hasselblad Fri, 18 Aug 2000 Volume 1 : Number 961 In this issue: Re: SWC on moon missions? Re: Lense production numbers... Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35 (ArcBody) RE: Lense production numbers... FW: ~FLEXBODY~ FW: ~FLEXBODY~ RE: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35 (ArcBo dy) RE: Lense production numbers... Re: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35 (ArcBody) RE: Lense production numbers... Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon, Single Coating and Multi-Coating RE: hasselblad V1 #959 Re: Lense production numbers... Re: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35(ArcBody) kein Betreff HASSELBLAD REPAIRS BY MR. DICK WERNER Re: Lense production numbers... RE: HASSELBLAD REPAIRS BY MR. DICK WERNER Re: HASSELBLAD REPAIRS BY MR. DICK WERNER Focus plane and film thickness Re: Focus plane and film thickness Re: SV: 903swc vs 40mm. Re: hassy 203fe question RE: hassy 203fe question Hasselblad Lens Tilt Re: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:10:47 +0100 From: Ian Goodrick To: Subject: Re: SWC on moon missions? Message-ID: on 17/8/00 3:38 am, Austin Franklin at austin@darkroom.com wrote: > Check this out: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=406238280 > > From what I read in "The Hasselblad Compendium", an SWC went in space on > Gemini 10 (not a Moon mission)...and was lost ;-), and on the first Apollo > flight (again, not a Moon mission). Hasselblad did make 10 SWC to be used > as an alternative to the EL on the Moon, but they weren't....so from what I > can tell, no SWCs were ever on the Moon... > > Anyone have information to the contrary? > In the book 'Hasselblad' published by Gullers International ab. There is a list of cameras used up until the Apollo-Soyus mission. >From this list the first SWC flight was Gemini 9. the only Apollo flight was Apollo 9. None of the moon landing flights carried a SWC. This is the only source I have in print so can not cross reference the figures. -- Ian Goodrick goodrick@appleonline.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:10:47 +0100 From: Ian Goodrick To: Subject: Re: Lense production numbers... Message-ID: on 17/8/00 5:41 am, Evan J Dong at evanjoe685@juno.com wrote: > Given this fact, does this mean that all modified SWC (with non T* > lenses) qualify as a SWC/M only becasue of the polariod back modification > of the camera body as listed below? > > > >>> >>>>> I would like to see the SWC numbers. >>>> >>>> Supreme Wide Angle - 903 >>>> Super Wide - 1,039 >>>> Super Wide C - 13,971 >>>> SWC/M - 2,450 >>>> SWC/M CF - 3,550 >> >> The conversion from Super Wide C to SWCm was supplied as a retrofit >> kit in >> the UK and I would expect also in the rest of the world. If the camera is a SWCm and it has a no T* lens then it must have been converted later in life. Althouch I am not clear from the list above if the designation of Super Wide C covers both T* and non T* lenses. -- Ian Goodrick goodrick@appleonline.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 05:31:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Marc Smith To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35 (ArcBody) Message-ID: <20000817123108.8798.qmail@web4106.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Do you have experience with both and can compare the lens quality? Marc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:23:22 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: Lense production numbers... Message-ID: <01C0082D.10351A40@user-2ive0d2.dialup.mindspring.com> > T* multicoating was introduced in 1973. I have Zeiss Super Ikontas from the 50's that have T multicoating. No idea how different that is from T* multicoating...It may have been that prior to 73, the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses had the T coating, but they just didn't mark them as such. I bet MJS would know... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:07:19 -0500 From: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB)" To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ Message-ID: <41D2696EE385D0118DE90020AFFC1E5C063FD60F@JSC-EMS-MBS09.jsc.nasa.gov> > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:02 AM > To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' > Subject: ~FLEXBODY~ > Importance: High > > The FLEXBODY brochure shows a graph on what the limits of "shift" are on > most of the lenses. (1) Does this mean you have a full thirty degress of > "tilt" on all of the lenses? If I remember correctly, J.B. said that in > "most" situations you would only use about 5-10 degress of tilt. (2) Was > that on average for landscape or tabletop or both? (3) Can you use the > bellows extension and tilt at the same time or would it get racked out to > quickly to do both on macro work? (4) Is there any differance in the first > FLEXBODY and a brand new one that sells on the market today? (except for > that little round sticker that say's "open, close, expose", I don't think > the early generations had them) (5) If you owned both the 903SWC and a > FLEXBODY, when or how do you tell when you'll need the FLEXBODY over the > 903SWC for greater depth of field. Keeping in mind that (a) Hasselblad > states that the 38 Biogon has "staggering" depth of field (b) you can use > different focal lenths of lenses with the FLEXBODY. (6) If you turn the > Flexbody on it's side, does that mean you have a swing movement? Thankyou > for all of your input everyone. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:15:54 -0500 From: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB)" To: "'Hasselblad@Kelvin.net'" Subject: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ Message-ID: <41D2696EE385D0118DE90020AFFC1E5C063FD611@JSC-EMS-MBS09.jsc.nasa.gov> > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 6:15 AM > To: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Subject: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ > Importance: High > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:02 AM > To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' > Subject: ~FLEXBODY~ > Importance: High > > The FLEXBODY brochure shows a graph on what the limits of "shift" are on > most of the lenses. (1) Does this mean you have a full thirty degress of > "tilt" on all of the lenses? If I remember correctly, J.B. said that in > "most" situations you would only use about 5-10 degress of tilt. (2) Was > that on average for landscape or tabletop or both? (3) Can you use the > bellows extension and tilt at the same time or would it get racked out to > quickly to do both on macro work? (4) Is there any differance in the first > FLEXBODY and a brand new one that sells on the market today? (except for > that little round sticker that say's "open, close, expose", I don't think > the early generations had them) (5) If you owned both the 903SWC and a > FLEXBODY, when or how do you tell when you'll need the FLEXBODY over the > 903SWC for greater depth of field. Keeping in mind that (a) Hasselblad > states that the 38 Biogon has "staggering" depth of field (b) you can use > different focal lenths of lenses with the FLEXBODY. (6) If you turn the > Flexbody on it's side, does that mean you have a swing movement? Thankyou > for all of your input everyone. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:55:08 -0500 From: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB)" To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35 (ArcBo dy) Message-ID: <41D2696EE385D0118DE90020AFFC1E5C063FD612@JSC-EMS-MBS09.jsc.nasa.gov> TESTING 1,2,3 -----Original Message----- From: Marc Smith [mailto:marcp_id77@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 7:31 AM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35 (ArcBody) Hi, Do you have experience with both and can compare the lens quality? Marc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:50:36 -0400 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: Lense production numbers... Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000817115036.00ad2b50@pop.roanoke.infi.net> At 09:23 AM 8/17/2000 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: >> T* multicoating was introduced in 1973. > >I have Zeiss Super Ikontas from the 50's that have T multicoating. No, sir. You have Zeiss Ikon (NOT Zeiss!) Super Ikontas from the 1950's with T (single) coating. Multi-coating was a technology jointly developed in the later 1960's by Asahi and Zeiss. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:09:27 +0100 From: Ian Goodrick To: Subject: Re: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35 (ArcBody) Message-ID: on 17/8/00 1:31 pm, Marc Smith at marcp_id77@yahoo.com wrote: > Hi, > > Do you have experience with both and can compare the > lens quality? > > Marc > > Firstly I think a direct comparison between the two lenses is slightly unfair, mainly because the 38mm Biogon is fixed and only convers 6x6 format with almost no movement even if the camera would alow it. The 35mm Apo-Grandagon covers the format and gives more than 20-25mm of usable movement, That beeing said I feel the 35mm Apo-Grandagon can gives results as good as the results from my 25 year old SWC. The anly area where I feel the 35mm Apo is not up to the SWC in the amount of flare from lights just outside of the film area. You need to be much more careful with the 35mm Apo. Befor I got the Arc Camera, I used the SWC for about 60% of my work. Since I got the 35mm Apo, I now use the SWC only about 10% of the time. The majority of my work is in construction and architectural photography, and I like to travel light. I now no longer travel with a 5"x4" camera permanently with me. Most clients are happy for me to use the Arc instead of 5"x4". There are still some that want 5"x4" but I am working on them. To sum up the 35mm Apo is now the most used lens in my camera bag, and if someone asked me to chose between the 35mm Apo and the SWC I would go for the 35mm Apo. -- Ian Goodrick goodrick@appleonline.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:24:03 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: Lense production numbers... Message-ID: <01C00846.0DB45970@user-2ive0d2.dialup.mindspring.com> ---------- From: Marc James Small Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 11:50 AM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: Lense production numbers... At 09:23 AM 8/17/2000 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: >> T* multicoating was introduced in 1973. > >I have Zeiss Super Ikontas from the 50's that have T multicoating. No, sir. You have Zeiss Ikon (NOT Zeiss!) Super Ikontas from the 1950's with T (single) coating. Multi-coating was a technology jointly developed in the later 1960's by Asahi and Zeiss. [Austin] Very interesting. What's the distinction between Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon? Did the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses have T coating prior to T*, and they just weren't marked? Any enlightenment you would care to impart on this subject, I'm all ears! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:45:02 -0400 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon, Single Coating and Multi-Coating Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000817124502.00b2fdf0@pop.roanoke.infi.net> At 12:24 PM 8/17/2000 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: >[Austin] Very interesting. What's the distinction between Zeiss and Zeiss >Ikon? Did the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses have T coating prior to T*, and they >just weren't marked? > Buy my book! (Shameless commercial propaganda!) The Zeiss Foundation, a charitable and educational trust, owned and owns a number of differing entities, from the Zeiss lensworks at Oberkochen and Jena, to the Gauthier shutter company (now incorporating FW Deckel), to a company which makes wooden wood-working tools and which bears the epic name of "Leitz", though I understand that family has no connexion with the mavens of Wetzlar and Solms. One of the companies owned by the Foundation was the Zeiss Ikon camera company, originally formed in 1926 by a government-coerced merger of four independent concerns, ICA and Ernemann at Dresden, CP Goerz in Berlin, and Contessa-Nettel in Stuttgart. The Foundation ceased subsidizing Zeiss Ikon in 1972, so camera production ceased then, and Zeiss Ikon continued as a producer of mortice locks (a former Goerz subsidiary) and slide projectors. These concerns -- but not the name -- were sold in 1990 or so to a Scandanavian company called Zett, who later passed on the slide projector works to Leica. The Zeiss Foundation still owns the Zeiss Ikon name but is not using it; the old Contessa works in Stuttgart now produce eyeglass lenses. As to multi-coating, the earliest use I can determine of multi-coating was on Zeiss technical and scientific gear around 1970, probably on a field-test basis. Both Zeiss and Asahi began to coat camera lenses in '73, and arguments have persisted to this day as to which of them was "first", though I suspect Asahi beat Zeiss by several months; certainly, their advertising was superior! We have evidence of multi-coated, but unmarked, Planar lenses on 2.8F's and 3.5F's from the mid-'70's, so, apparently, Zeiss soon began multi-coating all production, but only marked the lenses with the "T*" marking if the customer paid for it. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:41:15 -0500 From: "Gumm, Jim" To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: hasselblad V1 #959 Message-ID: <32C08861F246D411A8A900805FBE3F0CB3087F@s99mail01.okdhs.org> My name is Jim Gumm and I am looking for a good price ona 40mm C T* distagon. e-mail me privately. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:50:39 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Lense production numbers... Message-ID: <399C420F.1B4D7088@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Marc James Small wrote: > Multi-coating was a technology jointly developed in the later 1960's by Asahi and Zeiss. > > Marc > Do I recall Zeiss claiming it had been using this technology in lenes but not saying so BEFORE Pentax came out with the Super Multi Coated Takamar's which seemed to be the "Sergeant Pepper" of what was happening with lenes in the very early 70's? Mark William Rabiner :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:52:45 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35(ArcBody) Message-ID: <399C428D.5011B475@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Ian Goodrick wrote: > > To sum up the 35mm Apo is now the most used lens in my camera bag, and if > someone asked me to chose between the 35mm Apo and the SWC I would go for > the 35mm Apo. > > -- > Ian Goodrick > Is the 35mm Apo a retrofocal lens? Mark William Rabiner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:22:10 +0200 From: Cornelius.Braun@t-online.de (cornelius braun) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: kein Betreff Message-ID: <13PX74-1PELuSC@fwd07.sul.t-online.com> Please remove me from the list > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:00:56 -0800 From: deardorff1@earthlink.net To: Subject: HASSELBLAD REPAIRS BY MR. DICK WERNER Message-ID: I would like for sure to have a shutter repair text, and if I could wish, I'd like a repair manual written by you, explaining things like you explained them in the magazine repair manual, for the whole body (500CM, 500 ELM, ELX) That would be NICE! Then, if you ever wrote such manual, people would start maintenance of their own cameras, and People like Hasselblad service would may be schratch their heads where all the business went. And they would perhaps come to their senses and lower the prices. Count me in for anything you write, I already bought the magazines manual and couldn't be happier. Milos > From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net > Reply-To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:00:31 -0700 > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: A follow up to my last message > > I was talking about the magazine repair manual in my last message as you > know. I have a question. Are any of you people out there interested in a > booklet on the repair of the slow shutter speed on the Hasselblad > lenses? I can, and have thought about, doing a booklet on this item as > well. If there are enough of you out there that might want to do > something like this, I can do the booklet. The total job takes 15/20 > minutes. It is my understanding that Hasselblad is now up to $225/$250 > for this job. My god, a lot of brain surgeons don't make $600/hour after > expenses. The prices charged are ridiculous. I can save you some money > on a very easy repair if there are a substantial number of people out > there that would like to have this knowledge. It is all very simple and > I can lead you step by step, as I do with the film magazine booklet. > > I would also like to know what a booklet like this would be worth to you > dollar wise. If it all makes sense, I will go ahead and do it. > > Thanks, > -- > _______________________________ > Dick Werner > 112 South Brighton St. > Burbank, Ca., 91506 > (818) 845-4667 > > helenadick@worldnet.att.net > _______________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:28:54 -0400 From: Marc James Small To: mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Lense production numbers... Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000817172854.011f1af0@pop.roanoke.infi.net> At 12:50 PM 8/17/2000 -0700, Mark Rabiner wrote: >Do I recall Zeiss claiming it had been using this technology in lenes but not >saying so BEFORE Pentax came out with the Super Multi Coated Takamar's which >seemed to be the "Sergeant Pepper" of what was happening with lenes in the very >early 70's? Mark Can you restate this in English so the lingusitically-challenged among our number can comprehend your query? Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:16:03 -0400 From: "Paolo Pignatelli" To: Subject: RE: HASSELBLAD REPAIRS BY MR. DICK WERNER Message-ID: <000601c00898$bc1be5d0$0100a8c0@paolopent> I hear all this talk about manuals for repairing Hasselblads, does one need to be a skilled surgeon with a few years experience in watch repairing and a degree from Cal Tech in mechanical engineering, or is this stuff for mortals? Paolo Paolo Pignatelli -----Original Message----- From: deardorff1@earthlink.net [mailto:deardorff1@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 11:01 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: HASSELBLAD REPAIRS BY MR. DICK WERNER I would like for sure to have a shutter repair text, and if I could wish, I'd like a repair manual written by you, explaining things like you explained them in the magazine repair manual, for the whole body (500CM, 500 ELM, ELX) That would be NICE! Then, if you ever wrote such manual, people would start maintenance of their own cameras, and People like Hasselblad service would may be schratch their heads where all the business went. And they would perhaps come to their senses and lower the prices. Count me in for anything you write, I already bought the magazines manual and couldn't be happier. Milos > From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net > Reply-To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:00:31 -0700 > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: A follow up to my last message > > I was talking about the magazine repair manual in my last message as you > know. I have a question. Are any of you people out there interested in a > booklet on the repair of the slow shutter speed on the Hasselblad > lenses? I can, and have thought about, doing a booklet on this item as > well. If there are enough of you out there that might want to do > something like this, I can do the booklet. The total job takes 15/20 > minutes. It is my understanding that Hasselblad is now up to $225/$250 > for this job. My god, a lot of brain surgeons don't make $600/hour after > expenses. The prices charged are ridiculous. I can save you some money > on a very easy repair if there are a substantial number of people out > there that would like to have this knowledge. It is all very simple and > I can lead you step by step, as I do with the film magazine booklet. > > I would also like to know what a booklet like this would be worth to you > dollar wise. If it all makes sense, I will go ahead and do it. > > Thanks, > -- > _______________________________ > Dick Werner > 112 South Brighton St. > Burbank, Ca., 91506 > (818) 845-4667 > > helenadick@worldnet.att.net > _______________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:19:52 -0700 From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: HASSELBLAD REPAIRS BY MR. DICK WERNER Message-ID: <399C6508.48E5BE06@worldnet.att.net> deardorff1@earthlink.net wrote: > > I would like for sure to have a shutter repair text, and if I could wish, > I'd like a repair manual written by you, explaining things like you > explained them in the magazine repair manual, for the whole body (500CM, 500 > ELM, ELX) That would be NICE! Then, if you ever wrote such manual, people > would start maintenance of their own cameras, and People like Hasselblad > service would may be schratch their heads where all the business went. And > they would perhaps come to their senses and lower the prices. > > Count me in for anything you write, I already bought the magazines manual > and couldn't be happier. > > Milos Thank you very much for the kind words. They are much appreciated. I do not know if I should say this in public, or do it privately, as this is really a Hasselblad user help group. Well I will go public!!!! I think I will do the manuals you refer to, but it is going to take a little time to do so. It seems as though there are always a thousand and one things to do, but I will get it done. It will be at the top of my list very shortly. Thank you again for the kind words, -- _______________________________ Dick Werner 112 South Brighton St. Burbank, Ca., 91506 (818) 845-4667 helenadick@worldnet.att.net _______________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:50:21 -0700 From: "Frank Filippone" To: Subject: Focus plane and film thickness Message-ID: <002001c008ae$4923f980$c73ffea9@ELNred735i> I would like to challenge the old premise that 120 film and 220 film should have differing backs specifically because the 120 film is thicker ( paper backed). My understanding is that the films' sensitive layer is on the front side of the plastic backing ( estar /polyester or whatever). Therefore the critical plane is the SURFACE or slightly beneath the surface of the film. Since that surface is held in somewhat critical location by the front rollers of the camera, and pushed up to that point by the film plate: then 120 film and 220 film have the same critical focus plane. Taking this farther, then any film put in any back will focus as well. Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:07:55 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Focus plane and film thickness Message-ID: <399C8C6B.8869D88C@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Frank Filippone wrote: > > I would like to challenge the old premise that 120 film and 220 film should > have differing backs specifically because the 120 film is thicker ( paper > backed). > > My understanding is that the films' sensitive layer is on the front side of > the plastic backing ( estar /polyester or whatever). Therefore the critical > Which is why lots of cameras Don't have a different back for 220/120. Some have a switch to adjust a pressure plate. My Rolleiflex just has you set the film counter differently. Mark William Rabiner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:24:56 EDT From: DavidG6028@aol.com To: Subject: Re: SV: 903swc vs 40mm. re: This is a strong pull for a 40 CFE > over a 903" What you write is correct per se but what is it you can't do with the 903 stepped down? .. I think the only point was that since the 203FE has TTL metering, it's nice that the 40cfe lets you USE it for autoexposure. It depends on how you use the camera, and what kind of photography you enjoy. If a person has a 500-series camera, obviously the "databus" feature means nothing at all (except possible use on a future 200-series body!). -David G. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:34:46 EDT From: DavidG6028@aol.com To: Subject: Re: hassy 203fe question re: I have recently purchased a 203fe, 2 E-backs, and two F lenses. Great piece of equipment but my exposures are not great... I'd do 2 things. (I also have a 203)- 1. Run a series of tests, using an accurate, incident meter; with the camera set on manual, and slide film. Take shots of a subject that has no specular highlights, backlit areas, etc. While you're doing this, compare the camera's recommended exposure with that of your meter. 2. If you don't get good correlation & well-exposed slides; take that camera back before you've had it too long & get it REPLACED. You might also do a little methodical investigation... ie, is the problem with all lenses? Only on autoexposure? Only with one back? Maybe only a single item is at fault. David G. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:41:45 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: hassy 203fe question Message-ID: <01C0089C.5776FCB0@user-2ive1b9.dialup.mindspring.com> > I have recently purchased a 203fe, 2 E-backs, and two F lenses. > Great piece of equipment but my exposures are not great... Does the internal meter of this camera display EV? Try setting the exposure manually on the lense/shutter dial, using the meter EV reading... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:35:51 -0700 From: "Frank Filippone" To: Subject: Hasselblad Lens Tilt Message-ID: <002b01c008cd$c9c93ae0$c73ffea9@ELNred735i> Is there any other solution to the tilt on a 500C other than the Flexbody or the Zorkendorfer? Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:05:52 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: Subject: Re: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ Message-ID: <200008180507.WAA02341@spoon.alink.net> David, I'll answer this in detail tomorrow as having changed jobs (yesterday) my Email will not be sorted out until perhaps tomorrow. And I cannot answer it right now, have to get some sleep. Jim At 06:07 AM 8/17/00 -0500, WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:02 AM >> To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' >> Subject: ~FLEXBODY~ >> Importance: High >> >> The FLEXBODY brochure shows a graph on what the limits of "shift" are on >> most of the lenses. (1) Does this mean you have a full thirty degress of >> "tilt" on all of the lenses? If I remember correctly, J.B. said that in >> "most" situations you would only use about 5-10 degress of tilt. (2) Was >> that on average for landscape or tabletop or both? (3) Can you use the >> bellows extension and tilt at the same time or would it get racked out to >> quickly to do both on macro work? (4) Is there any differance in the first >> FLEXBODY and a brand new one that sells on the market today? (except for >> that little round sticker that say's "open, close, expose", I don't think >> the early generations had them) (5) If you owned both the 903SWC and a >> FLEXBODY, when or how do you tell when you'll need the FLEXBODY over the >> 903SWC for greater depth of field. Keeping in mind that (a) Hasselblad >> states that the 38 Biogon has "staggering" depth of field (b) you can use >> different focal lenths of lenses with the FLEXBODY. (6) If you turn the >> Flexbody on it's side, does that mean you have a swing movement? Thankyou >> for all of your input everyone. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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 > ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #961 ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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