No interest in SWC cameras?

<p>I am watching a well-known British on-line selling photographic company which has been advertising no less than three Hasselblad SWC cameras, namely two 903's and a SWC/M (in fact, plus a fourth one, a 905, which I myself bought some months ago), for quite some time now and it appears to be no interest of purchase.<br>

I wonder what all that means. First, why so many celebrated cameras being offered for sale? Do some professionals know something about film future that we amateurs don't?<br>

Second, has the younger photographic generation been completely absorbed by the digital craze, considering the unparalleled quality of the Biogon lens? Or is it all that purely financial?<br>

I am looking forward to reading what other members of this forum think.<br>

Paul</p>

<p>I wouldn't say the SWC are a good measuring stick for the activity of film photography. Lots of 500/501/etc are still being bought, sold, and used (at least judging by my local craigslist and people I know).</p>

<p>Superwide works just fine with larger area digibacks.</p>

<p>K.</p>

<p>Actually, I think the prices on second-hand SWCs have slowly been creeping up in the past couple of years. But this seems to be true of the creme-de-la-creme of all film cameras. The vast majority of film cameras have become worthless or nearly so (great if you like to use film!), but the really special ones, or ones that can be used with digital backs, are more stable or rising.</p>

<p>I would love one, but can't bring myself to pay the huge prices they command. I also think that the Mamiya 7 with 43mm lens is a better solution since it usually costs less, gives you 1cm more film, a meter, a rangefinder, a built in back and interchangeable lenses, all with a very similar optical formula. The only other thing I can think of is that a superwide square format is difficult to deal with -- most superwide photography uses a landscape or panoramic format, so figuring out what to do with all that extra sky or foreground demands some careful thought or cropping. </p>

<p>It is a wonderful camera. I have had two in the past, and loved them both. The problem comes if/when you need to carry a second camera. They do get heavy.</p>

<p>The 40mm FLE is also a very good lens, not far behind the Biogon in performance. Since you use the 40mm on a standard Hasselblad body, you also have the precision of a viewfinder for focusing and composition. The SWC commands a high price for a very speciallized camera, and requires you to carry a second body.</p>

<p>The Biogon comes very close to the film plane. When you use it with a digital back, you tend to get color shifts, probably due to parallax between the microlens/Bayer array and the sensor. You do not get this with the 40, which has about the same back focus distance as all reflex lenses.</p>

<p>SWC(...)s are beautiful cameras.<br>

But i agree with Edward: the FLE 40 mm is more convenient, and also a very good lens.<br>

The SWC will, i'm sure, remain a must-have item. And as such will also remain expensive. And that will account for the lack of speed with which they leave shops.</p>

<p>I have the Biogon-design 43mm for my more conventional Mamiya 7II rangefinder-type bodies. The M7II bodies provide built-in rangefinders and meters. So, no, I'm not jonesing for an SWC variant. </p>

<p>Its a good think that all the experts are happy with (almost as good optics) the super wide is by far the lightest and easiest to use of all the Hasselblads I own.</p>

<p>Its the optic that every other lens brags that it is almost as good as......no compromise....for me....</p>

<p>Mamiya 7 with a 43 may be as good, or even better than the SWC. But it is a dead end in terms of digital future. That is why I have a 905SWC, in addition to couple of 500 bodies.</p>

<p>Ilkka, if I were to go to the expense of buying medium format digital, it wouldn't be a back to retrofit to an SWC. I'd buy a medium format system, like an H3DII-variant with the ultra-wide 28mm f/4.0 lens.</p>

<p>Lee Friedlander uses a Hasselblad SWC to great effect. I've been a big fan of his work for more than 20 years. He used to shoot with Leica cameras. I'd love to mess around with a SWC, but I prefer a camera that can accept different lenses. I would love an SWC for hiking though. It's so small and lightweight for a medium format camera. The cheapest used ones are still two thousand dollars, too rich for my blood. I bought my Hasselblad 500cm second hand for less than $600 with lens and back and WL finder.</p>

<p>SWC's Are great! I use it for people all the time. The option to switch backs is a plus. I also like the minimum focus on the swc over the mam 7.<br>

<img src="http://minnichphoto.com/bmp.hatch.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<div></div>

<p>I've recently bought a 500SWC/M (actually an SWC which was later upgraded to SWC/M) and it is indeed an excellent camera. Got it for a mere 900 Euros, which is very inexpensive. They usually go for a couple of hundert more here in central europe. Hoewever, a few years ago a good user would still cost you 1500 on the well known auction site.</p>

<p>The reason for me was just to try it out. So much is written about the SWC and sometimes my 500C and C/M with 50mm lens was just not wide enough (that's at least what I told my wife). Since they seem to hold their value nowadays, I decided to buy, try and resell if I wouldn't like it. Well, I haven't used it all that often, it is rather specialised and it takes quite some room in the bag, with a 500 and a few lenses and backs but I sometimes just take it out on its own and come home with good pictures.</p>

<p>The camera does take some time to get used to though. Distance "guestimating" at close range has to be done carefully and I tend to take more pictures at close range with this wide angle lens. Portraits taken with this camera have a very special look and I just love the square.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=730481">Stuart Richardson</a> , May 20, 2010; 06:01 a.m.<br>

I would love one, but can't bring myself to pay the huge prices they command.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can and did. Please see attached.</p>

<p>Steve</p><div></div>

<p>I own lots and lots of camera........If some one told me I could only keep one......it would be the superwide.<br>

I have to make no excuses for its optics, light weight, and unsurpassed results, and its just plan fun to use. I don't know why I waited so lone to get one, yes its not cheap......but guess what its not cheap.<br>

You get what you pay for sometimes. Or you can just settle.....it is much more corrected than the 40mm, much lighter weight, and with no mirror movement, can be shot at a much slower shutter speed hand held, and a lot quieter.</p>