Jump to content

Is anyone actually using a Hasselblad anymore


trex1

Recommended Posts

OK,

 

I have pretty much dumped all of my film gear with the exception of the Eos 55 body that I

keep in a closet, and never actually use, as a back up for slide film for my EOS digital.

Nonetheless, having owned every camera you can imagine, and the only one I have not

used being a Hassy, I sold every spare bit of gear that was not nailed down to buy myself a

nice Hassy 501. Now that I have it, and have played around with it a little, I am wondering

if there is any real use to it? Do any of you guys actually use a Hassy, and why?

 

Would I be better of selling it for a nice lens for my digital eos? I hope someone can tell me

a good reason to keep it. I do enjoy the chromes, but hope to hear what my fellow

denizens think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been quite a while since anyone has used a Hasselblad. Most are now in landfills. The manufacturer's been out of business for years, parts are unobtainable, and anyway even a cheap digicam does it all better.

 

That you just bought one marks you as a grade A number one idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't figured it out, Dan is joking (I hope!) Is anyone actually using a Hasselblad anymore? Actually, yes. Just browse the threads in this forum and you'll soon see.

 

The 501CM is my primary camera, followed by my Canon 20D. The shot-to-print process is longer with the Hassy and requires somewhat more work, but the results are worth it. the Zeiss lenses are superior to anything hanging off a DSLR, and the 6X6 format gives a richness and depth to the image that no DSLR can match. Keep the 501, use it, and you'll see what I mean.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Hasselblad has a slight edge over the new DSLRs with 10MP and more. You can see some difference between a D2x and a 6x6cm Reala image in a 20x24 inch print, but not in a 16x20. The D2x actually looks smoother at any size (less grain/noise), but the Hasselblad has more detail if you blow it up enough. Chromes have less visible grain, but the dynamic capture range is too limited for serious work.

 

Is it worth the limited range of lenses, the long setup time for shooting (otherwise called "contemplative" style), waiting for processing, hours spent scanning and struggling with the post-processing (much more than with a DSLR)? Good question. I'm holding on for the time being.

 

On the bright side, nearly every medium format digital back will fit the Hasselblad. A few 12MP and scanning versions can be had for under $5K. The more desirable 16MP+ backs that can be used un-tethered start around $10K. At this point, it's a waiting game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shoot a Hasselblad 503CW with Zeiss optics exclusively. Having a EOS 3 with a couple of L lens as backups and for causal shooting sessions.

 

Well, it's not about which camera has the edge over the other (DSLR). It's all about the work flow. For pros who make a living on photography, I agree DSLR is a great tool. For hobbyists like me, the digital work flow sucks!!! - spraying (clicking the shutter on a DSLR)without thinking too much about the composition, etc because it's dirty cheap to shoot hundreds of pics.; Bracketing all the time because it's dirty cheap to shoot hundreds of digital images. Then, spend endless hours in a Photoshop to manipulates and delete many of those bracketed images - painful long hours with artifical effects...

 

The bottom line is : viewing an image on a monitor(no matter how large or bright it is) is NO COMPARISON to viewing an image on a 70x70 inch screen projected with a MF Hasselblad projector.

 

No fun at all. So I've not bought a DSLR and probably will never unless it's "dirty cheap" - 20MP full-frame uder $1200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not need the finest photographic intrument ever made -- IMHO -- and do not relish the clarity and superb color correction of Zeiss optics -- you do not need to waste your time with a photgraphic concept that is more than 60 years old. As for me, I'll just hang in there with this out-of-date technology!<div>00GBFl-29618984.JPG.d5acda11f5f0cb7745e11e61bc629e83.JPG</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still use a Hassy because it frees me from being tied to, and depending on, computers. 'Hard copy' megatives and prints are original, archival quality historic documents.

 

It's entirely possible rhe early 21st century will be characterized by a void of visual information relating to everyday life because so much of it is being committed to 'soon to be obsolete' hard drives, never to be saved and passed along to the next generation of machines or people. Besides when I can get one of those 10MP digi-backs for under a grand everything that was old will be new again.

 

Mostly I use Hasselblad tho' because of the wonderful optics and the sharp detail that provides me with imagewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br>the Hasselblad is a camera. you learn it, conjure up ideas, and go forth and try to capture them on film. or you simply find interesting aspects of your life; your world; and capture those. if you are only interested in resolution or convenience, the Hasselblad is a very poor choice. should you side-step those issues, and look deeper within as you mature as a photographer, you just might find that the Hasselblad is the perfect tool for expression. or not .. and if not, sell it and move on.<br><br>

 

best of luck in your endeavour,<br><br>

 

daniel taylor<br>

san juan island, wa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife has planted flowers in my Hasselblad bodies. I let the kids use the long Zeiss lenses for burning ants. My neighbor has disassembled most of the other Zeiss lenses and is making tree ornaments of them.

 

And every month the neighborhood gets together and throws the broken digital cameras into a caldron; we dance and sing "The End of the World as You Know It."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno about the Hassy, but I use a Rolleiflex and a Widelux pretty regularly. Two weeks ago, I spent a week aboard my motorcycle on the Blue Ridge Parkway with my 11 y/o son, riding and shooting and hiking. My 15 y/o motorcycle, 25 y/o tent, 50 y/o cameras, and 11 y/o son all got along alright, more or less - and we brought back good stuff (on film).

 

My film cameras can produce Jpegs, but if I buy a digital camera it can't produce negatives.

 

Hopefully, when I'm old or dead, my son will be going through the negs and thinking how cool it is that all these images of his childhood survived multiple computers and computer crashes.

 

No, I'm probably not a Luddite. I work with computers every day, and see them crash and die, and various operating systems come and go. I doubt he'll be able to read my CDs - but with his naked eyes he'll be able to view negatives.

 

Gotta hunch somebody will still be able to print them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edward Ingold said about chromes, that "the dynamic capture range is too limited for serious work". Oh, really? It's a pity to know that all the chromes in the world are not "serious work".

 

Anyway, compared to projected 6x6 chromes every current digital projector is definitely inferior (with a resolution comparable to perhaps 18x24mm slides or less).

 

Think about a 6x6 chrome projected on a 1,5x1,5 meter screen - to compete with that you ought to make 1,5x1,5 meter prints of all your grainless, flawless digital images (which have such a wonderful capture range in the high tones, which are so perfect - so much white!).

 

Of course, to spare money, buy for example an "affordable" Canon 5d (3000$ body only). It is SO affordable compared for instance with the Rolleiflex SL66E with 40,50,80, 150 and 250mm Zeiss lenses I bought for less money. And, finally, how much film and developing can you pay for with 3000$?

 

Well, if you are a pro who shoots a lot of frames, there is no economical alternative to digital. But I believe that many serious amateurs who shoot moderate numbers of pictures can shoot those cheaper with medium format than with a 10-16MP DSLR, all expenses considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neal, that article is not the best or most update comparison. Film resolution can vary greatly with type, speed, B&W vs. color, etc. which I am sure you know. Type of scanner used has almost as much impact on final resolution. Many people are attracted to DSLR to avoid expensive drum scans. The article does not make sense to me in some areas:

 

"If the field of view is held identical for both sensors above (35 mm ISO 200 color film and a 6-megapixel CCD), the film, with 40 percent more pixels than the CCD (8.64 million versus 6.1 million), will provide an improvement in resolution of approximately 20 percent."

 

I was not aware that film had pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might come down to how do you make prints ?

 

If you get Lightjet or Lambda prints from a lab those are $500,000 laser printers but with any detail not right run back to the lab for another try...

 

And there is no continuous-tone home printer except for an optical enlarger. To use an optical enlarger you must use film...but the $800 optical enlarger competes with the $500,000 laser printer probably up to 16x20 size..

 

Well, with digital or with scanned film you might inkjet print at home...but both digital and scanned film are going to be post processed. Then there is the inkjet setup and testing. So digital is not a workload relief but perhaps convenient multi-tasking.

 

If you don't make prints then digital might be great...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points:

 

Neil, I believe Edward did post some photos at some time which evidence his point on the Hasselblad - D2X comparison. Also I think I recall that there are a number of problems with that FBI study. I may be mistaken on both those points, but a quick search will reveal details.

 

Binyuan, you are seriously over-estimating the capability of all current DSLRs if you believe them to be capable of reducing the ability of the photographer and causing them to work "...without thinking too much...". All the models currently on the market have no direct link into the brain of their users. It is, of course, a great disappointment that photographers now have a medium in which the marginal cost of each image is virtually zero, and can bracket without financial penalty, but despite this distortion of the true photographic path it is still open to photographers to apply their technique, creativity and intelligence in exactly the same degree as ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Well, if you are a pro who shoots a lot of frames, there is no economical alternative to

digital."

 

I think I'm a pro (at least I make my entire living with it) and shoot a lot of frames and still

use film most of the time. Simply because it is more economical (apart from technical

advantages). After a long shooting day I drop off my films in the lab. There is a trusted guy

there who scans and corrects my negs on a real-time machine. I could never ever do what

he is doing in such a short amount of time. And I don't have the time, because I shoot all

day long if its a busy period. My clients get their digital images just as fast and all I have to

do is do my job: being the photographer. Not a computer nerd. It is a lot more profitable

to do the shooting only and have the negs dealt with cheaply, because clients are rarely

willing to pay the premium for all my hours in Photoshop. Compared to my digital

colleagues my hourly income is a lot higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I learned early on that a Hasselblad somehow encourages a photographic point of view like no other camera. Maybe it's the square format or the large image projected on the ground glass. Also, about 80% of my B&W work is with a Hasselblad, because I can't seem to get the results I want from PS and digital printing... yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree wholeheartedly with everyone.

 

I use one.

 

I use it because it is f**king ace and makes a great THWUMP sound when you press the

shutter.

 

Try getting a good drum scan of your best picture and blow it up to 40 inches square with

a lightjet from a good lab.

 

Digital schmidgital - you'll have to shell out a lot of hardware money to get anything close

with 'em.

 

Sell all your digital stuff and get an SWC.....

 

:o)

 

robert

 

p.s. Pico, I really think it is very cruel of you to encourage your children to burn ants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...