Hasselblad SWC

[robert x]

Hi there -

 

I have been using a 500CM with a 50mm lens on for a couple of years now and have been

thinking about going a little wider, as in 35mm my lenses got wider and wider and I liked

it more and more.......

 

I keep being extremely tempted by the SWCs, and kind of regret not picking one up from

ebay a few months ago as the general price seems to be gradually rising with them at the

moment. As I see it, the SWC has the *massive* advantage of being very lightweight

compared to a 500CM with prism and also everything one ever sees written about that

38mm lens just gushes with awe and admiration.

 

My worry is this - I have always composed my pictures very carefully with SLR, and I am

worried that using the SWC viewfinder will not be as natural for me as using a prism has

been. Also I worry that using the viewfinder will place a greater strain on my eye, as you

have to squint through the tiny little hole......I suppose the ideal would be for me to rent

one for a day or two and see how I get along with it before making the decision, but that

adds to the cost and is therefore a *bad thing*.

 

I wonder what comments any of you might have - from those who use SWCs and those

who may have tried them and not liked them. I have no doubt about the quality of the

lens, simply whether I would enjoy using it, as I feel enjoying using a camera is extremely

important....

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Robert

[louis_nathan1]

If you tend to shoot very carefully and slowly suggest you use the SWC with a ground glass back and a chimney. or with a prism. The items are really inexpensive on the auction site. Further suggestion about buying an swc, many of them have the tripod plate cut down to use with polaroid backs, you need to decide if this bothers you or should you go to the swc/m which has many different winding parts and an extended baseplate.

[rod g.]

Robert, as I understand it your main concern seems to be parallax, i.e., the disconnect between what the lens sees and what the viewfinder sees, while composing your shots. With a lens this wide parallax wouldn't be a problem unless you were really, really close focusing. If you've ever used a rangefinder or 35mm viewfinder camera you are dealing with the same issue, where it tends to be noticable is with normal or longer lenses at close to subject distances. I suppose what I'm saying is that concern counts for little in your decission to buy. Wish I could justify putting down the cash for an SWC.

[frank_bunnik]

I bought an SWC from 1969 last year. Always wanted one, never could afford one until this one sold for very little money.

 

I admit I had to get used to the viewfinder. What to me is expecially something to get used to is the fact that the lens blocks the view below the viewfinder. Because of the wide angle, in landscape shots I try to put an object in the front of the picture to create dept. With the lens blocking the view, this often is a bit of a guess. I always have the swc on a tripod and looking from the side, I guess the angle and point the camera. The view is always wider than I guessed though so I always have the object I want in the frame.

 

The camera is a joy to use. Small, light and very silent.

 

I take the liberty to enclose a link to two examples. Both were made from a tripod with the standard viewfinder. I cut the left off the picture of the wintery trees since my own shadow was there (which I did not notice in the viewfinder by the way).

 

http://www.fotoapparatuur.nl/photos/FotoShow.asp?FTO_ID=8554

 

http://www.fotoapparatuur.nl/photos/FotoShow.asp?FTO_ID=6722

 

Hope this helps. Buy one if you can get one for a decent price. If you don't like it, you can almost certainly sell it without a loss.

[arthuryeo]

For your reference:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317849

 

So far, I really like the compactness and the ease to use it without tripod. It's almost like a large Leica ... almost.

 

Distortion is truly very well under control when the camera is level.

 

One thing I have not had a chance to do is to see how high-contrast images look like. As for low contrast situation, I'm not very impressed with the contrast and colors even though I have the CF and T* version of this lens.

[paul_neuthaler]

I hated the silly viewfinder & ultimately dumped the SWC/M I bought on Ebay for $1,700 -- and went back to my 50 C T* Distagon.

[john_jarosz1]

If you're worried about squinting thru the viewfinder I'll say you should get the latest viewfinder you can afford. My SWC is from 1966 and the viewfinder is well, primitive. The later ones are better, but they're also more expensive. That said, I don't know how anyone can justify the price of a stand-alone SWC finder; the price is just nuts.

 

John

[philippe_vandenbroeck]

The SWC is a fine camera and I would certainly recommend it. However,

count in an extra $450 for a Cosina-Voigtl䮤er low-angle SWC finder which

is a must. It is much better - both optically and ergonomically - than the

original finder. It is expensive but, given the very poor Hasselblad alternative,

worth every dollar.

[fotografz]

Robert, for wide work there are few that can optically compare to the SWC, especially older

none FLE type wide-angle lens.

 

While it is true that the newer SWC finder is nicer than the older ones, I swapped it for the

V/C finder mentioned above because in addition to being superior optically, it offers

diopter correction which I needed.

 

If you need critical composition as in recording or scientific applications ... or are shooting

at a more leisurely pace ... then the ground glass and RFX finder is the way to go.

 

I use mine frequently with a Imacon Express V digital back, so seeing composition is a

matter of popping off a shot and looking at it. The 38mm is pretty important when using

the digital back because it crops the image area to 40mmX40mm.<div></div>

[uk]

Robert,

the older viewfinder is primitive, but it is more than adequate. Well barely more than adequate.

 

What is so pleasing with this camera is that the images always beat your expectations. The lens is fantatstic.

 

Use the viewfinder to get the boundaries of the image and then conentrate on the scene itself. I suspect my ability to do this came from using a view camera and viualise what's going on rather than being totally dependant on the ttl view.

 

I do have the ground glass (SWC/M) and although rarely use it in the field, I'm glad it's there in case I need it. Looking at Marc's digital back is just knockout ! What's the effective focal length and field of view Marc ?

 

The SWC can be used as a candid shooting machine and gives most unusual images. Because it's so easy to shoot, relatively rare, you are guaranteed some differentiation from your 'competitors'.

 

Nice to know the price is not falling, but it's one piece of kit that pro's won't be offloading for digital. If the digital trend does slow down new sales then this and other items like the 120mm Makro may rise in price. What a fabulous picture taking machine for less than the price of a price of a mid range digital body.

 

Suggest you buy it, try it and sell it in a year if you don't like it. You will.

 

Marc, have you ever shot a substantial percentage of a wedding on one? Be interesting.

 

Gary

[fotografz]

Hi Gary.

 

Yep, I used it with the digital back for a wedding held in a multi-room house converted to a

Sushi restaurant where the reception was held. Small rooms and cramped distances. The pic

on the screen of my upload above was from that wedding.

 

The SWC with Imacon Express V crop factor is 1.5X if I recall, so the 38 is effectively a 50mm

but with the DOF of the 38mm. The newer 645 backs will utilize more of the W/A ability. The

V/C finder swivels, so you could turn the SWC on it's side : -)

[robert x]

Well nothing anyone is saying here is lessening the temptation to buy one of these

cameras at all....

 

One worry is that I will get one, then end up spending the extra dollars on a V/C finder

and/or a ground glass screen [and a digital back!]

 

It's not the parallax that worries me though, more the fiddly little finder. I suppose I would

become used to composing like this, but also remain a little worried that it is TTL

composing that I really enjoy. Not sure I could afford the extra V/C spend.....I will certainly

look out for one with the newer finder though - I have only looked through the old

"trumpet" ones, which seemed to dry out my eye in seconds.

 

Love the digital back idea, though if I were in the financial market for that I wouldn't be

worried about whether or not to spend on the camera !

 

Thanks for all your comments so far.

 

Robert

[cameron_ertman]

...and all this with a normal B60 filter size. I'm always a bit surprised the lens design allowed for such a small filter when compared with the 40mm that uses a B93!

[stuart_richardson]

It is the old SLR versus non-SLR wide angle issue Cameron -- when you don't have to clear a

mirror, you can make non-retrofocus wide angles, which require much less space.

[tito sobrinho]

The SWC has a lot of quirks as I kept one for 10 days but with the Imacon attached as demonstrated by Marc...made me have second thoughts!