Which Hasselblad digital back, used?

[Sirius Glass]

There has been a need and demand for a 6x6 digital back for a long time now. I wouldn't hold my breath. And the affordable part will take even longer, if ever.

That is why I am not holding my breath.

 

[Pieter12]

That is why I am not holding my breath.

High resolution digital backs are so good now, it is cheaper to use wider lenses and achieve MF quality with today's smaller sensors. A Hasselblad 907x/CFV100C or XD2 II 100C with a 25mm lens would give you an equivalent angle of view to the SWC's 38mm plus you can set the camera for a square crop of 33x33mm at 8750x8750 pixels. And you can skip the auxiliary viewfinder, too.

 

[eli griggs]

There has been a need and demand for a 6x6 digital back for a long time now. I wouldn't hold my breath. And the affordable part will take even longer, if ever.

I wonder if anyone has found a design for 3-D printing an adapter for using a cell phone to capturing images?

Has anyone seen or heard of such a project or preferred cellphone type?

 

[itsdoable]

I wonder if anyone has found a design for 3-D printing an adapter for using a cell phone to capturing images?

Has anyone seen or heard of such a project or preferred cellphone type?

Hassselnuts. Not 3D printed, but a digital back that used your iPhone, was out ~2014ish. You can sometimes find them on the auction site.

About on par with instax backs.

 

[eli griggs]

Hassselnuts. Not 3D printed, but a digital back that used your iPhone, was out ~2014ish. You can sometimes find them on the auction site.

About on par with instax backs.

Cool.

Do you have a name or maker that You may share, or additional details?

Update; I just woke up asap the link in the word Hasselnuts.

Thank you very much!

 

[aoresteen]

Well, when I do the numbers, a film scanner makes more sense than a crop sensor on a 'Blad. The SWC is still a Super Wide. The 50 is still a wide angle. I could live with a true 645 sensor that is 55mm wide but that is at least 5 years away (if ever) and then it will be very expensive. Downside is the time it takes to send the film out & get it back then scan it. Or pay a pro lab to do the scans and raise the cost and pay for every frame scan even the not so good images.

I use a FF Sony A7 III to use my 35mm lenses (Leica, Olympus, Contax, and SMC TAKUMAR Pentax glass) so I don't loose wide angle coverage. I can't do that with my Hasselblad & Mamiya 645 lenses.

I have a freezer full of 120 color film that I need to shoot or sell. So I am going to shoot some of it and see how scanning works out.

Any recommendations for a lab to do scans?

 

[abruzzi]

Well, when I do the numbers, a film scanner makes more sense than a crop sensor on a 'Blad. The SWC is still a Super Wide. The 50 is still a wide angle. I could live with a true 645 sensor that is 55mm wide but that is at least 5 years away (if ever) and then it will be very expensive. Downside is the time it takes to send the film out & get it back then scan it. Or pay a pro lab to do the scans and raise the cost and pay for every frame scan even the not so good images.

I use a FF Sony A7 III to use my 35mm lenses (Leica, Olympus, Contax, and SMC TAKUMAR Pentax glass) so I don't loose wide angle coverage. I can't do that with my Hasselblad & Mamiya 645 lenses.

I have a freezer full of 120 color film that I need to shoot or sell. So I am going to shoot some of it and see how scanning works out.

Any recommendations for a lab to do scans?

There are true 6x4.5 sensors (or very close to it) and have been for some time. Keep in mind that 6x4.5 is nominal and each 6x4.5 camera varies. My 12+ year old P65+ has a 40.4x53.9mm sensor. So 1.1mm smaller than you're asking. From what I've seen 120 cameras vary in how much of the film width they use but it is between 54mm and 56mm. The current generation CMOS sensors are 53.4x40 is a half a mm shorter on both dimensions, but they aren't available in Hasselblad V mount. The IQ1,IQ2, and IQ3 had 60mp and 80mp versions that had the same size sensor as my P65+ and they were available in Hasselblad V mount. They are CCD which gives much less high ISO abilities. They are expensive, but in Mamiya/Phase One mount they can be had for less than $5k. My P65+ cost $2k. The relative rarity of the V mount means they'll probably be a fair bit more expensive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

High resolution digital backs are so good now, it is cheaper to use wider lenses and achieve MF quality with today's smaller sensors. A Hasselblad 907x/CFV100C or XD2 II 100C with a 25mm lens would give you an equivalent angle of view to the SWC's 38mm plus you can set the camera for a square crop of 33x33mm at 8750x8750 pixels. And you can skip the auxiliary viewfinder, too.

But I already have a 903 SWC.

 

[Pieter12]

But I already have a 903 SWC.

And it's not digital, nor will it give you the same angle of view with a digital back. My post was to get the same result as the SWC, today.

 

[slodat]

I just got the CFV 100C to use with a few of my film cameras - 503CW, RB67, and an incoming GFX680. So far it is delightful!

 

[etn]

Hasselblad shows an SWC with their current digital back. It just won't be as wide.

View attachment 406646

I tried that with my SWC and digital back when I still had it.
I was missing the framelines in the viewfinder, so composing was always a big guesswork.

Using live view was too cumbersome for my taste.

I eventually sold the digital back and bought a used X2D with 38mm lens. Much better from a usability point of view. I stick with film with my 500 & SWC.

 

[etn]

Be prepared: any older back will become a doorstop if something goes wrong with it. No parts, no technicians.

That's why I would recommend a modern back such as CFV 50c ii, if you can swing it. Still supported by Hassy.
Besides, it has an internal battery and does not require any wiring (e.g sync with the lens) which is a BIG usability advantage compared to older backs.

 

[etn]

BTW, what's the deal with Hasselblad X2D Mk 1 BTW? Seems relatively "cheap" at ~4000 USD for 100 megapixels. If it's only a matter of so-so autofocus, that might be tolerable.

It's a terrific camera. You can have good deals now from people upgrading to the recently announced X2D2.

The size is right, it's very fun to use, and the results are excellent (as to be expected)
The IBIS system is useful. (examples below, handheld at 1/20 of a second)

My only use case where the autofocus struggles is when trying to take pictures of my moving kid. (I know, wrong tool for the job)

One thing I wish it had is a faster sensor readout in electronic shutter mode, to enable adapted lenses.

 

[bags27]

It's a terrific camera. You can have good deals now from people upgrading to the recently announced X2D2.

My only use case where the autofocus struggles is when trying to take pictures of my moving kid. (I know, wrong tool for the job)

The size is right, it's very fun to use, and the results are excellent (as to be expected)

One thing I wish it had is a faster sensor readout in electronic shutter mode, to enable adapted lenses.

I don't own one, but I follow the discussions because I do own the 50 CFV. There's a strong belief that 14 bit is indistinguishable from 16 bit, and has a much a faster sensor readout. At least that's what I've read. Haven't yet tried it on my back.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And it's not digital, nor will it give you the same angle of view with a digital back. My post was to get the same result as the SWC, today.

Buying a CFV 100C means that I would have to buy another lens to substitute for my 903 SWC. I do not feel that I should have to declare my SWC obsolete in order shoot digital. I will stay with film especially since I have a wet darkroom which does not have a desire to be obsoleted.

 

[Pieter12]

Buying a CFV 100C means that I would have to buy another lens to substitute for my 903 SWC. I do not feel that I should have to declare my SWC obsolete in order shoot digital. I will stay with film especially since I have a wet darkroom which does not have a desire to be obsoleted.

Your SWC is not obsolete, it is just not the same when used with a current digital back. But there are digital cameras with a similar angle of view.

 

[eli griggs]

For me, the ability to preview a FINAL film composition is the only reason I want to expand the ability to have a digital back but in reality, its just secondary to the function of the old Polaroid back, to save slide and negative films, which is why the Instax back is a serious consideration.

I’m feeling more and more that a digital back is a waste of my limited resources, with real quality costing way more dollars than I’m able to commit to .

This thread has been a real eye opener, with analog coming out at the top of my current agenda, as things stand.

 

[bags27]

As I've already noted, I use my 50 CFV with my 903 SWC to great satisfaction. Sure, it's not quite as wide, but the lens is digital-sharp. And even more than pairing the 50 CFV with my 500 c/m, it reminds me that I'm shooting "filmish".

 

[Pieter12]

For me, the ability to preview a FINAL film composition is the only reason I want to expand the ability to have a digital back but in reality, its just secondary to the function of the old Polaroid back, to save slide and negative films, which is why the Instax back is a serious consideration.

I’m feeling more and more that a digital back is a waste of my limited resources, with real quality costing way more dollars than I’m able to commit to .

This thread has been a real eye opener, with analog coming out at the top of my current agenda, as things stand.

Does the Instax cover the entire 6x6 frame?

 

[etn]

I don't own one, but I follow the discussions because I do own the 50 CFV. There's a strong belief that 14 bit is indistinguishable from 16 bit, and has a much a faster sensor readout. At least that's what I've read. Haven't yet tried it on my back.

From what I can tell, it is true. If I remember correctly the readout time drops from 300ms to around 100ms. Still a lot for moving subjects.

I wish Hasselblad would implement a 12-bit mode for even faster readout, but I doubt it will happen, for at least two reasons: it might degrade image quality (I am certainly OK with that), and it might cannibalize Hasselblad lens sales (they are certainly not OK with that!)

 

[eli griggs]

Does the Instax cover the entire 6x6 frame?

I’m not sure, but even if not, I only need a preview of one or two critical areas/details, to be able to be able to composes final image other a film back and a simple viewfinder templet will allow good instant images to be made.

If I. had a single sheet film/paper back and several holders for cut paper/film, i could make 6x6 images with a darkroom/portable darkroom and have the same results, just more time consuming.

Hasselblad rules!

 

[Pieter12]

I’m not sure, but even if not, I only need a preview of one or two critical areas/details, to be able to be able to composes final image other a film back and a simple viewfinder templet will allow good instant images to be made.

If I. had a single sheet film/paper back and several holders for cut paper/film, i could make 6x6 images with a darkroom/portable darkroom and have the same results, just more time consuming.

Hasselblad rules!

Not sure how you can judge a composition--especially square--if you can't see the edges of the frame. Unless you intend to crop in anyway. At which point is the initial composition even critical?

 

[eli griggs]

When I write of “composition” I really am speaking to light and color values, excess areas of shadow or bright lights, model’s wardrobe, overlooked details not the artist geometrical/mathematical composition.

I have always composed in camera, but used instant films as a check on those other values in the final image.

As an artist, I should be more clear in my discussion, but, in general, in non-face to face conversations I speak more to myself than to others.

 

[itsdoable]

Instax Square covers a little more than the Hasselblad film gate, you get a thin black boarder if the film is centered well.

Unlike the Polaroid backs, it's not that easy to judge exposure or focus with Instax, it's a very high contrast ISO800 film that lacks sharpness.

 

[Pieter12]

Instax Square covers a little more than the Hasselblad film gate, you get a thin black boarder if the film is centered well.

Unlike the Polaroid backs, it's not that easy to judge exposure or focus with Instax, it's a very high contrast ISO800 film that lacks sharpness.

The only Polaroid film that was sharp for medium format was type 55, and you needed to check the negative with a loupe. Polaroid was mostly good for checking lighting and getting client sign-off before committing to film.