In praise of Leica and Hasselblad

<p>If one loves photographic gear too much, one loves photography less.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Landrum: probably true. As the poet/critic J.V. Cunningham wrote: "The text was loss; the gain is gloss."</p>

<p >“Only with a Leica can this beauty”</p>

<p >Why do stars shine so much brighter with my Leica in my hand? A voice seemingly from above whispers in my ear when the gentle click of my shutter echoes through eternity. Why do my photos glow with divine light revealing a heavenly capture which could only be given from above? Why is the mechanical perfection so perfect if not given by he who stands above us all, who we will answer to on the day of judgement?</p>

<p >Can you lost users of the mere mundane answer? No. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Anyway that’s what me and my mate Peter A think after 18 rounds of the Golden Amber and a bash at </p>

<p >“Tie Your Kangaroo Down Sport ”. </p>

<p >So there.</p>

<p>Well, that settles it for me. Give my mate another Leica, lass, and I'll have the rest of the Golden Amber.</p>

<p>You know I finally decided what it was that I really liked about the film cameras,, particularly the manual film cameras.<br>

I just sold my 20d, hoping still to get a 5d one of these days well.. the 5d mk II now.. either way I decided to buy a Leica M6 with a summicron 50/2 lens. which was an expensive thing to do.<br>

I haven't yet decided if it was THE thing to do but I like it so far.<br>

back to my point. What I decided I DO like about film is the anticipation of finding out exactly how that darn picture came out. I mean it's great with digital you can get just as pretty a picture with digital as film manual,, put just as much though, etc.. But when you are done, on a digital you hold your camera out and look at what you got.. with film you think,, I sure can't wait to see how that came out. it's like christmas. :)<br>

I will tell you what though, If I decided I dont' like my newish purchase, I will sell the set up to you for 1800.. so save up 300 more just in case.</p><div></div>

<p>Asim:<br>

I not only went through similar questions (Hasselblad 501CM vs. Leica M6), I wrote reviews of both cameras for Photo.net (they should still be in the reviews section).<br>

Ultimately, I chose the Hasselblad. It's wonderful to handle, not too heavy, the lens (80CB) is superb, and it's traveled everywhere with me. With a tripod and a 45 degree top mounted viewfinder, it's a terrific camera for portraits, landscapes, anything that doesn't move around a whole lot. The one bad: it's really difficult to shoot a subject that's above your eye level (musicians up on a stage, for example).<br>

The Leica is also a very special camera, competitive in so many ways with the Hasselblad. But the negatives are smaller, so you're more limited in larger-sized prints. For casual shooting, it's terrific (though the rangefinder patch is not perfect, and sometimes whites itself out unless you own a fixed-up version). If you're doing anything related to journalism, coverage, sense-of-place, it's a great choice. Not so good for fast-moving stuff, or for close-ups, though.<br>

Both cameras have their own mechanical nightmare. On the Leica, the 35mm film does not always load perfectly onto the spool; I've lost a few rolls because I was not absolutely precise in the film load. And, on the Leica, the bottom plate must be removed in order to load the film--and if you misplace it, you're toast. On the Hasselblad, it is possible to jam the film rather miserably if it's not loaded properly (roll film is a little tricky). And, if you're changing lenses on the Hasselblad, you will inevitably jam the mechanism (we all carry an un-jamming tool, but under stress, you can really mess up the camera this way).<br>

Both cameras are limited in features--for some (myself included), this is a joy. At least the Leica has a built-in meter. For the Hasselblad, you'd be signing up for a separate hand-held meter (or a more expensive viewfinder with a built-in meter); this will make others who travel with you impatient, so most of your photo expeditions with the Hasselblad are likely to be solo endeavors. The Leica is more friends-and-family friendly.<br>

Be sure to read the reviews.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Asim:<br /> I not only went through similar questions (Hasselblad 501CM vs. Leica M6), I wrote reviews of both cameras for Photo.net (they should still be in the reviews section).<br /> Ultimately, I chose the Hasselblad. It's wonderful to handle, not too heavy, the lens (80CB) is superb, and it's traveled everywhere with me. With a tripod and a 45 degree top mounted viewfinder, it's a terrific camera for portraits, landscapes, anything that doesn't move around a whole lot. The one bad: it's really difficult to shoot a subject that's above your eye level (musicians up on a stage, for example).<br /> The Leica is also a very special camera, competitive in so many ways with the Hasselblad. But the negatives are smaller, so you're more limited in larger-sized prints. For casual shooting, it's terrific (though the rangefinder patch is not perfect, and sometimes whites itself out unless you own a fixed-up version). If you're doing anything related to journalism, coverage, sense-of-place, it's a great choice. Not so good for fast-moving stuff, or for close-ups, though.<br /> Both cameras have their own mechanical nightmare. On the Leica, the 35mm film does not always load perfectly onto the spool; I've lost a few rolls because I was not absolutely precise in the film load. And, on the Leica, the bottom plate must be removed in order to load the film--and if you misplace it, you're toast. On the Hasselblad, it is possible to jam the film rather miserably if it's not loaded properly (roll film is a little tricky). And, if you're changing lenses on the Hasselblad, you will inevitably jam the mechanism (we all carry an un-jamming tool, but under stress, you can really mess up the camera this way).<br /> Both cameras are limited in features--for some (myself included), this is a joy. At least the Leica has a built-in meter. For the Hasselblad, you'd be signing up for a separate hand-held meter (or a more expensive viewfinder with a built-in meter); this will make others who travel with you impatient, so most of your photo expeditions with the Hasselblad are likely to be solo endeavors. The Leica is more friends-and-family friendly.<br /> Be sure to read the reviews.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/ *sorry this is not an M6 review, but look around Photo.net and you'll find one or two<br>

http://www.photo.net/equipment/hasselblad/501cm-kit-blumenthal</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kirk Tuck's M6 review is here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/m6</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael,<br>

I am an artist and a craftsman--meaning that I am more than just a photographer. Because of who I am, and what I am (a true artist), I use a Leica as an extension of my inner creativity. <br>

I can't speak for others, i just know that my vision is what it is, and it can only be realized with the finest tools--my mind, my eye, my Leica.</p>

<p>Jim, I don't know what medium you work in, but if you paint, may I recommend Schminke. It's from Germany and its colour characteristics matches the Leica lenses' characteristics very closely. It will render your photos most faithfully into a painting.<br>

On the other hand, Holbein, from Japan, has colour characteristics that matches Japanese lenses, Nikon in particular, very closely.<br>

I have not tried matching German/Japanese canvass/paper to the brands, but it should be interesting.</p>

<p>This is my first post on photo.net. I revive this post because I found it while googling for "Hasselblad 501", and the reason for that is, that I just bought one on ebay. I never used one before, nor did I use a Leica before. Also, regarding the age of this thread, the original poster might already have made his decision (if so, I'd like to hear about it).<br>

Nevertheless, I find it quite interesting here for various reasons:<br>

<ol>

<li>I really enjoy to see how people who have photographs in their portfolio that I like, tend to have viewpoints that I can relate to (but so many people without. please upload some photos! It makes it so much easier to evaluate your opinion!).</li>

<li>Although this digital vs. analog gets boring at times, it never gets old... ;-)</li>

</ol>

<p>My personal history:<br>

 

<ul>

<li>I started analog and very cheap about 15 years ago. Had to sell all my stuff to buy some food.</li>

<li>Then many years no photography at all (food was more important).</li>

<li>Then a very cheap, very bad digital for some reason I can't remember. This gave me back my joy in photography, because I didn't have to think about the running costs...</li>

<li>I soon discovered that I wanted more. Good digital was way out of my budget, so I purchased an analog SLR, some good glass and a scanner (I love to post my stuff on the web).</li>

<li>I then discovered that it was just too much hassle for me to scan all the stuff (keep in mind that my income got better and better all the time...)</li>

<li>So again, I switched to digital. I loved the ability to put my stuff on the web, without all the bells and whistles.</li>

<li>I even upgraded, got more lenses, a better body. My love in photography grew.</li>

<li>During all that time I bought a lot of (good and cheap) analog rangefinders from the 80's, but I never really used them)</li>

<li>Then I bought a Pentacon Six, which I didn't use for a year or so, but when I started using it, I discovered a whole new way of photography, and I was amazed by the results.</li>

<li>My Pentacon Six broke very soon, and instead of paying 200 Euro for the repair, I decided to make a real commitment and buy a Hasselblad instead.</li>

</ul>

<p>Why am I telling all this? To show that I know both sides.<br>

What did I learn from it? I like both, analog and digital, but I really prefer the quality of analog middleformat to digital. I can't even say why exactly. Photos from a Pentacon Six and even more from a Hasselblad have a certain quality to it. I wouldn't be able to define what this quality is (it's not only about sharpness or resolution). Many times when I browse photos on flickr, I can see if a photo has been made by a Hasselblad, even if it's tiny... I really don't know why. <br>

On the other hand, I enjoy being able to "shoot like a machine gun" with digital. There are many situations where this comes in handy.<br>

I can think of street photography, where it's so important to catch the "right" moment. <br>

So my recommendation would be: go for a Hasselblad. It gives you the "certain" quality in your photos, when you have the time to take your time. And use digital for all the things "street".<br>

I'm sure all the Leica-Fans out there will be opposed to that ;-)</p>

</p>

</p>

<p >“Brought up” with digital cameras I have never sought of Hasselblad og Leica´s , as they are fare out of reach in digital, but I more and more often find myself switching of all automatic, including the autofocus – and that’s my point – it gives you a wonderful sense control, and it makes your Everest a little steeper. So, of course the equipment itself means something, but may be the most wonderful thing is how you sense light through the camera, and how aware it makes you of things, regardless of film or digital, Leica, Hasselblad or just an ordinary plain Nikon.</p>

<p >Re. Lars</p>