Is 903 SWC my answer?

[ken_chi]

Hello to all you visionaries!

 

I have looked through all of the photo.net threads, photosig photos

about the SWC but I still have some questions in mind...

I am trying to make up my mind about getting a (used) 903SWC in Hong

Kong during X'mas. A little backgound first. I mainly shoot with a

leica and a 50mm for street photography. However, I have found my

pace and subjects have changed and that the leica's become more like

a sketch book. I tend to want to photograph building facades, stairs,

interiors, still life, environments and objects thesedays. I am not

into zone system (yet) but I am fascinated by the quality of all the

LF photos from my photo book collection. So I want a camera that

would fullfill my desire for higher quality and a different

perspective. I already have a rollei TLR 3.5f, but I find it not wide

enough as I like the idea of a super wide since it draws your eye

from the foreground to the background. As much as I like the idea of

LF, at this point in life I can't see myself moving a 4x5 enlarger in

and out of my bathroom every time I want to print, which is about

once a week. So I have narrowed down to the 903SWC for these points:

- handholdability (I tried one out in the shop, I think I will have

to spend some time with the spirit level and the viewfinder)

- distortion-free? And can give me the LF near-far transition as seen

in many LF landscape shots

- square, I like the format, like to print full frame.

 

My questions are:

- I know it's a pretty wide lens, (about 21mm in 35mm?), but is this

suitable for close-up or portrait work if the subject framed is dead

centered?

- How many of you really use it for street/documentry work?

- How necessary is the tripod? I want to travel light.

- Ground glass recommended?

- And finally, some say the 38mm biogon is super sharp, what about

the 'signature' of the lens such as the out of focus area, contrasty,

warm?

 

Sample images?

 

My other options included: Plaubel Makina 67W (55mm nikor), Mamiya 7

(close focusing not close enough and framing not accurate enough),

new rolleiwide (but I think it's out of my reach).

 

Thanks a lot

 

Ken Chi

[._._z]

Rent one.

[majid]

If the Rollei 4.0FW is out of your financial reach, then probably so is the 903SWC. You should be able to get a used Hasselblad CF Distagon 50mm f/4 FLE (floating lens element) for about $1200, add $1000-1200 for a used 500C/M, 500CM or 501CM body. The 50mm FLE will focus to 0.5m, vs. 0.3m for the 38mm Biogon.

 

The Mamiya 7's 43mm lens also has an excellent reputation. How much of a limitation in practice is its minimum focus range of 1m?

[jay_.]

<<I tend to want to photograph building facades, stairs, interiors, still life, environments and objects thesedays.>>

 

Flexbody and 40CF or CFE or 50CF-FLE. Horseman VH-R 65mm Topcor. Linhof Technika 2x3 65mm Angulon. Get it? You may as well have something w. perspective control movements.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW2/large/37.jpg"><br>

<i>Point of Ayre on the Isle of Man, Summer 2002</i><br><br>

</center>

 

I traded my Leica M kit for a 903SWC and have never regretted it. It's a delightful

camera: modest size and easily hand-holdable yet works superbly on a tripod too. If

you use a groundglass back (I have one but haven't used it yet) it makes an excellent

copy camera as it has a very wide, flat field of view, focuses to 12" or so, and exhibits

minimal distortion with very high resolution right to the corners.

<br><br>

The field of view is approximately the same as a 21mm diagonally or 24mm

horizontally on 135 format ... the square format gives photos a lot of headroom.

Because the lens has a f/4.5 maximum aperture, I do tend to use the tripod a lot of

the time and also to orient the camera level and square. It packs into a fairly compact

bag and is a good traveler.

<br><br>

Older models of the SWC are virtually the same with respect to the lens itself. I went

with a 903SWC for a couple of reasons: <br>

- this example was in superb, like new shape<br>

- the CF series lens has a more robust lens barrel than the older T* model<br>

- the viewfinder is a little nicer than the older model <br>

- the CF series lens takes the bayonet hood and filters

<br><br>

I do wish they'd kept the bubble level in the body.

<br><br>

Here's a page with some still life work taken last year: <br>

<a href="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/swc28APR02/"><b>http://

www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/swc28APR02/</b></a><br>

<br>

If you look through the pages of my <i>Picture A Week 2002</i> set, you'll see a

few others as well, some hand held. Pictures are annotated by camera in the

lower left corner under the image: <a href="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/

photostuff/PAW2/"><b>http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW2/

</b></a><br><br>

 

Godfrey

[eric friedemann]

If you like to shoot square, the SWCs are beautiful cameras. The Biogon lens design is, IMHO, the best of the wide-ultrawide rangefinder lens designs. And the 38mm on the SWCs equal about a 24mm lens in 35mm format, so, the SWCs are nice for architecture shooting and the like. The SWCs do not have rangefinders or meters.

 

If you will be croping to rectangular, I would advise you look at the 43mm lens for the Mamiya M7s:

 

1. The Mamiya 43mm is a full Biogon design equal to 21mm in 35mm and does not have quite as much light falloff as the 38mm SWC lens.

 

2. The M 43mm couples to the rangefinder of M7 cameras and the viewfinder for the 43mm is excellent and has an in-finder bubble level, like the current SWC finder.

 

3. The M 43mm is coupled to the M7 and M7IIs' in camera meters, which are reasonably accurate with the 43mm lens.

 

4. You wind up with a full 6x7 image.

 

5. Given that you are used to shooting Leica Ms, you might well appreciate that the Mamiya 7II shoots like a largish Leica M camera.

 

6. The M7 43mm takes standard 67mm filters.

 

7. With a back and finder, the current 905SWC runs over $6K U.S. An M7II body with the 43mm, finder and run $4,300 U.S.

 

I agree with Ken Rockwell that the M 43mm lens is the best ultrawide I've ever used:

 

http://kenrockwell.com/mamiya/43.htm

[emile_de_leon10]

Sounds like you might be better off with LF. For the cash you will spend on a blad you could have a hell of a good LF camera outfit. Used body and maybe a new Schneider XL lens. Getting the benifits of a big neg and movements and more lens choices for the future. If you need hand holdability why not a Mamiya 7? Or better yet an Alpa with the new Schneider Helvetar lens that is high resolution and good even wide open at 5.6 with a 6x9 neg. The Alpa is probably the best of the ultrawide lot if that is your cup of tea.

[stephen_w.]

I have one and love it; it is the older one with a self-timer, which I use with a monopod when I want to get above the crowd (specifically, Spanish festivals), don't restrict yourself to perfectly level, horizon bisecting the frame shots.

[jay_.]

<<Jay is usually correct but I think a Flex body or a wide lens on a Hasselblad SLR is going in the wrong direction, at least for working fast and handheld.>>

 

Let me requote the original question:

 

" mainly shoot with a leica and a 50mm for street photography. However, I have found my pace and subjects have changed and that the leica's become more like a sketch book. I tend to want to photograph building facades, stairs, interiors, still life, environments and objects thesedays."

 

I stand behind my recommendation for a flexbody or a 2x3 tech-field, with the presumption that a tripod will be used as a matter of course. For this kind of subject it's ridiculous to switch to medium-format and then shoot handheld, as the results won't be up to the full potential MF holds over 35mm.

[cxc]

The beauty of LF is that you can get that near-and-far effect without going superwide. With the SWC, the mountains in the background will be so far away that you can barely make them out, though the flowers in the foreground will be perfect.

 

Personally, I adore the SWC, but don't want to invest that kind of money in a rather limiting camera. I ended up instead with a Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100, which has a Super Angulon 47mm, and gives you a 6x10 image. Presumably not as sharp as the Biogon, I still find it way sharp, more than enough for me. Handles like a slightly oversized 35mm, but with viewfinder only. At the time of purchase, I thought that 6x10 was an advantage over 6x6, though lately my tastes have changed and I have gotten quite fond of The Square. I'll probably wait until the used price drops below $1k (two years? one year?) and pick up an SWC for myself.

 

A Mamiya 6 is another good choice. As is a Mamiya 7 if you can stand the wimpy 6x7 aspect ration.

[peter_white2]

For interiors, a tripod will be almost essential. Very few interiors are sufficiently well lit to shoot without either flash or a tripod. Given that, I like Jay's recommendation. But for everything else, and given that Ken wants to "travel light", the Super Wide is the better choice. In daylight you can shoot with a fast enough shutter speed that the tripod is rarely needed.

 

However, this is precisely why so many photographers, even amateurs like myself, have more than one camera. One camera simply won't do everything I want to do photographically.

 

For instance, riding my mountain bike through The Maze in Canyonlands a few years back while carrying my Super Wide C was fun. I got all the pictures I wanted and had no issues with equipment. I could ride through any terrain that I could have handled on the bike with no camera at all. If I had had to bring along a tripod, it would have been just a photo trip, rather than a great bike ride with plenty of opportunities for photography along the way.

 

PJW

[eric friedemann]

I beg to differ, Christopher Condit! Real men shoot 6x7. It isn't the oblongness of your aspect ratio; its what you do with it!

 

In fairness, it might not be wide enough for Ken, but the Fuji 6x9s with the 65mm lenses- 30mm in 35mm are swell. Also, though it may be a bit cumbersome for hand held work, I do like the Cambo Wides with the shift features and- for instance- the aforementioned 47mm SA lens. They aren't insanely pricey and they allow for shooting 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 4x5:

 

http://www.calumetphoto.com/syrinx/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=cat.CatItemDetail&ac.item.itemNo=CB0706K&ac.cat.CatTree.detail=y&type=PRDINDEX

[vincent_lau]

I used leica 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses before,there are raplaced by 905SWC and Rollei FX. The 905SWC is like a Leica wide angle lens, I run though film as fast as using leica. All SWC are good and so as Leica. I feel they are very similar cameras and if you want to slow down the pace of taking picutres, the SWC or Rollei FX are not going to slow you down, they are "fast camera", you need to slow down voluntarily with these cameras, LF camera really slow you down.

[ken_chi]

Thanks a lot for the abundance of feedback... and I think this is where photo.net really shines.

 

Godfrey, i really like your folio, I have seen all your SWC images at least 3 times, for the interior shots there's just something really nice about them.

 

LF: I think I am one of those people who would shoot more if I can travel with as little as possible, and again, my current darkroom doesn't permit a 4x5 enlarger...so I think I'll rule that out for now...

 

Mamiya 7I/II: What turns me off about the camera is the construction of the camera (polycarbonate) even though it's metal body inside if I'm correct. I have handled one in a shop and I'm just not sure about it for some reason. Although I heard the 43mm is quite an amazing lens...

 

Rolleiwide: Seems like a lotta money to me for that camera...

 

Flexbody/horseman: They seem to be married to a tripod because of the shift capabilities...?

 

One point that I am contemplating is if the SWC is too wide for near-far type of shoots as someone pointed out that anything too far would then become too small.

 

I think my best option is to rent one for in the weekend.

 

How about the older style SWC with the metal finder? Any reasons why I should/ shouldn't go for those models?

 

... thank you all, I will do a bit more thinking and will let you know my verdict once it's been made!

[desmond_kidman]

Hello,

 

I have Hass, Leica, Mam 7II, Linhof Super Tech, 617....so many of the points you make about your shooting and cameras you are considering hit home with me.

 

You are so close to describing the best points of the Superwide that any more thinking and reading has to consitute overthinking the problem. I think you are really describing the Superwide, and the only way to know now is to get one.

 

Handholdability is incredible. Anyone who can't get used to the viewfinder.....well, I question their abilities to visualize a good image if they can't even adapt to this. It's nothing compared to looking upside down and backwards in a view camera. For anyone who has been able to truly separate they binocular vision of a scene from the view through a viewfinder (I believe this is one of the big steps in being able to make great images) should have no problem.

 

True confessions: In an effort to pare down my arsenal, I started selling some equipment. I figured I have the Mamiya with the 43, why duplicate? It's not the optics that make me yearn for the superwide, it's the feel, the transparency of using that little block....it's as if it is not there for me. I am going to buy another one. I'm making a trip now, I don't feel like carrying an arsenal of cameras, I really want to relax and not "work" hard with the images. I was thinking last night, "What simple system do I bring?" Superwide would be my answer if I had one.

 

Without the viewfinder on the camera I have hung around cafes in europe. When I first enter I pull the separate viewfinder out of my pocket to get a rough idea of the span of the view. Then I simply hold the camera in a relaxed manner, visually square it up vertical (it's a box, this is not hard) and fire away. No one is the wiser. It is even more inconspicuous than a Rolleiwide.

 

A series of my most prized images, inside a centuries old boat fabrication shop in italy with folks making boats the old fashioned way, dimply lit, were done on a SWC/M.

 

Life is short.....if you have the cash, get one. If you don't like it, sell it, you'll come out within a hundred or 2, or break even.

[paul_chan4]

If you are inclined on a SWC do not overlook the Horseman SW612. It gives the versatility of 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 plus a range of interchangeable superb Rodenstock lenses to choose your required configuration. Not cheap but fairly compact for hand-held street shooting. The bigger format gives the edge for enlargement. The current "P" version allows some rise function for perspective control in architectural application. Fully mechanical like the SWC and equally superior performance with the 38mm Biogon. Give it some serious thought.

[eric friedemann]

"Mamiya 7I/II: What turns me off about the camera is the construction of the camera (polycarbonate) even though it's metal body inside if I'm correct. I have handled one in a shop and I'm just not sure about it for some reason."

 

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. If dropped, ballistic plastic scratches, metal dents. I appreciate the weight saved by the Mamiya 7II's use of plastic.

[bob haight]

Definitely look at the older SWCs also, the lenses are great and frankly there is very little difference between the original and the current 905. The prices go down considerably but he result does not. As said above, the SWC is not really a handholding camera. To get the best results you need a tripod. Plus, no easy way to focus close up without the viewfinder back, so you will probably be using hyperfocal settings at small apertures which equates to a tripod.

[aricmayer]

If you have been shooting with Leica's, I think you will love the SWC. It is compact, quick and easy to use. The depth of field is terrific. I shoot all the time with it without looking through the finder. The depth of field in good light will keep almost eveything in focus. From there I compose from the center of my chest. The lens seems to capture space as I feel it around me. You almost don't need the viewfinder because it's field of view is pretty darn close to your own eye. I know these aren't very scientific terms, but you'll never get the experience of shooting with one without trying it out. I have carried one two weeks in the mountains, two weeks through the desert and two weeks in the swamp and I wouldn't have taken any other camera. I have used it in airplanes and on boats. It goes anywhere and you always know that you are getting a great image. It distills wide angle medium format photography to its essence.

 

As a portrait lens, it does a great job for full body shots centered in the frame, but be careful of extreme foreshortening if your subject for instance reaches towards you.

 

Some don't like the viewfinder. I do. It distorts space enough that you have to make the composition with your own eye and use the viewfinder to line it all up. The lens barrel blocks the bottom bit of the viewfinder frame. I get surprises, too, with unexpected compostional elements happening along the edges of my frame. At first this threw me and then I learned to enjoy it.

 

IMHO this is the best medium format wide angle camera made, but it's not for everyone. Try it out and see.

[bashir_lunat]

I read a lot of Leica bashing.......it a war recipe!

By the way I read 43mm lens for Mamiya 7 has less light fall-off than Biogon.Thats not true.

[leicamania]

I like to photography people and how they get on with their life - street/documentary. So its important for me to find a system that allows me to get as close to the "actions" as possible without causing "disruptions" to the activities. Apart from Leica M, Rollei 35...etc, SWC is one such system.

 

I am using the SWC/M - the last series with the CF T* lens. Its black painted with spirit level built-in the body(very critical for non-eye level shots!!!). I can get very close to the subjects and capture everything. With the neck strap, its almost "invisble" when you shoot handheld at chest or waist level, especially when you also put on a dark t-shirt. I am using the discontinued Cosina Voightlander SWC finder with the spirit level on the body for leveling.

 

To answer your questions - (1) It balances very well on my hands and I can use very low shuttle speeds effectively like the other RF; (2)Considering how wide the lens is, the distortions and vignetting are actually quite minimal for 6x6; (3)Occassionally, I will use it for stills and landscapes with the whole works - heavy tripods, ground glass, waiting for the right lighting, f8, high resolution film etc....if the conditions are optimal, I will have "blow away" shots - high resolution and beautiful color.

 

In short, go get it if its within your budget. You need to experience this wonderful tool to really understand if it suits your needs. Be warned, in the whole process, the photographer(..speaking for myself) is usually the weakest link.

[seb_seb]

Since we're in a discussion about the SWC I have a question : How does the older viewfinder (C model) compares to the new one for user wearing eyeglass ? Is it the same ? Is the new one beter ?

 

Thanks in advance.

[eric friedemann]

"By the way I read 43mm lens for Mamiya 7 has less light fall-off than Biogon. Thats not true."

 

Comparing negatives shot with two 1980s manufactured SWCs with the 43mm Mamiya lens, the SWCs exhibit enough light falloff that I would want to shoot a center-gradient filter with the SWCs. The Mamiya 7 43mm lens does not exhibit as much falloff. I suspect that this is the result of the SWC 38mm lens being an abreviated Biogon design while the M7 43mm is a full Biogon design.

[kparratt]

Yes, I believe the superwide is your answer. Remember too, that once you have it, you also have a foot in the door of the Hasselblad system. The magazine can be attached to any 500 or F model made during the past 50 years, and if you buy used, the difference in cost could be the price of a lens more suited to portrait work. I think of the FlexBody as an accessory within the Hasselblad system, not a primary use camera. The shift possibilities with the wide angle lenses are very limited, and even the best are still 'only' retrofocus and can not compare with the optically true design of the Biogon. You may have already read that when the superwide was first conceived, it was the task of Zeiss to design the lens without compromise. The Hasselblad engineers were then to design the space between the glass and the film. As Armando describes, spotaneous hand-held photography fits well with this camera. You can also use a tripod if you desire a geometrically correct image, then for precise compositions, use of the special viewing screen adapter converts it into a medium format view camera.

 

The Mamiya 7, whilst delivering high quality results, cannot compare with the versatility of the Hasselblad Superwide system.

 

I have two enlargers: a Leitz Focomat for 35mm work and a Durst M605, for up to 6x6. For the moment it has to stay this way. For my own purposes, I have been considering the same question about the superwide for a long time. The answer is, once again, "yes".

 

Kevin P.

[kparratt]

I forgot to say: "What a beautifully framed image Godfrey!" (I had never thought I would want to start a photography collection. Hmmm..)