When will Hasselblad release a new CFV back?

[Tangyimail]

The CFv 50 has been released for three years, but Hassy hasn't said when they will release a new version, say, CFV 60?

[Chris Livsey]

As a P20/Hasselblad V user I would comment that such a high pixel count would strain the system in too many ways: Calibration of back and body, the V body and focussing system would need individual calibration given the age and usage of the majority of bodies. Vibration, shutter shock or whatever is the current term, this limits hand holding to 125th as a practical minimum, topping out at 500th doesn't help. The user base is now I suspect mainly amateur at least in "developed" countries (the 'blad is ubiquitous) if the spend is going to be that high wouldn't most look at a S/H H system? Same user group has limited funds, majority are not Dpi "swopped backs again this week" types. Open platform: Phase One and other backs "suffer" from the lead, that's about it, availability is now so those who want that count can have it, a CFV would be in catch up, it should have been launched at the same time as the H system equivalent, not years later. I'm sure the sales of the CFV 50 will have fed into the decisions, hard as well to "sell" a back for a platform you no longer produce.
Having said all that they may surprise us with the next generation releases, or they could do a CFV lunar edition, or a Ferrari  

[Doug Peterson]

If you're looking for a back that fits any 500 series, has recent generation sensors, has modern LCD with touchscreen interface and can shoot in either vertical or horizontal there is no need to wait for a future back release. Leaf Aptus, Leaf Credo, Phase IQ and IQ2 are all available today.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't agree in part. The CFV sensor is 1.1 crop factor on 645, 36.7 x 49.1 mm. A sensor 1X crop factor would give 60MP ( 50MP * 1.1 * 1.1). So the 60 MP sensor would be no more demanding then the 50 MP sensor, except using more of the image circle of the lens.

Of course, that would be to pay a lot for a 10% linear advantage, but if it is worth it, that is a question for the customer to ask.

As Doug makes a point, there are many alternatives from Phase and Leaf.

Best regards
Erik

As a P20/Hasselblad V user I would comment that such a high pixel count would strain the system in too many ways: Calibration of back and body, the V body and focussing system would need individual calibration given the age and usage of the majority of bodies. Vibration, shutter shock or whatever is the current term, this limits hand holding to 125th as a practical minimum, topping out at 500th doesn't help. The user base is now I suspect mainly amateur at least in "developed" countries (the 'blad is ubiquitous) if the spend is going to be that high wouldn't most look at a S/H H system? Same user group has limited funds, majority are not Dpi "swopped backs again this week" types. Open platform: Phase One and other backs "suffer" from the lead, that's about it, availability is now so those who want that count can have it, a CFV would be in catch up, it should have been launched at the same time as the H system equivalent, not years later. I'm sure the sales of the CFV 50 will have fed into the decisions, hard as well to "sell" a back for a platform you no longer produce.
Having said all that they may surprise us with the next generation releases, or they could do a CFV lunar edition, or a Ferrari  

[jerome_m]

I would think that Hasselblad's idea of an upgrade path is to use a H camera, its back and the mount adapter for the V lenses. It is probably even cheaper that way, considering that second-hand H cameras with a decent back can be had for less money than CFV backs. And you get a viewfinder that has been designed for the smaller format of the electronic sensor.

Basically, one has lenses and needs a "box" between these lenses and the back. That box can either be an old V-series camera or a new H camera with lens adapter. The second options allows to use 60 Mpix backs.

[Theodoros]

Hi,

I don't agree in part. The CFV sensor is 1.1 crop factor on 645, 36.7 x 49.1 mm. A sensor 1X crop factor would give 60MP ( 50MP * 1.1 * 1.1). So the 60 MP sensor would be no more demanding then the 50 MP sensor, except using more of the image circle of the lens.

Of course, that would be to pay a lot for a 10% linear advantage, but if it is worth it, that is a question for the customer to ask.

As Doug makes a point, there are many alternatives from Phase and Leaf.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, the cost of producing a full frame or near FF square sensor, is not only the 33% more sensor area that is required, but more, much more than that, is the fact that this sensor would be applicable to a very limited volume of camera users, than 6x4.5 users. Nearly all cameras that would be able to serve such a sensor have been discontinued (I believe that only RZII can be ordered, maybe not even this) and most of them (Rolleis excluded) are much worst specified than modern 6x4.5 or even Contax 645… Hence, if such an MFDB would be made, the cost could be outrageous maybe even 10 times the cost of a back aimed for 6x4.5 format, who would make a sensor that maybe would be of interest in 10-20 units annually coming from all makers and who are the MF makers that would make a special back for 6x6 cameras, when all makers only make 6x4.5 cameras to fit their backs on? OTOH, most 6x6 camera owners, prefer the rotation ability of the sensor that their camera is able to do since they don't have to ever use their camera in "portrait" orientation, which means that even among 6X6 users, such a sensor would have limited interest. 

As to the OP requirement, there is no CFV-50 in production for a long time now, nor there is a any V system anymore….  More than that, questions like …."is P1 IQ 272 coming?" or "when is Nikon's D300 replacement?" …are better to be applied to the makers via mail  There is more luck to find an answer there!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Sloppy reading on your part. I was talking about a full frame 645 camera, having a 1.0X crop factor. The CVF 50 uses an 37x49 mm sensor while later backs like the IQ260 and the IQ280 use larger sensors with 1.0X crop factor on 645.

The poster I was responding to suggested that a 60 MP sensor would make a larger demand on the cameras than a 50 MP sensor, but withe the nomenclature used today it would be a slightly larger sensor with the same pixel size. And such sensors do exist in a great selection from Phase One and Leaf as I also pointed out.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, the cost of producing a full frame or near FF square sensor, is not only the 33% more sensor area that is required, but more, much more than that, is the fact that this sensor would be applicable to a very limited volume of camera users, than 6x4.5 users. Nearly all cameras that would be able to serve such a sensor have been discontinued (I believe that only RZII can be ordered, maybe not even this) and most of them (Rolleis excluded) are much worst specified than modern 6x4.5 or even Contax 645… Hence, if such an MFDB would be made, the cost could be outrageous maybe even 10 times the cost of a back aimed for 6x4.5 format, who would make a sensor that maybe would be of interest in 10-20 units annually coming from all makers and who are the MF makers that would make a special back for 6x6 cameras, when all makers only make 6x4.5 cameras to fit their backs on? OTOH, most 6x6 camera owners, prefer the rotation ability of the sensor that their camera is able to do since they don't have to ever use their camera in "portrait" orientation, which means that even among 6X6 users, such a sensor would have limited interest. 

As to the OP requirement, there is no CFV-50 in production for a long time now, nor there is a any V system anymore….  More than that, questions like …."is P1 IQ 272 coming?" or "when is Nikon's D300 replacement?" …are better to be applied to the makers via mail  There is more luck to find an answer there!

[ndevlin]

The odds of Hasselblad doing another, different CFV back is truly minimal.  Sadly, the "V" system is end-of-life, and if Hasselblad survives as a camera maker, it won't be in this direction. 

I also agree that there would be little to gain.  The level of precision needed on digital backs was always a bit of a reach on legacy systems.  If you want to go down this road, get a nice, and now affordable, 22MP leaf or phase back and be happy. 

Cheers,

- N.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Gee... So many posts and so many words used, when one would suffice: never!

[EricWHiss]

Never.  That's what they told me about 1.5 years ago. And they won't make any more CF backs either.
The universal style digital back with adapter plates that can be easily swapped to allow the back to fit technical cameras or other systems sure makes a lot of sense to me.  But H killed off the V system and there's no need for a new CFV. 

[torger]

As pointed out above "never" is the unfortunate answer. The V-system is end-of-life in the eyes of Hasselblad.

I would guess that the V system today is mostly used by amateurs and some artists (like Anton Corbijn, which still shoot film), while the typical professional would use the H system or other auto focus system.

I think that a 56x56mm back with 9 or 6um pixels (39 or 87 megapixels) made for V and Hy6 (and tech cams) would be commercially feasible though (even with a high price tag), but Hasselblad won't be the company making it. To me such a product based on current CCD technology would be more exciting than a 645 CMOS back. It would actually make medium format more different from 35mm than it is today instead of more similar.

DHW collaborating with Sinar maybe could pull it off. Sinar has the know-how and DHW has the product that would gain from it (Hasselblad's H system and Phase One's 645DF+ cannot take a 56x56 back), and by making interchangable mounts like Sinar has for their backs you could sell to both Hy6 and V users as well as tech cams.

We've had larger than 645 digital sensors before, Dicomed Bigshot was 60x60mm (and $55K), so it's not an impossible task.

[Tangyimail]

Thanks to all for your input. The H system is very tempting, but gee, aren't they expensive. I have a couple V bodies and an assortment of lenses that I painstakingly built up over time. And I cringe at the price of the new H series lenses.......

Some fellow photos use an L bracket that seem to solve the landscape/portrait orientation problems quite nicely.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The P45+ back I have can be mounted either horizontally or vertically.

I also feel it is improbable that Hasselblad makes a new V-series back, but it is also possible they would do it, in a future if they get a lot of HD60 backs as trade ins and if they see a market. But I don't think that market is very large.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks to all for your input. The H system is very tempting, but gee, aren't they expensive. I have a couple V bodies and an assortment of lenses that I painstakingly built up over time. And I cringe at the price of the new H series lenses.......

Some fellow photos use an L bracket that seem to solve the landscape/portrait orientation problems quite nicely.

[tom_l]

I was sure there would be a huge market for these backs, if they were sensibly priced between 5000-6000 €. But I suppose Hasselblad have done their homework already, and found out that it isn't worth continuing this platform. The first back with a square sensor was a great idea, the idea to put a rectangular sensor in the same back wasn't.

Anyway, in my area, the V-mount still seem to be the most represented backs. If there are 12 backs I know of (all professional, nearly all allrounders, shooting all kind of photography), 2 are Hasselblad, 1 Leaf. 9 are Phase One backs, and still 5 of these are V-Mount backs used on 500/RZ/view cameras. (the rest Phamiya and Contax). The day, Phase One will have a Hy6-type body, fully modular, with optional WLF, most will switch to the M mount (me too)


Tom

[jerome_m]

Thanks to all for your input. The H system is very tempting, but gee, aren't they expensive. I have a couple V bodies and an assortment of lenses that I painstakingly built up over time. And I cringe at the price of the new H series lenses.......

That is why there is an adapter to mount V lenses on H backs. And second-hand H cameras can be had for reasonable prices.

[jerome_m]

The first back with a square sensor was a great idea, the idea to put a rectangular sensor in the same back wasn't.

Back manufacturers are dependent on the willingness of CCD manufacturers to produce chips. A quick look at the sites of Dalsa and Kodak/Truesense shows how restricted the choice of chips really is. Basically, the few square sensors that were produced were aimed at the astronomy and technical markets. These don't need huge chips and don't need lots of very small pixels. Something like the venerable KAF-16801/3 with 16 million pixels on a 36mmx36mm chip is all they need.

[tom_l]

The sensors are not the problem,

the problem is that they designed a back that can't be rotated (like a P1 V-mount).
You can't use it with a WLF or a PME45.

[Theodoros]

Back manufacturers are dependent on the willingness of CCD manufacturers to produce chips. A quick look at the sites of Dalsa and Kodak/Truesense shows how restricted the choice of chips really is. Basically, the few square sensors that were produced were aimed at the astronomy and technical markets. These don't need huge chips and don't need lots of very small pixels. Something like the venerable KAF-16801/3 with 16 million pixels on a 36mmx36mm chip is all they need.

Hi Jerome, I believe that 36mm is far a small size sensor to do some justice on MF lenses… For example a 40mm, would be as wide as a 40mm on a FF DSLR… 

[jerome_m]

Hi Jerome, I believe that 36mm is far a small size sensor to do some justice on MF lenses… For example a 40mm, would be as wide as a 40mm on a FF DSLR… 

Sure, but that was the size of the sensor of the CVF-16 nevertheless. And it is the only size which was ever available in a square format digital back.

[Theodoros]

Sure, but that was the size of the sensor of the CVF-16 nevertheless. And it is the only size which was ever available in a square format digital back.

Never the less, IMO, they should have used the wider area version of the same sensor as their basic back (i.e. a 37x49mm CFV-22), I believe that would have helped the V-system to do better marketing wise, I also believe that the discontinuation of the "fat-pixel" 22mp Kodak sensor without it being ever replaced, did a lot of damage to MF demand in general, CF & Imacon interchangeable fit backs, had more demand than CFVs ever had and the 22mp backs where the most popular among CFs and Imacon… Another thing to consider is that 88mp 16x multishot capturing was never replaced, which many think (me among them) provided the best (still) image among all MFDBs by far… much better than any modern high pixel density single-shot back too. Then, there was that "stupid" trade policy they applied, where if one would trade his back, the older back would never return back to the market which shrunk the base of the MF market considerably (especially as they stopped the production of the CF adapters and turned the CFs to CFVs). If MF will not survive, surely Hasselblad's policy with the V system, in combination with the "close" of the H system, has undeniably a lot to do with their (wrong) choices, practically I believe they followed a policy that not only affected the whole MF market negatively, but they also acted against their own benefit.