Rolo Posted May 31, 2013 Share #221 Posted May 31, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rolo, are you reading me correctly? Yes I am Erl, completely. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Hi Rolo, Take a look here How many Leica owners also have a Hasselblad ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Stealth3kpl Posted June 23, 2013 Share #222 Posted June 23, 2013 I have a 45degree finder with a built in Diopter of correction. I don't need the correction. Will it unscrew or is it fixed? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted June 23, 2013 Share #223 Posted June 23, 2013 I have a 45degree finder with a built in Diopter of correction. I don't need the correction. Will it unscrew or is it fixed? Pete It will unscrew but when you remove it you will need to replace it with another lens even if you require no adjustment. There are 0 (Neutral) lenses available. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 23, 2013 Share #224 Posted June 23, 2013 Well exposed, processed and scanned 120 film, prints to 36"x36" easily. Not so the M9, I'm afraid. :-) I'd say ANY image can be printed to ANY size. I've seen Holga pictures printed to 40" x 40". I've seen Salgado's 35mm TMax 3200 printed to 40" x 60". Were they sharp down to the last 1/100 of a mm in the final print? No. But so what? If you're going to say the M9 (or any camera) can't be printed to such and such a size, you'd better be able to explain the standard you are using - that applies to that camera, but not to a Holga or 3200 ISO 35mm as well. HOWEVER - I had an epiphany yesterday. The shop where I work just acquired a Hassy SWC/M (back on topic), and as I was driving to work, I was mulling the pros and cons of swapping a pricey but little-used M lens for the SWC. Sitting in traffic, I noticed someone in the next lane driving a classic 1957 Chevrolet - the epitome of 1950's American excess. 18" fins, tons of chrome, the fuel efficiency of a HumVee, the safety features (outside of its massive build) of a shark-infested pool. I wondered, "Why would anyone want to drive an archaic, underperforming machine like that, in the era of air-bagged, safety-belted Smart Cars and hybrids?" And realized: Because - it - is - FUN! Today I am down one Leica lens and up one Hasselblad. I don't care that my M9 and 15mm C/V (cropped square) will generally equal the SWC at most rational print sizes (and won't be directly replaced by it). The appeal of the SWC is as a ratchety grindy solid old chunk of metal and glass that takes square pictures with a unique perspective - in about as small a package as possible. In a way it is a throwback to my first-ever "creative" use of a camera - 43 years ago when I was handed a Diana and a roll of 120 Agfa ISS in a high-school art class. Square window finder, focusing by setting the distance on the lens scale, "sunny 16" for the exposure, point it and snap. (Of course, the lens is sharper. And I do get shutter options beyond "B" and "I" and apertures that aren't marked "Sun/Shade/Clouds". ) The SWC will be fun. The M9 will continue to be fun. The Canon 5D2 and 300mm lens won't be quite as much fun (but more fun than the SWC when photographing wildlife or sports action ) 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted June 23, 2013 Share #225 Posted June 23, 2013 If you're going to say the M9 (or any camera) can't be printed to such and such a size, you'd better be able to explain the standard you are using - that applies to that camera, but not to a Holga or 3200 ISO 35mm as well. ) MY Standard, Andy, and as I'm not trying to influence you in any way, it's the only standard that matters. I off-loaded my M9-P and M9 at the end of last year and cancelled my order for the M240 and haven't missed them. Each to their own, eh ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 23, 2013 Share #226 Posted June 23, 2013 The SWC will be fun. It is my favorite MF wide angle. FWIW, a handy accessory for exact framing is the ground glass back that accommodates any of the viewfinders. The 90 degree finder works well. This shot required it: http://www.digoliardi.net/lib.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 23, 2013 Share #227 Posted June 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) MY Standard, Andy, and as I'm not trying to influence you in any way, it's the only standard that matters. Ah, the magic of solipsism! Irrefutable and indefensible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted June 23, 2013 Share #228 Posted June 23, 2013 Some philosophers, notably Bertrand Russell, hold the viewpoint that solipsism is entirely empty and without content. Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penzes Posted June 23, 2013 Share #229 Posted June 23, 2013 Andy, I understand you perfectly! SWC Profile by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 23, 2013 Share #230 Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) In my modest experience, adequately exposed MF negatives are so much easier to print in the wet darkroom. That, and my growing disinterest in social affairs is why I am leaving little, but nimble formats. 35mm has always been a greater challenge. When I was a press photographer juried presentations required 16X20" prints which the judges viewed from any distance they wished. I sweated through producing good prints. Being one who was an Available Darkness freak I saw my work in globules of grain. It did not, apparently, diminish the work in the opinion of news photography editors. Today it seems to me that the angst of photojournalistic making The Picture is being unfortunately influenced by a photographer's fear of being considered as being digitally incompetent. A shame is when 'being there' with a consistent vision and personal visual vocabulary is judged by strict 'what it could have been' technical metrics. Which strangely opens the gates to picture makers who master a cell phone camera in the spirit of us Olde Phartes who used 35mm when others were using 4x5 and MF. So the loop is closing in these interesting times which I glimpse ony occasionally while looking over my shoulder, moving on. Edited June 23, 2013 by pico Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted June 23, 2013 Share #231 Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) I like my SWC/M, too. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited June 23, 2013 by Rolo Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/159392-how-many-leica-owners-also-have-a-hasselblad/?do=findComment&comment=2356783'>More sharing options...
pico Posted June 23, 2013 Share #232 Posted June 23, 2013 This is an image I posted years ago. It shows a strange Linhof grip that fits any Hasselblad. I use it now with a SWC since a hand injury. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted June 24, 2013 Share #233 Posted June 24, 2013 Pico, I had a grip very similar, but it was a genuine Hasselblad accessory. Eventually, I discovered it was the main cause of camera shake in my images! I reverted to the classic 'Victor's' grip and my images sharpened up noticeably. These days I have the winder for the 203FE which can serve as a grip, but I still prefer the classic method originally designed by VH. I realize you have your own a reason for using the grip. That 45 prism take s me back to my first 45 Deg finder. An NC-2 if I remember correctly. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted July 1, 2016 Share #234 Posted July 1, 2016 Can I ask about bellows? I am interested in getting 1:1 or higher magnification. Is it possible to use bellows (which one?) with an 80/2.8 FE and a 203FE or must I get the 135mm with the special bellows extension or another macro lens with bellows? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted July 1, 2016 Share #235 Posted July 1, 2016 Can I ask about bellows? I am interested in getting 1:1 or higher magnification. Is it possible to use bellows (which one?) with an 80/2.8 FE and a 203FE or must I get the 135mm with the special bellows extension or another macro lens with bellows? I can't answer with any experience, Philip, but this may help on exposure compensation using the 80mm Planar and extension tubes or bellows (plug the extension distance into the "extra extension" field)... http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTCuC.aspx 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted July 1, 2016 Share #236 Posted July 1, 2016 Love my old squares: Two Old Squares by chrism229, on Flickr and more recently joined by this one: Hasselblad SWC by chrism229, on Flickr Chris 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailronin Posted July 1, 2016 Share #237 Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) I've changed my stable, sold the HB 501cm and CFV50 (along with Nikon stuff, Technikardan, Xpan, and assorted lenses) to purchase an S (006) several months ago. In the past three months have gone back into Hasselblad with a 503CW and SWC as I missed film. Still shoot the S and really enjoy it but film is still special, don't care how good digital gets (and the CFV 50 is pretty damn good as is the S) but film has a "texture" and depth that even great digital lacks w/o modification to emulate film. IMHO SWC with Fuji Acros SWC with Fuji RFP100 Edited July 1, 2016 by Sailronin 14 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share #238 Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Can I ask about bellows? I am interested in getting 1:1 or higher magnification. Is it possible to use bellows (which one?) with an 80/2.8 FE and a 203FE or must I get the 135mm with the special bellows extension or another macro lens with bellows? I bought an extension tube for my 501 a few years ago, I think it is about 67 mm. I can do a 1:1 with it, at least it seems like that to me. If you look at the flower shots in Doc's film section you can see what it does. I paid about $50 for it used. Wayne Edited July 1, 2016 by too old to care 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailronin Posted July 1, 2016 Share #239 Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) I use extension tubes, a 55mm and 21mm. They can be used in combination and get greater than 1:1 with an 80mm. I think I paid $20 each for them! Edited July 1, 2016 by Sailronin 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share #240 Posted July 1, 2016 Beautiful. Nothing else to say. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now