Have 40mm CF, why do I need an SWC?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by vick_ko, Apr 7, 2012.

  1. Suffering camera lust again. So, why do I need an SWC, if I already have a 40mm Distagon CF?
    ....V
     
  2. You don't.<br>Seriously. ;-)
     
  3. Only if you need a smaller, lighter package.
     
  4. Unless it's the only thing you carry, it makes a bigger, heavier package.
     
  5. Yeah, I've read all the threads and trying to convince myself that I don't need one.
    e.g. stiff shutter release. Guess focusing. No real-life usage differences between the 38 Biogon and 40 Distagon CF FLE. Risk of finding / buying an SWC with internal lens surface scratches.
    It is helping.
     
  6. I have had two of them. Certainly a delightful camera, but the focusing on the distance scale is a nuisance. Otherwise, a real treat. No problem with the shutter stiffness. The big advantage of this camera is that it has no mirror, so it may be handheld at very low shutter speeds.
     
  7. I attach a digital back to SWC. When shooting by several guess focus, I get sharp photos. I also use a slr camera to make sharp focus first and then use the reading at that lens to adjust the focus of SWC. It works.
     
  8. As we know, SWC is a superwide lens fixed permanent in a camera. It does not need to share the body with other lens like 40mm. So, if you bring both standard lens and wide angle lens in location, you do not need to change lens.
     
  9. Peter, I also wish to get a CFV39/50 for my 903 in near future. Did you satisfy the IQ from your DB? Grateful, if you could share more your experience.
     
  10. You need it. Then you will sell 40mm CF.
     
  11. "[...] So, if you [...], you do not need to change lens."

    Interesting bit of reasoning.
    You then have to change camera, of course.
    And unless you also want to change magazine, have to bring at least one extra, loaded with the same film. (The "smaller, lighter package" mentioned earlier, i guess ;-) )
     
  12. I've alway's wondered this. Isn't the 38 Biogon formula designed to eliminate distortion, and enhance corner to corner sharpness? Or is the 40mm that good?
     
  13. Hi WS Ho,
    My db is leaf Aptus 22. The picture is superb and very sharp shot by SWC. The dynamic range of db is generally higher than sensor for slr camera. So color and contrast are very good and solid. The size of senor of Aptus 22 is 36x48mm. It would not challenge to the edge of 38 Biogon.
     
  14. Thanks Peter,
    Hope the DB becomes more affordable and better high ISO.
     
  15. Vick, I lusted after a SWC at a flea market dealer. He wanted 2K but I thought it worth 1.5K. I bought an A24 back from KEH in anticipation of getting the SWC, and much later a DB. Then sanity prevailed, I like film and my Fuji GSW690 is just fine. I traded the A24 for 3 cable releases at the flea market camera guy. I still have 100+ rolls of 220 in the freezer.
     
  16. I have both. I use the Superwide a LOT more than the 40mm. By itself the 40 CFE is almost as big as the whoe superwide. And the silent leaf shutter of the Superwide invites playfulness. It is a quick zone focused grab camera, much much like a large Leica. In fact that is its charm. The 40mm delivers about the same image as the SWC. But the CFE requires two focus rings, and ground glass focusing. On a tripod, or in a need to be careful composition, the 40 probably is the best choice. But it doesn't invite quick and risky snaps, at all. And carrying it on the SLR body, especially with a prism, is probably three times the weight of the SWC. Heck, I even use the SWC without the finder, just kind of pushing it at the world. So figure out your style, and buy accordingly! Have fun.
    00aFdy-456775584.jpg
     
  17. As we know, SWC is a superwide lens fixed permanent in a camera. It does not need to share the body with other lens like 40mm. So, if you bring both standard lens and wide angle lens in location, you do not need to change lens.
    True, but if that were the only reason to get the SWC, then there is another way to reduce lens changing--and at lower cost. You can pick up a good second body, say a 500c/m, for around $250 complete with a WLF or prism. Then by mounting one of your other lenses on it, and spare back, you can effectively have a whole second Hasselblad.
     
  18. "I have both. I use the Superwide a LOT more than the 40mm. By itself the 40 CFE is almost as big as the whoe superwide. And the silent leaf shutter of the Superwide invites playfulness."
    Sums it up perfectly!
     
  19. Well... i don't think we can say the SWC is smaller than the 40 mm without stretching reality beyond breaking point. The lens itself is a bit shorter, and less wide. But that's more than made up for by the square thingy, with bits sticking out on three sides, that is attached to the rear of the lens.<br><br>Whether the SWC is better suited for grab shots is a matter of opinion, "style" as you say Charles.<br>But there's no real reason why you couldn't use the 40 mm on a 500 C/M the same way. It's louder, yes. But apart from that... (You show how well it can be done, Charles, albeit with another lens on the camera).<br>It does not "need" ground glass focusing any more than the SWC does. It's just lots harder to use ground glass focussing with the SWC, so SWC-users don't even bother trying.<br>The FLE correction ring is not an obstacle; it just provides even beter image quality when your grab shot subject is closer than 2 meters, or even 90 centimeters.
     
  20. Yes, Q.G. I kinda visually contradict myself. I do that. But there is actual size and weight, and perceived size and weight. And my perception of the SWC is it is much friendlier in rapid shooting environments. I think it could best be summed up by:
    Leaner, Cleaner, Shooting Machiner!
    Charles
    00aFlK-456867584.jpg
     
  21. OK, looking at those two, I admit I am blowing smoke about my shooting grab shots with the 500 camera. But I didn't have my SWC at the time!!!
     
  22. When i feel it's time for playfulness shooting session requiring a quiet shutter, relatively small size and quick action, i take my Leica M3 or (shame . . .) my Nikon D3. I would think of using my chain saw to cut my bread before thinking of using my SWC for shooting playfulness actions!
    When it is time for landscapes, I used to take my SWC. I now take my 503CW (a 500C/M would do as well) and my 40mm CFE IF. It has only one focusing ring, is sharper than the Biogon 38mm and produces amazing pictures. But, the main reason I prefer this setting is composition, not the lens. I had never been able to compose with a SWC as well as with a 500.The weight and size differences are then almost irrelevant as I use a tripod anyway.
    This is of course subjective, but for me composition and light are the most important things in landscapes and my 40mm CFE IF beats the SWC everyday. For the same reasons, I would also take a 500 with a 40mm CFE FLE in the field instead of my SWC.
    Some will say that the 40mm CFE IF has slightly more distortion than the 38mm Biogon. This is true but it is automatically corrected by the (free) Hasselblad Phocus program and, in general, is not a problem in landscapes.
    I loved my SWC, it's a beautiful piece of hardware, but mine now is for display only.
     
  23. If I had a 40, I wouldn't bother with a SWC. All differences are too small to bother about.
    That said, the SWC can do whatever the 40 does, but not quite the other way around. The biggest is that portraits, formal and informal, with the SWC can be magic. This focal length often requires stuffing the camera into the "personal space" of the subject and the SWC, for whatever reason is quite a bit better at that than a 500/40 rig, particularly with the mass of a prism viewfinder or low hold of the WLF, close in.
    To me, it compares with a Mamiya 7/43mm rig, but has better build and a removable back. (Leica? If you're satisfied with miniature, don't bother with Hasselblad at all.)
    Landscapes, interiors, and perfect framing will be done with mostly as tripod work and if needed, the ground glass and a chimney finder are quick, easy, and accurate.
    Close focusing is easier with the 40 and is its biggest practical advantage.
    The biggest problem with the SWC is that most are not confident using the viewfinder and scale focus, and you need to be. Practicing with the GG and chimney finder quickly make you more comfortable and use quells the fears. It's a bit more demanding in certain respects (and once set up, easier in others), but the results are often special, which doesn't show up "on paper."
    So, if I already had a 40, I'd be happy and wouldn't get a SWC.
    (This may seem odd, but if I had the 40, I'd get a second 500cm body - which are about the difference in cost between 40 and SWC contemporaries. The SWC is my backup - irregular, I know - in the pelican with the 500 kit.)
     

Share This Page

1111