Hasselblad 903 versus 905

[Sirius Glass]

From "Medium format musings"

In fact, the redesign was made necessary because of restrictions on material use during manufacture.

The 905's redesigned Biogon shows that the original design - done in days before computers - was perfect.
It does so, by being in fact a bit less good (!) than the lens that has been on the SW(...) since 1954.

Compared to the old version, the performance drops a bit in the center. But it gains a bit in the corners. The new lens' 'best' is not quite (only a very, very small difference!) as good as the old lens' 'best'.

In the redesign, the lens has not been made faster. It was a f/4.5 lens in 1954. It still was a f/4.5 lens when it was on the 905.
The change from T to T* coating does not make a difference of detectable size.

So the most desirable SWC would in fact be the 903 SWC. The one before the 905.
More desirable than the older cameras, just because the older ones are older, and have had more opprotunity to wear.


But having said that, it is all more of academic interest than of real interest.

Could you please expand on the line "So the most desirable SWC would in fact be the 903 SWC. The one before the 905."?

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

Could you please expand on the line "So the most desirable SWC would in fact be the 903 SWC. The one before the 905."?
Steve

Not much to expand: if you want/need to be 'anal' about lens quality, the 903 (and earlier versions) has the lens to have.
The 905's redesigned Biogon is 'just as good', yet not quite.

That would make the 903 the best of the two latest versions.

Being younger makes the 903 more desirable than any of the other, older models.
More age = more time to have worn out, and all that.

And that's what makes the 903 the most desirable.

But having said that, it is all more of academic interest than of real interest.

Differences in lens performance (905 vs the rest) are small. Very small. Too small to worry about.
And you can get old SWCs in better shape than many SWC/M, or even younger models.

So don't worry when shopping for an SW(...).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I recently brought a 1988 903. That is why I was following up on your statement.

thanks,

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

Combating after-sales doubts, seeking to confirm your decision?

Congrats! You did the right thing!
(As if you didn't know that, right? )

 

[Sirius Glass]

More like while I am waiting for delivery I saw a new question to ponder. I had wanted the 905 because it was the latest, new and improved but I got a very good price on this one from Samys and a 905 at KEH or evil bay would have been at least $1,000US higher.


Steve

 

[david b]

Steve,
what film do you shoot and what size do you print?

 

[Sirius Glass]

120 6x6
Kodak UC 400
Kodak VC 400
Kodak Ektar 100
Kodak Tri-X 400
occasionally Fuji when I get samples

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

More like while I am waiting for delivery I saw a new question to ponder. I had wanted the 905 because it was the latest, new and improved but I got a very good price on this one from Samys and a 905 at KEH or evil bay would have been at least $1,000US higher.

Well, doubly congratulated then!
A sincere 'good man!', 'well done!', and more of that nature!

 

[edtbjon]

Having read most of what Q.G. and others have written on the subject, I became a happy owner of an older SWC (black barrel T*) about 3 years ago. While the camera had a lot of mileage on it, it's still a stellar performer. Of course a new camera is a new camera, but I recon I feel more comfortable with my old "banger", as I would be over-careful with a $3-4K camera, while I paid about $1K for the SWC.

//Björn