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.

CAN THE 503CWD USE A12E12 FILM MAGAZINES

Q.G., the market for MF digital backs is miniscule compared to any other camera market. A back maker that would only make integrated digital solutions would be shooting themselves in the foot. Imacon backs have to fit many different camera platforms or their sales would dwindle (compared to Phase One for ex&le).

The dedicated backs like the H2D/22 or 39 are provided for seamless use by photographers shooting primarily digital or only digital. I have not done a film based commercial job in 5 years now, nor would I want to.

The dedicated H digital back system meant one thing ... choosing the H system as the camera platform. When Hasselblad introduced the V lens adapter to use all 500 series lenses on the H cameras, that finalized the decision for me to commit to the H system.

Hasselblad/Imacon are pushing for dominance in the MF market. That means dominance in digital capture with commercial photographers, not amateurs, few of whom can foot a bill in the neighborhood of $30,000. Pro photographers require options to meet their needs, and as long as Imacon/Hasselblad strive to meet those varied demands they will survive and perhaps be the last man standing when the whole thing shakes out.
 
Took delivery of a 503CWD yesterday. I have never shot MF film but it looks like the camera will work with film backs. The winder activates the film advance gears and the small pin or the right side rear of the camera body. On the digital back you can see the groove that allows room for the gears to go (without touching anything) and the pin contact that somehow activates the back. The gold contacts have no function on the 503.

26248.jpg


26249.jpg
 
Marc,

Indeed.

Film eating MF cameras sell even less than digital backs or digital only MF cameras. There is no doubt about both that the future is digital, and that the future is now. That's why just about all MF manufacturers have disappeared.
The Hasselblad-Imacon merger was a very good idea, else Hasselblad's future would depend entirely on what other companies (the ones making digital backs) would do, or not do.

Hasselblad however is still suffering the results of the fact that they sold so many cameras in the past, and the fact that most of these items, no matter how old, are still being used, and sold on to other people to continue being used. For many, many years now, used Hasselblad has been Hasselblad's biggest competitor. They have tried to remove 'old Hasselblad' from the market many times, but quite aparrently without much success.
And so we are still being concerned about V-system cameras, and about whether or not they still take film.

Most of us still use these old things instead of buying a H2D39. Not a big problem for Imablad, if at least we would go and buy digital backs (made by Hasselcon, of course) to use on our old cameras instead.
A move that could (well...) be helped along by spreading rumours that they only work with digital backs. As if we wouldn't know better...
Yet, they can try, can't they? Whether deliberate strategy or not, what that sales rep said has managed to create confusion at least.

But we do indeed know better, and so refrain from buying digital backs. We keep supporting Kodak, Fuji or Ilford, instead of Imacon.
And when will the day arrive that they begin to understand that their digital backs are far, far too expensive?

So, would you, in their shoes, make it impossible to use film backs, or not?
The current Hasselblad strategy seems to be to discourage, but (reluctantly) tolerate use of film.

Removable backs - though they make a lot of sense in the digital-only world too - make us 'oldies' immediately think 'film'. A conditioning that could be countered, perhaps, by presenting integrated systems (or just pretending that they are, hushing up the fact that they really are not, and might even accept film backs).

Anyway, i wouldnt mind a H2D39, nor a 503CWD (nice one, Peter. Congrats!), or even a CFV.
 
Q.G. If you followed the other thread I posted pics to, you'd see the CFV is no slouch, and in the scheme of things isn't really outrageously priced ... if you have a ton invested in V system gear like I did. BTW, the CFV works on the 200 series cameras with a slight modification by Hasselblad ... making it even more valuable to dual owners ... like me.

I doubt it's a conspiracy on the part of Hasselblad/Imacon to deprive us of film options ... the consumer market is doing that on it's own. Hasselblad is simply looking to the future not the past ... without totally abandoning us "oldies" like other companies are.

Reminds me of the thief Willy Sutton's reply when asked why he robbed banks ... " it's where the money is" : -)
 
Marc,

16 MP backs have to show enough MF-advantage to justify their higher price, compared to 16 MP (or thereabouts) 35 mm based 'solutions'.
And you will have to consider the MF-disadvantage too (heavy and bulky. And how about a wide angle lens when you have that digiback attached?)
In my opinion (and it's only that), they still don't.

Meanwhile, the investment in V-System (including wide angle option) is save through the excellent (though admittedly tiresome) scanning route, using scanners like the Nikon 8000 or 9000.

An CFV isn't outrageously priced, no. But compared to what it is competing with... Half its price, and we're getting somewhere.

Same, by the way, for the H2D39, and digital backs of similar specs.
 
$9000-$10000 is not that bad for a 16MP digital back. For someone making th eir living in photography, it is a no-brainer. Even for amateurs spending $ 2000/yr on film and processing (about 3 rolls/week), it is a good investmen t. That doesn't include all the time saved scanning MF film. The used 16MP backs can be found for under $5000.
 
Again Q.G., I'm not advocating anything, just reporting on direct experiences from day-in, and day-out use.

The MF digital IMAGE advantage is there compared to ANY 35mm DSLR ... I own and extensively use the Canon D5, 1DsMKII, 503CW/CFV, H2D/39. The same comparisons between 35mm and MF remain as they were in film. Bigger sensor @ 16 bit = better image. 35mm AE/AF = better speed.

The rare times I need wide work greater than the CFV will provide, I swap backs and shoot film. Couldn't

Horses for courses.

The 503CW?CFV isn't much heavier than the Canon 1DsMKII BTW. I know, I've carried both for 8 hours straight. The right strap on a 503 makes a world of difference.

Scanning is a terrific alternative for personal use, and I personally don't mind the scanning process because I'm very selective of what I choose to scan. Film is a great love still, and scanning makes it possible to participate in both worlds IMO.

Scanning 500 wedding images isn't a personal favorite of mine, nor is scanning commercial projects ... which clients will no longer pay for.
 
Dear Peter, thanks for the photo! What a cuet looking camera, that must be a 40mm lens though not supplied with it. Tempted to purchase the CFV back thanks to the reports from Marc Williams, and a second hand 40mm lens that is declared to be in 'excellent' condition from a trusted dealer for a fraction of the price of a new 40mm. I need another body as well but not the 80mm lens so the option may be just the CFV back.

I already have a 50mm lens, does the 40mm live upto expectation? I have always advocated that the 38mm SWC is a better option but the price prevents purchase.

Mark, can you comment on the 40mm lens and how it fits in with the rest of your kit?

With regards to comments from QG, we are fortunate to have Hasselblad investing in digital backs for their 'V' system (not oldies) it is just a retro design, which some photographers prefer to work with, Hasselblad appear to be looking after their loyal customers.

It is not a question of 'oldies', if a camera is in use then it is not old. Do not let technology fool you into a sense of insecurity and anxiety. If the present camera owned is doing its job then why feel that there is a need to purchase the next latest technological advancement? Sure it keeps us on our toes and lets us see what is coming but 'old' cameras are just as 'present day' as anything new.

all the best, Carl
 
Carl, the 40 is excellent, but not as excellent as the 50 nor a match for the 38. But, if one gets the CFV, then the 40 comes into it's own due to the 1.5X crop. That crop factor makes the 40 a better optic because it eliminates the image area where the 40 may fall down a tiny bit.
 
Carl,

The CFV appears to be great, yes.
And the design ("retro"? What are you thinking?!) fits the V-System cameras very well.
(And by the way: the "oldies" i was referring to are we, not a camera or another.
We are the ones making money spending decisions, not our V-System cameras.)

But it is the only thing Imacon is doing for those of Hasselblad's loyal customers who do not dump their V-stuff in favour of the H-thingies.
And these customers 'need' something else: a larger sensor (or an affordable (!) shorter lens), and for less money.

Producing such a thing would open a really huge market for Imacon.
The CFV - though not quite it - certainly is a step in the right direction.

But it is rumoured that it can't be done. Well, perhaps not.
But if not, that's it. End of an era as far as the 'oldies' and their V-System cameras are concerned.
(That is: as soon as film runs out and/or scanners stop working and are no longer available.)
 
"But if not, that's it. End of an era as far as the 'oldies' and their V-System cameras are concerned. (That is: as soon as film runs out and/or scanners stop working and are no longer available.)"

I think I will be looking down into my "Cloud White" 500/CM and telling St. Peter to say cheese by then : -)

But with my luck it'll be a "Hell Fire" red Hasselblad, and the subject won't be wearing white : -(
 
'Retro' as compared to what is available now with the H2D 39's. I prefer the the 'V' system design over the 'Fujihaslecam' but there again if I was using one everyday my view may change. cheers!
 
Either/or is a relative term. Love my V stuff, but certain demands take you other places with other choices.

IMHO, all this stuff is the same ... a box with some form of media in the back and a lens in the front. I found that with this almost childish perspective I've been able to pick up any camera and in minutes use it on an assignment.

Folks that don't appreciate the H kit, are usually (not always) someone who hasn't used it to any reasonable degree.

I had a predjuice toward it myself, until it became clear 1) My Contax 645 system was going extinct and was a dead end 2) all the MF digital innovation was in 645 oriented sensors.

Since I can use all my Zeiss CF, CFi and CFE glass on the H3D, that just left the "box" to consider. Since the H "box" and H/C glass auto focuses a lot faster than the Contax ever did, and a wide angle lens is only compromised by a 1.1X factor ... what's not to love?

My only gripe is how much a film back costs for the H. But I'd rather shoot a V camera with film anyway.
 
Q.G., isn't 'retro' better than the annoying 'old school'. Or even 'old skool' now...

Marc, all the points taken from you and others about how good the H system is. Optics, hardware and software combined.

However, (to me) it just doesn't LOOK as good as the V-series, nor have its gravitas. Does this matter? Maybe, maybe not.

Wasn't there a thread somewhere, sometime about design classics re. Hasselblad. V-series...certainly, H-series...well, maybe.

Nick
 
> I have both a V series (553/ELX w/ 5 lenses) and an H1 (w/ only 1 > lens, which I got on a store demo sale). The AF of the H1 is very > nice, esp as one's eyes get a little more blurry with age. > Unfortunately, the lenses cost a mint!!! I have 5 lenses for the > 553 where I could only get perhaps 1 1/2 or 2 for the H1 for the > same money. Currently, I would say THAT is the biggest difference.
 
Nick, I agree that what a camera looks like means something. After all we are talking about a visual art here, not literature. Presuming we have an eye for beauty, then industrial design is part of that I would say. It's part of the whole "experiential" package. For that reason, I don't subscribe to the derogatory term "fondler" often used to insult people on the web. I shoot a lot of images, and still "fondle" some of my favorite cameras ... the Vs fall into that category, as does my classic chrome Leica MP3 with its "retro" 50/1.4 ASPH lens. Just look at it, how can you not love this stuff?

However, I'm way into "form follows function" and have come to appreciate the H system in that manner. When I use the kit, it is usually under pressure, and a specific time line often involving multiple set-ups and lots of shots to accomplish. The ergonomic design of the H camera is a work of art when actually "using it" is taken into consideration. Once you shoot intensely with it, the whole unit becomes an extension of your arm so-to-speak, and the work flow is very "fluid and seamless" because of the layout of the controls.

I personally have no problem with these two systems (V & H) coexisting side-by-side because they offer truly individual user experiences. In reality, I don't need the V system at all. But, as we say in advertising, there is a BIG difference between "Need" and "Want" : -)
 
Robert, yep the H glass ain't inexpensive that's for sure.

But it's all relative to new verses used prices.

The V glass has been around for ages, and has fallen out of favor for many working pros, and the vast event, portrait and wedding industries ... which glutted the market with V gear (good news for true V lovers). So, except for some newer V glass, excellent used pieces can be had for a fraction of their new cost.

On the other hand, the H series hasn't been around very long, and aggressive digital demand
keeps the used prices relatively high.

If you look at "new verses new", the H/C stuff fairs a little better when compared to the V lenses ... with comparable or slightly less cost for the H/C series. At B&H, the 100/3.5CFi is $3,082. verses the H/C110/2.2 @ $2,917 ... and the 150/4CFi is $3,162. verses the H/C150/3.5 at $2,917.
 
Nick,

Call me insane, but i think the V-System design is still neither "retro" nor "old skool". The choice is not one between these two.
Their look is still very much a contemporary look. Timeless, like real classics.

I like the look of the H-System too. Compare it, for instance, to the Franke and Heidecke HY6, and you see a contrast between a machine made to be used by man, and one not out of place in a robot operated production line.

I even think the two looks (V and H) could be combined to produce a very good looking V-System camera: smooth grey panels in a framework of dark grey (not black), semi-gloss trimmings...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top