jim_coyote

<p>Considering this mirror-pad-wear focus issue, is it worth fixing the 500C/M, or should I just look for a 503CW? </p>

<p>So I guess here is my real question: <br> Is it possible to take a portrait with the 500 c/m and the 150mm f/4 lens wide open, and get a razor-sharp image focused on the eyes? If so, how do I do it? Split image? Standard focusing screen? I welcome all advice, tips, and tricks. </p>

<p>With my 150mm CM, infinity is correct. <br> With my 50mm FLM, infinity is correct, provided I set the FLM to 4m, rather than to infinity. <br> I've read that the pads holding the mirror in place can degrade, causing the mirror to sit too deeply. I flipped the camera over, and it seems that the mirror is not firmly held in place. It rattles, and probably has around 1-2mm of movement in the pan. Is this normal? </p>

<p>Thanks, Edward. I'm beginning to wonder if the problem is that my split prism is giving me a false sense of where the focus is. I can probably account for this with a bit of bracketing. </p>

<p>I use a split-image focus screen, and a 45 degree prism viewfinder. </p>

<p>I keep getting back-focused shots out of my 500 c/m. I've tried a few lenses, and I'm still getting the same thing. I brought it into a shop twice (it's a shop that I trust) and they told me that they can't find anything wrong with it. Is it just me? I'm shooting on a 150mm f/4 CF lens. The lens is wide open. I've attached a test shot. I focused on the black line, but it seems like the text behind the line is more in focus than the text at the line, and the text in front of the line is much blurrier. </p> <p>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByI8golVTKs9LWdKNU1JRVpzS2c/view?usp=sharing</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Edward. That's important to know. That means that I should mark off an area that's 4.5x5.5cm, not 4.125x5.5cm. <br> I found a company that makes acetate masks for $10. But if I can make one myself, that's an easy project and I can save $10. </p>

<p>I just picked up an A16 back for my 500 c/m to shoot 6x4.5. However, my focusing screen doesn't have a 6x4.5 grid. Is there a way to mark the ground glass in a non-damaging way? Pencil? Dry erase marker? <br> Also, how do I measure the lines? The ground glass is 5.5x5.5. Does that mean that I should mark off a section that is 4.125x5.5? </p>

<p>I shoot medium format B&W, and scan the negatives on a Canoscan 9000F MK II, using the included software. I have tried Kodak T-Max, Delta, and HP5+. I find 400 speed the most verstatile. I like Kodak T-Max 400 because it has a finer grain, it's sharp, it's easy to load onto the reel, and it dries flat. <br /><br />I have developed it in Ilfosol 3 and Ilfotec DD-X. The DD-X is a little more expensive, but the results were a little better too. <br /><br />Here's what I like about DDX:<br />Liquid, I don't have to mess around with mixing up a powder. <br />One-shot, I don't have to store it or keep track of how many times I've used it. <br />It seems to last for at least a year<br /><br />Here's what I would like in addition to what I have: <br />Finer grain (some of my images seem to come out grainy)<br />Increased sharpness<br />Cheaper (this is less of an issue, but DDX is on the expensive side). <br /><br />I pre-rinse, and I dilute the DDX 1+4. I develop for 8 min, agitating for the first 30 sec, and then 5 agitations every 30 sec. <br /><br />I imagine there are a lot of variables here: <br />Scanner<br />Software<br />Developing technique<br />Developer<br /><br />But focusing on technique and developer, could I get finer grain and increased sharpness by changing my technique, eliminating the pre-rinse, or switching to Rodinal? <br /><br />Thank you,</p>

<p>I just ordered a ($9) bay 60 hood for my Hasselblad 50 CF FLE lens. <br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/60-38-60mm-Lens-Hood-B60-Shade-for-Hasselblad-CF-CB-CFi-CFE-/232079714636?hash=item360907694c:g:VngAAOSwknJX1lB8</p> <p>If I want to use the hood as well as a red filter for B&W work, is there an economical way to do so? <br> I've seen Bay 60 to 67mm adapters for $10 on eBay, and Tiffen Red filters for $20 on Adorama, but I don't think the hood has an outside thread for the filter. <br> Should I look for a 67mm threaded hood to attach to the filter? </p>

<p>I currently have a 150CF that I use for portraits, but I would like to so some landscapes and architecture too, so I'm looking for a wide angle lens. The two that I'm looking at are the 50 CF FLE and the 60 CF. Which one is better, and why? <br> Is one noticeably sharper, or have better contrast than the other? Is one a generally more useful focal length? I've looked at the MTF charts, and the 50 seems to outperform the 60, but they are also comparing f/4 to f/3.5. <br> Thank you, </p>

<p>Is this correct? <br> The internal body of a Hasselblad is an assembly of plates, to which the several bits of the mechanism are attached. <br />That assembly of plates can, and may need to, be adjusted (which is done using a hammer, tapping it 'in shape') to adjust correct body length.<br> <br> Source: http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/hasselblad-focus-stability-issues.57157/print</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, the biggest upgrades to the 503CW over the 500c/m are the gliding mirror, TTL, and Palpas coating. <br /><br />Viewfinder vignetting/blackout isn't an issue with the 150mm lens, I use the flash in manual mode, and I'm not sure that the Palpas coating is a big deal. <br> Mostly, I just wondered whether the newer cameras were built to tighter spec because they were made to work with digital backs, so I wondered if it would give me sharper focus. </p>

<p>I have a 1987 500 c/m, and it seems to back-focus. This is problematic because I mostly use it for portraits with a 150 f/4 wide open, so DOF is pretty shallow. <br> I understand that focus shift can be a result of the foam pads that hold the mirror breaking down, an incorrectly adjusted focus screen, or simply incorrect body length. I've also read that newer bodies were built to tighter tolerances. <br> Would a newer 503CW focus more accurately? Would it be worth an upgrade? <br> Thank you. </p>