Hasselblad SWC anything to watch out for?

[Paul Ozzello]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[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]

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.

Errr... That was a joke.

 

[MattKing]

Errr... That was a joke.

When it comes to Hasselblads and Sirius, you really can't joke.

 

[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]

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.

 

[jerrybro]

When it comes to Hasselblads and Sirius, you really can't joke.

Of course, he's Sirius.

 

[Arthurwg]

Very serious stuff.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course, he's Sirius.

Very serious stuff.

Of course it is. I spent around $3200US about eight years ago. This is very serious money.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.