Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
501cm or 503cw
- Thread starter eatstickyrice
- Start date
jotloob
Well-Known Member
The 503CW was introduced late autumn 1996 . The TTL flash meter setting was up to 800 ASA . I bought that camera at that time , shot a couple of films , but sold it again , 1/2 year later . Now , today I have a "newer" 503CW again (built in 2004 and for half the price , i got for my first 503CW ) and it has a setting up to 3200ASA . Does anyone know , when that modification was done ? ? I was not aware of that setting change , till this thread was opened .
simonpg
Active Member
Jurgen, while I do not know for a fact, I understand that the "slower" version ran only for the first year (or two at the most).
Richard highlighted a good point about the ease of circuit upgrade - if you have a really nice body and struggle with the asa limitations an upgrade is not a hassel. Gee having said that it sounds like men dealing with women!
Marc, I agree re the D40 - light and a sinch to use giving lovely light. I also looked into the Quantum and was very impressed by their latest models - but just too "high end" for my needs. What interested me most about one or two models is that they measure the key subject distance versus the overall distance so that coverage does not overly white out the key subject - I recall that's a main feature of its own auto aperture mode resulting in a major improvement in flash illumination quality. It's much like what Canon introduced in the 580EX's ETTL II system which also measures the specific key subject distance as an main factor in the new ETTL function calculations.
Richard highlighted a good point about the ease of circuit upgrade - if you have a really nice body and struggle with the asa limitations an upgrade is not a hassel. Gee having said that it sounds like men dealing with women!
Marc, I agree re the D40 - light and a sinch to use giving lovely light. I also looked into the Quantum and was very impressed by their latest models - but just too "high end" for my needs. What interested me most about one or two models is that they measure the key subject distance versus the overall distance so that coverage does not overly white out the key subject - I recall that's a main feature of its own auto aperture mode resulting in a major improvement in flash illumination quality. It's much like what Canon introduced in the 580EX's ETTL II system which also measures the specific key subject distance as an main factor in the new ETTL function calculations.
I wonder if the Quantum users have as much difficulty with inconsistent flash exposures as Canon users do? It's pretty well established that many Canon users experience unpredictable results ... especially true for wedding shooters on a forum I frequent.
Sometimes these "improvements" are anything but.
Digital is a good ex&le. Very precise exposures are needed due to the shorter dynamic range of digital capture compared to film, while being less tolerant of overexposure. Many digital users have resorted to using Auto Eye type flashes to achieve more consistent results.
Perfect case in point is the Leica DMR which doesn't offer TTL flash ... a seemingly big drawback, but in reality it's not because using a Metz 54 on Auto provides quite consistent flash exposures ... or at least more consistent than my Canon 580EXs. That the Canon flashes don't offer Auto is an irritation.
One thing I can say with a fair amount of certainty is that the 503CW/D-40 flash combo in practice has provided the most reliable flash exposures of any system I've ever used. There is something to say for simplicity and meeting expectations without even having to think about it.
We need to attract more Hasselblad users here. I love this forum and the little cadre of contributors sharing their knowledge.
Sometimes these "improvements" are anything but.
Digital is a good ex&le. Very precise exposures are needed due to the shorter dynamic range of digital capture compared to film, while being less tolerant of overexposure. Many digital users have resorted to using Auto Eye type flashes to achieve more consistent results.
Perfect case in point is the Leica DMR which doesn't offer TTL flash ... a seemingly big drawback, but in reality it's not because using a Metz 54 on Auto provides quite consistent flash exposures ... or at least more consistent than my Canon 580EXs. That the Canon flashes don't offer Auto is an irritation.
One thing I can say with a fair amount of certainty is that the 503CW/D-40 flash combo in practice has provided the most reliable flash exposures of any system I've ever used. There is something to say for simplicity and meeting expectations without even having to think about it.
We need to attract more Hasselblad users here. I love this forum and the little cadre of contributors sharing their knowledge.
simonpg
Active Member
Marc I am very surprised to hear that many Canon ETTL users have inconsistent exposures. I've had my EOS 1vHS and 550EX for 6 years now and use the 550EX 80% of the time. About 80% of that time I keep a Stofen diffuser on the 550EX too.
Whenever I have an issue with flash exposure I can put it to how I used it - never really to a weakness on the Canon system's part.
I have done hundreds of outdoor party shooting and get 100% perfect balanced light. I've also done hundreds of indoor and very dark party shooting and got 95% perfect subject exposure and even balanced light. I think 99% of the enviro-portraits I have shot too (friends' children playing etc) have delighted me (I'm fussier than my friends!)
.
The remaining 5% has come down to me using my 24-70 f2.8 wide and not locking the subject flash exposure before framing the shot.
With the D40/503cw combination I've also been happy but have to better master flash compensation techniques / become more predictive to optimise the ambient light balance - that I'm sure comes down to intuition and "feel" for the light and how the D40 / 503CW interpret that. I suppose I should concentrate on shooting many rolls of film one weekend to develop / perfect my technique.
What do you think is the optimal diffuser to put in front of the D40's bulb? How many stops does it cost?
Whenever I have an issue with flash exposure I can put it to how I used it - never really to a weakness on the Canon system's part.
I have done hundreds of outdoor party shooting and get 100% perfect balanced light. I've also done hundreds of indoor and very dark party shooting and got 95% perfect subject exposure and even balanced light. I think 99% of the enviro-portraits I have shot too (friends' children playing etc) have delighted me (I'm fussier than my friends!)
The remaining 5% has come down to me using my 24-70 f2.8 wide and not locking the subject flash exposure before framing the shot.
With the D40/503cw combination I've also been happy but have to better master flash compensation techniques / become more predictive to optimise the ambient light balance - that I'm sure comes down to intuition and "feel" for the light and how the D40 / 503CW interpret that. I suppose I should concentrate on shooting many rolls of film one weekend to develop / perfect my technique.
What do you think is the optimal diffuser to put in front of the D40's bulb? How many stops does it cost?
Ahhh, Simon you answered your own question ... EOS1V ... which means you are using film.
Most Canon wedding shooters are using digital. They never had a problem until switching to digital which revealed the inconsistent flash issues. Why? Because digital has 1) a shorter dynamic range than film 2) has less tolerance for overexposure.
Some have overcome the Canon digital issue through selection of custom functions in their cameras menu. I don't quite understand it yet, but am trying to learn.
Why I like the D40 and the 503's flash metering is that even when I put the digital back on the camera it still is consistent.
Most Canon wedding shooters are using digital. They never had a problem until switching to digital which revealed the inconsistent flash issues. Why? Because digital has 1) a shorter dynamic range than film 2) has less tolerance for overexposure.
Some have overcome the Canon digital issue through selection of custom functions in their cameras menu. I don't quite understand it yet, but am trying to learn.
Why I like the D40 and the 503's flash metering is that even when I put the digital back on the camera it still is consistent.
Oh, Simon, pictured here is my all-time favorite D-40 wedding photography diffuser. The first one I bought from some someplace like Delta, then it disappeared from sale, so I made my own (shown below).
I'm usually shooting up close and personal at weddings, and I like the wrap-around light this creates ... plus the coverage is so wide I can swap lenses without regard to adjusting the flash
modifier. Weddings are hectic as can be, and the less you have to fuss with gear the better.
I'm usually shooting up close and personal at weddings, and I like the wrap-around light this creates ... plus the coverage is so wide I can swap lenses without regard to adjusting the flash
modifier. Weddings are hectic as can be, and the less you have to fuss with gear the better.
I've been using Quantum and Sunpak flashes in manual or auto mode with my 555ELD and Kodak digital back. TTL is very iffy with digital (unless the latest backs are improved) since it depends on light reflected from the film emulsion and the reflectivity of CCD chips differs from that of film. Also, the Hasselblad sensor covers a 40mm x 40mm area and my digital chip is 37mm x 37mm so that some of the black outer frame is measured. From what I know, the dynamic range of digital exceeds that of film. With the way Kodak designed it hardware and software, it is very difficult to blow out a shot. In fact, unlike Nikon and others, Kodak actually performs better with slight overexposure.
That's interesting Larry. Every report I've read and all my personal experience says the dynamic range of neg film is at least 1 stop greater for color and maybe 2 stops for B&W compared to transparency films and digital sensors.
Micheal Reichman of the Luminous Landscape has some interesting information concerning this.
Micheal Reichman of the Luminous Landscape has some interesting information concerning this.
> Marc, I did my comparisons between my ProBack plus (ISO 100) and Fuji Ast ia 100 transparency. Negative film will definitely fare better. Head to hea d shots were taken of the same subject at the same distance, using the exac t same exposure. Dynamic range of digital was distinctly better, with blown out areas on film captured by digital and shadow areas recovered with the digital. Kodak technology may be different in that they worked to preserve maximal dynamic range (at the expense of some contrast). You really have to try hard to blow out a shot with the Kodak. I haven't tried the Imacon or Leaf backs. As far as Reichmann is concerned, he gets to try very expensive equipment that neither of us (at least me) could afford.
There is a lot to be said for the value of 'apparently' simple, elegant solutions -- which may explain why I have always preferred purely mechanical cameras since the time the first fully-auto Canon SLR was introduced. I never cared much for those or other similar cameras from the word go: at that time I was 18 and only beginning in photography, and my initial impression was that ceding control to the camera was fundamentally ass-backwards. Automation is undeniably a great tool to be utilized when warranted by circumstance, but with it comes the real risk of losing the fine control generally necessary to create precisely the image one intends. Mind you, this is not to say I didn't appreciate the qualities of the Minox EL I picked up not long afterwards 
On that note, I find this thread's turn toward discussing the merits of different flash units quite timely and 'illuminating' (sorry for the irrestible but fitting pun). Back in the '80s I used a Metz unit (CT-45?) and found its basic automation to be 'just right'. From what has been said here it sounds as if the D-40 would provide similar functionality, but would it provide sufficient throw to illuminate the foreground evenly in a close landscape shot using a wide angle lens such as the 50? Or would I be better advised to move up to a Quantum unit?
Marc: Thank-you for the shot of your wedding set-up, it provides an uncommon illustration of the dimensions of the D-40 and winder relative to the body. It also illustrates the value of the winder as a grip when using a cold shoe-mounted flash -- and appears to serve well as a means to balance-out the entire outfit. Two questions:
1. Can anyone recommend a flash that would be suitable for day-hiking (compactness is an issue) and capable of supporting a SCA unit compatible with the 503? Or does something like that actually exist?
2. Can the mounting cl& on the winder be switched-out to accomodate an Arca Swiss-type cl&?
On that note, I find this thread's turn toward discussing the merits of different flash units quite timely and 'illuminating' (sorry for the irrestible but fitting pun). Back in the '80s I used a Metz unit (CT-45?) and found its basic automation to be 'just right'. From what has been said here it sounds as if the D-40 would provide similar functionality, but would it provide sufficient throw to illuminate the foreground evenly in a close landscape shot using a wide angle lens such as the 50? Or would I be better advised to move up to a Quantum unit?
Marc: Thank-you for the shot of your wedding set-up, it provides an uncommon illustration of the dimensions of the D-40 and winder relative to the body. It also illustrates the value of the winder as a grip when using a cold shoe-mounted flash -- and appears to serve well as a means to balance-out the entire outfit. Two questions:
1. Can anyone recommend a flash that would be suitable for day-hiking (compactness is an issue) and capable of supporting a SCA unit compatible with the 503? Or does something like that actually exist?
2. Can the mounting cl& on the winder be switched-out to accomodate an Arca Swiss-type cl&?
My previous MF back was a Kodak Proback used on a Contax 645.
The range of that back is indeed impressive. I never compared it to transparency film, just neg. films like Kodak Portra 160NC which fared better in contrasty wedding conditions.
I still use those films for that very reason.
I'm now using a H2D 22 meg Imacon which is a true 16 bit capture as compared to the ProBack which is a 12 bit.
Remains to be seen how this back will fare ... especially after it is upgraded to a 39 meg sensor this summer.
The range of that back is indeed impressive. I never compared it to transparency film, just neg. films like Kodak Portra 160NC which fared better in contrasty wedding conditions.
I still use those films for that very reason.
I'm now using a H2D 22 meg Imacon which is a true 16 bit capture as compared to the ProBack which is a 12 bit.
Remains to be seen how this back will fare ... especially after it is upgraded to a 39 meg sensor this summer.
floridarich
Member
Wayne Hass (Bahngeist)
I use a Metz ‘mecablitz’ 40MZ-3I (circa 1999) with a SCA adapter for Haselblad.
Richard
I use a Metz ‘mecablitz’ 40MZ-3I (circa 1999) with a SCA adapter for Haselblad.
Richard
Marc, how does the H2D fare in comparison with your old Kodak 645? My quest ion is less in terms of 12-bit vs 16-bit than tolerance for overexposure. K odak did something with their DSP electronics to give extreme tolerance for overexposure. Also, do you get a usable ISO 400 with the H2D? That's somet hing I'm missing with my current equipment. The CFV looks pretty attractive when my Kodak finally dies out (end of service for Kodak Probacks is end o f 2007). Most of my work is nature and landscape so wedding-type films are usually not in the mix.
Can't answer that with any degree of certainty yet Larry.
What is impressive are that the files are DNG and recognized in Adobe Camera RAW ... as well as Hasselblad/Imacon files that can be opened in Flexcolor.
Just like the software for the Kodak back, it takes time to learn the possibilities.
I currently also have a 96C that seems to produce more film like results than I got from the Kodak back. It should be pointed out that Kodak makes the Imacon sensors as well as those for Phase One.
I've shot with ISO 400, but you do need to take care with the exposures and keep the toe to the far right on the histogram.
What is impressive are that the files are DNG and recognized in Adobe Camera RAW ... as well as Hasselblad/Imacon files that can be opened in Flexcolor.
Just like the software for the Kodak back, it takes time to learn the possibilities.
I currently also have a 96C that seems to produce more film like results than I got from the Kodak back. It should be pointed out that Kodak makes the Imacon sensors as well as those for Phase One.
I've shot with ISO 400, but you do need to take care with the exposures and keep the toe to the far right on the histogram.
texascowgrower
New Member
So, Mark, what did you "make" the diffuser out of?
Hi,
Since this is my first post, I like to introduce myself. My name is Ruediger Merz, Rudy is the short form, and I love to take images with the Hasselblad. I also love to take images with my Nikon D2H. I mainly use the blad for B&W Landscape and the Nikon for Birds and Color.
Regarding Dynamic Range. IME the Dynamic range of positive material, which is Digital and Slides, is smaller than that of the Negative Material, especially with B&W where you can adjust the negative in the development process. That is what I did for the last 3 weeks. Calibrating my Hasselblad and my work flow for the Zone System. I also did a comparison between the Nikon D2H and the Hasselblad. Here is a link of the results: Comparison Digital vs. Analog. What I found out is that the Dynamic Range of Digital goes from Zone I to Zone VIII and that from B&W from Zone I to IX. The Development was N (10 minutes in DD-X). I can adjust the negative scale, to a certain degree, through expansion and contraction. This is just not possible with digital or slides.
This is one of the reasons why I decided to photograph Landscape in B&W.
This is a great Forum, keep it up.
Rudy
AvianArt
Since this is my first post, I like to introduce myself. My name is Ruediger Merz, Rudy is the short form, and I love to take images with the Hasselblad. I also love to take images with my Nikon D2H. I mainly use the blad for B&W Landscape and the Nikon for Birds and Color.
Regarding Dynamic Range. IME the Dynamic range of positive material, which is Digital and Slides, is smaller than that of the Negative Material, especially with B&W where you can adjust the negative in the development process. That is what I did for the last 3 weeks. Calibrating my Hasselblad and my work flow for the Zone System. I also did a comparison between the Nikon D2H and the Hasselblad. Here is a link of the results: Comparison Digital vs. Analog. What I found out is that the Dynamic Range of Digital goes from Zone I to Zone VIII and that from B&W from Zone I to IX. The Development was N (10 minutes in DD-X). I can adjust the negative scale, to a certain degree, through expansion and contraction. This is just not possible with digital or slides.
This is one of the reasons why I decided to photograph Landscape in B&W.
This is a great Forum, keep it up.
Rudy
AvianArt
Melton, I had a diffuser made by Gary Fong the wedding photographer/marketer called the Light Sphere that custom fit a Canon 550EX flash head.
With it came a dome cap. I switched to the 580EX and the Light Sphere no longer fit. So I used super glue to attach the old dome to a spare D-40 reflector.
With it came a dome cap. I switched to the 580EX and the Light Sphere no longer fit. So I used super glue to attach the old dome to a spare D-40 reflector.
> Were you working in JPG or NEF (Nikon RAW) format on the digital? > I just picked up a D1H and have not had a chance to do a > comparison. However there is considerable discussion on the digital > groups of how NEF retains more information than JPG , which can be > extracted digitally at a later date. Also, they continually stress > one should UNDEREXPOSE. Once you max a sensor site, all information > is gone.