DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
WAHOO 203FE back from overseas With CFV ability now
- Thread starter fotografz
- Start date
I have looked for diagrams for camera or back, but can't find one (so far?).
The things were tested, not by using logic testers or multimeters and a diagram, but by hooking up the camera to a PC-based test system. The 'knowledge' a diagram would provide is 'burried' out of sight in this computer programm. So maybe no diagram ever made it outside the factory?
The electronics in the E-lenses aren't clearly shown either.
(By the way: the F-FE conversion kits were no longer available in 2000 already).
The things were tested, not by using logic testers or multimeters and a diagram, but by hooking up the camera to a PC-based test system. The 'knowledge' a diagram would provide is 'burried' out of sight in this computer programm. So maybe no diagram ever made it outside the factory?
The electronics in the E-lenses aren't clearly shown either.
(By the way: the F-FE conversion kits were no longer available in 2000 already).
wbulte
Well-Known Member
Austin, Q,
Unfortunately my service docs give me the same detail (or rather,
the lack thereof) that Q's docs do. Not surprising, as the
replacable unit will be the complete circuitboard, not the (chip)
component level. Thats the reason I asked for a picture of the
film back's guts. Exploded view does not give us more info. Someone
with a duff back out there willing to open it and photograph its
insides?
Marc,
No worries, this has become an intellectual challenge to figure
out the design. I agree with you that Hasselblad enabling CFV
use on the 203 is a nice idea. It is 20/20 hindsight
(I think that is the US expression for it?) to argue that things
could have been done differently. The question really is if anyone
could have predicted the speed with which digital capture has
taken hold of the photographic world.
Wilko
Unfortunately my service docs give me the same detail (or rather,
the lack thereof) that Q's docs do. Not surprising, as the
replacable unit will be the complete circuitboard, not the (chip)
component level. Thats the reason I asked for a picture of the
film back's guts. Exploded view does not give us more info. Someone
with a duff back out there willing to open it and photograph its
insides?
Marc,
No worries, this has become an intellectual challenge to figure
out the design. I agree with you that Hasselblad enabling CFV
use on the 203 is a nice idea. It is 20/20 hindsight
(I think that is the US expression for it?) to argue that things
could have been done differently. The question really is if anyone
could have predicted the speed with which digital capture has
taken hold of the photographic world.
Wilko
Hi Marc,
> Well, it may or may not have been possible to preserve the ISO setting > ability of the e-backs ... but it sounds improbable if not > impractical.
It’s hardly improbably or impractical. The databus is in fact a digital connection, pinned out as I suspected (two digital signals and two power). Here is a quote from the 205TCC brochure:
“All the lenses and magazines of the Hasselblad TCC-system communicate with the camera body using modern digital databus connections with just two gold plated electrical contacts needed for the data flow and two more contacts for the current.”
It IS digital, and is two wire for “data flow” and two for power, and is probably I2C.
> Fact is, for what ever reason, they didn't.
We KNOW they didn’t...and my point was they could have (and I’m %100 certain of that) added the trigger AND preserved the compatibility of E backs. I contend, and of course we may never know, the reason is purely poor electrical engineering, whether they just got lazy and let the mechanical guy figure it out, or they lost the source code to the CPU or what, doesn’t matter...it still, IMO, was not the right way to do it. It’s a hack.
Regards,
Austin
> Well, it may or may not have been possible to preserve the ISO setting > ability of the e-backs ... but it sounds improbable if not > impractical.
It’s hardly improbably or impractical. The databus is in fact a digital connection, pinned out as I suspected (two digital signals and two power). Here is a quote from the 205TCC brochure:
“All the lenses and magazines of the Hasselblad TCC-system communicate with the camera body using modern digital databus connections with just two gold plated electrical contacts needed for the data flow and two more contacts for the current.”
It IS digital, and is two wire for “data flow” and two for power, and is probably I2C.
> Fact is, for what ever reason, they didn't.
We KNOW they didn’t...and my point was they could have (and I’m %100 certain of that) added the trigger AND preserved the compatibility of E backs. I contend, and of course we may never know, the reason is purely poor electrical engineering, whether they just got lazy and let the mechanical guy figure it out, or they lost the source code to the CPU or what, doesn’t matter...it still, IMO, was not the right way to do it. It’s a hack.
Regards,
Austin
Hi Q.G.,
> The things were tested, not by using logic testers or multimeters and > a diagram, but by hooking up the camera to a PC-based test system.
I saw that too, but in fact the test system could contain logic and voltage tests. But, none the less, the 205TCC brochure states in no uncertain terms the databus is digital.
Regards,
Austin
> The things were tested, not by using logic testers or multimeters and > a diagram, but by hooking up the camera to a PC-based test system.
I saw that too, but in fact the test system could contain logic and voltage tests. But, none the less, the 205TCC brochure states in no uncertain terms the databus is digital.
Regards,
Austin
Yes Wilko, I think MF was withering on the vine until the big meg chips came on line and all Hell broke loose.
Unless there is a technological "earthquake", 35mm DSLRs can now never catch-up. MF once again undisputedly wears the same image quality crown it had before the digital age swooped down on us all ... because just like with film, more real estate wins every time.
And thank God we can also still use film by just changing backs.
Unless there is a technological "earthquake", 35mm DSLRs can now never catch-up. MF once again undisputedly wears the same image quality crown it had before the digital age swooped down on us all ... because just like with film, more real estate wins every time.
And thank God we can also still use film by just changing backs.
Austin:
If that is a multiplexing capable circuit, I agree and they could have approached it a number of ways, without losing anything.
According to the previous letter from Hasselblad posted, they just did not care about preserving ISO settings on the discontinued E backs.
I also use non E backs so in reality it really would not make a difference to me. But, given a choice for modification I would rather not lose anything.
Regards:
Gilbert
If that is a multiplexing capable circuit, I agree and they could have approached it a number of ways, without losing anything.
According to the previous letter from Hasselblad posted, they just did not care about preserving ISO settings on the discontinued E backs.
I also use non E backs so in reality it really would not make a difference to me. But, given a choice for modification I would rather not lose anything.
Regards:
Gilbert
Okay, I guess it doesn't matter that it's all theory and the amount of users this will effect is so miniscule as to amount to a molehill of consideration.
The point about they "didn't do it" wasn't to state the obvious Austin, but to say that all the hand wringing and name calling won't change it one bit ... so why continue on and on and on about it?
What's the point? To prove you are right? So what if you're right? The back is what it is. So don't buy one if it offends you so much.
Meanwhile, back to important things ... lets see some photos. This stuff wasn't made to fill up e-space with engineering speak ...
The point about they "didn't do it" wasn't to state the obvious Austin, but to say that all the hand wringing and name calling won't change it one bit ... so why continue on and on and on about it?
What's the point? To prove you are right? So what if you're right? The back is what it is. So don't buy one if it offends you so much.
Meanwhile, back to important things ... lets see some photos. This stuff wasn't made to fill up e-space with engineering speak ...
Hi Gilbert,
> If that is a multiplexing capable circuit, I agree and they could have > approached it a number of ways, without losing anything.
It is capable of having multiple slaves...so yes, it is multiplexable. It is also capable of having multiple masters, but that is not needed in this case.
> According to the previous letter from Hasselblad posted, they just did > not care about preserving ISO settings on the discontinued E backs.
Understood. But, that may be just their way of “justifying” their methodology.
> I also use non E backs so in reality it really would not make a > difference to me. But, given a choice for modification I would rather > not lose anything.
Agreed.
Regards,
Austin
> If that is a multiplexing capable circuit, I agree and they could have > approached it a number of ways, without losing anything.
It is capable of having multiple slaves...so yes, it is multiplexable. It is also capable of having multiple masters, but that is not needed in this case.
> According to the previous letter from Hasselblad posted, they just did > not care about preserving ISO settings on the discontinued E backs.
Understood. But, that may be just their way of “justifying” their methodology.
> I also use non E backs so in reality it really would not make a > difference to me. But, given a choice for modification I would rather > not lose anything.
Agreed.
Regards,
Austin