Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: John R Smith on July 13, 2011, 11:53:44 am
-
I was thinking about adding a rather elderly Hasselblad SWC to my classic ‘Blad collection. I’ve always rather fancied that 38mm Biogon, and the early silver lens model would round off my case of elderly kit rather well.
However, there may be a snag. I would want to use it with my CFV-39 digital back, and I see that Hasselblad do not recommend the SWC for digital capture. They say that image quality will be compromised with soft focus at the edges and odd colour casts. Now the colour casts are not an issue for me, because I always work in B/W, but soft focus seems like it might be a deal-breaker. Has anyone here actually tried this combination of an SWC with a digital back of any sort (Phase or whatever), and if so, did you encounter these problems?
John
-
In my experience the 38mm Biogon is better than the 40mm Distagon in terms of sharpness across the frame with pixels as small as 6µ
Haven't tried it with 5.2µ chips yet
HTH
yair
-
I have used the SWCM with the Leaf Aptus 12, and I like it a lot.
The look is the same as it used to be with Velvia film.
It's not as clean as the newer lenses but has a lot more caracter :)
Henrik
-
Thank you both.
That does sound quite encouraging, and makes you wonder why Hassselblad issue these caveats about the SWC. The only way to find out for sure will be to try it for myself, of course. How about masking the viewfinder for the 645 sensors? Will a home-brewed solution do?
John
-
I have a Hasselblad SWC/M with a black (T* coated) C lens, and an old Imacon 132c (49x37mm, 22mpix). Haven't had time to use it much yet, but I haven't seen any problems except somewhat soft corners at some distances. I would recommend getting a SWC with T* coated lens, for better flare control.
The optical viewfinder actually represents the smaller sensor area fairly well. Usually these finders show a bit smaller area than what the camera will see, so it works well with a smaller sensor. The old optical finder isn't very good, though (but the mirror for the bubble level is nice!). I have a Ricoh 21/28mm finder that I think will work ok, but haven't had time to test it properly yet. My back is at Hasselblad for CCD cleaning right now, but I will try to get back to this thread in a few weeks when I have done some testing.
-
Well, in for a penny . . .
The SWC is ordered and should be with me tomorrow, so we shall see. I have a ten-day no quibble return period on it, so the risk is not too great. I am not very bothered about the T* coating, I know it's nice to have but a lot of my lenses do not and I can live with it OK. You just learn not to shoot too tight into the sun.
The one I have on order is quite special, in that it is very early and # 100 from the very first batch in 1959. This appeals to the collector in my soul ;) If the shutter is still frisky and the glass is clean then I am sure we could learn to get along. And the nice thing is that I already have all the accessories I need - strap, filters, lens hood etc.
John
-
Superb and fun to work with along with a Leaf back the images were razor sharp.
-
I put a Leaf Aptus 22 on SWC/M and get very sharp and decent quality pictures.
-
And get a Laser Tape measure to assist with focusing.
I had a SWCM and shot it with my Aptus 75 worked well.
-
I use a P25 with a CF based SWC/M with no problems. It does have colour cast, but easy to dial out with a LCC file in C1, but as you say, no problem with B&W.
I seem to remember some talk of later ones not being as good as they stopped using lead and arsenic in the glass, I believe that was from the 905swc model onwards from 2001.
I have no problems with sharpness across the frame with mine. Due to it's small form, I often use it as a walk around camera, or just throw it in my saddlebag if I go cycling, a great 'compact'. Enjoy! :)
-
Well, the best laid plans . . .
Sadly, it didn't work out. I got the early (1959) silver lens SWC on trial, the idea being to use it with my CFV-39 digital back. However, the back will not fit the camera because on the backplate of the SWC (the part that has the serial number engraved on it) there are the usual two raised light baffle ridges - however, the inner one is much thicker and wider than on the 500 series cameras and the CFV back will not fit over it. It looks as if the later black lens SWCs from about 1970 onwards do not have this thick inner baffle ridge, but a thinner one like my 500s.
So the camera has gone back, and I am going to have to re-think this. As I have a fairly complete collection of the early silver lens period I am not so keen on getting a black lens SWC instead - yes, I know it's silly and cameras are to use, not ornaments, but there you go.
John
-
If the price is low enough, why don't you get it milled away so the back can go on?
On some Arcbody and Flexbody cameras this ridged light trap could be pulled out so the back was not impeded.
-
If the price is low enough, why don't you get it milled away so the back can go on?
That's a good idea, except that finding a good machine shop is not so easy here in rural Cornwall. However, the camera also had some serious shutter problems as well - the low speeds were very hesitant and the aperture/speed rings were incredibly stiff and seized up - so all in all, it was not a good deal.
John
-
Hasselblad told me that a mod is necessary to the base of an old SWC for their backs to fit
-
Well, the story did not end just there.
I am now the owner of yet another vintage SWC, and trials are ongoing. A full update will follow shortly . . .
John
-
To continue the SWC saga -
Despite searching around the internet for ages, I failed to turn up a nice silver lens SWC at the right sort of price. I did find out one useful thing however, which is that the silver lens SWCs from 1966 onwards (serial numbers TTW) to 1969 (TEW) have the later style backplate which will take a CFV digital back. So that is a handy thing to know. With all of these non-/M models though, there will be a problem with the tripod mounting plate, which will either have to be removed, or be spaced out, /M style, or be shortened in order to clear the CFV battery.
In the end I decided to get a black lens SWC and see how I liked it. In the past I have avoided the black ‘C’ lenses because they wear so badly – the black finish wears off rather too easily and the metal below shows through, making them look really tatty very quickly. Whereas the silver lenses carry their scars rather more gracefully. The SWC I eventually tracked down turned out to be a little beauty – see the pic below (with the CFV-39 back attached). The black finish is almost pristine, the focus ring is smooth as silk, the shutter is lively at all speeds, and most importantly the glass is perfect, with not a mark on the front or rear elements. This one is from 1972 (UHW), and it has certainly been looked after very well indeed for a Hasselblad which is almost forty years old. As you can see, the CFV back integrates perfectly with the camera and the whole kit looks all of a piece.
Over the past few years I had been collecting SWC bits and pieces when I saw them, so I already had lens caps, filter retaining ring and UV filters, lens hood and the 645 mask for the viewfinder. I have only had a couple of days to get some test shots, but so far things are looking more hopeful than the prophets of doom at Hasselblad and photo.net would have you believe. There are a couple of odd quirks -
* Very occasionally when the camera shutter fires, it does not trigger the CFV back, and I have to re-take the shot. This has never happened with my 500s.
* The CFV back has settings in the setup menu for the various Hasselblad cameras, view cameras etc. Strangely, when it is set to “SWC” (as it should be), it malfunctions – the images are underexposed with a horrible magenta cast. If I set the back to “500” instead (which is what I normally use) it functions perfectly. Very odd. And again, worth knowing.
As far as the test shots go, I can’t say I have noticed any great problems at all. The 38mm Biogon is one nice (and very wide) lens. Yes, it is a little bit soft in the corners, but absolutely no worse than the 50 and 60mm Distagons on the 500. Seeing how close the rear element is to the sensor, I’m amazed how good it is. I’ve shot a few frames of blank sky and I do not see the awful magenta/cyan colour casts that were prophesied either, and as I work in B/W anyway this is a non-issue. One thing that surprised me is that handheld shots are rather prone to camera shake – I need to keep the shutter speed at 1/125s and upwards. Probably I need to work on my technique. Anyhow, I attach a couple of test shots just for fun – nothing artistic, just buildings next to my cottage which make handy subjects.
When I bought this SWC, I was thinking that I would play around with it until a nice silver lens one came along, grab that instead and sell the black one on. I might still do that, but I must say that I am already rather fond of it – it’s hard to find one as nice as this for a sensible price.
John
-
It's a wonderful thing that these old beauties can keep on doing their thing in this digital age.
-
many thanks for all the interesting input here so far - as i am evaluating an SWC + used digi back as an alternative travel / street camera currently.
seems to me that a "full size sensors" (24*36mm approx) without microlenses (P25 most likely for me, else cfv39, p45) should perform well when corrected for color casts, but not as stellar as an alpa tc with a 35/40.
any first hand experience on how a smaller sensor with microlenses (P21, p30,...) actually fares on i.e. a SWC?
can the smaller sensor size offset detrimental effects of microlenses closer to the image edges? or are those sensors unusable on a SWC?
many thanks
roald
-
I've never investigated 'blads with digital backs, neither new nor venerable.
However (and because of that), I'm sort of mystified about the sensor size. Am I reading the post below/above? correctly, and the area of image circle covered by an old 'blad with a sensor is only 24mmx36mm approx? If that's so, what's the point? I understood it was a smaller-than-film area, but that much smaller seems sort of crazy; I think that all you would be buying are the drawbacks and a little self-satisfaction of ownership. Period.
I did own and work with both 500C and 500CM from new, and for many years, so I am perfectly aware of Hasselbad film reality.
I'm sure I must be missing something important, so if you know what it is, let me in on it too!
Rob C
-
I've never investigated 'blads with digital backs, neither new nor venerable.
However (and because of that), I'm sort of mystified about the sensor size. Am I reading the post below/above? correctly, and the area of image circle covered by an old 'blad with a sensor is only 24mmx36mm approx? If that's so, what's the point? I understood it was a smaller-than-film area, but that much smaller seems sort of crazy; I think that all you would be buying are the drawbacks and a little self-satisfaction of ownership. Period.
I did own and work with both 500C and 500CM from new, and for many years, so I am perfectly aware of Hasselbad film reality.
I'm sure I must be missing something important, so if you know what it is, let me in on it too!
Rob C
Rob,
You are missing half the frame. It's 36x48.
Greetings!
Edmund
-
Just to set the record straight -
My CFV back uses the Kodak KAF-39000 sensor, which according to the spec sheet has an active image size of 49.0 x 36.8 mm. The pixel size is 6.8 um. It does not have microlenses. Interestingly, there are two grades available - standard, and engineering grade.
I think that with the SWC a sensor using microlenses would be very bad news. The rear element of the Biogon is very, very close to the sensor plane - actually, I'm amazed that it works as well as it does. The light rays at the edge of the sensor must be coming in at a very low angle.
Another interesting thing which really we only become aware of when we put these old lenses on a digital back, is that just like the Distagons and in fact most of the old Zeiss glass, the Biogon is optimised for the far field. It does close focus (down to 12 inches) but close shots are OK but not stunning. When you get out to 30 feet plus, the lens comes on song and you go "Wow" as the detail snaps in. Which is just what you want for architectural stuff and church interiors, of course. For close work stick to the 120mm S-Planar.
John
-
Rob, Ronald, John
you are right of course - i meant to write "36*48mm approx" in my question, not 24*36...
john,
thanks again for your input!
so your opinion would be that the swc biogon ought to be basically unusable with sensors with micro lenses?
you also mention that the biogon is optimized for the far field.
short of me starting to try to get hold of one with a back and testing myself:
could you give some indication as to what kind of IQ difference ld have to be expected between i.e. 3-6 and 30 ft?
thanks
-
Just to set the record straight -
My CFV back uses the Kodak KAF-39000 sensor, which according to the spec sheet has an active image size of 49.0 x 36.8 mm. The pixel size is 6.8 um. It does not have microlenses. Interestingly, there are two grades available - standard, and engineering grade.
I think that with the SWC a sensor using microlenses would be very bad news. The rear element of the Biogon is very, very close to the sensor plane - actually, I'm amazed that it works as well as it does. The light rays at the edge of the sensor must be coming in at a very low angle.
Another interesting thing which really we only become aware of when we put these old lenses on a digital back, is that just like the Distagons and in fact most of the old Zeiss glass, the Biogon is optimised for the far field. It does close focus (down to 12 inches) but close shots are OK but not stunning. When you get out to 30 feet plus, the lens comes on song and you go "Wow" as the detail snaps in. Which is just what you want for architectural stuff and church interiors, of course. For close work stick to the 120mm S-Planar.
John
I think engineering grade is a with some image defects. No problem for doing electronics.
Edmund
-
john,
thanks again for your input!
so your opinion would be that the swc biogon ought to be basically unusable with sensors with micro lenses?
you also mention that the biogon is optimized for the far field.
short of me starting to try to get hold of one with a back and testing myself:
could you give some indication as to what kind of IQ difference ld have to be expected between i.e. 3-6 and 30 ft?
Roald
I have no microlens back to try out, so I am just guessing. I could well be wrong. Almost all of the Zeiss lenses of the period are optimised for the far field (Zeiss say so themselves, in their spec sheets and MTF charts). The exception is the 120mm S-Planar, which has astonishing MTF and zero distortion in the near field. I also believe, but have no solid data to back it up, that the 80mm Planar (of which I have two examples) is optimised somewhere in the middle, because it works very well close-up but is a little soft at infinity (compared with the 100mm Planar).
I have only done a little bit of testing with the SWC, but to my eyes shots taken at around 4 to 6 feet from the subject have not got the “bite” that I would have hoped for. Mind you, the 50mm and 60mm Distagons are even worse close-up. Later on, Zeiss fitted the 40 and 50mm Distagons with floating elements (FLE versions) so that the lens could be adjusted for close work, which demonstrates that they were well aware of the problem. This is a very relative thing, however – the image quality from the 38mm is still very good by most standards close up. What you seem to lose is some of the micro-contrast that separates the detail out and gives the picture a real edge.
Once you put a digital back on any of these old cameras, you see stuff that you would never have noticed with film.
John
-
John, that's also been my experience.
Keith, thanks for that supporting evidence!
John
-
Keith, thanks for that supporting evidence!
John
Seen this with the 60mm Distagon but not with the 80mm so I'd look at sensor position/ alignment
-
Seen this with the 60mm Distagon but not with the 80mm so I'd look at sensor position/ alignment
Well, sensor position and alignment for me is what I believe the Americans call a "crap shoot". I have three 500 C/M bodies, all getting on for forty years old and in varying states of wear, and now the SWC as well, also nearly forty. None of them have been serviced or collimated or whatever it is you are supposed to do. I am quite sure that when I swap around between these with various equally elderly lenses that the idea of 10 micron tolerances between the sensor plane and the lens or whatever is just laughable. Nonetheless, my shots are mostly in focus and when it does go wrong it always seems to be down to human error. The only thing I have done (and always do with a "new" body) is to very gently adjust the lower magazine "hooks" so that the CFV back is really a very snug fit. No slop.
We should also remember that the 38mm Biogon was first introduced with the Hasselblad SWA in 1954, and should be judged in that context with the film technology of the day. The lens remained in production with the SWC, SWC/M and later 903 and 905 unchanged in design, just in a revised package. That a nearly 60 year old design still works well with digital is a real tribute to its quality.
John
-
Well, sensor position and alignment for me is what I believe the Americans call a "crap shoot". I have three 500 C/M bodies, all getting on for forty years old and in varying states of wear, and now the SWC as well, also nearly forty. None of them have been serviced or collimated or whatever it is you are supposed to do. I am quite sure that when I swap around between these with various equally elderly lenses that the idea of 10 micron tolerances between the sensor plane and the lens or whatever is just laughable. Nonetheless, my shots are mostly in focus and when it does go wrong it always seems to be down to human error. The only thing I have done (and always do with a "new" body) is to very gently adjust the lower magazine "hooks" so that the CFV back is really a very snug fit. No slop.
John
That's an opinion I see as being based on reality; I wonder if it's possible to steer some of the other threads towards the same attitude... I suggest it applies way beyond the confines of 500 Series photography!
The curse of the new. Opens entirely fresh Pandora Boxes, copiously stuffed with clouds of misinformation and opinion made fact.
Rob C
-
Rob,
There may always be misinformation and opinion made facts. Also, issues bothering some may not be of importance for others. In any case, I can assure that the sensor position, the precision of the different parts of a system is something to consider carefully and it can lead to surprises, the more with the newest back generations. It is actually not that much the problem of getting focus, much more of getting it at the right place.
Best regards
Thierry
Opens entirely fresh Pandora Boxes, copiously stuffed with clouds of misinformation and opinion made fact.
Rob C
-
It's a wonderful thing that these old beauties can keep on doing their thing in this digital age.
At the launch of the H4D I was lucky enough to shoot a few test frames with a CFV back on one of the Apollo cameras (obviously not one of the ones that went to the moon), it worked just fine.
-
I have read that the tripod plate of the SWC prevents Leaf digital backs (and, possibly, other makes as well) from being attached in landscape orientation because the battery pack occupies the same space.
Would someone confirm or deny this, please.
Options include (1) removing the tripod plate (and the released nuts from inside the body) and adding a metal block, threaded to attach to a tripod, which allows room for the battery and (2) cutting off the rear of the tripod plate which extends into the space required for the battery.
Any other options?
Roger
-
I have seen the plate unscrewed (very tight) and it works fine but it is just simpler to rotate the camera from Port. to Land. and leave the plate in position.
-
Thank you, ced. That is an option, I agree, but you then lose the assistance of the bubble level!
I guess I could always use a level app on my iPhone!
Roger
-
Couple of helpful notes:
If you do need to get service on V-system (500 series, et all) US cleaning and tune up is $99 per body at NJ Service Center
Although I have not personally tested; the digital backs with a microlens should not be compromised on the SWC as the imaging plane is the same as the lens plane - not the case if swing or tilt that introduce different plane angles.
John
-
I think there may have been a modification at one time, to put some sort of spacer between the body and the mounting foot to lower it. A good repair shop could possible make something like that.
-
Hi guys
I took some pictures about SWC vs CFE40IF last year.
Digitalback:P65+
CFE40IF is better than SWC.(esp. corner)
(http://gveesw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pJG3h1CnkBMFDbQZ7yx4NugNTRD3lCYxTeOANqK72ZEfwgu5D4H3leJDB154XtTQ3aStvchtTfbXMRf0-dSTvWiPU9_hR448S/CF000450.jpg)
CFE40IF
Central
(http://omwdca.bay.livefilestore.com/y1paej0bX8G_l8ZblvisXTu5wI3OmZ84mdH-7xqxW5eNof1Z-Ubkbbk_Nos5isM5NG-CgrYTQmpYrZDQ3MYWmxRWsvAvU24Gl23/CFE40IF_c.jpg)
http://omwdca.bay.livefilestore.com/y1paej0bX8G_l8ZblvisXTu5wI3OmZ84mdH-7xqxW5eNof1Z-Ubkbbk_Nos5isM5NG-CgrYTQmpYrZDQ3MYWmxRWsvAvU24Gl23/CFE40IF_c.jpg (http://omwdca.bay.livefilestore.com/y1paej0bX8G_l8ZblvisXTu5wI3OmZ84mdH-7xqxW5eNof1Z-Ubkbbk_Nos5isM5NG-CgrYTQmpYrZDQ3MYWmxRWsvAvU24Gl23/CFE40IF_c.jpg)
Corner
(http://omwdca.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pdx0ca0ckDAEmiYwYEyafaCFw1oep460nmPuv4wPAqkjHIowDMdYFnYg6660EY9h5V3zbWZKFWO-wVZ6ABiYdbTnQ1cce91mT/CFE40IF_p.jpg)
http://omwdca.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pdx0ca0ckDAEmiYwYEyafaCFw1oep460nmPuv4wPAqkjHIowDMdYFnYg6660EY9h5V3zbWZKFWO-wVZ6ABiYdbTnQ1cce91mT/CFE40IF_p.jpg (http://omwdca.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pdx0ca0ckDAEmiYwYEyafaCFw1oep460nmPuv4wPAqkjHIowDMdYFnYg6660EY9h5V3zbWZKFWO-wVZ6ABiYdbTnQ1cce91mT/CFE40IF_p.jpg)
SWC
Central
(http://egryhq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZKevNedFRGDxL_G4Oq4d5-ARz8zHMJb366qG3yUXQkdLM2u2fLzpi98S7Lgh8QaK4tD_vsTKE9ExISjIagAaUtoJ9X2-zqSk/905SWC_c_1.jpg)
http://egryhq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZKevNedFRGDxL_G4Oq4d5-ARz8zHMJb366qG3yUXQkdLM2u2fLzpi98S7Lgh8QaK4tD_vsTKE9ExISjIagAaUtoJ9X2-zqSk/905SWC_c_1.jpg (http://egryhq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZKevNedFRGDxL_G4Oq4d5-ARz8zHMJb366qG3yUXQkdLM2u2fLzpi98S7Lgh8QaK4tD_vsTKE9ExISjIagAaUtoJ9X2-zqSk/905SWC_c_1.jpg)
Corner
(http://egryhq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p9boDIlRByWuwdLmXe2qLM2IHu53RO_me2hZ9gq7EQyRY_FMq1wAfF4UmHLFb4wE-g8RZgp8FkWuNbjGvmNJmHNcPkG-LXQC5/905SWC_p_1.jpg)
http://egryhq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p9boDIlRByWuwdLmXe2qLM2IHu53RO_me2hZ9gq7EQyRY_FMq1wAfF4UmHLFb4wE-g8RZgp8FkWuNbjGvmNJmHNcPkG-LXQC5/905SWC_p_1.jpg (http://egryhq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p9boDIlRByWuwdLmXe2qLM2IHu53RO_me2hZ9gq7EQyRY_FMq1wAfF4UmHLFb4wE-g8RZgp8FkWuNbjGvmNJmHNcPkG-LXQC5/905SWC_p_1.jpg)
The other lens :
http://www.hasselbladfans.net/viewthread.php?tid=959&extra=page%3D1&page=1 (http://www.hasselbladfans.net/viewthread.php?tid=959&extra=page%3D1&page=1)
-
Lu
Thanks for that useful and interesting comparison. I am sure that you are correct, and I would have expected that the retrofocus 40mm FLE would work better on a digital back than the SWC. It is a far more modern design, of course. It is interesting to see how the corners on the SWC continue to improve up to f22, whereas the 40mm is definitely losing IQ by then due to diffraction.
I thought about the 40mm myself (and purchasing one used it would have been cheaper than the SWC), but combined with the 500 C/M and the CFV back the whole package is a lot heavier than the SWC and back. And I needed something (relatively) compact and light as a walk-around camera.
I'm having a lot of fun with the SWC - here are a couple of recent shots.
John
-
Very interesting information on the performance of the SWC. Looks really good considering the lens is an old classic design.
I found out that my SWC needs to go back to Hasselblad to have the bottom plate modified. Looks like it's worth paying for this to be done.
Do you have any problems with the positioning of the battery with the L plate on the cfv39. Does this make the camera harder to hold or ok?
Do you mostly use the SWC on a tripod or you find you can hand hold? I was worried about accurate focus. Do you find this to be a problem? Any tips to share here.
Thanks
Neil
-
Neil
I didn't have a problem with the battery on my SWC, as a previous owner had sawn off (!) the tripod plate to clear a polaroid back. I don't see any reason why the CFV 'L' plate should not work just fine with the lowered tripod plate as on the SWC/M, but it will be a bit more ungainly to handhold.
So far, all my shots have been hand-held. That was the reason I bought the camera - I have just undergone major thoracic surgery, and while I am recovering I need a lighter walk-around camera. I thought at first that focusing would be really difficult, but as it turns out I can estimate the distance in feet to the subject really well. Much to my humiliation and shame, I am getting more of my shots spot-on in focus than I manage with my 500s :o
It's very nice getting right back to basics with the SWC - just the camera, my old Weston meter, guess the distance, frame it as best you can through the wierd little finder, and hope for the best. The SWC is not like any other camera ever made, really, but once you try it you can certainly get hooked.
John
-
It is indeed surprisingly easy to handhold. The little mirror on the viewfinder makes decent leveling possible as well, which is pretty important with a lens this wide. The viewfinder on the older versions isn't all that great, though, but it represents the sensor area of your CFV39 well enough. My old Imacon 132c with ISO 50 makes a lot of light a necessity, which limits the usefulness of handholding for me, so I usually use a tripod (or film!).
I have used my Leica M8 as a "companion camera" for light metering and of course for the rangefinder giving distance information.
-
John,
Well I got out the metal saw and my SWC but just cannot bring myself to saw off the bottom plate.
Am I right in thinking that since your SWC plate has been cut off you can leave the battery in the normal orientation and do not need to use the L plate battery adapter.
What I realised is that I can use the SWC tethered to a computer without a battery. I was able to test the lens and it seems really good. For far distances. Wide open is a bit soft in the corners. From F5.6 is fine and from F8 is really good. So it's working real well with the CFV39 back. Do you use the back in SWC mode or use sync cable?
Thanks
Neil
-
Am I right in thinking that since your SWC plate has been cut off you can leave the battery in the normal orientation and do not need to use the L plate battery adapter.
What I realised is that I can use the SWC tethered to a computer without a battery. I was able to test the lens and it seems really good. For far distances. Wide open is a bit soft in the corners. From F5.6 is fine and from F8 is really good. So it's working real well with the CFV39 back. Do you use the back in SWC mode or use sync cable?
Neil
Yes, with my shortened tripod plate I can just leave the battery in its normal position. I think that if you did shorten the tripod plate (and lots of people have, in the past) you would want to do this with the plate removed from the camera, which would involve a fair bit of dismantling. Of course, you can use it tethered with no problems, as you say.
I have never used a sync cable with my CFV-39. I found that set to "SWC" the back did not work properly with mine (I got a magenta cast on the images) but it does work just fine set to "500" - I don't know why.
John
-
Do you think Hasselblad will ever come out witb an affordable FF back for the SWC? 5 mp FF is all I need.
I have to wonder why you are all so thrilled with your cropped SWC's? Couldn't you find a better digital alternative than this? I'd have no interest in the SWC unless it is FF. Sounds like your more camera collectors that shooters. (No disrespect intended.)
I loved shooting with my old SWC back in the 70's.
http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691521-crazy
http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691531-gypsy-woman
Now I got an up to date SWC, the last of the lead glass versions. But would like to go digital FF with it. (just not crazy priced.)
BTW, if you still have that SWC you pictured in the htread...it is the finest vintage SWC I've ever seen!
-
Do you think Hasselblad will ever come out witb an affordable FF back for the SWC? 5 mp FF is all I need.
I would bet on Never... :(
Hasselblad seems to be more preoccupied in trying to make a quick buck by rebadging Sony consumer cameras.
A better solution is available now though. Pick one of the smaller technical cameras from ALPA / Arca Swiss / Cambo and attach Schneider 35mm Digitar and use a PhaseOne or Leaf back.
Here is an Alpa 12 TC.
-
A better solution is available now though. Pick one of the smaller technical cameras from ALPA / Arca Swiss / Cambo and attach Schneider 35mm Digitar and use a PhaseOne or Leaf back.
Or RC400:
http://vimeo.com/63916039
-
I would bet on Never... :(
Hasselblad seems to be more preoccupied in trying to make a quick buck by rebadging Sony consumer cameras.
A better solution is available now though. Pick one of the smaller technical cameras from ALPA / Arca Swiss / Cambo and attach Schneider 35mm Digitar and use a PhaseOne or Leaf back.
Here is an Alpa 12 TC.
WOW! That is pretty. How much will it cost for that setup?
-
I am confused by these technical cameras without bellows. I have been looking at getting a 6x9 view camera with bellows to attach a Credo 60 to in the hope I can work out the movements and get sharper images with view camera lenses. These technical cameras are more compact than view cameras with bellows but can they do tilts at both the back and lens planes? I understand some technical cameras have lens boards with tilt facilities but wouldn't I be better off getting a "normal" view camera with bellows?
Would these technical cameras give me anything more than what I can get from my BendyBlad—a Flexbody modified to give sideways shift and tilt as well as vertical tilt and shift?
I want a package I can take into the bush for landscapes.
Any guidance would be appreciated!
Roger
Or RC400:
http://vimeo.com/63916039
-
I am confused by these technical cameras without bellows. I have been looking at getting a 6x9 view camera with bellows to attach a Credo 60 to in the hope I can work out the movements and get sharper images with view camera lenses. These technical cameras are more compact than view cameras with bellows but can they do tilts at both the back and lens planes? I understand some technical cameras have lens boards with tilt facilities but wouldn't I be better off getting a "normal" view camera with bellows?
Would these technical cameras give me anything more than what I can get from my BendyBlad—a Flexbody modified to give sideways shift and tilt as well as vertical tilt and shift?
I want a package I can take into the bush for landscapes.
Any guidance would be appreciated!
Roger
The "pancake" cameras have quite limited movements. It can be hard to figure out exactly which movements there are as tilt can be available through adapters or special tilt mounts available in a limited set of focal lengths. The orientation of tilt can also be limited. What you gain compared to a traditional monorail view camera is small size, high precision focusing together with a laser distance meter (no need for ground glass for critical focusing, some don't even use it for composition) and better parallelism which can be important for wide angle photography. For table top photography a studio view camera like the Linhof M679 or Sinar P3 provides way more flexibility.
The advantage compared to the "Bendyblad" would be the distance scale focusing and better precision (parallelism) which the shaprer Digitar and Digaron lenses might require for best performance. What is the widest lens you can use with the Bendyblad? I'd guess wide angle options and performance is likely to be a lot better, while there will be a smaller difference for longer lenses. Concerning movements there's likely little to gain, possibly even lose some depending on which package you choose.
If you want something "in-between" you can look into Arca-Swiss MF-two or Linhof Techno. I'm myself using a Linhof Techno for landscape photography. The Techno is best appreciated if you use tilt often and have many lenses including longer ones (where the lower lens mount cost and weight becomes significant).
When you evaluate these systems look into which focal lengths you will be using, both at first and in the future and check out which options there are and which movements you get. An Arca-Swiss RM3Di has built-in tilt in the body, but it's fixed so you can't tilt diagonally, and the +/-5 degrees will be limiting on longer lenses / closeup. Cambo has not built-in tilt but has it on special lens mounts, more expensive and not available on all lenses, but the advantage that the mount can be turned so you can tilt diagonally if you wish. ALPA has a tilt adapter.
-
This summary of tech camera capabilities (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-overview) is not all encompassing. There are many caveats and "but also note that" sort of details across the world of tech cameras. But this page will at least get you started. If you work with a good dealer they can help walk you through the shockingly-wide array of options for pancake cameras and get you a demonstration, evaluation, or rental of the options that you think fit you best.
This is an area of equipment which is especially tactile. Frankly all the major brands make very good tech cameras. Whatever fits your hands, and whatever has knobs where you think they should be and has the set of options that you need is the right choice. It's hard to narrow in on that entirely by spec sheets.
-
Do you think Hasselblad will ever come out witb an affordable FF back for the SWC? 5 mp FF is all I need.
Well, a 5MP, 56x56 mm back would be unusual, to say the least. It would have 25 micron pixels...you could shoot everything at f/45 (!) without worrying about diffraction dragging down your detail, because it's the sensor that would be dragging it down: all wider apertures would give an optically sharper PSF which is then buried and lost inside the uber-fat 25 micron pixel. The ISO range and dynamic range would both be incredible though.
The problem is still cost. Sensor costs in this business don't scale primarily with pixel count; they mainly scale with sensor size, and what you are asking for is 44% larger than the current largest digital back sensors.
Ray
-
Well, a 5MP, 56x56 mm back would be unusual, to say the least. It would have 25 micron pixels...you could shoot everything at f/45 (!) without worrying about diffraction dragging down your detail, because it's the sensor that would be dragging it down: all wider apertures would give an optically sharper PSF which is then buried and lost inside the uber-fat 25 micron pixel. The ISO range and dynamic range would both be incredible though.
The problem is still cost. Sensor costs in this business don't scale primarily with pixel count; they mainly scale with sensor size, and what you are asking for is 44% larger than the current largest digital back sensors.
Ray
That is too bad about the scale to price. Without FF the SWC has no interest for me. I love that cam, shot lots of great pix with it back in the day.
http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691521-crazy
http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691531-gypsy-woman
But film is not very practical nowadays. At least with color neg. I got to mail it away for developing.
-
Hi,
Ray is right about the costs. The cost of sensors is mainly related to chip estate (surface). There is a premium for higher resolutions but that is probably mostly due to marketing reasons.
Best regards
Erik
That is too bad about the scale to price. Without FF the SWC has no interest for me. I love that cam, shot lots of great pix with it back in the day.
http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691521-crazy
http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/691531-gypsy-woman
But film is not very practical nowadays. At least with color neg. I got to mail it away for developing.