Hasselblad SWC is cool

I once grabbed my SWC for a couple quick shots, and after not having used it in a while, I completely forgot to focus. Shots came out great anyway.
 
Levi Wedel said:
I have the 7II and 50. It's easier to use than the SWC because it's about as wide a field of view horizontally, but vertically cropped. That said, the SWC has a very unique look.

The SWC works best hyperfocal focused. F8 is about as low as I dare go without using the ground glass attachment. F8 will show some dof and it can be guessed, but at wider apertures it can be hard. I don't think 4.5 would have very much in focus anyway, and there's probably mechanical vignetting. I haven't tried it, so I can't say. Most commonly I shoot at F16.

By everyday use, it depends what you mean. If you want precise focus and selective focus, the 7II will be a better choice. I like the SWC myself and wouldn't trade it for the 43mm. As for the 50mm, they do different things. I would recommend the newer SWC viewfinder. It's accuracy is good at hyperfocal. Close framing will always be a problem because of parallax, but it can be guessed most of the time. The viewfinder only shows the top 2/3rds of the image, so you have to look down and pan up, which sounds hard but isn't. You can still see the bottom edges of the frame, just not the center bottom (lens is in the way). For critical work, the reflex viewfinder and ground glass make the SWC much better than the 7II. In terms of joy to operate, I prefer the SWC. It handles really well and is fast to use. Not many parts, no battery, nothing to think about. Point and shoot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply.

How precise are the framelines? Are they too tight, too loose or just right? Would one still see the framelines with glasses? Also does the film back get in your way when you put your eye on the finder? I also heard that the image in the finder is mirrored horizontally. Is that true?

Then for the lens: should I keep away from non-*T versions or doesn't it make a big difference? People also advise to get the CF lens versions because of the prontor shutter. Sadly those are quite more expensive than the compur shutter versions. How expensive would it be to repair a compur shutter compared to a prontor shutter? Is a compur shutter even repairable at all anymore?
 
raid said:
Frank,
You will absolutely love this camera. It may be a Leica killer!
Click to expand...
I made a better one..!Hasselblad Flexbody cassette back with film advance, mated to a NIKKOR PC 35mm :2,8 (covers full 6X6 frame !) and between a Prontor professional shutter. that gives strobe synch as well as multiple exposure possibility. Because of the PC nikkor , it has also some perspective correction.
Besides: It can be used with hassy Digital backs, because of the nikko`s retrofocus design. The Biogon is too near the sensor, so the edges are really unsharp on Digital ( no problem with film, though...) It didn`t kill any of my leicas, not even the M8...
 
So I got to try out the SWC at a camera store today.

They were selling it for 35000€ :eek:

It was bigger and heavier than I imagined. Not very comfortable to hold and operate in my opinion. The finder however was pretty bad. It was the old metal one. The image was very small, like that of a compact like the canon g and to my surprise there were no framelines besides a small circle in the center.

But I still have to say that I am intrigued by the camera and would like to try it out in field.
 
need to "pre visualize"

need to "pre visualize"

The finder of the SWC is there to help frame a bit, but I find that after using it for a while, you get to know what things look like and it works great. The bubble is the most useful part!
 
deardorff8x10 said:
The finder of the SWC is there to help frame a bit, but I find that after using it for a while, you get to know what things look like and it works great. The bubble is the most useful part!
Click to expand...

Yeah the idea with the bubble is genius. But I don't like how with glasses I have to look around the finder to see the edges.

BTW how does the FOV of the Mamiya 7 43mm compare to the 38mm of the SWC? If I understand correctly the FOV of the 43mm on 6x7 is the same as of the 38mm on 6x6 but with a bit of the top and bottom cut off right?
 
mrak said:
Thanks for your reply.

How precise are the framelines? Are they too tight, too loose or just right? Would one still see the framelines with glasses? Also does the film back get in your way when you put your eye on the finder? I also heard that the image in the finder is mirrored horizontally. Is that true?

Then for the lens: should I keep away from non-*T versions or doesn't it make a big difference? People also advise to get the CF lens versions because of the prontor shutter. Sadly those are quite more expensive than the compur shutter versions. How expensive would it be to repair a compur shutter compared to a prontor shutter? Is a compur shutter even repairable at all anymore?
Click to expand...

Sorry, for some reason the forum didn't send me an email notification for the reply!

The framelines seem very precise to me when hyperfocal focused. The edges of the frame are the most important to my work, and it always seems bang on. If in doubt, you can always frame slightly wider, but I've never had a problem. With the new finder glasses are not a problem (haven't tried the old). I wear glasses always when using the SWC. It's easy to look through and the film back does not get in the way (I have a big nose and am left-eyed too; my nose touches the back lightly).

I'm not sure about the shutter repairs. My friend has a non-T* version I think, and doesn't seem to have any problems. They seem about the same, unless shooting directly into the sun, and even then I'm not sure the difference is great, but I don't know for sure. The finder is just a piece of glass so it's not mirrored. Having the bubble level inside is amazing (the trick to shooting that wide of an angle and keeping it natural looking is to shoot it level). The finder is quite distorted but gives a good idea of what will be shot. The M7II 50mm finder in contrast is not distorted at all, but mine is out of level (both the finder and the bubble level, separately) making it not great to use, and searching it seems to be a common issue.

The SWC new finder has only a couple frame lines—just the corners of where the frame is, and then space all the way around to see outside the frame. It also has the circle in the center. If you got the reflex finder (ground glass for the back), that one is mirrored because it's on the back. With just the ground glass and no finder it is mirrored vertically and horizonally like a large format camera. The ground glass has frame lines at a few intervals making it easier to square to architecture.

The field of view of the M7 43mm is the same vertically as the SWC but it is wider horizontally. The field of view of the M7 50mm is the same horizontally as the SWC (24mm equivalent in 35mm terms) but the 50mm is cropped vertically in comparison. I find the extra width of the 43mm shows more distortion for objects on the sides, like any wide angle. The crop of the SWC hides it more.
 
"The field of view of the M7 43mm is the same vertically as the SWC but it is wider horizontally." I think you got it wrong. 43/56 is not the same as 38/56.
 
Dear Levi,
Not that this is something, that does not let me sleep, but mathematics is not an opinion, therefore, given, that a 120 roll film is producing an image 56mm high both on SWC and Mamiya 7, a 38mm lens will necessarily have a wider vertical coverage than a 43mm lens, no matter what pages you want me to look at. 38/56=0.68 and 43/56=0.77
On the other hand, a 72mm wide negative covered with a 43mm lens will exhibit a wider horizontal angle of coverage, than a 56mm wide negative with a 38mm lens, as 43/72=0.6 and as above 38/56=0.68.
I hope this helps. Anyway, you might enjoy looking at this, just to make sure you are not missing something:


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz3vrw_through-the-wormhole-s03e02-is-there-a-superior-race_news

Best regards

Marek
 
The poster was looking for a way to approximate the field of view. If 5mm made a big difference they would make lenses on a 5mm increment. Strangely, they don't.
 
mfogiel said:
Dear Levi,
5mm can make a lot of difference if we talk about a wide angle lens, in fact, there is a lot of difference between a 20 and 25mm lens on a 35mm, obviously less so on 6x6.
However, do not get upset, it is never too late to learn. I recommend you this very instructive page:
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/03/18/how-and-why-to-become-a-lifelong-learner/
Ciao
Marek
Click to expand...

That would be very useful if this were a discussion about 35mm lenses rather than comparing the SWC to 7 lenses. With MF, one can take a half step forward or back to make up that minor difference. I'm still not clear on why this concerns you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom