903SWC Quandary?

[timlayton]

<p>I have an opportunity to pick up a 903SWC that belonged to a local Hasselblad dealer. The camera was part of their rental program so as you might guess, it looks like it. I have used it for the last three days and have ran several rolls of film through it without a problem. The lens hood is missing and the rubber cup on the eye piece is missing, but both can be replaced. <br>

Here is my quandary. I can pick up this camera for $2800 or get one in mint condition for $1100 more. Based off the serial numbers both were made in 1988. The question is this: is the mint condition camera worth the extra $1100 in your opinion? I am adding the superwide to my 503CW family. </p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Tim</p>

 

[Rob F.]

<p>Tim, check the "completed auctions" on eBay to see what the 903SWC is going for. Also check KEH. In fact I think they may have one right now. I just got a SWC/M CF from KEH for around $2200. It was listed as "bargain," and it's more like mint minus. Personally I would probably go with the user. You can buy a lot of eye cups and hoods for $1100.</p>

[timlayton]

<p>Rob, both excellent tips. I was wondering if you or anyone else had an opinion about the 903SWC vs. just getting a 40mm CF for my 503CW? I am aware of the functional differences and different technologies such as no mirror, compose through eye piece or optional ground glass/prism and of course the highly acclaimed 38mm optics. After three days of using the 903 I am very comfortable with its use and applicability to my style of photography. The camera is a joy to use and even smaller than my 503. <br>

I am just starting to make my proof sheets and hopefully prints in the next couple of days so that will tell me more hopefully too. I would be interested to hear from anyone that has gone through a similar soul searching exercise and what you think the differences are in practical terms between the two approaches. There is no bad option here, just a choice. I think the 40 lens weighs as much as the 903 if I remember correctly.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Tim</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_bunnik]

<p>A couple of years ago I had a 1969 SWC. Excellent little camera. After using it for a while, I concluded that this camera design had one flaw. It lacked lens rise/drop. Setting the camera up so you don't get any converging lines means your horizon will always be in the middle and you have to crop. I now use a Cambo Wide (older model). The Schneider-kreuznach lenses it uses are by no means less than the Zeiss Biogon, in fact the Super-Angulon lenses are of Biogon design. It shoots 4x5 inch or with the correct roll film magazine 6x12, 6x9, 6x7 or 6x6 cm. To me it is a much more versatile camera than the SWC. You can get a Cambo Wide combo with 2 or 3 lenses for about the same money as the 903.<br>

By the way, is there any reason to buy a 903? My SWC had some light signs of use. I paid about US$ 850 for it. Sold it with some profit. The lens lacked t* coating but was tack sharp and had excellent contrast.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>It's probably not a popular view, but I have an older SWC as well as the Mamiya 43mm for the Mamiya 7II. The 43mm in the M7II is sharper (I suspect because of better film flatness in the Mamiya than you get in hasseblad backs), it is focusable because of the rangefinder, the film area is larger and closer to common print sizes, it has a built in meter, it has a self timer, it has a more accurate shutter (electronic), it has a better viewfinder, it is more easily used at eyelevel, it has a more ergonomic grip. You can also add another lens or two and have a basic kit without multiple bodies. Basically, I would say from a usage perspective, the Mamiya 7II with 43 is a much better option. It probably does not cost much if anything more. Yes, the SWC is a nice camera and lens, but it has been a very long time since it was developed, and I think there are now better options that might not have the same "cult" designation. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's an impossible question, Tim.<br><br>There are two possible 'issues' that can influence such a decision: looks and usability.<br>If it could be assumed that there's nothing wrong with the usability and expected life-span, how much does looking well used bother you and how does that translate into how much you would want to pay for the used camera and/or how much more you would be willing to pay for a mint one?<br>But how can we know in what shape the rental SWC is? How can we all know how the condition of the rental camera translates into productive years left in the thing? And how about that mint camera? Not having been used (or only a little) since it was made 1988 is also not a good thing.<br>And what sort of guarantee is the seller willing to give?<br>(And how much will it cost to get the missing parts?)

[timlayton]

<p>All good points.... I do agree that it is an impossible question. The decision to purchase or not is probably mostly emotional because after thinking about it and reflecting on the comments I have even more options than I first considered. I could just buy the 903 because I want to and leave it at that. It would make a great travel camera and it fits my style of photography. I could add a 40mm lens to the 503 and be just fine. That option is heavier and bigger but there is always a con to any choice. I could get a Mamiya 7 Rangefinder, enjoy it within the context of a Rangefinder and just do a 6x6 crop when I want the magical square. All of the above options are great which makes the decision so difficult. </p>

<p>I scanned and just posted a few of my photos from the 903 on my Flickr stream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/timlaytonsr/sets/72157628115853858/</p>

<p>Tim</p>

 

[frank_bunnik]

I do like those pictures Tim. Good luck with your choice.

 

all the best, Frank

www.frankbunnik.zenfolio.com

[timlayton]

<p>Frank, thank you. I really like your Liege Guillemins train station gallery. The lines, shapes, forms, etc just draw you in. Very nice work. <br>

I am headed to Chicago tomorrow and I have the 903SWC packed along with a Mamiya 7 and the 43mm lens ready to go. I am going to use both and then hopefully have enough experience to make an educated decision. I may be able to get a 40mm for my 503CW and that would round out the experience if I can do that. I am going to try and do some city skyline type photos as well as some inner city/architecture if time permits. </p>

<p>I will circle back later in the week once I return back home and develop my films. </p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Tim</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Tim, I sold my first SWC and got a 40mm. I wanted the 40mm so I could compose accurately on the viewing screen. I continue to value it for that purpose. But I also missed the convenience and easy handling of the SWC, and so I recently replaced it with a more recent model. I like being able to use Bay 60 filters that are compatible with my 50 & 150 (and soon to arrive 120 Makro!); and I like the square sunshade that bayonets on and is compatible with my 50mm as well.</p>

<p>Best, Rob</p>

[timlayton]

<p>Rob, did you notice any difference in your work between the 903SWC vs. the 40mm? What type of photography do you do?</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p> </p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Tim, I like the 40mm when I want to crop to a specific aspect ratio. I often use 2:1. I can mark the ratio I want right on the viewing screen. I shoot E6 for this purpose, to project on a large screen made to the same aspect ratio. When this is not the goal, and I'm shooting black and white that I can crop under the enlarger, I'd rather use the SWC for the ease of handling and ultimate quality. There's really nothing like it.</p>

[timlayton]

<p>Ron, thanks for letting me know. I do believe there is a certain magic or charm with the 903swc. Using the hyper-focal settings on the lens I am able to nail very sharp images every single time. I think there is a free type of feeling that is simplistic and easy that you get with the 903 that I don't get with any other camera. Of course the image quality is crazy good too. Do you notice any differences in your photos between the 40mm and the 38 on the swc? I would be curious if you put a few prints in a stack and could select the swc images over the 40mm ones. I am guessing that is not likely. It really is a unique camera that produces top-notch images. <br>

A friend just ordered a CFV 50 for his 500 series and is going to mount this on the 903. I am interested to see what that is all about. For me personally, I shoot Tri-X about 99.9% of the time and love the results. I wish the images from the digital backs looked like my film images. </p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Tim</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Tim, the 903SWC and Mamiya 7 with 43mm lens are not really very different as each is essentially a viewfinder camera (cousin to the RF camera), with the Mamiya throwing in a decent coupled meter (non TTL) and rangefinder, and the possibility of some limited keystoning correction (if a 6 x 6 image is what you want) when using it in portrait (7x6 cm) format. I would be quite interested if you or someone else would test the two against each other.</p>

<p>I use a 6x6 and a 6x9 RF camera, but without the ultrawide capability of the previous examples, but also a rectilinear 12mm lens on my film and M8 Leicas. The latter ultrawide lens is great, but the comments of Frank also apply thrre in the sense of having to shoot very level and centered to avoid apparent visual distortions and keystoning. This is apparent in many 903SWC photos I have seen (which are often compositionally bothersome, unless used in some nature shots) and in those of my 12mm lens on a 35mm camera body. Fortunately, the 3:2 aspect ratio helps to tame that if I shoot for a final 1:1 print aspect ratio.</p>

<p>Unless you want the VF type operation of a 903SWC or SWC, or the RF capabilities of the Mamiya 7 (I fully expect you would find its lens to be the equal of the Zeiss), and the speed of use either provides, I think Frank's suggestion of the Cambo superwide and its shift capability is also worth considering.</p>

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>Great camera but too much money for a beater. Hold out for a better one. </p>

[timlayton]

<p>I wanted to give everyone an update. I went through the process of using the 903SWC, Mamiya 7 with 43mm, and 40mm CF on 503CW. As we all know, there are no right or wrong answers and most of this emotional versus a technical need. I enjoyed all three of these cameras because they all produce high quality professional images. Each rig has its sweet spot for me personally and that was the basis of my decision. </p>

<p>First a little background. I own a 503CW with a full lineup of glass which now includes the 40mm CF as well. I love this camera for many different reasons and have used it as my "go to" medium format system when I want or need the 6x6 format. I use this camera for everything from studio macros to landscapes and even street photography. The Mamiya 7 Rangefinder is a fantastic 6x7 camera that produces professional images with ease. The portability, high quality glass and internal metering makes this camera a top-notch travel, landscape and environmental option for me. Of course it is a no go on closeup work, but that's okay. Then there is the 903SWC and the 38mm Biogon glass. The super small compact size of this camera coupled with the high quality images makes this an ideal travel, street, urban camera for me. In short, I have use for all three of these cameras and for different reasons based on the project, environment or situation. Then couple in the fact that the 503CW and 903SWC can take a CFV digital back if desired, makes these cameras even more timeless then they already are, if that is even possible. </p>

<p>I started down this path because I am getting ready to do some significant and very frequent travel work. I could have easily used any one of these cameras as the solution without a problem. However, I wanted a very portable and easy to transport light weight setup to take with me on airplanes and to keep by my side during my travels. As you know from my original post I tried a 1988 903SWC from a local dealer that used to be a Hasselblad dealer. The camera was in pretty rough shape, but it did function perfectly because I ran lots of film through it. I decided to buy from KEH and got one that was 10 years newer and was in excellent condition. The nice thing about KEH is they have the 14 day return policy and a 6 month warranty on their equipment. For a little more money I thought this KEH camera was a no brainer. </p>

<p>If any of your know me, I am a film shooter and have been for over 30 years. I have only played around with digital when I had a no-cost opportunity. Based on my future travel requirements I am working with Hasselblad right now on a CFV-50 that I can use with the 903SWC as well as my 503CW and to include my 4x5 view camera. I found an adapter for my graflok back that will allow me to take single images or up to 5 for stitching from the LF camera. I have no idea what the quality will be, but I will be giving it a try. </p>

<p>My plan is to potentially use the CFV-50 for my travel images as the primary medium and keep lots of Tri-X and T-Max with me to use when it is an option and can develop, scan or make wet prints on my own timeline. I simply don't have the ability to expose, develop and scan my negatives on these travels in a timely manner. The CFV back for the 500 series analog cameras is an incredible option for Hasselblad owners. I am perfectly happy with shooting film till the end of my days in the 500 series, but in this specific case it is sadly not an option for me. I do have the option of creating a digital negative from my CFV digital files in the event I capture a "winner" on the back and didn't get it on film. I do a lot of contact printing both traditional large format silver gelatin and alternative (salt, van dyke, Pt/Pd, etc) which helps soften the blow of the digital negative approach. </p>

<p>It will be an interesting test over the next two weeks with the two cameras and the CFV-50. My goal is to get my digital CFV-50 images to look as close as possible to my analog film images so I am hopeful that is even possible. Photoshop and plugins, here I come. I will post again after I have some first hand experience to share.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_loveteck]

<p>After having used a SWC (and many 500's, my latest being a 503CW), my dream was to get rid of the SWC and have a lens as good as the Biogon on my 503CW.<br>

Well, somebody at Zeiss had the same idea and produced the 40mm CFE IF. One of their stated goals was to be at least as good as the 38mm, another goal to suppress the stupid second focusing ring of the 40mm FLE. They achieved both goals and produced this fantastic lens. I have been using one for 2 years and never, never regretted my SWC.<br>

I am using this lens with both film and digital (PhaseOne P20+) with fantastic results.<br>

It is more expensive, but worth every $$$</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

... But, must be said, not a lens for people who like the Biogon for the low distortion characteristics.<br>In that respect, they missed their goal by a mile, with the IF FLE 40 being worse than its predecessor.

[paul_loveteck]

<p>...But, must be said, those distortions are completely corrected with a single click in any decent software. Don't forget that some of the most amazing images of the last 30 years have been produced by a faulty lens circling above the earth and almost blind without software corrections . . .<br>

A simple mouse click is not much to pay when you compare using a 503CW (or even a 500C/M) instead of a primitive SWC with its fixed lens and difficulty of composing / focusing.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well, yes. That's true. Digital post processing can hide many shortcomings. And since we're dealing with a visual medium, something that's hidden is something that simply doesn't exist.

[timlayton]

<p>I purchased the 903SWC that was in literally mint condition and I am loving the camera. I've now shot several rolls through the camera and I will never part with this camera. I love the freedom this camera gives me in terms of size, portability, and of course the quality goes without question. Without question this is my travel camera and all things wide angle. So far I am just using sunny 16 rule in coordination with the hyper focal markings on the lens and let it rip. In a dozen rolls of Tri-X in many different scenarios, I haven't got a bad negative yet. </p>

<p>Here are a few photos that I have scanned so far on my Flickr set at http://www.flickr.com/photos/timlaytonsr/sets/72157628115853858/<br>

The 903SWC was a great addition to my 503CW system in my opinion. For those times when two cameras are appropriate, it is nice to have the small 903 read for wide angle and use the 503 for telephoto or normal shots. I do a lot of studio work with my 503 and I couldn't think of a better tool for that type of work. </p>

<p>In regards to the CFV back exploration, my experience didn't go well and after reflecting about things I am sure there were some variables or issues with the demo gear and that is to be expected from time to time with demo equipment. However, I did get enough captures to fully evaluate and explore the idea of using the CFV for travel and if I could match the look of my CFV images to my film. Long story short, for now I decided to continue to stick with film and be open to reviewing a digital back in the future if I have a compelling business reason to pursue it. Until then I will keep cranking out quality work with my 503 and 903 on my trusty A12 film backs.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p> </p>

[j_pen]

<p>Tim,<br>

I've enjoyed this thread because i've been thinking about selling my 903 SWC, in favor of a Horseman 612. The Horseman appealed to me because of its ability to change formats and lenses, but the integration of the Hasselblad is hard to resist. I also own the 503CW and Flexbody, and everything works between these cameras! Load up a few mags and you have so many camera options. I recently purchased a CFV-16, but returned it because of odd green cast images and a very restricting 1.5 lens factor. It's possible my CFV-16 was faulty, but the legendary "fat pixel" eluded me. The 38mm biogon is amazing indeed, and takes some interesting framing choices to get it right with no converging. The 38mm Biogon's image circle makes such good use of the 6x6 neg, that there's very little of the negative that's not being used, and that's a strong argument for keeping it. Thanks for this thread, and a cyber "slap in the face". </p>