Jump to content

Hasselblad vs. Mamiya


kevinbriggs

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi Kevin,<br>

I've used a Hasselblad w/ 50/80/150 for 20 yrs for landscapes, portraits, you name it. They're precise but not light once you get all the pieces you want. The used prices are pretty good now. I can also use it w/ a friend's CFV39 though I don't like shooting 645 verticals with it.<br>

I got my Mamiya 7II for a trip to the UK and Hungary. I rented 43/50/65/150 lenses in NYC. I shot a friend's wedding B&W and shot street scenes allover Budapest and landscapes in remote parts of the country. I got the M7 primarily because I wanted to get the street scenes without setting up on tripod, etc. The M7 is lighter and quicker to operate. I also ended up buying a 50mm lens. If the $$$ permitted, I'd have more. At the time the prices were much better in the UK (Robert White) but you can't get service through Mamiya in the US. The external viewfinders for the 43/50 are not as accurate, the 150 hard to focus, and depth of field through the RF a little disconcerting. The lightness of the camera permits lower shutter speed handhelds in a pinch and it has a pretty good meter too. I was very happy w/ the M7 for the intended purposes. Having said this, I wouldn't use it for head and shoulders portraits (but this wasn't your issue anyway)<br>

Both are very sharp if you take the appropriate steps! Good Luck.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>6x6 can be nice, but I used to crop a lot of the time, particularly for landscapes. So for me, the larger neg size of the RB trumps the Zeiss glass.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How wonderful would the world be if we could persuade Zeiss to make lenses for the RB/RZ series??? Erm, at a reasonable price, although that's probably asking well more than a bit too much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have used & owned both systems when I was a pro. After I quit that, the Mamiya systems were sold. The Hasselblad still works for me and I like the 6x6 format. I'll 'fess up that my Pentax 67 usually does my outdoor landscape stuff, tho. If it was one choice only I would favor the square format for no other reasons than I find it comfortable and i like the workflow. BTW; I own & shoot a Glock too. No problemo on the "plastic!"</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>On this note, I'm looking to print at at least 20" x 30" ... preferably 24" x 36"... perhaps even a little bit larger ... I do care about the battery life ... I'm ALWAYS going to be shooting with a tripod, never handheld ... I don't need to bring along any flashes for my landscape photography; just filters and generally one lens (maybe two at the most).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skip MF altogether. Get yourself a nice 4x5 field view camera kit. For the highest possible technical image quality nothing is as important as film area. Camera movements is a plus too, and very few MF rigs have any.</p>

<p>Pack a high megapixel count advanced digicam or low end DSLR as well. When the 4x5 can't be set up in time, shoot a few frames handheld with the DSLR and stitch. A 4 or 6 frame composite will generally exceed 645 MF quality (i.e., 6x6 cropped down to more common aspect ratios) in most technical parameters.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A decade ago you'd have needed LF to make quality prints the size you mention. Not any more. The processes of film scan and print(from film) or starting with a digital MF original have pretty much put paid to that and you can get great prints the size you mention from either of the systems you're considering, and from either the film or digital versions. </p>

<p>To me the only big advantage of LF is camera movements if you need them. There's plenty of photographers producing great landscapes who don't feel they need this. Bear in mind the speed of set-up, viewing a reversed world from under a black cloth, the considerable expense of the film and processing, the cost of scanning, and the space requirements of exposed and unexposed film on a trip. No denying that you could get some great pictures, but there is a price to pay, and if you like to shoot a lot that price will be considerable. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
<p>MF has been called "the great compromise" format, and I agree. As much as I enjoyed my 4x5 Wista field camera, it was a chore to set up and shoot. Lugging LF gear around isn't exactly what I'd call portable. MF has also been dubbed "the ideal format," referring to 6x7, in the form of the Mamiya 7II, and RB67. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Because 6x7 fits common print formats like 8x10 and 16x20 without having to crop the negative appreciably. Getting a 6x6 square negative to fit the same print dimensions means not being able to use a sizable section of the film. </p>
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...