That new Hasselblad digital back. >

Patrick Robert James · Jun 22, 2019

Eric Rose said:
My Micro 4/3rd's camera will produce better images than a scanned 6x6 negative. Plus there are no artifacts.......

Wishing don't make that true Eric. Not sure what you are basing that statement on, maybe a crappy scan or something, but it isn't even close in my world.

Eric Rose said:
A cropped sensor on the Blad is of no interest to me. I would buy a Fuji 100mp body and lenses before I would spring for a cropped sensor on my Blad. 150 or 200 mpx 6x6 sensor would get my attention for still photography without video. Anything lower than that is a waste of my time and money if I have to lug two different cameras around.

And there is the rub for Hasselblad. When I saw the Fuji, I was like oh yeah. When I saw the Hasselblad I thought it would be a bit of a pain to use. The crop thing isn't fun. Medium format cameras already aren't that great for wides, then you crop it? No thanks.

On the other hand, if I had a whole V system and Hassy gave me one, I'd use it. Since I have to buy my own stuff, the Fuji looks kind of meh.

And those videos. I agree with your other post above. I don't know who the AD was, but really? The thing that cracked me up was the pants. I have a friend who has nine Mustangs too and he would've been totally peeved to see a Classic like that converted to an electric car.

Eric Rose · Jun 22, 2019

Patrick Robert James said:
Wishing don't make that true Eric. Not sure what you are basing that statement on, maybe a crappy scan or something, but it isn't even close in my world.

Ya I might have exaggerated just a tad lol, but my world prior to taking down my shingle was annual reports, print advertising, and web images. The M4/3rd's was plenty good enough for all of these. If a client wanted a large popup display image then FF dslr's were used.

I love my blad but digital has passed it by a long time ago for paying work. For the art world that is another story.

Richard Man · Jun 22, 2019

I didn't think the CFV II 50C was aiming for "commercial paying work"? ~_o Its target is clearly certain kind of people, not "everybody".

Sirius Glass · Jun 22, 2019

Eric Rose said:
That video is such a pandering bunch of crap. There is so much wrong with it the AD should be strung up.

From the bottom of my heart thank you for saving my retinas from exposure to such crap.

mshchem · Jun 23, 2019

Richard Man said:
I didn't think the CFV II 50C was aiming for "commercial paying work"? ~_o Its target is clearly certain kind of people, not "everybody".

Crazy Rich Collectors and enthusiasts.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 24, 2019

Theo Sulphate said:
Modeling agency might be one target market.

In 1980's Portland were two modelling agencies, Barbizon was one. Young women 18-22 were lined up around the block for their photo shoots. I can't imagine how many rolls of 120 they'd go through in an afternoon. Digital back would pay for itself very quickly.

I can't see how.

Sirius Glass · Jun 24, 2019

RalphLambrecht said:
Theo Sulphate said:

Modeling agency might be one target market.

In 1980's Portland were two modelling agencies, Barbizon was one. Young women 18-22 were lined up around the block for their photo shoots. I can't imagine how many rolls of 120 they'd go through in an afternoon. Digital back would pay for itself very quickly.

Click to expand...

RalphLambrecht said:

I can't see how.

Click to expand...

Me neither.

Theo Sulphate · Jun 24, 2019

RalphLambrecht said:
I can't see how.

Sirius Glass said:
Me neither.

Those two studios may no longer exist, but I'm sure equivalent ones do - either in modeling, fashion, whatever. So, let's say they use 100 rolls of Provia 100F per day at a discount $5/roll. That's $500 per day just for film, then there are the processing costs (their own darkroom and chemicals or send the film out). Then the overhead cost of un/loading all the film backs, purchasing, etc. There's also the question of what the final format/media the image will appear in (scans for a magazine?) and related costs. Even if they don't use 100 rolls a day, I think their film-specific costs are easily $500/day. In 30 days that's $15,000.

With the digital back they need a computer system, software, and skilled people to produce the final result. However, the equipment and software is mostly a purchase perhaps once every few years. If the digital back is paid for after one month of not using film, then the continued savings more than pays for the digital part of the process, including the staff.

Maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe even the Hasselblad bean counters and market researchers got it wrong also.

Eric Rose · Jun 24, 2019

Here is one persons answer to the new Blad back is.

https://www.35mmc.com/24/06/2019/th...poor-mans-hasselblad-cfv-ii-by-simon-forster/

Theo Sulphate · Jun 24, 2019

Eric Rose said:
Here is one persons answer to the new Blad back is.
...

Hah! Clever. That's probably a very good solution. Doggystyle digital.

guangong · Jun 25, 2019

Those born to digital photography use their cameras quite differently than those who grew up using film. They tend to make multiple exposures, one after another, while those using film are generally more conservative (many film photographers using digital shoot as if using film)).
Say if a roll of 120 film costs $5.00. $15,000 would buy 3,000 rolls. Times 12=36,000 exposures. If digital back only costs $7,500, then the equivalent of 18,000 exposures. I doubt if I will make 36,000 or 18,000 exposures in my remaining years. In fact, I doubt if I have shot 3,000 rolls in fifty years.
However, there are situations where digital makes sense. My friend shoots birds, small animals and insects so digital makes sense. He got the $5k Fuji and an adapter for his Hassy lenses. He’s very happy with this outfit.
Just read a book review on history of Plaza Hotel in NYC, now condominiums. One guy bought a condo for $54 million for when he happens to be in the city. Another made an impulsive $25 million purchase through his phone while driving on a California freeway. There are people who drop a million like the rest of us drop a quarter. There are enough of such people to keep Leica and Hasselblad going.

faberryman · Jun 25, 2019

guangong said:
Say if a roll of 120 film costs $5.00. $15,000 would buy 3,000 rolls. Times 12=36,000 exposures. If digital back only costs $7,500, then the equivalent of 18,000 exposures. I doubt if I will make 36,000 or 18,000 exposures in my remaining years.

Free processing and scanning?

Sirius Glass · Jun 25, 2019

Eric Rose said:
Here is one persons answer to the new Blad back is.

https://www.35mmc.com/24/06/2019/th...poor-mans-hasselblad-cfv-ii-by-simon-forster/

Now that is funny!

Sirius Glass · Jun 25, 2019

Theo Sulphate said:
Those two studios may no longer exist, but I'm sure equivalent ones do - either in modeling, fashion, whatever. So, let's say they use 100 rolls of Provia 100F per day at a discount $5/roll. That's $500 per day just for film, then there are the processing costs (their own darkroom and chemicals or send the film out). Then the overhead cost of un/loading all the film backs, purchasing, etc. There's also the question of what the final format/media the image will appear in (scans for a magazine?) and related costs. Even if they don't use 100 rolls a day, I think their film-specific costs are easily $500/day. In 30 days that's $15,000.

With the digital back they need a computer system, software, and skilled people to produce the final result. However, the equipment and software is mostly a purchase perhaps once every few years. If the digital back is paid for after one month of not using film, then the continued savings more than pays for the digital part of the process, including the staff.

Maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe even the Hasselblad bean counters and market researchers got it wrong also.

Maybe, but is still beyond the price that mortals would pay for a back that will not work with the 40mm, SWC [38mm], or the 30mm Fisheye and have less resolution, color latitude, tonality and exposure latitude than film.

Sirius Glass · Jun 25, 2019

Theo Sulphate said:
Hah! Clever. That's probably a very good solution. Doggystyle digital.

"Let me be your backdoor man" Led Zepplin

bdial · Jun 25, 2019

I don't find it hard to see how a back like this could make back its cost if someone is shooting several rolls a day, 5 days a week and 50 or 52 weeks a year. But for the rest of us going through a few rolls a week, or perhaps less, the bragging rights of owning one would be awfully dear.

Richard Man · Jun 25, 2019

Some of us shot over 1000 sheets of color 4x5 in 5 years, and numerous rolls of 120, but yea. YMMV. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

MattKing · Jun 25, 2019

The economics question for this back doesn't involve a back cost vs. film cost analysis.
It involves a back (with existing camera and lenses) cost vs. new high end digital camera and new lenses cost analysis.
The back's cost also makes more sense for those who wish to both shoot high end digital files and high quality film images.

Eric Rose · Jun 25, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
and have less resolution, color latitude, tonality and exposure latitude than film.

You're joking, right?! That argument was put to bed years ago.

Sirius Glass · Jun 25, 2019

bdial said:
I don't find it hard to see how a back like this could make back its cost if someone is shooting several rolls a day, 5 days a week and 50 or 52 weeks a year. But for the rest of us going through a few rolls a week, or perhaps less, the bragging rights of owning one would be awfully dear.

Heck for that kind of money I could send out all my color and black & white film for custom processing and custom enlargements of all of it.

faberryman · Jun 25, 2019

We're still guessing on the price. Everything from $5k-$15k has been suggested.

Sirius Glass · Jun 25, 2019

Eric Rose said:
You're joking, right?! That argument was put to bed years ago.

No, HDR is merely a crutch for lack of exposure latitude.

faberryman · Jun 25, 2019

The weak point of film is scanning. If you stick to film and wet prints, it is aesthetically viable.

Richard Man · Jun 25, 2019

Eric Rose said:
You're joking, right?! That argument was put to bed years ago.

Which part, the "My Micro 4/3rd's camera will produce better images than a scanned 6x6 negative." part? ~_o

Richard Man · Jun 25, 2019

faberryman said:
The weak point of film is scanning. If you stick to film and wet prints, it is aesthetically viable.

Aesthetically, or financially? I made up to 44" inch color prints, what are my darkroom options? ~_o

That new Hasselblad digital back. >

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency