richard_freedman1

Actually, Fuji does have a pretty good B&W instant film, 100iso, available in both pack film and 4x5 sheets. Nevertheless, I'm going to miss Polaroid 672 400iso, it's the perfect light meter to Ilford's XP-2.

I have two NPC Polaroid backs, one for colour and the other for B&W. They won't fit the ELM/ELX cameras, but should fit all other 500-series cameras. They cost a fraction of the price of the actual Hasselblad brand backs, and they allow the use of the 90 degree prisms, which the Hasselblad brand won't. By the way, try Fuji's brand of Polaroid film, especially the colour, it's fantastic.

I addition to working with softer light, try shooting with Ilford XP-2 Super 400 film. Best film for women's skintones! I recommend you open a full stop (ie- set meter to 200 ISO). I don't know where my career would be without this incredible film.

Hey Q.G.,

If you're using and enjoying a 645-vertical film back, then what the hell do I know, use what works for you! Me personally, I use my Blad as a 645 more than as a square (I shoot models and actors during the week with A-16 back, then weddings and barmitzvahs on weekends with square), and always use my PM90 prism to facilitate camera orientation. I really think offering 16 frames on a contact sheet is a major selling point, especially since my competition offers only 12 or even only 10 shots per roll. Also, I'm trying to imagine what a contact sheet from the 645-vert back would look like--12 frames, and a lot of blank wasted space! Also, this is a rather expensive purchase for something that only offers one format; with the mask kit and an A-12 back, you can have square, 645-vert, 645-horizontal, 3x6 panorama horizontal, and 3x6 vertical! Most likely, most Blad owners already own at least one A-12, and the mask kit is pretty cheap. Certainly, the panorama mask could be used with either the 645-horizontal back or the 645-vertical back as well (wouldn't that make for a twisted looking contact sheet!)

Also, I remember seeing on eBay once some kind of 35mm adaptor that was inserted into a regular film magazine (I suppose it was simply a pair of modified film cassettes that replaced the 120 spools). I don't know if it was an older long-discontinued Hasselblad accessory or some kind of independent item. Should I see it offered again, I will alert the masses! I've also seen this item made for the Pentax 6x7.

The current Hasselblad models (501cm, 501c, 503cw, 200-series, etc.) have a grooved slot around the opening of the camera's rear. In this slot you can place one of two format masks, one for 645 and one for panorama 6x3cm; the kit #41151 also comes with corresponding focusing sceen masks, and the whole kit of 4 pieces costs around $25. Best of all, if you don't have a 90 degree prism, you can simply rotate the masks 90 degrees to produce a vertical crop within the square. I am told that it was the addition of these format masks (with grooved slot on camera bodies) that resulted in the deletion of the stupid 645-vertical (12 frames on 120-roll) back that was marketed in the 80's.

The lens I'm having converted is the Zeiss Jenna MC, and the conversion is turning out to be a lot more complicated than we expected. I just came back from Vahe's (Camera Repair), and I failed to leave behind my 201F body, so while his re-mount fit on a 500c/m, the presence of the shutter-speed ring on the 201F doesn't allow the mounting of the 180. Vahe is pretty determined, and is continuing with the modification. This problem does not exist however for the Russian lenses; in fact, Vahe has made for me a Kiev88 lens-to-Hassy body adaptor ring, and it's a real work of art! Vahe and I are in Toronto/Canada, and while he does not have internet/e-mail, I have agreed to provide online communication for him. He works on all mechanical cameras and shutters, but specializes in all things Zeiss and Blad (he trained in the 60's in Germany and Sweden). He's also Toronto's main Kiev repairman (has parts!). I'm sure Lisle Kelco (official Canadian distributor/repairs) would not approve of Vahe's services, but too bad, they're way too expensive, and won't do the funky modifications.

I just purchased on eBay an excellent condition Hasselblad 201F camera

body, and am currently having some non-Blad lenses modified to fit

(Zeiss Pentacon 180, Russian fisheye). Upon looking inside this camera

from the back (with shutter open), it appears that these cameras lack

the emergency release screw that allow the incorporation of an

unjamming tool (or appropriate screwdriver) to remove a seized lens

should a C or CF lens' shutter fire unexpectedly. Seeing as most 500-

series Blad users have had some experience with this problem (myself

included), I am wondering if there are any 200/2000-series camera users

who have ever experienced this problem (I'm assuming the 2000-series

cameras are the same, but I could be wrong), as I would dread having

this happen on a job and lose the use of both a camera and a lens. I

realise that one way of solving this problem is to use non-shutter

lenses on this camera exclusively, but I look foreward to maximising

the benifits of having both body/focal and lens/leaf shutter systems to

choose from.

Only the NPC option exists for the Pentax 6x7 cameras. It is highly recommended that you get it installed professionally; I've seen permanent adaptations (ie- the camera door removed and replaced with the NPC back permanently), but the best way to do it is to have the hinge installed on the camera which will let you quickly snap off the NPC back and re-install the original camera back. This saved the day for a friend of mine who was on a commercial job and his main camera's shutter gave out. His other camera which is usually devoted to Polaroids became his back-up body on location.

In case you are unaware, this particular NPC Polaroid back does not incorporate a darkslide, so if you do not devote a second camera body to it, you will lose every other Polaroid by removing it each time (ie- a pack of ten shots will only be a pack of five shots if you shoot a roll of film between each Polaroid).

As much as I love my Hasselblad system, I must say that I'm pretty impressed with my friend's Pentax 6x7 system. He has built a system with twice the lenses of my system at half the price, and those 6x7 Polaroids are mighty impressive (Note to Mamiya: design some kind of mask that can be inserted between camera (RB/RZ) and polaroid back so users don't have to explain the 7x7 Polaroids to clients all the time).

The 100mm is about a third more money than the 80mm lens. If you can, rent both and then decide. That extra half-stop doesn't sound like much, but once you've worked with a 2.8 lens, you'd miss it if it were taken away.

Was there a CFi version of the 80mm lens prior to the current CFE

version? Also, is the only difference between the CFi lenses and CFE

lenses the databus connections on the rear mount? Also, I'd like to

hear personal opinions regarding the "improved" sync cord connection on

these lenses, particularly how they compare to the earlier CF versions

The idea of buying just a body (and back?) with the intention of renting any/all lenses sounds like a very frustrating way to go--having that camera stare at you knowing it's completely useless unless you go through the trouble of booking and picking up even a standard lens just isn't the way to go; kind of like buying a VCR without owning a TV. Wait until you can afford at least a basic body/back/lens combo, and then rent additional backs and lenses, but at least have the basic necessities to take pictures. You didn't mention if you make a living with your gear, but I chose the lease-to-own route for my Hassy system, which meant $400 a month for three years for a complete system that generates considerably more income than the cost (incidently, the 3-year leasing period ended last month, and so did the payments!). Hasselblads have great resale value should you have to flip them, though I'd rather my equipment make me income through their use. I shoot 645 (with 90 prism) for most of my own work, then switch to square on the weekends for weddings and barmitzvahs (most wedding studios want square).

Back when I had a Kowa system (about 4 years ago) I made arrangements to have the Brightscreen company (Beattie's main competitor) make me a custom screen. They asked me to send them one of my screens, as they would need screen's frame, which was not compatible with the original Kowa 6 or the Kowa 6MM cameras. The screen arrived, and to my dismay, it resulted in a tunnel-vision, with a bright center and completely dark corners. It seems that the Kowa screens used a condenser lens, as opposed to a flat fresnel screen, and the two must work quite differently. The advice to consult Ross Yerkes first is a good one.

Was the original Winder F for the 2000 cameras exacally the same as the

current model for the 200 cameras? It says in the 2001 catalog that

the (current model) winder may be used on the 2003fcw and 200fcw

cameras, but with certain operational limitations; this leads me to

believe that there was a previous model that didn't have these

limitations. If this is the case, will the older version work on the

newer 200-series cameras? Also, if there are in fact two different

models, how can they be told apart? Also, here's a stupid question:

has anyone had any luck converting/modifying the Winder CW to a 200-

series camera?

My Hasselblad 503cw apparantly came with the latest focusing screen, an

Acute-Matte D screen, which can be identified by a pair of round

notches in one of the sides. I'm wondering if the original pre-D

Acute-Matte screens used this same identification marking; how can the

two be identified from each other? Also, has anyone had the

opportunity to compare the two screens side-by-side; was the difference

actually noticeable?

My A-16 back used to overlap the first two frames every 3rd or 4th roll! It's since been fixed, but it sounds like your body is causing the problem. You're just going to have to bite the bullet and take your equip to a professional for adjustment. I've seen non-authorized Hasselblad repair manuals for sale on eBay all the time, and while you're free to take a stab at correcting the problem yourself, I wouldn't dare take my stuff apart! Being a professional shooter, I rely on my equipment for a living, and of course the costs of maintanence and repairs can be written off if this is what you do for a living. Just for the record, I use a non-authorized repair technician whom I trust, and has access to replacement parts, but use caution when going with an independent.

I am not aware of the measurement differences between Beseler's 4x5 and Omega'4x5 chassis & "throat" (horizontal distance from column to head), but at the darkroom rental facility where I print in Toronto, we use 20x24 easels with Omega enlargers all the time. You didn't mention if you are using a large 4-blade easel; perhaps a single-size 20x24 easel will solve this problem. I assume your easel is turned horizontally on the baseboard, and you are rotating the neg carrier, as opposed to trying to print with the easel's "top" bumping into the chassis. Also, there should be a bit of "play" with the fit and placement of the neg carrier; lift the head and push the carrier towards in towards the chassis (ie-away from you); you'd be suprised, just a couple of millimeters of neg-carrier movement can buy you an extra inch on the baseboard.

As you probably already know, there are two standard lensmounts for Kiev/Hartblei: P60(Pentacon)mount, which is a breach-lock mount, and K-88, a copy of the original pre-500c Hasselblad screw mount. It appears, according to the Hartblei website, that the rotator version of the 45mm tilt/shift isn't available in either mount, but for Contax645 and Mamiya645 only. You will be hard-pressed to find an adaptor for Contax lens to Hassy body, even if it can physically be done while maintaining infinity focus. Hartblei does offer the 45mm shift-only lens for P-60, K-88, Mamiya and Contax mounts, and while I don't think that a P60 to Hasselblad adaptor is possible, a K88 to Hassy adaptor IS possible, and I have one! It was custom-made for me here in Toronto by a local independant repair guy, and allows me to use my Russian fisheye on my Hass 201f camera.

I have seen on eBay an adaptor to use Hassy lenses on Contax645 body, and Hartblei does offer a 65mm tilt-only lens in Hasselblad mount.

I would like to hear from anyone who's had experience adapting the

Pentagon/Exacta Zeiss lenses to Hasselblad mount for focal-plane

shutter Hassy bodies, especially the 180mm 2.8 lens. I'm only

interested in hearing the opinions of those with actual experience

doing this, as opposed to the disapproval of Hasselblad purists.

Spend a Saturday afternoon in a major wedding location (ie-major picturesque park) and watch what the experienced pros use. Nine times out of ten, you'll see a 500-series Hasselblad, and for good reason. They're workhorses, there's a great used equipment market, they're more rentable than all other med-format systems combined, a system with 3 lenses isn't too heavy, no battery to run the mechanics of these cameras means they generally are reliable in colder weather, etc. etc. etc. I could go on, but the bottom line is that a sound Hassy kit is the industry standard for weddings. If you can afford a 503cxi or 503cw (what I've got), look into the Hasselblad D-40 flash (a beefed-up TTL version of Sunpak's 120J).

Thanks for the good advice! This lens is not rentable in Toronto (in fact, NO F-series lenses are rentable in Toronto), and it's a pretty expensive item to find out you don't like it after the fact! I guess it's cheaper to just buy a good waist-pouch for my assistant to have my three fixed-focus lenses on hand at all times! It will be interesting to see if the digital revolution eventually brings us wedding shooters out of the dark ages, with our heavy monstrosity gear!

As a major 645 Hassy shooter, I obviously chose the PM90, and have loved working with it for the last 3 years. The wedding guy I shoot for on the weekends has a couple of 45 degree prisms, both a metered and a non-metered, and always says that sooner or later I'll come around, but not a chance; whenever I use his system, it feels damn freaky! Oh well, whatever you get used to is probably what you'll stick with. If you're short, you might prefer the 90.

Incidently, about a year ago, I decided to purchase the metered PME90, with the intention of selling off the non-metered model. After 2 weeks, I couldn't wait to return to the PM90, and returned the PME90. The PME90 uses a different viewing lens, with a built-in adjustable dioptor. Although I was careful to set the dioptor correctly to my vision, I never quite saw sharply through the damn thing. By contrast, the simpler PM90 is always crystal-clear! I would like to hear from anyone else who had vision difficulties with either the PME90 or the new PME45, which apparently uses the same viewing optics.

Question to anyone who owns or has used the new 60-120 zoom lens:

Would this lens be a good option for shooting events such as weddings

and barmitzvahs? Main concern is weight (these are long days!), and

hand-holdability at the 1/90th sec sync speed of 2000-series cameras.

Thanks for the help! I'm off to Ebay now!

This is my first post; what a great find! Anyway, could someone please

tell me the exact difference(s) between the 2000fcw and its replacement

2003fcw model? Thanks for any info.