hasselblad Tue, 3 Feb 1998 Volume 1 : Number 89 In this issue: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Re: Negative Carriers Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Re:Pola mag on SWC Re:Polaroid magazine on SWC Re:Polaroid magazine on SWC Re:Polaroid magazine on SWC Re: Re:Pola mag on SWC Trade Mercedes for Camera Gear? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:36:50 GMT From: buchi@dci.de (Michael Buchstaller) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Message-ID: <34d5c4ec.12545565@mail.dci.de> Hello HUG, i am looking for an used super wide angle lens to complete my system. But i am not sure whether the 40 mm Distagon would be the right choice, or should i get a SWC with the 38 mm Biogon ? I would prefer the Distagon over the SWC because i would want to viev the image being photographed on the focusing screen of my 500CM, but i suspect that the Biogon could be the much better lens ? Does anybody have experiences with both and can give an advice which one i sould get ? When i look at the price lists of several used camera dealers, the price of the Distagon is only about 10 % less than the SWC=B4s price, so that would not be a problem. I just want to get the better solution. I mainly do product photography, and would like to add the wide angle effects to my photos. Thanks in advance to you all ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:03:46 -0500 From: "Eugene A. Pallat" To: Subject: Re: Negative Carriers Message-ID: <199802021605.LAA06660@junior.apk.net> > From: Kim the Star & Mark > I have had my blad for just over a two month, > I had a questions with regards negative carriers, > I am using Omega D5 (4x5) enlargers colour and b+w, always with a diffuser light > source. > I have been using a glassless carrier, can I get the sharpness that I am looking for > with such a setup. I have been stopping the enlarger lens down to f16. > Or would I be better advised to get a glass carrier and put up with the problem of > spotting which is really annoying particular with C prints. I've made 40x50 prints form 6x6 negatives with a glassless carrier on my D2V-XL which were razor sharp. My D2 has a condenser head, so you might want to use paper which is one grade harder for your prints when using the color head F/16 seems a bit small. I usually use f/8 or f/11 on my 80mm EL-Nikkor. Gene Pallat eapallat@oriondata.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:25:21 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Armstrong To: buchi@dci.de, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Message-ID: Hi Michael -=20 I just recently sold off my 40mm Distagon C in favor of a SWC.=20 Fortunately, I was able to sell my 40 for almost what the SWC cost me. I did this because 1) the 40 was too heavy, 2) the images suffered from too much distortion at the edges, 3) the 40 was not T*, and 4) it was nearly impossible to find Bay 104 filters. As far as I could determine, a proshade (and gel filters) was not an option for this 104 mm mount. The drawbacks are that I need to have the SWC modified to accept my polaroid back (about $300, I'm told), and for really critical applications, I'll have to check my composition via the ground glass adapter.=20 =2E..but the benefits (especially weight) will outweigh the disadvantages...My initial test roll demonstrates the images from the SWC are virtually free of perspective distortion....and even better, I purchased my SWC from a member of the HUG. Thanks, Sandy! just my $.02. =20 -Eric On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Michael Buchstaller wrote: > Hello HUG, >=20 > i am looking for an used super wide angle lens to complete my > system. >=20 > But i am not sure whether the 40 mm Distagon would be the > right choice, or should i get a SWC with the 38 mm Biogon ? >=20 > I would prefer the Distagon over the SWC because i would want > to viev the image being photographed on the focusing screen > of my 500CM, but i suspect that the Biogon could be the much > better lens ? >=20 > Does anybody have experiences with both and can give an advice > which one i sould get ? When i look at the price lists of several > used camera dealers, the price of the Distagon is only about 10 % > less than the SWC=B4s price, so that would not be a problem. >=20 > I just want to get the better solution. I mainly do product photography, > and would like to add the wide angle effects to my photos. >=20 > Thanks in advance to you all ! >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Inter= net, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. >=20 > This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's= subsidiaries, or affiliates. >=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Eric Armstrong e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 12:49:00 -0800 (PST) From: "Klosky, Peter - MS MAIL" To: buchi , hasselblad Subject: Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Message-ID: <34D63583@cdigate.cdi.marconi.ca> > The drawbacks are that I need to have the SWC modified to accept my polaroid back (about $300, I'm told) Which back do you have? I've noticed that the NPC MF1 back fits very differently than the Hassy polaroid back. They are not interchangeable in the applications I've checked. I have not checked the SWC application, but the following detail may help you, none the less. As memory serves, the polaroid film is much larger than 2 1/4 square; perhaps 3 1/4 x 4 1/4. So it is possible for a back maker to locate the 2 1/4 square image anywhere within the larger area. The NPC people chose to hang their back so that the back hangs low, and protrudes into the area where the tripod might be. The Hassy back hangs high, and protrudes into the area where the finder might be. For this reason, certain prisms can not be used with the Hassy back, such as the Kiev prism. What trouble are you having mounting your polaroid back onto your swc? What polaroid back do you have? What year was your swc made? How close does your swc focus for product work? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:06:48 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Armstrong To: hasselblad Subject: Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Message-ID: Hi - (don't think the questions below were directed toward me, but I've got this info on the Hasselblad SWC to SWC/M modification.... The SWC/M, the modified version of the SWC that allows the Hasselblad Polaroid back to be attached, has the finder elevated from the body a bit, and the tripod shoe descended from the body a little bit. The winder crank is also a ratcheted version, as the polaroid back interferes with travel of the winder arm. The modification to the SWC involves placing a spacer between the finder shoe and the body, and between the tripod shoe and the body. Also, the winder crank is replaced with the ratchet version. It will not be possible, as far as I can tell, to use my NPC back after I get the mod done. (don't know the model # on my NPC) -- I'll have to use the Hassy polaroid back with the SWC. My SWC is a 1968 model, T* lens. -Eric On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Klosky, Peter - MS MAIL wrote: > > > > The drawbacks are that I need to have the SWC modified to accept my > polaroid back (about $300, I'm told) > > Which back do you have? I've noticed that the NPC MF1 back fits very > differently than the Hassy polaroid back. They are not interchangeable in > the applications I've checked. I have not checked the SWC application, but > the following detail may help you, none the less. > > As memory serves, the polaroid film is much larger than 2 1/4 square; > perhaps 3 1/4 x 4 1/4. So it is possible for a back maker to locate the 2 > 1/4 square image anywhere within the larger area. The NPC people chose to > hang their back so that the back hangs low, and protrudes into the area > where the tripod might be. The Hassy back hangs high, and protrudes into > the area where the finder might be. For this reason, certain prisms can not > be used with the Hassy back, such as the Kiev prism. > > What trouble are you having mounting your polaroid back onto your swc? What > polaroid back do you have? What year was your swc made? How close does > your swc focus for product work? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Armstrong e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:24:00 -0800 (PST) From: "Klosky, Peter - MS MAIL" To: buchi , hasselblad Subject: Re: SWC or 40 mm Distagon ? Message-ID: <34D63DDA@cdigate.cdi.marconi.ca> > The NPC people chose to hang their back so that the back hangs low, and protrudes into the area where the tripod might be. The Hassy back hangs high, and protrudes into the area where the finder might be. For this reason, certain prisms can not be used with the Hassy back, such as the Kiev prism. Another comment: The NPC back hangs low, and runs into not only the tripod, but also the area where the motor drive may exist. For this reason, the NPC will not fit certain motorized cameras. Fits my 500C/M fine, with either NC2 or Kiev prism. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 11:04:18 -0800 From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re:Pola mag on SWC Message-ID: <34D618B2.C7D064D4@worldnet.att.net> A solution that has been used for many years-cut the bottom shoe on the SWC, even to flush with the rear of body, file smooth and paint the edge. When done properly, you never notice that anything has been done. You can now use any none Hasselblad polaroid magazine. If you can do without the viewfinder (use a ground glass back), you can even use the Hasselblad polaroid magazine. Dick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 11:07:31 -0800 From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re:Polaroid magazine on SWC Message-ID: <34D61973.9941B136@worldnet.att.net> A solution that has been used for many years-cut the bottom shoe on the SWC, even to flush with the rear of body, file smooth and paint the edge. When done properly, you never notice that anything has been done. You can now use any none Hasselblad polaroid magazine. If you can do without the viewfinder (use a ground glass back), you can even use the Hasselblad polaroid magazine. Dick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:20:55 EST From: SPYDERS@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re:Polaroid magazine on SWC Message-ID: In a message dated 2/2/98 2:08:55 PM, Dick wrote: >A solution that has been used for many years-cut the bottom shoe on the >SWC, even to flush with the rear of body, file smooth and paint the >edge. When done properly, you never notice that anything has been done. >You can now use any none Hasselblad polaroid magazine. If you can do >without the viewfinder (use a ground glass back), you can even use the >Hasselblad polaroid magazine. On some older SWCs, even after filing down the quick release foot, one still has to deal with the winder and replace with ratcheting ones as mentioned in prior postings. My old SWC's winding arm has a flange which extends maybe 1/16th of an inch behind the body of the camera, and I filed it flush with the surface the film back rests on, which allowed the polaroid back to work. I just have to remove the polaroid back to recock the shutter; i normally only need a single polaroid, so it usually ends up that the back comes off anyway, then I recock the shutter. Total cost of my mod: $2.75, a pair of flat files and some fine emery. pat. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:55:01 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Armstrong To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re:Polaroid magazine on SWC Message-ID: Is the ratcheting winder available commercially and has anyone done this installation themselves? As far as trimming off the tripod plate goes, what did you folks use? a hacksaw or perhaps a dremel tool or something similar? I'd really like to save myself that $300. -Eric On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 SPYDERS@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/2/98 2:08:55 PM, Dick wrote: > > >A solution that has been used for many years-cut the bottom shoe on the > >SWC, even to flush with the rear of body, file smooth and paint the > >edge. When done properly, you never notice that anything has been done. > >You can now use any none Hasselblad polaroid magazine. If you can do > >without the viewfinder (use a ground glass back), you can even use the > >Hasselblad polaroid magazine. > > On some older SWCs, even after filing down the quick release foot, one still > has to deal with the winder and replace with ratcheting ones as mentioned in > prior postings. > > My old SWC's winding arm has a flange which extends maybe 1/16th of an inch > behind the body of the camera, and I filed it flush with the surface the film > back rests on, which allowed the polaroid back to work. I just have to remove > the polaroid back to recock the shutter; i normally only need a single > polaroid, so it usually ends up that the back comes off anyway, then I recock > the shutter. > > Total cost of my mod: $2.75, a pair of flat files and some fine emery. > > pat. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. > > This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Armstrong e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:20:01 -0500 From: "LEO WOLK" To: Subject: Re: Re:Pola mag on SWC Message-ID: <01bd3017$f1336420$c693430c@fofyplfq> And you'll also have to grind a flat spot on the SWC winding crank also to accomodate the back. But the biggest drawback to this solution it that you'll have to remove the back every time you want to cock the shutter! The SWC/M conversion kit is clearly the best (and most professional looking) way to do this. Leo. -----Original Message----- From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 2:06 PM Subject: Re:Pola mag on SWC >... If you can do >without the viewfinder (use a ground glass back), you can even use the >Hasselblad polaroid magazine. > >Dick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 16:54:22 -0800 From: John Gong To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Trade Mercedes for Camera Gear? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980203005422.006e2bdc@lint.cisco.com> Sorry to be WOB, but this offer might be of interest to you if you need wheels and have some surplus equipment to trade with me. I'm helping a charitable organization to sell this car; if it turns out someone on these lists are interested in trading for $2500 retail value of equipment, I will trade (since I could use the equipment) and then write the check for that amount to the charity. The ad reads as follows: 1979 350SEL for sale $2500 OBO The 350SEL is a European model. Its closest American equivalent is the same vintage 450SEL. This car was personally imported to the USA some years ago. At the time, the smog laws were more relaxed. The car was recently donated to a charitable organization, of which I'm helping to sell the car. White with tan velour seats V8 engine Body and interior in very good condition New tires and battery Needs: smog equipment, tuneup 275K kilometers showing; engine was replaced with a newer unit about 2 years ago. This car is probably too much trouble to make smog legal in California. The car is currently in the San Francisco Bay Area. If you can use it in another state or country, this would be a good car for you. If interested, please contact: r7slr@yahoo.com John ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #89 ************************ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.