[HUG ] SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SWC: I think I understand now...
- From: Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:12:48 +0200 (MEST)
Rickard,
I had the ZM 25 mm which worked fine with the M8. (the Biogon ZM 25 is
theoretically the closest thing to theSWC) But this Italian Flag thing was
very prominant with it on my M9. So, I sold it.
Tom of Oslo
> From: Richard Man [richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2012-03-30 11:30:55 MEST
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SWC: I think I understand now...
>
> The closest "magic" to a SWC Biogon is probably the Super Angulon, but it
> vignettes like mad on the M9. The ZM 21 Biogon is pretty good in that
> regard, matching to its name sake fairly well with similar angle of view,
> but of course shorter.
>
> I think the wonder of the SWC is also the medium format film. I did 4 test
> rolls so far and when the images are good, they sparkle. The clarity is
> just out of this world. May be it's because I am using the 2-bath Pyrocat
> now, but I did not see that type of image clarity even on the Mamiya 7II
> negs. The Leica M9 can be very very good, but size does matter...
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I have the Leica M9 and a WATE (16-18-21 mm 4,0) which possibly is the
> > closest to a 'digital SWC'. Allegedly with micro lenses. To what I can
> > see; it is mostly software corrections in the corners that makes this
> > possible. It works OK, but is not perfect. When thinking of how popular
> > the SWC was it is likely that a digital version would do good too. May be
> > it is not possible to have the same field of view yet with a digital
> > version. But how far is it possible to go and retain the excellent SWC
> > properties? I wonder.
> >
> > Tom of Oslo
> >
> > > From: Richard Man [richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 2012-03-30 08:16:10 MEST
> > > To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SWC: I think I understand now...
> > >
> > > I heard that all digital backs without microlens (meaning every one
> > except
> > > Phase One's P30/30+) work fine. You have the 645 crop at best though, and
> > > 33x44 at "worst."
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why could'nt Hasselblad (or somebody) try to make a digital version of
> > the
> > > > SWC?
> > > >
> > > > Tom of Oslo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/>
> > > // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/>
> > > // richard's personal photo blog: <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
> > > [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all
> > previous
> > > replies in your msgs. ]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/>
> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/>
> // richard's personal photo blog: <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
> replies in your msgs. ]
Other related posts:
