Is 903 SWC my answer?

Thank you Eric for correcting me. Regards.

The SWC is an amazing camera, as you have worked out by now. You will take a while to get used to the viewfinder distortion but the effort is worth it.

 

Even if you are used to shooting wide in the rectangular formats, the other surprise when you start using the SWC is how that extra width (height) works in the vertical direction. This is the most appealing aspect of the camera. It throws you among compositions that you have now experienced before.

Well, reading these posts makes me want to go get a SWC tomorrow... I think one other reason mamiya 7 turns me off is that it's electronics dependant, which may very well last for as long as a mech camera, but I just prefer the idea of a mech camera better as Leica proves it with all the fans in the leica forums.

 

Godfrey, are your interior shots done on tripods with the ground glass and printed full frame??? I usually like to print full frame with the boarders (hassy would give the two teeth signature)

 

This is probably the most versatile lens camera in the med format range as I have concluded. It can also almost become panoramic cropped top and bottom in the 35mm format (bit like the xpan I guess with a bit less width)

 

I think what appeals to me is that I have now gone to the stage of being able to previsualize a scene in tones (on a leica I use a VC 50mm finder with a 50cron, which is a great Cartier Bresson set-up for real decisive moments btw) and that I want more tonal details than 35mm. I can get it as I limit myself to print up to about 5x7.5 full frame on a 8x10 paper, which gives nearly no grain with XP2's creamy tones.

 

I guess now my next step would be to wait for a good deal in HK when I go back in 3 weeks time!

Thanks all

I"m an interior/architectural photographer based out in KL... well, the 903swc

makes perfect sense on the used market if you're looking for a portable

camera. I don't use mine as a street camera though. 99% of my commercial

shots are done on a tripod to maintain the spirit level and sharpness. I would

label the swc as an easy to operate but not easy to use camera because of

the viewfinder. It does take some getting used to. I've thrown in the towel and

bought the focusing ground glass and viewfinder attachment along with an

xpan spirit level to sit where the original viewfinder sat. it takes MORE time to

use the camera now but i get very accurate results vs. wasting polaroids or

shooting extras. The groundglass/viewfinder also allows for easier copy work

and close-ups. Look for one on the used market and don't pay too much for

them. There's lots of overpriced stuff floating around. The lens is sinfully

sharp. I've done a few high res drum scans from transparencies for my clients

and the difference in detail is noticeable to the naked eye once the results

have been reproduced on large papers (16"x20") or larger. It's very sharp!

Again, the reason for choosing this camera is simple: it's small and portable

but in terms of the way it works now with the ground glass, it's very much like a

view camera sans movements. I was originally thinking bout a restored 4x5

Sinar Norma but gave up on the idea given the bulk i would have to carry out

on location and the time needed to set everything up.

Ken,

 

Used 903SWC is not cheap in Hong Kong and price is close to a new 905SWC so I ended up buying a brand new 905SWC earlier this year (after got over the 903 vs. 905 performance debate). Try Cameron Camera (ask for Mr. Chin) at the back of the Hyatt in Tsimshatsui for new Hasselblad stuffs.

Ahh! Now we are getting to the truth of the matter: the very serious matter of the 'two teeth signature'. Dear Ken Chi, I get one of those for free ...every time I bite into an apple without my upper denture. (Superwide smiles please) KP.

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW2/large/38a.jpg">

<br><i>Boats at Peel, Isle of Man - Summer 2002</i><br>

<br>

</center>

Thanks for the compliment!

<br><br>

Ken, my interior shots in that set were all taken with the camera tripod mounted, and

are presented full frame. I have not used the groundglass back to this day. Just careful

focus by estimating distance and using the depth of field scale.

<br><br>

It's a wonderful camera to work with, probably the one film camera that I will always

keep because its lens and qualities are simply uniquely appealing amongst all the

cameras I've ever owned.

<br><br>

Godfrey

This may be a bit late in response... Have owned two Mamiya 7 over the course of time, and used two other M7s. Have a Blad, but looking into the SWC to further my system. There are two main grips with the M7. The first is electronic dependance. There is more that can go wrong, and when you are out and about, the last thing on your mind is how reliable the camera is. The second issue, having used a few M7II owned by a University and loaned out to students, I have come to the conclusion that it is not that rugged. Given that student loan cameras are probably the least taken care of, and most roughly handled, they don't stand up that well. One unit had an out of whack rangefinder, whilst another had a stiff winding handle that was also loose when at rest. These factors have led to me to conclude that for longevity and reliability, the M7 may not be the best choice. I believe that SWC/903/905 has been around for so long because it is reliable and one can get a lot of mileage out of them. There are only three mechanisms in the body, the winding crank assembly, focusing assembly and the shutter/aperture assembly. All of which are easy to fix, and maintain.

"The (Mamiya 7/7II) is electronic dependan(t)."

 

 

Mamiya 7/7IIs have light meters and aperture priority automatic as part of their electronics. SWC variants have no light meters or choice of exposure modes.

 

 

"One unit had an out of whack rangefinder(.)"

 

 

You won't have that problem on an SWC variant. They have no rangefinders.

 

 

Yup, you buy an absurdly overpriced 905SWC with a back for $6,000 and you get a 1950s camera at 2004 prices. Hasselblad has been masterful in making a virtue of charging consumers more and more money for under-featured cameras. No wonder the company has been reported to be financially unstable for years.

 

 

Getting down to brass tacks, the Mamiya 43mm is an optically better Biogon-design lens than the 38mm on any of the SWC variants and sports a better viewfinder than the SWC. Also, Mamiya 7 variants have interchangeable lenses and are at least priced within throwing distance of reality.

If the M7II does not frame accurately enough for you, I wonder if you will be satisfied with the framing you get with the SWC's aux finder. That said, I'm never disappointed, nor even surprised, with the results I get with my SWC. The negative always seems framed as I remember having intended. The original SWC is as good optically as its successor; and better than the current model, whose optical glass represents a compromise for environmental reasons. When I say "as good optically," I am not including the fact that the later models have improved coatings, for better contrast and reduced flare. IMO, the original SWC still handles flare situations rather well.

 

One reason to prefer a later edition to an early C is that the original SWC, I believe, is included in the list of C cameras for which the supply of spare parts is dwindling, or nearly gone.

The SWC's horizontal angle of view is equivalent to about 24mm on a 35mm camera. The 43mm for the Mamiya is equivalent to about 21 or 22mm.

Don't want to pretend to understand fully optical design, but I have never really thought the argument for the M43 with its 10 element Biogon design, being better than the SWC 8 element Biogon design. Even though the original patent and design of the Biogon calls for 10 elements in a nearly symmetrical design, it would not surprise me that results with lesser elements (i.e., 8) could be achieved with similar or better results. From what I do know, the lesser the lens elements the better (reflection, tolerance, etc). From what I understand also, some of the glass in the SWC are of such high refraction and low dispersion (low Abbe number) that they are extremely hard to find and replace. Take a look at the Hologon design, which in patent and design calls for 5 elements. But the Hologon made for Leica only had 3 elements! The performance of the Hologon even surpasses that of the Biogon. But I believe that it is the extreme radius of the elements that makes manufacturing very difficult. Only the Contax G 16mm Hologon is presently in production. Well, I hope that discussion of optics/performance won't get bogged down by a discussion of theoretical optical design.

 

On another note, I think that the best SWC is those with the CF lens barrel and the spirit level on the body. Combines best usability in terms of being able to use newer bayonet accessories, better mechanical lens design/construction and the ability to use without viewfinder and still be able to level camera.

I think the fact it focuses from 12" and has a flat-field is "decisive" for me. I did have a Beattie "Intenscreen" mounted, and I use the ground glass a lot.

 

But I photograph art, thinking I would do that for museum catelogues, but I am having too much fun playing around. I also photograph architectural digest like interiors, for shameless "couch art": photographs of people's own home's interiors. I like the slightly surreal effect.

 

I also use it for little landscapes.

 

The fact is, I would have all three cameras you mention, if I had the money, plus even more wideangle cameras, like the Linhof Panorama 612 and the little Calumet 4x5's and a cut-down 4x10 view camera specially made I saw at Photo West.

 

I would also like to have a digital back for the SWC, for making "panoramas" and other really big photographs.

 

Has anyone posted any photos made with any of the digital backs compatible with the SWC?

I think the 903 SWC is a really marvellous camera, ideal for many works (street/ documentary, environmental portraits, landscapes, etc.), but I also think that, for its price, the viewfinder is a disaster. It�s really impossible to make sure that a plane subject is parallel to the plane of the film (the result is that horizontals are never so), unless the camera is set on a tripod, and the magazine is replaced by a so called "mirror linear unit". But then the hand held use is impossible (one of its great advantages). May be Hasselblad has made a new viewfinder that corrects this. In that case, good! If not, they should try very hard (I remember with nostalgia my old Nikon F2 viewfinder when I used the 24mm lens: perfect for that matter).

CA Schwartz