godfrey Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 <center> <img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW2/large/37.jpg"><br> <i>Point of Ayre, Isle of Man - Hasselblad 903SWC</i><br> </center><br> I have the 903SWC. The later finder (first appeared on the later CF SWC/Ms, I think) is better than the original SWC finder. But that's irrelevant and it's surprising to hear Jay's vitriol about it. But then, he does like to spew his opinions. <br><br> This is a camera that you set up on a tripod and use a level to get your planes parallel and rectilinear. That's all. The viewfinder is fine for the kind of approximate framing that one normally needs with it. The lens is awesome. Because it has no mirror, it's pretty quiet and almost vibration free, allowing you to take available light photographs in remarkably low light for an f/4.5 lens. With the later finder, you can see all the lens settings while looking through the finder too, it's remarkably handy. To use it the normal way, just set a focus zone with the aperture and distance scales, set the shutter speed to match, frame with the viewfinder and release the shutter. <br><br> If you want to do precision work, as in work with a copystand or requiring precision framing, you use the GG back. The procedure is to cock the shutter, remove the back, install GG back, open shutter, focus and frame, close shutter, recock, install the back, set exposure, release shutter. Not something you do in a hurry. I have the GG back, I've never used it. <br><br> I find the camera a delight to use for casual picture taking and studies with a tripod. I've never found the viewfinder deficient for my purposes. It's compact, light, and fun. It's also hellishly expensive for what it is, but the lens is worth it. Very little light falloff, superb resolution right to the corners, near-perfect parallels. A specialist camera for sure. It's probably the last film camera I will let go of. <br><br> Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Godfrey, In what way is the new finder better? Is it the ability to see the settings on the lens, or something else? I've heard some say that the improved visibility of the bubble level is a help, but I've never found that having to move my eye a bit to the left to check the level has been a problem. I know that with my older SWC the new finder won't let me check lens settings. But since the f stop and shutter speed rings are locked, it hardly matters. I understand the newer lenses don't lock the two together. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Peter, I had a borrowed SWC before I got the 903SWC. The new finder is a bit easier for me to get my eye behind with glasses on, and I find the new bubble level arrangement is easier to see. The markings in the finder allow for framing 645 style, horizontal or vertical too. The CF series lenses reverses the exposure coupling logic: aperture and shutter speed are independent unless you press the button to lock them together. And you have a "traditional" DoF scale, unlike the very nice mechanically coupled DoF markings of the T* lenses. "Different" or "better" ... well, it works better for me. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito sobrinho Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Godfrey: Please, tell me the distance from the camera to the posed group of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I'm guessing nine or ten feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db1 Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Russ Britt....contact me privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 <i> ... focus distance for the photo posted above ... </i><br><br> It's kinda hard to remember the specific focus setting I was using since I took the picture almost two years ago, but Peter's pretty close. <br><br>Judging by the size of the gentleman in the photo (he was about 5' 8" tall), Dudak's Field of View calculator says he was between 8 and 9 feet from the camera. I calculated his height relative to the frame height as approximately 25mm, his actual height at about 1760mm, and plugged in focus distances until I got the 0.014x image magnification. <br><br> The calculator is pretty handy, see <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2e7oz"><b>http://tinyurl.com/2e7oz</b></a> <br><br> Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I feel like Maxwell Smart. "Missed it by THAT much!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann_fuller Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I've always thought about getting an SWC - after Jay's level headed assesment I'm convinced it's the right camera for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Johann, I hope you regret it as much as I have. And do be careful. Because of the way our brains are "hardwired", after you've used the SWC for a while, the whole world starts to look sort of barrel distorted. Or is it pincushion distorted? I don't know, I'm so confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now