tom_chow

No metal, no brassing....

That sounds a little alarming... That is a very interesting TLR that I have never seen.

Yes, and that's true for any of the classic cameras from that age. Far fewer P67 were sold than Hasselbalds, and the P67 typically needed less servicing, so the end result is fewer part and service techs left over. The P67 mechanism is actually pretty similar to most 35mm SLRs, same shutter mechanism and springs, just bigger. The main problem is parts, particularly the shutter solenoids. If I take one apart and the solenoid gets damaged, there's no replacement. No service technician wants that. The mechanical CLA is pretty strait forward, but there's always the chance that, without parts, you can't return it working. Since the timing circuit is currently working, it's the shutter curtain travel that need adjustment, and that can be done with a CRT or scope, you are just adjusting the main springs through the bottom plate. But something made this shutter to start capping, and if the main spring is going, or fraying ribbon, then you'd probably want that replaced - which is quite a lot more work, and a difficult part to get. Or it could just need lube on the curtain spindle.

That's not quite accurate, the timing is electronic, but the shutter curtain springs and travel is purely mechanical. The shutter is capping, that means the second curtain is catching up to the first curtain during the exposure. So either the spring tension on the first curtain is low, or there is something obstructing/dragging on the 1st curtain that is slowing it down. Since you said it was previously serviced (and I assume it was returned working), there is something going on with the mechanism. I'd suggest that a "proper" CLA should fix it. The timing system seems fine, as the exposure starts correctly.

Just use the end of the film carrier to mask the cut end of the film so no light hits the cut edge. Light hitting that edge travels down into the film like a light pipe, and causes the magenta contamination.

The magenta strip looks like a scanning artifact, was the film cut along those frame lines?

C lenses are more difficult to service, they take 1.5x longer to dis/re-assemble. But that might just be my (lack of) skill level, if I worked on more C lenses, I might be faster. But that is one of the reasons people don't like working on them, especially if they have to return them when they don't have the right part. I see nothing in the x-sync that would make C lenses worse for digital, but keep in mind how old they were, all early flashes had high voltage triggers, so the contacts on those lenses would likely be more corroded. I like C lenses.

The tla360 was made for the 35mm RTS system. The vertical field of view for the 80mm lens on 645 is wider than a 50mm lens on 35mm film, so the flash is probably selecting the next wider setting for proper coverage.

I think you'll get more answers at space forum: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/60741/duplicated-and-distorted-fiducials I was going to suggest raytracing the patterns back, but someone there has already suggested it. However, to do it properly, you'd need to do it in 3D - the Réseau plate is 4mm thick, the rear of the lens is ~20mm from the plate, the back focus is 61.6mm, and the lens looks like this: Here is the optical arrangement with the Réseau plate (which is part of the optical design) Note that all planar raytraces from the center and corners of the fiducials go back to where the sun is located. The curvy fiducials only show up in the glare (as in the picture you showed above with the 1/2 cresent glare) so it's probably part of the glare projection. Also, those negatives appear to be very under exposed with clipped highlights, so the glare (and it's pattern) can be recorded on the direct image. It's probably easier to pick up that lens and just test it. Just not easy to "pick up"...

I do not know what that canted cross, or the double spiral is from. They both get fuzzier as you move away from the center of the image, so that would indicate something that is not on the rear surface of the réseau plate. The large canted cross also splits into a double line at the top before it disappears into the black, so that may be an optical effect of whatever is sitting on the réseau plane.

The re The réseau plate is a parallel glass sheet, with 2 glass-air surfaces, which reflect. The first double reflection (off the back surface, then off the front surface and back onto the film) is a veil glare that projects the reflected crosses back onto the film, with a raypath that is centered on the sun at the rear focal point of the lens. This lens is the Biogon, which sits quite close to the film (there is no mirror on this camera, and the lens extends right back close to the film plane), and has a short rear focus. The original crosses are muted by the veil glare. The shape of the secondary crosses follow the projected raypath from the point at the center of the sun through the double reflection.

I do not know of anyone still working on the 2000fcw. The issue is lack of parts. If say, I spend an hour taking it apart, and discover there is a broken plastic sleeve that is not available, then you would be out a few $100 and still have a broken camera. I don't mind doing that on my own bin of parts, but not for other people. You might find someone local that is willing to have a look, but they are hard to find these days. Ask around at the local camera shows. Hasselblad, New Jersey USA was the last place I new that would still do a CLA on these cameras. Officially they no longer service them, but if you called and talk to the one person there that still worked on them, he would often have a look. Also, the cost of such a service is probably the same as buying another working body...

Well, that is sort of good news, in that it's likely a mechanical problem, which is correctable. Something in the mirror release mechanism is sticky, probably due to old lube. It does not sound like it's an electromagnet issue, which would be an end of life event as there are not spares, and they are extremely difficult to rebuild. The next issue is finding someone to fix it.

Does the problem exist when you have the shutter set to "C" and the battery removed?

That appears to be the Light Seal Foil that blocks the light between the mirror hinge, it flexes every time the mirror rises, and eventually breaks off. It's happened to many 200 series cameras by now. I replaces mine once, and it broke off again, because the NOS parts were old and brittle. I would just leave it off when it comes off, that is what most people I know do. There are several threads on the other forum that cover this (ie: Hasselblad heartbreak)

Very nice! I've tried the Nikkor 1.8/50, and the 2.8/35 PC, as well as the Mamiya 645 3.5/35. Both 35mm's vignette because there is a baffle in the X-Pan that prevents any lens with a nodal distance >~50mm from seeing the film plane, plus the lens mount is pretty small. And both 35mm's are retrofocus (ie: long rear nodal length). The trick is to find lenses with short rear nodal distances that cover a 645 format, which is hard to find. The Hasselblad/Fuji 4/90 has a high telephoto factor, with a very short rear nodal distance to clear the baffle. Basically, no. The X-Pan lenses can only be used for extreme closeups on a V body, and as they have no shutter, unless you are using a F body, you have to use long exposures with the body shutter. The X-pan is basically a mirrorless camera, and the lenses made for it sit very close to the film plane (compactness by design), whereas the V body has to accommodate the mirror.

The answer is no. The reason people use a different focal length lens is because to of the change in Field of View. The FoV of the 45mm is different than the 30mm, and even if you move back to encompass the same subject, your FoV is still different, thus the fore & back-ground will be very different. If you are shooting landscapes at infinity, there is no stepping back. The only way to mimic a wider FoV is to stitch, which may create the same FoV, but changes the effective format (ie: to a larger sensor). Of-course this may not be important to you. The best way to tell is to shoot with a 24mm and a 17mm lens, and see if you can do without the 17mm (on FF!), which are close to the equivalent changes in FoV between the 45mm and 30mm on the X-pan.

I do have an X-pan, but not the 30mm. But I don't think we can answer your question, "Too Wide" is a personal opinion. If you take a 16mm~17mm FF lens and crop a FF pisture to 2.7:1, you will get the approximate FOV of the 30mm on the X-pan. Then you can decide if it's too wide. Personally I would like to have the 30mm, but I should have bought it back when it was just really expensive.

Early Rolleiflexes were always locked, and you push one dial in to adjust the EV on the other dial, then pick your aperture/shutter combination for that exposure. Later ones could be locked or unlocked. EV locked setting EV unlocked just push in and turn When locked, pushing in the previous button allows you to turn this one and set the EV.

I have not found the 200 (or 2000) series to be unreliable. They were no different than the 500's. Repairs were fine when they were in production, and during their service design life. It was their cost that limited total numbers, which also leads to the limited parts in latter years. Every tired to fine the plastic bearing/sleeve for the shaft of a CF lens?

I've used both, but there was a ~2 decade gap between them, so I can't really compare them. They are both double gauss designs. The 110mm went through ~5 variations, with 2 optical designs. The 105 also went through many variations, and probably more optical updates - the early ones used thorium doped glass (radioactive), and those were probably the sharpest (that's the one I had), but environmentally expensive to manufacture. As I recall, both were similarly good, with similar, but different "character"... As for f/2 ; f/2.2; f/2.5 - I don't believe you will see much difference unless you compare them side by side. The max openings are great for focusing and art, but production (ie: paying) was usually 5.6~8. PS: electronically, the 2000 series is more reliable, as they use discrete components (which are all replaceable), and no chips. The terminating factor is the shutter electromagnets, which have no replacement stock.

The 500cw can be serviced at most places that work on Hasselblads, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone to service the 203fe, let alone find parts for it. That should answer your serviceability question. As for reliability, they are both probably equally good. I have a 203fe and a 503cx, and I use the 203fe 95% of the time, even with C lenses. It does everything the cx (or cw) does, plus more. The only down side are batteries (which for me is not an issue), but even without batteries, it still does everything the cx does. There are no equivalent f/2 lenses for the 500 series, as there are no mechanical leaf shutters with openings large enough for those lenses. Schneider Kreuznach makes a 80mm f/2 for Rollei, and Hasselblad makes a HC 100mm f/2.2 for the H system, both use electronic linear motors with composite leafs.

Here is a situation that I normally would want a reflected, preferably spot meter: This is a digital file taken with a Sony A7, which I was only using as a meter reference. The final film image is not with the same FOV, but I can't show it because it's not processed yet. I'd like to expose the leaf in the middle, which is back lit by morning sun. Ideally, I'd just spot meter it, set the value to middle bright (~50% grey) and let the rest fall to shadow. With the Digital camera, I can change the exposure compensation until I get the desired exposure (-2EV), and used that setting (8/125). Since I was at home, I grabbed my Gossen Sixtomat, and in reflected mode (40 deg mode) it gave me 5.6/125 (pretty close) and in incident mode, it read ~3.5/125. If I took the Gossen out into the sun (in this case, that was ~100m from where I setup), I got an incident reading of ~6.7/125, which is pretty close, even taking into account my Sixtomat reads ~1/2 high compared to my other meters. If I was shooting chrome, I would have spot metered it. But I shoot negatives now, and the above exposure setting is close enough.

Haha - that's what I did too - 35mm chrome was relatively cheap back in the day...

... and that is where the spot meter comes in handy. Sky at sunset. Dynamic range. With chrome, you have to decide where you want the 18%, where you want to clip (highlights and/or shadows). Cause you can't do it in post.