Difference HasselbladArcBody vs. Flexbody

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by heinrich voelkel, Dec 4, 2005.

  1. heinrich voelkel

    heinrich voelkel Member

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hello, as I'm trying to make up my mind about one of the two for landscape and architectural work. Where are the differences between the two. What about the lens range? Which one provides the best shift capability?

    Anybody using one or both and can provide some pictures of the setup?

    Regards
    heinrich Voelkel
     
  2. André E.C.

    André E.C. Member

    Messages:
    1,520
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The Flexbody was introduced to allow tilt and shift movement using Hasselblad lenses and magazines. Although Zeiss lenses cover a greater area than 6x6 cm the amount of shift is limited, especially at wide apertures. Tilting the lens is not a problem as the film stays within the coverage angle of the lens. The limitations of movement of the Flexbody were overcome by the introduction of the Arcbody with its new range of Rodenstock lenses. These lenses, a 35mm Apo-Grandagon f4.5, a 45mm Apo-Grandagon f4.5 and a 75mm Grandagon-N f4.5 have a much greater coverage allowing much more movement. The Arcbody will not accept conventional Hasselblad lenses (how funny that can be?), but will take the standard Magazine (fantastic:smile:). The decision of which camera to use depends on what type of photography you`re going to do. For landscape or product photography, the Flexbody is probably the one to choose, especially for a photographer who is already a Hasselblad user. For Architectural photography, however, the extra coverage of the Rodenstock lenses is extremely useful for sure.


    http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassyflex.html

    Cheers

    André
     
  3. heinrich voelkel

    heinrich voelkel Member

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Thanks for the answer. I will need a real camera, so I go for a 4x5. Looks like too much hassle with either of the two.

    Regards
     
  4. highpeak

    highpeak Member

    Messages:
    833
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter:
    35mm
  5. heinrich voelkel

    heinrich voelkel Member

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Thanks for the thought, but it is too big, by far and to heavy to lug around the world. what I will have to pay for excess luggage can buy me a Porsche in short time.
    Thanks anyway.
     
  6. brent8927

    brent8927 Member

    Messages:
    310
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Heinrich,

    I tried out the Arcbody and Flexbody; personally I hated the Flexbody, and I stopped using it after just one photograph. It felt cheap, and really didn't give enough rise to be worth it, in my opinion. I actually did like the Arcbody, but only because you could carry it and use the viewfinder to compose an image much easier than with a 4x5. But, definetely not worth the money and nowhere near as versatile as a 4x5.