robert_bedwell

Robert.....I am planning to put my 903SWC, ground glass focusing screen and finder on Ebay next week. The camera is like a brand new one, been used very little and is about a year old. It is the classic chrome body. I have boxes for all three pieces. If you are interested I will be happy to discuss it with you.

 

Bob Bedwell

rbedw51767@aol.com

Something puzzles me and hopefully someone can straighten me out. I

have gone to the U.S. distributor site several times looking for

information on the 6008 and lenses but the only reference to the

medium format slr that I can find is the promo on the free 6001 with

a 6000 series body. At the site the other models that they distribut

are featured, including the TLR's, but not the 6000 series. It

doesn't make sense to me but there must be an explanation?

 

Anyone that can shed some light on this I would appreciate hearing

from you.

I am in the final stages of purchasing a Rollei 6008 system. I have

made decisions on everything except the lenses. Fortunately Rollei

offers both Schneider and Zeiss lenses in the 50mm and the 80mm focal

lengths. I have been using Zeiss lenses on a Contax 645 and a

Hasselblad and have been quite pleased. However,I remember the

outstanding quality of a 28mm PC Super Angulon that I used on a

Leica.

 

I would appreciate some input from those that have used both brand

lenses. My gut feeling is to choose the Schneider lenses but they

are about 50% more expensive than the Zeiss focal length equivalent.

 

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

 

Bob

I currently own a 903SWC. I owned a superwide in the 70's and sold it which was a big mistake. I tried the Mamiya 7 before I purchased it and was not impressed. There was nothing seriously wrong with it however it felt like a cheaply constructed camera. There is no question that the 38mm Biogon on the 903 body produces the finest medium format negative that I have ever seen. Representatives from Hasselblad will quickly make this claim as well. When the bubble is in the middle all verticals are straight and you cannot tell that the print was made with a superwide camera. It is light weight, quiet and has interchangeable backs.

Lu Vu:

 

I have been a Hasselblad user for many years and have grown accustomed to the 6x6 format. I currently own a Superwide, 503CW and a FlexBody. Last year I purchased a Pentax 645N system and loved the auto-focus feature. However,I did not like the 6x4.5 format and the lack of interchangeable backs. I eventually sold it and became interested in the Contax 645. Several months ago I purchased the basic system, 35mm, 140mm, 210mm and other assorted accessories.

 

Don't let anyone fool you to believe that this is not a serious camera. The lenses are everybit as good as the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses and with auto-focus they work better for me. I miss the square format however the plethora of features that the Contax incorporates has provided me with shots that I would have only been able to take in the past with my Nikon F5. It has become my system of choice. I was also concerned about the shutter being so close to the back but it has not even come close to being damaged. I still miss the quality construction of the Hasselblad but I don't miss the weight and the lack of many manual features. I consider the Hasselblad my tripod camera and the Contax my action camera. It has worked well for me.

 

With the introduction of the Mamiya 645 Auto Focus this fall there will be three medium format cameras with this feature. The Contax will be the only one with interchageable backs and Zeiss lenses. These features alone put the Contax in a league of it's own.

 

Best of luck to you.

 

Bob

Last year I spent four frustrating months trying to get acceptable

negatives with Delta 3200 and Tmax 3200. I tried Tmax developer,

Microphen and ID-11 and almost gave up. It wasn't until I switched

to Xtol that my developer anxieties went away. I use it

exclusively. Since that time I have shot at least 4 dozen rolls of

Delta 3200 (will not touch Tmax films again)and have exposed at ISO's

between 800 and 3200. The results are consistent and the negatives

are incredibly fine grain for a film of this speed. I am

consistently getting 8x10's and 11x14's from 35mm. Yes, there is

grain but at arm's length it blends and is hardly noticable. I just

finished a roll of Delta 3200 (ISO 800) and processed in Xtol full

strength at 75 degrees for 5-1/2 minutes. The negatives are very

nice. Ilford is just introducing a new developer (DD-X I think) that

is supposed to compete with Xtol but in liquid form. I am optimistic

that it will be a more convenient alternative to Xtol but it must be

as good for me to switch.

 

<p>

 

I would suggest that you clear out all of the chemicals that you have

mixed and start over. You may have a contamination problem. Best of

luck to you.

I am back into the darkroom after many years away. I don't like my negative drying process. After soaking my negatives in Photoflo for about 1 minute I then attempt to remove the excess water from the negatives. I have used my fingers, a sponge and a squeegee and I don't really like any of them. My fingers, after dipped into Photoflo never seem to be straight or even enough to remove the water. The sponge seems to leave water on the negatives. Although the squeegee does the most effective job of removing the water I am afraid of scratching the negatives. I hang the negatives vertically to dry. This is the only area giving me problems. Your help is appreciated.

Michael:

I also just completed the processing of a roll of FP4Plus (120)

exposed at 125ISO. I used Xtol at 68 degrees diluted 1:2 for 10 1/2

minutes. Base + fog was .11 which is about where it should be for

roll film. The negatives will easily print on grade 2 or 2 1/2.

Agitation was constant for the first 30 minute and then for 5

inversions and rolls at each 30 seconds.

 

<p>

 

I don't have a reference for 70 degrees but your time of 5 1/2

minutes seems to be very short. My reference the Ilford Product Data

Guide and Ilford's website.

 

<p>

 

I don't normally shoot FP4 plus. In fact this is the first roll that

I have used in quite some time. I use Delta 100/400/3200

exclusively with Xtol. I have run extensive tests on the Delta films

to determine proper time/temp/dilution. I would suggest that you do

the same for your processing and shooting style with FP4.

 

<p>

 

Bob

Debra:

I don't use Rodinal but the following source may have what you are

looking for. I keep this URL bookmarked and refer to it often. The

charts provide an excellent source of reference information on all

types of film/developer combinations.

 

<p>

 

For your infomation I use Xtol exclusively and some of my very finest

negatives are 120PanF and Xtol.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

 

<p>

 

Bob

I am giving serious consideration to the new Contax 645. I have

examined it closely twice now and there are some things I like about

it and several that I don't. The features that I like most are Zeiss

optics, autofocus, metering,viewfinder brightness,weight and

comfort. I am turned off by the quality of the materials that are

used. I don't think that I have ever seen or felt cheaper plastic on

a camera. I assume that it is durable but I sure wouldn't want to

drop it. The buttons, levers and controls are much too awkward,

small and difficult to use. Adjusting the diopter settings is not

easy because the wheel is too close to the prism and requires

pressure to change. It does not pull out to change and then push-in

to lock. The dark slide is difficult to insert into the holder

because of the size. I am concerned about the vulnerability of the

shutter. One careless back placement onto the body would surely

damage the shutter. Although autofocus is slow it appears to be

accurate.

 

All and all I wonder why Contax would bring to market a camera that

obviously suffers from some design and quality faults. Did I mention

really cheap materials?

 

The next question that I am asking myself is why I would even

consider a camera with this many faults. I need a medium format

autofocus system to fill a serious void. I have owned the Pentax 645N

and got rid of it because of the limited number of autofocus lenses.

I am familiar with Zeiss lenses and the quality of images that they

produce which brings me back to the Contax.

 

I would appreciate any comments from those that have had an

opportunity to inspect or use the Contax 645.

 

Thanks,

Bob

I agree with parts of both of the other responsdents comments. I use

both 35mm and 6x6 formats; specifically Leica, Nikon and Hasselblad.

Modern films and developers have narrowed the quality gap between the

formats but there is still a difference. I would suggest that you

spend more time doing what you are doing to maximize the quality of

your 35mm before jumping into medium format. After you have gotten

out of your system all that you can you will be able to make a

decision. I use Xtol developer exclusively and mostly Ilford's Delta

films. Correct exposure, proper development and printing procedures

will reward you with exceptional quality 11x14 prints. I have never

been able to get an image from Tmax that I was happy with. Perhaps I

am not doing something correctly. Delta films are extremely fine

grain, sharp and the grain is not clumpy like Tmax. I decide the

correct format for the subject and go from there. In most cases the

the speed and flexibility of the 35mm format will provide with more

images to choose from. Good luck and let me know if you need anymore

information

I am developing an interest in the Hasselblad Flexbody. If any of the

Medium Format Subscriber have experience with this I would appreciate

your input. Pros/Cons/Thoughts/.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

Bob

I have been using a Hasselblad 503CW and Superwide systems for

several years and recently purchased a Pentax 645N. I use the Pentax

like one would use a motorized 35mm with the added advantage of the

larger negative. The meter is incredibly accurate and the negatives

are dependably and consistently sharp. If I used it like I do my

Hasselblads I truly believe that it would be every bit as good.

However, there are several features that it lacks,ie., mid-roll

change of film and mirror lock-up. The film change in mid-roll is

very important to me, the mirror lock-up is not a big deal as I

typically don't use the Pentax on a tripod. The eye-level viewfinder

doesn't make it easy to use a tripod either. I don't like the

"plastic feel" of the Pentax but I do enjoy it because it is light in

weight...a trade-off I suppose!

 

<p>

 

The bottom-line for me is that the Pentax is an excellent camera but

if I could not have both, the Pentax would have to go. I don't

believe that the new Contax 645 will have a negative affect on the

appeal of the Pentax because of price. However, it does stimulate my

interest.

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting,

Bob

 

<p>

 

P.S.

I do my own b&w processing and printing. I couldn't tell which

negative were made with which camera except for the Superwide. Of

course you can tell by the extreme wide angle but it is the

sharpness, detail and contrast that sets it apart from any camera

that I have ever used.

I am sure that "Wow" will be a proper response to the price when it

is released. The specs on the Contax looks exciting, however I have

heard that the street price of the body alone will be around $4000.

Can anyone confirm this?

Perhaps by now you have made your choice. Sorry I just picked up on the question. I own a Pentax 645N system, a Hasselblad Superwide and a Hasselblad 503Cw system. I use the Pentax for taking pictures of subjects that move, ie., children or scenes where a tripod is not an option. It handles much like a 35mm with autofocus and winding. There are several things that I would like to see changed; mirror lock-up, flash syncronization and change film in mid-roll. None of these things bother me enough to get rid of it. Great system and highly recommended. I would like to see more auto focus lenses available. I have the 45 and 75mm. Also own the 120 macro which is not auto focus but provide an LED signal in viewfinder when in focus.

 

<p>

 

I'm sure you will make the right decision. Good luck!

I will pickup a new 903SW tomorrow and I can't wait. I have been without a Hassy Superwide for too many years. My interest was renewed after going through my print archives and looking at the wonderful photographs taken with a Superwide. I like wide angle photographs and the Hassy is, in my opinion, the ultimate. If you get the bubble level centered you cannot tell it is a superwde. I like it's size, weight, quietness, ability to change film types mid-roll and wonderful resolution. I suggest that you borrow or rent one and try it out. Good luck.