Rob F.

I feel there is a lot of truth to this. An incident reading gives me a good mid-point exposure. Then if I feel the need, I can bias my exposure toward the highlights or shadows. So if I am photographing a steam locomotive, and the background is not too bright to become blown out by increasing my exposure, I can give an extra stop to capture some darker areas under the boiler, for example. But if I do need to render the background without over-exposing it, I can go with the incident reading, or perhaps just open up a cautious one-half stop. Then again if photographing something much brighter than average, an incident reading is good there, too, because a reflected light meter will over-react to that brightness; so that if I believe the meter, the scene will be underexposed so that it doesn't look much like it did in reality. In that case, I might stop down just a little, but not enough to ruin the shot. So an incident reading gives me a reliable reference point from which I can use my judgment. There is a reason why Hollywood cinematographers use incident meters (not saying they never take reflected readings)!

I recently picked up a Spectra Combi-2, which can take incident, reflected, and average readings. This meter has two photocells, one facing forwards for the reflected reading, the other facing back for incident. You select which type of reading you want with a selector switch, and the meter displays a reminder to show which type of reading is currently selected. And It has a three-position dial to select high, medium, or low light levels. I sent it in to Spectra-Cine for calibration. They turned it around promptly, with a calibration sticker that shows the expiration date. They certify their calibrations for six months. I doubt I'll be sending it that often; but maybe every couple of years. At the price of slide film, it might be worth it, to feel confident in my exposures. Anyway, I tried it for the first time in Colorado two weeks ago and really liked using it. I'll have more to report when the film comes back from Mike at AgX Imaging! I'll try to give a follow-up report on the results in a few days. Only negative so far is that it is a rather bulky meter! My Gossen meter also has a choice of incident/reflected and is much smaller. (I will stay out of the spot meter debate for now!)

Years later, I have a need for this mask, that slips onto the finder. I'm looking for one that fits the newer finder for late-model SWC, the one that shows the bubble level in the same view as the finder image. Any ideas where there might be one?

I've never messed with Hasselblad for my 500c/m and lenses. I use David Odess. My gear gets fixed right, and I'm sure he's more reasonable than Hasselblad (though he's not cheap). And He's easy to find with google.

Yes, Think Tank is a good bet. I don't carry lens-down, but my Retrospective 7 is deep enough for a body with lens attached and holds two extra lenses as well. They also have a couple of other models in the Retrospective series that are deeper still (but less wide) and I believe would be good for carrying the body with a longer lens attached, plus one more lens and an extra film back.

Unless you really know the hooks are the problem, it might be better to send it in for service. The symptoms you noted could be due to other worn or misadjusted parts.

One advantage of not using the goggled version is that they are a lot harder to fit into a small camera bag. A non-goggled Summicron or Summicron is tiny, and will fit into the smallest bag compartments or in the pockets! External finders are nothing to be afraid of. For wide angle lenses especially, they are easy to frame with!

I joined in 1998, when I got my Windows 98 Compaq computer. So it has been 19 years for me, and that was back in the Greenspun days for me, as well. I have really enjoyed the forum for its entertainment as well as the information exchange! Having a little trouble getting used to the new format, but overall it's been great!

Oh, sure, Edward, what you said is certainly the standard advice, and there is a lot to be said for it. But some of us just have to be different, I guess; or maybe just never satisfied. I have all the lenses mentioned (been using Hasselblad for 47 years), but can't seem to simplify down to a three- or four-lens set that meets all my needs. I wind up bringing too much. We are going to Big Bend National Park for 5 days in March. I will probably take the 40-50-60-100-150. Or maybe the 40-50-80-150. I might bring the 38 Biogon along--although the 40mm should be adequate. And maybe I won't really need the 150, but I should bring it. No sense leaving it behind. See what I mean? Some of us just have to fuss over things . . . I agree about the 60mm. It is a great lens! Best, Rob

I'm still working out what my best four-lens set would be. If I were to use my 40 (or38 Biogon), the 60mm Distagon, 100mm Planar, and 150mm Sonnar, then I have a set of focal lengths where each lens is about 1.5 times the focal length of the previous one. This would allow good control over framing, especially for color transparencies for projection, where cropping is not an option. The 60 would then be the "normal" lens (for me). But it leaves out the 50, which seems unacceptable! The alternative then is 40-50-80-150, or maybe 40-50-80-120. Then I suppose the 50 would be my "normal." But that leaves out the 60, which seems a shame. Well, maybe it's not a shame, I don't know.

I meant to say, "The 50mm non-FLE achieves fine center sharpness at f/8 . . . Have we lost the edit feature? I couldn't see how to change it.

There is a difference. The 50 non-FLE achieves fine sharpness at f/8; while the edges (not the corners) peak halfway between 11 and 16, by which point the center has lost some definition. My 60mm (I have both the CT* and the CF) already achieves very good definition to the edges by f/5.6, very-good-to-excellent by f/8, and a little better still at f/11. I consider it to be a "wide-normal" or "normal-wide." I upgraded from the 50 CF to the FLE. Much better lens, and for me, an indispensable focal length!

<p>Six-month follow-up. I bought the 70-180. It has seen quite a bit of use right in the back yard, photographing in my rose garden. And I did get some use out of it on vacation in Colorado. The autofocus can be slow and a bit frustrating; apart from that, I like it. As far as I can tell at this point, I'd say it's a keeper. The 80-200 f/4.5, I have done almost nothing with. It can go.</p>

<p>The M5 should also be mentioned as having accurate framelines (35/50/90/135mm), for normal, non-closeup shots. The 50mm frameline on my M6, M7, MP, and M9 is much too small. I get so much more in the picture than in the finder, that extraneous details I meant to crop out with the finder, still wind up in the picture. Especially true for the 50 and 90mm frames. Of course, with the M9, I can re-frame and re-shoot once I see my error on the LCD.</p>

<p>Nothing does it for me like the Zeiss finder, with its big, bright view, and absence of any curvilinear distortion. I never felt confident about my framing with the Leitz finder.</p>