Hasselblad SWC re-invented

[fotophil]

During my days of film shooting, I was intrigued with the magical view of my SWC. The fixed mount 38mm full frame square format camera had an amazing 72 degree angular view in both the vertical and horizontal directions and it was truly a super wide camera! Unfortunately when I tried to convert my SWC to digital the magic quickly disappeared because of both the a significant crop factor and relatively poor optical performance.

It seems that the introduction of the new super wide angle 21mm Lens may have opened the door for a new Hasselblad SWC type camera. A 33mm square format combined with the 21mm lens provides almost the same 72 degree angular coverage as the old SWC. Although nobody wants to throw away pixels associated with square cropping, the new X2D will have twice as many pixels than the X1D. At this point the SWC argument is pretty academic because there are few 21mm lenses and no X2D cameras available but just wait until next year (or maybe the year after)!

 

[Jan]

Unfortunately when I tried to convert my SWC to digital the magic quickly disappeared because of both the a significant crop factor and relatively poor optical performance.

The crop factor depends on the back. Shooting with LCC profile images will give a very decent result but obviously it depends on what your expectations are.

Having that said, if an XD2 is on the wall and you are game, go for it.

 

[Frankly]

For me the attraction of the SWC was the design and style, it's such a cool looking gadget. Might be awhile before the modern cameras catch up.

Never cared for the images unless they were Jan Staller's or maybe some of Lee Freidlander's. Kind of gimmicky for an entire body of work but useful for commercial situations.

 

[Godfrey]

For me the attraction of the SWC was the design and style, it's such a cool looking gadget. Might be awhile before the modern cameras catch up.

Never cared for the images unless they were Jan Staller's or maybe some of Lee Freidlander's. Kind of gimmicky for an entire body of work but useful for commercial situations.

It's a measure of the photographer using ultra-wide lenses (and other niche/edge imaging devices like fisheye lenses, ultra ultra telephotos, etc) as to whether or not their work achieves being high quality photographs rather than "gimmicky".

The Hasselblad SWC was a personal dream of mine for 35 years, and I was not disappointed one iota when I actually acquired one in 2002. I love the photographs it makes, despite the work involved in making them not gimmicky. I agree that it is one cool camera...

Hasselblad 500 SWC
Ilford Delta 3200​

My holy grail is a analog in digital capture of the SWC. The Hassy X1D with the 21mm lens would do well, and a 39 Mpixel 33x33 mm square format sensor would be just fine, but I'll likely never go down that route. A very close simulation of what I want can be had with the Leica M-D fitted with the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH lens, with the photos cropped square for 16 Mpixel images. I've done quite a bit of that work with the SL using the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5, but no longer have that equipment to work with.

Leica SL + Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5
ISO 100 @ f/6.8 @ 1/30​

16 Mpixel (4000x4000 pixels) is enough for the work I want to do, since I'm not printing to extremely large sizes (that's already a 17x17" print area at 240 ppi, larger than I can print), and it's more than enough to capture very fine details with the WATE when used correctly.

G

 

[B L]

..........A very close simulation of what I want can be had with the Leica M-D fitted with the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH lens, with the photos cropped square for 16 Mpixel images. I've done quite a bit of that work with the SL using the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5, but no longer have that equipment to work with.



16 Mpixel (4000x4000 pixels) is enough for the work I want to do, since I'm not printing to extremely large sizes (that's already a 17x17" print area at 240 ppi, larger than I can print), and it's more than enough to capture very fine details with the WATE when used correctly.

G[/QUOTE]

I have a Leica 16-18-21 (WATE) and I will welcome any X1D owner in Yorkshire to meet me to experiment with it to find out if its an ideal partenership between lens and body.

 

[Godfrey]

..........A very close simulation of what I want can be had with the Leica M-D fitted with the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH lens, with the photos cropped square for 16 Mpixel images. I've done quite a bit of that work with the SL using the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5, but no longer have that equipment to work with.



16 Mpixel (4000x4000 pixels) is enough for the work I want to do, since I'm not printing to extremely large sizes (that's already a 17x17" print area at 240 ppi, larger than I can print), and it's more than enough to capture very fine details with the WATE when used correctly.

G

I have a Leica 16-18-21 (WATE) and I will welcome any X1D owner in Yorkshire to meet me to experiment with it to find out if its an ideal partenership between lens and body.

It will be interesting, if anyone takes you up on that, to see whether the WATE will cover the 33x33 format well. The SWC FoV will be closest to a WATE set to 21mm on that format: 21mm on 33 square is just a little wider than 38mm on 6x6.

Forward the SWC Digital!

G