Topic: Questions about Hasselblad SWC

[gothamtomato]

For those of you using Hasselblad SWCs, I have a question: I'm thinking about getting one and there is a HUGE difference in price between the 903 model and the earlier ones. So my question is, is there a big enough difference in the camera to warrant paying the extra for the 903? And any suggestions about buying one?

Thanks!

[Phil Bebbington]

I can't speak for the 903, but, I have the SWC/M and it is a dream. I would imagine that any model in good condition would be just fine. Drop me a line if you want my experience - limited, but, if I had to have only one camera this is the one that I would keep!

Phil

[Phil Bebbington]

I won't comment on the quality, but, these are my photos taken with the SWC/M - http://www.flickr.com/photos/terrorkitten/sets/72157594509217386/

It would seem that I have had mine nearly 6 years - a match made in heaven!

[moominsean]

yeah i've been thinking about getting one, as well, for the right price. How is focusing with the thing, since you need to use a focusing screen?

[calbisu]

I was seriously looking for one for a while, if you close the diaphragm at f11 I believe you focus from 0.7 meters to infinity... hyper focal point and shoot 

Now I am considering getting the 45mm for the Pentax 67 might not be in the same league but still seems to produce very nice results. But what intrigues me is the whole concept of a light super wide angle and no option to change lenses.

[Phil Bebbington]

You can use a focussing screen and I do have one, but, I never use it. The thing is so wide that pretty much everything from 2 feet to infinity can be in focus and usually is. If I am close to things, interiors etc I use a tape measure, it's far quicker. I have tried the focussing screen, but, really didn't see any real advantage for the type of photography that I do.

[Aki]

Phil, those are awesome shots!

I've had my late 60's silver barrel SWC for a few years also.  It's a non-T* coating so supposingly it flares more,  but I haven't really noticed it much and I'm the type who don't mind a little (or a lot of) flare now and then.   

When I was shopping around, the biggest differences between earlier and later models were not only price but also serviceability as parts for earlier C lens are no longer made.    I bought my earlier model, but I then had it serviced by a repairer who still stocks C lens parts.   The thinking was that this will reduce the risk of ending up with an expensive paper weight for mich less total cost than purchasing an 903.  I guess time will tell. 

Didn't take me long to stop worrying about focusing also.  I have found that key to using SWC (or any wide angle for that matter) is to get it level, which I still struggle with even with the bubble level.

[Phil Bebbington]

Oh, level is essential unless you want the world to seem very odd! I don't use the Hasselblad find, but, the Bessa Anglefinder. I found that it transformed my use of the SWC as it offers precise framing. If you can find one at a decent price I would recommend getting one whole heartedly!

[Lawrie]

IMHO the Hasselblad SWC is, and always will be,  an iconic camera of the 20th century! I have  a well used  T*Star model which is a pleasure to use and delivers stunning results. Like Phil, it is one camera I would not willingly part with!

Regards,

Lawrie.

[gothamtomato]

Hi Phil: Thank you for responding. I've actually been an admirer of your work for quite some time.

It seems like the 903 sells for about twice what the SWC/M does, and I'm just wondering if it's worth an extra $2K for (if I'm correct), the big difference between them being the 903 supposedly has a better coating inside, and a better finder. But if you're using the Bessa finder, then I guess that part doesn't matter anyway. It's great that the Bessa finder gives you precise framing. The Hasselblad finder doesn't. Does the Bessa go over the back where the ground glass would go or does it go on the top like a regular finder?

Sometimes I see the SWCs for sale missing a finder, and I've hesitated just because I'm assuming that if they're missing that, they probably haven't taken good care of it.

[Phil Bebbington]

The finder sits on top and is a joy to use compared with less than precise Hasselblad finder. The angle finder is spot on every time.

I can't see that the 903 is worth the extra. I have found no shortcomings in the SWC/M and know those that have the swc and they feel the same.

If I were to offer up any criticism and it is minor, it is the fixed lens. You are stuck with always shooting very wide, which I have never had a problem with, I must say. I do also use a 501 as well now, just for a little  flexibility.

I'd say, don't worry about the 903 get a nice SWC/M and spend the rest on getting it CLAd if you feel it needs it! Or on the angle finder as they are difficult to find these days,

[fox]

I have an earlier non T* lens SWC. It does tend to flare which is a matter of taste. I'd say it's better to get the T* version. The focus and framing is not such an issue with such a wide angle lens as has been said here.

Some use the SWC without using the finder at all, but I think that must take a lot of experience

I was interested to read the recommendation for the focussing screen. I can see it's advantage for precise composition/focus. I suppose it would come into its own for tripod work, but no advantage for hand held shooting.

There is definitely a case to be made for an SWC vs a 40mm lens on a 500 series body. That 40mm is massive and also very expensive. The 38mm Biogon is legendary for it's performance, even for large format. No brainer for me.