Change to Medium - Need suggestions

Hi All,

I am thinking to try the Medium format. I currently have Nikon D100 and F100

and several lenses. What I am thinking now is the follwing things (perfer 2nd

hand):

1)A file Camera to be used mostly in landscape photography. Hassellblad 500/503

or Pentax 67/67II? or others.

2)Not sure to select the scanner/printer or medium enlarger for most

Black/white photography.

My purpose is to be able to sell the photos in the Art show 'in the future'.

Thanks

Patrick

Both cameras you mention are good. The Hasselblad has better lenses and will give you sharper pictures. The body is made better and will last longer. But it jams easily. The Pentax lenses are OK though and have a nice tonality in B&W. Both cameras, in my opinion, are better than a Mamiya. The Pentax is such a nightmare to load, that I sold mine after a short time. For a 120 enlarger I like the Saunders best.

Bruce is a fine photographer and an excellent dealer (for large format, he has no biases

here!), but not everyone feels the same way. I have shot with a Hasselblad 200 series,

Rollei 6008 and Mamiya 7II and I think all have superb lenses. The Mamiyas seem the most

contrasty to me, but that is only really an issue for slide film...I tend to choose Astia for

the M7II where I would choose E100G for the Hasselblad. In terms of sharpness, I don't

think any are head and shoulders better than the others. In terms of overall image

character, I would say the best wide angle is the 43mm for the Mamiya 7II, the best normal

the 80mm Tele-Xenar for the Rollei and the best telephotos are the 110mm f/2 planar (I

have it for the Hassie) and the 180mm Tele-Xenar. Anyway, this is neither here nor there. I

just meant to say that opinions differ and the best way to get a handle on a system is to

try it yourself. <P>I will add, however, that if you don't shoot landscape in a square, you

are better off with a 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 camera. If you are always cropping 6x6 to 645 or

smaller, you are wasting a lot of negative space. <P>For your second question, if you do

only black and white and are willing to do a darkroom setup, I would just do that. It is

tactile, rewarding, cheap and can offer superb quality. If you plan to spend less than 2000

dollars on a scanner and less than 1200 on a printer, then I would definitely recommend

the wet darkroom. <P>Well, best of luck! <P>Here are some pictures, because pictures

are the point, right? Apologies to those who have seen these.<P>Hass 203FE and 110mm

f/2<P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/north-3rd-east-river.jpg"><P>Mamiya 7II with 43mm f/

4.5<P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/infrared-

mission-43mm.jpg"><P>Rollei 6008AF with 180mm f/2.8 Tele-Xenar<P><img

src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/hearse-figure.jpg">

stuart that last one is nice, almost one of a kind...

<i>Bruce is a fine photographer and an excellent dealer</i>

<p>

Bruce also thinks that <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LQwK">Ansel Adams didn't really use the Zone System</A>, so you can consider him an excellent source of authoritative advice.

Check out the license plate on that hearse.

Thanks guys.

I am considering that authoritative advice from Bruce, thereby, if i select Hasselblad, what's the different between 500,501,503 and which lense suits for the landscape?

I'd suggest getting the later models, such as the 503cw. It has some unique features for longer lenses to avoid seeing vignetting through the view finder. It also offers a bright focusing screen. The 500C model is a bear if you want to change to a brighter view finder. The 500C is also bretty old, built in the 60's. These screens are often expensive, therefore in my opinion you may wish to buy the 503CW as you can add a motor drive to it and it already has the bright screen built in.

sorry for the typo's - pretty old

Pentax and Hasselblad are both excellent choices. Just different frame sizes. You cannot go

wrong with either.

Patrick -- a 500c/m is a good choice as well unless you plan to be using a long lens a lot.

Some people do for landscape, some people never use a long lens for landscape. Anyway,

you can put the new focusing screens in the 500c/m, so that is an option if you want a

brighter screen. That said, the 503cw is a good choice for the reasons Bob mentioned.

<P>As for lenses, you can do a lot with the standard 80mm, so it's a good place to start.

The 50mm is one of the standard landscape lenses with the Hasselblad (it's about a 28mm

equivalent in 35mm terms). But you should be aware that shooting landscape in a square

can be quite different....you have a lot more sky and foreground relative to horizon and it

does not fit everyone's vision. <P>Zach -- thanks for the kind words about the photo. It

was taken near my apartment in Brooklyn. The figure is an orthodox Jew, so dressed

appropriately blackly. The hearse is owned by a bar owner...it is hard to see at the small

size, but there is a skull motif on the window and the license plate is VI 6 Six as Thomas

noted. Anyway, I like shooting in the area, it's rather interesting.

You can get results with an inkjet printer which will match a silver print, but only at a much

higher cost. Although it is a personal choice, I would always pick the wet darkroom because it

is just more fun. You can pick up enlargers and weird accessories on ebay for pennies and

you get an atmosphere that I find hard to create on a computer.

 

If you have not used a wet darkroom before and don't have the time to learn, then it may not

be the best option, but if you do then you won't regret it. As for the camera, the time spent

deciding could be spent practicing, which would probibaly have a better impact on the quality

of your images. Best of luck.

If you are really going to do mostly landscapes the Pentax will give you considerably more negative assuming you don't want a square final product - I and many others feel it's all about the real estate. It's glass is first rate - very close to the Zeiss. Another approach if you are going to be on a tripod most of the time is a 6x9 Linhof technica or Graphic. Cheap and you can put whatever glass you want on it, but not great for hand held (though doable). Heck - just get a 4X5 field camera and really take the plunge. That way the difference from the Nikon will be vary apparent.

Check out the Kowa Forum, you can get a great system for low money and

with it's auto dark slide feature it's faster and battery-less than most MF .

If you accept an advice, try to look at Mamiya RB67. It's cheap, strong and have good lens and plenty accessories. You can find it easy on ebay. Most of this cameras are in mint condition. Try to look at the last version RB ProSD or at least at ProS. With one year ago I bought from ebay a RB 67 ProS kit in mint condition (factory refurbished) with only 700$ (body, 90mm Sekor C lens, wlf, 6x7 back and 6x4.5 back, hood, aluminium case). A similar Hasselblad kit it's somwere between 1500 and 2000$.

The minus points? Based on the above price, only the weight.