hasseblad 903 swc...should i get it?

[roger903swc]

I found in a store a brand new 903swc for 500 euros.it is a prestigious professional shop.
I am an amateur, but last weeks I have been looking for my ideal camera...a complete manual setting camera, manual focus, good quality but digital...
I was looking at the epson rd1 rangefinder as an option but then I discovered that interesting offer and i started my research about medium fiormat cameras and digital backs
So, shall I get this camera? the problem comes with the digital backs that I think they are really expensive, but then I would get a camera forever...
In the meanwhile I could start with films until the prices rise down...I am not a professional and I cannot afford a 3000 digital back...
I don t care if the back has no screen...is there a good solution and affordable for this camera? any recommendation? shall I forget this idea?
thanks

[Dick Roadnight]

I found in a store a brand new 903swc for 500 euros.

If you do not want it... tell me where the shop is.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I assume you are aware this is a non interchangable-lens camera? The lens is a super wide (approximately equivalent to 21 mm focal length in 35 mm terms), therefore suitable for a rather limited range of use. Putting a digital back with its crop factor would make it a normal wide angle, but that would defy the purpose of the superbly designed and highly corrected super-wide lens.

[roger903swc]

I am aware of this issue, eventhough it makes the camera somehow very atractive...
i usually shot with the wide angle...I already got acompact camera (lx3) with a nice wide angle...but for architecture i think this one will fit very well ( am an architect)
What abou for portraits? (basically is what I shot...family+work)jeje

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What abou for portraits? (basically is what I shot...family...

Although portraits can be shot with any lens, from a fish-eye to super-telephoto, it is widely accepted that a lens of around 100 mm (in 35 mm terms) gives the most natural, pleasing and flattering perspective for a head and shoulders portrait. Super wide angle lenses tend to distort facial features rather badly, which can be used for funny or artistic effect, but I doubt that your family, especially the female side of it, would find it flattering (I know my wife does not). Here is a link to a rather nice example of the impact of focal length on portraits:

http://www.ontakingpictures.com/2010/08/impact-of-focal-length-on-port.html

Super wide lenses can be used successfully for full-length portraits, or environmental portraits, just make sure no limb is too close to camera, unless you are after a funny distortion effect.

[Rob C]

Slobodan

The guy in the link isn't much good with people, but he'd star with horses.

I found that on 35mm format, a 135mm gave me headshot stuff I liked; even a 105mm seemed to distort just that little bit; but I did like to fill the frame... it was the same on 6x6: a 150mm was too short - couldn't do it anyway, without sticking on a ring, and that was one sad thing about giving up the Mamiya C33 (or whatever the code name) and 180mm for the 'blad and its 150mm. Shows you how long ago all that was since there was no 180mm in the range at the time.

Funny how I remember all this junk but haven't a clue about important things of now. Like the names of people that have just been introduced to me... c.r.a.f.t.

;-(

Rob C

[Dick Roadnight]

Slobodan

The guy in the link isn't much good with people, but he'd star with horses.

I found that on 35mm format, a 135mm gave me headshot stuff I liked; even a 105mm seemed to distort just that little bit; but I did like to fill the frame... it was the same on 6x6: a 150mm was too short - couldn't do it anyway, without sticking on a ring, and that was one sad thing about giving up the Mamiya C33 (or whatever the code name) and 180mm for the 'blad and its 150mm. Shows you how long ago all that was since there was no 180mm in the range at the time.

Rob C

I am getting a 300... which is longer than normal for MFD portraiture, but with a FF 645 sensor, for e.g. speeches when you do not want to be close to the subject I expect to use it for headshot portraiture.

[Dick Roadnight]

What is the focal length of the SWC, so what angle of view would you get with a CF49 edit CF39?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What is the focal length of the SWC, so what angle of view would you get with a CF49?

The Biogon lens is 38 mm for the full frame, 6x6 format. What is CF49? I've come across CF-39 digital backs, which have a 36.7 x 49 mm sensor. If my math is correct, that would result in a 1.3 crop factor, i.e., a 38 mm lens would become a 50 mm one.

[Dick Roadnight]

The Biogon lens is 38 mm for the full frame, 6x6 format. What is CF49? I've come across CF-39 digital backs, which have a 36.7 x 49 mm sensor. If my math is correct, that would result in a 1.3 crop factor, i.e., a 38 mm lens would become a 50 mm one.

Yes, sorry, CF-39.
I already have a Distagon 40 which I can use with a Flexbody... The Biogon might be a good lens but the lack of movements and the not-very-wide angle limit it's usefulness.

It would be a shame to butcher a classic camera, but could one un-mount it and shoe-horn it into a Sinar lensboard? ...and operate the shutter somehow?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The lens conversion factor for a 49.1 x 36.8mm chip is 1.15

Which means:
38mm x 1.15 = 43.7mm

Just so you know.

Hmm... not so fast. Remember that my starting point was a full-frame 6x6 format, which translates to 56x56 mm film area. Crop factor is derived by comparing diagonals of sensor/film sizes. In the link you provided, Phase One lists the following sensor as having the crop factor of 1 (i.e., no crop at all): 53.9 x 40.4 mm... hmmm... clearly not a full-frame 6x6 format, but some kind of marketing-speak substitute for it. Strictly speaking, it is not even a full 6x4.5 format (which would be 56 x 41.5 mm). Therefore, if you start on a wrong foot (i.e., wrong base), you arrive to 1.15 factor.

My math is based on a 56 x 56 mm film size, with a diagonal of 79.2 mm, vs. 36.7 x 49 mm, with its diagonal of 61.2, which results in a 1.294 factor, or rounded to 1.3.

Just so you know

[bcooter]

The lens conversion factor for a 49.1 x 36.8mm chip is 1.15

Which means:
38mm x 1.15 = 43.7mm

Just so you know.

Thank You Ashley, because the makers have always been a little off with these sensor crop sizes.

A p30+ on a Contax is a 1.25 crop (depending on which side you measure it), a p45+ a 1.15 crop and if your really splitting hairs,  a p65+ a 1.038 crop.

In other words a 35mm lens goes from 43.75mm to 40.25mm to 36mm..   A Difference that some people see some don't.

Actually the p40+ sensor is slightly "more" cropped than the p30+.

So, when it comes to medium format, it's kind of all over the place.

BC

[tho_mas]

A p30+ on a Contax is a 1.25 crop (depending on which side you measure it), a p45+ a 1.15 crop

if you are referring to the diagonal the lens factor is slightly different:
645: 56.00 x 41.50 | Diagonal: 69.70mm
P45: 49.10 x 36.80 | Diagonal: 61.36mm
P31: 44.20 x 33.10 | Diagonal: 55.22mm

645 - P45 = 1.14
645 - P31 = 1.27

never mind ...

[vandevanterSH]

I found in a store a brand new 903swc for 500 euros.i
*******
That price falls into the "too good to be true" category. 

Steve

[Dick Roadnight]

if you are referring to the diagonal the lens factor is slightly different:
645: 56.00 x 41.50 | Diagonal: 69.70mm
P45: 49.10 x 36.80 | Diagonal: 61.36mm
P31: 44.20 x 33.10 | Diagonal: 55.22mm

645 - P45 = 1.14
645 - P31 = 1.27

I have never bothered with lens/crop factors - I just like to know the wide and narrow FOV (Field Of View) for a lens/sensor combination, and this (for each sensor dimension) is sensor size at the focal length, or:

2*arc-tan({half the sensor dimension}/{focal length})

This, hopefully is unambiguous and useful.

You can use the focal length and format size directly on the subject to asses the suitability of a lens:

For a 300mm lens and a 50mm sensor,,, if you hold you hand out in front of you and it is 600mm from you eye to your hand, and your fist is 100mm across, then your fist at arm's length is the FOV.

[NigelC]

If you do not want it... tell me where the shop is.

Me too, race you there