine how the color of peaches is not uniform but subtly changing between tones of orange and yellow about the surface and they are covered with many fine hairs.  Both cameras recorded the hairs very well but the 528 did much better on capturing the ranges of color and for lack of a better word, texture of the skin.   If I were shooting food or flowers in the studio (where I could shoot at base ISO) or landscapes using a tripod, I might opt for an older 9um sensor back.  I'm not saying the AFi-ii 12 is bad at all. I like it, but I think under some circumstances its beaten by the older 528.  So long story short, to answer your question, yes under some circumstances the 39mp or even 22mp sensor backs would be preferable to the 50mp.   No question the chip makers and MFDB makers have continued to learn how to make better and better chips and electronics.  I'd be really curious to see what they could do with a larger pitch sensor today instead of concentrating on higher pixel densities. 

Anyhow back to the topic - when I bought my CF-ii 39MS in Feb of this year,  I was told that it might be one of the last ones and that Hasseblad might stop offering CF backs.   It's really a shame because if you have an older camera and set of lenses that you like to use, you are running out of options.   

[James Shetler]

Is there anyone out there currently shooting the CFV-50?  I have limited access to the net but I have searched for user image samples and have actually only found a couple on FLICKR by one person.  There were no comments on the use of the back.  Oleg in China (https://www.olegnovikov.com/index.shtml) reviewed the CFV-39 vs the CFV-50 but did not use them on the same camera system. He used the 39 on the V system and the 50 on the Hasselblad provided HD camera.  I follow his work and like what he does and his take was that he would go with the 39 but that was based on other reasons and not technical ones.   

I also noticed that the CF lens list is longer with the CFV-50 than it is with the CFV-39.  Would the corrections for the added lenses also come with the CFV-39 back?

I basically shoot studio and landscape/travel landscape images. I would guess that 80% or more of what I shoot is from a tripod. 

If there is anyone out there shooting the CFV-50 for landscapes on the V system I would love to hear their input.  I have until Nov 29 to decide if I am going to jump on the BH Photo deal that is offered.  I am working on a trip to China next year and would want some serious time in with the back before I go or I will do film. I don't return to the US until early Jan so while time is not unlimited I do have time. I would be traveling to fairly populated parts of China and not to any remote locations on this trip so film is still a great option. I do like the idea of know exactly what I have before I return though.

On a side note I am going to use the Kodak DCS Pro Plus for Infrared full time if I get the second back. I have done this already and like many of the images that I get. That chip was actually a military product and VERY sensitive to IR.  Due to it's sensitivity you usually ended up with shutter speeds of 250 or 500 at f22 or f32 depending on lens used.  I have a 40CFE, 6O CF, 150CF and a 250CF.

Thanks to everyone for all the input and comments.