4th roll with a Hasselblad - thoughts.

[Sirius Glass]

In the 1970's I convinced my father to get the Porroprism for his C3. Once he tried the prism in the store he never used the WLF again. He was real happy with the brighter and clearer view without the right-left [or left-right] view flip.

Before I bought my 3.5F, I tried a Rolleiflex with a prism and it was an odd experience - it didn't feel comfortable. So, for the TLR, I still use waist level viewing.

Well that is OK if you can deal with a subject moving to the left and you swing to the right, thus losing the subject. By the time you find the subject in the view finder again you missed the decisive moment.

If you have used a WLF with a TLR it takes a while to get used to it.

 

[Ai Print]

After over 20 years using Hasselblads, I finally got a prism for one of them. Like night and day! The view through the prism is so large and so easy to focus, I was astounded.

With the waist-level, I'm always switching between the magnifier and the plain groundglass, taking my glasses on and off. A bit of a nuisance, but I tolerated it because for MF I shoot landscape off a tripod. The prism really works for me.

Interesting...

I have 2x WLF, 2x NC-2, a 52094 Chimney and a PME90, my favorite is still the WLF for eye relief and compactness.

NC-2's are not far behind due to being bright and compact for a prism, killer for aerials. I end up shooting the PME-90 a lot lately due to the CFV50c back, kinda huge but has a built in diopter & gets the job done.

Like the bodies, the finders are cheap, I figure why not have have a bunch of them?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Well that is OK if you can deal with a subject moving to the left and you swing to the right, thus losing the subject. By the time you find the subject in the view finder again you missed the decisive moment.

If you have used a WLF with a TLR it takes a while to get used to it.

Mostly I shoot landscapes, cityscapes, and nature - so following movement isn't an issue. With the Hasselblad, I'm using a tripod and working slowly. The prism is indeed outstanding. With the Rolleiflex, I'm tempted to walk around more and I like holding it low on the chest - plus it's easier to adjust the controls with it held low. The one time I tried a Rolleiflex that had a prism, it felt awkward - but I can see its good points.

 

[LMNOP]

Hey LMNOP,

Just noticed your location. I lived in East Montpelier for 18 years. What a beautiful state! Though I've been gone since 2000, I still miss it to this day.

Kind regards,
Alan

Very cool! I drive by Montpelier quite often, I live just 20ish minutes north of that area. Vermont is an easy place to be a photographer, aside from the lack of film community! I love the weather!

 

[LMNOP]

Welcome to the world of Hasselblad!

Don't worry about the very slight looseness or play between the back and the body. I think a little bit is normal, as that's the way it is on my Hassy's -- as long as your negatives are sharp and there are no light leaks.

As for holding down the shutter release: the camera body has no knowledge of the shutter speed you've set and therefore doesn't know when to close the rear baffles. So, if you're shooting at 1 second, 1/4 second, whatever, you need to hold the release in until the exposure is complete.

Have fun!

I'm actually suspicious of this play on the back of the body. It is significant enough that the body makes a slight 'tick tock' kind of noise when the camera is moved around. I could upload a video of this if it sounds unusual, but couldn't this in theory change the distance between the subject-lens-film? Some of these shots are suspiciously soft, though I assume that was due to my lack of handling experience. Could the slightly loose back have an impact?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm actually suspicious of this play on the back of the body. It is significant enough that the body makes a slight 'tick tock' kind of noise when the camera is moved around. I could upload a video of this if it sounds unusual, but couldn't this in theory change the distance between the subject-lens-film? Some of these shots are suspiciously soft, though I assume that was due to my lack of handling experience. Could the slightly loose back have an impact?

Do you hear the sound only when the back is attached?

The play that I notice is an extremely slight side-to-side looseness - not back and forth between the back and the body. Certainly if the back wasn't being held tightly against the rear of the camera, that could affect sharpness.

However, there are other things to consider. Easiest I think is to ensure critical focus. If you're shooting wide open at a short distance, my understanding is that deteriorating mirror pads will cause you to misfocus. The question there is whether you've just missed the point of what you were focusing on - and the true focus fell ahead of or behind that point. An easy yardstick-photo experiment could detect that, which would prove your shots are actually sharp somewhere. That's opposed to no sharpness anywhere - and that's when you'd suspect an issue with the back.

Does your film insert serial number match that of the back?

Are you sure the film remained under the two metal pressure-plate clamps after loading?

 

[megzdad81]

So does anyone have a recommendation for a prism, or is it all over the map. I have a 501C/M and have trouble with my focussers, especially the right one.

 

[LMNOP]

This link should show a video of what I am describing.

[video]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Edwy79--1YSlQydnJuMXdKeVE/view?usp=sharing[/video]

 

[frank]

If it's bad enough, there could be a light leak. Conceivably also affect focus. The hook and slot connection can be adjusted/tightened, i believe.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This link should show a video of what I am describing.

[video]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Edwy79--1YSlQydnJuMXdKeVE/view?usp=sharing[/video]

I think it should be tighter. On your next roll, you could deliberately hold the back tight against the body and see if that produces a difference in results.

 

[LMNOP]

I think it should be tighter. On your next roll, you could deliberately hold the back tight against the body and see if that produces a difference in results.

Its weird, because it seems light tight so far! I will try that... Kind of a bummer, the BGN condition should not include such an issue.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Its weird, because it seems light tight so far! I will try that... Kind of a bummer, the BGN condition should not include such an issue.

To be satisfied there is no issue, I'd put the camera on a tripod or flat surface, pre-release it, then use a cable release for the exposure. Do this with one shot at infinity and another oblique angle shot at a yardstick (or picket fence, etc.). This will tell you whether the photo is sharp somewhere (hopefully where you focused) or not sharp anywhere.

 

[bdial]

So does anyone have a recommendation for a prism, or is it all over the map. I have a 501C/M and have trouble with my focussers, especially the right one.

I like the 45 degree prisms. The now ancient NC2 is very cheap but works well. The newer ones look a bit better (IMO) and are possibly slightly lighter.

The prism will give you a brighter view, since it blocks extraneous light

 

[frank]

That old NC2 prism looks cool like its little brother, the Nikon F2 plain prism DE-1.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I'm actually suspicious of this play on the back of the body. It is significant enough that the body makes a slight 'tick tock' kind of noise when the camera is moved around. I could upload a video of this if it sounds unusual, but couldn't this in theory change the distance between the subject-lens-film? Some of these shots are suspiciously soft, though I assume that was due to my lack of handling experience. Could the slightly loose back have an impact?

Mine used to do that. Never was an issue.

 

[LMNOP]

Mine used to do that. Never was an issue.

You're sure? Did you watch the video I posted? The play is pretty significant, and I've had several back and front focused images where my intended point is just SLIGHTLY off. That could be my fault, I won't know for sure til another roll or two passes.

 

[TooManyShots]

I only have my 553 elx for a month or so. The barn door may not close until you release the shutter but the shutter is already closed. So, that's not a problem. About the back being loose??? Check the two tab openings at the lower bottom of the back. There should be a shim on both openings. You can remove the black frame bracket and to turn the shim the other way around. The shim is glued onto the back but glue isn't needed because they are held in place with the black frame bracket. The shim isn't flat, at least, the part that makes contact with the tabs on the body. You flip it to one side and that should cause the back to move in closer to the body. You can even bend the shim a bit if you want. Of course, you may have to replace the dark slide foam on the back. It is an easy job. I used some window sealing foam for the replacement and to cut it down to its size and thickness..... No need to spend over $12 for a peace of $1 foam the most.... You can always get a 6x4.5 back if you aren't comfortable with the square format. And you get an extra 2 exposures. The waist level finder is great for composition but really not that good for focusing...because you would need to flip down the magnifying glass to nail the focus. The DOF scale on the lens is very accurate and you can focus by the scale if you want.


Of course, Hasselblad gear are stupid expensive.....

 

[TooManyShots]

You're sure? Did you watch the video I posted? The play is pretty significant, and I've had several back and front focused images where my intended point is just SLIGHTLY off. That could be my fault, I won't know for sure til another roll or two passes.

Yeah, that's bad...it moves but you shouldn't be seeing a gap at all....

 

[LMNOP]

Yeah, that's bad...it moves but you shouldn't be seeing a gap at all....

Ok - so I am reading mixed things here, but those who watch the video seem to agree that this is not right and my main concern is the focus. The first 4 rolls have seem mis-focused to the point of concern, light seal is fine. I think this needs to be fixed.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Ok - so I am reading mixed things here, but those who watch the video seem to agree that this is not right and my main concern is the focus. The first 4 rolls have seem mis-focused to the point of concern, light seal is fine. I think this needs to be fixed.

Have you printed out some focus scales and conducted full tests to rule out operator error first?

Try this. Lay it on a table, put your camera at 45 degrees, and focus on the "0".

 

[TooManyShots]

Ok - so I am reading mixed things here, but those who watch the video seem to agree that this is not right and my main concern is the focus. The first 4 rolls have seem mis-focused to the point of concern, light seal is fine. I think this needs to be fixed.

Is not ok. I could see a gap in the low res video. The focusing issue could have many factors. Maybe the focusing screen isn't at the right height. So, your image would look to be in focused but the lens isn't. To calibrate this, it is somewhat involved but can be achieved by yourself and without needing to expose any films.

You need a piece of ground glass or even another focusing screen. Place it on the back of the body and about 3cm to 4cm away from the edge of the back. I think it was 4cm.... The film plane on the film back is actually 3 to 4cm away from the back of the body. I know because I had to calibrate my 80mm with my none Hasselblad focusing screen. It was off...that is...at the infinity mark, the focus on my focusing screen was burry (I have a vertical split finder and can tell if my focus is off or not).

Anyway....once you have secured the ground glass or another focusing screen to the body's back, you can use a loupe or a DSLR live view to check for the focus. You want the image projected onto this ground glass to be in focus. Then, check the focus on your waist level finder. The image on the waist level finder should be in focus when the lens is in focus...as seen by the loupe or LiveView. If the focus on the waist finder is off, you need to adjust the height of the focusing screen.


I just checked...is 4cm. Image projected from the lens won't hit the film plane until it is at 4cm away from the back of the body..measuring from the edge of the body's back..

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Hasselblad made a groundglass back, I got one with my SWC, and you can use it to check focus at the focal plane on any Hasselblad body.

Also, APUGUser19 (where is he?) would always tell us to check the mirror pads on our 500-series cameras: if the pads are worn, the mirror won't sit at the proper height and consequently your focus in the viewfinder will be off.

It may be that, despite the loose back, what you have is a simple focusing error.

Sorry that this seems to a bit of a hassle (no pun intended); even the best equipment can develop issues over decades of use.

 

[TooManyShots]

Also, remove the focusing screen and to check to see if the Loctite glue has been removed on the screws adjusting the height of your focusing screen. There is a reason why they are Loctited by Hasselblad.. If not, someone must have already "tempered" the adjustment screws...

 

[John Koehrer]

Technically you can simply reform the fingers the back rides on.

I'd say " bend" but "reform" looks better on an invoice.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

'round these parts, we say "adjust"