Hasselblad SWC anything to watch out for?

  • A
  • Thread starter Deleted member 88956
  • Start date

Paul Ozzello

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
618
Location
Montreal
Format
Medium Format
I'll play devil's advocate. I bought my SWC/M new in 1997 and have never used the viewfinder.

I always use the camera on a tripod with the ground glass adapter.
 

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,675
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
At which point, why even bother with an SWC...


Indeed, perhaps one should save several thousand dollars and buy a Lomography LC-A 120 at $449.00, which gives you a 6x6 negative and has a 38mm lens plus auto exposure. True, it will probably vignette more than an SWC, but it's got a built-in viewfinder.
 

Mike Lopez

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
640
Format
Multi Format
I'll play devil's advocate. I bought my SWC/M new in 1997 and have never used the viewfinder.

I always use the camera on a tripod with the ground glass adapter.

Which is a much more accurate way to compose, anyway. But I think the general discussion at this point is centered around replacing a viewfinder with a coat hanger or some spare wire or some such thing--sometimes the posts are hard to make sense of.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,365
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

And for $449.00 you will loose the rectilinear lens, the whole reason to buy the SWC. That is like cutting ones head off because they do not like having their haircut. If you are going to post a viable alternative it needs to be comparable to be viable.
 

eli griggs

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
3,847
Location
NC
Format
Multi Format
If you were to use the same math to create the same type rangefinder as used by WWII "Dam Buster's", only in wire, with the far, spread wires ending in two small posts, between which your picture area will be found,
your make shift tool would allow you to have an idea of what you're pointing it at.



A cross piece to hold true the far ends cam be soldered or epoxied, and if you want, to a flat slide in plate so the front of the finder does no need to extend beyond the lens, where it could be seen on the picture.

This is just a simple gig, in case someone wants to try it, even though, there are many here that raise concerns against doing so.

In fact, if I want a too expensive item, I wait until I can afford it, even if it takes years, but I suppose there are others that would want to get an idea of where they are pointing their camera.

Cheers.
 
OP
OP

Deleted member 88956

Lomography box for $450? In that case SWC should be going for about $25k. But thread seems to be getting long in a tooth, so this is not surprising.
 

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,675
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format


Errr... That was a joke.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,906
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
OP
OP

Deleted member 88956

The joke never came out as a joke. There are numerous examples of seriously comparing Lomoboxes to something they are not, nor could ever be.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,365
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
The joke never came out as a joke. There are numerous examples of seriously comparing Lomoboxes to something they are not, nor could ever be.

Thank you. That was needed.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,595
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
I'll play devil's advocate. I bought my SWC/M new in 1997 and have never used the viewfinder.

I always use the camera on a tripod with the ground glass adapter.
One of the joys of the SWC besides the angle of view is the ease and speed that it can be used. If I want to shoot with a tripod and ground glass viewfinder upside down, I'll haul out a view camera.
 

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,675
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
I bought my 903SWC in the 1990s. It was my first Hasselblad, since followed by several others. And yes, it was rather expensive. But I still think it is one of the best cameras ever produced.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…