Hasselblad 100C and 35XL

[anyone]

On the list above, I agree with 1-4, and am more cautious towards 5., 6. Whether or not it is a deal killer people need to judge by themselves. Being aware of a problem certainly helps with a proper individual assessment.

To 5. and 6., we don't know what causes the banding as of today. But we do know that we can work around this in post (thanks Warren!).

Concerning the deal killer, I'm not quite sure. This back does also a lot of things right. It's a joy to use on the old Hasselblad cameras. It does work as intended on longer lenses. Usability is super. It enables the use of X lenses. So there is still a lot on the plus side of the equation. But yeah, how the factors are weighed, that's completely up to each individual.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

But is the banding removed completely in post? The screen I saw from Raw Therapee filtering showed a mitigation, but its not like 100% gone, no?

Agree that the weighing may vary and that for some it still flies. But what I've seen so far from user reports here is that a lot seem upset to be facing this issue with the intended use as a digital back for their tech cams.

Quite a few here voiced upset about it given its a tech cam focused audience. Of course using it on a V system is nice or with X lenses. But X lenses you can do with the X2D already and I'd say that the majority on getdpi who were waiting for this product didn't buy it to use it on V alone. I think the majority bought it for tech cam use.

For X alone you could have bought the X2D many months ago ...

 

[Alan]

90% of my work involves XY movements with wide lenses. At this point there are two deal breakers for me:
1. Banding w/ shifted wide lenses.
2. Distortion correction of shifted lenses in an efficient workflow.

Both are solvable, but I won’t be a customer until then. I’ve let Hasselblad know through multiple channels, and hope others continue to do so as well (characterizations of edge-case whining be damned).

 

[anyone]

But is the banding removed completely in post? The screen I saw from Raw Therapee filtering showed a mitigation, but its not like 100% gone, no?

In my test images using Warren’s workflow it’s gone.

 

[Godfrey]

I didn't think I would need to rent gear just to confirm it would work. I previously had a Rodie 32mm, a Phase One back and Cambo tech cam, so I reasonably assumed a similar setup with just the Hassy back instead of the Phase One back would also be suitable for my needs. I think you have to stop blaming the people on this forum for making reasonable assumptions.

I don't believe in "assumptions" when I'm going to spend $10,000+ on equipment. Sorry, I'm not wealthy enough for that.

G

 

[Paul Spinnler]

In my test images using Warren’s workflow it’s gone.

Just to clarify - is this the LCC in Photoshop workflow or which one?

 

[Godfrey]

I didn't know this was a forum specifically for tech cam users, nor that considering a Hasselblad back "pretty good for its intended purpose" was going to indicate that i was a Hasselblad apologist.

Sorry to offend you all. If this forum is now a tech cam specialist hangout, I'll unsubscribe.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Sorry. I didn't realize seeing a nice Hasselblad back working perfectly with Hasselblad equipment was denigrating to tech cam users. Or that it was sensible to make assumptions when spending $10,000 for photo equipment.

I guess this isnt a forum i can discuss photography on anymore since i have no interest or need to use a technical camera.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Post your issues and let it go. Going on and on about a problem rarely helps anything.

How many complaints about the same issue are required to convince yourself that Hasselblad must do something about this?

G

 

[vjbelle]

I, for one, think that a steady posting of complaints is necessary and prudent. I also don't have to convince myself that Hasselblad must do something about this but, instead, convince HASSELBLAD that THEY have to do something about this.

Victor B.

 

[TechTalk]

What is it they have to do? You can buy products they make or you can buy something else. It's your choice.

 

[TechTalk]

By the way, before someone suggests again that Hasselblad needs to offer a PDAF feature removal service, the PDAF feature is built-in to the sensor by Sony. The last feature listed in Sony's spec sheet for the sensor is "Partially masked sensor pixels for Phase Detected Auto Focus (PDAF Pixel)".

Second, if there was a version without PDAF offered, I have zero doubt that there would be pages full of online complaints from some blasting Hasselblad for not including a modern up-to-date autofocus feature with pointed barbs asking what were they thinking?

Look at the range of available options on the market and choose whatever works best for your particular needs. They all offer some great features and capabilities and all come with advantages, disadvantages, and limitations.

 

[vjbelle]

What is it they have to do? You can buy products they make or you can buy something else. It's your choice.

I have a lot of respect for many of your posts but this one makes no sense to me. They should FIX it. This is not unreasonable for the numerous purchasers who expected this camera to work in its intended way - as advertised. That means on a Tech camera with wide angle lenses.

You are right I can buy their product or something else..... I am not buying their product.

Victor B.

 

[TechTalk]

If it's not right for your use that's a sensible choice to make. There are a number of options available for each of us to choose from based on our individual needs.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

If it's not right for your use that's a sensible choice to make. There are a number of options available for each of us to choose from based on our individual needs.

The Hasselblad troll is back … stirring the pot with pointless content to pathologically defend a position because he can’t help it.

They messed up and you have nothing better to do than to fill threads trying to diffuse the point which is that they sold a product which currently is useless for some after they bought into advertised features which are not working.

PDAF banding is and will hurt sales. It’s a no go for digital backs advertised to work on tech cam.

If there existed a burning battery issue you’d still find a way of making a point that it’s a great and that everyone is free to choose their camera and that it’s not really a problem.

There are a lot of forum users who bought this thinking it would be a great problem free BSI back and now they are stuck with a device which cannot be used with ultra wide angle tech cam lenses and most crucially SK lenses which is a bit the point why people were so much looking forward to this back here.

Even if the Hasselblad back once in a while exploded with people reporting higher degree burns and hospitalisations you’d find time to argue for it on forums …

You have already derailed the other thread the other day to the point of it being closed and are again spamming this one which should just be a normal discussion about the PDAF banding issue - but no, it touches Hasselblad, so you need to inundate it.

 

[Alan]

Post your issues and let it go. Going on and on about a problem rarely helps anything.

How many complaints about the same issue are required to convince yourself that Hasselblad must do something about this?

How many times are you going to post in a thread *about* tech cam use suggesting people stop posting about the thread topic?

If Hasselblad wants certain customers, then yes, they must do certain things.

 

[TechTalk]

Which marketing claim? I can't recall seeing a marketing claim for any digital back, including the CFV 100C; which suggests or implies you can use any lens, with any angle of coverage, under any conditions without limitations or potential image issues. There are limits to the compatibility of chief ray angles (CRA) between a lens and sensor. It's a fact of photographic life.

Marketing "A Trifecta of Imaging Possibilities" seems to be offering "possibilities" to the user, not unlimited or unrestricted compatibility assurances. That said, perhaps there will be some improvements in compatibility with lenses having extremely wide angles of coverage (not to be confused with angle of view) in the future for the CFV 100C.

It's more than obvious that something is wrong when using this back with even moderately wide angle lenses. Granted Hasselblad never advertised that this back could be used with any lens under any circumstance with perfect results. But..... this issue will affect sales of this back. They've lost my purchase and for sure will lose others. Hopefully that is enough to motivate Hasselblad to mitigate this issue.

Victor B.

You're correct in saying: "Hasselblad never advertised that this back could be used with any lens under any circumstance with perfect results." Hasselblad advertised that you could attach the back to a view or technical camera like every other digital back which has ever been made. It will work as advertised and without any image issues with a wide variety of lenses when used this way. Some combinations of lens, back, and shooting situation may result in image issues which need to be corrected post capture.

You're also correct in saying: "But..... this issue will affect sales of this back." Sure it will. Sales of every back are affected by a combination of factors including: price, compatibility, versatility, and capabilities along with other considerations. These will be prioritized by individual photographers based on their individual needs.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

You're correct in saying: "Hasselblad never advertised that this back could be used with any lens under any circumstance with perfect results." Hasselblad advertised that you could attach the back to a view or technical camera like every other digital back which has ever been made. It will work as advertised and without any image issues with a wide variety of lenses when used this way. Some combinations of lens, back, and shooting situation may result in image issues which need to be corrected post capture.

You're also correct in saying: "But..... this issue will affect sales of this back." Sure it will. Sales of every back are affected by a combination of factors including: price, compatibility, versatility, and capabilities along with other considerations. These will be prioritized by individual photographers based on their individual needs.

It doesn't work as advertised and the fact that you are now retreating to the point that Hasselblad just advertised that you can attach it to a tech cam like every other digital back is ... well it speaks for itself.

The whole thread is about people being disappointed that the back creates banding issues with lenses like the 35 SK XL (its even in the title and the OP mentions this in the first line of the first post that this is a topic of concern for many here) and you are spamming the thread regardless with the more and more absurd points.

The back does not work as advertised.

Again derailing a thread.

 

[MGrayson]

The astonishing thing is that NO ONE here disagrees on the facts. The anger is directed at those who feel the wrong level of outrage.

 

[Godfrey]

...
If Hasselblad wants certain customers, then yes, they must do certain things.

Obviously. Good bye.