roland_haid

I can only agree with Ulrik. I have four lens (and a Schneider 4.5/135 Comparon on Z�rk mount) for my Hasselblads, but I always carry only one. That reduces the weight to the minimum. I do not have a 80mm lens. I worry. I have heard that a 500C/M with an 80mm lens permanently attached could magically metamorphous in a 2.8F by night. Its the night of Saint Reinhold, luckily only once in 66 years. But when it comes... God beware of such nightmares! Better to have other lens or you would end double-eyed. Gee.

Hi Vincent

 

B(ay)70/72mm adapter is ok, but B70/77mm adapter is also worth to look at. Advantage: 77mm filters are much more common and the outer diameter of the filter ring is the same as for the lens barrel at front. There was an original Hasselblad B70/77mm adapter available, but it's becoming scarce.

 

Roland

Hello Bengt,

 

Of-course you can buy a (good) scanner and then print or have it printed.

 

Since some time I wonder myself if one of the cheaper DSLR would do the job. Not by taking the photo but in order to digitalise MF. An Olympus E-510 with the 3.5/35mm Makro is not expensive. The overall resolution (for 6x6) is comparable to good standard flatbeds. At first glance it seems unlogical, because you could take the photo directly, but it has some advange. One is, that you wife could use the Olympus as well, that is'nt exactly possible with a scanner.

I believe that the Olympus E510 is superior to all Canon digital SLR below the Canon 5D. I have read some comments from an enthusiastic engineer on the four/third system which suggested that this will be the future (Not Canons CMOS). The E510 with an Olympus E F2.8 zoom is a nice combination, even in low light. The Xi Rebel does not come close. I agree however that the Leica 1.4/25 might proof expensive. A Zuiko 1.4/50 attached to a E510 should be a winner at low light.

I never liked the name Old Standard Rolleiflex, although it's usual. My term would be Four Spindle Rolleiflex (against the three spindle Original One). The fromt deck can be shimmed on the four spindles but usually it is not necessary.

 

First, you have to check infinity of the taking lens with a matte screen or an autocollimator. Turn the knob until infinity is there. Adjust zero focus (exactly adjust the scale) then by a simple adjustment of the focus knob. Pull up the leatherette from the focus knob and adjust accordingly. Viewing lens comes after.

I have a Hasselblad leaflet with some information on the CFi 4/120 Macro Planar, this info includes a measuered MTF of the 4/120 Planar *and* the CFi 4/150 Sonnar at 1:4. The Sonnar came out great at F9.5, beeing almost as sharp as the Planar in the center, but edges become low both in contrast and resolution, mainly because of excessive curvature of field. If that doesn't matter the Sonnar is an excellent choice.

Hello Rod,

 

There is a single foam strip beneath the matte screen, if I recall it right. The strip is at the front side ot the screen. I do not have informations if the foam really "damps" or if it just works for light tightness.

 

I have once (a few yeras ago) changed that strip (2000FC/M), but found it difficult to place it on its original place. Instead I taped the foam to the front side of the box, 90 degrees to its original place. Naturally the mirror got a lot of finger prints, but there is no problem to clean it (contrary to the common believe). It still works fine.

 

I keep my camera in mirror down mode, in order to avoid pressure on the strip and to avoid the mirrot getting dirty if the foam gets soft. The same goes for a 500C/M, which is cocked for the same reason.

 

Regards, Roland

Hasselblads are well suited for handheld use, so the answer depends more on your shooting style (or how you would like to take your portraits) than on the special TLR/SLR question.

 

 

I can only answer for the latter: Most people sees it the other way round, the ROLLEI is more awkward to use. You need three hands for fast shoots. Second point is the use of a prism for portraits. It is often better to have the lens at eye level of your model or a little higher for more natural potraits. Easier to achive with a prism, if you do not wish to sit down your model all the times. Prisms are better on the HASSELBLAD side (Better availability, cheaper, camera does not become very ugly). Camera shake is not a problem for me, more so the object movements at low speeds. The noticable difference in perspective from the taking/viewing lens of a TLR at small distances is a bigger one.

I agree that there are no principle quality issues with HASSELBLAD EL-series, motor assembly is brass/steel and will hardly wear out. There are no electronics and the accu problems (on older EL-models) are easy to come by. The point is that the EL(x) models are mainly studio cameras and to heavy to carry around. I dit that for a year, but changed to a C/M type camera then. The EL(x) is generallly a good introduction into the HASSELBLAD system because of the price, but at the end it will not fit your needs, most will go sooner or later.

An enlarger lens is not best suited for a rangefinder camera, but it works well on most SLR (including Visoflex) cameras. There are some constraints: First, there is not much comfort because of lack of automatic diaphragm and second, a focusing mount or bellows is necessary. In addition, register distance is to be kept for infinity focusing.

 

Zoerk im Munich provides a quite versatile Mini Makro Mount for most 6x6, 6x7 and 24x36 cameras. Many enlarger lens would fit directly to the focusing tube. I have attached a 75/F4 Rodagon (1:1), a 105/F4.5 Componar and a 135/F4.5 Comparon to a 6x6 SLR with help of the Mini Macro Mount. The 135mm Comparon needed an adaptor M39x0.75 to M39x1, though. The Rodagon is for makro work only, but the Componar (6x9) and Comparon (9x12) can be both focused to infinity. Picture quality is generally good for 6x6, these designs are not too stretched. The Comparon is a Tessar type which is known beeing not to critical to an enlarged working distance.

 

These lens are small and cheap and really worth to take photos.

Dan, nice kit and a good price for a 120/150 Imagon outfit.

 

In your photos, the package looks original Rodenstock. The focus barrel is a little different from what I know, being totally black anodizised combined with a wider handgrip. But that maybe a change done by Schmachtenburg/Rodenstock.

 

You could check if you can change the FD mount on your focusing tube and you can try to get a Pentagon bayonet mount. The easiest thing would be to get a Zork (Zoerk) focus mount for Pentagon SIX and adapt the lens via M42x1 adapter to the Imagon M40x0.75mm thread. Note: custom made by a good workshop. Because there are tons of M42 distance rings available generally, both 120 and 150 can be adjusted to the (roughly) right bayonet flange to film plane distance with help of additional rings.

Sorry, but never heard about a Scmactenburg (Schmachtenburg) - sounds german - focusing tube for the Rodenstock Imagon. Normally the lens was provided with a Rodenstock focus mount for MF cameras (for all focal plane shutter cameras or 500C/M mount or Mamiya RB67). Zork (Zoerk) delivers Mamiya RB adapters as well. Maybe your tube is the Rodenstock tube with just another name. The mount is silver/black. The definitive Imagon book is Alfons Scholz: Lichtbilder mit dem Imagon (german) 1980. Scholz lists the following parts:

 

Pentagon Six Adapter: 07.200.06.066

Focus Mount: 07.200.06.000 (Rodenstock)

 

Anyway, the Imagon can be adapted to most cameras with ease. The 120mm is generally too soft for 35mm , 6x6 gives acceptable softness and a good field of view.

... the Porsche Cheyenne was designed (except engine) by VOLKSWAGEN and is actually build at VW's factory in Slovakia. Porsche puts the badge on it ans makes some interieur work, too.

In the long term you will get more problems with the Bronica mainly because of their electronics. If the shutter fails, you have to change it - if you can get a new one. They will not come cheap. Otherwise you can dispose the lens. The mechanical Compur and Prontor shutters inside the Zeiss lens can be serviced at any time, that is one of the reasons that the Hasselblad V system remains so popular.

 

So, Q.G. is right: a 500c/m Hasselblad is a Volvo (means: I drive), Bronica is a Datsun.

My proposal would be to design a very simple camera.

 

Outer design: enlarged version of a Leica Compur, no handgrips (they are ugly usual), no finder, lens interchangeable, two flash shoes, one for a finder, the other for a rangefinder -noncoupled-. Non-foldable (see lens) generally because it is a hassle and makes the outfit more complicated. Body holder for a cable relase.

 

Lens: Should take Schneider 5.6/38 and Rodenstock 4.5/35. Then almost everything else would fit as well. No movements necessary (see inner design).

 

Inner design: With red dot winding, lot of formats could be covered from 4.5x6 to 6x9, cheaply. Changeable metal focal frames could be forseen. Frames could be designed non-centered in order to arrange vertical movements (Just crop lower part of the 6x9 focal image to get a 6x7 picture). At best the adjustabel image frame could be handled from outside with film inside. Removable back door for matte screen focusing, because that would not increase manufacturing costs much.

Me I don't like the older ones which came as standard up to the late 80ies. The actual one (from 1988 on, black plastic tab) is simpler to open and to fold and one can change the loupe in order to fit it your eyes. One can easily scratch the matte screen with the earlier WLF as well.

Due to the design of the SL66(E,SE) a simple adapter plate is not a solution. Todays digital backs would not fit, because of their outer dimensions. A dedicated back is needed. Second the backs do not work well with focal plane shutters, this is at least true for Hasselblad focal plane shutter cameras, where leaf shutter lens are recommended.

Sorry but the SL66 is not digital ready.

The 501C/M came with a Planar CB 2.8/80 that has indeed a different optical formula with one lens less than the standard CF/CFE Planar. In addition, it lacks the F-button. The performance is the same as the CFE(7 lens) version, except for the outer edge of the film plane (3-4mm), where the CFE has a flatter field. Otherwise contrast and resolution is very very good, contrast in the center is better than the 7lens-version.

 

My understanding is that with modern optical computation it is easier to design a lens which covers barely the format, in order to improve performance in the center where it counts. The older designs often spread the limit a little bit above the film format in order to gain an even perfomance. Indeed all the older lens designs (CB60, CFi100) for Hasselblad had some shift capacity on the FLEXBODY where the newer designs (CFi40, CB80, CFi180) doesn't.

That is hopeless. If you want a Mamiya for film - great. Digital MF backs are, new or used, the most expensive part of a MF digital system. Don't think about bying a cheap MF camera and then add (equally cheap) a digiback later. I think Mamiya backs are rather scarce. The only chance is to get a Hasselblad V camera and then wait for a digiback. You will soon find out that the older backs are comparable with P&S digicams, while newer ones are still expensive.

I am quite sure that they are not working on a 45 deg H-finder.

It would be useless for vertical shoots, it is awkward to use a 45 deg finder in vertical orientation.

Bay70 to 77m adapters are easily available. From Swedish or Chinese sources.

For 6x7 you have only a few choices, the Goetschmann projectors are more or less on top of these. Although I can not compare these directly with my Rollei 66, there are some obvious differences.

 

The Dual 66 is a fully automatic projector with a lot of features including the possibility for using 35mm slides. The features makes sense only if you use it for single projection. The build quality is first class, but from robustness the thing is aimed more for amateur/professional usage (you have to keep care of it). It is not usable for very big rooms simply because it is limited to 250W. With the Schneider lens the image is superb.

 

All Goetschmanns can be had with much more than 250W, this counts for really large image sizes (Larger than, say 2m x 2m). Surely the are more robust for that big events where the installation is done by people other than the photographer.

 

Compare the costs of the 6x7 slides to the 6x6 slides as well. So, stay to 6x6.

1. thickness of screen is not critical, you have to adjust the viewing lens after anyway. i have fitted a standard hasselblad screen *with* fresnel lens into a 1931 original rolleiflex without problems.

 

2. compurs are bulletproof, so a repair can't be a problem. If not they are plentiful and repair parts can taken from obsolete cameras. no need to change to whole shutter.

Yes, that is right and the reason that I have not used incident light metering for years. That is true for chrome (Positive) film only. The reason for this is the definition of film speeds for all films (including print and B/W) and the calibration of the meters to that. Read Jeff Conrads excellent explanation on light metering basics. For slide film the contrast outside (bright) is to high and needs correction up to 1 stop minus to avoid burned highlights (Jeff Conrad). An other possibility is to direct the meter to the sun (Q.G. de Bakker) which gives more or less the same result. In overcast and indoor conditions light meters trends to underexpose or show neutral readings as highlights aren't simply there there is nothing to fade out. For reflected meterering, its the other way round. It often overweigts the sun or sky a in bright condition. Thats what we need for Positive film

Tony, same question again but why haven't you tried to mount your Planar F2/110 to the Olympus? However, I can see that for the price of the Hasselblad/Olympus adapter you got the lens.