merits of a hasselblad SWC vs P67II

[pollux]

I have recently seen an SWC with a metal alu lens offered with 2 film backs. I know the two cameras are different formats. how hard is it to develop the skill of focusing using the SWC? I would also like to know about typical prices of tele lenses for a pentax 67, as this is my attraction to it. If I went with an SWC I would get it serviced by hasselblad or checked by a service centre, to have extra security knowing the item does work properly. I would also be looking to get the voightlander WLF for the SWC, even though it is very limited. I could get a Pentax 67 with a 45mm lens, and I suppose it would be comparable. Is the hasselblad SWC magic there, or is this essentially overrated?

 

[Sirius Glass]

You do not post where you live. That could make a difference with service. For example, in the US you could send it to Hasselblad in New Jersey, David Odess on the east coast, or see Michael at Samys Camera in Los Angeles on Fairfax. For adjustments, Michael will stop his work and help me with my Hasselblad while I wait.

Steve

 

[pollux]

I am in the UK. The item is stated in good condition with photos. My worry is just low light shooting with the hassie, needing to stop down to gain depth of field. This click and grab street photography under low light might present a problem, as I don't know what depth of field the 38mm lens has at f4.5.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am in the UK. The item is stated in good condition with photos. My worry is just low light shooting with the hassie, needing to stop down to gain depth of field. This click and grab street photography under low light might present a problem, as I don't know what depth of field the 38mm lens has at f4.5.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWVSys.aspx
Select 905
See page 4 for example of DoF

After posted that I had.

G.A.S. attack did it.

Now Hasselblad 903 SWC have I!

Resist the Force of G.A.S. must I tho I cannot.

Yield to the Force did I!

Hmmm ...

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

According to The Hasselblad Manual, fifth edition, Ernst Wildi, "At the maximum aperture of f/4.5 the depth of field extends from 3 meters (10 ft.) to infinity, obviously within a range anyone can estimate. With the aperature closed down for f/22 the depti of field rand is from 26 inchest (0.6 m) to infinity."

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

Congrats with your newest acquisition, Steve.
You'll enjoy it.
As if you didn't know that ...



Remember that depth of field is 'acceptable' unsharpness.
'Acceptable', because it is assumed that you will not see that things aren't really sharp.
A rather risky assumption.
So better forget about depth of field and preset, DOF-based focussing, and try your best to guesstimate the distance to your subject and set that, each and every time.



Anyway, i think the SWC is indeed overrated. Only slightly, but still overrated.
The lens is great. Low distortion. And it's sharp.

It's great disadvantage is that viewing and focussing thing.
To get the best out of the lens, there's no way round accurate focussing. What good is a sharp lens if you are going to rely on 'acceptable' unsharpness?
And you can indeed focus the thing accurately, if you put a groundglass back on it. But then what you are doing changes rather drastically. No more quick, candid photography.

And framing too is rather difficult. Like with all non-reflex cameras, you don't get what you see through the viewfinder. There is a parallax-problem (though small) and the fields of view of lens and viewfinder aren't 100% the same. The lens obscures a good part of the bottom edge of the viewfinder image to boot.
Sounds bad, but it isn't really. But real it is.
This too is solved by using a groundglass back.

There is another answer within the Hasselblad system to these 'how-to-solve-these-issues' questions, besides using a groundglass back, and that is using a 40 mm lens on a reflex camera.
The retrofocus lenses have more distortion (though still not too bad) and are just as good as the Biogon in every other respect.



But don't let that all deter you.
The SWC is still a great camera. And not at all difficult to use.
You get used to the quirks, and learn how to guesstimate the distance to set, no worries.
But to get the best out of it, use a tripod and a groundglass back.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a metered PME 45 degree finder and I plan to get the focusing screen adapter.

I am a little concerned about the best way to compensate for the parallax when I am using the viewfinder. Unlike the Mamiya CXX family, the viewfinder does not show the compensation for parallax.

I felt that the extra weight of the 40mm lens and the distortion pushed me to the SWC.

Steve

 

[John Koehrer]

The concern with parallax on that camera is being blown way out of proportion.
Unless you're doing close-up work the differential is minimal and your pulse will have just about as much effect as the parallax.
If you need the accuracy then you need the GG back and tripod.

 

[Q.G.]

To deal with the field of view issue, all you need is to remember the figures in the picture below.

These figures apply at all distances.
For instance, the viewfinder always shows 5" more on top, i.e. the viewfinder's top field of view boundary is 5" above that of the taking lens.
It's always the same 5", so the further away the subject/the larger the field of view, the smaller the extra bit on top is relative to the size of the field of view.


You can't fix the different perspective.


I agree, John, that it should be seen in proportion.
At a focussing distance of about 1 m, so relatively close, the field of view is about 50", so the viewfinder is out on top by about 10%.
At a focussing distance of 3 m, the fault is reduced to about 3%. At 10 m it is less than 1%.

But at the close focus limit of the lens, about 12", the difference on top is a whopping 47% of the field of view.

As the picture shows, different figures apply for the sides and the bottom of the field of view.

So you do have to keep awake when using the SWC.
The parallax can be negligible. But it can be a real problem too.

 

[Ian Grant]

What every one has failed to say is the SWC lens is optimal, it's a true wide angle lens rather than a retro-focus design needed to clear the mirrors of many MF cameras.

So you could have one of the very best wide angle lenses available, generally you need LF to get similar quality from the lens. Hasselblad knew this so made the best WA lens camera, even though they made an equivalent focal length for their other camearas, the difference in quality is worth while.

Ian

 

[whlogan]

Here's what.... take it out with a couple of rolls of TriX, rating them at 800 and do a day of street work with the 903... a filter, orange if you like or yellow, and develop the film in Diafine.... all your doubts and fears will be erased and your love for the Hassy will never, ever again waver.... trust me... I have the much older version, with an un-matched view finder and some older backs but my love for that camera is boundless, as will be yours..... go play in the street.... shoot wildly.... have fun....

Logan

 

[Q.G.]

What every one has failed to say is the SWC lens is optimal, it's a true wide angle lens rather than a retro-focus design needed to clear the mirrors of many MF cameras.

So you could have one of the very best wide angle lenses available, generally you need LF to get similar quality from the lens. Hasselblad knew this so made the best WA lens camera, even though they made an equivalent focal length for their other camearas, the difference in quality is worth while.

You must bear in mind though that the Biogon and the camera body it needed, was made in the early 1950s, when retrofocus lenses were still in their very early infancy.
So Hasselblad indeed knew that he needed the Biogon to get a great wide angle lens ... at that time.

The retrofocus lenses you can get today are very good as well.
Second to a Biogon only when distortion is concerned. Better than the Biogon when even illumination of field is concerned. Just as good as resolution and contrast is concerned.

So yes, the Biogon is a great lens. But it has a bit of outdated myth about it.

 

[nik4s]

I love mine. I use it like a view camera though, groundglass, rmfx finder, then replacing with magazine. Very sharp, and light carrying around. Just my 2 cents. Good Luck!

John

 

[takef586]

pollux
I think you are on the wrong track altogether.
For fast street shooting, you should get a rangefinder - if you really must have MF, than the Mamiyas 6 and 7 foot the bill, as well as some Fuji 6x4,5 models, while what you really should use is a Leica or a Zeiss Ikon ZM.
The SWC with a silver lens, is the earliest version, so the camera is pretty old, and you could have problems with long shutter speeds. I am sure it can be serviced in the UK, but apart from the shutter, there isn't really much else which can go wrong with it. This camera is great, and I have shot in the street with it, set to hyperfocal and f16.0 or 22.0 with Tri X which I developed later either in Acufine (EI 800) or Diafine (EI 1250). However for me, this is more of a landscape or architecture camera, which thrives on a tripod.

 

[Q.G.]

The SWC with a silver lens, is the earliest version, [...]

It is the third version.

 

[Sirius Glass]

pollux
I think you are on the wrong track altogether.
For fast street shooting, you should get a rangefinder - if you really must have MF, than the Mamiyas 6 and 7 foot the bill, as well as some Fuji 6x4,5 models, while what you really should use is a Leica or a Zeiss Ikon ZM.
The SWC with a silver lens, is the earliest version, so the camera is pretty old, and you could have problems with long shutter speeds. I am sure it can be serviced in the UK, but apart from the shutter, there isn't really much else which can go wrong with it. This camera is great, and I have shot in the street with it, set to hyperfocal and f16.0 or 22.0 with Tri X which I developed later either in Acufine (EI 800) or Diafine (EI 1250). However for me, this is more of a landscape or architecture camera, which thrives on a tripod.

The SWC is built like a rangefinder but without the rangefinder. Also there are newer version of the SWC available. The production ended in 2006.

Steve

 

[lns]

I have recently seen an SWC with a metal alu lens offered with 2 film backs. I know the two cameras are different formats. how hard is it to develop the skill of focusing using the SWC? I would also like to know about typical prices of tele lenses for a pentax 67, as this is my attraction to it. If I went with an SWC I would get it serviced by hasselblad or checked by a service centre, to have extra security knowing the item does work properly. I would also be looking to get the voightlander WLF for the SWC, even though it is very limited. I could get a Pentax 67 with a 45mm lens, and I suppose it would be comparable. Is the hasselblad SWC magic there, or is this essentially overrated?

The thing about this camera is that you can shoot at slower than normal shutter speeds because there is no mirror and it is very lightweight. It is like a rangefinder in that way. The depth of field is so great that you wouldn't have to worry about focusing. For fast street shooting you probably wouldn't have time to focus anyway.

It's a great camera.

-Laura

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one has mirror bounce problems with a Hasselblad SWC, then they really have serious problems.

Steve

 

[barnstonouest]

I have recently seen an SWC with a metal alu lens offered with 2 film backs. I know the two cameras are different formats. how hard is it to develop the skill of focusing using the SWC? I would also like to know about typical prices of tele lenses for a pentax 67, as this is my attraction to it. If I went with an SWC I would get it serviced by hasselblad or checked by a service centre, to have extra security knowing the item does work properly. I would also be looking to get the voightlander WLF for the SWC, even though it is very limited. I could get a Pentax 67 with a 45mm lens, and I suppose it would be comparable. Is the hasselblad SWC magic there, or is this essentially overrated?

I have owned and used both a Hasselblad SWC and a Pentax 67 with 45mm lens. I still own the Pentax, but not the SWC. The SWC was a marvel to use - so easy, intuitive, and comfortable in the hand - but I was not impressed with Hasselblad's reliability. Both my SWC and 500CM broke down and needed adjusting constantly. Some of the issues were absurd and not acceptable in cameras at that price point. As well, the Biogon was nice, but not perfect either. People make many positive remarks about it and it was good, but overrated in my view. I am much happier making larger negatives with the Pentax. The Pentax 45mm may not be an absolute match for the Biogon, but it has solid merit and is a far better value. Being able to see the image you are working with is important and is worth more than the ephemeral "magic" the SWC offered me. Go with your gut feeling, but to me the Pentax 67 with a 45mm is a solid and functional combination.

 

[david b]

I love my 905. A relatively easy camera to use with spectacular results.

I've attached a few photos from the camera.

(still have no idea how to put them in the thread)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I love my 905. A relatively easy camera to use with spectacular results.

I've attached a few photos from the camera.

(still have no idea how to put them in the thread)

I see in the second photo that your 905 can still inspire awe with the younger set. The younger set seems to gone overboard for digital so I am quite please to see the impact of your camera!

Steve

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The one and only reason I sold my SWC/M was to finance the purchase of a 5x12 view camera. I used it a tremendous amount, far more than I ever anticipated I would when I bought it. In the end, I wasn't using medium format nearly as much as I was large/ultra-large format, so I offloaded the entire Hassy kit. But if you want it for street shooting, just stop down to f11, set it to hyperfocal, and blast away. It's so quiet, you'll never have to worry about someone catching on, especially if you don't bring it to your eye to compose.