ymc226
Well-known
I know that one is a RF and the other is just a back and MF to boot but I don't have a digital camera yet but would like to start with digital only for color as I shoot B&W in 35 and 120.
I shoot mainly family pictures and have taken my Hasselblad (205FCC and 203FE;both aperture priority semi-auto) with 50 and 110 lens to the beach without any problems such as getting them wet or sandy. The Leica M's have been easy to use but require manual metering whereas the Hassies are just focus and shoot.
What issues would you consider when choosing between your first digital camera if cost was not a consideration. How easy is the interface of the Hasselblad digital back to use and is there a problem as it does have its own proprietary RAW file format. However, given the larger sensor size, would that sway you toward the MF back more than a FF RF such as the M9? I print only 8x10 and 11x14 as that is what I have framed around the house.
I shoot mainly family pictures and have taken my Hasselblad (205FCC and 203FE;both aperture priority semi-auto) with 50 and 110 lens to the beach without any problems such as getting them wet or sandy. The Leica M's have been easy to use but require manual metering whereas the Hassies are just focus and shoot.
What issues would you consider when choosing between your first digital camera if cost was not a consideration. How easy is the interface of the Hasselblad digital back to use and is there a problem as it does have its own proprietary RAW file format. However, given the larger sensor size, would that sway you toward the MF back more than a FF RF such as the M9? I print only 8x10 and 11x14 as that is what I have framed around the house.
aizan
Veteran
i'd go with the m9, for the much smaller size and absence of a crop factor.
Jamie123
Veteran
If you want to go with the Hassy you would have to get other lenses as the digital backs don't work with F lenses, only with leaf shutter lenses. Of course, 1/500th will be the top shutterspeed as with the 500 series cameras.
You mention manual metering with M cameras. You are aware, though, that the M9 (and quite a few other M's) has an internal meter, right? You can even do AE.
PS: Forgot to add, you might need to get your 205 and 203 modified by Hasselblad before you can use a digital back on them.
You mention manual metering with M cameras. You are aware, though, that the M9 (and quite a few other M's) has an internal meter, right? You can even do AE.
PS: Forgot to add, you might need to get your 205 and 203 modified by Hasselblad before you can use a digital back on them.
Richard Marks
Rexel
The issue with the V series hasselblad is that your choice of wide angle lenses is limited by the sensor crop factor. A 50 Distagon would only just be an 80mm standard lens MF equivalent. A 40 (as wide as you can go) will only be about 60mm and is very heavy. If on the other hand you just do portraits it is less of a problem.
If you need the file size of medium format I would be tempted to sell up and go the H3D route. (it is less than £10k including an 80mm lens).
If you do not need the large file size and can afford the leica glass that you need I would think the M9 would be a better bet. (Presumably you could still keep the Hassy for film).
The other option would be a nice medium fomat scanner and watch this space regarding digital range finders.
Richard
If you need the file size of medium format I would be tempted to sell up and go the H3D route. (it is less than £10k including an 80mm lens).
If you do not need the large file size and can afford the leica glass that you need I would think the M9 would be a better bet. (Presumably you could still keep the Hassy for film).
The other option would be a nice medium fomat scanner and watch this space regarding digital range finders.
Richard
venchka
Veteran
New or used CFV-39?
I have no clue what all of this cost, but someone in Dallas just got one of these...
All else being equal, right when does that happen?, size matters in terms of image quality.
Portablilty versus image quality. You pays your money and takes you chances.
Good luck.
I have no clue what all of this cost, but someone in Dallas just got one of these...
All else being equal, right when does that happen?, size matters in terms of image quality.
Portablilty versus image quality. You pays your money and takes you chances.
Good luck.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
M9.
Unless you can afford a S2. For studio photography the S2 wins (I've tried it) but for sheer versatility, for my style of photography, it's the M9.
Cheers,
R.
Unless you can afford a S2. For studio photography the S2 wins (I've tried it) but for sheer versatility, for my style of photography, it's the M9.
Cheers,
R.
ymc226
Well-known
Thanks for all of the quick responses. I didn't realize there was a crop factor to be considered in the Hassey back so that would be a deal killer. Otherwise, I am happy to have my 203FE/205FCC modified to work with FE series lenses.
The S2 would require a new set of lenses which I am not willing to commit to. The H3D and now H4D is available but having to buy a whole new set of lenses is just too extravagant. (I have a slew of Lecia M, Nikkor AF, AIS, Ai lenses already)
The M9 would then be an option as I have many M lenses already.
The S2 would require a new set of lenses which I am not willing to commit to. The H3D and now H4D is available but having to buy a whole new set of lenses is just too extravagant. (I have a slew of Lecia M, Nikkor AF, AIS, Ai lenses already)
The M9 would then be an option as I have many M lenses already.
zuikologist
.........................
Perhaps a Nikon D700 would the sensible option, to use all of the Nikon glass.
ymc226
Well-known
The M9 has it's advantage being a FF and small size. A D700 would lose it's size advantage for being still a FF sensor camera. If I have to pay a penalty in size, I would rather get a bigger sensor.
My mouth is watering at this:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/h4d
-launch.aspx
I will wait a while. The cost of a 50-110 zoom H lens is about the price of a new 35 lux.
My mouth is watering at this:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/h4d
-launch.aspx
I will wait a while. The cost of a 50-110 zoom H lens is about the price of a new 35 lux.
venchka
Veteran
For the difference in price, you could take the D700 around the world. Maybe more than once. What would that do for your photography? Or add to your Nikkor lens inventory. Or buy a car to transport the D700 & lenses. And gain about 3-4-5 stops of usable ISO sensitivity.
Richard Marks
Rexel
The AI / AIS glass is simply wonderful on a D700. And very reasonably priced. It is ceratinly worth giving it a try. You could probably afford a D700 and the 16MP V series digital back for the price of an M9!
Richard
downstairs
downstairs
I would go for the M9. In fact I am going for the M9.
I use a Hasselblad with a digital back for still-life and portraits. Previously I did a two year stint with a full frame Kodak DCS using mostly the 35mm PCNikkor an the 80mm f2.
The Hasselblad was an very noticeable image quality upgrade but over time I've become frustrated with a usability downgrade:
- Too many bits and pieces to fit together.
- Long embarrassing moments when the camera and the back don't recognise each other.
- Two batteries to keep alive. The camera battery is ok (need 2) but the back's batteries have charge problems and need frequent replacements (need 4).
- Too many buttons and too many functions on the handgrip to peer at from above. Sometimes I have to stand on a box to read them. And I forget from one session to the next how to set things up.
- I use everything in manual mode anyway ( I'm a focus freak). So a lot of the camera electronics are wasted.
- The crop factor. Big heavy lenses for such a miserly format (36x57).
- No easy way to mount the camera vertical for portraits and magazine pages.
The digital Hassy is not the sort of camera you can leave in the safe for ten days then pick up out and shoot.
I have an M8 which spoiled me for this so I'm giving up doing watches and going for the M9. See here HB, M8, and LF compared.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
I think you misunderstood. You need to have the 203FE/205FCC modified in order to work with a digital back. They will still NOT work with FE series lenses so you will have to get C type lenses.
So in any case you would have to get new lenses.
ymc226
Well-known
I think the digital Hassey back for the V series is a non-starter as a result of all the aforementioned issues. I will probably go with a M9 as a compromise between size/picture quality. I already have what I need in M lenses.
The issue with digital is that I have to learn a whole host of new skills regarding post processing. The M9 comes with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. Is this the only program I would need to process my pictures before I print them?
The issue with digital is that I have to learn a whole host of new skills regarding post processing. The M9 comes with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. Is this the only program I would need to process my pictures before I print them?
Simbad
Newbie
As of this moment Lightroom does not yet have a colour profile for the M9.
Capture One (latest upgrade) does and it is very very good with M9 RAW files. I wouldn't hesitate to go straight to C1 myself. I am thinking seriously about buying an M9, that is unless a Zeiss full frame alternative comes to market with the latest Sony Exmoor R processor!
Last edited:
Jammoh
Newbie
CFV-39 compatibilty
CFV-39 compatibilty
Correct me if I am wrong, but, the new CFV-39 back from Hasselblad sensor crop results in a lens factor of 1.1, nothing near causing a 50mm lens to behave like an 80mm lens!
Secondly, yes, the 203 will have to be modified by Hasselblad, but this will mean a cable free operation of the back (small dissadvantage being loss of ASA input on film backs), AND, use of F/FE Lenses is then possible. You will not have to purchase any new lenses at all.
I think purchasing a CFV-39, for someone who already owns Hasselblad lenses, is thus on par if not cheaper than buying an M9 with say 2-3 lenses!
I am a big fan of Leica RF, but going by false assumptions to reach a decision on which to purchase would be unfortunate.
CFV-39 compatibilty
Correct me if I am wrong, but, the new CFV-39 back from Hasselblad sensor crop results in a lens factor of 1.1, nothing near causing a 50mm lens to behave like an 80mm lens!
Secondly, yes, the 203 will have to be modified by Hasselblad, but this will mean a cable free operation of the back (small dissadvantage being loss of ASA input on film backs), AND, use of F/FE Lenses is then possible. You will not have to purchase any new lenses at all.
I think purchasing a CFV-39, for someone who already owns Hasselblad lenses, is thus on par if not cheaper than buying an M9 with say 2-3 lenses!
I am a big fan of Leica RF, but going by false assumptions to reach a decision on which to purchase would be unfortunate.
Richard Marks
Rexel
The crop factor is 1.5 for square format. In landscape
it is 1.1 but using a hassy on it's side for portraits needs a 90 prism and not a pile of fun
Richard
djonesii
Well-known
As the the 1.5 crop factor, this is very much true in the film world as well! If you want to shoot square in film, you still loose the same crop!
The choice is a form factor issue, not a digital/film issue. It's a personal choice, but for my landcape, I have alway prefered a 3:2 ratio, and I find that for people I like a 4:5, so with and 645 system be it digital or film, I wind up cropping, the question is how much.
With the effective 1.1 crop on the newer 22 plus megapixel backs, there is no diffirence in the choices you would have to make in the film world with any MF 645 sytem.
As a note to the OP, you might want to have a look over at getdpi.com and LL forums to get a diffirent view into the ditial back world. To me, the interesting thing is with current MF back prices, it is a real choice now! 7K for a DBMF or 7K for an M9. Totally diffirent systems, but price parity!
Dave
The choice is a form factor issue, not a digital/film issue. It's a personal choice, but for my landcape, I have alway prefered a 3:2 ratio, and I find that for people I like a 4:5, so with and 645 system be it digital or film, I wind up cropping, the question is how much.
With the effective 1.1 crop on the newer 22 plus megapixel backs, there is no diffirence in the choices you would have to make in the film world with any MF 645 sytem.
As a note to the OP, you might want to have a look over at getdpi.com and LL forums to get a diffirent view into the ditial back world. To me, the interesting thing is with current MF back prices, it is a real choice now! 7K for a DBMF or 7K for an M9. Totally diffirent systems, but price parity!
Dave
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I'd still prefer the D700 over either, it's simply so much more universal, one third the price, cheaper, and no need to get anything modified.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Geez a HB205 with a 110 lens is a killer combination to die for.... Why not just continue to use film and get yourself a good medium format scanner, like a $2000 Coolscan 9000 or an Imacon, that will give you high-quality scans? Then use a little of the left over money for some photo education, like workshops, and to fund shooting some personal projects -- i.e. become a better photographer.
If you haven't been shooting digital before, it'd be silly to blow $10K plus on either a MFDB or an M9, even if you have deep pockets. The biggest factor in being successful with your digital camera is knowing how to use Photoshop and Bridge (or Aperture, Lightroom, etc.). Give me good Photoshop technique and a $500 Best Buy camera will outshine a poser with a $40K medium format digital every time.
So even if you can afford more, I'd be conservative and spend $1200 on a used Nikon D300 and pick up a couple of good Nikkors -- the new 35/1.8AF, maybe the 50/1.4G, the 24/2 AIS, etc. and for a total investment of $2K you can have a "state-of-the-art" professional digital to learn on. There's not much of a compromise with a D300 -- the files nearly match the D700 -- the main difference being the more expensive cameras have less noise at the higher ISOs. But at ISO 400 you'd be splitting hairs to tell the difference in the files.
Or get one of these bargain M8s to "learn" on, lol, but why not? They are still fine cameras!
And once again, spend a portion of the left over on a good workstation (an iMac with a lot of RAM and HD will do a fine job) and Photoshop training.
If you haven't been shooting digital before, it'd be silly to blow $10K plus on either a MFDB or an M9, even if you have deep pockets. The biggest factor in being successful with your digital camera is knowing how to use Photoshop and Bridge (or Aperture, Lightroom, etc.). Give me good Photoshop technique and a $500 Best Buy camera will outshine a poser with a $40K medium format digital every time.
So even if you can afford more, I'd be conservative and spend $1200 on a used Nikon D300 and pick up a couple of good Nikkors -- the new 35/1.8AF, maybe the 50/1.4G, the 24/2 AIS, etc. and for a total investment of $2K you can have a "state-of-the-art" professional digital to learn on. There's not much of a compromise with a D300 -- the files nearly match the D700 -- the main difference being the more expensive cameras have less noise at the higher ISOs. But at ISO 400 you'd be splitting hairs to tell the difference in the files.
Or get one of these bargain M8s to "learn" on, lol, but why not? They are still fine cameras!
And once again, spend a portion of the left over on a good workstation (an iMac with a lot of RAM and HD will do a fine job) and Photoshop training.