Jump to content

Hassy's don't justify the cost for me


hjoseph7

Recommended Posts

When I wanted to get into Medium Format I tried to buy a Hassleblad 500Cm from an Estate of a coworker of mine

whose husband had passed away. I had about $800 with me which 10 years ago was allot of money for me. The

camera was located in this antique photography store that has long since gone out of business. I plopped my $800

on the counter and the guy behind it hands me the "Back" of the 500CM. I asked him where is the rest of the

camera ? He says that's it, that's all you can get with that type of money !

 

He then pointed me to a Mamiya 645 that came with a grip an 80mm f 2.8 lens, a 45mm lens, a strap and I still had

money to left over to purchase a Gossen light meter and some film. I didn't want to dissapoint my coworker by not

buying anything from her husbands estate.

 

I have been a Mamiya fan ever since. Of course the batteries on this camera are a PIA, the winder is another weak

spot, but as far as the image is concerned, I don't see that much of a difference if you pick your lenses wisely.

 

Since then, the price for Hassy's have gone down tremendously, but not as much as the price for Mamiyas. I have a

whole assortment of Mamiya lenses now and although I have gone through 2 cameras it wasnt like when my camera

died it was the death of sibling. Maybe one day I would like to move up to Hassleblad. I sure like that model with the

Digi back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>To each his own. I have used the same 500C/m, A-12 and A-16 backs and 40, 60, 80 and 150 Blad lenses for quite a while and would never even consider trading down to anything else. And when the batteries die........oh wait, I don't have to worry about that. And you do realize that Hassy full frame digital bodies go for in excess of $30,000 right?</p>

<p>But if you are happy with the Mamiya, then stick with it. It's not so much the equipment you have, <strong><em>but what you do with it. </em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><!--StartFragment -->I have the RB67 Pro SD. It's a full manual camera...it doesn't even take batteries. The only thing (IMHO) that it can't do when compared to the Hasselblad is take 6x6 images. <br /><br />And somehow, this conversation is leaning towards digital. The OP did mention the Digi back for the Hasselblad and it's noted. <br /><br />To me, it's all about the lens...regardless of the format that's being shot. I read once (and I would like anyone to enlighten me of any additional information) that the Hasselblad lenses are a little overly sharp and that the Mamiya lenses perform more like a Leica lens. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's the top dog in the game and they can demand whatever they want. For over 20 years it has been in my mind to get one. I just could not justify to have to pay a few hundreds for a filter after getting a body with a back and a lens. It might be the best quality filter in the game too but a $50 one would not be much less quality behind. I ended up trying out with a Yashica D, a Rolleiflex and a Mamiya C330. I was never really satisfied with the square format because each time I print I had to trim to fit the paper. I had long put that idea behind me. I am now very happily stick to a Pentax 67-II. It's nowhere near to be a top dog so it was much cheaper.</p>

<p>It's funny that in several occasions when I showed up in weddings with my P67-II it made the pro who was hired really nervous. I had to tell the guy not to worry that I would not shoot when he was shooting.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>How is comparing things like Hassy and Leica to Mamiya really any different than comparing a high-end lens to a low-end lens within the same family? Or damn near EVERY luxury item on the planet to something else consumer-grade that serves the same purpose? Be that cars, houses, furnishings...you name it.<br>

<br />Photography is ALL about diminishing margin of return. You can get 90% quality for $100, 99% quality for $1000, and 99.9% quality for $10,000. You get what you pay for...it's just not linear...it's logarithmic. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Harry,</p>

<p>I own and shoot two Hasselblads, an almost complete RB system, a couple of Yashica Mat 124G's, and a Mamiya Super Press for my medium format work. In the past I have owned and shot Bronicas and Mamiya 645's. Those last two are gone, not because of image quality, but because I was not comfortable with the fact that I could not change emulsions in mid roll if desired and I often switch between chromes and black and white on a given job. That's why I've got the two Yashica Mats, and all the others have interchangeable backs.</p>

<p>All, including the Bronicas and 645's have terrific lenses and delivier fine images.</p>

<p>Having said that, If I know I'm going to really big prints, say above 20x24, or commercial ad print work that requires the finest detail, it's only the Hasselblad and it's lenses that come out of the safe. Even the glorious old model 180mm on the RB can't match any of the Blad lenses for clarity and sharpness. But, if it's a headshot portrait....that 180mm is <strong>way </strong> my favorite lens and finest results for smooth skin and wonderful, true skin colors, so then I pull out the RB.</p>

<p>I also prefer the flexibility of the square format for cropping after the fact. That means I can compose and shoot without flipping either the back or the whole camera which I find distracting in a fast paced shoot, especially when the camera is on a tripod or studio stand.</p>

<p>Prices for a good 500CM and a few core lenses have come down to the point of being very affordable compared to only a couple of years ago (much less ten years ago that you refer to) so I don't see the price argument as having that much validity unless you are looking at the incredibly costly digital Hasse's. </p>

<p>Like others have said, it's all in which system you enjoy and with which you have the most comfort.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Harry -</p>

<p>After being introduced to med format with a gifted Rolleicord V, then acquiring a few Rolleiflex TLR's, I eventually settled on a new 500CM as my ideal 120 camera. No real reason based on experience, just some familiarity with the brand through professional photographer friends. Planned and saved for it, purchased in the late 70's, four lenses, three backs, prism, etc. Pricey? Yes. - Satisfactory? Decidedly.</p>

<p>Some of my friends swear by Mamiya and Pentax, I'm unable to see a difference in our images, they're completely happy with their choices and so am I. I'd say do some homework, get basically familiar, buy what you like and can afford. I doubt among the major brands you can actually buy an inferior 120 camera.</p>

<p>I do take exception to the posted notion that the Hasselblad "doesn't deliver," my take is exactly opposite, it has never failed to please me, I've never been disappointed by it. No buyers remorse, never felt the "if only I'd bought _ _ _ _ _ _ instead" sense. Almost surely if I had gone with Mamiya, Contax or Pentax I'd have been equally pleased, I consider all of them to be great performers. The images produced are a sincere pleasure to experience, especially projected slides in my case. </p>

<p>For my strictly but serious amateur use, my Hasselblad is a wonderful camera to use. With regular, routine services by Hasselblad specialists, it has never failed to operate perfectly and reliably. Even after 30+ years it is a solid performer today, and I expect it will be for whomever I pass it along to.</p>

<p>For you, Harry, I think EITHER the Hassy or the Mamiya in digital application would be just fine, so long as your viewing abilities match the capabilities of the 120 size sensors. In my limited familiarity with digital technology, I'm assured these do produce a huge file size. It might add up to overkill.</p>

<p>Best regards</p>

<p>Patrick </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Harry, don't fall into the trap whereas hassey owners get VERY defensive about their gear and get all insecure when the great blad god it questioned. They feel a bit silly after spending all that money for "hasselblad" when 1/10 of the funds paid will deliver better results.</p>

<p>Bottom line is the cheap stuff is never the least expensive Execpt in this case. Put a good mamiya glass in the hands of someone that knows what their doing and it'll knock the socks off of a hasselblad every, single time.<br>

Anyway, you begun the thread knowing this already, didn't you?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've owned them both.<br>

<br /> My advice?<br>

Enjoy what you have! If there's something specific that it's not doing for you, then look for another that will better address your needs. I wouldn't worry one whit about whose brand is better than whose--it's about what you want/need to do. Does the Mamiya meet all your needs?<br>

Best regards,<br>

-Brad</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's the mistake, right at the seed of your judgment:<br>

" <strong>The camera was located in this antique photography store that has long since gone out of business.</strong> "<br>

<strong>1. </strong> Classic cameras found in antique stores are invariably overpriced. As to the value or worthiness of such an item, it was simply your mistake to take an antique dealer's word for it.<br>

<strong>2.</strong> And if you actually did what you said, as you describe? "<strong>I plopped my $800 on the counter</strong> ", for heaven's sake! .... you are asking to be ripped off.<br>

<strong>3</strong> . You were not buying from the 'estate' but from someone who got there first, and was ready for you.<br>

<strong>4.</strong> If you had gone into a reputable camera shop, or two, and asked to look at the range of Hasselblad offers, then with some <em>knowledge</em> return to one of them where the most affordable deals are, ask what's the best they can do on a price for something near your budget. .... (without saying what that was)<br>

<strong>5. </strong> Ten years ago? I bought a complete 500C with 80mm T*, two magazines, lens shade and a handful of filters, .. for how much? US$600 in another country with a higher cost of living than where you are.<br>

<strong>6.</strong> Sorry Harry, but you seem to be the last person to be making any sort of quality assessment of Hasselblad, simply because you don't know.<br>

That said, it is important to enjoy your photography, and it sounds like you do. Good. I wish you well with the Mamiya.<br>

For years I had used Bronica S2A and TLR Yashica. I was very tempted by the price of new Bronicas. Mamiya 330 and 220 were still in production then and affordable. However I took a step into the future with the purchase of my first Hasselblad. That was 20 years ago. Currently owning 3 bodies, 6 lenses and a number of magazines, bellows etc etc., and still adding to the outfit with 70mm magazines. Set up for everything assignment imaginable from macro, precision copy work, portrait, landscape and aerial photography, I am not a die-hard Hasselblad fan who is blind to limitations or shortcomings, but after 2 decades of application, I have absolutely no reason to downgrade, nor do I regret the investment.<br>

Cheers, Kevin.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"That the Hasselblad lenses are a little overly sharp and that the Mamiya lenses perform more like a Leica lens."</em><br>

There is no such thing as an overly sharp lens. A lens is either sharp and has high resolution or it has less resolution. I have no experience with Mamiya medium format. They seem like great cameras. I've owned a 501c since 1996 and it has never let me down. Amazing camera, and the 50mm Zeiss Distagon is one of the best lenses ever made in terms of sharpness and resolution. Glad you found a camera you enjoy at a price you can afford. What one does with it is what matters.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It al comes down to this:<br>

Can you justify the extra cost of the Hasselblad and their lenses with your abilities and opportunities as a photographer?<br>

Is your technique up to the level that the, let's face it marginal, gain in quality that such material brings can come to it's right?<br>

How many of your pictures are you having enlarged to the point where the quality difference between a hasselblad and a mamya lens becomes really noticeable?<br>

When you can not answer these questions for yourself positively there is no real other need to change other than "I want to have a ..."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not sure I see much point to MF if you don't care about things like sharp lenses. Certainly one's choice of Mamiya or Hassy or Pentax or ... (to name just a few) has more to do with personal preference of one camera system over another. If you don't think quality makes much difference I'd argue that you get the most bang for your buck from Holga. That's only partially a joke based on what you said.</p>

<p>Oh, don't forget Minox!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tom<br>

Guess with your tone you just want to bait Hasselblad owners. Cannot think I could get a Mamiya freshly serviced and a three month warranty for less than $50 hence you remarks on one tenth the price may be a slight exaggerated. For the situation I was in and for my choice of aspect Hasselblad turned out to be the best choice, other situations and preferences and I would have chosen a different system. That is why there are 645, 66, 67 and 68 cameras. And did Zeiss make two tiers of lenses, one for the good stuff and one for Hasselblads?<br>

If any of the systems were so vastly superior (and cheaper) in the professional MF market one would think that the one company would have totally cornered the market. Changing systems seems to me more of a lateral move than upgrade or down grade.<br>

I've used a 645 in previous job and to the OP unless you are printing in square moving from a 645 to a 66 is not going to be any improvement. I love the square format but that is my personal preference. If you like rectanglar prints than you would be better off with one of the larger Mamiya if you want to "upgrade" as you would get a negative noticably larger. For a project my wife just did we borrowed another MF system as she needed a rectangular aspect and for the size of the final prints cropping the Hasselblad was not the best solution. If you are happy with the Mamiya 645 and have 10 years experience with it why would you want to change it for something else?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I feel the hasselblads are "in general" more modular, compact, lighter then mamiyas.<br>

Apart for a few cameras mamiyas are mostly 6x4.5 format which I find inconvenient compared to the easily crop-able, versatile 6x6 square format. <br>

Even with no batteries most hasselblads are operational.<br>

The older C lens while not as good as maybe the CF/CFI lens are still exceptional, very cheap, and works on all bodies. Same for all backs (including digital for a hefty price) and accessory.<br>

TTL at 1/500<br>

For the electronic side of Hassy , Fast FE lens (FE2/100, 2.8/300...)and the 203fe/205ffc (1/2000 speed) bodies are all amazing and getting cheaper.</p>

<p>All of this to me justifies the cost.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I prefer the Hasselblad myself. Great gear and I think in the used market they are very reasonable. They do cost more then a Mamiya system like the RB67. It's the shooters choice to buy what they feel would work out the best for them. </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...