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.

H3DII and film backs

pascal

pascal

Member
I understand that the H3D still allows the use of the 16-32 film back. But is it possible that this is now precluded on the latest H3DII? If so, it is crazy and a good reason to buy a H3D instead.

As a H1 owner using film only, there is Hasselblad's latest program to trade in for the latest gear. But "moving up" to the H3DII would mean the end of film capability, so it is a non-starter. Or am I missing something here?
 
hi Q.G., are you sure that this is correct? Under another thread in this forum it would appear that the H3D II does take film (but, indeed, this is not specified on the specs sheets I have seen)...
Pascal
 
The H3DII DOES take film backs according to its latest manual:

Film-rewind button – reassignment
The film-rewind button continues to provide its assigned function when a film magazine is attached. Now, however, when the sensor unit is attached, the button is automatically reassigned to provide instant CF-card re-format.
 
John, this is getting crazy. So the manual does explicitly mention the ability to work with film backs, while the technical sheet that one can download from the Hasselblad website specifically says there is no compatibility... Beyond me. Has someone actually tried using film backs with the H3D II?
Pascal
 
Pascal you're right- one spec sheet says there's no film compatibility, yet the manual for the H3DII says there is. So even those writing these manuals are confused.
Waiting on a response from my dealer, will also contact Hasselblad direct.
 
The latest from the dealer-
They were told by Hasselblad that the H3DII will not accept film backs. His guess is that the manual is incorrect. Or perhaps H'blad planned to accept film backs for the H3DII system and then decided against it.
He's checking on it and will get back to me. If it's true, I don't understand why they're taking away this option- other than to to think that by doing so more people will be swayed to buy the all digital system. For me I feel the opposite- losing the ability to shoot film with the system is one reason against buying into the system.
Over 26K for the II31 and I can't shoot film? What if I want to shoot a film stock with unique capabilities that can't be reproduced by the digital backs? Silly.
It's also a huge marketing mistake, as it takes away a major differentiator with the IDsIII.
To be continued.
 
> A review of the H3DII in the Dec issue of Reponses Photo states the lost of compatibility with film backs - it's considered as a negative point.
 
OK, kids, the response directly from Hasselblad is that the H3DII will NOT work with film backs. The explanation was: "advancements to digital functionality would preclude use of a film back". I don't buy it but that's what they've decided.
 
There you have it.

Just completed an in-studio demo test of the Leaf AFi-7 to replace my aging RZ kit with Aptus 75s back.

Glad I did it. I won't be moving from Hasselblad H3D now for sure.
 
Hold on folks I'm not sure this is in fact the case. I've sent an email to someone who will be able to give a definitive answer and will hopefully be able to report back in a day or so.

Nick-T



>
 
It is clearly spelled out on the Hasselblad web site ... no film use for any H3D-II.

For film, there is the new H2F which is dedicated to film use ... or the H1, H2, or H3D.

One reason I kept my H3D/31 as is for now.

These digital backs are not designed for, nor are they recommended for, extended work in sub-freezing temps. See the back makers specs.
 
>HI all.. If anyone is interested I have both an H2 camera, 1.5 years >old- 4500 actuations, all boxes like new and an Aptus 65 back with H >mount, lightly used as well, 1.5 year warranty remainging for sale. >Feel free to email me markay@stanford.edu if you are interested in >either. i have used the two together and they function flawlessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top