Hasselblad CFV-50C digital back for V series cameras
Dec 17, 2015 03:40:15 #
19104
Loc: Philadelphia
the other day i got an email from hasselblad annoucing a new digital back for the V series cameras ( 500c and the like). bragging that it will fit every body made since 1957. I initially got really excited. I love my old hassy stuff and I look forward to being able to use it again, and while the back is relativily exspenive at $10k its quite competitive for 50 mp medium format system. The thought of being able to take advantage of my 40 mm CF lens again had me with a terrible case of GAS.
But then I read the reviews and the thing has a cropped sensor. so i guess my grand daughters college fund has dodged another bullett. lol
But then I read the reviews and the thing has a cropped sensor. so i guess my grand daughters college fund has dodged another bullett. lol
Dec 17, 2015 04:50:35 #
Dec 17, 2015 04:51:24 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
19104 wrote:
the other day i got an email from hasselblad annou... (show quote)
If I remember right, the multiplier is X 1.5. Your 40mm lense becomes a "60mm", the 80mm becomes a "120mm", and the 120mm becomes a "180mm". The Leaf Aptus-II 12 is now out and comes close to being the "perfect" square with a 53.7mm X 40.3mm with 80mp and a 12 stop dynamic range. ISO is a limited at 80 to 800 and a steep price of $32K. The back allow one to pick either landscape or portrait. Hopefully they will eventually reach the 53.7mm square size so there is no need for a multiplier or rotation. Even with the Hasselblad at $10K, I will need a lottery win to get one at this point in my life.
Dec 17, 2015 04:52:40 #
19104 wrote:
... But then I read the reviews and the thing has a cropped sensor. ...
If you already have a 500c/m, you can already get great images today with film and a $2,000 film scanner.
Most MF digital sensors are about 33x44 mm. That's about 70% bigger than 35 mm full frame but about half as big as full frame medium format. That would make a 50 mm lens slightly wider than normal and give your 40 mm lens the field of view of a 35 mm full frame equivalent.
The back is not new, the price just dropped. The closest competitor is the Pentax 645Z and you would need to buy lenses. $10k may be out of reach but the MF sensors would still give you a much better image than the Canon 50 MP alternative.
But the question is, do you really need 50 MP or even 200 MP? Most photographers don't need even 36 MP - they just use it because they want the option to crop their images rather than get an expensive longer lens. Very few use the full frame to make huge prints.
Dec 17, 2015 05:02:10 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
selmslie wrote:
If you already have a 500c/m, you can already get ... (show quote)
The real difference comes from having large pixels and a large dynamic range of 12 to 14 stops which surpasses films and lot more that the FF's 8.5 dynamic range. As usual, no format sensor has everything over all the other formats.
Dec 17, 2015 06:42:17 #
19104 wrote:
the other day i got an email from hasselblad annou... (show quote)
I don't quite understand your comment, "I love my old hassy stuff and I look forward to being able to use it again...". Why can't you use it now?
--Bob
Dec 17, 2015 10:16:14 #
rmalarz wrote:
I don't quite understand your comment, "I love my old hassy stuff and I look forward to being able to use it again...". Why can't you use it now?
--Bob
--Bob
Don't ask such hard question to answer early in the morning will you???
*waking up*
Dec 17, 2015 14:05:57 #
The sensor is "cropped" compared to 120 film which is 45mm x 60mm = 2700mm sq. The sensor is 43.8 x 32.9mm = 1441mm sq. surface area. But it is about 1.67 times larger than a FF sensor which is 36 x 24mm = 864mm sq, and 3.89 times larger than an APS-C crop sensor sensor which is 23.6 x 15.7mm = 370mm sq.
The crop factor compared to FF would probably be somewhere around .85, so a 40mm lens would be equivalent to a 32mm focal length on a FF, or a 21mm lens on an APS-C DX sensor. The crop factor on 120 film is .70 compared to a FF, giving a 40mm lens the equiv focal length of a 28mm on a FF or a 19mm lens on an APS-C DX sensor.
Interesting to note that a FF sensor (864mm sq.) is 2.3 times as large an APS-C (370mm sq.) sensor. Crop factor isn't the same as the difference in sensor size.
The crop factor compared to FF would probably be somewhere around .85, so a 40mm lens would be equivalent to a 32mm focal length on a FF, or a 21mm lens on an APS-C DX sensor. The crop factor on 120 film is .70 compared to a FF, giving a 40mm lens the equiv focal length of a 28mm on a FF or a 19mm lens on an APS-C DX sensor.
Interesting to note that a FF sensor (864mm sq.) is 2.3 times as large an APS-C (370mm sq.) sensor. Crop factor isn't the same as the difference in sensor size.
Dec 17, 2015 14:58:55 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Don't ask such hard question to answer early in the morning will you???
*waking up*
*waking up*
Ron..., when I posted that, I'd been up for 2-1/2 hours. What were you going to do? Sleep your day away? 8-)
--Bob
Dec 17, 2015 15:13:55 #
Bobspez wrote:
The sensor is "cropped" compared to 120 ... (show quote)
A 6x4.5 film camera is reported to produce an image of 56×41.5 mm on 120 film and a square format about 56x56 mm but these numbers are rounded from their actual measurements. No film format is shown to be larger than 56 mm wide.
The film itself is only 61.15 mm wide so a 60 mm image is virtually impossible.
My Hasselblad and Rolleiflex images are less than 57.2x57.2 mm and my RB67 images less than 57.2x66.7 mm.
Based on those actual measurements, 6x4.5 cm is a bit high for the smaller format. It is more likely closer to 57.2x42.9 mm.
Dec 17, 2015 15:35:26 #
Thanks for the correction. That makes the sensor a bit larger compared to film. 120 film in a 645 format will only be 1.70 times as large as the sensor instead of 1.92 times as large.
In terms of area, the sensor is about half way between 120 film in a 645 format and a FF sensor.
Bob
In terms of area, the sensor is about half way between 120 film in a 645 format and a FF sensor.
Bob
selmslie wrote:
A 6x4.5 film camera is reported to produce an imag... (show quote)
Dec 17, 2015 16:02:35 #
rmalarz wrote:
Ron..., when I posted that, I'd been up for 2-1/2 hours. What were you going to do? Sleep your day away? 8-)
--Bob
--Bob
Actually I just did. I went back to bed and just woke up... six hours later... I guess I am starting to hibernate... :hunf:
Dec 18, 2015 05:30:35 #
19104 wrote:
the other day i got an email from hasselblad annou... (show quote)
So far only the M4/3 and FF 35mm don't have cropped sensor.
Dec 18, 2015 05:45:53 #
sometime old things we love just aren't worth keeping... best to go the film scanner route if you really love the Hbad... many years ago I had a tty machine i really loved (28asr), then saw a book called "TVtypewriter", got $300 [about 1k now] for my machine (now worthless)and never looked back... Bite the bullet!
Dec 18, 2015 09:19:54 #
wdross wrote:
The real difference comes from having large pixels and a large dynamic range of 12 to 14 stops which surpasses films and lot more that the FF's 8.5 dynamic range. As usual, no format sensor has everything over all the other formats.
Agree with your comments.
Regarding the square format. I an essentially get this with my D-810 in Portrait mode using a tilt-shift lens and then stitching two images together.
As an owner of a Hassy, I'm afraid the writing is on the proverbial wall.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.