I recently inherited a 503CX with the stock Acute Matte D screen.
The CX did not have the "D" screen as stock it had the earlier model which was AFAIK replaced for the exact reason you describe. If it doesn't have the two notches it is the earlier screen. I believe the D stands for diffused, or something like that.
This is an excellent point. The thing with focusing screens or ground glass is there is always a compromise. The courser the grit used to grind the glass, the brighter the image will be. But the finer the grit used to grind the glass, the better detail that it will render. So a super bright ground glass or focusing screen won't show near as much detail as a darker one can. There's always a trade off.I recently inherited a 503CX with the stock Acute Matte D screen. It is VERY bright, but it is more difficult to focus than my Mamiya C220 (old, dim, very dirty screen).
The image on the Acute Matte D is almost an aerial image and it does not "pop" into focus. While very bright, there is less contrast than on dimmer screens.
I would recommend trying the old style screen, only update if you have problems in dim light. If you can borrow an Acute Matte or Acute Matted D screen, try it out and see which you prefer.
Hi,
I am attaching a better photo of the finder.
Seller says he's not sure this was the stock one, previous owner may have changed it.
Anyone can help identify which version this would be? I don't see any notches on the frame.
Thanks
I took a Hasselblad 500/cm in on trade. It came with a Beattie Intenscreen installed but also included the original screen (pre-Accumat). I tried the original screen to see what it looked like. It wasn't bad but after using the Beattie I didn't want to use it. The Beattie was much brighter and a joy to use. From what I have read on this forum the Accumat is even a little better than the Beattie Intenscreen. If I ever bought another Hasselblad I would get definitely get a later model with the Accumat.
I have an F2 with an intenscreen, it is very nearly impossible to focus with.
Perhaps a difference in the screens between 35 and mf?That's interesting E.
I owned the Blad for a little over a year. I mostly shot people hand held. Some outdoors but a lot indoors with flash. I found it very easy to focus even indoors. Like I said, it was a joy to use.
Perhaps a difference in the screens between 35 and mf?
In for instance a convenience store, 50mm f:2, it appeared to be "in focus" from 15 or 20f to infinity. The standard Nikon screens allowed focussing on objects only a couple inches before or behind each other.
I NEVER have had this issue with any other GG, in any format from 35 to 8x10, I might misfocus once every couple years.
I have a Maxxum 7000 with an Acute Matte screen, it works very well for manual focus. I wish it fit the Nikons.I heard that bright screens were initially designed for the large format shooter and later made smaller due to demand.
There also could be sample variations. I know nothing about Beattie's quality control.
Yeah, I rarely misfocus a manual lens. Autofocus? Well, that's another story.
I have a Maxxum 7000 with an Acute Matte screen, it works very well for manual focus. I wish it fit the Nikons.
trouble to accurately focus is one of the most frequent complaints with the Hasselblad System. I had the same issue and tried a few screens. The one that worked best for me was the split screen accurate. I don't think brightness is so much an issue but the split screen really helps.Hi,
I am considering buying my first Hasselblad (body and lenses). I saw a good 501 CM from early 2000s, but I am a bit hesitant as it come with the "stock" screen [UPDATE: it looks like it's not not the stock screen but an older one, presumably replaced by the previous owner]
I have read in various places that an acute matte screen is (much?) brighter and most reviewers recommend getting one. I also understand that the old V series models had a relatively dim finder screen, but things had improved with later models.
So my question is, how much of an improvement is an acute matte screen versus a later 501CM stock finder? Is it worth the extra bucks/quids?
I am attaching a photo of the actual finder.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?