Hasselblad Focusing Screens?

<p>How refreshing! This is like the photo.net of old. </p>

<p>Other than getting a brighter screen or a faster lens you're sort of stuck w/ what you have Mike. I'm more of a Rolleiflex guy than a Hassy, but you also might try one of those eye level reflex viewers, assuming there is one for your model. For me it's just easier to focus if I'm holding the camera up to my eye like a 35mm SLR rather than peering down through a magnifier.</p>

<p>I used to have a Yashica D which also had the magnifier. Focusing on that was a breeze. I'm going to order the accu-matte d screen and see if that improves anything. If it does, great and I'll keep it. If not, I'll return it. I'll consider the shipping cost to be the rental fee.</p>

<p>Marco, that is not an Acute Matte screen though.</p>

<p>I agree with Q.G. de Bakker. The old dark screen works much better for me with my 503CW and 50EL/M and CFE80/2.8 and C150/4 than the Acute Matte with split image. </p>

<p>Thanks, guys. I just remembered why I stopped visiting this forum.</p>

<p>Robert, my dog marks his territory too<g>.</p>

<p>My cat marks his turf too . . . must be a guy thing! :-) <grins!> Usually I find these debates useful and all are entitled to their opinions. Mine is: I prefer the new screens acute matte or Beattie or Maxwell. QG's assertions are not wrong and those who prefer the older style are not wrong. My eyes are such that they benefit more from the brighter choice and I have compensated for these other "features." :-) I appreciate the OP's need for that "pop" into sharp focus! Practice also helps.</p>

<p>Jeff, I have purchased just about every screen made at one time or another. I can't find one that is perfect. You'd think the split prism might have some benefits, but it always seems like one side is blacked out, but then I use so many wide and long lenses that I think the brighter ones crap out. I think I'm mainly using later generation, non-AM now, but I don't even know for sure. The only thing I can say is the chimney finder with adjustable diopter is about as perfect as I can get. My prisms all sit in a box too.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Besides all technical details screens are very much a personal matter.<br>

Some users do not want anything in view that obstructs the image.<br>

Others are quite happy with a screen that offers grid and split.<br>

A screen with split and microprisms would not be my choice when doing portraits.</p>

<p>The split can be a good help.<br>

A pity it blackens when focusing gets tough with lower light levels.<br>

Consider the old NC2 prism with 4 times magnification as an alternative for the chimney finder.<br>

No other Hasselblad prism reaches that magnification.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"Consider the old NC2 prism with 4 times magnification as an alternative for the chimney finder.<br />No other Hasselblad prism reaches that magnification."</em></p>

<p>As a matter of fact, the NC 2 has a 3x, not 4x magnification.<br>

The same as the CDS meter prism, the VFC-6/PME upto and including PM5/PME51 series prisms, and the HC 4.</p>

<p>4x magnification is offered by the HC 3/70 and its later version, the RM-2.</p>

<p>Yes, the chimney finder with adjustable diopter is very good, sometimes I use it on my Hasselblads, but mostly I use it as a loupe on my light table to view my chromes.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not like split image screens. I find it very hard to quickly find a suitable place to focus in the image. Brighter screen would be preferable, but I have found that the old matte screen works very well with the chimney finder blocking out extraneous light. I tried an AM screen, but did not bother to spend the money on it. </p>

<p>Over the past couple of days I have shot two rolls of film in my Hasselblad. I feel like I am not having my focusing problem anymore. I have not been having trouble focusing quickly and accurately. The only thing I'm doing differently is using the split-image device more, and to be honest, I've fallen in love with it. I don't know why I was having that problem before, but all is well now. I was even focusing in very little light. Thank you for all of the replies. But I just saved myself about $200+. Perhaps that can go towards a Contax T2. :p</p>

<p>You might want to go take a look at this site <a href="http://www.brightscreen.com">www.brightscreen.com</a> they have screens for everything,and they do make a difference in viewing and focusing. Regarding TLR's like Rolleiflex and other makes-most times they just need the viewing systems cleaned,and not a new screen,or re- silvering .</p>

<p>To Michael Axel: dittoes on the chimney finder with diopter! I like the other magnified finders as well and they seem to help me as my eyes are losing acuity. In some situations I think the finder that suits you is more helpful than any particular screen.</p>

<p>"The difference between Acute Matte and Acute Matte D screens are minute." Not really. The earlier AM screens are less even in illumination and display more of a hotspot towards the centre of the screen, which is noticable when using wide angle lenses. The newer AM screens have more even illumination with less of hot spot.</p>

<p><em>I don't give arguments.</em> No, but you certainly start quite a few, don't you? And your comments are based mostly on your opinions.</p>

About 7 years to comment on whose post anyway.

This does not make sense.

The difference between AM and AM D screens is quite clear.

Both are a great help to focus.