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.
WAHOO 203FE back from overseas With CFV ability now
- Thread starter fotografz
- Start date
simonpg
Active Member
I think I have one of those old Voigtlander 6x6 finders - came with either a Bessa 6 or Perkeo I have. Voigtlander made some neat gear like that all those years ago.
Jurgen, it was interesting to read your comments about segregating your printers for the image types/paper used. Reading this reminded me that a buddy of mine who called in last night (he spends 6-8 months a year in Broome and the Kimberley) and admired your B&W prints of the birches and rocks/waterfall! He was blown away by the detail in the prints and that 3D luminosity they have (the joys of 4x5) - should bring a smile to your face.
Jurgen, it was interesting to read your comments about segregating your printers for the image types/paper used. Reading this reminded me that a buddy of mine who called in last night (he spends 6-8 months a year in Broome and the Kimberley) and admired your B&W prints of the birches and rocks/waterfall! He was blown away by the detail in the prints and that 3D luminosity they have (the joys of 4x5) - should bring a smile to your face.
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Yes
Simon , it brings a smile into my face , as you can see here
You should see these images in 40x50 cm printed on my EPSON 4800 . The paper used is a heavy matte paper called MONOCHROME FINE ART ARLES , which is , as far as I know , produced by Hahnemühle and is similar to their PHOTO RAG 308 gr . paper . It comes from a roll .
The Voigtlaender viewer , i was talking about , is an angle viewer and is designed for 6x6 .
It is out of production and was available in Germany only for a very short time . I had to buy the viewer in the U.S.
Marc once posted an image of that viewer on his SWC , but I could not find the thread again .
Simon , it brings a smile into my face , as you can see here
You should see these images in 40x50 cm printed on my EPSON 4800 . The paper used is a heavy matte paper called MONOCHROME FINE ART ARLES , which is , as far as I know , produced by Hahnemühle and is similar to their PHOTO RAG 308 gr . paper . It comes from a roll .
The Voigtlaender viewer , i was talking about , is an angle viewer and is designed for 6x6 .
It is out of production and was available in Germany only for a very short time . I had to buy the viewer in the U.S.
Marc once posted an image of that viewer on his SWC , but I could not find the thread again .
simonpg
Active Member
Marc said: would this be astigmatism causing the double line effect, or is that the incorrect term? IMHO that is the correct term for such an effect on bokeh in the absence of another "non-optical" cause - like wind.
It reminds me as to why I bought a Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM lens over a much more expensive Summilux 50mm from the same era - out of focus drawing - the Leica lens showed significant astigmatism, whereas the Canon did not. My main objective was to add a lens with a "milky" out of focus characteristic often found in early less contrasty lenses.
In fact generally the out of focus characteristic of the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses has been of great appeal to me.
Thanks Jurgen. The birches large print is framed now and to archival standard!
It reminds me as to why I bought a Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM lens over a much more expensive Summilux 50mm from the same era - out of focus drawing - the Leica lens showed significant astigmatism, whereas the Canon did not. My main objective was to add a lens with a "milky" out of focus characteristic often found in early less contrasty lenses.
In fact generally the out of focus characteristic of the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses has been of great appeal to me.
Thanks Jurgen. The birches large print is framed now and to archival standard!
blowupster
Member
Helo,
It's my first intervention. (English is not my usual language however I will try not to hurt with my words)
I wonder what happens if you use an unmodified 203FE and tell the CVF back that the body is a 500cm whitout wire. (With F or C lenses and for 1/8 speed or longer).
Personaly I have the "shamed" 202FA
It's my first intervention. (English is not my usual language however I will try not to hurt with my words)
I wonder what happens if you use an unmodified 203FE and tell the CVF back that the body is a 500cm whitout wire. (With F or C lenses and for 1/8 speed or longer).
Personaly I have the "shamed" 202FA
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Isidor
The sensor needs an exposure like with a leaf shutter . All pixels must be exposed at the same time . Therefore the 203FE is modified , but I do not exactly know what is done .
But it has to do something with syncronising the shutter .
Unfortunately I could not find anything for your 202FA to be used with the CFV back or a modification . So your 202FA is out of "CFV USAGE" . But in your profile , I saw , that you also use a 503CXi . That is a good candidate for the CFV back .
Today I have sent my 203FE to HASSELBLAD Germany for modification . I was told , it would not take longer than 2 weeks . Waiting . . . . . . . for my queen to come back .
The sensor needs an exposure like with a leaf shutter . All pixels must be exposed at the same time . Therefore the 203FE is modified , but I do not exactly know what is done .
But it has to do something with syncronising the shutter .
Unfortunately I could not find anything for your 202FA to be used with the CFV back or a modification . So your 202FA is out of "CFV USAGE" . But in your profile , I saw , that you also use a 503CXi . That is a good candidate for the CFV back .
Today I have sent my 203FE to HASSELBLAD Germany for modification . I was told , it would not take longer than 2 weeks . Waiting . . . . . . . for my queen to come back .
You will love the 203FE/CFV combo Jurgen : -)
If I get a year end bonus, I may get another CFV so I don't have keep changing from camera to camera ... divorce court looming on the horizon ... on second thought, it could be the most expensive digital back on record, LOL !
If I get a year end bonus, I may get another CFV so I don't have keep changing from camera to camera ... divorce court looming on the horizon ... on second thought, it could be the most expensive digital back on record, LOL !
blowupster
Member
Thanks for answer Jürgen,
The "upgrade" of the 203 or 202 change the electronic in the body.
The bus between back and body is previously used do informe the body about the iso setting. Then after the "upgrate" the info go to the other way. In the body you choose the iso and the CFV consider the body setting and help for syncronisation of the digital (trigger in fact). The advantage of "E" back dispears with upgrated back !
My question was - What hapens if you use your 203FE as a 500 with the cfv setting "500cm" ?
The "upgrade" of the 203 or 202 change the electronic in the body.
The bus between back and body is previously used do informe the body about the iso setting. Then after the "upgrate" the info go to the other way. In the body you choose the iso and the CFV consider the body setting and help for syncronisation of the digital (trigger in fact). The advantage of "E" back dispears with upgrated back !
My question was - What hapens if you use your 203FE as a 500 with the cfv setting "500cm" ?
Hi Jurgen,
> The sensor needs an exposure like with a leaf shutter . All pixels > must be exposed at the same time .
If true, that's not a limitation of the sensor but of the design of the electronics. There is no reason the sensor would care if all the pixels were exposed at once or with a "slit" such as is done with higher shutter speeds and focal plane shutters. The only downside is an increase in noise, which I believe would probably be insignificant.
Regards,
Austin
> The sensor needs an exposure like with a leaf shutter . All pixels > must be exposed at the same time .
If true, that's not a limitation of the sensor but of the design of the electronics. There is no reason the sensor would care if all the pixels were exposed at once or with a "slit" such as is done with higher shutter speeds and focal plane shutters. The only downside is an increase in noise, which I believe would probably be insignificant.
Regards,
Austin
Hi Isidor,
> The "upgrade" of the 203 or 202 change the electronic in the body. > The bus between back and body is previously used do informe the body > about the iso setting. Then after the "upgrate" the info go to the > other way. ... > The advantage of "E" back dispears with upgrated back !
I believe the interface between the body and the lenses and the body and the back is I2C, with the body being the master. The body simply asks the back and lenses for the ISO/aperture etc. information in a normal situation. I2C can also be used to write information, such as the trigger from the body to the back, and the ISO from the body to the back in the case of the digital upgrade. But, the body is still the I2C master, it just writes insteads of reads.
I'm not sure why they would have made the digital backs require the body to set the ISO, and not simply have the back set the ISO just like the film backs...but if that's the way they did it, IMO it seems silly, but so be it. But I fail to see why they would have had to disable the use of the film backs being able to set the ISO in this upgrade. That sounds like bad engineering on their part. Perhaps there's more to these limitations that meets the eye.
Regards,
Austin
> The "upgrade" of the 203 or 202 change the electronic in the body. > The bus between back and body is previously used do informe the body > about the iso setting. Then after the "upgrate" the info go to the > other way. ... > The advantage of "E" back dispears with upgrated back !
I believe the interface between the body and the lenses and the body and the back is I2C, with the body being the master. The body simply asks the back and lenses for the ISO/aperture etc. information in a normal situation. I2C can also be used to write information, such as the trigger from the body to the back, and the ISO from the body to the back in the case of the digital upgrade. But, the body is still the I2C master, it just writes insteads of reads.
I'm not sure why they would have made the digital backs require the body to set the ISO, and not simply have the back set the ISO just like the film backs...but if that's the way they did it, IMO it seems silly, but so be it. But I fail to see why they would have had to disable the use of the film backs being able to set the ISO in this upgrade. That sounds like bad engineering on their part. Perhaps there's more to these limitations that meets the eye.
Regards,
Austin
blowupster
Member
I wrote 2 months ago to ask Hasselblad about upgrating. The answer was that an upgrated 203 or 202 body can no more use the "E-type" info advantage after upgrating. They add " but who still use film today ?"
So the iso is set in the body only, the back is the "slave".
So the iso is set in the body only, the back is the "slave".
You do vary the ISO by setting it on the CFV digital back. The back does not communicate the ISO to the camera's meter. You have to program the 203FE meter at the same ISO as the back. They are independent like when using a 500 series film back.
To be sure, I set ISO 200 on the CFV then checked the programed ISO on the 203FE that I had left on ISO 100 ... it was still reading ISO 100.
I then left the 203FE programed to ISO 100, took a meter reading ... then altered the CFV back to ISO 400, but the meter reading stayed the same as at ISO 100.
To be sure, I set ISO 200 on the CFV then checked the programed ISO on the 203FE that I had left on ISO 100 ... it was still reading ISO 100.
I then left the 203FE programed to ISO 100, took a meter reading ... then altered the CFV back to ISO 400, but the meter reading stayed the same as at ISO 100.
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Marc
Yes you are right .
The ISO setting from the E12/E24 magazine switches is lost and the ISO setting is standard set to 100 in the 203FE . But can of course be altered in the camera .
So when using a CFV one has to alter the setting in the camera according to the setting in the CFV or vice versa .
This is what the HASSELBLAD technicians told me last year , but they did not tell me which particular part is replaced or modified .
On the other hand , it is of no interest to me any more , as long as the 203FE works fine with the CFV , as HASSELBLAD promises .
Yes you are right .
The ISO setting from the E12/E24 magazine switches is lost and the ISO setting is standard set to 100 in the 203FE . But can of course be altered in the camera .
So when using a CFV one has to alter the setting in the camera according to the setting in the CFV or vice versa .
This is what the HASSELBLAD technicians told me last year , but they did not tell me which particular part is replaced or modified .
On the other hand , it is of no interest to me any more , as long as the 203FE works fine with the CFV , as HASSELBLAD promises .
I then left the 203FE programed to ISO 100, took a meter reading ... then altered the CFV back to ISO 400, but the meter reading stayed the same as at ISO 100.>
Marc:
Did you do that for exposure compensation or is ISO 100 a default for use with the CFV?
My understanding was that the CFV would be treated the same as using a non E back.
Regards:
Gilbert
Marc:
Did you do that for exposure compensation or is ISO 100 a default for use with the CFV?
My understanding was that the CFV would be treated the same as using a non E back.
Regards:
Gilbert
Hi Marc,
> You do vary the ISO by setting it on the CFV digital back. The back > does not communicate the ISO to the camera's meter. You have to > program the 203FE meter at the same ISO as the back. They are > independent like when using a 500 series film back.
I don’t believe it would have been difficult at all to have it work exactly the same as the E back. Thanks for that clarification.
It sounds to me like the only benefit of the modification is the trigger being added, which is of course a good thing, but I think it’s borderline shameful (and unnecessary) that they removed the ISO capability of the E backs. This might have been an unintended consequence, and they decided not to change it.
Regards,
Austin
> You do vary the ISO by setting it on the CFV digital back. The back > does not communicate the ISO to the camera's meter. You have to > program the 203FE meter at the same ISO as the back. They are > independent like when using a 500 series film back.
I don’t believe it would have been difficult at all to have it work exactly the same as the E back. Thanks for that clarification.
It sounds to me like the only benefit of the modification is the trigger being added, which is of course a good thing, but I think it’s borderline shameful (and unnecessary) that they removed the ISO capability of the E backs. This might have been an unintended consequence, and they decided not to change it.
Regards,
Austin
semmelblad
Member
I was told by a Hasselblad technician that they physically rewire the contacts, it is more than just reprogramming. Since the CFV is on the market I am not looking any more to buy an E12 back.
Ulrik
Ulrik
It sounds to me like the only benefit of the modification is the trigger being added, which is of course a good thing, but I think it’s borderline shameful (and unnecessary) that they removed the ISO capability of the E backs. >
Austin:
I agree that losing the handy ISO on the back is disappointing, it has a couple of advantages. The CFV application chart show the 200 series modifications are necessary only to use F lenses.
Is there more?
Regards:
Gilbert
Austin:
I agree that losing the handy ISO on the back is disappointing, it has a couple of advantages. The CFV application chart show the 200 series modifications are necessary only to use F lenses.
Is there more?
Regards:
Gilbert
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Gilbert
The modification of the 203FE/205FCC disables the switch settings from the magazine switches to the camera and sets the ISO setting in the camera to a default of ISO 100 .
This value can of course be changed in the camera , using the setting procedure .
What you have to do is : set the ISO in the CFV BACK and set the same setting in the camera .
I believe , there could have been a way to have the setting of the film magazines still working , but that would have meant a bigger redesign of the 203FE/205FCC electronics .
The modification of the 203FE/205FCC disables the switch settings from the magazine switches to the camera and sets the ISO setting in the camera to a default of ISO 100 .
This value can of course be changed in the camera , using the setting procedure .
What you have to do is : set the ISO in the CFV BACK and set the same setting in the camera .
I believe , there could have been a way to have the setting of the film magazines still working , but that would have meant a bigger redesign of the 203FE/205FCC electronics .