lee_j1

Having used it for a few weeks I can confirm all of what I wrote before and what Ron_Sawl wrote above. The biggest problem I am finding is dust. I have had the back attached to my 202fa since purchase, it has been removed maybe twice and only briefly. I shot a few photos at the weekend at smaller apertures and the amount of dust is shocking. I guess this should be expected when using the back with an older camera that won't be as well sealed as the 907x and also when using the WLF + changing lenses now and then. So it's looking like a sensor cleaning kit is an essential along with a rocket blower. I can also confirm that you need to double the "one over the focal length rule" to get images without any motion blur due to camera movement when hand holding - the big slap of the mirror and movement of the barn doors / focal plane shutter really affect the final image and this is very clear when pixel peeping. I initially thought the weakness was the lenses, but it's clear now that the mirror/FP shutter is the culprit.

I picked up the CFV50c II (with 907x) last week. Can confirm that F/FE lenses work on 200 series bodies without modification with the focal plane shutter and inbuilt metering. It appears that Hasselblad have achieved this by way of a little hack: when you activate the meter in the body (i.e. half press the shutter) the digital back starts the exposure, then you of course fire the shutter, and when the shutter release is no longer pressed the back stops the exposure. The downside to this is that you end up with lots of blank frames if you half press the shutter release to get a reading but don't actually take a shot. I *don't* know if the back works with older 2000 series bodies due to them not having any internal metering, and it's possible that it's not actually the meter but instead the firing pin slightly going into the back that starts the exposure - which would make more sense as the manual mentions the tolerance of older cameras means this feature is not guaranteed to work (and if not a CLA is required).

<p>You're using the 203FE and as walkabout camera, that means there is only one sensible choice: 50/2.8 Distagon FE.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>The single best investment for this problem is a focus screen with a split prism and then using the magnifier in the waist level finder. Also double check that you don't have a diopter adjustment magnifier as i have seen many cameras on eBay where this is included in the pictures but not listed. Ditto if you're shooting with a 45 or 90 degree prism - check they too don't have +/- lenses.</p> <p>Hasselblad focus screens on the V system unequivocally suck, nothing really snaps into focus, the only ones where you can be sure things are in focus are those with a split prism; and then if you focus + recompose (especially with the 110/2) then you need to compensate. If you get a split prism screen and you still find things out of focus shooting wide/near wide open then your camera needs a service and calibration.</p>

<p>Use the depth of field preview switch on the lens to see if everything you want to be in focus is acceptable. If you're using extension tubes then you will need to stop down to f11 or smaller to get both the eyes and nose in focus because 80mm without extension tubes at closest focus distance (0.9mm IIRC) will still only give you +/- 5cm of depth at f11 so adding extension tubes is only going to decrease the depth of field. If you're using a *lot* of extension tubes, or long ones then you might be reducing the depth too much to ever get both the eyes and nose in focus.</p>

<p>Ray - 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes.</p> <p>The thing i don't understand is the hard, clearly defined, edge of the "leak" in the first image i posted, which means it's not a "leak" as leaks do not have hard, clearly defined, edges. The suggestion that the backing paper wasn't cut correctly is now sounding like the reason, although i'm dubious - i suppose it depends on how 120 rolls get loaded into those automatic processing machines.</p>

<p><em>If the fogging only occurs between frames, then it's highly unlikely to be a processing fault. The chances of a continuous processing feed only affecting the inter-frame spaces is almost nil.</em><br> <em> </em><br> The fogging starts at the film leader and runs all the way along both edges, in the frames and between the frames. It starts thicker on the left edge and tapers away, while it starts thin on the right edge and gets thicker. It's as if the film was loaded into the processing machine at a slight angle causing, for whatever reason, the edges to be exposed during processing.</p> <p><em>Also an over tightly wound film can cause "cinch" marks along the length of the film. So while I have a low opinion in general of small scale processing labs; in this case I think the blame for the frame edge fogging lies elsewhere. Most likely with the camera magazine.</em><br> <em> </em><br> If that were the case then this is not how it would look because those parts of the film would be unexposed and far less uniform than they are here. Given the state of the other film they developed: half moons, scratches, inconsistent development, and droplets, i'm putting the blame on a poorly calibrated or poorly operated machine.</p>

<p>It's 6x6, hence being the <a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/">Medium Format</a> > <a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/?category=Hasselblad">Hasselblad</a> forum. I spoke to the shop today, they agreed that it was probably the film being misloaded into the processing machine.<br /></p>

<p>I've just picked up some film from a local lab, the first time i've used them. Usually i drive a good hour or so to get my colour film developed. Anyway, can anyone diagnose this? I suspect the film has been loaded incorrectly into the processing machine (it's clearly a roller machine as there are also scratches on the negatives), perhaps at a slight angle because the overexposed section of the left slowly tapers off over the whole role whilst the overexposed section on the right slowly appears over the whole role. Left and then right side of a frame:<br> <img src="https://leejo.github.io/images/temp/left.jpg" alt="" width="66" height="600" /></p> <p><img src="https://leejo.github.io/images/temp/right.jpg" alt="" width="61" height="600" /><br> (Film is colour, i've converted it to B&W to show the issue).<br> This is in no way a problem with the camera, i shot another roll the same day - same camera, same back, same film, same shooting conditions, same ISO, same lens, same handling of the film, and the film has processed with absolutely no signs of problems (apart from aforementioned scratches).<br> It's clearly not a light leak due to the hard edge of the "leak" and the fact it continues outside the frames. I don't think it's due to poor handling causing the film backing paper to unroll slightly, because again the hard edge. The film was loaded correctly into the back as the frame spacing is fine, frames are straight, and i recall no resistance advancing the film either at the start or during shooting.<br> The only other possibility is the backing paper being oversized and bending over the film, but again - i wouldn't expect a hard edge.</p>

<p>The 200 series Hasselblad bodies, with the exception of the 201f, will give you reflective metering without the requirement of an AE prism. You have different options - the 203FE and 202FA give you center weighted averaging, whereas the 205FCC and 205TCC give you a spot meter so you need to be familiar with the zone system.</p> <p>A point of note is that the meter in the 200 series bodies is accurate to 1/12th a stop and when used in automatic mode will change the shutter speed to match that accordingly. I'm not aware of any other camera that has this level of accuracy, and it is something that cannot be achieved manually as the granularity of most cameras is 1/3 stop.</p> <p>I'm not aware of any 6x6 or 6x7 cameras with auto focus.</p>

<p>The shutter speed ring on the 200 series bodies will prevent you from mounting an 8mm extension tube, apart from the 202FA which doesn't have a shutter speed ring.</p>

<p>> Are you guys talking about 35mm digital?</p> <p>Yes.</p>

<p>Yes, they probably should have replaced the aperture blades however it's possible that they no longer have those parts, in which case you're out of luck. It's entirely possible they did replace the blades, although $550 sounds rather low for that sort of service and repair, and you've just had a run of bad luck.</p> <p>There probably were FE's affected prior to 1993. I would say the only guaranteed FE's not to be affected by this are the fifth generation models, as these were released in 1998+ and included other refinements. These usually go for around $2000+ second hand - they seem to be in demand by digital shooters, which i don't understand because there doesn't seem to be much point in shooting this lens unless you can use it with a full size MF back.</p>

<p>Which version of the lens do you have? IIRC early versions had problematic aperture blades, which are more prone to getting stuck. Was the last repair just a CLA or did they actually replace the aperture blades with more recent parts?</p> <p>A bit of googling leads me to this thread: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00U80Q</p>

<p>To answer the original poster regarding shooting f2.8 in bright conditions: Shoot slow speed film, or pull your film, or even overexpose your film (-ve film will soak up a couple of stops if you're really struggling to shoot wide open). Other options include ND filters as you've suggested, extension tubes and close up rings (which you need to compensate exposure for as they lose you light).</p> <p>If you're really serious about shooting wide open with the blad in bright conditions then get a 200 or 2000 series body, which will allow you to shoot up to 1/2000. I have a couple as my walk around cameras and shoot Portra 400, this gives me the flexibility to shoot between f2 and f8 depending on the conditions. My usual aperture for shooting is f4 or f5.6 to give me enough depth.</p> <p>On that last point - you might want to reconsider shooting wide open depending on what type of portraits you're shooting. If you have full body then you might find eyes are in focus but hands are not. If you're doing tight head shots then you might find eyes are in focus but nose is not. It depends on exactly what you're aiming for. If you shoot a full body at f4 or even f5.6 you will still find the background is blown away by the depth of field drop off.</p>