From digital to MF....need some help

Hey everyone,

I've learned photography using all digital equipment. I'm currently

shooting w/ a Canon 10d (ericnordquist.com) and enjoy the camera. I

would like to get into fine art black and white studio photography and

find that this is the area digital is lacking. I have a buddy willing

to sell me a Hasselblad 500cm w/ 120 macro cf, 80mm c, 120 back,

polaroid back, waist level finder, and shade for $1k. Is this a good

deal?

 

Also, is this camera good for loading Tri-X and shooting studio work,

or is the Mamiya RZ better?

 

Thanks for any comments or opinions,

-Eric

ericnordquist.com

I can't answer as to whether it is a good deal, I can say that a hassey is a great camera for loading tri-x and shooting studio work. In black and white, especially for something as deliberate and set up as studio shooting, I find a bigger negative is always going to be better, the mamiya would be a slightly larger negative. I also think the mamiya focuses closer than the hassey on its own because of its bellows focusing available. I would really like you to define what kind of studio photography you are going to be doing. Is it portraits? or tabletop and product?

 

In my opinion, and just my opinion, the best studio camera is a 4x5 monorail on a sturdy tripod or floorstand. It gives you flash sync up to 1/500th, a huge negative compared to 6x6 or 6x7 (which in turn makes it easier to print with) and camera movements that are a huge help with tabletop photography. Plus, a camera fitted with a graphloc back can easily be adapted to any of the high end digital backs that are now on the market.

If the camera is in good condition, the lenses are free of fungus or cloudiness and their shutters working properly, then yes, I'd say that's a really good deal.

 

If you don't want it, please let him know that I'd be interested! =)

 

The Hasselblad is very nice in the studio or out in the field. The Mamiya RB/RZ are more at home in the studio only because of its size and weight, IMO. The advantage of the Mamiya is the 6x7 matches standard print sizes better and you therefore get more efficient use of the film area. With the Hasselblad or any 6x6 camera you'll either have to crop the negative to get a rectangular print -- this gives you more freedom in the darkroom but "wastes" film area. Or you will have to trim the print to get a square final image.

 

Either a Hasselblad or Mamiya would be a good studio camera. It depends more on your preferences, I think. If you can, try both types of cameras and see which one you prefer.

To clarify the type of work, it would be B/W portraits. Thanks for the replies so far. I will check and make sure the lenses are fungus free.

How do you intend to print your images? Will it fit in your budget?

 

Are you sure that digital itself is what's lacking, or the cost to get what you want, or

possibly the level of your skill? all portraits here are digitally shot and Epson inkjet

printed, and the prints I've seen were gorgeous.

 

http://www.gormanphotography.com/gorman.html

The question: is this a good deal? is an easy one. Must be a very good buddy, because for that prize it is hard to find the 120mm second hands, without body and second lens. With a friend like that it should be no problem to try it out. And yes, Tri-X and Hasselblad is an excellent combination. Go for it.

You're killin' me here Eric! Next thing you'll tell us it's Canadian dollars :(<p>

What Theo said: try and buy.

6X7 isnt just slightly larger, its 54x69mm, 6x6 is 54x54mm,

Mag

 

6x7 is just 27% larger than 6x6.

 

We often hear that 35mm done properly approaches MF quality.

 

6x6 is 337% bigger that 35mm !

 

6x7 'IS' only just a little larger than 6x6.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

6x6 or 6x7 is a minor difference for most practical enlargements. 35mm to 6x6 or 6x7 is a world of a difference, though.<p>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com/Photos">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

To my mind the only advantage of 6x6 over 6x4.5 is that one does not have to turn the

camera for vertical shots. I don't care for the square and neither does the human eye all

that much. I like the rectangle and this has a large impact on the 6 x 7 aspect for me. I

always want to crop off the top to get a 5 x 7 rectangle so 6x7 isn't as big as most think.

 

To me 6 x 8 is the perfect aspect ratio.

I think you have the tools you need, but you just need to work harder with them. <p>

 

<u><A href =

http://www.photomediagroup.com/archive/2003-fall/trends.html>

http://www.photomediagroup.com/archive/2003-fall/trends.html</a></u> <p>

 

<i><blockquote> [ . . . ] some old legends absolutely love the new medium. Douglas

Kirkland, a veteran Look and Life magazine photographer who rocketed to fame more

than 40 years ago with his photos of Marilyn Monroe naked between white sheets, has

become almost messianic about digital, saying that the latest high-end digital

technology can exceed the technology of film. <p>

 

?If I take my best 35mm picture with optimum film and put it aside with an image from

a [Canon] 1Ds camera and blow it up 600 percent, the digital picture will be superior. It

doesn?t have noise. I never thought we?d arrive at this point,? said the Los Angeles-

based photographer, who works with Corbis for his many stock images. </blockquote>

</i><p>