michael_heal

December 11, 2000

You don't say who rebuilt your 500CM, but if it was Hasselblad, I am sure they will stand behind their work. Take it back and they will repair it---likely at no charge as long as they performed the repair recently, as you say.

December 7, 2000

The old B&H web site was not only fast and well organized, it was one of the best sources of photographic information on the web. Unfortunately it seems they threw the baby out with the bath water. Some very helpful information, such as a general introduction to Large Format cameras and lenses, can no longer be found. There is some new information, such as which items are in stock, but it takes you ten times longer to get there.

With the old site, you could type something like www.bhphoto.com/photo/medium/navigation.html and arrive almost exactly where you want to be in one step.

The new slow system forces you to start at the home page and take a great many steps, some of which are not intuative. Say you are looking for a camera back: Type www.bhphoto.com. Wait for a lot of fancy stuff to download. Next, click on the image of the 35mm camera. Wait. Next, click Medium Format. Then, take some time to locate Roll Film Backs/Holders -- approximately item 17 of 38 in the randomly sorted right-most column (don't be fooled by the Camera Bodies/Camera Kits link you probably saw 3 minutes earlier). Unfortunately you have not yet been asked which brand of equipment you use, since that might have eliminated some options and required you to back out fewer steps to locate a closely related item. Wait and wait some more. Eventually, you'll get the first page of a huge result set that contains all possible backs to all possible camera systems -- grey market and not -- sorted by manufacturer (good for the Bronica users). Now, finally, pick the brand of your system. (Hopefully your manufacturer doesn't offer systems in multiple formats because you haven't been asked about that yet either.)

Lots of good information is still there, and some new information too, but must it be so difficult to find?

November 30, 2000

You should be aware that some people find it a little harder to focus with the PME 90 because it has only 2x magnification, whereas the other finders have 3x or greater. There is another 90 degree finder, the RM-2, that has better eye relief and 3x magnification, but it is longer because it was designed for use with 70mm film magazines.

November 30, 2000

Andrew: Is there an option to append a phrase such as "on November 20" to each of the new question lines? This would help to reduce confusion during the transition period and would be helpful the rest of the time, too.

November 28, 2000

I don't know what effect you're after, but if I were doing available light portraits in a hospital, where the lighting can be harsh and people may not look their best, I'd be after relatively low

contrast. In other words, I'd look for a film I didn't have to push. The true speed of Delta 3200 is much closer to 1600 (Ilford claims ISO 1000) so will yield amazingly normal looking negatives, at least in Xtol. Grain will be good. Pushing a slower film is going to give you less shadow detail and a lot more contrast. You may get slightly smaller grain by pushing a slower film, but if you start pushing images taken in anything but the softest light, your subjects may not find the results flattering.

November 24, 2000

The Zeiss website is not in English? I just go to <a href="http://www.zeiss.de/">www.zeiss.de</a> and click on English Homepage. Works for me.

There should be no problem with alignment, even with an older lens, unless the camera or lens has been dropped or subjected to some sort of unprofessional repair. If the lens is out of alignment, you must send it back to Zeiss as nobody else (even Hasselblad) has adequate facilities. Before you commit to buying a lens, see if you can test it. Clamp the camera on a sturdy tripod, use a cable release, and pre-release the camera (MLU). If the negatives are not razor sharp, try another lens.

However, the factor that will most degrade your images is camera and/or subject movement. Even forward and back motion can throw out the focus easily, given the shallow depth-of-field. It is hard to get truly sharp images with the longer lenses handheld (even the 150) unless you use 1/500 second or light your subject with a short-duration flash. The latter is often feasible in the studio. Ergonomics of the 250 is fine for handheld use. It is a few grams lighter than the 180, although a bit longer. 35mm is easier to hand-hold because larger apertures are available and because the shorter focal lengths give you greater depth-of-field.

November 20, 2000

The numbers Luciano gives for the Acute-Matte D screens seem to be universal.

A follow-up question: Does anybody know which lenses work well with the microprism and split-image rangefinder screens? Screens of these types typically work well only with a limited range of focal lengths and/or apertures.

It would be wonderful if Hasselblad saw fit to add information about focussing screens to their web site!

November 20, 2000

The trouble is that you may need to correct by more than two stops depending on how much light is being reflected back to the subjects. It can be hard to guess the correct amount using an incident meter because you can't always walk over to objects in the landscape and take a reading. A lot of landscape photographers get around this problem by using a spot meter. Not only does it allow you to measure reflected light from distant objects, you can judge the range of light values in the scene and take readings through filters to better estimate their effect. The same applies for the in-camera meter, of course, except that it is typically not as selective. Although either can give you more accurate estimates, you still may need to make adjustments based on the colour of the light and the effect you want, so it is still not foolproof.

November 17, 2000

I doubt you will notice (or mind) any loss of quality in a portrait. For portraits, you need to stop down to f11 or so before you get enough depth-of-field to keep much of the head in focus (lens set to f5.6 with 2x teleconverter). The loss of 1 stop will, however, make it a little harder to focus. If you have trouble, swap your focussing screen for an Acute-Matte D.

Teleconverters generally don't affect the minimum focussing distance much, so you shouldn't need an extension tube. With a true 150, 160, or 180, you need a 16 or 21 mm extension tube for head shots.

November 16, 2000

Chris, you can find lots of information, including the weight, at <a href="http://www.mamiya.com/Section2/M7/M7camera/M7camera.html">The Mamiya 7</a>. Information about the lenses is at <a href="http://www.mamiya.com/Section2/M7/M7lenses/M7lenses.html">Mamiya 7 - Lenses</a>.

November 14, 2000

Have you tried a UV or 1A filter? Ultraviolet light sometimes causes such problems. What film(s) are you using?

October 10, 2000

I don't think you need to enter the correction factors when metering through the lens, but if you do (or if you want to use an external meter), here they are. I've given them relative to the distance reading on the lens's distance scale. Obviously, the actual distances will be much shorter than those shown on the scale.

<ul>

<li> If you can make corrections in 1/2 stop intervals, open 1/2 stop whenever the focusing ring reads more than 4 meters. Open 1 stop when it reads less than 4 meters.</li>

<li> If you can make corrections in 1/3 stop intervals, open 2/3 stop when the focussing ring reads more than 2 meters. Open 1 stop when it reads less than 2 meters.</li>

<li> If you want to use only one correction, opening 1 stop provides the best overall compromise. The maximum exposure error is 1/3 stop over, 1/6 stop under.</li>

</ul>

If you want to calculate these numbers yourself, try the following formula:

correction = 2 ( log( f + x) - log( f ) ) / log(2)

</blockquote>

where f is the focal length in millimeters and x is the total extension of the lens from the body in millimeters, including the contributions of both extension tube and helix. The helix of this lens can alone provide a maximum extension of approximately 28 mm, meaning that x can vary between 32 and 60 mm with the 32 mm extension tube in place.

To calculate the distance settings from the extensions, you need to know that

distance = ( f + y)2 / y

</blockquote>

where y is the amount of extension in millimeters provided only by the helix. In this case y = x - 32.

October 10, 2000

Used with your 150 mm lens, the 18 mm extension tube will work well for head shots. Setting the 150 mm lens to infinity with the 18 mm tube, the lens will show you pretty much what it does without the tube and set to its closest focussing distance. In other words, it will focus at about 5 feet and fill the frame with an object that measures about 18 inches to a side. Turning the focussing ring to the closest setting, you will be able to focus to about 3 feet and fill the frame with an object measuring about 9 inches per side. That's a useful range for tight head shots. Indeed, it is a slightly better range that you would achieve with the +1 diopter close-up lens and the quality may be marginally better, but the close-up lens is easier to attach and remove. Open the lens an extra 1/2 stop when using the 18 mm extension tube with the 150 mm lens.

Neither are much use for head shots with the 80 as the largest object that will fill the frame with the 18 mm tube is about 9 inches to a side. With this lens, a 9 mm tube would be more useful. Similar logic rules out the 36 mm extension tube for this application.

Another way to copy transparencies is to take them to a good lab. It is hard to achieve as good results yourself, unless you are willing to invest in a macro lens, bellows, and other appropriate equipment.

September 14, 2000

Many people use 6x7 or 6x9 roll-film backs . . . .

September 14, 2000

Many people use a 6x7 or 6x7 roll-film backs on 4x5 cameras. By getting the TK or Arca-Swiss in 4x5 format, you could keep your options open. The 4x5 versions are a little bigger and heavier, but not necessarily more expensive.

September 12, 2000

Have you tried asking <a href="http://www.like.ca">Lisle-Kelco</a>?

September 8, 2000

Paul,

Experiment with a 45 degree prism finder on an ELX (or similar). It makes the camera surprisingly easy to hold, almost as easy as does the waist-level finder, because the camera can be held in a very comfortable position. In addition, it is faster to use because there is no magnifier to flip up and down for critical focusing.

In his original post, Alex raised some valid points, principally relating to the fact that Hasselblad is not a great system if you can afford only the basic camera. However, I think most people would find the Hasselblad much easier to hold. Not only is it much smaller and lighter, but there is no need to turn it on its side. Reliance of the ELX-style models on the ubiquitous AA battery is a non-issue for most people.

August 31, 2000

Hasselblad has published many macro pictures taken with the normal 80 mm C and CF lenses. Take a look at those. Hasselblad has said that the 100 is a little better than the 80 when pressed into macro service. Still, it is not a macro lens, so the results will certainly not compare to those a lens such as the 120 CFi Makro could supply. See also <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000PxL&topic_id=35&topic=">this thread</a>.

BTW, how big are these products? If they are more than about 3 inches tall, you won't get the entire object in the picture with this setup.

August 23, 2000

Where did you load and unload the film? Was the role stored in the dark? My guess is that the film wasn't wound tight enough and the light leak occured while the roll was out of the camera. Were one or more edges of the film exposed? 220 is far more prone than 120 to this type of problem. You must load and unload in subdued light. Some people wrap the role in tinfoil as an extra precaution when they take it out of the camera. Doesn't sound like a camera light-leak or lab problem. I suggest that you go ahead and use the camera. Just be extra careful handling 220 film.

August 22, 2000

I strongly recommend that you perform a few experiments before you leave home. First, I agree that you may be unhappy with the results at 1/250 second with the 180 mm lens. Even at 1/500 second you are likely to find the quality significantly below what you can achieve using a tripod. You may or may not be pleased by the results. Halving the shutter speed because you are doubling the focal length is only a rule of thumb. Longer lenses can be disproportionately affected by the motion of the mirror, etc.

Second, I think hand-holding an f4 lens at 1/500 second is going to be limiting. Anything dimmer than open shade and you will be out of luck. Furthermore, depth-of-field will be very shallow so you will need to focus very quickly and accurately. If it is prints you want, give Fuji NHG II a try. Some people prefer to shoot it at E.I. 640 rather than 800. Either way, the extra 3 stops will open a world of possibilities.

August 22, 2000

<ol>

<li>Are you using pre-release? Even if your tripod is unsteady, I doubt all your pictures would be soft.</li>

<li>Do you put the film under the guide when you load the film? (As per Colm's suggestion.) If not, the film will sit too far forward, causing this effect.</li>

<li>Next, have Hasselblad check that the mirror is returning to the correct position and that your focusing screen is aligned properly.</li>

<li>If that is not a problem, rent or borrow another lens. You could also try focusing by measuring the distance instead of using the viewfinder. The marked distances on the lens are usually (but not always) extremely accurate. It seems unlikely that both lenses would be out of alignment, but it is possible, particularly if the lenses were abused or subjected to amateur repairs. If so, you must send them back to Zeiss. Note that even authorized Hasselblad repair depots do not have the equipment necessary to align lenses. They should, however, be able to forward them to Zeiss on your behalf.</li>

</ol>

August 16, 2000

<ol>

<li>Cheapest: get the 56 and 16 mm extension tubes.</li>

<li>For more flexibility and better convenience, get the autobellows instead.</li>

<li>For better quality, get the autobellows and a true macro lens such as the 120 Makro or 135 Makro.</li>

</ol>

August 16, 2000

First, what you call the "outer blades" is the shutter. Yes, it looks a bit like the aperture but it closes all the way and the end of one blade looks a little bent. The camera also has a secondary shutter. It is the pair of black barn doors you see on the back of the camera body when the back is not attached. Here is approximately what should happen:

Phase one (triggered by pre-release button below winding knob or by shutter release):

<ul>

<li>The shutter (in the lens) closes.</li>

<li>Aperture stops down.</li>

<li>Mirror goes up.</li>

<li>Secondary shutter (barn doors) opens.</li>

</ul>

Phase two (triggered only by shutter release):

<ul>

<li>Shutter (in the lens) opens, then closes after set time.</li>

<li>Flash is fired, if attached.</li>

</ul>

Phase three (when you take your finger off the shutter release):

<ul>

<li>Secondary shutter (barn doors) closes.</li>

</ul>

Phase four (when you wind the camera):

<ul>

<li>Mirror goes down.</li>

<li>Shutter is caulked and re-openes.</li>

<li>Aperture re-opens.</li>

<li>Film advances, if back is attached.</li>

</ul>

If you take the back off, look through the back, and point the camera at a light, you should be able to see through while the shutter (the one in the lens) is open. Alternatively, why don't you put some film in it and see what happens?

Note that if you take your finger off the shutter release too fast, the secondary shutters can close before your exposure is over. This is not a problem at the faster settings, but the orange line above the shutter speeds 1 second to 1/4 second reminds you to wait.

Pick up a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/024080385X/o/qid=966446046/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/104-7165320-0637517">The Hasselblad Manual</a> as soon as you can. All will be explained.

August 16, 2000

The 1.4x teleconverter should not affect minimum focus, so it may do what you want. However, I agree that an extension tube would be a better choice and would likely degrade image quality less. A short extension tube is standard equipment in most portrait photographer's equipment bags. In your case, the best choice is extension tube #1, which is approximately 14 mm long. Used with your 165 mm lens, you should be able to focus to about 44 inches; used with your 105 mm lens, you should be able to focus to about 25 inches. See also <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Dy3&topic_id=35&topic=">this thread</a>.

August 11, 2000

No doubt the new internal baffling in the CFi lenses is better, but no one seems to complain about flare with either the 150 or 180 lenses. The only possible exception would be very old 150 C lenses without the T* coatings. I expect the 160 CB is also excellent in this regard. Some people do, however, find the pre-CFi versions of the 120 lens, particularly the f4 CF model, prone to flare. In this lens, the new baffling reportedly make a significant improvement.

My observation is that the fact that the 180 is a little sharper than the 150 at maximum aperture and at very close distances gets a lot of air time. What gets less air time is that the 180 has a little more distortion, less even illumination, and weighs much more than the 150. At any rate, any of these lenses provide a very soft effect at maximum aperture because very little of a three-dimensional subject falls within the shallow depth-of-field. Once stopped down moderately, the 150/160/180 lenses are all excellent. In comparision, the 120 CF lens is much worse than any of these lenses at large distances (according to information published by Zeiss) and is no doubt better than any of them at very close distances. All these lenses are excellent, but there are trade-offs.

For the stated applications, I still think that a (used) 150 C T* or 150 CF provides the best value. The 160 CB offers good value in a new lens. If money is not a consideration, then a 150 CFi would be my first choice. If you have, or plan to buy, a gliding-mirror body and a 100 or 120 mm lens, a 180 CF or CFi lens may well be the best choice.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by michael_heal