hasselblad Sun, 16 Nov 1997 Volume 1 : Number 11 In this issue: LINKS:Photo Related Web Sites Re: Black frame & notches Microdot Implant into Hassy Back Re: Kiev prism from hasselblad V1 #9 Re: Black frame & notches Re: Kiev prism from hasselblad V1 #9 Re: Contaflex Re: Contaflex Which MF? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:00:15 -0500 From: Andre Jean QUINTAL To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: LINKS:Photo Related Web Sites Message-ID: <346D9CDC.519C05D2@abacom.com> Here a "starting point" page loaded with hundreds of photo related Internet links, should you wish to "check out" some quite interesting material on the Web: http://www.best.com/~cgd/home/pholinks.htm Andr=E9 Jean Quintal ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:46:56 -0500 From: Howard Dinin To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches Message-ID: Here's my 2 centavos, not so much about this lively notch discussion, but about the issue of square format. I suspect this originates in at least three facts. The field of any lens is circular of course, and a square mask of it makes most efficient use of the entire field. The twin lens reflex (Rollei, etc.) predates the Hassy by at least one world war, and because of the design of these cameras, a square frame made the most sense as it is awkward, to say the least, to turn these cameras while focusing, composing and shooting. (An historical curiosity is the Contaflex I, which came out in 1938, was a twin lens reflex that took 35mm film, with a horizontal frame when held in the "normal" waist level position--it had a built in sports finder in the focusing hood and, as far as I know, not even a rudimentary image rectifying (as in prismatic) focusing attachment). The Hasselblad was, for years, promoted as the ideal format as it allowed so many more cropping possibilities than rectangular frame cameras. It's a convention that one gets used to I think and has nothing inherently superior or inferior about it--unless you're an Athenian Greek of several millennia ago and an advocate of the Golden Rectangle (which the 645 or even the 35mm rectangle is decidedly not an exemplum). ciao Howard [Howard Dinin -- Bertha Communications Inc. http://www.bertha.com -- worth at least 1000 words 617.497.6666 617.497.6699f howard@bertha.com] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:19:30 -0800 From: "Frank Filippone" To: , Subject: Microdot Implant into Hassy Back Message-ID: <19971115181608.AAA6343@default> That Microdot implanted into the Hassy back sounds real interesting..... Does anyone remember what company did the work? #2 Where IS the microdot.... lots of us buy used equipment and it would be more than embarassing if we bought a back with someone else's copyright on every one of our Pix. Thank You Frank Filippone red735i@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:29:56 +0100 From: unb702@ibm.rhrz.uni-Bonn.de (Christoph Esch) To: Subject: Re: Kiev prism from hasselblad V1 #9 Message-ID: Marc wrote: >3) I do recommend a Kiev prism. First, this has European, not Japanese, >glass in it, which my snobbishness causes me to prefer. Second, if you buy >a metered version, these are terribly overbuilt in the Grand German >Tradition. I shoot chromes with mine, without a quibble, even on my micro >work with a Luminar. Works fine. AND I have mine fed with silver-oxide >cells, and not mercury: the Kiev prism, like most photo gear European, has >inbuilt voltage regulators, so you are spared the purchase of Wein aircells >and the like. Hi Marc, I have bought a Kiev metered prism (number 893377) very cheap (40$) from a Polish dealer at a camera show here in Germany. But the batteries have been over. Because of the cyrillic letters I do not know which one to buy now. Any hints? (an adapter made from black plastic was included) Thanx in advance Chris ----------------------------------------------------------- Christoph B. Esch ZOOLOGISCHES FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT UND MUSEUM ALEXANDER KOENIG Scientific Documentation e-mail: Ch.Esch.ZFMK@uni-bonn.de ----------------------------------------------------------- Sometimes - often in science and always in art - one does not know what the problems were till after they have been solved. Bateson (1972) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:46:24 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971115144624.0074296c@roanoke.infi.net> At 11:46 AM 11/15/97 -0500, Howard Dinin wrote: >The twin lens reflex (Rollei, etc.) predates the Hassy by at least one >world war, and because of the design of these cameras, a square frame made >the most sense as it is awkward, to say the least, to turn these cameras >while focusing, composing and shooting. (An historical curiosity is the >Contaflex I, Two quick notes. The basic Hasselblad design is about fifteen years or so later than the basic Rolleiflex TLR design, though the Second War does intervene. The Contaflex TLR is simply 'the Contaflex'. The 'Contaflex I' was a 35mm SLR which led, with a slew of variations, to the 'Contaflex S' of 1970. All of the 35mm Contaflices had some letter or name addition to 'Contaflex' (I, IV, Super, Beta, &c); simply 'Contaflex' is the Prewar TLR. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:48:09 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Kiev prism from hasselblad V1 #9 Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971115144809.006b0484@roanoke.infi.net> The Kiev meter-prism takes a pack of PX625 mercury cells. It will work as well with PX76 or equivalent silver-oxide cells. I bushed mine with plastic and haven't had a problem. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:50:25 -0500 From: Howard Dinin To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Contaflex Message-ID: >The Contaflex TLR is simply 'the Contaflex'. The 'Contaflex I' was a 35mm >SLR which led, with a slew of variations, to the 'Contaflex S' of 1970. >All of the 35mm Contaflices had some letter or name addition to 'Contaflex' >(I, IV, Super, Beta, &c); simply 'Contaflex' is the Prewar TLR. Thanks for the clarification. My father had one of these beauties...though I learned recently from him to my chagrin that he had traded it in a few years ago. He used to call it the "schrechlichkeit" [sp?] which is yiddishized German I guess for "frightfulness." It's an impressive beast. Howard [Howard Dinin -- Bertha Communications Inc. http://www.bertha.com -- worth at least 1000 words 617.497.6666 617.497.6699f howard@bertha.com] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:24:13 +0100 From: Alfred Breull To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Contaflex Message-ID: <199711152224.XAA19124@go.hannover.sgh-net.de> Howard, you are correct, it's "Schrecklichkeit". If she's the same I'm thinking of, then you need to pay DM 3.500 for her today, about us-$ 2.050. Alf --------------------------------------------------- At 16:50 15.11.1997 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks for the clarification. My father had one of these beauties...though >I learned recently from him to my chagrin that he had traded it in a few >years ago. > >He used to call it the "schrechlichkeit" [sp?] which is yiddishized German >I guess for "frightfulness." It's an impressive beast. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:57:19 +1100 From: firkin@netconnect.com.au (Alastair Firkin) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Which MF? Message-ID: Brian, has an option on Mamiya and asks should he fork out for the more expensive systems. > Should I pass up that system and move to something else? This may be the wrong forum to ask such a question. After all we all use and love the Blad ;-) >The only something elses that are available are Bronica (interchangeable > backs and leaf-shutter lenses) and, of course, Hasselblad. Let me add Rollei to that list, a serious contender, especially if you feel the 'Blad is a bit primative. I'm not a pro, but I do want to stand up for the Hasselblad system, and in particular the 2000 series > The price of Hasselblad equipment > is astronomical. Is it really worth it? For instance, a used CF 150 mm > lens runs around $2700 Cdn in Toronto. I could get a new Bronica 150 > (645) lens for about $1200 I used to have a Bronica SQA before trading it in on the Hasselblad 2000 series. Unlike you, I wanted the faster lens, and the FP shutter does have some advantages. I also have the use of the in lens shutters on any C or CF series lens, so its the best of both worlds in my opinion. Don't write the 2000 series off completely is I suppose what I'm saying. As for prices, there is no doubt that h'blad prices are high. This is good ;-). Firstly it means that they are well cared for by people who really have to want the glass, second, there are people out there who really do want the glass and will pay for it, so you will usually get your money back, third, patience is a virtue, I waited and waited and picked up all my glass at very reasonable prices. The advantage of the F series lenes is that there is less competition for them, especially a few years ago, and thus the prices are more reasonable, but if you must rush, then there are always dozens of old C series lenses, quite capable of doing a job till that special bargain arrives. [you will keep the C lens for the more "dangerous" assignments anyway]. My only expensive lens [and I think it was a bargain anyway] was the 30mm fisheye. Not too many around, so when it arrives s'hand you have to be prepared to jump ;-) Oh one other F advantage is the 50mm lens. Fantastic is the only word to describe this Zeiss masterpiece, but sad its soooo heavy ;-) > some aspects of the systems seem primitive to me. This is > particularly true with regard to multiple exposures, mirror lockup, > and being sure that both lenses and body are cocked (to avoid jams) Primative is really in the eye of the beholder. Wonderful and creative is another view. How the company has managed to keep the system functional with its origins is beyond real belief. The whole system is very mechanical, but also very functional. Once you begin to learn some of the Hasselblad tricks, the mechanisms for making fast and accurate images is quite easy. As for jams, the camera suits my instincts. I always wind the camera on whenever I've taken an exposure. It has become as second nature to me as depressing the clutch on the car when I brake. As a result, the camera and backs are always "cocked" and [touch wood] I've never had a jam up. The backs of course don't really matter as the jam is between the camera and lens. > As I understand it (mainly from reading Wildi), on a 500-501 body if I > put the mirror up, but then wanted it down again to check framing > before making the exposure (something I do quite a bit shooting horses and > riders -- horses have a tendency to move after everything is looking > good) I would have to release the back and wind the crank to get the > mirror back down. Of course I'm not speaking for the 500 series, but on my 2000fc/m the system is a bit of a mind twister [I had to re-read the instructions] but straightforward. The pre-release button/lever, does more than just raise the mirror. It also sets the back, stops down the lens and raises the mirror, so that only the shutter [FP when using F lens and leaf shutter when using C lens] has to fire. This lessens motion, and also improves the cameras reation time. [this is something, I've become more aware of now that I use M series Leicas]. I only use this just before making an image, so I've never really thought about bringing the mirror back down. At first I thought I may have to remove the back, but not so, by using the double exposure button [depress and wind on the crank] the camera re-sets itself. Of course this also addresses double exposure, with which I've never had a problem. > Do I understand correctly some of the Hasselblad limitations? Do they > actually matter to you in your operation of the cameras? Yes and no >If you were > starting over and looking for a system for fairly heavy professional > use, would you go with Hasselblad today given the hefty prices? Yes, but with one proviso. Rollei. But in Australia there are many more blads than Rollei 6000 series and the secondhand market is much more vibrant as a result. I cannot imagine not having the fisheye as well, so I would have to find a 30mm Rollei lens before making a switch, and having written all this, I remember why the Hasselblad is such a fantastic camera. I don't really think you can go wrong with the blad, especially the 2000 series. So conclusion. I would still look for a 2000 series camera, though this time I would want an 80mm CF rather than the straight F lens, [I think they stopped making this lens anyway] even though the F focuses closer. This would give me all the leaf shutter options as well as the FP shutter. You get one exposure after battery failure using the C shutter, but you need the battery to return the FP shutter after the exposure, so its not a "mechanical" option really :-( I would then be looking for the F 150 2.8 and the F 50 2.8 [and might buy the slower C lens of each whilst waiting ;-) ] The advantage of this line up with the metered prism, is that you do not have to remember to change the Max shutter setting on the prism every time you change a lens ;-). The fisheye is a bit slower but on the occasions I've forgotten to change the meter the image has been fine. I suspect the newer metered prism just released would work well on my FCM, and one day I may well investigate the newer 2000 cameras 203, 205 etc. especially if TTL flash was of any concern [not to me, but to most pro's I think it would be]. Sorry this is a bit long winded, but someone had to mention Rollei and I for one think the FP 'blad is the secondhand bargain of the medium format range ;-) Alastair Firkin, http://users.netconnect.com.au/~firkin/AGFhmpg.html ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #11 ************************