Should I buy Hasselblad

I'm planning on moving up to medium format soon, and have tentatively

settled on Hasselblad because of their reputation and use of Zeiss

lenses. However, the cost of Hassy equipment is a little mind-

bending, especially for lenses. My use of the equipment would be

strictly as an amateur, mostly for landscape photography.

 

<p>

 

Where some guys buy a Harley to soothe their mid-life crisis, I want

a Hassy.

 

<p>

 

Am I crazy? I would like to hear both from Hassy owners and from

users of other medium format equipment.

For landscape application, I would perhaps recommend something more

like the Pentax 6x7. You are certainly saving $$$ going this route,

and with no apparent handicap in lens quality. Yes, I admire the lens

quality of Hasselbad, but check out the Pentax line ... many others will agree.

A camera that you might want to consider is a Mamiya Press Universal. If you are shooting landscapes, you might find the ability to shoot in 6x9 and 6x7 as well as the square format a real plus. I bought on of these camera as a result of feedback from this forum, and feel that it was one of the best pieces of photo equipment I have ever owned in terms of price/performance.

 

<p>

 

If you like Harley-Davidson motorcycles, you will love the Mamiya press. No more being stuck with those girly-man puny 6x6 negatives. Pounding in tent stakes with the camera body is not a problem either :-)

 

<p>

 

Another plus is the price. You can buy an entire Universal outfit with a couple of backs and all of the lenses from 50mm to 250mm for less money than just the Hasselblad 50mm lens will cost. If you hate the Mamiya, there are plenty of foamers like myself that will be happy to take it off your hands.

 

<p>

 

On the minus side, there is very little snob appeal to the big Mamiya. The reaction I tend to get is more along the line of "what the hell is that thing?" I tell them "Be quiet or I'll drop it on your foot."

If your main use will be for landscapes, you should

seriously consider the Pentax 67. Here's why:

 

<p>

 

1. Cost. For the cost of a used Hassy body, back and normal lens, you can pick up an entire used Pentax 67 system (body, TTL finder & 3 lenses).

 

<p>

 

2. Lens quality. The Pentax 67 lenses are great. People will argue endlessly about the quality of different brand lenses, but in fact current lenses for medium format from major manufacturers are seem to be excellent and the practical differences are probably negligible. There is also a very wide selection of lenses, from 35mm fisheye to 1000 mm.

 

<p>

 

3. Ease of use. Looks and handles like a big, manual 35mm. The switch from 35 to the Pentax 67 is quite easy.

 

<p>

 

4. Durability. Built like a tank. (Pretty heavy as a result).

 

<p>

 

5. Format. The 6x7 format gives you a bigger neg or transparency than a 4.5 x 6 (which, to me just doesn't seem enough larger than 35mm to be worth the bother and expense). If you are shooting 6x6 squares, as with Hassy, you are likely to be cropping down to 6x4.5. Of course, you get fewer shots per roll, so film & processing cost is 20% higher.

 

<p>

 

Most of the disadvantages of the Pentax (slow flash sych, no

interchangeable back) are not particularly relevant to landscape

photography. If you want a tool to take great pictures (rather than an object of envy), the Pentax is a great choice.

 

<p>

 

Chris Patti

This is an important decision, and the responses so far favoring

alternative systems are well worth considering. However, as a happy

Hasselblad user, I thought I'd add a few more considerations to

the mix.

 

<p>

 

1. Resale value of the eqipment. Hassy stuff is very expensive to

buy (!), but should you ever decide to either get out of photography

or switch systems, you will get a good chunk of your investment in

equipment back.

 

<p>

 

2. Rental options. In almost any major city there are dealers who

will rent lenses and other accessories. The wide availability of

the system, its longevity, and compatibility over time means these

dealers are likely to actually have the piece you need for a given

assignment.

 

<p>

 

3. Optical quality. Yes, both Mamiya and Pentax produce very good

optics. But I can see the difference between their best glass and

Zeiss. If I can, so can others, presumably your customers.

 

<p>

 

4. Format considerations. I agree with everyone who advocates the

larger 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 formats - these do work well for landscape

use and have other advantages. In practical aplication, however,

I have not noticed any degradation in the quality of my landscapes,

typically sold at 16 x 20 inches. The size argument will always

favor a 4 x 5 or 8 x 10 view camera anyway.

 

<p>

 

5. Compactness. Though not lightweight, the Hasselblad system is

reasonably compact. I hike with mine regularly, so this is a real

consideration.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your patience with this lengthy response. In the final

analysis, I agree that it is the photographer that makes the

biggest difference, not the equipment.

 

<p>

 

Will von Dauster

Since most landscape photos will end up printed as horizontals, some rectangular format may be best for your purposes. One good economy possibility is the Koni-Omega; super lenses and reasonable prices with changeable backs. It is the 6cm x 7cm ("ideal")format - 10 exposures on 120, 20 on 220. I have Hasselblad and Koni both. 58mm Omegon/Hexanon produces nicer final print than 50mm Hasselblad Distagon. 80mm Planar and 90mm Hexanon is a close call. In both cases the difference may be a function of the larger negative, or the condition of my stuff. 150mm Hasselblad seems better than my 180 Hexanon.

3. Optical quality. Yes, both Mamiya and Pentax produce very good optics. But I can see the difference between

their best glass and Zeiss. If I can, so can others, presumably your customers.

 

<p>

 

If you want the best optical quality that money can buy, try the schneider lenses for

the Rollei 6003/6008. I, as well as other I've spoken to, have sold our zeiss lenses and

purchased the schneiders. For me, my zeiss 150 was sharp, but was somewhat too soft (this was confirmed by the rep. at the Interantional Pro Photo Show 1997 as a characteristic of the zeiss vs. schneider lenses in general, not referring to any specific models). The differences are subtle, but clearly visible using a 6x6 schneider loupe. There's a review (slightly old) at http://www.swiss-ai.mit.edu/philg/photo/rollei-6008.html. The downside is that they cost almost twice as much as the zeiss lenses. There is a 1000mm/f8 zeiss tele-tessar, but it's around $30K and weighs about 20 lbs. I hear there is a new rental program that has

begun in the US where you can test the lenses and compare the results for yourself. You might

also want to go to a dealer that sells both the Hassy and Rollei models so that they may

be less biased towards one brand. If you intend on doing macro work, coupled TTL metering is

very nice.

Hasselblad equipment is not an expense, it is an investment. The lenses that I bought new in 1984 for $900 are worth $2000 today, used! Also, there is a great market for used Hassy equipment and that helps to cut the cost of ownership both when buying and selling.

If you decide on going with the Hasselblad system (which I did), then be prepared to spend some serious money ($5,000 minimum) even if you go with used equipment. When figuring your cost of admission, you should consider that you will ultimately not be happy with just one lens. At least, I wasn't.

 

<p>

 

As far as sharpness goes, I would put my Hasselblad CF100 and CF180 lens on top of the sharpness list when compared with about any other MF lens that I have used (including the Mamiya RB67 180). These are very sharp lens.

 

<p>

 

The square format has pro and cons--but, it has grown on me. For example, it is an advantage to me when taking wedding pictures to not have to worry with turning the camera and flash on its side to take verticals. Moreover, square pictures IMHO look just as good in an album as rectangular pictures and offer some unique opportunities for composition.

 

<p>

 

Buying a camera is a personal matter involving many choices. The best way to make the decision is to try out different cameras and see what works best for you (and fits into the budget). Buying a Hasselblad will not automatically make you a great photographer. It is a camera system, however, that will not limit your creativity (unless you require autoexposure). There are other good choice depending on what you need including rangefinders like the Mamiya 7 if SLR capability is not important. Have fun!

If you're only into posing, then go ahead and buy the damn Hassy, keep it in the closet a few years and then sell it to some thrifty soul. If you want better images get one of the less expensive, used, non-SLR MF cameras and hone your skills. A camera like the Hassy won't gain you anything unless your technique is top notch.

No, you're not crazy. You have no one to please except yourself. I was doing landscape with 4 by 5. I shoot color slides. Cost of film and processing for one picture was about five dollars. (Using a commercial lab). I decided to move to medium format and looked at a lot of cameras. I finally bought a Hasselblad. Over the last few years I've added a 50mm and 150mm lens to the 80mm and also bought one extension tube and another film back. It was expensive. I've got around $7,000 invested. Was it worth it? To me it was. The Hasselblad is small compared to the Pentax 6x7. I carry all my stuff in a Mini-Trekker backpack and I can carry it all day without getting tired.

 

<p>

 

Image quality? I don't use a microscope on my slides but I have a 16x20 from 4x5 and one from 6x6cm and I can't tell the difference. Maybe my standards are low but no one I've showed them to can tell either. I took a view camera class and submitted one of my Hasselblad pictures and the teacher couldn't tell.

 

<p>

 

One other factor for me. I shoot slides and project them. That's not as convenient to do with 6x7. I also like not having to turn the camera to take verticals or horizontals. There are years of arguments over square verses rectangular formats. Several books make the argument that any rectagular format is really a cropped square since a lens makes a round image and the square uses more of that image than a rectangle. I think this was proved by Mamiya when they came out with a Polaroid back for the RBs that was 7x7cm and advertised it as super-square. Anyway I like square pictures a lot so I don't crop that often.

 

<p>

 

You can be an anti-snob (in itself a form of snobbery) and say that only practical considerations and cost should determine what to buy but it is your money. If you want it and you can afford it, then do it. I'm not sorry I did.

 

<p>

 

I know Hasselblad is now owned by a multi-national company but the camera was brought into the world because of one man, and that man loved photography. Victor Hasselblad made the best camera he could. Call it snob appeal if you will but I like the history of the camera.

 

<p>

 

I also have a piano that's better than I'll ever play. Lots of people drive cars that are better than they drive. If appreciation for fine equipment was limited to the genius and only practical considerations counted then it would be a dull world to live in.

 

<p>

 

I've also found that making a descision like this for ourselves is easy, it's convincing our spouse that's hard ;-)

 

<p>

 

Good luck and take lots of pictures no matter what you buy!

Check out an article in the Fall issue of Outdoor & Nature Photographer (1997 fall) by Judy Holmes about using Hasselblad and medium format for Outdoor and Landscape work, also a small book by

 

Judy Holmes entitled "Eye On Nature- An Elegant Little Guide To Outdoor Photography", $7.95 US ISBN 0-9651828-0-0

Most responders here seem to be forgetting that our poster wants the camera to both take great pictures, and soothe a midlife crisis. He therefore wants a great photographic instrument that will be an aesthetic and tactile pleasure to use, and questions of resale value and the used market are of less importance.

 

<p>

 

You have many great medium format (MF) choices that may potentially fill the bill. Most MF cameras, not just the Hasselblad, have great reputations and great optics. I think you should ask yourself the following questions, in approximate order of importance:

 

<p>

 

1. Do you need/want the ability to switch films in mid-roll?

-if you like to take both colour and black & white negs of the same scene, and perhaps chromes as well, this will be very useful, and a great step up from the 35mm world. If you tend to stick with one film type per shoot, or just haven't found this a limitation with your 35, you can forget it. Remember you will only get 10-15 exposures per roll anyway.

-if yes, look at Hasselblad, Mamiya 645, Bronica, Rollei; if no, consider Mamiya 7, Pentax 67 & 645.

 

<p>

 

2. Do you want square or rectangular format?

-This is a matter for personal preference, not arguments and disputes. My preference is squares for pictures of 1 to 6 people, most miscellaneous compositions, and some landscapes; rectangulars for most landscapes.

-If you want square, stick with Hasselblad, Rollei or Bronica; if you want rectangular, consider in addition the others listed above.

 

<p>

 

3. Do you want to do close up photography, and how important is single lens reflex viewing for you in general?

-if yes for the former or very for the latter, eliminate the Mamiya 7.

 

<p>

 

4. How important are weight, bulk and handholdability?

-If very, stick with the Mamiya 7 or 645 or Pentax 645 or Hasselblad, in descending order. If only to a lesser extent, consider in addition Pentax 6x7. If not at all, add in addition Mamiya RB/RZ, Fuji 680.

 

<p>

 

5. How important is waist level viewing, or the ability to interchange between waist and eye-level?

-If like me you find waist-level much better for pictures of people or animals (less intimidation), stick with Hasselblad and square format (or Bronica or Rollei 6x6). Most landscapes are easier with waist-level too, but you could use eye-level, alone or with right-angle finder. If you use any of the rectngular formats, you'll need eyel-level for the most part.

 

<p>

 

6. How important are traditional mechanical operation and craftsmansip along with metal, not plastic, contruction?

-If very, stick with Hasselblad and eliminate Mamiya 645 for sure.

 

<p>

 

7. How important is your wife's view of the cost?

-Cost, in approximate descending order: Rollei, Hasselblad, Mamiya and Bronica, Pentax.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with your purchase, and happy shooting, MK

Most responders here seem to be forgetting that our poster wants the camera to both take great pictures, and soothe a midlife crisis. He therefore wants a great photographic instrument that will be an aesthetic and tactile pleasure to use, and questions of resale value and the used market are of less importance.

 

<p>

 

You have many great medium format (MF) choices that may potentially fill the bill. Most MF cameras, not just the Hasselblad, have great reputations and great optics. I think you should ask yourself the following questions, in approximate order of importance:

 

<p>

 

1. Do you need/want the ability to switch films in mid-roll?

-if you like to take both colour and black & white negs of the same scene, and perhaps chromes as well, this will be very useful, and a great step up from the 35mm world. If you tend to stick with one film type per shoot, or just haven't found this a limitation with your 35, you can forget it. Remember you will only get 10-15 exposures per roll anyway.

-if yes, look at Hasselblad, Mamiya 645, Bronica, Rollei; if no, consider Mamiya 7, Pentax 67 & 645.

 

<p>

 

2. Do you want square or rectangular format?

-This is a matter for personal preference, not arguments and disputes. My preference is squares for pictures of 1 to 6 people, most miscellaneous compositions, and some landscapes; rectangulars for most landscapes.

-If you want square, stick with Hasselblad, Rollei or Bronica; if you want rectangular, consider in addition the others listed above.

 

<p>

 

3. Do you want to do close up photography, and how important is single lens reflex viewing for you in general?

-if yes for the former or very for the latter, eliminate the Mamiya 7.

 

<p>

 

4. How important are weight, bulk and handholdability?

-If very, stick with the Mamiya 7 or 645 or Pentax 645 or Hasselblad, in descending order. If only to a lesser extent, consider in addition Pentax 6x7. If not at all, add in addition Mamiya RB/RZ, Fuji 680.

 

<p>

 

5. How important is waist level viewing, or the ability to interchange between waist and eye-level?

-If like me you find waist-level much better for pictures of people or animals (less intimidation), stick with Hasselblad and square format (or Bronica or Rollei 6x6). Most landscapes are easier with waist-level too, but you could use eye-level, alone or with right-angle finder. If you use any of the rectngular formats, you'll need eyel-level for the most part.

 

<p>

 

6. How important are traditional mechanical operation and craftsmansip along with metal, not plastic, contruction?

-If very, stick with Hasselblad and eliminate Mamiya 645 for sure.

 

<p>

 

7. How important is your wife's view of the cost?

-Cost, in approximate descending order: Rollei, Hasselblad, Mamiya and Bronica, Pentax.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with your purchase, and happy shooting, MK

Hi John

 

<p>

 

Why hasn't anybody mentioned the Fuji GSW690III -6X9cm, 65mm fixed lens (35mm equivalent= 28mm), angle of view 76 degrees? If your main concern is landscape photography I can't think of a better camera. For your other photography work, supplement it with a Fuji GA645i autofocus MF or the Fuji 690III 90mm/f3.5(35mm equi=39mm), angle of view 58 degress. You can buy these two cameras with the amount of money that you intend to splurge on the Hassy with lots of change left over for film, etc. Oh, I must mention also the excellent Mamiya 7, 6X7cm format; its lenses are interchangeable. Check out the 43mm lens for landscape work. I apologise for being rude but if you are looking to tide over mid-life getting a Hassy is not quite going to make it better for you. The HASSLE-BLAD(misspelling intentional) is exactly what it is- a real hassle. The Hassy is hype; it is a geriatric system hampered by what seems to be poor quality control by its current managers. If you buy a Hassy, you are buying into a brandname for the sheer satisfaction of owning it. For that, I think that it will do you well to buy the BMW 1200 CRUISER motorbike (in Ivory) with the matching BMW riding gear. If you wish to mellow out by tapping your 'inner fount of artistic consciousness' (Ouch!), I think that there are much better and cheaper cameras around for PHOTOGRAPHY (emphasis mine)than the Hassy. I feel that it misses the point of photography to be utterly concerned about resale value of equipment even before you've bought it; 1) you'll ALWAYS lose money in real terms on any gear once it crosses the purchase counter, 2) if you do any real photography and work the living daylights out of it, you can be sure that it won't be worth anything anyway. Take a look at a hardworking pro's gear. If you treat your equipment gingerly, hoping to maintain its pristine fresh-from-the-box state so as not to affect its resale value please do me the favour of taking up another hobby like collecting watches instead-not quartz ones, of course. Sorry for that drip of vitriol but I 've seen too many glass-cased pieces of cameras as trophies to wonder what's wrong. You will be desecrating the HIGH ART OF PHOTOGRAPHY if you do not work your equipment, make images that move you, capture your little take of your world as you live it. And if you agree with me then you would also agree that it doesn't matter a whit whether it's a Hassy or not. Buy a Hassy by all means, only if you think that getting one would help you make meaningful images. Of course, you may be a trophy collector in which case it would render all my spoutings moot. In which case you'll probably end up with a Hassy 503CW, 80mm/f2.8. one 120 back, velvet gloves, shoot about 10 rolls, and thereafter consign it to your glass case only to trade it in for the 503CWi or 503 CV or whatever when it makes its debut. The process then repeats itself ad infinitum. Don't scoff; I've seen it happen too often.

 

<p>

 

Sorry to sound like a naggy scold but I thought that I would help you ease into mid-life and save you some heartache. Decide on a strict budget (don't break that even if you can afford to spend more; trust me it'll keep spiralling upwards), define your goals in and your kind of photography sharply (try not to kid yourself; you must set honest expectations), buy the damn thing and then START SHOOTING. Sign up for some classes at your local community college. Before you know it, you'll be 64! BTW, photographers seem to live real long. Cheers and have great fun.

 

<p>

 

P.S.Zeiss lenses are great things to have but it and many other makes of lenses are far better than many of the photographers who use them, present company included. Okay, maybe those who shoot lenses test-charts will disagree.

This topic seems to have stirred up some real debate.

 

<p>

 

I'm new to MF and am currently using a TLR thats about as old as I am. I've been using 35mm for over 10 years and 4X5 for about 2; both as serious hobby (read lots of $$$ spent and I give away prints to friends who appreciate it and ask for it instead of sellint it). I love MF for the sharpness and the smooth gradation of tones. And the fact that I can carry the camera with me instead of carrying a tripod that's taller than me. But now I need different lenses and am faced with the same question as John Joyner.

 

<p>

 

Reading various posts on this topic there seems to be a holy war going on. Similar to those in the golf newsgroups (Big Bertha vs Burner Bubble) for the 50+ year olds and the hot-rod newsgroups (Camero vs Mustang) for those 25- year olds.

 

<p>

 

Having driven both Camero and Mustang (friend's cars), and having played with both Big Betha and Burner Bubble clubs (friend's clubs), I can safely say that I'm still the same person as before. And the people I drive with (car and golf club) still treat me the same.

 

<p>

 

But the difference is, I feel better when I cruise down the street in a convertible Mustang and I think I hit straighter and further when the club is made of titanium.

 

<p>

 

Is that 'feel' worth the extra $$$? I guess the only judge is the person having the feeling. Some people can make do with just polo shirts. Others have to have Ralph Lauren or it won't feel right.

 

<p>

 

To use another analogy, I don't care if my pizza deliveryman drives a Honda or Porsche, as long as the pizza gets here on time and it isn't cold or mangled, I'm satisfied and he gets the tips. So if his customer don't care what he drives, the choice of transportation is really up to the deliveryman, not the customer.

...and I am also contemplating purchasing a medium format......also contemplating hasselblad 503cw, mamiya 7 or SD pro, or Pentax 67.

 

<p>

 

I am only now a 35mm person, but want to ,ove up easily to larger 6x6 or 6x7 format and sharpness. I do nature/landscapes with people photography/fashion, most of it outdoors. I need a camera easy to shoot and setup (all tripod work). Don't care about weight.....

 

<p>

 

. Heard the Pentax 67 is the workhorse. Wouldn't want to scratch up a hasselblad...

What about the Mamiya 7 ?

Any comments appreciated

I have to say this Medium Format Forum has the most intelligent and well-reasoned responses of any I have ever read. It's a real pleasure to read these entries. Finally! A Q&A photography forum by and for medium format/large format people where one can find sincere and courteous exchanges.

 

<p>

 

My humble opinion: Buy what you really want, the first time around. As with most things in life, motorcycles or cameras or whatever, if you go with your second choice, because it's cheaper, you always end up with regrets. Invariably, you will end up getting what you wanted in the first place. And you will always end up spending more in the process. I speak from painful and costly personal experience here. The never-ending search for the perfect camera is difficult enough already, without adding buyer's remorse to the mix.

 

<p>

 

Damn the cost...full speed ahead!

John,

 

<p>

 

I completely agree with Sergio. Go with what you really want. The point here is not whether you can tell the difference between negatives exposed using a Hasselblad and the Bronica. It is the thrill from using the camera. If you like Hasselblads then you should get one. The 503CW kit looks like a good deal. Tell us how it is. The last time I motorcycled from New York to Montana to California I knew it would have been much more fun if I had an ElectraGlide.

Just to be different, if you only want landscapes and want even more of a headache choosing look into the fuji and linhoff 6x17's. they blow away all other medium format cameras for landscapes hands down. just plan on selling your first born for it, oh your thinking hasselblad nevermind :)

 

<p>

 

ps. i own one so i know ha$$y'$

good luck

I own a Hassy system (which I use for work) and a Fuji GW690III. I love both for different reasons. You could buy a Fuji GW and a GSW brand new for less than a new HassyCW w/80 & A12 back. The Fuji optics are truly outstanding, you have a larger (rectangular) negative , and a camera which is very easy to use, and light. I would recommend the Fuji's for landscape. As someone else said in an earlier post, "think of them as two fine lenses with bodies thrown in for free."

I just got rid of my 500C. I will never use Hassy again! My Bronica SQ system with PS lenses gives me results that are as good if not better, it handles much better, doesn't jam or need maintenace like a Hassy does. And it is easy to focus! The old Hassy focusing screens are abominable, Beattie's don't always focus right and and Acute-Matte with split is almost $300. Not to mention the difference in the lens price, I can get twice as many lenses for the money, or something

new for the price of a 20 year old Hassy lens!

 

<p>

 

If you still want Hassy, I have an exc++ black 80CT* with perfect glass, recently overhauled shutter for $350. It's my last piece, I want to get rid of it!

For landscape and architecture, you might consider the Arca-Swiss 6x7 rollfilm view cameras, with lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock, as good as or better than Zeiss (Available from B & H or Badger Graphics). The Arca-Swiss is top quality and very light, a prime consideration for us middle-aged guys. Last time I checked, the basic camera ran about $3000. Lenses are much more reasonable. You can get a new Schneider 47mm f/5.6 Super Anguilon for about $1300, about one-third the cost of a Hasselblad/Zeiss 40mm Distagon. The Super Anguilon is a better lens than the Distagon, and you have the advantage of view camera movements. View cameras have two big disadvantages - you must use a tripod, and viewing the image is very difficult compared to the bright Hasselblad viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

Since I don't do that kind of work anymore, I use a 501/CM, 60mmCF f/3.5, and 120mm Makro-Planar f/4. The 60 gives you a wonderful sense of freedom when hand-holding the camera. When I had the 80, I always felt the need to back up two steps to get the shot. The extra depth of field more than compensates for the lost 2/3 of a stop aperture. The 120mm Planar has generous lens extension built in. You can add a 24mm extension tube to overlap the lens' built-in extension and get really close. The 120 makes an excellent short portrait lens, which suits me well, since I like to be close to the people that I photograph.

 

<p>

 

The Hasselblad design is now fifty years old, and shows it. Still, for all-around use, you cannot beat it. It is the largest-format camera that you can comfortably hand-hold. You can use it down on the ground, at your waist, or (with an accessory) at eye level. You can do all that with the Bronica, as well, but not with Karl Zeiss lenses.

 

<p>

 

I would really like to see a Japanese manufacturer make a similar camera with focal-plane shutter using top-quality German lenses, with a video-style viewfinder (naturally with accessories such as large external video monitor, autofocus body, auto-exposure (including shutter-priority), and a reasonably-priced digital back. I agree with several other correspondents that Hasselblad has slipped from the Victor days.

I just figured out something while at the gym today. It seems that people here don't think the pentax 67 is a hand holdable camera. It fits me like a glove. I use to love hand holding a 4x5 speed graphic.

My nikons seen very small, except the F-3with motor drive and the 80-200 2.8 attached. (light bulb!!). I'm 6, 4'' and weigh 245lb. If you have large hands the pentax controls handle like a snap.

 

<p>

 

I have owned TLR's off and on for 40 years(2 rollies, yashicamat, mamiya C33) and never got a decent pix with any of them. Everything decent was taken with an eyelevel camera (35mm or 4x5). (light bulb!!) I'm not a waist level finder type of guy. I love the eyelevel cofiguration of the pentax 67.

 

<p>

 

Moral, go handle it and maybe rent if before you buy it!

 

<p>

 

I got that off my chest!!

I've only been a reader of this fine forum for a couple of weeks now (don't know what took me so long to find it, but there you go).

 

<p>

 

Many years ago my grandfather, a dedicated Leica man, taught me the basics of photography. After college, my interest faded away. Years went by with me indifferently snapping snapshots with a consumer grade 35mm AF until quite by accident I took some lovely images in a fishing village in Cornwall about four years ago. Fancying myself a photographer I went out and bought a zippy Canon outfit and proceeded to take some really horrible pictures.

 

<p>

 

This set off a renewed interest in photography. Like many hobbiest who frequent this forum, that hobby moved through various fine gradations until it reached a full throttle obsession. Maybe I was stupid, maybe I had too much money, maybe I was seduced by the brand but I bought a used 500CM. Over the last year I've added lenses and all the rest, all used, and yes it's wildly expensive.

 

<p>

 

Is it worth it? Sure it is. It takes terrific pictures. Is it financially optimum? Nope. Can you afford it? Is there something in the whole aesthetic about holding it, looking through it, using it, and owing it that speaks to you? Then buy it.