Related Links:
Arc Body Review
Hasselblad Flex Body Camera
Homebrew Shift Lenses Pages
First, the bad news. The Hasselblad Arc body is reportedly now discontinued (2/2001 AD) and being sold from existing stock. So if you want a new one, now is the time to find and buy one before they are all gone.
The concept of the Arc body is to provide maximum view camera like flexibility within the limitations of a 6x6cm system camera using Hasselblad compatible elements where possible (e.g., backs). Rodenstock lenses with leaf shutters are used, unlike the Hasselblad flexbody which uses the standard Zeiss Hasselblad optics. These lenses appear similar to the Rodenstock lenses in leaf shutter for other camera systems (e.g., 6x9cm miniview cameras). Unfortunately, there appears to be a bit of a surcharge (circa $1,000 US!) for the Hasselblad version, which may discourage some buyers into opting for the somewhat larger 6x9cm mini-view cameras or even a 4x5" view camera.
The Arc body camera is very compact, but adding viewfinders and backs and other items soon makes it closer to its competitors (e.g., 6x9cm Horseman..) in size.
A number of resource pages on the later Hasselblad cameras is provided on the Medium Format Cameras List Page and the linked Hasselblad sites (USA, Sweden). See also posting by Q.G. de Bakker which highlights some of the coverage and capability differences between these models.
There is a review in June-July Camera Arts magazine. The author end up
with 'Hats off to Hasselblad'. Tested with the 45mm. But when you read
closely seems there are some 'details' that would become really annoying
in real world situation: problems with ols NPC Polaroid back (still very
widely used), mechanism to open and close the lens on the bottom of the
barrel (a minor irritant according to the writer. Probably become major
after a while...), nothing to remind you from behind the camera if
shutter closed before swapping for the film back, loosing 2 stops with
filter if used to avoid some fall off, ...
But besides that, he really seems to enjoy the camera, and very
enthusiastic about it: 'This is a real winner', 'very easy and
convenient to use'.
Seems it's a possible alternative to a real view camera in certain
situations, or a conventional 2 1/4.
In any case, worth reading the article written by a working
architectural photographer.
--
Luc Novovitch
mailto:[email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Hasselblad Flex
Date: Sat Sep 12 1998
"Fotografie Ed Schinkel"
[email protected] wrote:
> I'm curious if someone is using the new flexbody by Hasselblad, and what > he/she thinks of it. > > Ed
Ed,
The Flex body was essentially a failure. The problem lies with the limited
image circle of Hassy lenses, they don't allow signficant movement with
the flex body. A 60mm works well enough to give you standard correction
for shooting buildings and eliminating the convergance, unless you've very
close.
The Arc body is the next idea from Hassy for this type of photography. The
lenses are designed by Rodenstock and are outstanding.
- Kirk
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Arc Body
Roger,
You must have very large shirt pockets. I recently sold my Flexbody (which
isn't that much larger than the Arc Body) and I could never fit it into my
shirt pockets. The camera body itself my seem small to you, but add a lens
and film back and what do you have? A camera about as large and heavy as a
6x9 view camera. And you still need a tripod. The Flexbody didn't make it
because with the current lenses for the Hasselblad, it had very limited
movements. The newly designed Rodenstock lenses for the Arc Body took care
of that problem, but at the same time limited the use of that camera to 3
specialized lenses (and expensive). I agree with everyone else. Find a 4x5
and roll film back - you're better off.
Regards,
GSD
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Arc/Flex Body
It is interesting to read what folks think of various camera incarnations.
Everyone's opinion, of course, is based upon their needs, and if the
incarnation satisfies this need.
A lot of my work is 4x5. Linhof Master Technika field view. Great camera.
Takes lots of time to set-up. Lots of stuff to carry. Dark cloth, focus
loupe, drop bed for WA lenses which puts a strain on staying on axis plus
recessed lens boards that defy fat fingers. Lots of parts and lots of
work.
So I borrowed a FlexBody from my local Hasselblad rep. He let me have it
for however long I need it. I used it over a couple of weeks and then
bought my own.
I love it.
It gives me all the tilt that I need. My photo requirements usually need
only a little tilt for DOF control. Rarely shift. Hasselblad lenses have
all of the coverage that I need.
This is sure a lot handier than a view camera with roll film back. I still
use my Linhof when I need the 4x5 image size.
I did not choose the ArcBody because buying another complete set of lenses
seemed out of line. And I don't need the extra tilt/shift and coverage that
the Arc/Rodenstock has.
Since I'm new to this list, the following info may have already been
posted. Sorry if true.
Caution. DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE of mounting a lens on the Flex, forgetting
that it is a Flex, and orienting the lens in the normal Hasselblad
orientation, with red dot up. Remember that the lens mounts at 90� to
normal. This error, should you indulge, will cause you great grief!
JB
At 09:04 PM 7/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>see the review in June/July 1998 Camera Arts Magazine, >also related posts on my hassy flex/arc body pages at > >http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassyflex.html
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: hasselblad V1 #611
I find this statement interesting because I have had a different
experience when comparing the convenience and speed in taking the same
image with 4x5 or the Flexbody. With my Technikarden, I have no problems
with WA lenses and recessed lens boards - they are not needed for any lens
above 65mm. Further, by the time I set up my Flexbody on the tripod with
lens and focusing screen; compose and focus the image; shut/close the lens
down, remove the focusing screen, attach the film back - remove the dark
slide, complete the exposure; reinsert the dark slide, advance the film
frame; remove the film; re-attach the ground-glass back and re-cock the
shutter, I could set up my 4x5, taken the exposure and be ready for the
next in the same amount of time. Actually my Hasselblad equipment in a
back pack (which include the 501cm, SWC, 6 lenses and several back weighs
more than my Linhof 4x5 with 9 lenses.
A lot of my work is 4x5. Linhof Master Technika field view. Great camera. Takes lots of time to set-up. Lots of stuff to carry. Dark cloth, focus loupe, drop bed for WA lenses which puts a strain on staying on axis plus recessed lens boards that defy fat fingers. Lots of parts and lots of work.
From: tintype_NO_@_SPAM_megsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad architectural camera ARC BODY
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999
"Vista" [email protected] wrote:
>Anyone who knows a website with reviews etc of this camera? Interested in >learning more about it. It's quite compact and would be easy to travel with >right? I read about it on the Hasselblad website but would like toread more. >Anyone who has used it? Anyone "famous" who used it?
There are any number of Medium Format View Cameras that could out
perform it as far as movements are concerned with the same lenses.
You do know that you _can not_ use your current Hassey lenses with the
ArcBody.
There are only 3 lenses made for this camera. http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/default.htm Pricing per B&H ArcBody $2801 35mm f/4.5 APO-GRANDAGON $2587 45mm f/4.5 APO-GRANDAGON $2180 75mm f/4.5 GRANDAGON-N $3049 Compare the pricing of these Rodenstock lenses specially made for the ArcBody and the same Rodenstock lenses in plain copal shutters. There is a difference of almost $1000 for each. An Arca Swiss 6x9 FC or Linhof 23S good choices: http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/arca23.html http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/23view.html B&H price: Arca Swiss F-Line Camera $2928.95 Linhof Technikardan 23S Camera $3699
Check the specs and you will see they have more movement than the
Hassey, which is not surprising.
As for who is using what, not sure that matters.
In the end, it seems to me that you would be giving up more than you
get with the ArcBody.
If you want to go even cheaper, get the Rodenstock lenses and put them
on a used Galvin. :-)
Peter Mikalajunas
Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype
From: "Dr. James Chow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad architectural camera ARC BODY
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999
> Vista wrote in message ... > >Anyone who knows a website with reviews etc of this camera? Interested in > >learning more about it. It's quite compact and would be easy to travel with > >right? I read about it on the Hasselblad website but would like toread > more. > >Anyone who has used it? Anyone "famous" who used it? > > > >Could it be a good replacement for a large format camera if all you want to > >do is get proper images of buildings and interiors? Working with a BIG > large > >format camera now and it is HEAVY!! I only use moderate shift and really > >never swing and tilt etc, so would this be an option?
One friend of mine tested it and said it can only straighten converging
verticals on short buildings (ie, 2 or 3 story) from near to moderate
distances, not 15 story buildings. Equivalently, I've tested a 55mm
schneider PCS tilt-shift lens for a 6x6 SLR and found that it would work
for short to med buildings, too. If you're serious about architecture
shots, get a 4x5 or 2x3 monorail. Many like the Sinar have adapters for
hasselblad backs if you want to use the hassy backs (but why lug around
the weight unless you're going to use the full image size to maximize
image quality?). There's a reason why view cameras, despite being over
100 yrs old, haven't been superceeded by 35mm/MF...no movements or lack
of sufficient movements for perspective control. I use both a 6x6 slr
for general shooting and a 4x5 monorail for architecture.
--Jim
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Flexbody
I have taught workshops for Leica USA and the west coast Hasselblad rep is
talking to me about doing the same for Hasselblad. I have already given
instruction on use of the FlexBody to numerous folks. The one thing people
seem to do is think of the Flex as a Hasselblad camera. It is not. Just
like a view camera, the slide must be inserted between each exposure. If
you have view camera experience, this is a natural action. You do it
without thinking. Your mind set has to be view camera, not Hasselblad.
I agree that the ARC system is better if you need gobs of rise or tilt.
But it is limited to only three lenses. Albeit fantastic lenses... I have
a 75/4.5 Grandagon-N for my 4x5 Master Technika and it is incredibly good.
If you need a 35mm lens for your 6x6, the ARC is the only way to get it.
The lens I use the most on my FlexBody is the 100/3.5 CFi. There is no
equivalent on the ARC.
So what it boils down to is "what kind of work do I do?" and "which tools
allow me to do this work most efficiently?"
Each system has its place. The FlexBody happens to fit my MO.
Jim
Ian Goodrick wrote:
>I hired a Flexbody for a job about 2 years ago, and found it the most >frustrating camera to use. > >The need to put the slide in between each exposure so you can recock the >lens and the 2 stage release of the shutter ruined more frames than I care >to remember. > >Also for my needs the movement was completly inadequate with only a few mm's >of rise on any lens. > >In all I was very dissapointed as I wanted it to be better. > >I got an ARC body about 18 months ago and now have the 35mm & 45mm lens and >now find that I use the ARC more than any other camera. The lenses are >superb, and it feels just like a view camera. The movements are as much as I >need. > >I now rarely use my 5"x4" as the ARC is so good. > >Ian Goodrick > >(Just my view for my work)
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 5-element Planar MTF and Tessars on SLRs
> From Paul R. : > I doubt we can conclude much about the GX Planar from the MTF of the 100 > Hasselblad 3.5 Planar. In addition to the angle of view being narrower
It might be a scaled design, used only at the center of the field. If
you consider Hasselblad recommendations about shifting their SLR
lenses on the Flex body, you'll find that the 100mm planar is the one
that can shifted the most among all others, distagons being the more
limited to this respect. The 100 mm planar probably covers slightly
more that the normal 53 degrees, it means that it covers at least 100
mm in diameter, i.e. a 70x70mm square. So you can shift +- 15mm.
> and the lens being slower,
I agree this is the only difference.
> the 100 mm Planar appears to be a different design than the 80 2.8 > that is in the GX....
.......
> In the meantime, I'll just continue to base my shooting on my tests > and experience that show the GX 2.8 to be excellent. ....-- better > than the HFT 7 element Planar in my SL66.)
I think the mirror relief distance is a good reason for the 7-element
SLR planar to be (slightly ?) inferior. And the actual photographer's
results, in the last resort are the only thing important as you
mention it.
I have also found by measuring the rear lens vertex to film plane on my 75 mm Tessar (R-T), namely ~64 mm, that a scaled tessar design to 80 mm would just fit (~68mm) on a 'blad body, as it was on earlier models on the 50's. Thinking of a rectangular format SLR's (24x36 or 4.5x6) I realized that a square format SLR imposes a severe constraint in terms of mirror distance : on a rectangular format SLR, the mirror distance is something like 1.4 times the *short* side of the format. It was then probably easy to design a 24x36 SLR with an un-constrained tessar. For example, on my Bessamatic 35 mm SLR, the skopar (supposed to be a tessar clone) has the compur shutter *behind* the last element. And I would not be surprised if the 80 mm planar on the brand
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Flexbody
I have taught workshops for Leica USA and the west coast Hasselblad rep is talking to me about doing the same for Hasselblad. I have already given instruction on use of the FlexBody to numerous folks. The one thing people seem to do is think of the Flex as a Hasselblad camera. It is not. Just like a view camera, the slide must be inserted between each exposure. If you have view camera experience, this is a natural action. You do it
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Flexbody
I have taught workshops for Leica USA and the west coast Hasselblad rep is
talking to me about doing the same for Hasselblad. I have already given
instruction on use of the FlexBody to numerous folks. The one thing people
seem to do is think of the Flex as a Hasselblad camera. It is not. Just
like a view camera, the slide must be inserted between each exposure. If
you have view camera experience, this is a natural action. You do it
new 4.5x6 Contax does not suffer from the limitations of its elder
brother on 6x6 SLR 80mm.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999
From: Roger Moore [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: ArcBody
Mike Said:
OK, this is dangerous. Now you have reawakened *my* interest in
this little beast.If one was content with 2 1/4 film (as opposed to 4x5),
could the Arc Body take the place of the 4x5 for most architectural
subjects?
Are the movements available enough to do the job? Can you expand a bit on
your comment "The ArcBody is truly a limited use camera..."
Well, Mike, here we go!
Yep. It probably would handle "most" architectural assignments. In my
experience, shift is what I use almost all the time. Swings, tilts, and
more extreme movements are needed for table-top and product photography,
not for architecture. We architectural photographers need straight
verticals and depth of field. Of course, my Horseman 4x5 rail, gives me
all of everything, but I seldom use more than the bubble levels and shift.
By "limited use camera" I am referring to the fact that there are only
three lenses (not Ziess, by the way), so that seems pretty limited to me
-- pretty much eliminates portraiture, for example, but then again, that's
what the 503CW is all about.
I had previously eliminated the FlexBody from consideration because the
standard Hasse lenses are not designed to give large "image circle
coverage" like the view camera lenses, so movements are quite limited
before experiencing vignetting.
With everyone going digital, I am now delivering digital files as much as
film. When one considers both production time and film and processing
costs, medium format compared to 4x5 is a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.
Because I charge a Creative Fee, plus costs, I still make the same money
regardless of which camera system we use. The clients seem to still book
me for the same time, we just produce many, many more views for them. In
the last two assignments I just completed, the clients requested medium
format.
One was the largest lighting manufacturer in the USA, and when I discussed
the limited camera movements ... specifically, non-vertical verticals ...
they simply said: "Don't worry about it. We'll Photoshop it."
Very interesting things are happening in our industry.
Roger Moore
"The Architectural Photography Guy"
Portfolio at http://www.rogermoorephotography.com
....
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999
From: Bernard [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ArcBody
Peter Klosky wrote:
> Roger, > > Ok, I'll express a little personality. If I was shooting > architecture, I'd get a decent 4x5 or smaller view camera, a 6x9 > rollfilm back for it, and one of the top lenses in the 47mm range, > perhaps the latest Super Angulon or what have you.
Actually, I'd love to have a flexbody because architecture isn't always
at hand in my studio and lugging view cameras to foreign countries is a
royal pain. However, I find the price prohibitive (much too new for a
nice second hand market). The design and functions are fine with me;
great tool.
Bernard
[ed. note: see arcbody
review]
From: [email protected] (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad ArcBody Review Online
Wow, you sure didn't sell me. The system is virtually all restrictions
and negatives--- but that maxium negative size of 6X6 is what kills me,
along with the very expensive non-hassy lenses. (On the other hand, the
flex body makes a lot more sense for the Hasselblad owner, allowing you to
use your Hassy lenses and wring a little more flexibility out of them.)
And if you are going to buy Schneider large-format lenses, why pay double?
You can get a very light Wisner field camera, several lenses, tripod and
all the trimmings for the cost of the Hassy name-brand nightmare and one
lens, and you won't be embarassed by those itty-bitty 6X6 negatives and
chromes. In addition, you'll have a real view camera with lots of moves,
long bellows throw, and negative sizes from 6X4.5 cm to 4X5 inches.
From: "maab" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad ArcBody Review Online
It is very silly to compare the 500CM with the ArcBoby. I would think that
this debate should be concentrated on why should people move from the Toyo
VX125 (best competitor as full movement camera with fast set up time,
geared, and relatively light compared to other LF) to ArcBoby.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000
From: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB)" [email protected]
Subject: RE:FLEXBODY - AVERAGE TILT?
The Flexbody is stated at giving you up to +-30 degrees of tilt. Is there
an average degree of tilt used in photography? I'm sure there's various
factors involved (still life, landscape,etc,.) including technical
factors, but for mostly landscape, is 30 degrees enough for most
situations? I see the ARC Body only gives you +-15 degrees. So I take it
the Arc Body has a more suitable shift range (28mm) and the Flexbody is
more suitable for tilts.
....
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE:FLEXBODY - AVERAGE TILT?
You will rarely use more than 5 degrees. 10 degrees max. I use the Flex
all of the time for landscapes. It doesn't take much tilt to give you DOF
from your big toe to infinity.
The reason I bought the Flex over the Arc is two fold. 1.) I didn't want
to spend a fortune on yet another set of lenses, and 2.) shift is
basically for architectural subjects which is where the Arc has it over
the Flex. I don't do many buildings or subjects that require shift. I
don't even use shift on my 4x5 so why would I need it on a 6x6.
The Flex has more tilt than you can possibly ever use.
Jim
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: Ian Goodrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35
(ArcBody)
Marc Smith at [email protected] wrote:
> Hi, > > Do you have experience with both and can compare the > lens quality? > > Marc
Firstly I think a direct comparison between the two lenses is slightly
unfair, mainly because the 38mm Biogon is fixed and only convers 6x6
format with almost no movement even if the camera would alow it. The 35mm
Apo-Grandagon covers the format and gives more than 20-25mm of usable
movement,
That being said I feel the 35mm Apo-Grandagon can gives results as good
as the results from my 25 year old SWC.
The only area where I feel the 35mm Apo is not up to the SWC in the amount
of flare from lights just outside of the film area. You need to be much
more careful with the 35mm Apo.
Before I got the Arc Camera, I used the SWC for about 60% of my work.
Since I got the 35mm Apo, I now use the SWC only about 10% of the time.
The majority of my work is in construction and architectural photography,
and I like to travel light.
I now no longer travel with a 5"x4" camera permanently with me. Most
clients are happy for me to use the Arc instead of 5"x4". There are still
some that want 5"x4" but I am working on them.
To sum up the 35mm Apo is now the most used lens in my camera bag, and if
someone asked me to chose between the 35mm Apo and the SWC I would go for
the 35mm Apo.
--
Ian Goodrick
From: [email protected] (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 27 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: medium format perspective control
The reason the flexbody is so limited, and the arcbody uses non-hassy
lenses is because your 6X6 lenses are simply not designed to have a large
enough image circle to support camera movements. I think the flexbody is
a very expensive way to get an only marginally useful set of movements
with the hassy lenses, and frankly, you can buy an extremely high quality
used Horseman field camera with a set of lenses for less money, and which
will give you far more flexibility. I don't have much to say about the
arcbody other than I think it's rather strange to spend $4000 to use a
little 6x6 hassy back on a very limited and kludgy design with the hassy
name on it. A brief spat of research will net a long list of field
cameras using exactly the same lenses but with much more capability for
the same money.
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From: Roger [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: medium format perspective control
[email protected] wrote:
> given that i've already got a 500CM, 50, 80, 150mm lenses, 3 backs, > what's the best way to correct converging verticals on my photos? > > 1. flexbody - drawback: very limited shift (5mm to 14mm) > 2. arcbody - drawback: need new optics > 3. pc-mutar - drawback: makes my lenses 70, 112 and 210mm, also only > 16mm shift > 4. its an intractible problem > 5. another solution? > > i am not knowledgable about camera movements. i assume that a 28mm > shift (1/2 the 56mm image height) is the ultimate needed to correct > converging verticals on any subject at the same groundlevel as the > camera, given that you are using a focal length and distance sufficient > to cover the subject in the negative. > > i like the idea of a single system which can be used for both > hand-held and tripod photos, especially when travelling. > > i look forward to your collective informed opinions. > thanks,
Poor man's solution - do it under the enlarger. Most decent ones allow
the lens panel to be tilted. Not a lot of use if you shoot
transparencies, but I don't!
--
Roger
From Contax Mailing LIst:
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Hasselblad flex- body question
I never cared for the Flex Body. It always seemed to me to be built
backwards. Image circles on some lenses are OK when used with a
645 back as intended, or with a 24 X 36 chip digital back.
The Arc Body makes a lot more sense to me as well.
However, in this exotic category the best of all is the Rollei
X-Act II which is a fully automated monorail view camera which
accepts a wide variety of lenses up front and either the
motorized 645 back or a digital back on the rear.
Bob