Hasselblad SWC or 21mm Biogon ZM

[deardorff8x10]

I haves used a 36x36 digital back v96c on the SWC with no light falloff. I have a couple of samples here with details:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=451107

 

I have used the Mamiya and both are nice. If you already have hassy, then get the SWC. The main advantages over the Mamiya are interchangeable backs (although the Mamiya has interchangeable lenses!) and closer minimum focus. The mamiya has a rangefinder, but I usually do not have focus problems with the SWC. I sometimes use the focusing screen on the SWC back, but not much. The SWC camera might have slightly less volume, but I am not really sure.

[ilkka]

I focus my SWC by guestimate. I really don't see this as a problem. If the subject is really close then one could just as well use a measuring tape than the groundglass back. The new viewfinder has a little prism that shows the meter scale of the lens in the bottom of the viewfinder, so it is easy to check that the focus is about right. You can also see the bubble level at the same time, through the viewfinder. Something the Mamiya does not have. Now that Hasselblad has come with a neat new digital back (CFV) I have been contemplating to get one, but the 1.5 crop is distrurbing, making the 38 lens equivalent to about 60, or 35mm in Leica terms. Very expensive fixed lens digital point and shoot?

[art_arkin]

Go on Arthur, get an SWC you know you wont regret it.

 

Any model will do, they hold their value, just upgrade later. A friend and I carefully compared an early beat up (but clean glass) 60s to my late 80s minty CF /M and short of incredibly fine hair splitting I doubt you�d notice much difference. On inspection of my SWC, everyone I spoke with on the Hasselblad stand at the last Photokina quietly agreed (off the record) that there was no real world difference bar the 905 which we all know is ever so marginally worse. All this anti reflective hu hah may show on tests but I want to see hard real world evidence, none of these guys had ever seen it. (don�t tell I said)

 

In short, buy the first fairly priced (clean glass) SWC you find regardless of age/external condition and buy it. When your perfect and spotless SWC appears in the future, upgrade as I doubt you�ll lose a penny on the first one though I doubt you�ll bother unless Polaroid is important in which case I can�t recommend the CF SWC/M enough and besides many of the original SWCs have been converted.

 

As an owner I have nothing but praise for this camera. I started down the high end MF road with a Mamiya 7 but sold this soon after to fund a Hasselblad which has grown to a fairly elaborate system, one I adore. At the time of the switch many told me I was mad but the Mamiya simply didn't gell for me (I got sick of hearing rubbish like, �Hasselblad, that�s for girls� or �Theres a reason Hassle is in the name�). I wanted the modular flexibility and mobility (compared to RB/RZ at least) of the Blad and needed longer lenses and SLR for headshot portraiture not to mention an optional digi path, oh and I love square format. Once I was hooked the SWC seemed a natural progression so when the chance to buy my babe presented itself I did it and haven�t looked back.

 

Here is another reason I dumped the Mamiya 7. Rangefinder street style is handled perfectly by my two Leicas, I originally thought I'd use the Mamiya the same way but soon found 10 frames per roll simply wasn't enough and 220 unfeasible from a cost perspective alone. I'd consistently run out of film just as I was warming up and miss the golden moment. I like to burn film and the Leicas are great for this, my street style doesn�t need MF resolution, it needs speed.

 

I mostly use the 500 series in the studio or on a tripod for carefully considered photography. The SWC bridges this somewhat with it�s relative �street ease� but the sheer quality this camera delivers has ultimately made me use it almost as meticulously as one would Large Format. The results it delivers make it worth taking the time to �Construct a photograph�. The thing is, it�s so small you can take it anywhere along with a tiny Gitzo 1128. Definitely invest in the ground glass and RMfx finder.

 

In the end I satisfied my street MF rangefinder desire with an X-Pan. Another well covered and fabulous thing. Sure the Mamiya 7 has it�s format adapter but it�s too fiddly and tack on.

 

The SWC is a cameras I can't imagine being without. It�s so portable, unique and delivers on all its promises. Every penny spent was worth it just like my Leicas and X-pan. The Mamiya 7 also felt so plasticky and with all it's notorious rangefinder alignment issues I left it despite it's many great points particularly the 43mm.

 

As mentioned in other posts above, if you already own Hasselblad it makes total sense to go with an SWC. Earlier today I printed and delivered another SWC image to a good client. As usual like everyone else, their response was a jaw dropping �wow, the detail�. They LOVED it.

 

I cant describe the joy of seeing large SWC images appear in the dev tray. They are just sooo utterly well corrected and tight, the resulting images draw you in like nothing else. It really suits square format.

 

There is always the Alpa 12 with 38mm Biogon in a colour scheme to match your Learjet and/or Turbo Bentley seat covers..

 

Arthur, take it from another who shares your name. Cease pondering and cough up the hard cash, you'll be so glad.

[arthuryeo]

Arthur Arkin, thanks for the detailed note. Do you have some sample images to share with us? Thanks!

[stuart_richardson]

Just a note of correction to Ilkka's comment above: The 43mm Mamiya lens DOES have a

bubble level visible in the finder. Obviously, it is not visible in the camera viewfinder, but

there is one in the external viewfinder that comes with the lens, and it is visible looking

through the viewfinder. But let's bottom line this: all three options are fantastic. The SWC

is the most expensive, followed by the Mamiya 7 and 43mm, used they are about the same

(based on KEH's current stock). The Zeiss is the cheapest by almost 1000 dollars. Both of

the Medium format cameras will take negatives that will be easier to enlarge. The Zeiss will

be much easier to shoot on the street. Looking at the transparancies and negatives I have

shot with it, I think it will hold up to enlargement as well as any good lens for 35mm

cameras. I would say 16x20 with good technique. Ask yourself if you need bigger than

that, or if you need MF quality at those sizes or smaller, and make your decision.

[philippe_vandenbroeck]

I use the Cosina Voigtlander SWC angle finder. It's a costly variant of the standard 35mm finder with a 15mm attachment. See Stephen Gandy's website. Works much better than the standard Hasselblad finder! With this finder you can work hyperfocally in confidence. It has the additional benefit that you don't have to hold the camera in front of your face. It's more like working with a TLR, hence much less obtrusive. This really turns the SWC into a great street shooter.

[eric friedemann]

1. As Stuart points out, the finder that comes with the Mamiya 43mm has an in-view bubble, just like the current SWC finder. I like viewing through the Mamiya finder better than the current SWC, but that's personal preference.

 

 

2. "I'd use the Mamiya the same way but soon found 10 frames per roll simply wasn't enough and 220 unfeasible from a cost perspective alone."

 

 

Huh? 220 film cost less per shot than 120 film because there is less cost per roll in packaging. For instance, at B&H, a 5-roll pro pack of Fuji 800Z 120 cost 18.95, while a 5-roll pro pack of Fuji 800Z 220 cost $34.95- that's $0.38 per 120 exposure v. $0.35 per 220 exposure.

 

 

Then too, it will cost less per roll to develop 220. In my store, because we have customers who have us develop there film only so they can scan and make prints, we charge a flat rate of $3.00 per roll to run a 120 or 220 roll through our C-41 machine. That's $0.30 per 120 image v. $0.15 per 220 image for developing.

 

 

3. "The Mamiya 7 also felt so plasticky and with all it's notorious rangefinder alignment issues I left it despite it's many great points particularly the 43mm."

 

 

A. As I've learned the hard way over 30 years of shooting and 25 years of handling repairs in camera stores, whether you drop a metal camera or a ballistic plastic camera onto concrete from 3-4 feet, you can be fairly certain the camera will be going in for repair. Asthetics aside, the composite material in Mamiya 7 variants keeps the weight of the cameras down and allows the cameras to be hand-held in relatively low light conditions.

 

 

B. Since SWCs don't have rangefinders, its sort of a moot point, but I've had a pair of Mamiya 7II bodies for years and I've never had rangefinder allignment issues with either of them. A few people post online that they've had their rangefinders realigned- which is not uncommon for rangefinder cameras of any make, this gets repeated as common "wisdom" and you have people posting that Mamiya 7 variants have "notorious rangefinder alignment issues."

[art_arkin]

Arthur,

 

Thanks for your interest, I will post some photos when I find the time to hook up the scanner and prep the images, eventually.

 

Eric,

 

re 220 on the Mamiya 7, I should have elaborated in my post above but as you make a point, I�ll try.

 

You are very lucky in the US. Not only have you more emulsions available in 220 but as you mention, it's cheaper per frame than 120. Not so in the UK (can someone please prove me wrong). Check UK Calumets price list on colour film.

 

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?&ac.ui.pn=cat.CatTree&ac.cat.CatTree.prodIndex.param=A;AC;ACB;&ac.cat.CatTree.prodIndex.branch.node3=ACB-AC

 

Processing 220 colour is 5% cheaper per frame here in London, Eric you are very lucky to have such a good deal locally but not so on this side of the Atlantic unless one has a good buddy in a pro lab.

 

I process my own b&w film and this is exactly what I wanted to shoot on the Mamiya but the only 220 emulsion I can find locally is TXP 320 (Does anyone local know otherwise?). One emulsion/speed wasn't enough to convince me to stay with the Mamiya 7.

 

I've bulk loaded b&w 35mm film for years. The cost of burning through film is therefore negligible and thus I've developed a style where I don't think, I shoot. What I (very loosely) meant by 220 being unfeasible from a cost perspective was that with this approach to street shooting I'll run through a lot more of it without the 120 10th frame �brick wall� reminder. Sure one can go easy but I like to shoot on instinct. In short, I'd probably shoot twice as much film in 220, though Im not quite sure if this particular and odd logic makes sense to anyone but myself.

 

Eric, don't get me wrong, I'm not having a dig at the Mamiya 7, I love this camera in most ways and would probably buy one if I were off on an important travel photography assignment or say if I won one in a competition then I wouldn't sell it. I was merely stating my personal reasons for leaving a superb camera system in favour of another that happens to benefit me more.

 

Once I made the move to Hasselblad the decision to buy the SWC was much easier given I have a number of compatible film backs, Polaroid backs, lens filters and pro hood etc. I don't miss the Mamiya 7 except on occasion when traveling for long periods.

 

My information about the mis aligned Mamiya 7 II rangefinders came from the pro department at one of London's larger camera shops. Throughout 2003/2004 nearly every one they sold came back with vertical rangefinder misalignment. The UK distributor even acknowledged that there was a "serious problem". I've no doubt Mamiya have resolved this issue by now but it didn't make me want to rush back to Mam7 in a hurry.

 

In response to the finder related posts above, I agree that the SWCs main weakness is it�s dreadful accessory view finder. I dropped in on Mr Kobiyashi of Cosina Camera at the last Photokina to make a direct request for another production run of the superb �Voightlander� brand SWC angle finder.He was very pleased there was interest, mentioned that they'd been considering another production run for some time and sure enough, they re-appeared mid last year. Can�t recommend this highly enough to all SWC users. Dump your Hassy finders on ebay where they fetch a pretty penny and augment your beautiful camera with this marvelous finder before the current batch sells out.

[ray .]

On 3/8/2006 at 2:01 PM, art_arkin said:

I agree that the SWCs main weakness is it�s dreadful accessory view finder. 

The Hasselblad finder isn't perfect, but it gets the job done, depending on what you need. I haven't used the Voigtlander finder but it seems to me the main choice between the 2 finders must be whether an angle finder is better for your use or not. As far as diopter correction, unless your eyesight is bad enough to make a difference, you're estimating focus distance with a Hasselblad SWC camera anyway. 

 

[Gus Lazzari]

Adding to this discussion concerning the use of the Mamiya medium format cameras vs. the AMAZING Hasselblad SWC as it relates to adding Panorama 'Mask Kits'.

- This is now my favorite camera combo to carry around; a Hasselblad SWC with a 6x3 Pano Kit -

The SWC and Hasselblad's in general, feed their 120 film vertically. This ADVANTAGE allows for the 'stacking' of the images on a roll of 120 film. With this up/down direction (like a Panavision film magazine), one can achieve a minimum of TWENTY 6x3 PANO images ! -

Take that noisy motor, take-up teeth breaking, vignetting Fuji lens and inevitable electronic problem XPAN's ! 

More film efficient, far cheaper and more reliable than either the Mamiya OR XPan/Fuji TX-1 cameras...

- - - - -

Okay, so because the old style C12 Hasselblad backs have a MANUAL RESET of it's counter & the ability to also MAUALLY advance the film, these become the best Back's to use when utilizing a SWC as a ZEISS lens PANO. 

1. The OEM Hassy viewfinder works best when purchasing a slip-on 3d Printed 6x3 Pano mask.

2. The C12 Back does require transport decoupling (no body influence is desired). This entails milling away three Gear Teeth so the back is totally controlled by the camera operator.

3. If one owns or buys a 645 Hassy Back, then you can simply use the SWC with a 645 3D printed viewfinder Mask (you'll then get 16 images per roll).

4. With the mod'ed C12 Back, get the roll to number one (manually resetting the counter), fire your image, then by hand wind the back's Key ONE FULL TURN (360 degrees). Due to the changing circumference of the film roll as it progresses (after numeric 7 on the back's counter), one can then revert for the rest of the roll, to only a 3/4 turn of the transport Key (270 degrees). With this you'll achieve AT LEAST 20 evenly spaced film images.

- - - - -

Finally, the wonderful OEM Hasselblad #41151 Mask kit (pretty pricey), doesn't always fit the SWC models.

Because of this, custom made 3D Masks work best (Old SWC vs. Newer SWC units also have slightly different dimensions).

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Gus Lazzari