paul_loveteck

March 18, 2015

The 503CW is a clear favorite. One of the best cameras ever made, if not the best.

The 501CM is also a good choice, however it cannot take the electronic winder and that is a major problem as the winder is a very useful addition to the camera: it allows you to keep focusing on the subject when you shoot and also provides a very good grip on the camera. In addition, the 501CM does not have the automatic flash control which is a must have for some photographers.

Stay away from the 200 series (2000's, 202's, 203's,205's . . .) . Nobody can maintain them anymore and they have many other problems.

November 8, 2013

Bob,

My recommendation would be an Hasselblad 501CM (or 503CW) with a digital back having a crop factor around 1.1.

There are a few very good digital backs falling in that category. All of them will allow you to use your lenses as they were intended and give you results far superior to the best DSLR from Leica, Nikon or Canon.

A short list of backs I would highly recommend (I have used all of them in this list):

- Leaf Aptus (Phase One) 75 - A fantastic 33Mpx back, can be used in portrait or landscape.

- Phase One P45 (more expensive) 39Mpx

- Hasselblad CFV-39 39Mpx

If you buy one, do not worry about the number of actuations, instead be sure that the seller guarantee that the IR filter is not scratched (around $1,500 to fix).

October 20, 2013

Rodeo,

Thanks for your correction. I have no idea where my "4000" comes from!

I was quickly doing copy and pastes and probably made a mistake.

Regarding the number of bits, if it is true that cameras like the D4, D800, 5D Mark 3 say they have 14 bits, this only means that their A/D converter produces 14 bits (easy with today's technology), it does not mean that the source of the pixels (the sensor) is good enough to really be represented by 14 bits. (in other words, it's a marketing gimmick, similar to the pseudo "digital" zooms on less expensive cameras).

I do own a D800e and a D3 and have compared them multiple times with different V system digital backs. To my experience, even a "small" back like the CFV 16 Mpx produces images with a much better dynamic range and color rendition than my D800e.

If you do not believe me, I suggest a simple test: try to take a picture of a blooming bougainvillea with a D800 (or 5D Mark 3, or whatever DSLR) and a CFV (16) or Phase Aptus 75 (33 Mpx): all DSLR render the Red flowers as uniform Red "blobs", all V digital backs give lots of nuances in the Red's.

October 15, 2013

Tom,

What you call "phase one look " and, as a matter of fact, what some call the "Brenizer effect" are very subjective and poorly defined notions. It is difficult (if not impossible) to quantify aesthetics.

The major advantage of digital backs is not so much the dof or even the resolution but the dynamic range. Using 16 bits instead of 12 makes a huge difference: you have 4,000 times more "precision" in the rendering of each pixel. And, this makes a world of difference as far as aesthetics is concerned.

You can stitch as many frames as you want with a 35mm, you will never get the same quality as multiplying frames won't improve the dynamic (each pixel will still be represented by 12 bits instead of 16).

Finally, as Sheldon noted, you can also use the Brenizer on a MF, so it's a lost battle for the 35mm, at least for final quality of images. Prices and chances of survival are a different story . . .

October 12, 2013

You might try this link for brand new heavy equipment:

<a href="http://www.machinerytrader.com/">http://www.machinerytrader.com/</a>

And, in case you found a Pentax 67II somewhere else, the above link will help you buy a brand new forklift, which will be useful for your new acquisition :)

September 19, 2013

Ray,

I was not "Just throwing out" what I said.

I had a Mamiya Press (and a 500C) at the end of the 1970's. It was a 23 Super. (already better than the Mamiya Press). After using it for a few months I returned it and bought a new Hasselblad lens instead. This is my memory of it:

- Large, heavy, very awkward.

- Very very poor ergonomy (if I can talk about ergonomy of this thing).

- Changing film was a perilous experience, prone to mistakes and ruined frames if not film.

- Lenses not on par with the Zeiss of the 500C, even the 100mm 2.8 (supposedly the best) was very soft compared to my 80mm Zeiss.

- Cheap, yes, this is how Mamiya themselves introduced it. And it certainly was in may respects.

- Very ugly

In comparison, the 500C was a charm to use, a beauty, with an almost perfect ergonomy. In fact, it was so well designed that 50 years later you can use hundred's of different digital backs on a 500C. Can you say that of your Mamiya Press?

I understand that some people do not care about design, ergonomy and beauty, this is why I said that I was expressing my opinion.

Yes, I do care about beauty, ergonomy and design. I also care about results. The Mamiya Press does not fulfill any of those qualities.

Can you make decent photos with a Mamiya Press: yes. You can even do so with a Brownie. Can you drive a Ford T: yes. I prefer a Mercedes. . .

September 18, 2013

Easy: the Mamiya Press was a cheap system with poor optics, the RB67, if you can forget the size and weight, is a good system with very good optics.

My recommendation: sell them both and get an Hasselblad 500C/M which is a far superior system.

To the usual specialists of contradicting on this forum: this is my opinion only so don't waste your time. . .

September 15, 2013

The goal of the dof button on the Zeiss lenses is precisely to be able to change the aperture and see how the image changes. So, of course, almost by definition and design you can change it.

September 12, 2013

The hyperfocal distance is not a well defined term. I know three different definitions, giving different results for the same lens. Of the three definitions I know, two are based on the circle of confusion which, itself, is a very subjective term with no clear scientific definition.

None of the definitions I know directly involve the format (and they should not). However, if a "calculator" does not ask the circle of confusion it may ask the format in order to derive the circle of confusion from it, which might give the wrong idea that the hyperfocal is depending on the format.

September 10, 2013

The speed of the shutter is irrelevant as the duration of the flash is much shorter than the time the shutter will keep the lens open.

The flash "knows" that the lens will be open at its set aperture for the full time it sends its light.

This, of course, implies that you do not set your camera/lens shutter to a speed above its max synch speed.

September 5, 2013

Hasselblad did make a special edition with Gold trim of the 503CXi.

In fact, they did make many special editions of various cameras, like the Gold Millennium 503CW.

I do not know if they won the "Kodak European Gold Award".

If you find one, it is probably better for display in a reinforced window than to take pictures in the field! Its value will go down with the first picture you take . . .

You could get a couple of 503CW (a better camera) and lenses for the price of your Gold CXi. They would help you more if your intent is really to move to MF.

September 4, 2013

If the seller does not offer a warranty or doe not provide the dates of a relatively recent cla (less than 4 years) it is NOT a good deal as you will most probably spend a lot to have a good working system. In addition of the cost, you will need to waste a lot of time getting your system in good condition.

By trying to sell a 500C which you bought without warranty you will expose yourself to a lot of headache and / or loss of money.

Only buy from a seller providing a warranty and a return policy. If you don't you will end up with a bad deal and a system costing more than one with a warranty.

Both 500C's and 500C/M can be old and without proper care they won't work correctly, believe me.

Finally, I would not buy a 40mm C lens. They are huge, difficult to fix today and inferior quality compared to the CF and later lenses.

If you expect better quality from your Hasselblad than what you get with your D800e, you need a good working camera, not an unknown condition system.

August 29, 2013

The CFV-39 is more recent than the CF39.

The main advantages of the CFV39:

- Much larger screen

- Does not need a synch cable

- Improved for higher ISO, goes to 800 instead of 400

- Supports larger capacity CF card

- Visually integrates beautifully with a Chrome V camera (certainly not the case of the CF39).

Your Zeiss lenses with a 39Mpx back will give you better results that the H lenses, specially if you are interested in wide angle. The 40mm CFE IF Distagon has no equivalent for the H. Even a standard 40mm CF is better.

August 25, 2013

Robert,

That's a lot of questions! Let me give it a try, remembering that this is my personal opinion.

- The small aperture advantage of the 200 series does not justify the pain (and cost) of owning one. Not only more and more are no longer fixable for a sensible cost, but they are fragile and all fail leaving you with a nice paper weight. In addition, they require a battery with a very short life. By comparison, a 500 series can be maintained and fixed almost anywhere in the world for a very low cost. 200's are beautiful machines and their place is in a display window, not in the field.

- Depending if you plan to use a SCA compatible flash or not, your best choices are a 503CW or a 501CM. Except for the flash electronics and availability of the winder they are identical. They are best choices as (in general) being more recent your chance of getting a "good" one is higher than with older models.

- To my taste, the winder is very nice to have. Not only for the good grip you mention but also because you can take more than one picture without needing to remove the camera from your eye. It really is an advantage you start to value when you try it. When deciding, remember that a 503CW can be upgraded with a winder but a 503CXi cannot be upgraded with a gliding mirror. Keep that in mind if you plan to use the 180mm which is one of the best lenses.

- If you decide for a 503CW, be sure to get one with the ISO going to 3200. Older models were limited to 800 or 1600.

- Yes, they are very nice grips for the 500C/M and 501CM, specially the one using a mechanical link to the camera trigger (not a cable).

- Focusing screens often are not the original which came with the camera. You can see on eBay some 503CW coming with the oldest (useless) screens!

- On any lens a stiff focusing ring means the lens need a cla. Do not go with a C lens, specially if you are interested by the wide lenses. They were not as good and are getting more and more difficult (and expensive) to maintain.

- The CB, CFi and CFE are a little easier to focus (not as stiff) by design. Prefer the 80mm CF to the 80mm CB (CB has one less element). CF lenses are as good as their CFi or CFE equivalent and much less expensive.

Finally, remember that Hasselblad kept only one model in their catalog until very recently and this was the 503CW. This was for good reasons. The 203/205's had been discontinued long ago also for good reasons (they helped to kill Hasselblad).

August 25, 2013

Rob,

The EBL is a theoretical number and allows you to compare two systems when everything else would be perfect. In practice, it's a very different story. The 35mm range finders cannot compete with an Hasselblad for accuracy of focusing for multiple reasons. Some of them:

- Even in the best rangefinders (take Leica, Contax), the link between the lens and the range finder mechanism is very delicate, complex and not consistent across the full range of lenses and distances. There is no need for this mechanism in a V system, suppressing a cause of inaccuracy.

- The accuracy of focus is directly linked to the enlargement and to the brightness of what you see. Your PME45 enlarges 2.5 times and you can add a magnifier for another 2.5. On the contrary, most 35mm have an enlargement smaller than 1 (they reduce) and, in addition, the "more recent" like the Leica M6 have a reduced luminosity due to the need of light measurement system. (In fact the M3 was better for focusing accuracy).

When you say " EBL of a split-image on an SLR is equal to the diameter of the lens . . .", I believe it's a mistake as whoever said that forgot to multiply by the magnification of the prism, which must be part of the EBL calculation, almost by definition. Do you remember where you found this by any chance?

If focusing accuracy is your main goal (not clear in your post as you mention distraction from some screens, which is not related to focus accuracy), you will achieve the best results with a split image 42170 or 42217 (the same for this purpose), your PME45 and a magnifier.

If you did not already have a PME45, a PME51 with magnifier would even be slightly better.

I have used this combination with 50, 60 and 80Mpx digital backs: they are the best test possible for accuracy. When you get an image and you can enlarge it at 400% in Photoshop and see perfect details where you focused, you know that something is correct!

In fact, I am pretty certain that if something like a 50Mpx back existed for a Leica M6 it would be impossible to achieve a perfect focus. You can achieve decent focusing with an M6 only because film is much more forgiving (and lower resolution).

As mentioned by others, a micro-prism won't give you anything more.

I have used many 35mm range finders (Leica, Contax, Voigtlander, Foca, Zeiss Ikon . . .) and none come close to even an old 500C with a split image as far as accurate focusing is concerned.

August 25, 2013