Which one: Hasselblad 1.4X PC-Mutar T* Shift, FlexBody, ArcBody

[Sirius Glass]

The first two cost around $1500US on eBay now and the ArcBody with the 45mm lens is ~$4500US. Recommendations?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Hasselblad 1.4X PC-Mutar T* Shift can be used with my 50mm, 80mm and 100mm while the FlexBody can be used with my 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm and 250mm lenses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Hasselblad 1.4X PC-Mutar T* Shift only does tilt while the FlexBody can do shift and tilt. The cost is similar are the tilts equivalent?

 

[Slixtiesix]

The question is what do you want to achieve with it? The 1.4 TS and the 50 mm will give you a standard focal length. The ArcBody lenses are mostly wide angles with 75 mm as the top of the line. So if you need wider angles and shift
capability, there seems no way around the ArcBody within the Hasselblad system. If you want to use standard and tele lenses, the TS-converter is the way to go. If you´re mainly interested in tilt, I would vote for the Flexbody anyway. No additional lenses, no image degradation whatever so slightly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The question is what do you want to achieve with it? The 1.4 TS and the 50 mm will give you a standard focal length. The ArcBody lenses are mostly wide angles with 75 mm as the top of the line. So if you need wider angles and shift
capability, there seems no way around the ArcBody within the Hasselblad system. If you want to use standard and tele lenses, the TS-converter is the way to go. If you´re mainly interested in tilt, I would vote for the Flexbody anyway. No additional lenses, no image degradation whatever so slightly.

Thank you for your insights.

The Mutar is tilt only, three lenses and extends the focal length and the cost is about the same as the FlexBody. The FlexBody does not extend the lens focal length and handles 40mm through 250mm, while the ArcBody is very pricey and I would have to buy three lenses for the full range. As you stated the FlexBody is the way to go. So the question is how much would I use the FlexBody?

The mass and volume of the FlexBody are not great but a tripod is required. Not a problem since I carry the equipment in a car. So what I need to see is what the shift, tilt and shift and tilt bring to the party. I need to see examples of those three so I can determine if I would use the FlexBody enough to make it worth it to purchase.

 

[Slixtiesix]

What you also may consider is a view camera adaptor for Hasselblad-Backs. At least if you already own a 4x5 camera. This would offer you tilt and shift options in abundance, open up a vast array of lenses and may also be cheaper than the ArcBody.
The adaptors I know of are for digital backs, so no mechanism to transport the film. One would need to put the darkslide into the film back after every shot, then mount it to a Hasselblad, fire a shot with lenscap on, wind on and put it back to the 4x5 camera. A cumbersome procedure, but a "cheap" solution if you only need to take a tilt/shift picture occasionally. The highly praised Rodenstock lenses go for less than half the price without the Hasselblad trademark and can be found more plentiful too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What you also may consider is a view camera adaptor for Hasselblad-Backs. At least if you already own a 4x5 camera. This would offer you tilt and shift options in abundance, open up a vast array of lenses and may also be cheaper than the ArcBody.
The adaptors I know of are for digital backs, so no mechanism to transport the film. One would need to put the darkslide into the film back after every shot, then mount it to a Hasselblad, fire a shot with lenscap on, wind on and put it back to the 4x5 camera. A cumbersome procedure, but a "cheap" solution if you only need to take a tilt/shift picture occasionally. The highly praised Rodenstock lenses go for less than half the price without the Hasselblad trademark and can be found more plentiful too.

I have a 4"x5"Graflex Model D and a 4"x5" Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Neither of which have appreciable movements and are not as easy to move around as a FlexBody.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I can't really see the utility of being able to use 150 and 250mm lenses with tilt and shift (weird planes of focus and telephoto subjects just don't seem to go together in my mind, but I'm happy to be re-educated if I'm missing something obvious.) The Mutar will make everything 1.4x longer, so only the 50mm would end up like a 'normal' lens, and the others short teles. If it's a similar price, and (dare I say it?) more flexible, with both tilt and shift, the Flexbody looks like the better choice. You could certainly get a 4x5 view camera for less, but it would be more of a pain to carry than the Flexbody, and you'd be adding the cost of lenses (need not be expensive), film holders, new developing gear and so on. But there is one thing to remember, the majority of view camera photos are taken without movements. They allow clever tricks, and certainly for architecture are needed, but most of the time view cameras are just used as straight cameras, and it's the large negative that justifies using them. It would be a shame to buy a Flexbody and find yourself using it only rarely. I suppose you could treat a Flexbody the same way, using it for non-movement photos, but the inconvenience of ground glass focusing then putting the film back on for every photo means you'd still want to carry the V series around too. I don't think any of the main camera rental businesses offer them so it has to be a leap in the dark I'm afraid!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can't really see the utility of being able to use 150 and 250mm lenses with tilt and shift (weird planes of focus and telephoto subjects just don't seem to go together in my mind, but I'm happy to be re-educated if I'm missing something obvious.) The Mutar will make everything 1.4x longer, so only the 50mm would end up like a 'normal' lens, and the others short teles. If it's a similar price, and (dare I say it?) more flexible, with both tilt and shift, the Flexbody looks like the better choice. You could certainly get a 4x5 view camera for less, but it would be more of a pain to carry than the Flexbody, and you'd be adding the cost of lenses (need not be expensive), film holders, new developing gear and so on. But there is one thing to remember, the majority of view camera photos are taken without movements. They allow clever tricks, and certainly for architecture are needed, but most of the time view cameras are just used as straight cameras, and it's the large negative that justifies using them. It would be a shame to buy a Flexbody and find yourself using it only rarely. I suppose you could treat a Flexbody the same way, using it for non-movement photos, but the inconvenience of ground glass focusing then putting the film back on for every photo means you'd still want to carry the V series around too. I don't think any of the main camera rental businesses offer them so it has to be a leap in the dark I'm afraid!

I agree with your comments about 150mm and 250mm lenses, there is not much need for shift, but useful for focus.

The Mutar 1.4 extension has always pulled the rug out from under my feet every time I think about it. And the double cable release.

I have two 4"x5" cameras and have only used front shift an experiment photographing up at a church to take out the distortion so I could see how to do it. One photograph. Period.

"It would be a shame to buy a Flexbody and find yourself using it only rarely." And that is my concern exactly.

 

[Ai Print]

I can't really see the utility of being able to use 150 and 250mm lenses with tilt and shift (weird planes of focus and telephoto subjects just don't seem to go together in my mind, but I'm happy to be re-educated if I'm missing something obvious.

I find enormous benefit in using tilt on the Flexbody with my longer Hasselblad glass, including the 350mm CF. Compressed landscapes are often very powerful scenes and being able to get key elements in focus by using just a bit of tilt has made previously impossible shots possible.

 

[Ai Print]

"It would be a shame to buy a Flexbody and find yourself using it only rarely." And that is my concern exactly.

You know what it does, you know what a rigid Hasselblad V body does not do and that is allow you to tilt the film plane to get more in focus at a more optimum aperture and utilize a bit of shift to keep things from key-stoning.

I did a shot at an old whaling station in the Faroe Islands of an oil holding tank with my 180mm on the Flex. The part I wanted to photograph was about 7 feet above me so I used a good amount of shift with my 180mm to get it in check.

For me personally I use the Flexbody on more than half my shots, I am glad I own two of them for when one is tied up on a 12 hour long commitment in a sunset / sunrise double exposure.

You either need what it offers or you don’t, pretty simple really.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You know what it does, you know what a rigid Hasselblad V body does not do and that is allow you to tilt the film plane to get more in focus at a more optimum aperture and utilize a bit of shift to keep things from key-stoning.

I did a shot at an old whaling station in the Faroe Islands of an oil holding tank with my 180mm on the Flex. The part I wanted to photograph was about 7 feet above me so I used a good amount of shift with my 180mm to get it in check.

For me personally I use the Flexbody on more than half my shots, I am glad I own two of them for when one is tied up on a 12 hour long commitment in a sunset / sunrise double exposure.

You either need what it offers or you don’t, pretty simple really.

Now I have to get you to sell me a FlexBody as good as the 100mm lens you sold to me.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I have two 4"x5" cameras and have only used front shift an experiment photographing up at a church to take out the distortion so I could see how to do it. One photograph. Period.

Then you probably don’t need an Arcbody - it’s basically a mini view camera with limited movements. It has a generous amount of shift and is good for architectural type photography. I love mine but I like the Horseman SW612P a lot more.

With either the flexbody or arcbody there are no external viewfinders for them and you have to compose/focus with the ground glass adapter - at least with the Mutar you can use it with a 500 series SLR body.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Then you probably don’t need an Arcbody - it’s basically a mini view camera with limited movements. It has a generous amount of shift and is good for architectural type photography. I love mine but I like the Horseman SW612P a lot more.

With either the flexbody or arcbody there are no external viewfinders for them and you have to compose/focus with the ground glass adapter - at least with the Mutar you can use it with a 500 series SLR body.

Thank you. I have the 30mm, 38mm [SWC], 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm and 500mm lenses so the FlexBody is in the growth path, while the ArcBody would be big cost impact. By the way, your avatar changes are dizzying.

 

[Slixtiesix]

What is often forgotten is that the FlexBody also allows a small amount of shift. Around 5-10 mm, depending on the lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Still churning on this. First of all I do not do enough interior and exterior architecture photographs to make the ArcBody worthwhile. The few I have done the 903 SWC has handled well. Thus I am focusing [Pun Very Much Intended] on the FlexBody. So taking the uses in parts:

Tilt
I use ISO 400 film almost exclusively and I rarely have a depth of field problem hand held and I cannot think a time, other than using a red or orange filter with the zone system that I needed a tripod and even then the depth of field was rarely a problem. So for tilt, it is no sale for now. TILT!! [Blinking lights. Add more quarters.

Shift
This is what got me thinking about this thread. I brought the Nikon f/2.8 28mm PC lens earlier this year and while it has a manual aperture and focus and I use it on an AF camera, I really get a kick out of it. Thinking about using shift with the Hasselblad, the 903 SWC and built-in bubble level has been a pleasure to use and keeps to verticals from converging. I find that with the 50mm lens, I position myself so that I do not have to "look up" at buildings, usually successfully. I have not had much problem with the 80mm but need the shift is not unheard of. I have the money set aside and even eBay has a complete FlexBody for about the prices recently on Photrio, but I am still on the fence. Firmly. It will take some pushing to get me off in either direction.

Close Ups and Table Tops
I just do not do those. I have looked at the 120mm and 135mm lenses and passed up good prices on those many times. I just do not do those.

Comments please. I need some serious enablers to join in.

 

[BrianShaw]

Have you considered a real view camera and roll film back? Might do what you want and be more versatile.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have you considered a real view camera and roll film back? Might do what you want and be more versatile.

That is where I keep coming back to. If I am going to use movements, a real view camera would have all the movements without the restrictions for less money.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well… I don’t know about “less money”… it’s just as easy to spend more money than expected on LF gear.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well… I don’t know about “less money”… it’s just as easy to spend more money than expected on LF gear.

I agree I would bet I could spend more money if I worked at it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It looks like for one of the few times in my life, my GAS has had the wind blown out of it.



I will have to just find something else to spend money on.

 

[serouscam]

I have a 4"x5"Graflex Model D and a 4"x5" Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Neither of which have appreciable movements and are not as easy to move around as a FlexBody.

There is no Model D, it is called Series D