MF for artistic purposes?

Now I own and use a Nikon F100 with a 17-35mm, but lately I´ve been

wondering if I´d be better off using a Hasselblad. The reason for

this is that I´m primarily working artistically, and when I print I

tend to make them large, for exhibition purposes. I must say that I´m

very impressed by the quality of the equipment I have, I recently

made a print 100x70 cm on an Epson 9600 printer, slide scanned on

Imacon Precision II, and it came out beautifully. The reason I´m

thinking of switching to Hasselblad is that working in this manner

usually demands a slower approach than commercial work, and small

details would be better rended. This is becoming increasingly

important to me as I´m photographing people in surroundings which are

as important as the model him-/herself. I do have a SB-80 flash, but

hardly use it as I enjoy using excisting light. I also find myself

mostly using the 35mm end of the lens, so I guess a normal lens would

be suitable for my purposes (80mm 2,8 for Hassel). I guess I need

some feedback on thoughts concerning portability, quality of print,

pro et contras in short. Has anyone got some thoughts they would like

to share?

If you want to slow down, use a tripod or monopod. Not only will you get sharper images, you will be forced to compose more deliberately.

 

And before you spend a ton of cash on medium format, try a 35mm f/2.0 AFD Nikkor ($265 U.S.) rather than a zoom. I have 12x18 full-frame images on my walls at home taken with this lens that rival images taken with a Leica M 35mm f/2.0 Summicron lens I used to own.

 

I have a 17-35mm AFS Nikkor and it is a great lens. However, it is an exteme zoom lens and, printing at home with the best enlarger lens, I'm not wild about the sharpness of the 17-35mm over 8x12 inches full frame. At 12x18 inches full frame, the resolution is not suffcient for my tastes, particularly at the lower end of the zoom range.

 

That having been said, the 27x39 inch print you reference is awfully large for any 35mm image. If you are looking to make huge prints, enjoy shooting people in existing light and want to shoot square, you may wish to look at Mamiya 6 cameras that take 50mm, 75mm and 150mm lenses. I have two and the three lenses and they are outstanding:

 

http://kenrockwell.com/mamiya/6.htm

 

If you are looking to make huge prints, enjoy shooting people in existing light and want to shoot rectangular, you may wish to look at Mamiya 7 cameras that take 43mm, 50mm, 65mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses (as well as a goofy 210mm that would not suit your purposes):

 

http://kenrockwell.com/mamiya/7.htm

 

This is the system I'm using most and the 65mm lens (equals 32mm in 35mm format) is my usual choice.

 

Regards,

Unless you're comparing plastic toy cameras (e.g. Diana, Holga) to

finely crafted machinery, the difference between negative size

blows away the difference between optics. Used at

a reasonable aperture with reasonably good technique, even a

$200.00 TLR using 120 rollfilm will produce a much more

detailed 16x20 print than the finest Nikon/Canon/Leica/Contax

35mm used under similar conditions. Likewise, a Speed Graphic

4x5 with any half-decent lens will blow away the finest

MF camera if the goal is to produce detailed enlargements.

<p>

So yes, if you want higher quality and you're willing to

give up a bit of convenience and handling speed, you

should consider something bigger than 35mm. The

Hasselblad system is an obvious choice -- top quality,

reasonably fast handling, but a bit pricey. There's a huge

variety of other good choices, offering

different compromises with price, negative size, handling speed,

metering (or lack thereof), lens choices, focusing methods,

viewfinders, etc. The one thing all the popular MF

choices have in common is that they produce

nicer, more detailed enlargements than 35mm.

If you are shooting 35mm with a 35mm focal length your going to find perhaps the 65mm lens closest on the 6x6 format. Zooms are a rarity with medium format cameras. As was suggested above, you may want to get a 35mm fixed focal length lens and see if you can work with it. You will be forced to compose without zooming and you may see an improvement in quality over the zoom.

�Artistic� is usually a euphemism for blurred, used by people trying to sell 35mm pictures!

 

Most people consider that the maximum enlargement from film is about 10 times.

 

There are always those who waffle on about greater viewing distance for larger prints, so you can enlarge anything to any size� but, if you want people to be able to get up to a picture and appreciate detail, 10 times is the maximum.

 

Hasselblads (and other SLR systems) are snapshot cameras for fashion, wedding, sport and wildlife photographers, and my idea of commercial work involves using serious cameras with movements, which demand a slower approach, and render detail better through control of the plane of focus with the Scheimplug rule.

 

(A great deal of what gets written about Hasselblads is sour grapes from people who cannot afford them, but I have three, and four lenses.)

 

Few people use cameras with movements for pictures including people, due to the set-up time, but if you want the foreground, background or whatever in focus as well as the people, you will find it invaluable. Set-up time is minimised with the Sinar system.

 

If you will not be using a great deal of film, large format might be a cost-effective option worth considering, with or without roll film adaptors, or you could buy a Hasselblad system, and buy and additional body � a Flexbody � for the shorts where movements would help.

 

Then, of course, if you have £20k to £25k available you could invest in the ultimate digital system, using Digitar/Sinar/Eyelike when you need movements, and a Nikon lenses with Digiflex and Eyelike when you do not.

"'Artistic' is usually a euphemism for blurred, used by people trying to sell 35mm pictures!"

 

"The world is full of sloppy bohemians and their work betrays them."- Edward Weston

Consider the rolleiflex plannar 2.8 as you enjoy existing lighting and single lens. It lacks of mirror so you can hand held the camaera in low light situation and if you get the GX/FX, you wouldn't need a light meter. It lacks intercahngeable lens, but the quality if the lens is second to none.

 

Vincent Lau

Steinar, the Hasselblad (I assume you mean the V-Series) will of course give you much more details and better tonality and sharpness with large prints. Some thoughts:

 

When you don't use a flash, a Hasselblad SLR is not quite a good hand camera. I know that there are people who claim they can shoot a 80 mm lens a 1/60 s, but I don't manage to get sharp pictures under 1/250 s. So I use a tripod every time I use available light.

 

As stated above, the corresponding lens to the 35 mm lens in 35mm would be the 60 mm lens for Hasselblad 6x6, not the 80 mm.

 

Note that depth of field for a 80 mm MF lens is the same as for an 80 mm Nikon lens. So in MF, you always have less depth of field with the corresponding focal length. When you say that the surrounding of the people you photograph is import, you will probably need an even stronger wide angle lens.

 

With the 80 mm lens you cannot take tight head shots. The nearest distance for this lens is 0.9 meters.

 

And yes, the Hasselblad demands a slower approach. But that also makes you react slower, especially when you photograph people. When you want to work almost as fast as with your Nikon SLR but with the MF film size advantage, then you should consider one of the 645 AF cameras like the Hasselblad H1 (or Contax, Mamiya, Pentax).

Everyone pretty much agrees that 6x6 is clearly superior to 35 mm in quality, but IMHO 35 mm is way faster and more mobile. Think about your needs; I bought a 4x5" view camera for a reasonable price (far less than a Hassy) and the quality is way better than attainable with a Hassy. A view camera favors a slow, contemplative approach (might be too slow for your needs though)

 

The Hassy is a reasonably priced camera of very good quality that people either seem to love or hate; the user interface put me off when shopping for MF! (and my main camera is still a F100, whose user interface I like) If you want to try MF a bit without spending a large amount of cash, buy a TLR (eg. Mamiya, Yashica) to get a feel for the image quality, or rent a Hassy to get a feel for both image quality and the operation of the camera. My Rolleiflex can be hand-held far better than any SLR, so if "hand-holdability" is a concern, then a TLR or a rangefinder is something to consider.

 

In short, try it so you'll get a feel for what you might want to buy.

Thank you all for your answers! Now I´ve got even more to think about! :) The reason this occupies me this much is that I´m not loaded with cash, so I would have to sell my 35mm equipment in order to pay for MF. Maybe it would be a good idea as suggested above to buy a prime 35mm f2 and try to find a TLR at a reasonable price. That way I would only need to sell the 17-35mm and be able to have both systems. I have used HB before, but as mentioned I would be much more dependent on a tripod. The Mamiya 7II is a very interesting camera, 6x7cm is a beautiful format... But I´m beeing put off by all the talk of misaligned finders, is this really such a huge problem?

I have two Mamiya 6s and two Mamiya 7IIs and have had no problems with finder alignment.

Me again! Reading Ken Rockwell´s links pretty much confirms what I´ve heard about the Mamiya 7II. The 6 is better? I also read somewhere that there is a Mamiya TLR with interchangeable lenses, that sounds promising. Has anyone used that camera? I guess I need to look more into what options there really are, seems to be more than I´ve heard about! :)

 

Again thank you very much to all of you for your time and concern!

"Reading Ken Rockwell´s links pretty much confirms what I´ve heard about the Mamiya 7II. The 6 is better?"

 

The design of the 6 variants is clever, with the collapsing front section. And the 6s are lighter and the 6s' lenses are lighter (less glass to project smaller image circles). But I wouldn't call the 6 variants better than the 7 variants. They are very similar cameras and have amazing lenses.

 

I shoot the 6s specifically to make square images. If I'm going to make oblong images, I'd prefer to shoot the 6x7 format 7 variants than to crop a 6x6 image to 6x4.5.

 

"I also read somewhere that there is a Mamiya TLR with interchangeable lenses, that sounds promising. Has anyone used that camera?"

 

You can find tons of Mamiya TLR stuff on eBay at bargain prices. The lenses are mostly on par with 6 and 7 variant lenses. The only drawback to the Mamiya TRS is that they are a bit large and heavy.

 

http://www.williamsphotographic.com/ocr/mf/mamtlr.html

If you haven't started really researching or using medium format yet, there's no reason to be loyal to the Hasselblad brand. There are plenty of great cameras out there. Rollei makes great ones, like the Rolleiflex. Bronica makes inexpensive yet good ones in three formats. Fuji makes some expensive monsters with movements. Mamiya makes what I personally consider the Blad's equal (or superior) in my eyes, their 6x7 series. The RB and RZ are both nice, the RZ nicer, more expensive, and more electronic.

 

As they say in the MF tutorial on this site, first figure out what format you want. 6x6 isn't the only way to go. 6x4.5 is lighter and cheaper, 6x7 is bigger and more expensive, but may have its advantages.

 

If I could have any MF camera kit that I wanted, of any price, I'd pick a few different ones. If limited to one, I'd go with the Hassy. Why? Because it works for everything, and I like to shoot everything. Still life one day, serious landscapes and hiking the next, portraits after that. It works for everything and has great expandability. If I had to pick one for hiking, it's be 6x4.5. If I had to pick one for studio, it's be RZ67. But for overall, the Hasselblad seems best.

 

Of course, bang-for-the-buck is a big factor.

Hi Steinar. All of the above are good suggestions, and if I had the budget ,

with the type of work you do I'd do with the mamiya 6 or 7. That being said,

the Mamiya 645 is reasonably priced also.

 

I have been working with a Kowa. Great lenses and reasonably priced. You

might want to look for a Kowa 6 and a 55 on Ebay.

 

Good luck

Chip

The C-series Mamiya TLRs have interchangeable lenses. Do a web search, there are many cameras and lenses of this series available on the used market for reasonalbe prices. I used on from the 60's; it worked well and the image quality was good (with a 105 mm lens), but it's a lot bigger and less "refined" than a Rolleiflex.

 

If you're into rangefinders, a Plaubel Makina might also be worth investigating, I think they're cheaper than comparable Mamiyas.

Ask yourself what the "artistic 'look'" is that you're after and use the camera/film/lighting/etc that'll get you There.

Hearing Eric Friedmann say he´s got no problems with either of his Mamiya 7II is reassuring. Suppose we mostly get to hear about the things that don´t work, not the ones that do.

 

The advantages of HB seem to me to be byuing into a very versatile system (extension tubes, polaroid, etc.), and there is a lot of it in second hand markets. I have a lot of experience with HB from working as an assistant for 2 years (Pentax 67 as well). Guess that´s why I thought of HB first. Mamiya 7II is very tempting, expensive though.

 

I do realize that these are very different systems (wish I could have both in one camera!) and each have their advantages. A HB will allow me to do things a M 7II won´t, but then again the M 7II will probably allow me to shoot more handheld, which I kind of have a weak spot for. What I´m relly after in MF is the higher resolution and the richer tonal gradiation. One thing that is very important to me (as to most photographers I suppose) is reliability.

 

I´ll upload a photo as an example of the kind of work I´m thinking about as soon as I have the possibility. Of course I also need to think about that I won´t necessarily be shooting in that style forever.

 

Thank you very much, again, to all of you for your comments.

 

:) Steinar

My Mamiya C3, which looks like it survived the siege of Byzantium, gave me the biggest improvement in the my photography I ever had. Not because of the optics or mechanics of the shutter or anything like that, but simply because it slowed me dowm and limited me to 12 frames per roll, so I had to think more about the picture I was taking.

Steinar: If you don't need to take pictures closer than 1m, a 7II will be fine.

 

If you need to take closeup or macro and to use long tele you need a SLR. With 6x6 you'll never have to turn the camera, and a 6x6-SLR is not so bulky and hevy.

 

You may also want a bigger aperture than 4 (7II), the normals for SLRs are 2.8, for some cameras even 2.

 

Don't be afraid of handholding a Hasselblad with 50mm, 60mm or 80mm. I handhold a 501 with 80mm at 90% of my pictures down to 1/30s.

 

For long time exposures I'll buy a new Foba Superball M-1 Bento with quick-release unit (405g) for my small Gitzo, and I'll prerelease the camera. If my tripod is heavy, I'll leave it at home or in my car.

Audun, when you're able to handhold a Hassi with an 80 mm optics down to 1/30 s and get sharp pictures, you are lucky and have a very calm hand. I don't get sharp pictures under 1/250 s ...

1/250????

 

I can handhold my ETRS to 1/8 without noticeable blur.

Only 1/8, Jason? Why, i can handhold my Sinar 8x10" for 5 hours, 38 minutes and 1/4 of a second and not notice any blur!<br>Of course, i never look very hard at what i produce, since when it's developed and there is something to see, it's too late to do anything about it anyway. So why bother? ;-)<br><br>Jason, i suggest you have a close look at what you are producing at 1/8 handheld, then put your Bronica on a hefty tripod, and try again. You'll be amazed. ;-)

The Bronica usually lives atop a Cullmann Titan 2, rated at 154 pounds. I use a mediocre Bogen head since the tripod is normally for my 810N, but the head holds camera with long lens, pola back, and prism fine.

 

However, at some times, the tripod won't go. I remember climbing down to the sea cave (with the rising tide) at Acadia a few weeks ago. I forgot the tripod, and once in the cave, didn't go all the way back up to get it.

 

My pics at 1/8 will normally hold up to an 8x10 with what I consider "acceptable" sharpness (quite high).

 

Obviously this isn't a great idea, but if I see a great subject and don't have the time to get the tripod, it CAN be done. It's a compromise and a loss of quality, but possible, and maybe worth it.

 

BTW, most of my work that's handheld is in the 1/60 to 1/125 range with 75mm normal lens. I find that I can enarge quite a bit (magnification equiv. to full-frame 16x20) without problems.

Hi!

 

I know it´s a bit late, but I´d like to upload examples of the kind of pictures I was thinking about in my question above. I don´t have any regular access to internett you see... Sorry about that, but here they are:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1755875

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1755878