BernardMiller

Another place you could ask for advice--if you haven't solved your problem yet--is the Facebook group devoted to the F2. It is owned and moderated by Sover Wong, one of the world's foremost F2 experts/repairers/restorers. You will definitely find people there who can advice you. https://www.facebook.com/groups/286168275667508 As a matter of fact, the top current post (11/25/23) may have some bearing on your problem--along with a solution.

Very sad news indeed, so sorry to hear it. David did a few jobs for me--and I was always very happy with the quality and highly reasonable speed every time. His prices weren't the cheapest--but, considering you had someone who really knew what they were doing working on your gear, and who was going to be thorough and stand behind it, they were certainly just and worth paying. The nicest thing about David was that if you ever needed help or advice on fixing a problem yourself--or if you did indeed need to send it to him--he was always a phone call or e-mail away. He'd recommend everything possible for you to try--patiently and thoroughly--to see if a problem could be fixed at your end first rather than having to send it to him. It's sad we've all lost someone whom we could rely on to keep our beloved old Hasselblads working. And even more, someone who *loved* that work, and had dedicated himself to being as good and reliable at it as possible, and to serving his customers faithfully and well, for decades. My condolences to his family, friends, and loved ones, who have even more reason than us to mourn his passing.

I really don't think there's any mystery to all of this--it sounds like some folks are getting borderline "The Moon landing was a hoax!" on us, which is just silly. (Why am I sure we went to the Moon? Because, basically--it's *easy*. I mean, it does cost a butt ton of money for the hardware, and to make sure it works well enough that the folks we sent up there make it back safely and don't die. But it's only 240,000 miles away, hell that's far less than a pubic hair width in astronomical terms.) When you get the Sun in or just outside of the frame, whether it's with an earthbound Hasselblad or a Moon 'Blad, you're gonna get: shadows from the film gate on the edge of the negs, multiple reflections (off both faces of the Réseau plate on the Moon, off the curved surface of at least the rear lens element front surface and possibly other lens element surfaces, and possibly from internal camera structures), flare & ghosts, etc. And if you're getting specular reflections off metallic surfaces on the LEM or elsewhere, *they're* going to cause weird flares and other effects. Not only that, you're gonna get something else within the film that nobody's mentioned explicitly above (although someone has noticed the effects): halation. NASA did work with Kodak to design a film which reduced that as much as feasible--but when you're getting sunlight that's totally unfiltered by any kind of atmosphere coming straight into your lens, there's no way you're gonna be able to mitigate that much at all appreciably, let alone eliminating it entirely. So I believe that some people are at risk of going down weird rabbit holes, and staring too long at inconsequential things to the point their brains start convincing them--as they are so good at doing--that they're seeing some sort of pattern that really isn't there...like Jesus on a potato chip or something.

Thanks bigly to rodeo_joe|1--this is a potentially very useful thread to those of us with SB-800s. Very easy to follow, fantastic, cheers! One of my very earliest memories, I must have been three or four years old (this would have been mid 1960s), a TV repairman came to our house to work on the TV. He apparently touched that thing with a screwdriver; he let out a yell, and the screwdriver flew out of his hand accompanied by a loud pop--the shock had actually split the plastic handle.

I actually found Bytesmith's attitude refreshing, honestly. The original poster, Lon, *did* get shouted down rudely and unnecessarily. Bytesmith has indeed added some hard information here, which is potentially useful to those of us troubleshooting Speedotron cables, who aren't intending to mess around with any part of the unit which might kill us. This site is, I'd think, for sharing knowledge--if that includes a listing of the potential dangers, fine. Mocking the original poster, basically, and then getting panties in a wad when someone who can provide the sought after information takes a gentle potshot at *that* kind of attitude is the bit that's extra.

What about the Zeiss 120 Makro-Planar CF/CFi for Hasselblad V, with an adapter for your favourite 35mm camera? Mine is extremely sharp, and I've noticed no aberrations. Since it's designed to cover 6cm x 6cm, you'd be using only the centre "sweet spot" of the lens on 35mm. And if you're using it for macro, with a tripod, etc., it shouldn't be too awkward employed that way. It'd give you a bit of extra working distance, too, over a 100mm lens, and the Hasselblad extension tubes aren't terribly expensive to get you to 1:1.

Unfortunately, I don't own or have access to the 100mm Planar, so I haven't tried it yet. If it's as good as reputed, it should be brilliant!

Cheers! I have no complaints, really, To me, it's better than my 36-megapixel Nikon D810. Because to print a portrait from that camera, you're generally going to crop some off the bottom of the 3:2 ratio to fit standard print sizes, so by the time you throw some of that away to get to, say, a 16x20 print, you're at roughly 22 megapixels anyway. In my opinion, the Zeiss lenses look far superior to the Nikkor output (I normally use the 24-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 AFS Nikon zooms), and I really prefer the color I get from the Kodak sensor, too, over what the Nikon puts out. Reds are *way* better, particularly, on the medium format sensor.

I'm afraid I can't offer a comparison of V series glass vs. XCD lenses on digital. What I can do, which may be useful to some following this thread, is show full-resolution what a couple of the V series lenses do on a fairly old digital back. And I can give my impressions of a few other lenses used the same way. I run a portrait studio in West Orlando, and my setup is a Hasselblad 553ELX with a 2004-vintage Sinarback 54M mounted on it. It's got the venerable 22-megapixel (36 x 48mm) Kodak KAF-22000 CCD sensor that was common in many backs of that era. This particular back has no screen, no battery, and no memory card slot, so it has to be tethered to an older MacBook Pro. These are full-resolution JPEGs (or close to; I may have slightly cropped one or both of the portraits). They've had a bit of post-processing, including a touch of NIK Sharpener, but you can see what's there for all practical purposes. The two portraits were taken with, I think in both cases, the 180mm Sonnar (CFi version), the very tight face shot with an extension tube, can't remember which one, but it was likely the 10mm and 21mm used together (and if it wasn't that combo, it was the 55mm by itself). The final one is a closeup of the fibres of a jute coffee sack hanging on my studio wall, shot with the 120mm Makro-Planar on the Hasselblad Auto Bellows at maximum extension (on both the lens and the bellows). I just wanted to see what that combo could do when pressed to the extreme; I was fairly careful, if not scrupulously so, in trying to get the camera aligned properly to the plane of the wall. All three were shot with strobes. http://www.presquevu.com/x8505.jpg http://www.presquevu.com/vs35.jpg http://www.presquevu.com/macro.jpg The macro shot, by the way, encompassed an area of less than 1.5 x 2 inches. I also use the 150mm Sonnar CF and at portrait distance it is really, really good. It's not quite as spectacular as the 180, but it's certainly very capable. Plus I have the 80mm Planar CF version which I use for full body shots. At that distance, it's good but not great. But when you get closer and shoot mid-body or nearer with it, it becomes impressively punchy indeed. Finally, I have the floating element 50mm Distagon CF and I've found it quite good, too, although I haven't used it enough in the studio with the digital back to draw any firm conclusions on where it ranks. But yes, I would class the 180mm and the 120mm macro as outstanding performers on digital. The 150mm Sonnar is very good--it may not be as razor sharp as the XCD lenses, but you can print up to 16x20 inches (and more) with fantastic detail; I've done so. The 80 is a bit meh under some circumstances, and I suspect, from the times I have used the 50mm FLE, that it doesn't lag at all far behind the 180 and the 120. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful!

Sorry, I'm very late to this discussion--I can't believe I missed it! For a period of about two years, from 2014 to 2016, I used this combination. I don't remember exactly which adapter I used, but it was the standard Sinar adapter for the RZ67--I purchased the digital back and adapter together from a seller in South London who had updated to a more recent Sinar digital back. He had been using it in his product photography studio. I loved the combination! In fact, I liked the back so much--particularly given its current price (when you can find one)--that I'm currently using a second one on a Hasselblad 553ELX in my portrait studio in Orlando, Florida. What I mean is, when I had to move back from London to the US, I had to sell quite a bit of stuff to fund the move. I had to choose between keeping my RZ67 kit with the digital back, or my Hasselblad gear--I'd have to sell the other to generate some cash. I decided finally (and painfully) to sell the RZ67, as I could use the Hasselblad both in the studio and out and about, and I didn't know precisely what my future held when I returned to the US. When I got back to the US, within a few months I decided I really needed to get another digital back. So I found another 54M on eBay, and the Hasselblad V adapter from a different seller. I've been using them ever since late 2016. I also own a Nikon D810 and several highly regarded Nikkor lenses. But for studio portraiture, I vastly prefer the images I get from the Sinarback 54M and either the RZ67 or my Hasselblad. It is a bit of an awkward combination, as you know if you've researched it--which it sounds like you did. For those reading this for future reference, the 54M is ancient (2004 vintage) and so has no battery, no screen and no memory card slot--you have to shoot it tethered (via FireWire), and the software (CaptureShop) will only work on a Mac. And you'd have to use an older MacOS, it's 32-bit only. (Up to High Sierra, it worked perfectly fine. After I moved to Mojave, the software still works to control the camera, but I can't see preview images of the files in CaptureShop--I have to import them into a folder where I use Adobe Bridge to view them.) At one time about a year and a half ago, I speculated in a Facebook forum about "upgrading" from this back, only to have several photographers tell me they'd used this same Kodak sensor (it was found in a variety of backs of the time) and that they had been disappointed by this change, despite having more megapixels in their new backs. They recommended I stick to this back/sensor combination, which I have done. Using this combination is even better with the RZ67 than with my Hasselblad, simply because of the rotating back. Makes life much, much more convenient, definitely! If you'd like to see a full-size example of what the 180 W-N lens can do with this back, here's a portrait I made with the combination. It's had a bit of sharpening applied for print, so it'll look a bit over sharpened when viewed at full resolution. But you'll definitely be able to see what it can produce. http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg

Both great cameras, and in many ways very similar in operation. I chose the FE myself. Why? I rarely use the camera in really low light situations, and I really like the way the match-needle meter of the FE allows me to gauge proper exposure--and intentional over- or under-exposure--in good light. I also like the fact I *can* use aperture priority, even though I rarely do. If I were shooting in low light situations more often, I'd probably prefer an FM series camera--or acquire one to go along with my FE (why not, I have two FEs already, one black and one chrome)--as the LED meter is much more useful in situations where the needle is hard to see. One thing I'd recommend, whichever camera you get: find a K3 screen, for the FM3a and put in it. I've pimped out both my FEs with one, and it's a good bit better than the original focussing screen. You may have to do some exposure compensation after, but you'll likely find it a very pleasant upgrade.

Not sure if you're aware of it--sounds like maybe not--but one of the folks (some would say one of the greats) who clung to film for publication use long after most people went digital finally gave it up way back in 2008 because he was worried about losing months (or more) of hard work (and on one occasion did lose over 50 rolls of film) because some officious jobsworth at an airport somewhere was going to ruin it by refusing to hand inspect it and maybe zap it with some destructive level of radiation. Sebastiao Salgado now shoots digitally--although his assistants produce simulated contact sheets for him, and he has the digital image "printed" to a 4x5 inch film negative, so that the final, published images at least have some of the look of film. (The POV Interview: Sebastião Salgado – Point of View Magazine) I love to shoot film--I just bought an RZ67 kit so I can shoot more of it, including loads of color film I've had in the freezer for ages. But any idea that you can demand hand inspection at some foreign airport (again, TSA officials in the US have been, in 100% of my many experiences, totally okay with it) and that you're going to get satisfaction every time may very well, I fear, run up against the reality that the world--and particular individuals in it--don't always move to our expectations.

It shouldn't be a problem if you're taking film with you overseas from the US, if you can get it processed abroad. I've never had a problem with a TSA agent refusing to hand-inspect film, and I've actually had a few brief but pleasant conversations about film photography while they were doing so. But don't even think about trying to get the people at Heathrow to do a hand inspection. Trust me, I have tried--being as polite as possible, turning on (tastefully) the charm, explaining that some of the film will be pushed beyond ISO 800, etc. It's not gonna happen, they're curtly going to tell you to throw it through the scanner with everything else. As someone who splits time between the US and the UK and has made that trip frequently, I can assure you that you'll get no satisfaction or consideration at that airport. Bloody philistines.

And here's another image posted in Classic Nikon Maintenance on FB--it's titled "A very rare lens." The discussion, such as it is (if you have access to Facebook) is here: Facebook.

That photo was taken by the gentleman who repaired the lens, who I would gather from what little information was posted on FB is not the current owner. There was another post, I can't remember on which of the two forums, where a photo showed the lens partially disassembled, and it was captioned, "Servicing the unicorn lens." So as other folks speculated, I'm guessing this one--and the other specimen out there somewhere--must have been prototypes that Nikon decided not to bring to market. Bit of a shame, because that looks like a b*tchin' lens!