Hasselblad Flexbody Camera
Photos Used by permission of Nick Hanks
Copyright 1997, "[email protected]"

Hasselblad Flexbody Camera Side Views
Photos Used by permission of Nick Hanks
Copyright 1997, "[email protected]"

The Hasselblad Flex body camera is an unusual camera which provides an enhanced degree of perspective controls over the standard Hasselblad cameras. The Flex body can use the standard Hasselblad zeiss lenses, but is limited by the amount of shift available with their 6x6cm design image circles.

The Flex body is reportedly aimed at a digital camera future, by some posters notes below. As of 2001 AD, the Hasselblad Arc body is now discontinued and being sold from existing stocks only.

Another alternative for Hasselblad owners and others to consider is the Hasselblad Arc body cameras. These cameras use a set of Rodenstock lenses and offer some useful features too. A posting by Q.G. de Bakker provides some additional comparisons and insights into these two models in terms of shifts and lens issues (Thanks!).

A number of resource page links on the later Hasselblad cameras is provided on the Medium Format Cameras List Page and the linked Hasselblad sites (USA, Sweden).

Hasselblad User's Shift Lens Dilemma

You could use the Zeiss PC-Mutar with shift mechanics, but that works as a 1.4X teleconverter. So your 40mm lens becomes a 56mm equivalent shift lens. That isn't nearly wide enough for many users, particularly architectural or interior photographers needs. The very high cost of the Zeiss PC-Mutar is another problem, as you can buy other cameras with shift lenses for less cost.

Zoerk has a series of custom shift/tilt lens adapters for using other lenses (such as the 45mm and 6x7cm 50mm range Mamiya lenses) on Hasselblad and other medium format and 35mm SLR bodies. But the costs are very high. You could easily buy a custom shift camera such as the Vistashift 6x12cm shift lens camera for less. The big advantage of Zoerk's tilt/shift setup is in closeup work, where the tilt function has some handy uses for controling depth of field. But you can get even more movements from a much less cost mini-view camera with full range of perspective controls (e.g., Horseman 6x9cm).

Another alternative might be the arcbody with Rodenstock lenses. The Rodenstock lenses are designed to provide enough coverage for formats larger than 6x6cm, so provide plenty of shift capabilities on the arc-body. However, you can get the same Rodenstock lenses and shutters in standard 6x9cm/6x7cm miniview camera mounts (linhof, arca-swiss..) for about $1,000 less for each lens. These other mini-view cameras provide options like rangefinder setups and extended movements for less than the cost of a similar arcbody with the same Rodenstock lenses and shutters. Again, why not buy the existing more flexible and cheaper alternatives with the same lenses?

Some folks are using Hartblei modified Kiev 45mm shift lenses (they also make 55mm and 65mm shift lenses if you need less wide angles), having these modified to fit Hasselblad bodies. In a shift lens camera, the lack of automatic diaphragm coupling in most adapters isn't a big loss, since the OEM shift lenses don't have such linkages either ;-). But why bother, when you can buy several nice Kiev kits with TTL prisms and 80mm lenses and filters for less than the cost of having the Kiev lenses adapted for a Hasselblad mount? The new Hartblei modified Kiev-88 series are reportedly very reliable, if a bit more expensive than their off-the-line brethren.

Shift lenses are a specialty tool, with limited numbers of users and modest demand. The newly introduced contax 645AF will get a series of Wiese modified (Kiev?) shift lenses for use on that platform. But the total initial run will be only 100 lenses! So we aren't talking about a huge market here. So the market for a shift lens in any medium format mount is rather limited (which begs the question, why does Kiev make three models at 45mm, 55mm, and 65mm?).

What surprises me is that Hasselblad has invested so much effort into trying to provide these shift body alternatives for their users. The cost of developing the limited appeal flexbody and later arc-body can hardly have been a profitable one, given the small number of users and sales?

If you just need a shift lens on a Hasselblad, and don't mind the expense, look at the Zoerk adapters for the 50mm mamiya lenses (or custom designs for other optics). You may have to buy a focal plane body to use some lens combinations too. My suspicion is that most medium format users simply decide to purchase one of the less costly mini-view or 4x5" view cameras and use a relatively low cost wide angle lens in shifting mode on such cameras.

My approach has been to buy a Veriwide 100 6x10cm panoramic camera with 47mm super angulon. But wait you say, that isn't a shift lens camera, so how can it be an alternative to a 6x6cm shift lens camera? The secret is that I can crop the equivalent of a shifted wide angle image out of the ultrawide Veriwide shot (18mm on 35mm SLR field of view). When I need a medium format SLR shift lens, I use my homebrew Bronica S2A/EC shift lenses. The older (and at $200-ish, much cheaper) Bronica Deluxe Bellows II provides not only front standard lens shifts, but also lens tilts for macro work in the field. In the studio, my standard 4x5" LF rig does the honors.

There are, in short, lots of ways to get these functions outside of the Hasselblad lineup for rather less cost and often with more flexibility and features. So be sure you like the ergonomics of the Hasselblad option, and don't mind the loss of features (e.g., multiple formats from the same lenses) and extra cost of the Hasselblad approach if that is the solution you pick....

Photo notes:

Hasselblad Flexbody in as-new condition with all parts and instructions and original box. The Flexbody allows for shifting and tilting with all Hasselblad lenses to give you view-camera versatility and ability to change the plane of focus for immense depth of field or a wonderfully tight focal plane which seems to be a current favorite in advertising.

From: Frank Loeffel [email protected]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995
Subject: Hasselblad's Flexbody
At the "Foto Professionell" trade show in Zurich, Switzerland, there was a prototype of the Hasselblad Flexbody on display. The Flexbody is a small view camera that accepts Hasselblad lenses and film backs.

The camera has a bellows, featuring tilt and shift movements. The tilting and shifting happens at the rear part of the camera, the front part with the lens mount is fixed. Shift and tilt are both vertical only. There are only five control elements on the camera: Focus wheel, shift wheel, tilt wheel, film transport lever and shutter/diaphragm knob. To compose a picture, a regular Hasselblad 45 degree prism finder is attached to the rear part of the camera with an adapter. I believe that the finder screen (ground glass) is in that adapter. When composing is done, the lens' shutter must be closed with the knob and the prism finder must be replaced with the film back and the darkslide removed. After the exposure, the film can be transported by one frame using the transport lever.

I played a bit with the camera on display. The camera was mounted on a tripod and pointed to a well-lit chessboard with pieces. The camera looked at the chess board at a vertical angle of about 45 degrees to demonstrate the shift and tilt capabilities. Focusing and shifting is implemented with knurled screws. The screws are threaded directly into metal parts, but apparently have not been lubricated, so operating the controls felt pretty rough. The tilting wasn't much better. The focus wheel was very hard to reach, I had to squeeze my fingers between the bellows and the bottom plate. Another problem was the finder image. I believed they used a regular Hasselblad screen that was pretty dark to begin with and had light falloff in the edges. When the camera was tilted, the screen would simply not render a sharp image no matter where the focus was. The finder image was bad enough to prevent a precise adjustment of the plane of focus. (I know it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but I went to the Canon booth and had them mount a 24mm tilt/shift lens on an EOS-1N body. No matter how much shift or tilt I dialed in, the finder image was always sharp throughout.) There are no provisions to shift/tilt sideways. I guess the camera could be rotated sideways with the tripod head. There are no millimeter scales for focus and shift. The central position of the shift is indicated with a dot. There's a coarse scale for the tilt consisting of dots in constant angle increments. The camera is very compact and appeared light in weight.

A Hasselblad representative at the show indicated that the camera was a prototype and that design changes may still occur. He estimated that the final product would ship in early fall, 1995. He said that generally all Hasselblad lenses are suitable for use on the Flexbody. I asked him if he had a list containing the diameters of the image circles of the Hasselblad lens line. He didn't have one but indicated that Hasselblad may provide one in the future. He mentioned that the camera will retail for about 3000 Swiss Francs, that's about 2000 - 2500 USD.

To summarize, I think bringing shift/tilt capability to medium format with a bellows camera is a great idea. The camera is beautifully simple. I wish Hasselblad will do something about the finder image and the unpleasant metal on metal feel of the controls.

Frank Loeffel
[email protected]

Review: Viscomm West '95, San Francisco June 1-4, 1995

Next to the Hasselblad booth to see the new FlexBody CP MF tilt/shift body. Quoting Hasselblad's literature, "FlexBody gives the photographer more control over depth of field and image shape. With a tiltable and shiftable back, FlexBody has applications in product, nature, architecture, digital and special effects photography. And FlexBody is designed to use existing Hasselblad lenses and film magazines." It's an odd- and rather flimsy-looking little body (little more than a small bellows setup with a bunch of knobs), and it'll cost around $2,400 (US) when it's available (Autumn?). I played with it for a while with another large formatter from Berkeley, and we were both less than impressed. Neither the 40 or 50mm lenses have enough coverage to use the full +-15mm shift (30 degrees tilt) without severe vignetting (I think the 40mm can do less than 10mm off-centre), and none of the controls have centre detents or markings (this is unforgivable! If you've ever tried to set up a view camera without detents or markings you'll know what I mean).

This is not, despite the hype, a camera well-suited to everyday architectural use. I have the full blurb if anyone's interested - I can type it in for the next issue - but it's kind of telling that all the sample shots they had were for product photography or natural lansdcapes where depth of field (using tilt) was paramount (and very impressive, I must say), or shots where rise or fall was minimal or almost irrelevant. I also got the impression that this might have been a prototype, and that the next version might be more usable. At any rate, the Hasselblad rep. was extremely helpful and accomodating, and refreshingly honest about the camera's limitations.

More From MFD:
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994
Subject: Hasselblad tilt & shift body

I recently got to take a real close look at a prototype for a new Hasselblad camera body that's very unlike anything else that has came from them. The new body is currently named the "Flexbody" and is a true tilt and shift body. It is very like a view camera in that it consists of little more than a bellows, rail, and lens and film back mounts. Focusing is done by attaching an Accu-Matte viewfinder screen in place of the film back.

I tried it with a 60mm lens and I could use full movements with it. According to the Hasselblad technician, it can be used with all lenses, but full movement isn't possible with most lenses above 100mm due to the narrower image circle of the longer focal lengths. They expect the price to be somewhere between $1000 and $1500 when it is released sometime during 1995 (probably by the spring).

Personally, I'm going to put my plans for a Sinar aside for a while...

--
Robert Claeson Electronic mail: [email protected]
Zone V Tel: +46 (0)70-593 48 92
Ringvagen 129, 1 tr.
S-116 61 Stockholm, Sweden

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat Jul 11 1998
[1] Re: Hasselblad ArcBody - has anybody tried it?

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: Mon, 14 Sep 1998
From: Eric Armstrong [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: the close up accessories.

It was stated recently on the list that the Flexbody has it's limits, but in some cases this accessory's movements could also help with depth of field issues. Also, the Flexbody has some built-in extension on the base allowing you to get the same benefits of a variable extension tube (though not as much extension as the bellows.

With the 180, according to Hasselblad's chart, you should have almost the full range of shift, and I expect, a wide range of tilt to work with to get improved depth of field. Of course, it depends on the subject matter.

hth,
-Eric

From Medium Format Digest:
From: KK [email protected]
Subject: Response to FlexBody
Date: 1998-09-24

I own a Flexbody.

Yes you can use most Hassy lens and the effective tilt area is controlled by the area of coverage of the lens you use. In my case for simple table-top stills, it's all OK with my one-and- only-one 80mm lens. I've never had the need to use shift so far but I understand that this camera may not really functional in practice so I am not in a position to tell any thing.

I like this camera, and I use it more often than my 500c for easier control on close ups. The only complaint that I would have about this camera is that its operation knobs are slightly too small for me. Otherwise I will just say that this camera has nothing really disappointing me.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Andreas Carl [email protected]
Subject: Response to FlexBody
Date: 1998-09-26

Michael, it's 15 mm back rise and 15 mm back fall, you don't need to turn the camera upside down. Nevertheless, it's very limited. If you use it with the 50 mm lens, there is only enough coverage for 5 mm rise or fall!

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998
From: Paul Salvaire [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Remarks about the Hasselblad Flexbody

About the Flexbody camera. I read it's "a failure". Marketwise, probably. But as a working camera, I disagree.

I purchased mine 2 years ago. I did not think it would replace both my view cameras and 35 mm Canon TS/E lenses but it did. Since then, I sold out all my TS/E and view camera equipment save one camera and one lens (an old 250 mm Fujinon SW) I use only for B&W Polaroids.

Also, I don't care much about the Arcbody, which I consider an overpriced miniature view camera, without the flexibility of the full-size ones, northe access to the standard Hasselblad lenses.

I mostly use my Flexbody with a 135 (bellows) Makro-Planar, but sometimes with a strong wide-angle, for tabletops as well as outdoors nature shots.

The main problem I encounter with the camera is that the lenses are mounted at 900 compared to the standard Hasselblad bodies. That means that every lens with a built-in tripod mount (long telephotos, and bellows) has the tripod plate to the left side of the camera. This means the camera has to be mounted sideways on a 35 mm ("3D") tripod head.

This is one reason I often use the 135 head on a variable extension tube (discontinued by Hasselblad) plus some extra tubes (mostly 16 mm) if needed. This sometimes avoids having the bellows unbalanced on the tripod head.

Also,the tilt of the Flexbody is what it is : a tilt. If you need swing, then again you need to put the camera sideways, in an rather unstable position.

The standard "Acute-matte" ground glass is bright for sure. But you can't really focus on it, or evenestimate correctly the depth-of-field--a usual problem with super-bright screens. So I replaced it with an old plain glass screeen from the 500 C/M. Maybe I'll put a screen from Bronica SQ one of these days ; I used that adaptation with my Hasselblads years ago and it did wonders.

Now about the limitation of rise/fall with the Flexbody. It will be a drawback for the conventional user of view cameras. So is the fact you only get a back tilt i.e. depth-of-field control induces a perspective change.

However, the Flexbody does replace my old view cameras in my equipment. How come ? For my personal research shots, simply because I don't care about perspective control (rather, I'm ready to sacrifice it), and use only the tilt feature.

As for commercial work, I get my slides professionnally scanned (at 45 MB or up) and, when needed, correct the perspective on-screen. For display or distribution purposes I sometimes get the final work "shot" on 4 x 5 ". These "dupes" are sharper, better than any direct 4 x 5" I ever did...

I firmly believe that advertising work does not require any more the persp. control at shooting level. You get more precision and flexibility on screen. Geometrically, the results are strictly equivalent. So the only feature you still need from a view camera is the tilt/swing. And back movements suffice. In this approach, even fish-eyes cover the format, and benefit from the depth-of-field control.

Note that when I used the Canon TS/E lenses, it was exactly the same : I used the tilt, and the shift feature helped me only to get the optical axis in-line with the film for best coverage and illumination. This is why I had two of my TS/E lenses (24,90 mm) converted to have "parallel" controls instead of the standard 900 crossed controls. Used in that way, you never encounter vignetting with the 24 even at full swing. Now the Flexbody gives me the same control, with the superior final quality provided by the film size and lenses.

Paul Salvaire

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

you wrote:

>see the review in June/July 1998 Camera Arts Magazine,
>also related posts on my hassy flex/arc body pages at
>
>http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/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 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

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: back to lenses, 40mm was: Re: [Rollei] NYCFoto and Anonymity

Hasselblad developed the Flex Body for use with digital backs, so coverage was not really an issue since the chip was smaller than the nominal 6 X 6 image normal for the lenses. They really seemed surprised that anyone would want to use it with film.

I think the Rollei monorail is a much more logical design for those who want a sort of view camera to use with their existing lenses. Also it automates all of those functions you needed an assistant for.

Bob

>It does seem to me that, to go for a dedicated WA body, perhaps something
> like the Flex body would make for sense -- at least you get some movements,
> etc.
>
>     I owned a flex body, for about a week.  I returned it after a week
> because it was such a pain to close the lens, cock the shutter and advance
> the film.  Now as a mostly LF photographer I am thoroughly accustomed to that
> procedure for sheet film, however it was far more inconvenient, far more
> confusing and far easier to screw up with the flex body. I had my assistant
> stand next to me with a CHECKLIST for every exposure and even then we blew a
> few exposures. Also I'm not certain how well the hassy lenses will cover with
> movements or their quality with movements, they seem to have tremendous edge
> sharpness fall off on their MTF's.
>     If you want a dedicated WA MF body with movements I'd go with the arc
> body and rodenstock lenses over the flex body, or even that tiny ARCA Swiss
> view camera.
>
> Brian

[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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB)" [email protected]
Subject: ~FLEXBODY~

The FLEXBODY brochure shows a graph on what the limits of "shift" are on most of the lenses. (1) Does this mean you have a full thirty degress of "tilt" on all of the lenses? If I remember correctly, J.B. said that in "most" situations you would only use about 5-10 degress of tilt. (2) Was that on average for landscape or tabletop or both? (3) Can you use the bellows extension and tilt at the same time or would it get racked out to quickly to do both on macro work? (4) Is there any differance in the first FLEXBODY and a brand new one that sells on the market today? (except for that little round sticker that say's "open, close, expose", I don't think the early generations had them) (5) If you owned both the 903SWC and a FLEXBODY, when or how do you tell when you'll need the FLEXBODY over the 903SWC for greater depth of field. Keeping in mind that (a) Hasselblad states that the 38 Biogon has "staggering" depth of field (b) you can use different focal lenths of lenses with the FLEXBODY. (6) If you turn the Flexbody on it's side, does that mean you have a swing movement? Thankyou for all of your input everyone.

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

[email protected]

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: Phil Lindsay [email protected]
Subject: Cheers for the FlexBody!!!

Hi David:

Your post on the Flexbody came through fine.

I have used the Flexbody extensively for the past three years; in fact i haven't used my 500C since getting the Flexbody. Like others on the list, I find the tilt back most useful for DOF corrections. The shift function is pretty limited with the standard Hassy lenses. I did built a good shift setup for the Flexbody by mounting a 100 mm Symmar view camera lens on the Hassy lens mount plate. I offset the lens by about 1/2 inch so the lens has rise when mounted on the camera. With the extra rise on the camera, I get a reasonable amount of shift.

I have a bunch of Flexbody images on my web site, just search Yahoo for fotophil to see them.

I think the Flexbody makes sense for those who already have Hassy lenses and backs; otherwise the money to start from scratch might be better spent on a view camera.

Hope this helps,

Phil

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: [email protected] (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 27 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: medium format perspective control

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!

Tilting the lens panel won't help. You must tilt the film plane or the paper plane.

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From: Roger [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: medium format perspective control

...

What I meant (although I wasn't very clear) was you tilt the lens panel relative to the enlarger head - what you normally end up with is a tilted enlarger head, an easel tilted in the opposite direction, and a lens panel in a plane bisecting the other two. Phew.

--
Roger

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From: Bob Miano [email protected]
Subject: Flexbody

What's the deal with the lack of availability of the Flexbody? I have had one on order for two or three months. I was told Hasselblad had "unexpected problems with delivery of the Focusing Screen Adapter and the Carrying Case" - which are part of the package. Can anyone shed more light on this????

[email protected]
www.technisonic.com

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000
From: Phil Lindsay [email protected]
Subject: My Flexibody Story

I have used my Flexbody for over three years - don't use the 500C much at all anymore! The 80 mm, 120 mm macro and 250 mm are my most used lenses on the Flexibody. The built-in bellows extension is useful for macro but generally use 21 mm and 55 mm tubes along with a 2x Mutar.

The tilt function is extremely useful for near-far depth of field work. The rules are the same as in view camera work. A little tilt goes a long ways - seldom use more than 5-10 degrees worth.

I use the reflex finder unless the camera gets too high (I'm only 5' 6") - then I switch to the chimney magnifier hood for straight -in viewing. I suppose the folding hood would also work well as would a prism finder.

My photography web site has a series of Flexibody photos taken at Bodie. The photo of the school desks is a good example of the near-far depth of field control offered by the Flexibody. You can visit my site my searching for "fotophil" in Yahoo or going to: http://home.pacbell.net/fotophil

The shift function of the Flexibody is pretty limited by the rather limited coverage of the standard Hassy lenses. I mounted a 100 mm view camera lenses with a shutter in a Hassy lens mount adapter and have been able to use the full shift. Several of the exterior building photos at Bodie were taken with this setup.

The Flexibody is a baby view camera - not nearly as versatile as a "real view camera" but not nearly as heavy either. It's a great addition to those of us with Hassy lenses and backs. It probably would not be the be the most economical choice for those just starting out with no other Hassy stuff.

Let me know if you have any other questions - I'll be glad to help.

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Flexbody- rise with 60CF?

BobE wrote:

> Does anyone know how much rise I can expect to get with the 60CF lens on
> a Flexbody.  Also, the 100 CF?

The 60 mm will give 10 mm full frame, 15 mm when masking down to 40x50 mm.

The 100 mm will give 14 mm full frame, and 15 with mask.

The full table from Wildi's Hasselblad Manual:

Lens / Full frame / Masked
40 / 0 / 7
50 / 5 / 12
60 / 10 / 15
80 / 10 / 15
100 / 14 / 15
120 / 14 / 15
250 / 10 / 15

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

> From: adam forrester [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected] 
> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:47:33 +0100
> To: 
> Subject: [CONTAX] Hasselblad flex- body question
>
> Zeiss never indended their 6x6  wide angle optics to cover more than 56x56
> mm frame so the performance really falls off when you apply any shift on the
> flexbody. with the cf40FLE the small image circle allows virtually no shift
> anyway before cutting off. Avoid.Zeiss themselves take a very dim view of
> this device.
> you would be much off with the hasselblad arc body which uses proper non-
> retro focus wideangle  optics made by rodenstock
> with large image circles. For less money  a 4x5 field camera with excellent
> schneider 110XL super symmar lens is more flexable still as you can also
> shoot with 6x7,6x9 or 6x12 rollfilmbacks and 4x5" and have all the tilt and
> shift you will ever need.
>
> adam 

From Hasselblad mailing list;
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001
From: Phil Lindsay [email protected]
Subject: Re: flexbody

Hi:

I have used the Flexbody for several years - it should work well for your applications with the 120 mm macro lens.

The going US price for a clean Flexbody is in the $1600 - 1800 range

Good Luck

Phil

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Flexbody info anyone?

The FlexBody cannot be hand held. It basically has a 56mm extension tube built-in so you cannot get to 1:1 without either a real extension tube or Proxars plus the built-in extension.

It can take any back (including Polaroid) and any viewfinder. But the mirror finder (I forget the number) is best and the chimney finder good as well. You can use any lens and use back tilt with any lens. you can use no shift with the 40mm, limited with the 50mm, better up to 100mm, then it gets worse again (approximate numbers.)

The Flex is a great body for nature photography. It is as versatile for DOF extension as a view camera, but of course limited in other movements. It is much easier to carry than a LF camera.

I have one and I like it a lot.

Jim

....

Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001
From: Daniel Taylor [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody and finders
To: [email protected]

Frank,

you will love the Flexbody. of course, there are many
options for viewfinders, but the truth is that they
all come with their quirks. I generally use the
straight HM2 chimney which yields an upside-down and
reversed image. this is acceptable because it is
exactly what I view in my large-format work with
ground-glass and a loupe. for metering, especially
with extension tubes, I will use the PME45.
unfortunately, this flips the image but it remains
upside-down. recently, I added the RMfx reflex finder
which is wonderful and affords the same image you
would see in the waist-level finder. upright but
reversed. the weakness with the RMfx is that when you
rotate the Flexbody ninety-degrees the viewfinder
follows. I suspect, with modification, you could
re-insert the RMfx with the proper orientation for
upright viewing. I also have the older-style 52096
magnifying hood that has a built-in diopter. this is
the one limitation of the new hoods, in that the
diopter is not offered and must be fabricated by an
optical house. I am generally left-eyed dominant, but
luckily the newer hoods +0 default matches my right-
eye well enough to swap and make useful. you will not
find the WLF useful unless you modify the base plate
to allow upside down insertion. 

possibly, half the fun is crafting a solution that
works well. like the eternal quest for the perfect
camera bag, tripod, and ballhead, the journey has its
reward. feel free to contact me directly for Flexbody
gallery links and technical information. have a grand time.



Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001
From: Daniel Taylor [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] ground-glass adapters and unlevel bubble levels
To: [email protected]

I should follow up my comment about my new Hasselblad
Flexbody having an unlevel bubble level. what I was
trying to say, is that we think of Hasselblads as
being almost perfect, and so expensive that we would
never expect a flaw. certainly one that is so easily
detectable in QA. it is somewhat comical, because if I
level the Flexbody by using the bubble level, the
camera is canted by a highly visible ten degrees. it
is very obvious. also, my first 503CW that I bought
new, I unpacked it, and so proudly held it up to the
light and gazed through the viewfinder. I was shocked
to find that my viewfinder screen had delaminated and
there were huge visible bubbles in my image where the
layers had separated. back it went to Cameraworld.

the only other problem I have had is excessive
backlash in my CFi 100mm f3.5 lens and my well
documented CW winder debacle. always, a call to
Hasselblad USA finds a receptive ear on the other end
of the line, and an honest gesture to do whatever it
takes to get my equipment repaired. I appreciate this
fact, and it lends great comfort. I recently purchased
a 70mm film back, in perfect condition though built in
1976. it was missing a small leather plug in the
center of the winding crank. my phone call was
directed to the 70mm back repair technician directly,
who told me that part was availble still, and that he
had a special cutting tool to fabricate it if it was
out of stock and I didn't want any delays. also, he
had the service history of my magazine availble
online, and would rebuild it to new specifications for
$125. I have 150' of Kodak Aerographic 2424 IR film
just waiting for its return. very cool.

 



From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] FlexBody
To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 

congratulations!

the coverage issues apply to shifting, where they range from 5mm for the
50 to 14mm for the long lenses.  the book contains a table.

tilting, since it's the back, will not introduce any lens coverage
limitations.

-rei

> From: "Frank Filippone" [email protected]>
> 
> Thanks to everyone for the responses to my question on the FLex.....
> 
> Mine arrived yesterday, and I will be trying it out in the next few days.  I
> am interested in the tilt capability....
> 
> Has anyone noticed any limitation in the covering power of any Hasselblad
> lens with the TILT on a FlexBody?  IS there any Vignetting?  I use the 50,
> 80, and 180 CF Lenses.
> 
> Frank Filippone
> [email protected]


From: "Frank Filippone" [email protected]>
To: "Hasselblad Users Group" [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] Flexbody out of calibration
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 

My new ( to me) Flexbody was "fuzzy" at infinity focus......  even the
adjustments with the knurled knob at the bottom of the guide rails did not
fix the problem, an obvious out of focus problem.

I finally fixed the problem by adjusting a small screw on the back/bottom of
the camera that acts as a set or stop to the movement of the FlexBody for
infinity focus....all looks fine now....

I wonder if the last owner just did not like the "poor results" with this
camera at infinity?

Frank Filippone
[email protected]



Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 
From: Daniel Taylor [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody out of calibration
To: [email protected]

good point. I always had thought they should have
padded the travel on the rails a bit more for infinity
focusing. there has been quite a bit of Flexbody
interest and discussion on photo.net of late. what a
great camera for tilt movements, built-in extension,
exchangeable film magazines, reflex focusing, and
extremely light weight. the Flexbody offering
continues to surprise me and reaffirm why I started
down the Hasselblad trail. the system comes into its
own once you start evaluating movement requirements in
Medium Format. I use tilt movements exclusively, and
find the fresnel viewing inserts invaluable for my
selective focus work. beautifully thought out, it has
been one of my most rewarding purchases. highly recommended.



From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Linhof Technica
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 

the flexbody can be useful for correction of mild converging verticals.
i don't have my instructions or wildi at hand, but i think the 40mm does
not have excess coverage for any rise or fall.  the 50mm allows 5mm
rise/fall, and the longer lenses i recall allow rises of up to 15mm.
the 110/2F won't be much fun, except for long exposures using your hat
in front of the lens, since the flex depends on a lens shutter.

-rei


> From: Syed Noor Hossain [email protected]>
> 
> Dear Hasselbladians - Professionals and Serious Amateurs,
> 
> I want an honest answer and a practical one. I want to do some architectural
> photography, mostly of historical buildings, for possible publication in a
> book. I am currently using Hasselblad and own  110/2F and C40/T* lenses.
> 
> a) Is it a good idea to buy a Flexbody (used) for around $1400? Can I use
> those two lenses without further investment on lens?
> 
> b) Linhof Technica 4x5 with lens and roll-film back (used) or a Linhof
> Technica 70 with lens and back (used) is available around the same price.
> Would that be a better idea? I am sure some of you have Linhof experience
> and give me an honest answer.
> 
> As an amateur, I used Linhof 2x3 for landscape photography but was never
> interested in architectural photography and never fiddled with the
> movements.
> 
> Syed


Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 
To: [email protected],
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Linhof Technica

I have both.

The Flex and 40mm lens has no shift capability. Not good for architectural 
subjects. The 4x5 or 70 and most any lens made for it will work wonderfully.

The 110/2F lens cannot be used on a Flex.

So you are down and out on both lenses.

Use the Technika. Or buy a 1.4x shift Mutar which converts your 40mm to a 
56mm and gives shift capability and can be used on any Hass body. Pretty 
good set-up. $1400 used.

You don't need the Flex.

Jim


Syed Noor Hossain wrote:
>Dear Hasselbladians - Professionals and Serious Amateurs,
>
>I want an honest answer and a practical one. I want to do some architectural
>photography, mostly of historical buildings, for possible publication in a
>book. I am currently using Hasselblad and own  110/2F and C40/T* lenses.
>
>a) Is it a good idea to buy a Flexbody (used) for around $1400? Can I use
>those two lenses without further investment on lens?
>
>b) Linhof Technica 4x5 with lens and roll-film back (used) or a Linhof
>Technica 70 with lens and back (used) is available around the same price.
>Would that be a better idea? I am sure some of you have Linhof experience
>and give me an honest answer.
>
>As an amateur, I used Linhof 2x3 for landscape photography but was never
>interested in architectural photography and never fiddled with the
>movements.
>
>Syed



From: "Charlie Goodwin" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] [Hug]...Right camera for the job...
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 

Syed,

In response to your querry, I wonder if it might be best to rent a couple of
cameras on some test shoots to get a better idea which do what you want.
You mention such different cameras that I can't tell what features you are
looking for.

The flexbody is confined to lenses not designed for extensive tilts, swings
shifts, etc.   Thus it is unlikely to be strong for general architectural
work.

The arcbody sounds much more versatile-with optics designed for lots of
movements.   It can do what the flexbody can, and much the flexbody can't.

The Technicas have some movements, but are not stellar if you need to really
crank the lens.   I have a small technika, and can't see it as a serious
architectural tool.   It's sort of the Swiss army knife of the photo world;
it does many things, but few supremely well.   I've kept mine so far because
it's wonderful to end up with 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 results.   I do not like it for
wide angle work, and find it best for normal to moderate tele.   I keep
thinking about a compact monorail with more movements, no bed to get in the
way of reeeeeealy wide lenses, which keep coming onto the market wider and
wider.

I have a heavy studio monorail, and can say the weight is a deterrent, so
for field work I'd consider one of the lighter 2x3 or 4x5 modular monorails
... one with a short rail available so it neither sticks out into the
picture, or jabs you in the shoulder.   Arca has a couple of smaller lighter
units.  Linhof Technikardan? Very compact folding, but still very capable,
far more so than the Technikas.  Toyo Gs GXs Cs or the VX-125 Cambo?

I would urge you to rent, borrow, assist someone with one, etc, to check out
what you are considering purchasing.   Good luck,,,let us know what you end
up with.

Charlie


> I want an honest answer and a practical one. I want to do some architectural
> photography, mostly of historical buildings, for possible publication in a
> book. I am currently using Hasselblad and own  110/2F and C40/T* lenses.
>
> a) Is it a good idea to buy a Flexbody (used) for around $1400? Can I use
> those two lenses without further investment on lens?
>
> b) Linhof Technica 4x5 with lens and roll-film back (used) or a Linhof
> Technica 70 with lens and back (used) is available around the same price.
> Would that be a better idea? I am sure some of you have Linhof experience
> and give me an honest answer.
>
> As an amateur, I used Linhof 2x3 for landscape photography but was never
> interested in architectural photography and never fiddled with the
> movements



Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 
To: [email protected], [email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] [Hug]...Right camera for the job...

Charlie Goodwin wrote:

>The flexbody is confined to lenses not designed for extensive tilts, swings
>shifts, etc.   Thus it is unlikely to be strong for general architectural
>work.
>
>The arcbody sounds much more versatile-with optics designed for lots of
>movements.   It can do what the flexbody can, and much the flexbody can't.

The FlexBody can use as much tilt, with any Hasselblad (or other) lens, 
that you can crank-in, which is considerable. 25 degrees. It can do this 
because it tilts the back and always stays on the optical axis.

The Flex has no swings.

And can shift a huge amount, starting with the 80mm through the 250mm 
lenses. The 50 gives a reasonable amount, the 40 none.

The Arc is majorly expensive, is discontinued, and still very expensive 
used. Requires lenses whose price was doubled just to put on an Arc lens mount.

Jim



From: "Sharookh Mehta" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Linhof Technica
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 

Syed - As an architect and a keen amateur I do indulge in architectural
photography...(more recently with my xpan!!) Personally I think you would be
better off with your present Hassie and an 80. Don't forget - architecture
is all about proportions and scale - and the 80 is as close to a normal view
that you will get. Yes - if you're looking for perfect perspective control
you might wish to indulge in the equipment you have mentioned. But I think
you would do equally well with the normal lens on the front end of your
camera. Be creative in your composition....that's what it's all about, I
guess...I would interpret the building/s in the way I would feel comfortable
rather than documenting it....( my twopence worth!!;-) )

Sharookh

----- Original Message -----
From: Syed Noor Hossain [email protected]
To: Hasseblad User Group (HUG) [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 6:22 PM
Subject: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Linhof Technica


> Dear Hasselbladians - Professionals and Serious Amateurs,
>
> I want an honest answer and a practical one. I want to do some architectural
> photography, mostly of historical buildings, for possible publication in a
> book. I am currently using Hasselblad and own  110/2F and C40/T* lenses.
>
> a) Is it a good idea to buy a Flexbody (used) for around $1400? Can I use
> those two lenses without further investment on lens?
>
> b) Linhof Technica 4x5 with lens and roll-film back (used) or a Linhof
> Technica 70 with lens and back (used) is available around the same price.
> Would that be a better idea? I am sure some of you have Linhof experience
> and give me an honest answer.
>
> As an amateur, I used Linhof 2x3 for landscape photography but was never
> interested in architectural photography and never fiddled with the
> movements.
>
> Syed


Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 
From: Gerald Warnecke [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Linhof Technica

I would say that the FlexBody is most practical for macro
photography. The shift capability is not so extreme because
of the relative small image circle of the standard lenses,
especially the wide angle lenses. It is useful in conjunction
with the CFi 150 lens, as far as a telephoto lens is useful
for architectural photographs, and, to some extent, with
the CFE/CB 80 lenses. So far I would say, the FlexBody
is a good addition for the ArcBody, which is specialized for
wide angle fotography. I'm taking in concideration to buy
a FlexBody since I have got already an ArcBody with a
45mm lens. Then I have the shift capabilty for both short
and long focal lengths.

For close up photography the FlexBody has not only an
extendable bellows (the ArcBody has not and so needs
extension tubes), but has a relativly large tilt capability.

The degree of tilting the back does not only depend on
the angle between the image plane and the optical axis;
it depends significantly on the focusing distance, i. e. the
shorter the focusing distance the shorter the tilting degree
for a given angle between image plane and optical axis.

Gerald

Syed Noor Hossain schrieb:

> Dear Hasselbladians - Professionals and Serious Amateurs,
>
> I want an honest answer and a practical one. I want to do some architectural
> photography, mostly of historical buildings, for possible publication in a
> book. I am currently using Hasselblad and own  110/2F and C40/T* lenses.
>
> a) Is it a good idea to buy a Flexbody (used) for around $1400? Can I use
> those two lenses without further investment on lens?
>
> b) Linhof Technica 4x5 with lens and roll-film back (used) or a Linhof

> Technica 70 with lens and back (used) is available around the same price.
> Would that be a better idea? I am sure some of you have Linhof experience
> and give me an honest answer.
>
> As an amateur, I used Linhof 2x3 for landscape photography but was never
> interested in architectural photography and never fiddled with the
> movements.
>
> Syed


From: "Charlie Goodwin" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Image Circle...
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 

Hello,

The observation that with the FlexBody some of the lenses can tolerate a
degree of movement is true, and, yes it can suffice for some work requiring
movements at or close to infinity focus.   Nonethless, most architectural
work demands wide angle lenses combined with dramatic shifts, and only
occasionally a dramatic swing.   That swing is usually demanded from the
front so as to not disturb the perspective created by positioning the back
relative to the subject.   Often that swing or tilt is in conjunction with a
rise or shift in a way that both movements combine to place the film far
from the center of the optical axis.

Only lenses engineered to create a huge image circle can cover the film
sufficiently to be useful for general architectural work.   Of course there
are exceptions...a small, low house, set in a large yard that slopes gently
away from the camera...perfect for shooting with normal or long lenses, and
minimal movements.   Most work involves work with structures too close for
comfort, too tall to cover without cranking the front way up, various
impediments; phone lines, fences,roads, other buildings...that must be
eliminated by moving in very close with a wide to ultra wide lens.   There's
a reason that the major lensmakers keep offering glass with wider and wider
circles of coverage.

The Super Angulon XL is a prime example.   The 72mm XL throws a 226mm image
circle at infinity focus at f/22...an 8.89" image circle.   With 4x5 it
offers something like ??? 3 inches for the film to move around, almost an
inch and a half in any direction.   Overall it views 115 a degree expanse.

The lenses for the Hasselblad, no matter how good for their intended use,
are not meant for and not designed for this kind of use.   In fact, a huge
image circle is a liability in a non- moving camera, such as the Hasselblad,
as the unused image bouncing off the inside of the camera body will make
camera flare more likely, especially with the light source just outside the
image area, but within the field of view of a really wide seeing lens.   The
wider the seeing of the lens, the more urgent the need for really, really
good lens shielding.   An optimal lens for most cameras covers the film, but
just barely, and throws as little unused circle of illumination into the
camera box as possible.   No matter how well blackened the inside of the
camera may be, any light hitting the inside of the camera reflects some
portion to the film to degrade the shadows and lower contrast.   That does
not even mention that the economies of using only a wide angle part of an
ultra wide angle view for a non moving camera would be irrational, as well
as the optical compromises that sacrifice quality in the center to get
quality in an unused periphery.   I can't see Zeiss or Hasslblad squandering
money and image quality for little reason.   The ratio of FlexBody users to
regular Hasselblad users is small to miniscule.   Better Zeiss design a lens
for the FlexBody.   I'm not sold on the idea of using the regular line of
lenses for the big movements demanded for architecture.   All that said, I
think it's a wonderful camera for other tasks, and have no intent to demean
it.   For longer lenses, and to control the plane of focus, it obviously
works great for lots of photographers.

Charlie


From: Gerald   Re: Flexbody vs. ArcBody...
> I would say that the FlexBody is most practical for macro
> photography. The shift capability is not so extreme because
> of the relative small image circle of the standard lenses,
> especially the wide angle lenses. It is useful in conjunction
> with the CFi 150 lens, as far as a telephoto lens is useful
> for architectural photographs, and, to some extent, with
> the CFE/CB 80 lenses. So far I would say, the FlexBody
> is a good addition for the ArcBody, which is specialized for
> wide angle fotography. I'm taking in concideration to buy
> a FlexBody since I have got already an ArcBody with a
> 45mm lens. Then I have the shift capabilty for both short
> and long focal lengths.
> For close up photography the FlexBody has not only an
> extendable bellows (the ArcBody has not and so needs
> extension tubes), but has a relativly large tilt capability.
> The degree of tilting the back does not only depend on
> the angle between the image plane and the optical axis;
> it depends significantly on the focusing distance, i. e. the
> shorter the focusing distance the shorter the tilting degree
> for a given angle between image plane and optical axis.



Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 
From: Phil Lindsay [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Image Circle...
To: [email protected]

Hi Charlie:

I fit a Symmar 100 mm lens in shutter to my Flexbody. I used the discontinued Hassy adapter for video lenses (I think). I cut down the thickness of the aluminum adapter to permit focus at infinity. i also bored out the center hole
so that I could mount the Symmar about 1/2 inch off-axis. Since the adapter will fit into the Flexbody at four different orientations (0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees) I can use the "built-in" shift of the Symmar in conjunction with the
Flexibody shift. It works great for most building shots - Not nearly as convenient as the Arcbody but a whole lot cheaper. Although I don't use shift much on the conventional Hassy lenses for the reasons stated in your post, I do
find the tilt back to be very useful for increased depth of field.

Phil Lindsay


From: "Charlie Goodwin" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody vs. Image Circle...
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 

It sounds like you don't often need the shift in the back of the FlexBody.
My remarks and warnings are directed to architectural users of cameras with
movements, not those who would use cameras for the Scheimpflug principal.

The FlexBody has 15mm of shift in the back; enough to move the film out of
the lens's circle of illumination, unless the lens happens to have pretty
large coverage.

I was answering Syed's querry in the light of the FlexBody''s relevance to
architectural work.   As you say, the FlexBody is a wonderful tool for
creative use of flopping the plane of focus around with back tilts.   It is
not a strong tool, however, for architecture, due to use of optics not
designed for big shifts and tilts.   My response is solely aimed at Syed's
stated needs, not at other approaches, for which the FlexBody is a strong
contender.   I have seen enough stories in other forums (fora??) with
terminolgy such as "disgruntled owner of the Hassy Flexbody," to at least
sound a note of warning when someone may need capabilities other than those
the FlexBody is designed to provide.

Yup.  It's great for some work.   Not all.

Charlie

....



Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected], [email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad ArcBody Kit

The only time the image circle on a FlexBody won't be sufficient is if you 
are doing shifts (not tilts) with wide angle lenses (40mm and 50mm). All 
other Hasselblad standard lenses have plenty of shift room. Se a chart on 
www.hasselblad.com under the FlexBody.

You will never run out of image circle on either camera using tilt (which 
is what is usually used for landscapes) since tilt is on the back and 
regardless of the amount of tilt, the film remains in the center of the 
image circle.

Shift is usually for architecture to keep vertical lines parallel and tilt 
is used for focus control.

The Arc is no longer made so I personally believe that the FlexBody is your 
best bet. I use one extensively for landscape work with all of the same 
lenses that I use on my regular Hasselblad.

Great system.

Jim


George Day wrote:
>Not having used either, I would say, right off the bat, that the Arc is
>actually the more flexible system.  Why?  Image circle.  Those Rodenstock
>lenses have considerable image circles -- they are large format lenses.  I'd
>venture to guess that you'd run into serious vignetting problems in no time
>with standard 6x6 lenses.
>
>OTOH, you could pick up a compact 4x5 and slap whatever size film back you
>want on it and be able to choose from a wealth of lenses for far less $.
>
>Sharookh Mehta at [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I believe the flex would be a better bet. Additionally you can use your
> > existing lenses as well. The arc has it's own set of lenses. It might be
> > easier to integrate the flex into an existing system.
> > Sharookh



From: "Charlie Goodwin" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad ArcBody Kit
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 

Perhaps Hasselblad has updated the chart at
http://www.hasselblad.com/products/cameras/flexbody.html .  If I understand
the chart, only one lens, the CF150mm appears to be usable to the full 15 mm
shift.   The 100 and 120 come pretty close, and the rest barely make it to
10mm, other than the ones most likely to need lots of shift, the wideangles,
of which the 50mm gets to 5mm of shift and the 40 gets essentially none.

> The only time the image circle on a FlexBody won't be sufficient is if you
> are doing shifts (not tilts) with wide angle lenses (40mm and 50mm). All
> other Hasselblad standard lenses have plenty of shift room. Se a chart on
> www.hasselblad.com under the FlexBody.

> You will never run out of image circle on either camera using tilt (which
> is what is usually used for landscapes) since tilt is on the back and
> regardless of the amount of tilt, the film remains in the center of the
> image circle.

Absolutely correct.

> Shift is usually for architecture to keep vertical lines parallel and tilt
> is used for focus control.

I would argue another point of view, that anytime I want the horizon off the
center of the image, and there are landscape elements verticals like trees
that show convergence even if they are not truly exact verticals, I want
shift, and lots of it.

I use an old 35mm f2.8 PC Nikkor as a "normal" quite often when I use a 35mm
camera.   I'm constantly using the shift to be able to look up, down,
sideways unobtrusively as I shoot landscape.   The 35PC Nikkor gets 7/16
inch of shift, as close as I can measure, approximately 11.1mm.

If an equivalent lens were available for the Hasselblad, it would be about
60mm focal length, and would offer approximately 19.75mm of shift (scaling
up by the ratio of  80/45; the relationship of the normal focal lengths).
There have been times I have wanted more shift than that.

For me, the shorter the lens, the more I want shift, because departures from
the vertical (or any departure from parallelism) show so much with the
shorter lenses.   I usually will take some movement in almost any landscape
shot if the camera makes it available to me.

For me, the ArcBody is a far more attractive camera, because it suits the
way I see landscape.   I would emphasize the words "for me"; others work in
other ways, and need to evaluate their choices by their needs.   Jim Brick
works differently than I, and sees no clear advantage, and serious
liabilities to the ArcBody, choosing the FlexBody hands down.   For me it's
the opposite.   The Flex presents me with almost nothing for outdoor or
architectural work, and the ArcBody has tantalized me from the moment I
first heard of it.   The Flex offers tilts galore and limited shifts with
longer lenses, where the Arc offers everything for short lenses, and nothing
beyond the 75mm normal range.

The Arc is painfully expensive, simply extortionate, with no justification
other than the fact that nothing else quite matches it's compactness and
versatility, and they can demand we pay the piper.

> The Arc is no longer made so I personally believe that the FlexBody is
your
> best bet. I use one extensively for landscape work with all of the same
> lenses that I use on my regular Hasselblad

Again, a matter of personal style; not one of the cameras I use is in
current production.   All are distant memories for their makers.   Only a
couple of my lenses can be bought new.


George Day wrote:
> >OTOH, you could pick up a compact 4x5 and slap whatever size film back
you
> >want on it and be able to choose from a wealth of lenses for far less $

Good point....or a 2x3 view and exactly the optics you need.

Ultimately, there's no one answer for everybody.   When people write with
the "which camera should I choose" without the mention of what their
shooting style might be, it's an invitation for everyone to jump in with
their own personal favorites, with no idea of what might suit the person who
asked the question.

I'd suggest that the best thing is to learn all about the cameras in
question, and learn about other cameras that might also be contenders, and
then, borrow or rent the ones that look most promising.   It's too easy to
get equipment that works for Charlie but not for you, and the cost of a bad
choice is so high in photography.   As someone eloquently put it, "Your
milage may vary".   Check the cameras out before you buy.  Rent, borrow,
whatever!

Charlie


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody and Biogon
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 

Andr� Oldani wrote:

> Yes, it's a pity because the Alpa Swiss can be equipped with the Biogon (the
> only manufacturer that gets the Biogon from Zeiss apart of HB) an there you
> can shift the whole lens plate. So the image circle must be big enough!

As i recall, Alpa dropped the Biogon precisely because it doesn't (!) have a
large enough image circle.
Someone at Hasselblad once tried to make a shift SWC work (a photo of the
thing can be found in, among other places, Richard Nordin's book), and had
to replace the Biogon with a Schneider Super-Angulon for the same reason.



Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected], [email protected]
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody and Biogon

Alpa does not currently offer the 38mm Biogon lens.

Reason... the image circle is only 3-3/4".

The diagonal of 6x6 frame is 3-1/8" which leaves precious little for=20
shifting. Only a few millimeters will put you right at the edge of the=20
circle. Corner vignetting comes very rapidly.

But tilting for focus control will work perfectly as tilt on the Flex=20
always stays within the image circle.

Jim

George Day wrote:

>Right!  I forgot about the Alpa!  What a machine!



> Andre Oldani at [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> Okay, so Hasselblad makes some odd, to me at least, decisions.  I've been
> >> thinking about the Arc and Flex bodies, and this came to mind: why not a
> >> detachable version of the 38mm Biogon to work with the Flexbody?  Or, heck
> >> the introduction of some movements for the super-wide?
> >
> > Yes, it's a pity because the Alpa Swiss can be equipped with the Biogon
> (the
> > only manufacturer that gets the Biogon from Zeiss apart of HB) an there you
> > can shift the whole lens plate. So the image circle must be big enough!
> >
> > Andre


Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]

But i notice that the one Raymond Depardon uses does not even have shifts or tilts.

http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/gallery.htm

he uses the ALPA 12 /Schneider Super-Angulon XL 5.6/58 mm).

It's the Alpa 12S WA which costs a thou more with the movements the regular Alpa
12 WA does not.

I have mixed feelings as to whither I'd want or need the movements or not.

I'd be inclined to walk around with the camera shooting without a tripod.

Which lens I'd start out with i don't know. I think the 58 Depardon used.

Rodenstock 
(Copal 0; B, T, 1s - 1/500s) 
Apo-Grandagon 4.5/35mm 3,016.00 
Apo-Grandagon 4.5/45mm 2,704.00 
Apo-Grandagon 4.5/55mm 2,815.00 
Grandagon-N 4.5/65mm 3,095.00 
Grandagon-N 4.5/75mm 3,253.00 
Apo-Sironar-N 5.6/100mm 1,886.00 
Apo-Sironar-N 5.6/135mm 1,987.00 
Apo-Sironar-N 5.6/150mm (4.0m - infinity, max. 56x82mm)  1,995.00 
Schneider 
(Copal 0; B, T, 1s - 1/500s) Super-Angulon XL 5.6/38mm 3,429.00 
Super-Angulon XL 5.6/47mm 3,244.00 
Super-Angulon XL 5.6/58mm 2,886.00 
Super-Symmar XL asph. 4.5/80mm 3,732.00 
Apo-Symmar 5.6/100mm 2,102.00 
Apo-Symmar 5.6/120mm 2,155.00 
Apo-Symmar 5.6/135mm 2,203.00 
Apo-Symmar 5.6/150mm (4.0m - infinity, max. 56x82mm)  2,201.00 
Componon-S 5.6/150mm (0.8m - 4.0m, max. 56x82mm)  2,421.00

Or what to have the grip made of.

10 to 12 thousand bucks for a basic setup. 
You can get a lot of Hassy gear for that!

Mark Rabiner
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/


From: "first" [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] flexbody images and a new daughter
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 

Rei - Great to see an atypical piece of equipment (flexbody for child
photography - Ok, ok sleeping child) - being used the way you have..Makes us
think...

----- Original Message -----
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]>
To: Hasselblad Users Group (HUG) [email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 
Subject: [HUG] flexbody images and a new daughter


>
> on sept 7th, we were blessed with a beautiful baby girl,
> margaret shinozuka.
>
> last weekend, i took some photos of my kids with a flexbody and a 100CF.
> (yeah, not the camera one thinks of for kid photos... :-) )
>
> http://www.shinozuka-family.com/index.html under "Shinozuka Kids"
>
> "Margaret" has leica photos, many noctilux images, for those interested.
>
> -rei


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] flexbody images and a new daughter

the flexbody, tiny as it is, virtually demands a tripod, in this case,
a gitzo 1228.

-rei



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HSB Flexbody
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002


Max Perl wrote:

> Thank you. It seems most people are very happy with their Flexbody.
> I have to find out what kind of viewer gives the brightes view using the
> Flexbody.
> I also need some information on when the 40x50mm mask is needed.
> Is it only if you use the shift function?.....and why?

Yes, it is intended to be used when shift is applied. Because the only
lenses that will fit the FlexBody are Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses, and they
vignet rather prominently when shifted. So the mask is used to vignet even
more, so you will not see the darkening corners (just like the round mask
George Eastman put in his early camera, to hide the rather poor image
quality in the corners.) ;-)

When first introduced, the FlexBody was marketed mainly as a tool for
digital photography. Chips in MF digital backs (still) are way too small, so
vignetting is less of a problem.

The strength of the FlexBody is in the tilting capability, allowing
Scheimpflug style repositioning of the plane of focus. It is a fine thing to
have especially for close-ups and landscapes. And it has its more
experimental creative uses as well in that it allows you to put the plane of
focus in such a way that you get very selective focus.

I must add that i do not own a FlexBody myself, since i can do the things it
does (and more) with a LF camera. A LF camera is a lot heavier and bulkier
though, so i was thinking of perhaps buying a FlexBody too.




From: [email protected] (Rei Shinozuka)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HSB Flexbody
Date: 2 Mar 2002 


i have a few images:
http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnflex/
the first set use around 5 degree of tilt to get near focus
on the leaves on the ground.  some small amount to rise/fall
was also used to keep verticals parallel.

the last image is an example of using the flex in a "keith carter"
style; radically limiting the area of focus.

the shift is limited in the 50mm to about 5mm (or a little less than
10% of the image area) and with 100mm and above to 14-15mm shift
which is over 1/3 of the image area.  the 80mm is around 10mm shift
as i recall.  in practice the shift is limited, but helpful
to correct what would be mild perspective convergence.

i use the folding viewfinder with the flexbody and like it.  others
like the chimney finder or the prism finders.

the procedure to use seem somewhat complex and undoubtedly you will
lose a few exposures due to removing the slide or cocking the lens
at the wrong time, but after a fashion it begins to become routine.

if you've already got backs and lenses, i think the flexbody is
a really nice adjunct to your system.  and it's really beautifully
made.

hope this helps,

-rei



Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] HASSELBLAD INFLUENCER

Per,

I know of only one 'Swedish landscape (..well..) photographer' with
obvious 'influence' within Hasselblad, Ingmar Holm�sen, - who shot a lot
more than just 'landscapes' (wildlife, botanics etc.) and wrote a book
(Naturfotografering) back in the mid 70'.  In this book he described
what was de facto a 'home made Flexbody' (which he used to shoot flowers
in their biotops), which later was to be found in Hasselblads shelves,
on his insistance.  He was a very inventive guy who made traps that made
it possible to 'let the mouse photograph itself', made some
hair-raisingly risky 'buckets' to put your camera (a 4000 $ 205TCC?)
into, with a little window up front, hopefully water tight, to shoot
'life' in small ponds, - a photographer out of the 'brown packaging tape
and rubber band generation', who spent 30% of his life 'on his knees' or
lying flat shooting some rare Norwegian mountain plant, -or whatever.

Is he still around?

Tom Just Olsen



Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 
From: Elgenper Telia [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD INFLUENCER

Well, he "influenced" Hasselblad all right, but Hasselblad doesn�t seem
to want to admit it...  He asked them if they were interested in his
idea, but was dismissed, the offficial line being that fine optics
should never be tilted off axis; not worthy of a Hasselblad, as they put
it when asked directly.  For years IH manufactured and sold these
"Ur-Flexbodies" on a small scale (I own one myself), but he had to
advertise in photo mags to buy second-hand bellows units to acquire the
mounts and the shutter coupling mechanism; Hasselblad refused to
deliver.  Then, suddenly, they announced the Flexbody as a major
innovation of theirs, without ever mentioning Holmasen.  There are more
direct words than "influence" to describe such behaviour...

Per
...



From: [email protected] (Rei Shinozuka)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: flexbody opinions
Date: 8 May 2001


i think the sl66 allowed reflex viewing while tilting the front
'standard,'  the flex (body) is a much simpler machine, basically
a bellows with a front standard which takes a hasselblad lens,
and the rear standard that mounts a hasselblad film magazine
or supplied groundglass adapter.  the front standard
has rise/falls (no shift) and tilts (no swing).

monaghan has a comprehensive description on his site, which you should
definitely read.  if you have a recent wildi like wildi 5, it's
in there too.

my only experience is renting one for a weekend (which i
recommend you do).  my first impression was of a very well-made
piece of equipment; the shift and tilt knobs were very smooth and
precise in their operation.

the shifting was definitely limited on the
50mm (5 mm or so) but was better at the longer focal lengths,
up to 15mm shift at 150mm.  but it gave pretty much all the tilt
one would probably need.  not being a view camera user, i probably
did not take advantage of these features, and conversely was
probably not struck by its limitations.

the operation is unquestionably complex, and for no other reason,
i'd recommend renting one to see if its your cup of tea.
i took 3 rolls, and messed up 3 or 4 exposures.  based on
my memory from last year, this is what  you need to do:

1) mount the groundglass back and prism/hood
2) using groundglass, frame image, adjust tilts, rise/fall
   if you are using large tilts, use supplied fresnel lenses to
   brighten image.
3) when satisfied, remove groundglass back
4) install film magazine
5) half-click shutter release.  lens closes down and shutter closes.
6) remove darkslide
7) fully click shutter release.  lens makes exposure.
8) replace darkslide
9) wind film via crank on rear standard.
10) cock shutter fully, via knob on front standard
11) if film remains, go to 1)

the step i messed up repeatedly was doing 6 before 5 or 10 before 8.
i personally think i could get the hang of doing it right, but i've read
others saying they needed a checklist on a clipboard to get it right,
and still messed it up.

i would not recommend you buy a hasselblad system just to use the
flexbody, but if you have the hasselblad gear, its an intriguing
addition.

that being said, i am planning to buy a flex body myself... i did like it.

-rei


Christopher John Woodhouse  [email protected] wrote:
>Can the flexbody be used as a modern equivalent of the Rollei SL66?
>Is it possible to use wide apertures, tilt added whilst viewing, and
>quickly attach the back for a landscape? I shall be asking the 'Blad
>rep for a demo, but before I wind him up, I thought it would be
>useful to ask for hints, tips and things to watch out for.
>--
>regard Chris Woodhouse
>email  [email protected]
>Original and Digital darkroom products and reference material
>http://www.ktphotonics.co.uk



[Ed. note: possible interest on Mr. Holm�sen's role in developing the 
Flex body prototypes?...]
From: "Bo Wrangborg" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: HBL Distagon C50/4 Chrome ?????
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002


Hallo nondigital eyes,

I have one digital eye and ond normal one/smile/ I feel OK - don't bother!

In my photcase is my just hobbiedriven chrome Distagon 50/4 -without the
star.

I love it - however - all my others are "T star" optics for the C/M.

It's anoing me in a way - it is not Black  and it has No * - on it!

I have tested my friends - and my conclusion - is

1/ Not good direct into the sun
2/ On dias only I see a little - very little subtile colordifferense.

Using the prof. lenshade - there is no difference in normal shooting on a
brickwall 150 meters away - none!


Test with T* (my friends) says the same optical perfomance - if noot better
in B/W shooting.

However - it's a white cat among the black ones!

What impact would a "Super-Hoya" multi multi coating front UV have ..... I
have not tested!
Would you switch and sell that white Distagon - to go for a T* one!

This is a very subjectiv matter for me!


I'm normaly use a hancrafted tilt an shift body - instead of my standard Hasselblad 500C/M
- I use it as if it was an LF - camera - and get exelent results in
printing - using the Minolta multi pro as the scanner.

Finder 2.5 prism magnifier at the place of the mag - then put on the
TTL-prism - then measure ZONE V at 18% Kodak
graycard - then I decide what EV is important by just experince and
carefully analysing the objekt.
Take away the prism - and put on the C12 Mag (OR any of Hasselblads mags.)

I get fabulus A3+ photoes on my Epson 1290's (three of them one quad piezo,
one dye and one archival ink)
Paperfavorite - Hahnem�lle Photorag (hmm expensiv - but let's have fun)
All digitalprofing/calibration by Colorvision products!

Got 60x60 cm done with that equipment - and it still is more than
acceptable!

However what would You do with the white Distagon - it works but irritates
me by it's color?

An rather advanced amateur now 55+ doing fine all over - but that white
chrom cat....hmmm...

Help?!/smile/

Excuse my old equipment - BUT it's good!

/Also forget about my english - sorry!/

Regards
Bo Wrangborg
Sweden


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HBL Distagon C50/4 Chrome ?????
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002


Bo Wrangborg wrote:

> OK!
>  - have a look here done in twenty minutes to show what I'm proud of!
> This is not mine - it's is the first one done as a prototype - later -
> ...muuuummmmyyy....
> Brushed Alu - everything hight standard etc - worth every pennie - I don't
> no - but I don't
> regret it at all! It's expensive and it's fun - Let's have fun!
>
> www.visicon.se/hbl
>
> Have mercy - I used an old Html- side and swtched the text to "swinglish"
> (Swedish-English that is!)
> It gives a clue how to use the "Hassle" in another way!
>
> If not satisfyed - can't help it - I love it!

Don't worry! Had a look, and it was most enjoyable and interesting.
And i apparently know how to understand Swinglish too!  ;-)

It looks a lot like the Hasselblad Flexbody, so is this perhaps one of the
contraptions your fellow Swede, nature photographer and genius, Holm�sen
produced? The one Hasselblad is said to have copied?

> "The camera has lernt me to see!"
> Dag Hammarskj�ld - Swedish former general secretary of the UN
>
> For me that's the truouh - havent done "THAT PIC" yet - and if .../smile/
> then there
> is a hit for the next one - a never ending story.

Who can say he or she has taken *that* picture yet?  And if you have, what
would you do next?

> I don't sell - I give away to friens and museums etc that is interested.
> There is no other mony in
> hobbyphotographing - than buying!

Feels good, though, to spend money on things you like, or even love. Doesn't
it?

> But You are FREE!

Well... there's the electricity bill to pay... the phone, or cable, too...
and now and again we need to replace worn keyboards, or just get some more
coffee... ;-)


From: "Bo Wrangborg" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HBL Distagon C50/4 Chrome ?????
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002


Yes - I didn't know that You did know the name Holm�sen - the inventor - and 
Hasselblad followed with flexbody!

More than 10 years after that! And who want's that - when there are small
very good LF-cameras for the 1/4 of that price!

They didn't pay him - they stole it - but he didn't bother!!!!!!

What You see on the pics on www.visicon.se/hbl is actually his prototype. Then many took up from where he started -
and made pre-flexbodies! This was a hit here in the late seventies for some of us that could afford that on.

For some of us here it's still a religion! "The Holm�sen Twist and Shift body."

You ca�n buy them for around 400$ to 700$ depending on the craftmanship - second hand today!!!!
OK I'll get more for mine - but perhaps in two years it's all over.

You can repair it yourself - You can take it apart yourself - and now they
are getting down in price - while many go for the digital camera.

But if You compare todays money of those of the seventies - our handcrafted
was still far bellow that of HBL. Even I could buy one!

Nowerdays You get a superb used HBL-equipment for the price of a higher end
prosumer digital with some accesories????

OK - it's about "shooting" for some " taking a picture" for some and withme
it's "making pictures" (we are getting fewer!) All of them are important - they produce "pics"!

But I hope that I can learn for about ten more years ...... really hope so...still I'm fit!


Contribute to Holm�sen and his prototype that made this possible for me!
He is an genius! I don't know if his book is translated to Swinglish - hmmm
sorry - English?

It stand out as the most valuable book regarding "nature-photographing" -
the English ones included that I have read!

MF - HBL - Seventies - buy it - it's cheap now when everyone is going totaly digital.

For me - this "Homl�sen" - never makes my gear old!

I pay my bills - this is just one of my hobbies - one must earn as well -
it's a pity though - I have a job as well!

I'm happy to have a psychologist - living and helping me to do my hobbies - on the sad side -
she earns that money on those who can not afford a hobby - or just is so ill - that they don't bother.
Let's give them some good pics. that make them happy for a second!

Non plus ultra!


Regards
Bo Wrangborg
Made in Sweden


From: "Max Perl" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Flex body - any experiences opinions?
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002


I newly got a Flexbody which I have used  for some rolls of film.
I use the Flexbody with a CFE 80/2.8 or a CFI 50/4. It takes some time to be
comfortable with the Flexbody and you have to know its limitations.

It is much slower to work with than the normal body. Don't expect to much of the
shift function. It is limited and in some cases non existing. It is the tilt function you
should be most interested in when buying a Flexbody. When you learn to use this
function it is very useful. With a 80 mm lens you can get depth from 30-40
cm to infinity on aperture 8 -11 in landscape pictures.


Max

"Rod" [email protected] skrev
> It looks interesting for the kind of photography I do. Plant and flower
> portraits, gardens/landscapes. Extreme dof at wider apertures and some
> perspective control would be very nice without moving into LF or Fuji
> GX680(too expensive and I prefer to stay with mechanical cameras).
> And I like square format.
> Any experiences/observations please.
>
> Rod


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody and Arcbody

If you want to control DOF, the FlexBody is what you want as it uses your
current Hasselblad lenses. The ARC body is a miniature view camera that
happens to take Hasselblad backs. Everything is different except the back.
The ONLY reason that you would want an ARC body is if you were
photographing architecture and need a lot of lens SHIFT. The FlexBody has
shift as well but only very little on the wide angle lenses. But plenty on
longer lenses. This does not effect DOF control however. The Flex does a
superb job of giving you DOF from your toe nails to infinity, with the lens
at its best f/stop. Like f/8.

I know. I have and use a FlexBody for landscape photography. It is KILLER!!!

Forget the Arc. Hasselblad no longer sells it anyway so it will not have
great support. It's too expensive for what it is. A little Rodenstock shift
camera that takes Hasselblad backs. Fine camera. Great for MF architecture.
But extravagant.

Jim

 Ken Martin wrote:
>I shoot mostly landscapes with my Hasselblad 500C/M.  Often times I must
>use the smallest f/stop on the lens to get the DOF I desire.  I have
>been thinking of purchasing a body with the some sort of perspective
>control.  I see Hasselblad offers a Flexbody and an Arcbody.  Can
>someone tell me the difference between the two and the advantages and
>disadvantages of each?
>Also can someone tell me what kind of DOF I can expect with these
>cameras?
>Any help or recommendations would be very much appreciated!!!!
>
>
>Ken


From: "Max Perl" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: H1 questions
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002


How wideangle do you need.
The shift restrictions on the Flexbody are:

CF 40/4 (no shift)
CF 50/4 (5mm)
CF 60/3.5 (10mm)

A shame you don't do macro work. A CFI 120mm on a Flexbody is very nice. I use the
tilt / bellows a lot more than the shift.

Max
...



Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fw: [HUG] WTB Used Flexbody

You are correct. No mask needed with tilt. All lenses are useful to the
full extent of tilt. 30mm thru 500mm.

The Flex is not a great camera for shift unless you only use a few lenses.
60mm - 150mm. Even then the outer lenses (60 & 150) are limited.

Tilt has no lens exceptions. Tilt is always in the optical center of the
lens. Lens coverage is NOT a factor in using tilt. Coverage is a factor
only when using shift.

Jim

you wrote:
>Jim:
>
>     I sorry to keep asking you questions but you are the expert on this
>camera.  Do you use the 4 x 5cm Format Mask when using the tilt?  It would
>seem from your previous answer that the full 6X6 is probably all useful with
>the tilt but not with the shift. (hopefully I am correct)  Thanks again for
>your help.
>
>Ken



Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: Flexbody

 Anton Zackaria wrote:
>Jim, I intend to buy a Flexbody someday, but curious about the function of
>this camera not really perform like real viewcamera, since it's only have
>rear movement. Can you tell me how's your experience with this camera lately
>when you went to Weston Beach? I appreciate your information in advance.
>Thanks, Jim...
>
>Anton


I have been using this camera ever since it was introduced. For landscape
work that needs enhanced DOF, it can't be beat. When I'm out photographing
coastlines, fields of spring flowers, tidal expanses, etc, this camera is king.

The back tilt gives precise Scheimpflug control AND always uses the optical
center of the lens. This is why you can tilt the back the full 28� and
never run out of coverage, with ANY lens. I use back tilt for DOF control
on my 4x5 Linhof Technikardan as well, simply because you remain in the
lens center and never run out of coverage, regardless of the lens being used.

You cannot correct in two directions at once as the FlexBody has no swings.
Just vertical shift (sometimes useful) and lots of very useful tilt.
Correcting focus in two directions at once not really doable anyway.
Stopping down usually solves the this perplexing conundrum.

Another feature is the built-in 22mm extension so close-ups without
additional extension tubes are easy. When the extension is racked all the
way back, most lenses focus slightly past infinity thus giving you more
control over focusing when the subject being focused on is out there near
the infinity lens mark.

When out in the field, this is my most used camera.

Jim



Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: R Barr [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] WTB Used Flexbody


Has anyone on the list had a chance to see the Keith Carter show in Austin? I
was just there. The show is almost all flex. Some really nice images. Prints
from all of his different series. Worth a look if you are near Austin anytime
soon.

Rob



Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fw: [HUG] WTB Used Flexbody

I haven't found any good use for the mask. It's simply deceiving you into
believing that a lens covers, for shift, more than it really does.

Jim

 I wrote:
>You are correct. No mask needed with tilt. All lenses are useful to the
>full extent of tilt. 30mm thru 500mm.



Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Flexbody

A short follow-up:

Looking thru some web reproductions of Flexbody work, such as
Chip Forelli's and Herminia Dosal's, it occurs to me that these
artists are working the themes of perceptual space in many ways
similar to what the impressionists were after. And not to get 'artsy'
about it, but there's a very interesting scientific basis for thinking in
terms of fine line visual differentiation versus coarse structures, as
regards the process of human sight. For anybody interested, I very
highly recommend the book "Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing"
by Harvard neurobiologist Margaret Livingstone. Although she
doesn't treat photography per se, many of the examples she uses
of paintings in her explanations for qualities of perception would
also apply, in fascinating ways, to photographs.

G.

PS Harry's Pro Shop in Canada tells me that they only sell about
two or three Flexbodies a year. I wonder why so few? Also, for
anybody interested, there is a reputable eBay dealer in Hassy gear
who sells new Flexbodies (he brings them in from Hong Kong to
California) for around $1,400. Tempting....

Jim Brick wrote:

Anton Zackaria wrote:
>Jim, I intend to buy a Flexbody someday, but curious about the
>function of this camera not really perform like real viewcamera,
>since it's only have rear movement. Can you tell me how's your
>experience with this camera lately when you went to Weston Beach? I
>appreciate your information in advance. Thanks, Jim...
>
>Anton

I have been using this camera ever since it was introduced. For
landscape work that needs enhanced DOF, it can't be beat. When I'm out
photographing coastlines, fields of spring flowers, tidal expanses,
etc, this camera is king.

The back tilt gives precise Scheimpflug control AND always uses the
optical center of the lens. This is why you can tilt the back the full
28� and never run out of coverage, with ANY lens. I use back tilt for
DOF control on my 4x5 Linhof Technikardan as well, simply because you
remain in the lens center and never run out of coverage, regardless of
the lens being used.

You cannot correct in two directions at once as the FlexBody has no
swings. Just vertical shift (sometimes useful) and lots of very useful
tilt. Correcting focus in two directions at once not really doable
anyway. Stopping down usually solves the this perplexing
conundrum.

Another feature is the built-in 22mm extension so close-ups without
additional extension tubes are easy. When the extension is racked all
the way back, most lenses focus slightly past infinity thus giving you
more control over focusing when the subject being focused on is out
there near the infinity lens mark.

When out in the field, this is my most used camera.

Jim



Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] RMfx viewfinder

Even though I have a RMfx finder for my FlexBody, I rarely use it. I only
use it if I have the camera very very low and I don't want to lay on my
belly. I use a focusing chimney finder exclusively. It makes FlexBody life
easy.

Jim



Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody/Keith Carter

For an idea of what can be done with a Flexbody, see Keith Carter's
book, Holding Venus. It's extraordinary. You might not like the
images -- though I have difficulty imagining anybody really not liking
them -- but they are powerful and provocative. Beautiful. A "must-
have" book for Flex owners.

G.



Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody/Keith Carter

carter does the opposite of what most flexbody owners try to do; he uses
the movements to minimize zone of focus rather than maximize.  it
is very thought-provoking, and i agree, any flex owner should
give the carter-style a shot, even if that owner originally might have bought
the flex for edge-to-edge sharp images.

-rei



Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 
From: Ken Martin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Focusing the Flexbody (Jim Brick this question may be for you)

There are at least two new Flexbody owners on this list and both of us have
asked the same question.  I also put this question to Hasselblad USA
technical and got a "I don't know" answer.  While it may seem like a stupid
question, I am asking it anyway.  What is the best and quickest method to
set up the DOF focus this camera.  Do you focus on the distant object first
and then work the tilt or is there some better procedure?  Thanks!

Ken Martin



Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 
From: Karl Wolz [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Focusing the Flexbody (Jim Brick this question may be for
you)

Ken,

Focus far - tilt near - adjust focus - adjust tilt - adjust focus, etc.

Generally, with a center axis tilt (as opposed to a base tilt, as used
in most large format field cameras, which use the reverse procedure) you
focus on the item in the background you want in focus, then tilt to
bring your foreground back into focus.  As you tilt, you'll most likely
throw the background out a bit, so you'll need to correct your focus.

I've never even held a flexbody, but I do LF work, and the rules should
be the same.  One of the surprises is just how little tilt is generally
needed to make the image work.  You are using what is called the
Scheimpflug rule, which states that the plane of the film, the plane of
sharp focus, and a plane through the nodal point of the lens will all
meet on a common line.

Do a web search for Scheimpflug for further details.  If you live near
Phoenix, drop me a note.

Karl Wolz
[email protected]



Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Focusing the Flexbody (Jim Brick this question may be for you)

Yes. What Karl said.

Jim

PS... But forget the Scheimpflug rules as they are all based around front
standard tilt. Which is off the lens axis and don't hold water compared to
rear center tilt. Which is the best!

Jim again



Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Focusing the Flexbody (Jim Brick this question may be for you)

Karl Wolz wrote:

> REAR tilt?  Are you talking about indirect tilt, in which you tilt the
> rear and then point the camera up?  Or does the Hassy violate rules of
> verticality?  I'm thinking architecture rather than field use, BTW.

Then don't think Flexbody.

Rear tilt, instead of front tilt, is employed because front tilt would shift
the image well out of the limited shift range of such a tiny contraption.
Rear tilt however keeps the film well and truly within the lens' image
circle, no matter how much you tilt the lens. And you can indeed achieve the
same results as you would get using front tilt, via indirect movements.

For architecture tilt is of not much use (you want to keep everything nicely
parallel), shift however is. And there's the rub.

The Flexbody is designed to take Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses, and they are no
good if you need serious shift. So, again, don't think architecture when you
are thinking Flexbody. Think playing with repositioning the plane of focus,
think Scheimpflug, but don't think architecture.



Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Focusing the Flexbody (Jim Brick this question may be for you)

i have personally found that tilt and focus on the flex
falls into what we used to call in school "hill-climbing"
optimizations; where you are varying two interdependent variables to
increase for some resultant value (e.g., near to far focus.)

it can be done somewhat intuitively; the only thing that's not so pleasant
is having to change those 10 and 20 degree fresnel lenses when your tilt
moves around so much.  also, if you want to keep the back perpendicular
to the ground, you need to adjust the tripod each time you change tilt.

if there's a silver bullet, i'd like to hear it too!

-rei



Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody screen question

[email protected] wrote:
>For Flexbody users, please advise: Can I switch out the accumat D
>screen that ships with the camera? It's a split prism/grid model, and
>I find it difficult to interpret. I'd much rather have the plain accumat
>D or Maxwell (I suppose... I've got one in an old Rolleiflex, and it's
>great). Are these easily switchable?? Could I, for example, switch
>with my plain accumat D from my 501 cm?
>
>Many thanks!
>
>G.


Yes, it can be swapped out. I did just exactly that. Got rid of the stupid
split and installed a plain GG Acute Matt screen. It is wonderful! But you
will have to have Hasselblad service do it as taking the GG Flex back apart
is real easy. Getting it back together is a G-I-A-N-T problem. I watched a
local technician attempt it on a Flex GG back and decided right there to
send mine in. They turned it around in a week.

Jim



Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 
From: Ken Martin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Flexbody experience

Since it seems to be a slow day on the list I would like to pass on a some
of my limited experience and invite some comments.  I have been out playing
a bit with my new Flexbody and this is what I am finding.  The camera works
great in the tilt mode but as  expected is somewhat limited in the shift
mode.  I still get some distortion in that probably could be corrected with
shift if the lens could handle it.  I think there are two alternatives to
correct the problem.

One is to use the mask that came with the camera and use more shift and the
other is to correct the distortion in Photoshop.  The mask obviously reduces
the size of the image on the film so that seems to be the least desirable.
When you correct he perspective of the image in Photoshop 7, the program
seems to resample and add pixels.  That concerns me, as my with my limited
knowledge it would indicate that as the computer resamples there would be a
loss of fidelity.  (what the computer thinks should be there may not be what
I think should be there)    I have printed a couple of 13"X13" prints and
they seem to look alright.   These I the biggest prints that I can make
without cropping the file into a rectangle  Has anyone tried this with
larger prints and if so what was the results?

Ken



Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody experience

Well, I'm also just starting to use the Flexbody too. Took it to the
National Cathdral yesterday. A couple observations: A little tilt goes
a long way (as has been pointed out on this list before). The screen
is abysmal, good for framing and partial focussing, but not much
else. To be useful it should be replaced with a plain Acute Matte,
but the size of the screen frame is not the same between the Flex
and the normal screens, so this is an operation for New Jersey. The
film wind unlock lever (on mine) isn't smooth. It's caused me to lose
several frames by forcing additional windings after removing the
back to get the film winder going (if you see what I mean). On the
other hand, the apparatus is light and generally easy to use. Apart
from my problems with the film wind unlock lever it seems very solid
and well built. It produces very interesting results, even with full tilt
and vignetting. I suspect it can be handheld for guesstimate shots
with some success (with a wide lens). Did I mention that it's also a
lot of fun?

On the mask -- Ken, I don't know if you've actually tried using yours,
but mine just falls out of the grooves it's supposed to fit in. I would
add this to my complaint list except that I don't see much need to
use the mask.

BTW, with the Flex and a Cfi 60 I thought I'd go back and try some
Tech-Pan since Barry Thornton has a new developer tuned just for
Tech-Pan, and since I think his diXactol is fabulous and since I
used to use Tech-Pan until I got tired of its finnicky nature with other
developers and (to me) its non-sharp look, despite its fine grain.
Anyhow, fresh Tech-Pan developed with BT's brew is really
amazingly good. Shot at 32, developed for 8 minutes. Super sharp,
with just about zero grain. I think the tanning effect of the developer
makes the film base more tractable, too. For those who've been
swearing by Tech Pan all along, you owe it to yourselves to give this
new developer a try! You can thank me later...


From: Jim Brick [[email protected]] 
Sent: Wed 3/19/2003 
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] FlexBody focusing technique

I use a Hasselblad Chimney mostly. Sometimes a RMfx finder if the Flex is
at a low angle. There is no problem focusing for max DOF using these
finders. I use a Schneider 6x aspheric loupe on my 4x5, but the Hass
chimney and reflex finders are more than adequate for the Flex.

Jim

Berle Stratton wrote:
>What Flexbody technique(s) do you use to maximize the DOF with rear
>tilt? I'm used to using a loupe on the monorail 4"x5" ground glass. Any
>experienced comments would be most appreciated.
>
>Gratefully,
>Berle Stratton
>(Vancouver, Washington, USA)


End of Page