Hasselblad V focusing screens and calibration

[tjv]

Hi all,

I'm wanting to buy a V body to use with my Credo 60 when I can't be bothered lugging around my Techno.

I'm looking at some good deals on a 500cm and 503cw. The later will obviously have the later acute matte focusing screen, but as yet not sure about the CM.

My question is what do people find the most useful screen with a DB? My preference is acute matte with split prism, but are they as useful with digital as will film, I.e are they accurate enough to trust over looking at a plain acute matte screen?

Also, who has sent the older (compared to later model CWs) to get the focus calibrated? Are older bodies harder to achieve accuracy, or have looser tolerances that make them a bad choice?

Lastly, acute matte screens are extremely expensive on eBay, are there any places I'd be advised to look instead?

Thanks,

TJV

 

[Charles S]

Been through this when i got my first DB for my 500C/M and missed a lot of shots due to focusing error.
Upgraded the screen in steps to end up at a Acute matte D, and had the body calibration checked out.
The screen made big difference, and the next big difference was a Chimney finder.

Good luck !

Hi all,

I'm wanting to buy a V body to use with my Credo 60 when I can't be bothered lugging around my Techno.

I'm looking at some good deals on a 500cm and 503cw. The later will obviously have the later acute matte focusing screen, but as yet not sure about the CM.

My question is what do people find the most useful screen with a DB? My preference is acute matte with split prism, but are they as useful with digital as will film, I.e are they accurate enough to trust over looking at a plain acute matte screen?

Also, who has sent the older (compared to later model CWs) to get the focus calibrated? Are older bodies harder to achieve accuracy, or have looser tolerances that make them a bad choice?

Lastly, acute matte screens are extremely expensive on eBay, are there any places I'd be advised to look instead?

Thanks,

TJV

 

[tjv]

Thanks for your reply!

I'm accepting that due to the older design of the V body and the limitations of pure GG focusing with relatively low magnification, focusing is not going to be easy. I guess I'm thinking that if I can get a body that has been calibrated (or I get it calibrated myself,) and has the acute matte screen alredy when I buy it–because they're so expensive to buy separately–I can get someting that will suit me well enough, espeically because I will always use a tripod and be photographing quite static subjects.

Do you think the later bodies are worth the premium over the older CM or even CX models if the focusing screens are the same? Are the older bodies built to less strict tolerances, or does a 'check to spec' essentially negate this?

Thanks again.

Been through this when i got my first DB for my 500C/M and missed a lot of shots due to focusing error.
Upgraded the screen in steps to end up at a Acute matte D, and had the body calibration checked out.
The screen made big difference, and the next big difference was a Chimney finder.

Good luck !

 

[pflower]

I have an old 503cx which, cosmetically, looks pretty beat up. I bought the CFV-50c for it and immediately found focusing problems. The CFV50 comes with a split screen which I found to be a huge improvement over the standard act matte with one caveat - it is most useful if you can focus on something vertical. However even with that assistance a huge number of exposures were not 100% sharp so I sent it off for a focus calibration - the seating of the mirror needed adjustment, as did the the bed in which the screen sits and the rear also needed adjustment. This was quick and pretty cheap and made an enormous difference. I found that handholding was not really an option but since you are going to use a trip that is irrelevant.

I can't comment on the differences between earlier and later bodies, but I can say that having had my old cx calibrated I found that focus was much more reliable and never considered buying a more recent body.

Thanks for your reply!

I'm accepting that due to the older design of the V body and the limitations of pure GG focusing with relatively low magnification, focusing is not going to be easy. I guess I'm thinking that if I can get a body that has been calibrated (or I get it calibrated myself,) and has the acute matte screen alredy when I buy it–because they're so expensive to buy separately–I can get someting that will suit me well enough, espeically because I will always use a tripod and be photographing quite static subjects.

Do you think the later bodies are worth the premium over the older CM or even CX models if the focusing screens are the same? Are the older bodies built to less strict tolerances, or does a 'check to spec' essentially negate this?

Thanks again.

 

[Charles S]

Thanks for your reply!

I'm accepting that due to the older design of the V body and the limitations of pure GG focusing with relatively low magnification, focusing is not going to be easy. I guess I'm thinking that if I can get a body that has been calibrated (or I get it calibrated myself,) and has the acute matte screen alredy when I buy it–because they're so expensive to buy separately–I can get someting that will suit me well enough, espeically because I will always use a tripod and be photographing quite static subjects.

Do you think the later bodies are worth the premium over the older CM or even CX models if the focusing screens are the same? Are the older bodies built to less strict tolerances, or does a 'check to spec' essentially negate this?

Thanks again.

No idea about the specs. Given the age of the bodies I would think it is more important how it was used. My C/M was an early model and it was fine. I also have a CX which was fine as well.

 

[photo-bowman]

Hello !

once Hasselblad has removed the limitation with the screwed in viewscreen (I think with introduction of the 500c/m) you can switch ANY screen you want in any of the cameras. So you can take out the screen of the 500cxi and put into an early model 500c/m.

My personal recomandation as I got a 500c/m with a CFV-50c back.... get a fine body that is in good working order and then get the finder you wish for. Also as mentioned above - when you buy a CFV-50 back you get a viewfinder with it that shows the limits of the sensor on the viewfinder as the back is obviously not a 6x6 back!

The sensor for the CFV-50c is when my memory serves 44x33mm

Hope that helps... if not ask away on......

 

[algrove]

If someone needs a split screen Acute Matte D, I have one I have never used. Mine has markings for the crop from a 6x6 to rectangular image.

 

[jng]

Agree with all that's been said. Note that some of these old bodies have changed hands so many times that you might find an older 500CM body with a newer Acute Matte screen (and vice versa, so beware). The body's provenance (usually unknown) and current condition are more important than its age (easily deduced from the serial number - see below *). A proper calibration of the entire focusing path as well as lens mount-to-back is essential to get good results, regardless. I use an IQ160 (basically the same as your Credo 60) on a 501CM. One big difference between the 501CM/503CW from all the other 500 series bodies is the larger gliding mirror, which eliminates vignetting in the viewfinder with longer focal length lenses. There's no effect on the actual image, only what you see in the viewfinder.

In terms of focusing, I find that the standard ground glass Acute Matte with late model waist level viewfinder gives me the most accurate focus. YMMV, of course. I also have a split image/microprism collar Acute Matte D screen - if you don't mind the markings for the crop sensor backs, you can pick these up new on BH for a lot less than used screens elsewhere on the web. While certainly easier to use, at least in my hands the split prism is less accurate but to be fair my camera was calibrated with my ground glass screen so the slight offset could be a calibration issue. I've read that the most accurate focus is obtained with the older, non-Acute Matte ground glass screens but the difficulty in using them in anything but bright light may make this impractical for some.

The late model waist level finder gives 4.5x magnification and is bright, which for me makes a huge difference compared to the chimney finder (2.5x mag?) and the various prism finders (2.5-3x mag, also dimmer due I guess to the mirrors). I went through a number of prisms and finders before settling on this as the best solution for my aging eyes. Like the focusing screens, the finders can be swapped around so even if you're looking at a later model body it may have the earlier finder (the late model has a rectangular latch for the magnifier whereas the older ones have a smaller round button).

Hope this helps. Good luck!

John

* here's the code for determining date of manufacture:

V H P I C T U R E S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Therefore a body with a serial number containing the letters RS was made in 1980.

 

[tjv]

Thanks so much for the replies to this thread, everyone. I very much appreciate it!

If I wasn't working on a relatively strict budget, I'd go ahead and get a 501cm of 503cm, but finances dictate that I need to look seriously at the older bodies. I've seen a few CW bodies priced really well, but once you add up the other parts needed things get a bit expensive...

I'm wanting to start with a body, 60mm lens and A12 back. Although it's likely to be more expensive where I live due to it being relatively remote, I'm wondering how much a full calibration as mentioned above by JNG costs? I'll need to factor that in to the final costs.

THanks again,

TJV

 

[tjv]

PS: thanks for the tip on there being different magnification with newer WLF models. I didn't know that, so very helpful! I much prefer WLF for the reasons you've described. They're so much brighter!

 

[jng]

A 500CM body in good condition will do the job just fine!

Where are you located? David Odess (located in Massachusetts) charges $195 for a complete CLA and alignment. If I recall correctly, I've paid similar prices at other shops in the US.

 

[sog1927]

The late model waist level finder gives 4.5x magnification and is bright, which for me makes a huge difference compared to the chimney finder (2.5x mag?) and the various prism finders (2.5-3x mag, also dimmer due I guess to the mirrors).

There's a flip-up eyepiece magnifier available for the later prism finders (anything from the PME on) that gives you an additional 2.5-3x for critical focus. The later prisms are brighter than the older prisms, too. They do add a lot of weight, though.

I tend to use a clear screen for high-magnification macro work - it takes some practice to learn to use it effectively (there's a mark on the screen which you can focus your eyes on so you're looking in the correct plane to focus the aerial image).

Another alternative is the focus screen adapter, which is attached in place of a back and lets you view directly on the focal plane (like a view camera). This removes mirror alignment as a source of focus error. It's obviously more cumbersome to use than the regular screen and finder.

I find the V-series (with the Acute Matte D) easier to focus than the Leica S, but then I have a lot more practice with the former.

 

[jng]

There's a flip-up eyepiece magnifier available for the later prism finders (anything from the PME on) that gives you an additional 2.5-3x for critical focus. The later prisms are brighter than the older prisms, too. They do add a lot of weight, though.

I tend to use a clear screen for high-magnification macro work - it takes some practice to learn to use it effectively (there's a mark on the screen which you can focus your eyes on so you're looking in the correct plane to focus the aerial image).

I've used the 3x flip-away (or flip-up) magnifier on the PME51. It works well as long as you're focusing on the center part of the image (the rest of the field is not in view). The whole contraption is sitting in my desk, waiting for me to get around to selling it...

Good point about using the etched cross-hairs on the screen as a reference point for true plane of focus.

Glad to see all the V system users crawling out of the woodwork!

John

 

[tjv]

I'm in New Zealand, so closest service centre is probably Melbourne, Australia, although it's possible they might have the equipment in Auckland. Trying to get my ducks in a row and figure out the hidden costs... still waiting to find out what focusing screen the CM I'm looking at has. Have already ascertained it has the newer folding WLF.

With regards the 60mm lenses, are there differences between them? Am I right in thinking the CF and CFi are optically the same? Is it a pretty good lens stopped down to f5.6?

A 500CM body in good condition will do the job just fine!

Where are you located? David Odess (located in Massachusetts) charges $195 for a complete CLA and alignment. If I recall correctly, I've paid similar prices at other shops in the US.

 

[jng]

LOL, not to scare you off but "hidden costs" and "Hasselblad V system" are more or less synonymous in my experience , at least until you get everything dialed in.

I haven't used the 60 myself but perhaps others here who have can chime in. In any case, the 60 CF and Cfi are optically identical. Hasselblad Historical provides a good reference for the various V lens series: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx.

 

[sog1927]

I

Glad to see all the V system users crawling out of the woodwork!

John

I will give up my Apo Tessar when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

A V-system SLR is really designed to be used from waist level as a square-format camera. The ergonomics of the camera just work better that way - it's comparatively light (without the added weight of prisms and grips the body only weighs 600g), you can see all the settings on the lens at a glance, it sits neatly in your hand and is very easy to fire and control. Being able to use it *well* from eye-level (particularly with rectangular formats) requires some additional hardware (prisms, grips or winders, etc.).

It'll be interesting to see if there's an updated CFV back in the future.

If they'd made a V-adapter for the X1D I'd have ordered one on the day it was announced.

 

[tjv]

Have committed to a 500cm with 60mm and A12 back. It has the standard focusing screen but is apparently pretty bright–I haven't seen it in person, but am buying from someone I trust. Will see how the screen goes as I can always upgrade later. Have also remembered that a good friend is an ex, factory trained service technician for Hasselblad 500 series cameras. He no longer has all the specialist Hasselblad jigs and tools, but says he can easily tune the focusing screen if needed. Score!

Thanks for the above tips regarding focusing screens. If it comes to it, are there any sources of acute matt D screens without the extra small sensor digital crop marks? To restate the above, the options on eBay are insane! Plus, on feabay it's near on impossible to know you're getting a genuine product.

 

[photo-bowman]

Have committed to a 500cm with 60mm and A12 back. It has the standard focusing screen but is apparently pretty bright–I haven't seen it in person, but am buying from someone I trust. Will see how the screen goes as I can always upgrade later. Have also remembered that a good friend is an ex, factory trained service technician for Hasselblad 500 series cameras. He no longer has all the specialist Hasselblad jigs and tools, but says he can easily tune the focusing screen if needed. Score!

Thanks for the above tips regarding focusing screens. If it comes to it, are there any sources of acute matt D screens without the extra small sensor digital crop marks? To restate the above, the options on eBay are insane! Plus, on feabay it's near on impossible to know you're getting a genuine product.

Congrats to getting the camera... and I do hope its what you expect.
As for the screen... with me (Germany) it was delivered as part of the CFV-50c back when I bought it at an offical Hasselblad dealer in Frankfurt. As I said before... I can work well with that one.

 

[PSon]

I would like to add the differences between the older Hasselblad cameras (500c, 500C/M, 501C, 503CX and 503CXi) versus the newer cameras (501CM and 503CW) is the gliding mirror mechanism. This gliding mirror technology is to attenuate or even eliminate the vignetting on the focus screen with long lens; it does not effect image. In addition, the newer cameras has a better material to reduce the flare inside the body. However this material causes cracks with time especially in dried and hot temperature environment. As mentioned the newer cameras has better focus screen and waist level finder. Thus the newer cameras come with the bright Accute Matte focus screen and the old cameras come with a dim focus screen. Remember it cost roughly about $300 to replace the old Hasselblad camera focus screen with an Accute Matt focus screen. Finally the difference between the 2 latest Hasselblad cameras models (501CM and 503CW) is the through the lens (TTL) flash metering function exists only in the 503CW with ISO setting for the TTL light sensor while the 501CM does not. The Hasselblad 503CW has two versions, one with ISO 800 (older) and the second version with ISO 3200. If you want the latest camera with these features and subtracting the feature that you probably will not use (TTL) for lower cost then the Hasselblad 501CM is your main option.
Aside note I hope that there will be more and better live view digital back available for the V mount in the future which will help the calibration.

 

[sog1927]

Finally the difference between the 2 latest Hasselblad cameras models (501CM and 503CW) is the through the lens (TTL) flash metering function exists only in the 503CW with ISO setting for the TTL light sensor while the 501CM does not.

And, of course, the 503 will accept the winder. I've found this to be a useful, if *heavy*, addition when using the camera at eye level.

Aside note I hope that there will be more and better live view digital back available for the V mount in the future which will help the calibration.

From your mouth to God's ears, as the saying goes.