There are times when I just love working with the ultrawide perspective, one of the reasons I bought a Heliar 15 and keep looking at a 21 as well. Well, I've always lusted for a Hasselblad SuperWide C too ... As you go ultrawide, the need for more film resolution, more tonalities, etc.all hit you fast. 35mm becomes very small very fast.

Well, a good friend heard a recently voiced wish for the Hassy and mailed me his, with the notation "just get it back to me sometime in June." Omigod, a dream come true!

Camera, magazine, finder, filters and all that arrived on Thursday. I loaded it up with TX-120 after reading how to load the Hassy magazine and work the EV coupled shutter/aperture controls, and went for a walk with it today.

It's easy for me to fall in love with this lumpkin. The square framing is wonderful - airy and wide. The controls and built in bubble level make it easy to frame, then drop the camera to waist level for the snap. DoF indicators makes focus a snap, the EV system makes it easy to remember three-four standard settings for a day's walk, no need to carry meter and such after a few moments to get the numbers. I happily popped off 12 shots.

Gravy happens when you see that set of 12 exposures come out of the developing tank ... My my my, there's a reason why Hasselblad decided to dedicate an entire camera to the Zeiss Biogon 38/4.5 lens!!! Absolutely brilliant illumination across the frame, superb rectilinear correction, incredible detailing.

I want to yell at my friend ... I could sell off all my Leica gear to buy just this one specialized camera and feel fulfilled. It's wonderful ..

M6TTL plus 15/35/50/90 lenses for an SWC903, anyone?

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 14, 2002

Answers

You're supposed to let this secret out _after_ you've acquired a Superwide, not before!

Nothing like it...

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), April 14, 2002.

There is a 60x60 inch print in my family room taken with a SWC/M. It could have stood more enlargement, but my bank account couldn't.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), April 15, 2002.

Yes the SWC is good isn't it. I tried to handhold it but the shots all came out looking quite weird due to my inability to hold it absolutely level. So the camera has an RRS plate permanently on it. If you get rid of your Leica for one you will miss a lot of shots. Absolute quality isn't everything. Getting the picture is the number one priority. I agree superwides deserve larger negatives but surely there are other ways. Mamiya 43mm perhaps?

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 15, 2002.

A camera to lust after, YES!!!

Anyone here got to play with an Alpa 12 yet?

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), April 15, 2002.

well Godfrey: that is a mighty jump from Minox negs, eh?

I've also had the chance to use one of those, and, yes, spectacular slides indeed.

Same problem with the SWC as with all medium format equipment though: what the f.. do you do with the film after it has been exposed.

If you are not supplying cover material for glossies or if you are not exhibiting giant enlargements in trendy galleries, you are left with beautiful bits of emulsion that cry for full home lab and/or medium format scanner and large format printer. Money, space, time, and money...

there is a reason why God has created 35mm !

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Jacques

Brutal, but true!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

well Godfrey: that is a mighty jump from Minox negs, eh?

lol ... I learned photography with first a Rolleiflex TLR, the 6x6cm format is an old friend to me.

... Same problem with the SWC as with all medium format equipment though: what the f.. do you do with the film after it has been exposed.

Process it, scan it, print it and put it on the web. ...

... you are left with beautiful bits of emulsion that cry for full home lab and/or medium format scanner and large format printer. ...

I've been shooting more work in medium format and with subminis, digicam than with 35mm lately. The Epson 2450 scanner at $400 opens up the field for cost effective, 2400ppi scans of up to a 4x9" piece of film. A 4.5x6cm negative returns a 22MPixel scan file and prints to a 13x19" print at 300+ dpi with this scanner.

I have not yet decided what to do, specifically, on the notion of a trade. There's an offer on the table that I'm considering. Leica M and 35mm are very different in use than a Hassy SuperWide. Aside from the equipment value (yes, if I do trade, it should be a fair trade economically, of course), I have to consider whether I have the equipment mix that will end up giving me the kind of pictures I want and that I'll use enough to be happy with.

But it's very tempting... I'm still mulling it over!

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 15, 2002.

The Epson 2450 scanner at $400 opens up the field for cost effective, 2400ppi scans of up to a 4x9" piece of film. A 4.5x6cm negative returns a 22MPixel scan file and prints to a 13x19" print at 300+ dpi with this scanner.

Thanks for this piece of info, Godfrey. I've been wondering how to incorporate my 6x6 work in a digital workflow (without spending too much money). This scanner seems like it would be the ticket. Do you find yourself doing a lot of color correcting and Photoshop work after scanning? How well does it handle the negs?

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), April 15, 2002.

Godfrey:

I had the same WOW experience the first time I used a Plaubel Pro- Shift (47mm SA on 6x9 format). I found similar results with the 43 on the Mamiya 7, but missed the shifts on the Plaubel, and found both VERY difficult to filter with SND's. Then I put a 65 of my 4x5. Now we were talking fun superwide shooting! Easy to filter and a few small movements make a huge difference in DOF. But alas, it is not nearly as convenient to use as an MF set-up, so I recently rented the Zeiss 35 for my Contax 645. WOW again, easy but expensive to filter with the E95's it requires, very big lens, and still no movements... So I am still in search of the ideal larger format superwide, and in the meantime find I use the 21 on my Leica most frequently.

Keep us posted!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 15, 2002.

I bought a refurbished Polaroid 45i for $1100, it's a 2700dpi film scanner. Does a nice job with medium format.

I spent a lot of time with a 903SWC before deciding on the 40CFE. I just like the SLR viewing better and since I do mostly landscapes the slight distortion over and above the Biogon means less than the horrendous distortion in the finder, the obscuring by the lens, and the extremely approximate framing. I tried the GG back and thought, if I wanted to go that slow I might as well use a 4x5.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 15, 2002.

I have the Pentax 645 camera and use the 35mm superwide very much. I sold my 20mm Nikkor after seeing the first 24 X 32 inch prints made from the Pentax wide--top notch quality for a reasonable price as well. Tad more distortion than the Zeiss Biogon, but surprisingly sharp right out to the edges. But why is this in the Leica forum!

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 15, 2002.

Epson 2450
Thanks for this piece of info, Godfrey. I've been wondering how to incorporate my 6x6 work in a digital workflow (without spending too much money). This scanner seems like it would be the ticket. Do you find yourself doing a lot of color correcting and Photoshop work after scanning? How well does it handle the negs?

You're welcome. Scanning ... No more post scan work than any other scanning/image processing setup. There's always some effort involved, a little sharpening, Levels, Curves, color balance etc. The Epson is not particularly fast and scanning 6x6 negs and transparencies is essentially a one-at-a-time proposition. But it does a great job. I do all my scanning with VueScan now; it works a treat even if the user interface is a bit of a kluge.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 15, 2002.

Godfrey,

still on that Epson scanner. Are you contending that the (potentially) beautiful quality contained in SWC slides/negs is given justice by that flatbed? In other words, do your final files provide you with a high enough quality source for subsequent large format printing that would induce BETTER prints than high quality 35mm slides/negs processed through the pro or semi-pro digital chain?

And talking about inkjet printing: how large should a print be before the viewer might notice on inkjet print the tonal and definition advantages of a 6x6 neg ? I'm not so sure the format advantage would become visible before, say, A3. But I am interested in your own experience on this...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.

A friend showed me a 30x40 Lightjet print made from a 6x7 neg scanned with the Epson 2450. Unbelievable. And no sharpening, either. How can a $400 dollar scanner deliver such high quality?

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), April 16, 2002.