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.

WAHOO 203FE back from overseas With CFV ability now

Hi Ulrick,

> 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.

You know what they probably did....they removed the I2C bus from the contacts, and use those contacts for the trigger! That’s really lame IMO. They should have kept the I2C, and used a programmable location in the I2C address space to indicate the trigger, and that would have kept the ISO exactly the way it was, and meant you could use both E film backs AND digital backs. They should have also put an ID on the I2C bus to indicate what type of back (and lense) is attached. This is really elementary stuff.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Gilbert,

> 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.

Could you please explain that further?

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Jurgen,

> 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 .

Actually, it would have been NO redesign of the electronics, just reprogramming of the firmware, which is typically *FAR* easier...at least for someone competent who knows how to do it that is.

This almost seems to me like they lost the source code for the firmware (or had no one competent enough to perform the firmware updating), and had to figure out a way to do it without changing the firmware...but to do it by brute force rewiring. I am sorry, but it is painful for me to see something as nice as a 205/203 etc. be butchered like this to add such a simple function that could have been easily implemented while retaining all the original functionality.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Austin,

Regarding the I2C bus: I agree. But I think you approach this too much from the EE angle. Hasselblad 'electronics' which I have sofar seen 'smell' like they have been designed by mechanical engineers gone electronic. For a very little money I2C allows for quite neat designs. Unfortunately they did not go down that path.

Wilko
 
Another point of the modification I hope: The ttl flash sensor setting.

The mesure depend on the reflexion of ...the film.
With pola back I hade to modify iso value on the 500cxi ( I put 160 for an 100 asa films) because the setting of the glass over the film.
With a CFV back, the reflexion factor should be addapted too.

So the question is: does the ttl flash expose correctly with the modified 203FE ?
 
Actually, it would have been NO redesign of the electronics, just reprogramming of the firmware, which is typically *FAR* easier...at least for someone competent who knows how to do it that is.

I think they rewired the thing, connecting the rear Databus to one of the switches in the shutter release circuit.
 
Could anyone please explain what is an I2C bus ? ? ?
I know local bus , far distance bus but what is an I2C bus ? ? ?
 
Hi Wilco,

> Regarding the I2C bus: I agree. But I think you approach this too much > from the EE angle.

Well, because I am an EE (and a ME) and this aspect of discussion is in the EE realm IMO, hence why I approach it as I would have designed it.

> Hasselblad 'electronics' which I have sofar seen > 'smell' like they have been designed by mechanical engineers gone > electronic.

You may very well be correct, I agree...it does smell like that. Shame, simply a shame.

> For a very little money I2C allows for quite neat designs. > Unfortunately they did not go down that path.

Yes, unfortunately.

Regards,

Austin
 
"Hasselblad 'electronics' which I have sofar seen 'smell' like they have been designed by mechanical engineers gone electronic."

How right that is!
The story of how the 2000-series came to be contains an episode in which the electronical engineers were holding things up, pondering a solution for the time-setting mechanism that according to them should work - but didn't.
The 'mechanical people' got things moving along again, after the EE held things up for some 5 years, by designing the electromagnetic release mechanism themselves. That mechanism was still used in the 200-series.
 
Hi Q.G.,

> I think they rewired the thing, connecting the rear Databus to one of > the switches in the shutter release circuit.

That is my impression as well. Shameful.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Juergen,

I2C IIC Inter Integrated Circuit bus. It is an interconnect originally devised by Philips, they used it in things like television sets. Actually, it is still used in his kind of setting, but it has since then seen its use spread throughout the electronics industry. It is simple, cheap and a lot of microcontrollers (the "chips" everyone talks about) these days natively 'talk' I2C. You can have multiple devices on this bus, which can communicate using standardised protocols.

I hope this helps? Wilko
 
Hi Jurgen,

> Could anyone please explain what is an I2C bus ? ? ? > I know local bus , far distance bus but what is an I2C bus ? ? ?

I2C is a serial bus for data communications. Similar to the serial port on your computer, but it is synchronous, in other words, the data coincides with a clock signal. The I2C bus has two signals, SDA, which is a bi-directional data bus, and SCL, which is a clock.

I’m not sure if that is too technical for you, or not technical enough. Let me know, and I can expand on that. You can also do a web search for “I2C” and you may find a very pedestrian explanation somewhere.

Regards,

Austin
 
Old News Flash: The 200 camera series is discontinued.

Frankly, I think we are lucky Hasselblad did anything to accommodate a digital back on a "discontinued" camera ... can't think of other companies that have done this. It's not like it was to boost sales. The quantity of CFV backs that would have been sold due to demand from 200 series camera owners alone probably could have been counted on one hand.

Until the CFV, digital solutions for 200 series cameras had not been available from any back maker ... only "Flintstone" contraptions from the Kapture Group made it even possible.

I'm glad to have access to these fast lenses and in-camera metering with a simple, straightforward digital back. That I have to program the ISO for a film back is of little consequence compared to this gain in application, and assurance of future use.

But it is something negative to focus on, and make a "mountain out of a molehill" for those inclined to do so.

It seems no good deed will go unpunished : -)
 
"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. "

Correct Gilbert. The context of my experiment was to clarify exactly that in response to previous questions. The ISO shift was to prove the back and meter do not electronically talk to one another.

I think the 200 series has been out of the digital mainstream, and as a consequence no one thinks of it as a potential digital solution ... it's a film camera, and a discontinued one at that.

I'm sure the current culture at Hasselblad considers the camera a relic, and anyone who "goes digital" with one, wouldn't mind the minor inconvenience of losing the E-back automatic settings since film will most likely take a back seat for those dropping $10,000. for digital capture. A hint of this mentality could be seen recently: film back use wasn't even an option on the H2D ... something they thankfully recanted on with the current HD cameras.

If they had done everything to make the 200 cameras more integrated, the price may have gone even higher for conversion and maybe the back itself ... at what point would the cost threshold be reached? Since I just picked up a brand new 203FE for $1,500. (which is my dedicated film 200 with E-backs), I know the answer to my own question.
 
Could you please explain that further?>

Austin, the Hasselblad brochure for the CFV has an compatibility chart on the last page and shows the 200 series requiring a modification to use F lenses. The C lenses only require the use pc sync connection to function.

I too, would have been a lot happier if I had seen a microelectronic circuit instead.

Jürgen, Yes, the modification sacrificed the E back ISO connection to use F lenses.

-back automatic settings since film will most likely take a back seat for those dropping $10,000. for digital capture>

Marc:
I agree, from that point a small trade for using F lenses.

Correct Gilbert. The context of my experiment was to clarify exactly that in response to previous questions. The ISO shift was to prove the back and meter do not electronically talk to one another.>

With that being the case it too has one feature that using an E backs offer film. Rather than clicking the blue button on the side three or four times per stop, you can just change the back setting, if you like.

Regards:

Gilbert
 
Hi Marc,

> But it is something negative to focus on, and make a "mountain out of > a molehill" for those inclined to do so.

To me, the issue, though of little significance to some, shows a systemic issue with Hasselblad that is much bigger than the issue it self. It’s not a mountain out of a molehill, but calling a spade a spade.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin, what could be of such huge social significance that it is worthy of "shame" and definitively calling a "spade a spade" ?

As a user of today's Hasselblad MF solutions, I really don't get it.

Is it the decision to evolve to a "closed" system? Mamiya is doing that with the ZD, and isn't Pentax going that route? Where's the hue and cry there? It probably is something Kyocera should have done (like with Phase One), and maybe the Contax 645 would still be around and have evolved to a better camera.

This weekend I had a job to do. The modern integrated Hasselblad digital solution I chose performed flawlessly. I delivered the entire job of over 100 images on Monday AM, and moved onto another assignment. It's a tool that does it's job as advertised. Other tools would also work, but that's of no consequence to me since this "singular systemic solution" does everything I ask it to do ... and even allows me to integrate my older Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses if I wish.

It seems to me to be the right tool for the times... and, IMO, more than likely the right direction from a business POV ... which neither of us can predict one way or the other
 
Hi Marc,

> Austin, what could be of such huge social significance that it is > worthy of "shame" and definitively calling a "spade a spade" ?

I am not questioning providing the feature to allow the 20x to work with the digital back...that is a good thing, but how they implemented it. When they could have provided a solution that worked for both circumstances (film and digital), with absolutely no physical modifications...but instead they chose to, IMO, “butcher” the camera to provide a limited solution...that to me, is not engineering, and is shameful for a company that used to pride it self in advanced engineering...at least mechanically and optically.

Regards,

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