Hasselblad SWC/M viewfinder mask for 6x4.5?

Hassasin said:

But the corner markers are for square frame, and I would not be too trusty, if the whole view were to be what's covered by the frame, at least there is extra coverage outside the lines shown. I like it that way better.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. See post # 18. RTFM

I'm not sure what this means? The corner marks I see in the viewfinder are clearly outlining a square. If they show the height of the 645 frame (the 4.5) then where is the width indicated (the 6)? I have the newer viewfinder that I presume is the same as on the 903...

Pasto said:

I'm not sure what this means? The corner marks I see in the viewfinder are clearly outlining a square. If they show the height of the 645 frame (the 4.5) then where is the width indicated (the 6)? I have the newer viewfinder that I presume is the same as on the 903...

Click to expand...

I have never used these marks as for 645 but have to say never compared negative to what I saw in the finder as a whole square full frame wise, same as in a lot of rangefinders hit the finder is matching negative, but rather the frame within.

If these are indeed marking 645 directly then just think of them as either pair, depending on orientation, so image is delineated by say two horizontal marks but extends to finders edge in the other direction. No different than using some screen overlay masks on square format that also have both limiting lines permanently shown.

I will do some tests with focusing adapter for comparison what finder is showing vs. actual on frame composition.

Sirius Glass said:

You are wrong. See post # 18. RTFM

Click to expand...

The image that is slightly larger than recorded on negative … whatever slightly means, so I will actually test it with focusing adapter and see.

OK, test is done, good enough for basic pimping purposes.

Conclusion is quite simple, full view in the finder is larger than actual on negative, and the corner marks are for 645, except also quite outside of actual negative.

Corner marks fall about in the middle between 645 limit and full square negative. So using these marks as actual cropping aid for square 6x6 gives some margin of error, to me safer way in most cases. Where there is a need to take advantage of full negative area, the only way to go is with focusing screen adapter, finder is not good enough.

Pics below are not perfect, would have to toy around with proper D set up to get, especially finder view better, but show enough I think. In the finder you can see area outside of target (shown as on-screen), that's how much more you see in the finder vs. on the focusing screen. Note that pic for finder view taken after dropping camera to compensate for parallax.

Zoom into finder's image to see better.

Grid lines on the focusing screen match 645. In the pic they are not exactly aligned because of the pain getting the whole thing aligned.




Side note, had 3 bubble levels on this set up, tripod head itself, Hasselblad quick release plate and camera. They never came together, just in case anyone wants to argue their application for critical work, i.e. testing.

Hassasin said:

The image that is slightly larger than recorded on negative … whatever slightly means, so I will actually test it with focusing adapter and see.

Click to expand...

Close enough for me. I have never had a problem with the insignificant difference.

Sirius Glass said:

Close enough for me. I have never had a problem with the insignificant difference.

Click to expand...

Different enough to chop toes off and any appendage that's close to the edge. I only did this to see what they meant, and they really should have explained it better, not leaving a user guessing. I'm glad I've used corner marks thus far for square framing though. It's kind of same "close enough" only the other way.

Sirius Glass said:

I find the SWC view finder good enough to properly crop the composition in the lens. Sometimes if the bottom of the composition is in question, turn the camera upside down. But still no reason for the pesky corners, I wish I could sand them off the view finder.

Click to expand...

Hassasin said:

Different enough to chop toes off and any appendage that's close to the edge. I only did this to see what they meant, and they really should have explained it better, not leaving a user guessing. I'm glad I've used corner marks thus far for square framing though. It's kind of same "close enough" only the other way.

Click to expand...

I have never cut any toes off with any lens, much less the SWC. See post #24 which I have kindly included. I watch to make sure that I do not include the tops of shoes with the 38mm SWC, the 30mm Fisheye and the Nikon 16mm Fisheye. Over the decades of APUG Photrio, you are the only one to post that the so called mismatch is a problem. You are stirring up a tempest in a teacup.

Pasto said:

I'm not sure what this means? The corner marks I see in the viewfinder are clearly outlining a square. If they show the height of the 645 frame (the 4.5) then where is the width indicated (the 6)? I have the newer viewfinder that I presume is the same as on the 903...

Click to expand...

Post #18 explains it.

Sirius Glass said:

From the Hasselblad 903 SWC manual
View attachment 332403

Click to expand...

The edge of the view finder corresponds to the field of view of the SWC.

Sirius Glass said:

I have never cut any toes off with any lens, much less the SWC. See post #24 which I have kindly included. I watch to make sure that I do not include the tops of shoes with the 38mm SWC, the 30mm Fisheye and the Nikon 16mm Fisheye. Over the decades of APUG Photrio, you are the only one to post that the so called mismatch is a problem. You are stirring up a tempest in a teacup.

View attachment 333012​

Click to expand...

Gee, there is a mismatch and it is good to know there's one and how much. Hasselblad was not clear, so I cleared it up for them.

I realise SWC does super wide stuff and edge detail is not much of a concern for the most part. But sometimes it is. You called me WRONG by saying corner marks are not for the square framing. Turned out, I was only somewhat wrong as they fall just about in the middle of what I said and what the whole view is showing. So Hasselblad's "slightly" is not really all that slight.

So I've been using the corner marks for square, and now I am happy, as stated, I have and will continue to. Just now I know I can compose right over those marks and I will be sure to still have it all on the negative.

Thanks this clarifies. Although I feel like doing my own test

Pasto said:

Thanks this clarifies. Although I feel like doing my own test

Click to expand...

Pics are distorted because of several issues doing it quick and dirty. Absolutely do your own. I just now know what to use and where, and 645 framing, to be safe, needs to be done on the imaginary line between the INNER ends of those corner marks. That will show tiny bit less than on negative.