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.

The classic mechanical digital Hasselblad 503CWD

Well, wafers are indeed circular in shape. I do not know what diameter wafers the waferfab uses that produces the MF sensors. Typically the more modern the fab the bigger the wafer. This is because the processing (etching, metalising steps, cleaning steps etc etc) cost is more or less the same per wafer, regardless of size. This round wafer is cut into the individual chips aka sensors after the last processing step. I think these days wafers are in the range of 30cm aka 12" for those who still have to make the change to the metric system :)

How efficient it is to 'floorplan' rectangular versus square sensors? I'm not too sure rectangular is more efficient than square. Any maths freaks around here?

Keep in mind that regardless of shape the yield of a chip process (yield = % of working versus % of defective chips/sensors) is influenced a great deal by the surface area of a single chip/sensor. This makes bigger sensors more than a bit more expensive, specifically because the nature of a photographic sensor dictates it better be faultfree. Compare this to complex RAM chips where sometimes redundant logic is builtin to ensure the end-result / chip is "OK" to the end-user even when there are flaws detected during testing. The redundant logic 'masks' the problem.

Difficult to do with sensors. I am not even sure if it can be done at all. Of course the holy grail of wafer fabs is a very constant processing of all manufacturing steps, resulting in a high yield.

Hope this gives some background why these flimsy APS-C sensors are so popular...

Wilko
 
"Square" is not a size, it's a shape. You can get more 4.5x4.5 sensors on a wafer than you can 6x4.5 sensors, and you can get more 6x4.5 sensors on a wafer than you can 6x6 sensors: Mr. Raber's statement is only true within a certain context, and that context is price and demand driven not technology driven: number of sensors on a wafer is a price issue, not a technical issue.

In the past medium format users pretty much all used the same film size represented by 120/220 film. Following a similar paradigm, and the framework of thought that pretty much all the cameras that are using 6x4.5 and 4.5x4.5 imaging sensors are large enough to allow for usage of a 6x6 sensor and be benefitted, even if their image circles don't take full advantage of it: if we took all the 6x4.5 sensor production runs, and all the 4.5x4.5 sensor production runs, and added to it extra production for the extra sales that would come from a more robust medium format digital imaging market that would likely come from having 6x6 sensors and better camera choices, and if we then added to that the large format users that could be won by having 6x6 sensor cameras with great movements: I wonder if we wouldn't have production runs large enough to overcome the price difference between 6x4.5 sensors and 6x6 sensors.

Will we ever have 4x5 inch sensors? Even in 100 years? I don't know. But I think that it's early to be predicting the future of digital imaging sensors. No one, within this context, has sensors larger than 6x4.5 cm so they don't pitch them, and may even pitch against them.
 
> Maybe large sensors (4x5) will have to wait till organic sensors > become possible. They are already working on organic "chips" and > "flexible" circuits grown on organic substrates. If it gets to > where you can run sensors off an assembly line like you do Saran > Wrap, then you'll have something really interesting.
 
I have been using the v96c for 1 year now, I have taken over 25000 images or captures as they say. The only problem I encounter
is that you can not use your larger lens openings on the job. most of my work is wedding- barmitzvah celebrations. 90% of what is
taken is at F16 WITH FLASH(METZ60CT4) AT 400 iso. Most portrait work
is shot at 200iso with photogenic lights at f16or 16.5. please let me know if I am the only person facing this problem. I must admit
though my product is awesume.
 
"The only problem I encounter is that you can not use your larger lens openings on the job."

I do not understand this comment. Why can't you use wider apertures?

I'm currently using 3 digital backs for commercial work: Hasselblad H2D/39 where I use a 100/2.2 lens wide open all the time. A CFV on both 500 and 200 series cameras, and a Leaf Aptus 22 on a RZ-Pro II as well as 500 series Hasselblad cameras ... all of which can be set for low ISO's that allow use of wide apertures with studio strobes such as my Profoto and Hensel systems.
 
Hi Marc, the Profoto 'stobes' as you call them in the states, how are these performing?
We use Elinchrom and Bowens but are considering purchasing a power pack and two strip lights, cheers, Carl
 
Hi Carl. I switched over from Elinchrom to the Profoto units some years ago. The generator box (power pack) I am currently using is the D4 digital which can be controlled from a Mac computer screen when shooting theathered. It offers really fine digital control. It is one of the reasons I went with Profoto in addition all the other reasons.

Of possible interest to you is that Profoto makes an adapter unit to use Elinchrom Light Modifiers on Profoto heads. I still use many of my old Elinchrom softboxes, snoot, Gobo Zoom, and Octabox on the Profotos.

The Profoto strip lights are excellent build quality BTW.
 
Marc your post of March 7 re 16meg backs was very interesting. However for me a 1.5 crop factor and price are the main hurdles - but your image quality comments make great sense.

Certainly like you suggest a digital back would open up more system functionality making it very desirable indeed. Maybe wide angle shooting simply requires switching from digital to film back. So for me the real issue is still simply cost.

But a question. Do you feel the CV 16meg back produces a print to its maximum size to the same quality of a film frame print of the same size?
 
HI Simon,

... ah, you ask a difficult question because as you know I am also a proponent of film.

I would say that it is less a quality issue (both being excellent), and more a study in different "characteristics". Each medium has it's own characteristic visual look and feel. The "practical" rendering of detail for both mediums is as expected from a MF camera. Film offers a few advantages like slightly better dynamic range in certain lighting conditions, but that is less so with MF digital backs than 35mm DSLRs.

It also has a great deal to do with whether one makes true optical silver prints from film verses digital prints. This introduces another subjective variable to the "Quality Equation".

I'd simply answer your question with an over-all personal statement from my perspective of having extensively used both mediums on exactly the same camera, using the same lenses ... in general, the wholesale subject of "Quality" never enters my mind when using either the CFV or film. However, I've not had prints made beyond 36" X 36" with either lately. I'd speculate that in the right hands both can easily go beyond that threshold.

the only practical experience I have recently had was printing a 5 foot wide ink-jet image from a H3D/39 file ... and a corresponding scanned film neg. from a Mamiya RZ 6X7 neg. of the approximately the same ISO that was printed close that size. Both exceeded my expectations.

Frankly, I sympathize with both issues you raise.

The CFV crop factor of 1.5X is an issue for wide angle users. It truncates the 40 and 50, and converts the SWC to the status of a more normal camera by turning the 38 into a 57mm. I must say however, that strangely this has been less of an issue that I thought it would be in practical use. Obviously the up-tick is at the other end where lenses like the fabulous 100/3.5 provide the field-of-view of a 150/4, and the legendary 180/4 that of a 270/4 !!!

As to cost: relatively horrifying to be sure. Hasselblad just reduced the CFV by $1,000. and the bundle kit by $2,000. which is some help. While it is a current "promotion", my re-seller said that such moves often become the permanent price. It will now just be a matter of time before those introduced to the Siren's song of digital with the CFV will move forward with larger sensor CF backs or other makers backs and the CFV will appear on the used market ... probably in the area of $6,000.

If you shoot a lot of film and like to experiment ... digital is a revelation. It promotes more shooting ... which can either be promiscuous, or instructive depending on the individual. That you can return home from an evening walk and review your shots immediately cannot be over exaggerated ... yet on the other hand, when on Holiday or in other less demanding shooting situations I prefer leisurely film, compared to Digital's incessant "look at me, look at me!" demands on human curiosity.

BTW, the CFV is selling VERY well according to my insider info, which could be good news for the 500 series cameras.

So, I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that it may well be possible a new CFV could be made available in future : -) Is your heart thumping? Are your hands sweating?

With the advent of the Hy6 camera, one of the selling features touted is that this 6X6 camera is ready for larger sensors in future. Remember, this is a camera developed as a true Hybrid ( thus the "Hy" designation) and the "6" stands for 6X6. The development of the Hy6 has involved multiple digital back makes and their sensor supplier, so that "future" message about "larger sensors" is intriguing. Since this was a "ground-up development, they could have just as easily designed a 645 camera with all the attributes of a Rollie. Perhaps they know something?

If a larger square sensor IS in the cards, then Hasselblad's initial response would have to be a CFV back with the larger sensor. Personally, I'd much rather upgrade my V system with just a new back rather than have to buy a whole new system and a new back just to get a larger square sensor. Which is a darn good reason for Hasselblad to NOT abandon the V system IMHO.
 
Since this was a "ground-up development, they could have just as easily designed a 645 camera with all the attributes of a Rollie. Perhaps they know something?

Don't read too much into that.
It isn't that much of a "ground-up development" after all. The HY6 is based on the Rollei 6008 6x6 camera, and is supposed to be used, not only with the Rollei assortment of lenses (larger mount, compared to 6x4.5 lenses, so why not the larger format?), but also with Rollei's 6x6 film backs.
 
The reason Hasselblad dropped the price on the CFV is because the street price of the Phase P20 is about $7600. A differential of almost $2500 put them in a less competitive situation. The P20 is selling like hotcakes since it took me almost 3 weeks to get mine.

Once the next wave of upgrades takes hold (P20+, etc.), 16MP backs will be available on the used market for $5000. This makes sense even for amateurs shooting a couple of 120 rolls a week. Long live the V system!
 
Thank you Larry:

Long live the V system.

All digital force available has not been able to let us forget the
beautifull and versatile camera system Victor Hasselblad created.

Paul
 
"Don't read too much into that."

Yeah, you're probably right. Just more marketing hype. In Leaf's web blurb on their AFi they tout the new AF lenses as a better digital choice than the current Rollie glass.

Keeping it film able is cool, but I wonder how much impact that will have on the professional market that can actually afford the kit?

You are also probably right to some extent Larry. The P-20 price surely had some influence.

Is your new P-20 for a V camera? How does it work ... do you have to use a sync cord from the lens to the back? Is the P-20 black to match the V camera? I ask because I'm looking into a P-25+ for the V cameras to accomidate the wider lenses.

The real Hasselblad deal is the bundle kit. Given that it's been reduced to $11,000. (actually to $9,900. for previous Imacon buyers), and subtracting the cost of a 503CW plus 80/CFE lens ... about a $3,200. value ... the back weighs in as costing about the same as a P-20.
 
So for me the real issue is still simply cost. >

Greetings: Simon

Just about everything electronic drops in price. The first HP computers I looked at in 1980 the base model was $8,000. The CVF price drop may be market forced, but I have to wonder as they seem to sell before they are put on the shelf. Perhaps there is a new sensor around the corner.

As an armature I am not compelled to keep up with this very fast paced market for latest and greatest, so I can wait for the dust to settle. To me now is the time to find those lenses and accessories you have wanted and are no longer being produced.

The quality issue, some of the aficionados still contend the digital has not surpassed film. But, in these days where the selling point is "Work Flow" not lens quality, or product longevity. It is only relative to what you do, some of the 5meg p&s cameras INMO can produce a nice 8X10.

Using a digital camera does seem to contribute to excessive shutter usage, not the contemplative use of MF. I am sure you have noticed that each camera you own extracts a different handling approach and use. I have noticed while photographing birds nearly all of the digital shooters are in rapid fire mode shooting hundreds of frames to my 36. Invariably when I as how many good ones they get, the answer is always a few. I am sure if they slowed down they would improve their quality.

Regards:

Gilbert
 
My P20 is for the V series. I do use a sync cable from the lens socket to the back. The back is entirely black except for the grey battery on the right side.
 
Thanks Larry.

Based on experience with sync cords and digital backs, I suggest securing a couple more as spares, they're cheap. The two things that seem to continuously fail or act finicky with this stuff are the lens-to-back sync cords, and the long firewire cords for shooting tethered to a computer (which are not cheap).

Has anyone ever seen a short sync cord with gold contacts?

Please let us know what you think of the P-20 on the V camera. Post some work if possible. Does the P-20 shoot at ISO 800, and if so how is it? Enquiring minds want to know : -) ... especially one that may be about to drop a bundle on a P25+ back for the V cameras.
 
Oh Larry, here's a source for what seems a nice sync cord solution. Check out some of the other stuff they have for your back.

http://www.captureintegration.com

Like this...

26677.jpg
 
Hi Marc,
I've been following the posts here and want your valued opinion on my next MF digital step. I shoot commercial photography with about 20% MF digital and I now own and use a 503cw and the kodak pro back plus 16MP. It's working great for me but I am wondering if an up-grade to the CFV would be an noticable improvement or should I wait a little longer and go for an H system with a 22MP back and use an adapter for my CF lenses (50mm to 180mm). My budget wouldn't allow the replacement of the lenses right away hence the H to V adapter. Anyone elses comments would also be greatly appreciated.

TIA, Franc
 
Hi Franc.
Here is my couple of cents for your question
.
Cost was definitly one of my considerations when I bought into a MF digital system.
I didn't have a MF camera or lenses already but decided to go with the 503cw even though the H1 system was already out. Mainly because of the reputation of the Zeiss lenses, the smaller outlay of cash to buy a couple of cameras and a few lenses, and the fact that I did not need auto-focus for the type of photography I do... studio still life and landscape.
Also I wanted the ability for some tilt and shift so I bought a Flexbody as well.
Actually that about covers all the reasons... anyhow...
If I was going to be doing fashion photography or anything else with moving objects I probably would have chosen a different system - probably the H1.
I have since bought an Aptus 22 DB and am very happy with the setup.

If you buy an H system and none of its lenses but an adapter for your V lenses then you wont be able to use auto-focus anyhow... just manual focus confirmation.
If you are happy with your 503cw camera for the type of photography you need it for then in my opinion the best use of your money would be to upgrade your digital back only... get the best one you can afford and enjoy the difference in file quality and size over your Kodak back.

All the best.

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