What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

50th anniversary

Q.G., I said ..." and are still viable because they were so good." "Still viable" ... "were" references that they're not new inventions.

It isn't Hasselblad that is making these cameras obsolete, it's the people not buying them that is doing that. Lack of bigger sensors causing the problem? Hasselblad isn't in charge of making the sensors for digital backs, so the sensors being too small is a problem they can't solve.

"And they only are because the then owners decided there was money in a 645 film (!) camera, so all money was committed to that project. "

Huh? Film camera? Digital backs were already aggressively on the scene when this camera was on the drawing boards.

"(because, the visionaries had decided, there was no money in digital photography)."

Do you really think the H was designed as a film camera? Why on earth would a company with one of the best film cameras out there commit their future to a 645 film camera?

I think Hasselblad saw the handwriting on the wall and got it in gear to stay ahead of the digital curve. It doesn't matter what the leadership or marketing guys said publicly in the meantime. That's a classic tight lipped stalling tactic ... something the company is still very good at.

I love the V system. However, I'm the minority of my professional photographer friends as well as those I hire to do work for my ad agency ... none of them use V equipment anymore. They all use Contax, Mamiya and Hasselblad 645s, and view cameras. They aren't sentimental, it's just business.

The 500 series is beautifully built and a wonderful tool, but it is a dumb box. It doesn't have a communication network to interface with the predominate professional medium of digital capture. No way to become an AF camera. No innovations like a rotating back, or swiveling finder. Rollie was better poised to do that than Hasselblad was with the 500s ... which is proving to be so with the Hy6.

What I don't know is why Hasselblad didn't evolve the 200 series into the digital solution. Add a rotating adapter with data bus contacts, get a lens maker to do a couple of AF lenses, and invent a winder with enough mAh to drive a digital back. Did they abandon that sysem to soon? Maybe those with better engineering insight can tell us why it would not have been a good choice to move into the digital future.
 
Hi Marc,

> Austin, why aren't you working for these people?

They are not in New England, and I do fixed price contracting...these things were more than likely developed internally by people whom they pay a salary. Though typically outside contractors *can* develop products like this much cheaper than can be done internally, most companies don't want the risk or don't understand the cost benefit...until after the fact.

> The way you comment > on the engineering they all seem so completely incompetent

Not at all. They clearly are inexperienced in certain aspects of "good" engineering principles. I come from a background that doesn't allow for releasing products that haven't been thoroughly tested, and all bugs removed. As I said, due to poor products like MS-DOS and earlier versions of Windows, people have come to accept poor quality in computer based products. A shame that is IMO. Also, since they know they can fix most issues with firmware or software updates, they can "get away with" shipping things and let the users do the testing.

> a pack > of monkeys making high tech imaging instruments comes to mind.

The monkeys were all busy...still at Microsoft, but getting smarter by the day ;-)

> I also do not understand that technical progress is a huge square > sensor.

I don't believe I said it was, as it isn't. A 6x6 sensor is well within the realm of current wafer technology, but does not appear to be economically feasible for a commercial product. Personally, I would like to see a 6x6 digital back, preferably one that was just B&W, instead of a Bayer pattern...but that is highly unlikely.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Paul,

> I know from experience that a lot of teams that design hardware > consist of very talented and educated people but often lack the input > from someone who knows what goes on in the potential goup of users.

That is %100 correct. Case in point, is a company whose software I use for PCB design and layout. The engineers decide how the product should work, but that often clashes with how PCB designers think it should work. I am working with this company to try to bridge this gap, as I have with some other companies, but it is a difficult task...as (typically the "engineers") egos are usually at stake. Some are more receptive than others.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Wilko,

> I'm curious (and I'm sure Austin will chime in) if the current sensors > do already have considerable amounts of mixed electronics, so analog > and digital on a single chip.

CCD vs CMOS is where this issue lies. CMOS is actually an ASIC process, where CCD is a technology that is implemented in a different type of ASIC process. CCDs are not able to have other circuitry on their dies, but CMOS sensors can. Most computer electronics is in fact CMOS. So, if Kodak were to change to making CMOS sensors (which would mean an entire new design and fabrication process), they could include other electronics on the dies other than the imaging sensor photosites.

> (Austin, does DECchip 21064 still ring a bell in this context? ;-)

I can tell you definitively what killed the Alpha. Software...lack of it. Where Microsoft was subsidizing people to write software for the PC, DEC was unwilling to subsidize people to port their applications to Alpha, or to produce an economically feasible Alpha.

As a note, we HAD secured the source code to NT prior to the cancellation of Alpha. A task what was no small one, but without fruition due to politics and shortsightedness and timing.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Austin,

Eh, of course I should have mentioned that the chip process in use must allow mixed signal. While doing my graduation work (at Philips Semiconductor) I had the opportunity to see some of the work the CCD designers did. My impression, later confirmed by the other chip designers, was that CCD design has a considerable amount of "black art" to make the CCDs work right. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but device physics on CCDs are apparantly a completely different kettle of fish from "normal" CMOS.

Wilko
 
Marc,

You say they are still viable, yes.
But you say they are retro too, only persued out of sentimentality and/or economics.

The H-Series was intended to be a film camera indeed.
As i said, the then (1997) owners did not think there was money in digital photography. Truly!
Which is why they also scrapped all R&D activities in Gothenburg related to digital photography. Hasselblad even had their own prototype digital back with a sensor developed in cooperation with Philips (the same sensor later found in third party backs that were put on V-System Hasselblads) as good as ready to be turned into a marketable product.
But at the time 645 film cameras did rather well, so a 645 film camera it had to be.

Yes, digital backs were everywhere then already. And what was everywhere too, was the V-System. Walking the Photokina, you could not turn your head without seeing a V-System Hasselblad fitted with one or another digital back.
But the 'visionaries' wanted a 645 film camera, because the Mamiya and Pentax 645 machines then did so well...

And these investment bankers were hard to teach the errors of their ways: only very late in the proces (the last year before launch), Hasselblad was allowed (!) to cooperate with Kodak and PhaseOne, to see if these companies might like to consider the H1 as a platform for their backs anyway.

But what then happened took all companies involved in medium format photography - film and digital, camera and back producers alike - by surprise, albeit one more than the other: 35 mm based digital machines 'cornered' the market over night.

From then on it was a matter of trying to catch up. Many MF companies didn't.
And for Hasselblad, with all their eggs in one basket, and no large sensor yet in sight, it was almost over too. The H-System had to be thrust forward, and it had to be turned into a digital machine capable of competing with the 35 mm based machines.
And so they did. Good!

But the V-System cameras, though no longer in Hasselblad's focus, were still not obsolete. There's nothing wrong with them that would make them something not worth persuing further. Nothing, except the too small sensors.

Sensors are getting bigger now, and the V-System cameras might still claim the position they deserve.
The position some other manufactureres are trying to take over with this Hy6 thingy.
"Retro thinking driven by sentimentality and/or economics"? I think not.

Your 203 FE works perfectly well with the CFV.
Now if only that CFV back was a bit better, with all the sophistication of other Imacon backs. And a larger sensor...
"Retro"? Not at all!

One could think that the lack of auto-everything would make V-System cameras obsolete.
Maybe. Maybe for wedding shooters. Fashion perhaps too.

But the auto-nothing feature of most V-System cameras has never been an issue with a great many professional (studio) shooters. (On the contrary: the non-auto 201 F was produced to allow studio shooters to use F lenses without having to buy the expensive 205 or 203 cameras, whose automatic features are of no use in a studio).

The Contax ex&le also shows this: they indeed had auto-everything, but not a digital back. And now they are gone.
V-System Hasselblad and 67 Mamiya did not have auto-everything, but had been already recognized as perfect platforms for digital backs. And they are still with us.
But unless some larger sensor comes soon, not for very much longer.
But it still is not the camera system's fault. No sentimental attachment to retro stuff. No misery. They still make a lot of sense. "The only thing is that these sensors are too small."
 
Hi Wilko,

> I'm not sure if this is still the > case, but device physics on CCDs are apparantly a completely different > kettle of fish from "normal" CMOS.

Correct. CCDs are implemented in a different technology than CMOS, but obviously there are CMOS photosites that are not CCDs and can be combined on the chip with other CMOS electronics.

Regards,

Austin
 
The Contax 645 wasn't the problem. That camera was a success. It was the ND that killed Kyocera/Contax and took the 645 with it.

You are the one using the term "obsolete" Q.G. I said it was retro thinking to continue trying to fit the V into the future ... not that it can't and is being used, and can continue to be used.

Most of what you are saying is "back then", not now. Now is what most working photographers are faced with.

For ex&le, auto everything isn't the point ... versatility is the point. These cameras cost a kings ransom now and have to function for a lot of different applications. The H camera is a very good manual camera ... press one button and it's manual. So I can do wedding candid work, shoot playing kids at a corporate picnic, do a fashion shoot, and then table top in the studio.
 
Marc,

Well... "retro" or "obsolete": my point is that having a larger sensor would indeed constitute a step from "now" - not back, not "retro" - but forward. Towards the "now" of tomorrow.

Though the H-Series progression might suggest otherwise, you do not need new cameras (costing a king's ransom) for every single step forward.
That too is something working photographers care about. Call it economical, and it would be right. But without any derogatory connotations. Just common (business) sense.

There are still millions of V-System cameras about. That too is now, not "back then", right?
All they need is that larger sensor, nothing else. And with it, they will still very much be a thing of both "now" and of the future.
(Though it is true that many of them have gone somewhere where the chances are dim that they ever will see a digital back attached to them.)

Now, if such a larger sensor would indeed be in the offing, why not cheer it on?
There is nothing "retro", sentimental, "back then" or unprofessional about it.

And versatility? I never heard complaints about the V-System lacking that.
wink.gif
 
QG : well put and totally agree, why re invent what already exists just add a bigger sensor 22MP? and that would see the V system into the future and leave many photographers content to stay with it.

With regards to auto everything, we all used to shoot weddings, as an ex&le, quite happily without anything automated, practice makes perfect and improves associated skills.

With the latest reductions in the CFV and digital 503CW Hasselblad are either ridding themselves of the equipment or just about to release a 22MP CFV. I rather suspect the former though!

best wishes, Carl
 
To add that the reason that there may not be a 22MP CFV is that the lenses in the V system may show flaws at the edges of the image that can not be compensated for with software. This may be an incorrect line of thought but I am sure that this came up in conversation at sometime with Hasselblad.

best wishes, Carl
 
Carl

There are no flaws when using the V-SYSTEM lenses with 6x6 film . So why should there be flaws when using a 22MP back .
You can attach a 22MP or even a 39MP CF BACK to V-SYSTEM cameras when using the correct adapter .

Jurgen
 
"With regards to auto everything, we all used to shoot weddings, as an ex&le, quite happily without anything automated, practice makes perfect and improves associated skills."

Once again, this is the way it was, not the way it is. Wedding photography has changed. Client expectations changed. It is much more spontaneous, candid and fluid. Doesn't matter whether we agree with it or not. It changed, and it started changing before digital was mainstream. Totally manual 6x6 MF cameras are all but gone in that industry... once a main source of sales for Bronica and Hasselblad 6x6.

The idea that a larger sensor will "revive" the V series with markets such as this is wishful thinking. That boat sailed some time ago. In addition, all the commercial photographers that flooded ebay with their Mamiya RZs, Bronicas, and Hasselblad Vs aren't going to revert back because of a 22 meg CFV back being made available. Get real.

What can be hoped for is that there are enough OF US to make it worth Hasselblad's investment. Enough Carls, Q.G.s, Jurgens, Simons, Wilkos, Austins, Gilberts, Pauls, Marcs, and a host of Eduardos world wide that will buy such a back if it became available.

The question is, will those arguing for a larger sensor CFV on this forum actually buy one?
Words and desires are one thing, actual action is another. If it does appear, it won't come with a $5,000. price tag ... it'll be relatively expensive.

I would in a heart beat. I'll wager so would Jurgen or any other member that went for the current CFV. No one could have evangelized the V system and specifically the CFV back more than I have. I would like to see a 22 meg back as much as any of you.

Here's my prediction: They WILL make a 22 meg CFV. There are some rumors to this effect from a relatively decent source (don't ask, because I can't answer). The price most likely will be in the neighborhood of $15,000. Not more I hope, and hopefully less, hopefully more like $12,000. ( perhaps wishful thinking on my part ).

Oh, as to the current optics using a larger sensor. I DO use these lenses with a larger sensor NOW via the CF adapter on the H camera. If you like the glass now, you will like it just as much with a 22 meg 645 sensored back. If there are flaws, film can't change that but software corrections CAN during digital processing. Photoshop can be used with any digital file to correct chromatic aberrations and distortion. If one can correct the horrible flaws of Canon wide optics, any Zeiss flaws will be child's play : -) In addition, the Flexcolor DAC corrections could easily be made as a manually selected option for non-databus equipped glass.
 
Bojan

Could you please explain what you posted in more detail ? ?
Do I then sit here and have a lot lot of useless glass ? ?
 
Jürgen,

Zeiss glass is as sharp as Bojan's irony.
wink.gif


Marc,

I agree that if such a larger sensor back would appear, it would not automatically sell like hot cakes.
The thing that practically wiped out MF is still with us: the competition posed by affordable 35 mm digital machines. Digital backs (and the 'integrated' machines of late) are far too expensive to make a stand.
They do sell, but will never ever equal the 'omnipresence' of film consuming MF cameras. Not even get close. I'm sure that for every MF camera now 'replaced' by a MF camera with digital back, there are six, seven, eight, if not more, that have been replaced by a 'Canon'.
And that's all due to price. Not 'versatility', not 'modernism'. Price.

Unless the prices come down drastically, that will not change. And unless the prices do indeed come down, digital backs and 'integrated' machines are on a short, dead-end way.
And that will be the same, no matter how large the sensor.

The CFV however has shown that perhaps companies that depend on people buying their products begin to see that. Rather late. Maybe too late even.

But it's hard to cut prices: why work doubly hard, to earn no more money? That would be silly, right?
Unless, of course, you do not sell your too expensive products, and you earn less and less and less.
What Imablad has done in response is down-size, cut costs, sell off assets: anything but the thing they actually need to do. And i'm afraid they will continue doing so, still hoping that 'the market' hasn't yet caught on, but will wake up soon and rush, as one, towards Hasselblad to give them all the spending money to get Hasselblad's too expensive products.
And it's not just Hasselcon that persists in this "as long as i sit still and play dead, it will be ok in the end" thingy. As long as you can cut off limbs, and not yet have to sacrifice vital organs, why not? Who needs two legs and arms anyway, when he's rich? So cut prices? Never!
Snap, there goes another, non-vital bit. But the head is still there to appreciate the huge earnings that will eventually come...

But, again, the CFV might be a sign that they have indeed seen that they have to offer these things for a lot less.
So who knows. Will more people start buying a larger sensor back than they do the present smaller sensor back? Will all the people who would like to see that larger sensor buy one? Depends on more than just the sensor size (and no: that more is not 'versatility' nor 'modernity'. It's not being rich enough either: the question whether one should want to, and should, afford to buy too expensive bits is just as pertinent, if not more so, than whether one can.)
But there's hope.
 
My feeling is that if Hasselblad were to produce and market a digital back (with a 54x54 sensor), the quality of which compared with Canon digital in the same way that Hasselblad film camera output used to compare with Canon's film output, then however expensive, people would save their pennies/go into debt/ whatever to acquire them. Was that not true of some (non-professional) quality-obsessed photographers with regard to film Hasselblads?
 
Jurgen - I was making a joke! Your Zeiss Hasselblad glass is probably the best you will ever experience. Incidentally, it was all made by Zeiss (Oberkochen), unlike some of the Rollei versions which were made under licence from Zeiss (So I understand).
 
Bojan

Your "bloody" joke produced a lot of tears running down my cheeks . But now , as I have your answer , its fine again .
Unfortunately , one of my F lenses is sick and is sent for CLA to ZEISS , Oberkochen .
It's the F2,8/150 and the aperture does not open and close as fast as it should . It shurely will cost me a fortune to get that sorted .
uhoh.gif
 
"And that's all due to price. Not 'versatility', not 'modernism'. Price. "

Not sure I agree with that either. For ex&le, there is a Kodak V mount Proback on ebay right now that's $3,900. Probably lucky if it goes for that. That's 1/2 the price of a new 1DsMKII. and still 2 grand less than a used one. The Proback murders the 1DsMKII in image quality, but far too many don't think it does. It's the digital dumbing down that's the problem. There have been enough sales of the $8,000. Canon 1DsMKII to throw price into question as the chief culprit.

I also don't have the pessimistic outlook you have toward the company. Yes they downsized. The maket for MF has all but disappeared compared to the "good old days".

I think they did the right thing with the H system, and the right thing joining with Imacon. It's resulted in a highly professional integrated system, designed for professionals, used primarily by professionals, because the market is there. That's where the battle ground is.... and that commercial battle ground is 99.99% digital.

From your thinly veiled contempt, I get the impression that you think it's all been a horrible downgrading of the imaging abilities, and yet are you using any of this gear? It's a fabulous modern system that's versatile as can be, earns it's keep on a regular basis, and I've found there's little I can't accomplish with it to earn a living. The images are every bit as good or better than anything out there ... at least when it come to digital images.

Here's my latest "Digital Darling", a Rollie Xact with a Kapture Group sliding back, Hasselblad 39 meg digital back, and a set of Digital lenses. The stuff from this set-up is astounding. An ex&le of versatility. Modernism? How about live video review on a 23" display monitor to adjust composition and set the focus point. This from the same back I can use to shoot candid images at a wedding ... which I've posted here enough times.

Grab shot of Xact taken with the 203FE, CFV and 110/2FE : -)


26984.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top