I am thinking about buying an SWC. It seems like one of the only "perfect" cameras whose price hasn't skyrocketed in the last year. I built a nice 500C/M setup, but I find that I prefer to use cameras that are easier to carry around (TLRs, rangefinders). My favorite lenses for 500C/M are the 60mm and 150mm, the 50 FLE gets almost no use and would be sold to finance the SWC, at least in part. Someone talk me out of it, please!
Talk me out of buying an SWC
-
A
- Thread starter Grim Tuesday
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Weston, Karsh, Kenna, Worth, Sexton
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Complete Mamiya RB67 Pro SD collections with camera bags
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
You came to the wrong place... 
They're really nice cameras. I don't think anyone who has owned one would talk you out of it. It's compact, handles nicely and has the best wide angle lens I've ever used. It looks cute too. The only downside is that you're "stuck" with that wide angle 38mm lens... but that's only a downside if you don't want to shoot wide 
Sorry I couldn't save you the cash.
Sorry I couldn't save you the cash.
The only reason I would talk you out of one is to leave it for me.
I'll try: Most SWC pictures I've seen online were decidedly meh because, it seems, the owners have this beautiful toy and tell themselves they need to use it. So are you certain you can meaningfully use such a wide lens? Easy to carry around it is decidedly not because for most uses you'd also need to carry another camera with at least one more moderate lens.
The SWC is a wonderful camera and is especially useful for crowded situations such as narrow streets. I would recommend that you buy it and carry the 500C/M with the 50mm lens for vacationing, especially in Europe.
You might try to rent or borrow one first to see if you like shooting with the external viewfinder. Are you not using your 50mm because it's not wide enough?
Agree however that they are really nice.
Agree however that they are really nice.
I don't use the 50mm because the 60mm is my normal lens and I tend to never carry the 50. I've taken pictures I like with it, but it actually feels like a very "normal" field of view to me sometimes, rather than being dramatic.
This is my greatest worry. I have other wide angle toys that I don't really use particularly meaningfully either, like the Pentax 45mm for 6x7 and the Fuji 45mm rangefinder. Though I tell myself that the Pentax gets less use because it's so incredibly heavy and the Fuji because I prefer square compositions...
38mm:56mm (6x6 frame height) same coverage angle as 16mm:24mm (135 frame height)
'crazy' wide.
No good for 'landscape' as the far field is too tiny in the frame...it is best used for closer subject matter where shooting distance is constrained. Frequentyly seen in the past at trade shows, used a photographer taking shots of booths from the aisle. Do you thing you would be using it in that manner, where fading back far field is not much of a concern?!
'crazy' wide.
No good for 'landscape' as the far field is too tiny in the frame...it is best used for closer subject matter where shooting distance is constrained. Frequentyly seen in the past at trade shows, used a photographer taking shots of booths from the aisle. Do you thing you would be using it in that manner, where fading back far field is not much of a concern?!
Not true. Have a look at Friedlander's two fabulous landscape books: "The Desert Seen," and "Western Landscapes." Both shot entirely with the SWC, which, BTW, is the best camera ever made.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,823
- Format
- Multi Format
I don't have an SWC. I don't intend to get one. However, I have a humble Century Graphic with a 38/4.5 Biogon rescued from an aerial camera and put in a Copal #0 by Steve Grimes. When the lens came back from Steve I fell madly desperately passionately in love with it and couldn't bring myself to use any other lens on the Century for several months.
Get yourself an SWC.
Get yourself an SWC.
He knew how to use it properly, most of his subject matter was relatively close to camera postion, not the distant mountainscape.
Besides I was trying to do OP the favor he requested!
Do it!
Do it now!
Do it now!
Do it!
Do it now!
Yes, the prices will go up next week.
Why not get a Pentacon 6 TL and a 45mm Mir lens and pay for a photographic holiday with the savings ? . Peter
. Peter
You’re just bored. You answered your own conundrum.
Your two favorite lenses are a 60 and a 150, so why would you go to a fixed 38mm lens? It’s so far off from what you regularly shoot, you’ll end up regretting it, and you’re the one who said that.
You need to expand your horizons, buy it.
The lens is extraordinary in terms of MTF performance and lack of distortion. But I'm not convinced it visually works well on 6x6 - it seems almost a better fit with something like the A16 back (metaphysically speaking), or possibly the formats Alpa came up with (44x66mm and 36x72mm I recall).
MattKing
Moderator
I lean toward wide angle lenses - have considerably more of them than lenses that are longer than normal
But I would never tell someone else to change how they see things, or to move toward something that doesn't resonate with them.
Is the field of view similar to other lenses on other formats that resonate with you?
But I would never tell someone else to change how they see things, or to move toward something that doesn't resonate with them.
Is the field of view similar to other lenses on other formats that resonate with you?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,823
- Format
- Multi Format
You're sort of right. One look at the Mono Lake basin from the overlook on 395 north of it convinced me that my treasure wasn't the only lens I should use.
You're sort of mistaken. This https://1drv.ms/u/s!AggQfcczvHGNgbY5174-ffHBa5w3vg?e=pBTJA2 shot of Oswego Lake in the NJ Pine Barrens has a distant background that I think works. Feel free to disagree. 38 Biogon on 2.25" x 3.25" E6. I don't recall whick EKCo emulsion or the aperture I used.
38mm is really wide, and while the lens is a technical marvel, it is really difficult to see and compose for that focal length (at least for me). But, it can be done.
I, too, favor the 60mm - its a very comfortable field of view for me on the Hasselblad. I did end up buying a mint 40mm CF FLE for those times when I want wider. That lens costs used about half of what a mint SWC will run you.
I, too, favor the 60mm - its a very comfortable field of view for me on the Hasselblad. I did end up buying a mint 40mm CF FLE for those times when I want wider. That lens costs used about half of what a mint SWC will run you.
-
- Old Gregg
- Deleted
Link does not work. By default, I must be right...trying to convince OP to go with his instincts.
60mm FL is one of OP's favorite, and 60mm on 56mm x56mm frame is quite wide already...about the same as 28mm on 24x36mm frame for vertical AOV....and he does not particularly like 50mm, which is like 21mm FL on 24x36mm frame, so why go even wider in the direction which carries little appeal for OP?!
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,301
- Format
- Multi Format
Search for "portland japanese garden maple" and you will find LOTS of photos of this tree. Even Peter Lik has one image for sale for, I don't know, $30,000 or whatever he charges. I have even seen someone carrying a $50K Phase One camera taking pictures of this tree. However, this image stands up to the best of them, not because it's I who took the photo - anyone can trip the shutter, but that it's taken on the mighty SWC.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |