Jump to content

Hasselblad Arcbody vs. Flexbody


leo_maniace2

Recommended Posts

The Flexbody was designed to use Hasselblad lenses & has less tilt & shift to stay withing the smaller image circle of those lenses.

 

The Arcbody has more generous movements & is designed to be used with large format type lenses (i.e., Rodenstock) that have larger image circles.

 

There are other differences to be sure but that's it in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,<br><br>Shows how suggestive the fact that the ArcBody came after the FlexBody (and was seen as an improvement of the same) is.<br><br>The ArcBody offers 28 mm of shift, and 30 degrees of tilt. The Flexbody offers 30 mm of shift, and 56 degrees of tilt.<br>So it is not the ArcBody camera, but the Rodenstock lenses that offer more generous movements.<br>;-)<br><br>These two cameras were made to do different things: the FlexBody is a camera that allows moving the plane of sharpness, offering an 'extended' DOF.<br>For that it needs tilt.<br><br>The ArcBody was made to be the better alternative to the shift lens Hasselblad never had. So its basic movement is shift.<br><br>A small view camera would indeed be a better choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'm a fan of the Flexbody with a digital back, which I often use in preference to the same digital back on my Linhof M679cs for architectural interiors. The 37mm x 49mm sensor means you can use the 40mm x 50mm mask that comes with the Flexbody and get sufficient rise for most applications together with all the tilt you'll ever need. The viewfinder is wonderful, it's light and portable, and if you use a V series Hasselblad with a digital back the Flexbody is a great accessory that for my purposes justifies the price.

 

However, nothing in the photographic world is ever perfect (okay, the Leica M7 came pretty close!) and the Flexbody, even with a digital back, has no side or down shifts, and without a sliding carriage attaching and detaching an expensive back for every shot means you'll need to be in no particular hurry and very confident about your insurance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been an ArcBody fan for many years. The Rodenstocks are superb, and almost every Hasselblad accessory will fit the body, including meter prisms. However, you have to work slowly because it's a view camera, i.e. attach a focusing screen (and choose among three correction inserts, depending on your tilt angle) and a focusing aid if any; open the aperture and focus, tilt, select taking aperture, etc.; replace the focusing screen with film/Polaroid/digital back; close aperture and set and cock the shutter; remove film/Polaroid/digital back dark-slide and release the shutter. Then there's the added dimension of protecting the very delicate $$$$ digital back that you have to put somewhere when it's not attached to the camera.

 

My patience has gotten shorter as I've gotten older, so I rigged up a pistol grip with quick release coupling for the ArcBody and use the digital back. I guesstimate the exposure and the back gives me almost instant audio feedback for under, over and correct. The image screen on my first generation Imacon is good enough for cropping and general focus. Using hyperfocal focusing (depth-of-field scale on the lens), and an automatic tape measure (or a good guess if the subject is further than 6 feet or so) I'm spot-on about 75% of the time with the 35mm or 45mm lenses. Of course for landscapes or other "infinity" work, my success rate is up to 100%. Other than the leaf shutter, nothing moves just prior-to or during exposure. If the light level drops to force a shutter slower than 250, it's a quick switch-over to a tripod.<div>00MHCc-38028084.jpg.5d93eb376cda41b13a8c70608aeed59a.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 years later...

<blockquote>

<p>I'm interested to get an Arcbody; it's small and cute.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lenses, however beautiful those Rodenstocks are, and arguably some of the best ever made as short focal length 'large format' lenses, ... in their special ArcBoy mounts, the <strong>cost </strong>of them is anything but small and cute. The same objectives, with shutters, for fully specified cameras such as Cambo, Linhof .. etc., are much cheaper.<br>

Depending very much on what you intend to be using it for, you may well find that a FlexBody, provides sufficient shift and tilt to really give the winning edge to a landscape image. It doesn't take much. There were some excellent examples of FlexBody work published in FORUM during the FB's short production life.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I acquire equipment to fulfil a need, rather than buy something nice and invent a need for it. The difference in price between ArcBody + lenses, and FlexBoy to use with lense you already have, may help you sort that one out.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The ArcBody does indeed offer shift (rise and fall, no lateral shift) and tilt (no swing). Tilt on the front standard, rise on the rear.<br><br>While the FlexBody was made as a "Scheimpflug" camera, offering tilt to play with the plane of focus, the shift it offers is severely limited, not by the camera, but by the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. The image circle they project is just too small (there's more shift available in the close-up range, of course, but that's no help in architectural photography).<br>The ArcBody was made to cater for those who liked the idea of a 'pocket size' view camera, but needed primarily a shift camera instead of the tilt camera the Flex is. A decent architectural camera must offer more shift than the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses can provide, hence the Rodenstock/Hasselblad lenses.<br><br>The ArcBody has, of course, its limitations too, compared to a 'full-blown' view camera. And you can indeed get 4x5" view cameras, lenses, film holders etc. for relatively little money. But lugging even the 'field' varieties of those around is not fun, and in comparison the ArcBody with all the lenses and 'trimmings' is extremely portable.<br>If you can live with the ArcBody's limitations (limited choice of lenses - though they cover what you would need such a camera for perfectly well; no lateral shift nor swing; 'only' 6x6 format; limited extension - though tubes are available) an excellent choice.<br><br>The FlexBody and ArcBody, just as most larger format view cameras, went out of fashion because Photoshop and the likes made it easy to change image geometry in digitized/digital images. Though i can appreciate the difference between the 'genuine' and the 'repaired', still something to consider. They (ArcBodies and the things that you need to go with them) are still pretty expensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> Thanks so much for your detailed explanation--- exactly the kind of thing I wish to read but not knowledgeable enough to ask!<br>

So just another question:<br>

1) So am I correct to say that there are only 3 lenses that work with Arcbody? The 3 Rodenstock lenses designed specially for this model but not other Rodenstock lenses?<br>

2) I'm not a real fan of photoshop, specially when it comes to correcting the perspectives. There's just too much to care for! If you're not observant enough, parts of the photo will go out of proportion!<br>

3) I'm a very small person, and although Large Formats like the Linhof Technika is still acceptable to me, the Arcbody is more portable to me. And I love taking pictures with a view-camera --- the feeling is different.<br>

4) I think I can live with that shift limitation. After all, I'm taking architectural photos; too much "correction" in the perspective will make the buildings look unreal. I prefer to have the buildings in straight lines rather than slanting!<br>

On budget issue: The Arcbody with the 45mm lens kit costs around USD3,600, and if one has more budget in the future, one can use a digital back! This sounds attractive to me and I don't really have issue using films right now. I'm not in a hurry. A Nikon D3x + the Nikkor PC-24mm or a Canon 1D and 17mm tilt-shift would cost more than that.<br>

I'd love to hear more, if there is any more suggestions! from <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a>'s comment, it seems like the Arcbody suits me more. I've asked around in the last couple of days and many photographer friends also said that the Arcbody was designed for architectural photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Only those Rodenstock lenses. If they will not so the job for you, the ArcBody would not be a good choice.<br><br>That last thing, about the <b>Arc</b>Body being designed for <b>Arc</b>hitectural photography, is not really something you should have to ask around for. ;-)<br><br>These two cameras, both the FlexBody and he ArcBody, are all about portability. You can do what they do better using 'regular' view cameras (with "better" meaning with more flexibility, less limited, more choices in film format and more movements).<br>But those are much, much bigger and heavier. And if that matters (as is not hard to image it could ;-) ), these small cameras are not a bad choice at all. But yes: expensive. You could get a full blown view camera with all the trimmings and fittings plus a choice of lenses for what an ArcBody with only one lens would cost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cintia,<br><br>Just for fun (well... ;-) ), i just put my Sinar P on the scales, rough figures: 6kg, without lens and film magazine. A lens will easily add another kg. As does the Sinar rollfilm magazine i use. Sheet film holders weigh less, of course. But you need to carry more of them, so would not make much of a difference.<br>Add a decent tripod with good head (i included a Gitzo 5-series with Manfrotto geared head), and the entire thing easily shoots up to well above 15 kg.<br>The camera isn't small either: count on (roughly) a cube measuring 16" on each side.<br>Then you will need to carry the stuff in/on something. So yet more kgs.<br><br>As i said before: the FlexBody and ArcBody are all about portability. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...