[HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SWC: I think I understand now...
- From: Richard Man <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:40:28 -0700
I sold my 21ZM and got the 25ZM because I thought the angle of view suits
me better. Then I decide to do a long term project that involves
environmental portrait so I thought a 21mm Biogon would be ideal, and
rather than getting the ZM21 again, I decided to try the SWC...
Since I mainly post process to B&Wm I don't find the 25ZM vignetting an
issue on my M9. You can probably code it as one of the Leica 24mm lens too.
I know people have good luck with it.
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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. ]
>
--
// 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:
