hasselblad Sat, 14 Oct 2000 Volume 1 : Number 1018 In this issue: RE: 38 Biogon Winder CW HUG: OT(?) Quantum frequencies RE: 38 Biogon Re: 38 Biogon Re: 38 Biogon Re: 38 Biogon Re: 38 Biogon Re: hassy swc finder ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:35:49 -0700 From: "RICH" To: Subject: RE: 38 Biogon Message-ID: <000001c034e8$3588f900$7d9f1d3f@rjiredff> In answer to your question I have used the 15MM Hologon made for the Leica rangefinder, The 40MM & 50MM wide angle lenses made for the Hassi 500 series cameras and pretty much the whole series of angulon series lenses on 4X5 and 8X10 cameras. I still like the performance of the 38MM Biogon better. I have never used the longer focal length Biogon you mention... but I bet it's great. Rich ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:16:41 +0100 From: "Simon Lamb" To: Subject: Winder CW Message-ID: <006101c034ed$eb0aa210$650a0a0a@slamb> Thank you all for your comments about the Winder CW. I managed to get a completely unused second hand Winder yesterday for £445 (about $650). It hasn't been used at all. From a brief play with it last night it does feel ergonomic and gives a bit more stability when handholding. I agree with the comments about the noiseiness but then the 503 is not exactly quiet. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT) From: S Gardner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: HUG: OT(?) Quantum frequencies Message-ID: <20001013155104.24843.qmail@web702.mail.yahoo.com> I use a 503CX/Metz combination for event and location photography and Quantum slaves for remote flashes. I keep finding deals on additional slave units with the 'wrong' frequencies. Instead of using a simple solution like DIP switches to change frequencies, Quantum apparently designed something more complex that cost ~$70 per set to modify. Does anyone have experience with changing frequencies of Quantum radio slaves? Or am I missing something here . . . ? TIA/Scott Gardner __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: 38 Biogon Message-ID: <20001013200718.6345.qmail@web3106.mail.yahoo.com> Executive summary: Most wide angle lenses are very good for MF. 35mm wide angle loose too much picture detail when enlarged. LF wide angle, although much more inconvenient to use, has the overall advantage IF you use LF film: 4x5, 5x7, 8x10. But, per my experience, even on MF film, I suspect it would take a very trained eye to detect differences. The format size of the film can have an effect due to differences in thickness between formats. Overall, you have a respectable selection of lenses you 'tested', but not all-inclusive by any means [which is not news to you, I know], and comparing 35mm, MF and LF wide angles all at the same time leaves a lot of room for discussion/debate. Not that I particularly care to go there, either. Now, if you were just comparing the 903swc to Rolleiflex, Mamiya or the Contax 645, that might be more meaningful for some folks. That is a favorite argument for some, that it must be apples to apples. Probably more true if the person is a scientist or optician, or just really picky. Outside of the scientific test laboratory and out in the non-clinical real world, where pictures are taken under a variety of changing conditions and subjects, however, the rest of us are not constrained by the scientific experimenters strict rules. The dickens with the rules. So, I, just like you, develop a feel for the lenses and that transcends the format issue. In that sense, your comparison if more realistic and carries all the validity granted by such. The scientist might laugh and say then that means it has no validity. But, it has validity nevertheless. Real world usage type of validity. You're not in a laboratory, and most people don't shoot in a laboratory either. You shoot with the lens, you see the slides when they are developed, you notice things in the slides that are better/different from slides taken with other lenses, other cameras. You see what the lens can do, what it's limitations are, what subjects it is good with, how much it weights, how it handles, etc. You probably have favorites for certain situations as a result of your empiracle tests and usage. (Hasselblad lenses feel really good, at least to me, by the way! Solidly built, silky smooth precision, etc.) Devils Advocate time.... It would be interesting to blow up 30x30 pictures [crop as necessary to 30x30 dimensions] taken with all the lens you mentioned and have a panel of photogs review them and try to match the photo with the glass used to take it. It could be rather revealing or humbling, depending on how well each photog correctly matched them up. I say that because sometimes, as photographers and equipment owners, I wonder how often we are blind to objective evaluations of our own equipment. I have recently seen some shots taken with Mamiya equipment. Lets just say that they were awfully awfully color saturated, crisp, contrasty, and would certainly give the 38mm Biogon a run for the money. I for one don't know if I'd be able to differentiate pictures taken with the Mamiya 7 II vs. the 903SWC, as long as the resulting enlargment was of the same dimensions. It's a tough call. The Mamiya lenses are good. Very good. I've also heard very good things about some of the Schneider lenses for the 6008i and the Contax 645. You might be surprised at what you can do with those cameras, plus they have built in light meters, giving them a speed advantage over the 38mm Biogon on the 903SWC. Comparing view camera lenses to MF lenses.....LF pictures, enlarged to the same size print as those taken with the 38mm Biogon have the advantage, at least as I see it. Try a Schneider 110xl or a 150xl on 8x10. For one, there is less enlargement, and zero grain, plus smoother tonality. I recently saw some 5x7 Fuji Provia F slides taken by Nick Meers who was showing pictures at a seminar about architecture and shots he'd taken for the English National Trust. He used a Schneider 72mmXL. In a word: Awesome! [By the way, Fuji Provia F is available in Europe, but not USA] Forgive me if I rambled on too long. I hope most of you found sentiments that agreed with your own. Roger --- RICH wrote: > In answer to your question I have used the 15MM > Hologon made for the Leica > rangefinder, The 40MM & 50MM wide angle lenses made > for the Hassi 500 series > cameras and pretty much the whole series of angulon > series lenses on 4X5 and > 8X10 cameras. > I still like the performance of the 38MM Biogon > better. I have never used > the longer focal length Biogon you mention... but I > bet it's great. > > Rich > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public > service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not > responsible for its content. This mailing list is > in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's > subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > To change your subscription status, go to: > http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at > http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:49:49 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: 38 Biogon Message-ID: <001101c0355f$845370c0$86e6f1c3@qnu99> Roger wrote: > [...] > I've also heard very good things > about some of the Schneider lenses for the 6008i and > the Contax 645. There are no Schneider lenses on the Contax. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:56:43 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 38 Biogon Message-ID: <38.c96d48a.2718ed2b@aol.com> In a message dated 10/13/00 4:08:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, contaxaholic@yahoo.com writes: << Executive summary: Most wide angle lenses are very good for MF. 35mm wide angle loose too much picture detail when enlarged.>> But that's true for all focal lengths, not just wide angles. The favorite comparison among Hasselblad users (and 35mm users who know there are other than SLR's out there!) is SLR vs viewfinder (rangefinder) wideangles. 38 Biogon vs 40 Distagon, Leica M vs R, Mamiya RB/Z vs 7, etc. <> If you don't use LF film (for example, you use a rollfilm back) then the wide angle isn't a wide angle anymore. A 75mm ultrawide lens on a 4x5 is just moderately wide on 6x7cm. I've personally been in the thinking stages of whether to get a 40 or an SWC, just returned from a fall-foliage shoot in the NE. I realized that for landscapes the 50 is as wide as I'm comfortable with. I would normally use a 35mm in 35 format and 28mm would be the widest. I just like landscapes better with a spatial proportion closer to what my eye sees. I'm now seriously thinking of going with a MF panoramic rather than an ultrawide in 6x6. BTW, the results on Portra 160 *VC* were incredible. As saturated as Agfa Ultra 50 but sharper. One word of advice: don't use a polarizer to darken blue skies. They're unnatural, inky blue (like what happens to Velvia when you use a polarizer on a blue sky). I'm glad I shot it both ways! I also took some landscape shots with a recently-purchased Rollei 35S I brought along which was loaded with Portra 800 for snapshooting, just to see what it would look like. The film is amazingly saturated for an 800, of course you can see the grain even in a 4x6, but holy cow is that little 40mm Zeiss Sonnar one sweet lens. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger To: "Q.G. de Bakker" , hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 38 Biogon Message-ID: <20001014000338.19003.qmail@web3105.mail.yahoo.com> I know that. I own a Rollei 600x but no Schneider lenses to go with it, unfortunately. Contax lenses are all Zeiss. Roger --- "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: > Roger wrote: > > > [...] > > I've also heard very good things > > about some of the Schneider lenses for the 6008i > and > > the Contax 645. > > There are no Schneider lenses on the Contax. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public > service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not > responsible for its content. This mailing list is > in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's > subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > To change your subscription status, go to: > http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at > http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:21:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 38 Biogon Message-ID: <20001014002156.26876.qmail@web3106.mail.yahoo.com> --- InfinityDT@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/13/00 4:08:40 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > contaxaholic@yahoo.com writes: > > << Executive summary: Most wide angle lenses are > very > good for MF. 35mm wide angle loose too much picture > detail when enlarged.>> > > But that's true for all focal lengths, not just wide > angles. I don't know about that. I would need a Zeiss 17mm for my COntax RTS III to match the angle from my 58mmXL Schneider SA. But....The picture detail on a 4x5 neg from th 58mmXL will knock your socks off! The favorite > comparison among Hasselblad users (and 35mm users > who know there are other > than SLR's out there!) is SLR vs viewfinder > (rangefinder) wideangles. 38 > Biogon vs 40 Distagon, Leica M vs R, Mamiya RB/Z vs > 7, etc. > I have seen other arguments on the web, and even though they seem to prove that 35mm is sharper, heck, who cares? When you get an enlargement, 35mm always looses. So what's the big deal if optically 35mm is sharper when you can't realize the gain on big enlargements? > < more inconvenient to use, has the overall advantage > IF > you use LF film: 4x5, 5x7, 8x10. >> > > If you don't use LF film (for example, you use a > rollfilm back) then the wide > angle isn't a wide angle anymore. A 75mm ultrawide > lens on a 4x5 is just > moderately wide on 6x7cm. > Yes, that's why I specified LF film....so you'd get full coverage. > I've personally been in the thinking stages of > whether to get a 40 or an SWC, > just returned from a fall-foliage shoot in the NE. Something I agonize over periodically. The cost of a 903SWC, vs the size/weight of the 40 and the ability to at least meter through the lens, speeding up your shooting before the clouds move in front of the sun! > I realized that for > landscapes the 50 is as wide as I'm comfortable > with. I would normally use a > 35mm in 35 format and 28mm would be the widest. I > just like landscapes > better with a spatial proportion closer to what my > eye sees. Pretty much all my landscapes I have ever done in 35mm lack punch. The negs just don't hold the detail. The prints look good until they exceed 5x7 size. I'm now > seriously thinking of going with a MF panoramic > rather than an ultrawide in > 6x6. Yup. Horseman 6x12, Fuji 6x17, Linhof 6x17 and 6x12, Canaham 6x17 roll film back, Noblex, etc. They are all pricey. Might find a good deal on a used one. You could also try the FUJI 69 and FUJI 69 Wide and crop a little to get the right dimensions.... Or, use LF and crop. I really like the look of 6x12. BTW, the results on Portra 160 *VC* were > incredible. As saturated as > Agfa Ultra 50 but sharper. One word of advice: > don't use a polarizer to > darken blue skies. They're unnatural, inky blue > (like what happens to Velvia > when you use a polarizer on a blue sky). I'm glad I > shot it both ways! Good tip. Thanks! I haven't tried out the 160 VC yet in MF. I > also took some landscape shots with a > recently-purchased Rollei 35S I brought > along which was loaded with Portra 800 for > snapshooting, just to see what it > would look like. The film is amazingly saturated > for an 800, of course you > can see the grain even in a 4x6, but holy cow is > that little 40mm Zeiss > Sonnar one sweet lens. I don't have that camera, but I'd like to run a roll of Fuji Provia F through one.... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public > service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not > responsible for its content. This mailing list is > in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's > subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > To change your subscription status, go to: > http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at > http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 07:18:45 +0200 From: Ulrik Neupert To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: hassy swc finder Message-ID: <39E549B5.69F8476C@gmx.de> Also the old style finder has a rubber eyeglass protection from around 1970 on (my 1975 model has one). I have seen several old SWCs with new finders, this will also work. Ulrik Patrick San Agustin schrieb: > > Does anybody know if the new 903 finders will work on an old swc (not m). I > dont mind the old viewfinder, but I would like to get a new one so I was > looking into them especially for the rubber eyeglass protection. Any advice > would be welcome! ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1018 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html