Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 12-05-2012   #51
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,011
The earlier models have a sharper lens than the modern models due to some materials used that later became forbidden, and the cost is quite manageable. It is similar to the cost of an M8 or lower.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #52
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
The earlier models have a sharper lens than the modern models due to some materials used that later became forbidden, and the cost is quite manageable. It is similar to the cost of an M8 or lower.
This myth has been stated over and over again. The changes to the Biogon, once past the T* coatings in 1973, only applies to the 905 SWC model when the lens design was recalculated to allow continued production with currently available glasses.

The first SWC I used was a loaner SWC from about the middle 1977 ... belongs to a friend of mine ... with the Syncro-Compur shutter. Love the style of it. My understanding is that some parts for the old shutter are becoming scarce as they are out of production for many years (SWC/M last made in 1988).

The second SWC I used is the one I bought ... an '00 903 SWC. I saw no difference whatever between what it produced and the first one. Far as I'm aware, the lens is identical, they just went to the newer shutter (more reliable, easier to obtain parts for) and restyled it a bit.

The third SWC I used was an '04 905 SWC owned by another friend. I was specifically interested to see if the reformulation of the Biogon 38mm lens had affected its quality at all, as the myth had been going around already (this was a decade ago). We put the two cameras through a series of semi-formal lens tests with one roll of film, and then went out and shot the same subjects for another roll of film. As far as I could tell with my eyes and a 8x magnifying loupe, the two lenses produced identical results (modulo my ability to get the tripod and subject alignment identical between the two cameras).

Perhaps if tested on an optical bench, one could identify more differences. However, in practical terms, I doubt that the differences amount to a hill of beans.

Doesn't really matter all that much. Get one in good condition and it's a fine camera, no matter how old it might be. :-)

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #53
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
The earlier models have a sharper lens than the modern models due to some materials used that later became forbidden, and the cost is quite manageable. It is similar to the cost of an M8 or lower.
Dear Raid,

Are you sure? Can you provide references? Why were the materials forbidden?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #54
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigeye View Post
Cool stuff!

But, that's a tech camera and not what the SWC is about: compactness and simplicity. That's more along the lines of an Alpa.

.
hehe, same size as SWC, the digital back has same dimensions as hasselblad cassette. The preset aperture is easy to change for setting. If you want to bracket with film. just keep shooting with the shutter and wind the aperture. the Prontor is "self cocking" The nikkor has the same coverage as PC canons, so why not? If somebody wants to make a duplicate, send me a private message with your email address, I will send you pictures on how it was made. Cheers...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #55
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Raid,

Are you sure? Can you provide references? Why were the materials forbidden?

Cheers,

R.
The earlier Biogon had lead and arsenic in the 10 element design, . the lens in 905 SWC of 2001 is a new design calculation now. ( 8 element)
If it is worse... that`s one of those "beliefs" i don`t swallow... The lead and arsenic was bad in manufacturing stage, no difference for the user, though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #56
maitani
Registered User
 
maitani's Avatar
 
maitani is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 586
I have an SWC from the very first batch, I foolishly wanted to sell it recently, until I went out and shot again with it, besids being a head turner, the quality i get out of this compact MF combo is astounding. might
be the last camera I ll sell out of the too many I have.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #57
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Raid,

Are you sure? Can you provide references? Why were the materials forbidden?

Cheers,

R.
Hello Roger,
I am sure that "Die Bild Zeitung" has some article on it!
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #58
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Hello Roger,
I am sure that "Die Bild Zeitung" has some article on it!
Thanks. I'll check.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2012   #59
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,011
Well, Roger not everything is that dead serious.
I read online in several RFF and PhotoNet threads by people who seem to know a lot about SWC cameras this information. I believe it.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #60
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Well, Roger not everything is that dead serious.
I read online in several RFF and PhotoNet threads by people who seem to know a lot about SWC cameras this information. I believe it.
Well, if I believed everything I read on line... I'm just intrigued, as I have one of the first series of 4,5/38 Biogons made for Alpa (there were 2x 50-lens series) and I'd not heard that the design was changed -- but I had heard that when the design was run through a computer for optimization, it was impossible to improve on it. Dr. Nasse at Zeiss really LOVES his work so I'm sure he'll know.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #61
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,011
This is good to know, Roger. I believe you.
When a design cannot be improved upon, then it is a darned good design. It is such "online comments" that I learn from.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #62
bigeye
Registered User
 
bigeye's Avatar
 
bigeye is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,137
All the SWC lenses are the same 8/5 design; coatings improved with time. I would take any one of them.

It's alledged that Zeiss couldn't get the original glass formula (w/lead & arsenic) for the SWC 905. People debate 903 vs 905 over this.

My experience is that if you pick up a Hasselblad lens, it will be wonderful and you're wasting time debating. (Pretty much same for Leica lenses.)

- Charlie
__________________
I bought a new camera. It's so advanced you don't even need it. - Steven Wright
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #63
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 642
Well, for Digital backs SWC is CRAP. Rear element too near the sensor. And this is what HASSELBLAD says on their info for CFV backs too ! This is the reason I did my own wide 35mm, besides being much cheaper and fun too!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #64
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigeye View Post
All the SWC lenses are the same 8/5 design; coatings improved with time. I would take any one of them.

It's alledged that Zeiss couldn't get the original glass formula (w/lead & arsenic) for the SWC 905. People debate 903 vs 905 over this.

My experience is that if you pick up a Hasselblad lens, it will be wonderful and you're wasting time debating. (Pretty much same for Leica lenses.)

- Charlie
I picked a model that I could afford paying for. It is the chrome lens model.
Without such " boring discussions", RFF would not be having so many members.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #65
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangefinderfreak View Post
Well, for Digital backs SWC is CRAP. Rear element too near the sensor. And this is what HASSELBLAD says on their info for CFV backs too ! This is the reason I did my own wide 35mm, besides being much cheaper and fun too!
I bought an M9.
I felt guilty about leaving film behind.
I corrected my error by buying a real film classic camera, the SWC.

Digital MF is not what I am after.
I want to use my MF cameras like Leicas. Hand held and for street photofraphy and for travel. The enjoyment that fuels my love for photography comes first.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #66
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangefinderfreak View Post
Well, for Digital backs SWC is CRAP. Rear element too near the sensor. And this is what HASSELBLAD says on their info for CFV backs too ! This is the reason I did my own wide 35mm, besides being much cheaper and fun too!
I want film for 6x6. Can't get 6x6 sensors, and I can't afford such things anyway.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #67
bigeye
Registered User
 
bigeye's Avatar
 
bigeye is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,137
__________________
I bought a new camera. It's so advanced you don't even need it. - Steven Wright
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #68
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,083
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #69
Vics
Registered User
 
Vics's Avatar
 
Vics is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 2,895
Wow, Mike! One of the best things about living in Santa Rosa is that view of the Golden Gate!
__________________
Vic
Leica M3, Contax IIIa, Rollei MX, Nikon F, FM.

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #70
Matthew Runkel
Registered User
 
Matthew Runkel's Avatar
 
Matthew Runkel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 196
The post in this thread by Kornelius Fleischer of Zeiss provides useful information about the recomputed lens used in the 905.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photo...01nEo?start=10

Elsewhere he indicates that all of the most recent Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad had been redesigned with new glass types.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/008pv2
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #71
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Runkel View Post
The post in this thread by Kornelius Fleischer of Zeiss provides useful information about the recomputed lens used in the 905.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photo...01nEo?start=10

Elsewhere he indicates that all of the most recent Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad had been redesigned with new glass types.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/008pv2
Thanks for the reference. Incidentally, Herr Fleischer (now Herr Mueller) left Zeiss and was working for Leica last time I heard.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #72
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Runkel View Post
The post in this thread by Kornelius Fleischer of Zeiss provides useful information about the recomputed lens used in the 905.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photo...01nEo?start=10

Elsewhere he indicates that all of the most recent Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad had been redesigned with new glass types.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/008pv2
That confirms my impressions stated up-thread for the testing I did between 903 and 905 models, there was no visible difference at the level of resolution testing I was able to achieve.

I always forget that the folks at Hasselblad and Zeiss intended the SWC at least in part as a dedicated copy camera ... That's where the groundglass back and focusing loupe come into their own. :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2012   #73
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,911
Ok, you folks are messing wit' me haid.
And making me want things. Damn you all. ;-)

Just punched the BIN buttons for a rather pretty looking SWC. From the model log and serial numbers listed, it's a chrome T* SWC body made 1978 and a chrome A12 back made the same year. Should be here in a week.

I'm itching to load it and do some shooting. I think I'll load the Baldix for tomorrow morning's walk, in anticipation.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2012   #74
semrich
Registered User
 
semrich's Avatar
 
semrich is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 1,152
I can't imagine any reason you would be unhappy with your decision, the negatives always blow me away with the detail and lack of distortion and converging or diverting verticals if you keep the bubble in the center of the finder.
__________________
- Richard

"The individual is an aperture through which the whole energy of the universe is aware of itself"...

Alan Watts
The Art of Contemplation

http://www.rweatheredgallery.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79288469@N05/
  Reply With Quote

It was not published in Die Bild Zeitung!
Old 12-08-2012   #75
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,011
It was not published in Die Bild Zeitung!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Thanks for the reference. Incidentally, Herr Fleischer (now Herr Mueller) left Zeiss and was working for Leica last time I heard.

Cheers,

R.
Now we know where it was published.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.