Richard G
Veteran
As above but with Leitz tabletop tripod and the small ball head.

Cristina Re Teacup by Richard, on Flickr

Cristina Re Teacup by Richard, on Flickr
I bought a 32mm extension tube and took some shots with the 150 Sonnar mostly. This one is the best of them. It was taken with the camera resting on the table, focusing by moving the body then mirror up and cable release. This is1/2s f11 in south facing (Southern Hemisphere) window light.
Nautilus by Richard, on Flickr
Thanks Vince. It was an absorbing experience the first use of this, and there was a sense of great control of the process unlike autofocus with my little Fuji X100. (Which I think I’ve lost in the last two weeks.)
Is it easier to move the camera or easier to move the subject? I’m wondering if it’s easier to move the subject into focus rather than the camera?
BTW I just recently went down the 1000f rabbit hole - I thought it was bad enough with Ermanoxes! I’m pretty hopeless.
Vince, I always like seeing your photos! but ...
Hmm. I would question that the Epson flat bed scanner produces superior results to the copy camera approach having done both for many years. It does produce scans with more pixels, but I found the dynamic range lacking compared to the Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000, and my tests scanning with the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c or Leica M10 Monochrom outperforms the Nikon film scanner on dynamic range.
Most of the advantages of a flatbed or film scanner compared to the repro-copy scanning technique come from how accurately they can hold the negative and keep it flat, and how well the scanning element can be positioned orthogonally to the negative, which are problems solved for the repro methodology with a good negative carrier solution and a good copy stand, properly set up. The other advantage to flatbed or film scanning methodology is applications that automate the conversions from negative to positive (VueScan, SilverFast, etc) rather than relying upon LR or PS type apps which have limited tools to automate this kind of work.
Note: I still have and occasionally use my Nikon Coolscan V film scanner. The best part about it for my use is the ability to set up a scanning app, in my case VueScan, to automate scanning and rendering of small format (35mm full-frame/half-frame/square format, and APS) negatives several at a time. But I am ultimately getting better results with the repro methodology and don't do the volume of film that I once did.
G
Maybe what I should do is a side-by-side comparison between the 907x, the Nikon Z7 and the V850. And maybe even throw in a drum scan for good measure. I’m sure willing to be convinced otherwise, but as I currently see it the V850 with Silverfast Ai Studio 9 is more versatile for and better-suited to my needs. I think the other thing is for me to have a 'fixed' method of scanning, rather than the camera scan setup, which I didn't particularly like.
A lovely image, and very nostalgic. No one hangs their clothes on the line anymore, it seems.
And it's nice to see that your new old Hasselblad can kick it with the best of them!
fortunately I got it with a full CLA and it works beautifully.
Do you know who serviced it? I've got a 1600F that could use some help, but folks like Odess do not work on these older models.
Not many people will touch a 1600F in recent years. They had their issues when new, and parts are a problem. Radu Lesaru at 3r specifically mentions them, however and he has a good reputation as a technician who is willing to work on the unusual, rare or unconventional designs few others will touch. I have never used him because I do my own repairs, but I can't say I've ever read any complaints about his workmanship, and that is unusual.Do you know who serviced it? I've got a 1600F that could use some help, but folks like Odess do not work on these older models.