Hasselblad Focusing Screens?

<p>Hello. I have a Hasselblad 500c/m with an 80 CT* lens. Ever since I've got it I haven't been fully pleased with the focusing on it. I sometimes have trouble with it "popping" into focus if that makes sense. This is with the magnifier on the waist level finder both up and down. At times I can't distinguish whether something is in focus or not. I believe that the problem is with the focusing screen. I'm assuming that if I get a brighter, more contrasty focusing screen, focusing will become easier. I do not know what focusing screen I have now; I ordered it from KEH.com and it is the focusing screen that came with that.</p>

<p>I'm not sure as to the differences between the other focusing screens available, so if someone could help me in explaining the differences between the focusing screens available and which would best suit my needs, that would be great.</p>

<p>Hi Mike, You probably need an Acute Matte screen. They are not cheap, and sometimes approach the cost of a used 500 cm body itself, but really worth it. They have two dot depressed into the metal frame around the fresnel panel. Not all of them have the two dots, but most do. I have quite a few finders and prisms for my system, and if you can handle it, the chimney finder is the best I"ve used for magnification. They are really cheap, but you'll probably want an Acute Matte screen. There are also Beattie screens that may be cheaper, but I haven't used one in a Hasselblad to know how well they work. I've used them on 35mm cameras and they are generally nice until you use lenses at the extreme wide or telephoto end of the spectrum.</p>

<p>Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for. Is this the screen you are referring to?</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=HH150000092810&brandcategoryname=Medium%20Format&Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=43&BC=HH&BCC=5&CC=15&CCC=27&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=</p>

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>There are two versions of the Acute Matte screens.<br>

Either of them will be a considerable improvement over the screen you have now.<br>

The one you have now probably has black cross hairs on it.</p>

<p>First generatiom AM screens are 42165 with cross hairs engraved not painted and 42170 with grid and split.<br>

The 42170 is more popular and demands higher prices.</p>

<p>Second generation AM screens can be identified by the two cut outs in the metal frame.<br>

Part numbers are: 42204 for the one with cross hairs, 42215 split with a circle of microprisms and 42217 for the AM with grid and split.<br>

The second generation will be more expensive than early AM screens.<br>

No doubt that will show with the KEH listing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My screen now actually has the split screen focusing device, not the black cross hairs.</p>

<p>That is a rather rare screen but still one of the older darker generation.<br>

Any of the later AM screens will be a great improvement.</p>

 

<p>Ok. Thank you Paul.</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=HH159990201490&brandcategoryname=Medium%20Format&Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=43&BC=HH&BCC=5&CC=15&CCC=27&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=</p>

<p>Will that screen work on a 500c/m? The title only mentions the 501c/m.</p>

<p>Screens in the 500cm can be replaced easily, without tools, and are completely interchangible. Earlier models (e.g., 500c) required some disassembly. Remove the back, slip out the viewfinder and push the two tabs out of the way. The tabs re-engage the screen when you replace the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Screens in the 500cm can be replaced easily, without tools, and are completely interchangible. Earlier models (e.g., 500c) required some disassembly. Remove the back, slip out the viewfinder and push the two tabs out of the way. The tabs re-engage the screen when you replace the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Thank you. I know how to take out and replace the focusing screen actually. I'm just wondering whether that screen will work specifically with the 500c/m since that link only mentions the 501cm.</p>

<p>Before you spend considerable amounts on Acute Matte screens, you should know that they are brighter, but less (!) easy to focus with.<br>

The old, darker screens are much better.</p>

<p>That is because the way the extra brightness is produced. Tiny optical elements help direct light in the direction of your eyes, that would otherwise had been scattered in directions other than to your eyes.<br>

These same elements produce a sort of virtual image that has some depth to it. Your eyes can focus and refocus, and still see a sharp image.<br>

The old screens provide a definite plane in which the view finder image is. Lots better, easier to focus than the Acute Matte screens.<br>

If you like a brighter screen anyway, get an Acute Matte with split image rangefinder.</p>

<p>Another disadvantage of the way the Acute Matte screens work is that the light is directed more or less to a single point in space.<br>

So your eye needs to be there, or very near to it. Else you get hotspots, and colour fringes in your viewfinder image.<br>

Not a problem when you are using a prism viewfinder, but it can be very annoying with any other viewfinder.</p>

<p>A final disadvantage is that the way the Acute Matter screens work changes how out of focus bits in the image look. While you don't readily notice it, they look quite different in the viewfinder from how they record on film, or would appear on an old style, true matte screen.</p>

<p>All Hasselblad focussing screens fit all Hasselblad V-System cameras, except the 500 C or 500 EL (both without the "/M"), or the SWC-models.</p>

<p>Of course, Acute Matte screens are only brighter but not easier to focus with.<br>

That explains why everybody is looking for these latest developments at considerable extra cost.</p>

<p>Thank you guys. I got your PM Paul. I'm not sure how to respond to it because I can't find it on this site. Haha. Anyway, I'm going to go with the 42204 version of the Accu-Matte. I've read that the newer versions of the Accu-Matte screens are a bit brighter but have improvements to make focusing a lot easier on here and on another website.</p>

<p>Yes...<br>

Of course it is why complaints about problems focussing Hasselblads have increased in number markedly.<br>

Of course, it is why Hasselblad came up with the D generation soon after, those being a bit more like normal screens again.<br>

Of course, that is why they threw out the plain focussing screens you got with a camera a bit later again, and replaced them by ones having a split image rangefinder.<br>

Of course, people can choose to remain ignorant, rather than find out something they didn't know.</p>

 

<p>Of course I am glad the Q.G.'s of this world are here to explain to users and to Hasselblad what we are all doing wrong.<br>

Of course you could have discriminated before between early and later Acute Matte screens in stead of making a general statement that Acute Matte screens are no good.<br>

Of course that would have meant you missed another opportunity to start a row based on nothing else than your personal views.<br>

Of course this is all a strategy that is well known by Hasselblad users by now:</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2121263">JÜRGEN LOOB</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jul 22, 2009; 05:27 p.m.</p>

 

<p>"Q.G.de Bakker<br />Here we are again .<br />In whatever forum you post , you always follow the same procedure .<br />Information , contradiction , provocation and nasty abuse . This must be an addiction for you .<br />You are well known in the forum world for that outrageous behaviour .<br />What the hell drives you to do that ? ? ?<br />When will you finally free peaceful and respectable persons from your presence .<br />Jürgen"</p>

 

 

<p>Of course I know the difference between early and later "D" type Acute Matte screens.<br>

Of course I have chosen not to send a confusing bombardment of information on a user that may not even have funds to buy the later more expensive AM.</p>

<p>Jürgen Loob gave a near scientific analysis of the way you operate.<br>

It is about time you were banned from photo.net like you were from at least one other forum.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>I'm sorry that your obvious troubles with accepting things you haven't heard or known about before emerges time and again.<br />I'm guess i'm lucky this time that i don't get the same treatment (yet again) you had in store for people like Miss Prettyme. (Was your friend keeping a close, scientific eye on you then?)</p>

<p>But anyway, not just for your benefit:<br />The problems with focusing plates like the ones Acute Matte screens use are well known.<br />The only personal view here is that of you, whatever it is (looks a lot like "i like to disagree with anything i haven't said myself.")</p>

<p>The difference between Acute Matte and Acute Matte D screens are minute. The D screen was an attempt to correct the shortcomings.<br />An attempt, that lead to replacing the standard Acute Matte Ds for ones with split image rangefinders.<br />The implication is clear. So why discriminate when there is nothing to discriminate between?</p>

<p>The "bombardment of information" was a brief summation of all the things that made the Acute Matte screen not (!) the thing the OP was asking for.<br />Out of place, you think?</p>

<p>And you are still spreading lies about people being banned from forums. I have been banned from at most 0 forums.<br />Much to your, and your crony Jürgen's dismay, i gather.</p>

<p>So why don't you do us all a favour.<br />Provide accurate info.<br />If you cannot, don't keep protesting when someone else does.<br />And keep all the rest to yourself. Why don't you give being a "peaceful and respectable persons " a try for once?</p>

<p>Mr. de Bakker,</p>

<p>You could not have made my point clearer than by posting what you just did.<br />Your opinion, it is nothing more than that, should not be challenged or else.<br />The arguments you use are as simple as ridicule:<br />Call the opinion from others "bollocks" and that is it.</p>

<p>The fact that this has nothing to do with matters concerning photography but all with your rude behaviour is still not clear to you.<br />For your information the "D" screens are a true improvement compared with early Acute Matte screens.<br />Your views simply vary as you see fit in your never ending contest to proof you are right.</p>

<p>You have more than once insulted well respected members of the photo community simply because they had a different opinion or had more knowledge about specific subjects.<br />That has lead to at least one ban for you from another forum</p>

<p>You fail to see that your attitude keeps both readers and posters away from any threads where you participate.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't give arguments. Nor opinions. I leave that up to you.<br>

I provide information.</p>

<p>If you find something wrong in that information, just say so.<br>

We all benefit from hearing the best info available.</p>

<p>What has nothing to do with photography is what you keep doing.<br>

Yawn!</p>

<p>Nearly forgot:</p>

<p>The only way to remedy the problems Acute Matte screens have is to remove the bit that makes them Acute Mattes.<br />Over the last 100 years (the trick employed in the Acute Mattes to make them brighter is at least that old already, mostly used in projecting screens), there have been quite a few attempts to do it another way, but without success.<br />The Minolta screens make use of one such attempt: they roughen up the surface of the tiny elements that direct the light towards the eye.<br />Acute Matte D screens do that a bit more. Are thus a bit more like the old type screen again.<br />But the problem is an inherent one. There is no way round it: for better ease of focus, nothing beats the plain old matte screens. To remove the issue entirely, the Acute Matte screens need to be as rough as the plain old diffusing screens again.</p>

<p>(There are even more problems not yet mentioned: the patterns of focus plates like the Acute Matte and that of the Fresnel lens tend to create Moiré, which is both not nice to see, and makes using a sensor to measure the light behind the screen an iffy affair. That too is countered by roughening up the Acute Matte's structures.)</p>

<p>But when you change back (the only way to get rid of the issue), you also return to darker screens.<br />So what we have to do is compromise: the Acute Matte screens are bright, but are less good to focus or judge the out of focus bits, the old screens are dim, but are easier to focus on.<br />The latter bit can also be achieved by using focusing aids, like a split field rangefinder.</p>

<p>Now before we get the "your opinion" line again: you can all find this yourself, if you just spend a little time researching the matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mike, so you actually have a split image screen?!? That might be comfortable or not, personal opinion: but I think it would be quite hard not to understand if something is in focus or not..<br /> Can you state your problem again? I mean... You focus with the split and it's ok, and then the negative is out of focus? Or simply you can't focus with the split?<br /> <br /> I should have an older screen (without split image) amongst my "backup accessories", if you're interested in buying it used :-) But I believe we should focus (pun intended!) on identifying the problem correctly, before you start changing focusing screens.</p>

<p>Thank you for all the replies. I have a screen right now with a rangefinder focusing device but I prefer just a plain screen.</p>

<p>Or have a look at this (it's in the States: shipping is cheaper) :-)</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.it/Hasselblad-Focusing-Screen-500cm-body_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem3ef2697c1aQQitemZ270354971674QQptZLHQ5fDefaultDomainQ5f0QQsalenotsupported</p>

<p>I'm new here, and frankly I had no idea it was going to be so much fun! (Note to QC de B: I too have the book "Know your focusing screens and other vegetables" that was given away with cornflakes - we must compare notes someday...)<br>

On advice of a friend I changed to an Acute Matte after having had similar 'problems' as the original poster. "In my opinion" this was a good move, as it is much easier for me to focus, which is the priniciple no? I'm frankly not too interested in the where's and why's, it just works - good enough for me.</p>