FlexBody

[lennart_estrvm]

Someone who owns a FlexBody? How does it work with different lenses? Can they all be tilted properly? Can tilt and shift be used at the same time with all types of lenses? Other comments, please!

Can lenses longer than 150 mm be used?

[andreas_carl]

I don't own one but I played with one in a store. Tilt is o.k., but

shift is extremely limited. If you need it for architectural

photography, forget it. If you want it to increase depth of field of

landscapes, using a wide angle lens and tilt it may work fine.

 

<p>

 

Hassie also came out with an Arc body that uses Rodenstock lenses.

Much better coverage and lots of shift. Less tilt compared to the flex

body, but still maybe o.k. depending on what you need. Main

disadvantage of the Arc body: Your need a whole new set of (expensive)

lenses.

 

<p>

 

My conclusion was: Better buy a 4x5 camera with a roll film back or a

2x3 view camera.

[kk___]

I own a Flexbody.

 

<p>

 

Yes you can use most Hassy lens and the effective tilt area is

controlled by the area of coverage of the lens you use. In my

case for simple table-top stills, it's all OK with my one-and-

only-one 80mm lens. I've never had the need to use shift so

far but I understand that this camera may not really

functional in practice so I am not in a position to tell any

thing.

 

<p>

 

I like this camera, and I use it more often than my 500c

for easier control on close ups. The only complaint that I

would have about this camera is that its operation knobs are

slightly too small for me. Otherwise I will just say that

this camera has nothing really disappointing me.

[michael_heal]

Good question, Lennart. Never having seen either, I'm a little

unclear as to what the FlexBody and ArcBody offer. The FlexBody

seems to allow 15 mm of back fall (please correct me if I'm wrong).

15 mm might be enough for landscape work, but I think it would be too

little for architecture or much table-top work. The FlexBody appears

to use regular C or CF lenses. That will mean very limited fall is

possible at large distances as these were designed to barely cover

only the normal 54 x 54 mm negative. Close up, using the full 15 mm

fall should be no problem as any lens covers much more when focused

on near objects.

<p>

The FlexBody appears to offer only one additional movement: rear tilt

of plus or minus 30 degrees. That sounds pretty awkward if you're

trying to change the plane of focus as rear tilt changes your

composition, requring you to re-position the camera. Front tilt

would be far more useful, but maybe hard to build into a camera

designed for the C and CF lenses.

<p>

Now the ArcBody offers 28 mm of rear fall. That's probably enough to

be helpful for architectural work and table-top stuff, although more

would be better. By way of comparison, the Arca-Swiss 6x9 gives

combined rise & fall of 70 mm. Admittedly, back fall (or front rise)

is probably one of the most useful movements, but if you do want back

rise or shifts you have to turn the camera upside down or on its side

(respectively). Is it just me or does that sound very inconvenient?

No matter what you do, you can't have combined rise/fall and shift

with the back aligned vertically. Surprisingly, only back tilt seems

to be offered, meaning changing your plane of focus will lead you on

long path of re-aiming and re-focusing to get maintain your

composition. That sounds very awkward for arcitectural work, given

that keeping the back absolutely vertical is often essential. If

Hasselblad could only incorporate two movements, I think the most

useful two would be front tilt and rear fall, but they seem to have

chosen otherwise.

<p>

The ArcBody uses special wide-angle (Biogon-like) lenses designed by

Rodenstock. These are likely excellent, optically, but they sure are

expensive! At least where I am, they seem to be at least double the

price of other Rodenstock view-camera lenses. In fact the ArcBody

itself, as I recall, is so expensive that you could buy a complete

6x9 cm or 4x5 inch view camera system of equivalent quality for less

money than the ArcBody alone.

<p>

I was intrigued by these cameras, too, but I've since begun to wonder

whether they are rather awkward to use as view cameras and rather

limited. A 6x9 view camera is relatively close in price to the

FlexBody, yet offers complete front and rear movements that make it

far more flexible than even the ArcBody. A MF view camera is likely

at least as compact as a Hasselblad system, mainly because the lenses

are smaller and lighter---much cheaper, too.

<p>

I guess the bottom line is it depends on your application. If you

already have Hasselblad backs and lenses, the FlexBody offers

minimal, somewhat awkward movements at a price roughly equivalent to

a view camera body. The FlexBody is lighter and smaller than the

view camera body, too. It's probably most useful in close-up or

landscape work. In particular, it might let you do a few product

shots or close-ups without investing in a new camera system.

<p>

I don't see why long lenses couldn't be used, except they are likely

to have limited coverage, meaning you can't use fall, and the length

of the bellows would limit the ability to focus on close objects. I

think the most lenses with this camera would be the C or CF 60

(because it probably has more coverage than other wide lenses), the

80 and 100 mm normal lenses, and the C or CF 120 Makro. The C or

CF 150 mm lens also might be good as it seems to have great coverage.

<p>

My impression is that the ArcBody was designed as a small, light

camera for architecture. It's simply too expensive to justify unless

you're going to use it a great deal. Unfortunately, I think it would

be far more useful if they had given it a few more movements: in

particular, front tilt and shift. Actually, front and rear swing

would be nice, too, especially for the price. In fact, the best

option of all might be if Hasselblad teamed up with Arca-Swiss to

make a true 6x6 view camera compatible with the Hasselblad backs and

viewfinders.

<p>

That being said, I'd think most architectural work is pretty slow and

contemplated. I would think that a view camera would be far easier

to use and would be cheaper. At least you could get swing and shift

without turning the camera on its side.

<p>

On the flip side, maybe the ArcBody and lenses will become

collectibles!

<p>

Really interesting topic, so hope to hear from others who use these

cameras. I repeat that I've never used, or even seen, either camera,

but these are the points that I would consider before getting one.

Perhaps I've missed some other good points or have not correctly

interpreted the features and intended applications of these cameras.

<p>

<em>Note</em>: Despite Hasselblad's marketing department, I have

called the ability to lower the camera back by the more usual term,

rear fall, instead of shift. Most sources seem to reserve the term

shift to refer to the ability to move either the lens or back

horizontally.

[andreas_carl]

Michael, it's 15 mm back rise and 15 mm back fall, you don't need to

turn the camera upside down. Nevertheless, it's very limited. If you

use it with the 50 mm lens, there is only enough coverage for 5 mm

rise or fall!

[mark_rabiner]

I've heard of people mounting their �Blad bodies on the backs of view

cameras. That might seem the way to good. Also with the digital

revolution in full swing everyone seems to coming out with medium

format view cameras that are super cool; like Rollei, Linhof, ArcaSwiss

and probably others. Although these options are not cheap either is the

flex or these arc, both with limited movements.

I would thing they would reintroduce the Superslide back to make those

limitations less so. I would get one if I had one of those �Blads. I

might get one anyway; they go for pretty cheap.