Digital Back for 500 C/M

[jbphotographer]

I could use some input on this, since I have no experience with medium format digital backs.

I have a 500 C/M, plus the 80mm and 150mm CF lenses, all about 20 years old.  From what I've been able to figure out, it looks like digital backs for the V Series cameras will work with the 500 C/M, is that correct?

Given that both my camera and lenses are fairly old technology, would they produce enough of an improvement in image quality (compared to current full frame 35mm format digital) to be worth the effort and expense (I'd probably start with a used back)?  I am ok with a totally manual camera, and don't have a need for auto-focus or fast shooting, and image quality is my primary concern.

This may be totally obvious, but many backs seem to be rectangular in format.  If this is the case, is there any way to use them in a vertical orientation on the 500C/M or does the whole camera have to be rotated sideways, and the viewdinder viwed from the side?

Thanks for any input or recommendations you might have!

[Alastair Bird]

I could use some input on this, since I have no experience with medium format digital backs.

I have a 500 C/M, plus the 80mm and 150mm CF lenses, all about 20 years old.  From what I've been able to figure out, it looks like digital backs for the V Series cameras will work with the 500 C/M, is that correct?

Given that both my camera and lenses are fairly old technology, would they produce enough of an improvement in image quality (compared to current full frame 35mm format digital) to be worth the effort and expense (I'd probably start with a used back)?  I am ok with a totally manual camera, and don't have a need for auto-focus or fast shooting, and image quality is my primary concern.

This may be totally obvious, but many backs seem to be rectangular in format.  If this is the case, is there any way to use them in a vertical orientation on the 500C/M or does the whole camera have to be rotated sideways, and the viewdinder viwed from the side?

Thanks for any input or recommendations you might have!

I have shot with both a 16MP (38x38mm square sensor) and a 39Mp (38x48mm rectangular sensor) on a v-series body.  I used them for years with fantastic results.  The image quality difference compared to ff 35mm slr is considerable, especially with the 39MP back.  However, it's no speed demon - no AF, no AE, and you're using ISOs in the 50-100 area.

I had old c t* lenses to start - my 80mm was no good - flat and boring, my 150 was fantastic - I had it up until about 3 weeks ago.

Thoughts, in no particular order:

The mirror on my 500CM was out - it was fine for film but definitely soft for digital when I started.  I had to have my back adjusted so it would focus both on the ground glass and the digital back.

Focussing requires a LOT of practice - I recommend a bright screen, a magnifier and a lot of practice.

There is a substantial crop on the square digital backs - about 50% of the image area, I believe - so your 40mm lens becomes a 60 or so, I think...

But on a SWC/M the images were astonishing.  Have to do a custom white balance but aside from that they were incredible.  Sharp, contrasty...  Shame I sold that camera...  But I digress...

There is a cable that goes from the back to the sync on the lens - get a couple of them because if yours isn't working, you're not taking any photos.  That is, unless you have one of the newer CFV backs.

The adapter plate on the back has lugs for both horizontal and vertical placement. Just *carefully* release the back, turn 90 degrees and reattach.  Works well, but I don't recommend doing it in a sandstorm or if you have a habit of dropping expensive gear.

Personally I'm happier with my H1 mainly because it's more integrated, but the 500 and later the 503 worked extremely well for me for several years.  As always, if you can get your hands on one to try before you buy I would suggest that.  There are quite a few used ones around - just have to wait for one to come up.

Best of luck - if you have any other questions ask away.

[jbphotographer]

Thanks for the great response!  That helps clear things up quite a bit.

A couple more questions:

What backs would be best for location (non-tethered) work?  Are there any differences in terms of power sources, cooling, etc. I should know about?

Where would you suggest looking for a used digital back?

Thanks again!

[Alastair Bird]

Thanks for the great response!  That helps clear things up quite a bit.

A couple more questions:

What backs would be best for location (non-tethered) work?  Are there any differences in terms of power sources, cooling, etc. I should know about?

Where would you suggest looking for a used digital back?

Thanks again!

Well, personally speaking, I was really happy with my V96C (16MP back) and image bank.  You could always get a 22MP (Ixpress 132) back with the original image bank, too...

Sorry if I'm telling you things you already know, but:

Originally the digital backs from Hasselblad came with something called the 'image bank'. It was connected to the back via a VERY EXPENSIVE proprietary firewire cable and it powered the back (via a very reasonably-priced Sony InfoLithium battery). The image bank was 40GB, and for the 16MP back it held, I think, 1100 images. I believe it held 850 images for the 22MP back.

Then they changed to having the info-lithium battery on the back and having a CF-card store the images.

So, either back is adequate for location work. Both can be run just fiine without a computer. The CF versions of the backs are more compact, though, and it is my understanding that they have better lcd screens, as well.  But the image bank weighs about 2 lbs (if that) and is about 5x9 inches, so it's not a big piece of equipment, by any means.

The later system (the CF system) was a major improvement - it was clean, easy, and everything is in one place - but MAN, that image bank could hold a lot of data.  I had mine for 3 years and it was absolutely rock-solid.  I shot throughout Europe for 2 weeks in 2005 and almost filled the image bank with all my shots.  Almost.

For what I can assume you're looking for - both backs (image bank and CF versions) are available used, but the earlier backs are a lot less expensive and in my experience, much more plentiful.  This is why I speak of the image-bank-type backs.  I believe that it was a great system which worked well, with the only notable exception being the firewire cables that would go from time to time.

in terms of where to buy one: 

Ebay has them come up from time to time - use the keywords 'ixpress' and 'imacon' rather than only 'Hasselblad'. I would suggest the V96C as a good starting point. Remember they were $12,000 (Canadian) new.

They show up here, as well as at LuLa and other fora from time to time.  But regardless of where you get one, if it's at all possible, I would STRONGLY recommend buying from a dealer who has a track record with these backs and who is able to help you out when you have the inevitable setbacks.  My dealer helped me a LOT, and was worth EVERY PENNY I spent over buying the back from somewhere else.

Best of luck. Oh, and if you do get one, you might need a shim set for the back, to get the focus perfect.  Another great part of the Hasselblad system, if I may be so bold (said he, knowing Sinar had a similar system as well, but not Leaf or Phase...)

Good luck.

[jbphotographer]

Alastair,

Thank you for the help.  No, you are not telling me things I already know!

Could you tell me what the earlier versions of the CF backs were called and if they were made by anyone other than Hasselblad?  I don't have the need for the amount of storage provided by the Image Bank models, and would prefer compactness over anything else.

Thank you!

[Alastair Bird]

The CF Backs - sorry it took a while to get back to you. Hasselblad made a few backs with CF slots. All were Hasselblad models, rather than Imacon models:

There was the CF-22, the CF-39 and then the CFV-16, CFV-39, and CFV-50, which was released not very long ago.

The CFV backs work on both the 200-series cameras (202, 203, 205) with some minor modification as well as via a cable on the 500-series cameras.

The CF backs work only on the 500-series cameras, and on every other MF camera system via an ixpress adapter, but do not work on the 200-series cameras.  (believe me, I've tried)

I get about 75 frames or so on a 4GB card out of my CF-39.

Good luck. I Know Dustbak (I think it was Dustbak) had a CF-39 for sale a while ago...

[Greg]

The CFV16 (and I would assume the 39 and 50) can be used with a 500C/M without a cable.  My CFV16 worked perfectly without a cable.

Greg

[Alastair Bird]

The CFV16 (and I would assume the 39 and 50) can be used with a 500C/M without a cable.  My CFV16 worked perfectly without a cable.

Greg

I didn't realize that. I thought it only worked without a cable with the 200-series cameras. *but it just occurred to me that they offered it for sale, bundled with a 503*  So of course it works with the 500-series cameras, or at least the 503...

-Alastair.

[Greg]

Yes, my 500C/M was quite old, although in almost perfect condition, and as said earlier, worked perfectly with the CFV16 without a cable on that 500C/M.  The only problem I had was focusing with the split focus screen provided with the CFV16 with marks for the smaller field of view.  My best friend used a split focus screen and could not seem to use mine without the split screen when we were shooting with film. 

Greg

[jbphotographer]

Thanks for all the info!

Jim