An SWC is primarily a sublime architecture camera. Straight lines in architectural objects will be straight lines in the end result (negative) as it should be. Thereby images shot with the SWC are razor sharp thanks to the thoroughly calculated one piece construction housing-lens (read as 'no compromise to quality') construction. A short focusing distance is of no importance unless one valuates a toiletroom as an architectural object. Nevertheless it's possible to shoot nice portraits with the SWC if one is willing to invest time to get the right results. I made some nice portaits of people in their home habitat with an SWC. In general, pictures of people in their home environment can be great if the photographer is blessed with the right eye to detect and appraise the social atmosphere in front of the lens. To translate this to a good picture is magic. Especially with a relatively time consuming camera like the SWC the person in front of the lens becomes more and more himself during the shoot. Time and converstation are the best ingredients to defrost a person. And secondly, due to the SWC's simple design it is no more present than a casual eye with no further pretentions, that also contributes to relaxation. In the right hands it can lift 'the moment' to great heights - the great Diane Arbus once quoted it perfectly: “A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know.” Bdw Andrew, I really like your pictures shown in the video, why on earth did you get rid of de SCW... ;)
Thanks for the very detailed comment. There is a lot to know about every camera and lens, and I only know so much. I got rid of this SWC because I picked up a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm lens (only had the 43mm early on) and figured 2 ultra-wide medium format cameras were too many. Still hard to say if I made the right decision. The cameras are very different in many ways so it is hard to compare them in a fair manner.
I have heard of Fomapan, but I have never seen it in 120 format, I will look into it. The last cheap 120 film I found was Arista EDU 100 which was nice but has become difficult to find.
@@boeju1 Interesting, I knew Kosmo was rebranded Fomapan, as well as a lot of other budget films popping up. Mean while the only film I could find for bulk resale was Kodak Vision 3.
i can't imagine what is lighter or smaller than this camera..... what are your options? and film, you seem to worry about 12 shots versus 10 shots being a big issue money wise? .... i think there's plenty things you mentioned more worthy of notice .... it's fabulous... but i guess it all depends on what you want to do....remember nothing is perfect.... i also have a mamiya 7ii and it's totally different thing..... we like what we like / maybe film cost is not for everyone...
I still prefer the Mamiya 7, I find the Rangefinder and light meter very useful, and the ability to change lenses vastly increases usage options. But I have to admit I do sometimes miss the SWC, it produced good images and is a very solid and reliable camera. All and all I am not a huge fan of medium format. 35mm has far more options in cameras and lenses all at a fraction the price, more shots and it fits in a pocket. I know the standard 'rebuttal' is "medium format=detail" the fact is if detail is of marginal concern you were shooting digital 10 years ago.
A SWC/M is not a gimmick. The professional photographer does not want to attract attention; he needs a tool to do his job. Amateurs want to attract attention by showing this camera.
I think you do not realize who is buying Hasselblad cameras and lenses. Hasseblad asked Carl Zeiss to design a top quality wide angle lens. Only a camera without a body with a mirror could be designed. That is your SWC Do you wish different negative seizes and different lenses buy a 500C/M.
@@andrewsmithphoto In an era where the capabilities of mobile photography surpassed that of previous gen DSLRs/film cameras, hobbyists actually don't care much about the end result. They are after the experience, the process but pretend to be for better IQ etc. Otherwise, why would anyone carry a heavy, bulky view camera and expensive films not to mention, the cumbersome process of developing , storing & printing it. Because they are after the expereince and for all these film shooters, that's what matters. The experience of using, say a 500 CM or SWC or Xpan, is entirely different than that we get from a latest mirror-less camera. Now which one gives the 'better' experience is a matter of personal choice. Having a camera like SWC in 1958 was a real need and professionals bought it as a tool. But in this pre-covid, era, SWC serves a different purpose for certain section of hobbyists.
A very cool camera I have wanted to try for a while. I also like the new tighter photo heavy format.
Thanks, I will try to make more like this.
An SWC is primarily a sublime architecture camera. Straight lines in architectural objects will be straight lines in the end result (negative) as it should be. Thereby images shot with the SWC are razor sharp thanks to the thoroughly calculated one piece construction housing-lens (read as 'no compromise to quality') construction. A short focusing distance is of no importance unless one valuates a toiletroom as an architectural object. Nevertheless it's possible to shoot nice portraits with the SWC if one is willing to invest time to get the right results. I made some nice portaits of people in their home habitat with an SWC. In general, pictures of people in their home environment can be great if the photographer is blessed with the right eye to detect and appraise the social atmosphere in front of the lens. To translate this to a good picture is magic. Especially with a relatively time consuming camera like the SWC the person in front of the lens becomes more and more himself during the shoot. Time and converstation are the best ingredients to defrost a person. And secondly, due to the SWC's simple design it is no more present than a casual eye with no further pretentions, that also contributes to relaxation. In the right hands it can lift 'the moment' to great heights - the great Diane Arbus once quoted it perfectly: “A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know.” Bdw Andrew, I really like your pictures shown in the video, why on earth did you get rid of de SCW... ;)
Thanks for the very detailed comment. There is a lot to know about every camera and lens, and I only know so much. I got rid of this SWC because I picked up a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm lens (only had the 43mm early on) and figured 2 ultra-wide medium format cameras were too many. Still hard to say if I made the right decision. The cameras are very different in many ways so it is hard to compare them in a fair manner.
Fomapan 100 is below 5 dollars in B&H. I've used it a lot and it's quite good.
I have heard of Fomapan, but I have never seen it in 120 format, I will look into it. The last cheap 120 film I found was Arista EDU 100 which was nice but has become difficult to find.
@@andrewsmithphoto Thats technically the same film ;)
@@boeju1 Interesting, I knew Kosmo was rebranded Fomapan, as well as a lot of other budget films popping up. Mean while the only film I could find for bulk resale was Kodak Vision 3.
i can't imagine what is lighter or smaller than this camera..... what are your options? and film, you seem to worry about 12 shots versus 10 shots being a big issue money wise? .... i think there's plenty things you mentioned more worthy of notice .... it's fabulous... but i guess it all depends on what you want to do....remember nothing is perfect.... i also have a mamiya 7ii and it's totally different thing..... we like what we like / maybe film cost is not for everyone...
I still prefer the Mamiya 7, I find the Rangefinder and light meter very useful, and the ability to change lenses vastly increases usage options. But I have to admit I do sometimes miss the SWC, it produced good images and is a very solid and reliable camera. All and all I am not a huge fan of medium format. 35mm has far more options in cameras and lenses all at a fraction the price, more shots and it fits in a pocket. I know the standard 'rebuttal' is "medium format=detail" the fact is if detail is of marginal concern you were shooting digital 10 years ago.
The 220 film is for sale in ROC.
Please provide a link.
A SWC/M is not a gimmick.
The professional photographer does not want
to attract attention; he needs a tool to do his job.
Amateurs want to attract attention by showing this camera.
I think you do not realize who is buying Hasselblad cameras and lenses.
Hasseblad asked Carl Zeiss to design a top quality wide angle lens.
Only a camera without a body with a mirror could be designed.
That is your SWC
Do you wish different negative seizes and different lenses buy a 500C/M.
I know this might shock you but... it's not 1958 anymore.
@@andrewsmithphoto In an era where the capabilities of mobile photography surpassed that of previous gen DSLRs/film cameras, hobbyists actually don't care much about the end result. They are after the experience, the process but pretend to be for better IQ etc. Otherwise, why would anyone carry a heavy, bulky view camera and expensive films not to mention, the cumbersome process of developing , storing & printing it. Because they are after the expereince and for all these film shooters, that's what matters. The experience of using, say a 500 CM or SWC or Xpan, is entirely different than that we get from a latest mirror-less camera. Now which one gives the 'better' experience is a matter of personal choice. Having a camera like SWC in 1958 was a real need and professionals bought it as a tool. But in this pre-covid, era, SWC serves a different purpose for certain section of hobbyists.
@@rcmanoj😊
@@rcmanoj the experience is important, at least for me.
It is BLASPHEMY to do streetphotography with a Hasselblad SWC/M.