Leica M2 or Hasselblad 500cm

Hello everybody, i recently realized that my Nikon d7200 has been sitting in my bag unused for the last two months or so because ive been using either my Sony rx100 or Nikon F3, so I've decided to sell my digital Nikon kit.

 

I really love shooting film and I am expecting to get $1500 for my Nikon gear and am trying to decide which classic, film camera to get. The Leica M2 or Hasselblad 500cm

 

Any opinions that you guys may have would be greatly appreciated thanks.

Hello everybody, i recently realized that my Nikon d7200 has been sitting in my bag unused for the last two months or so because ive been using either my Sony rx100 or Nikon F3, so I've decided to sell my digital Nikon kit.

 

I really love shooting film and I am expecting to get $1500 for my Nikon gear and am trying to decide which classic, film camera to get. The Leica M2 or Hasselblad 500cm

 

Any opinions that you guys may have would be greatly appreciated thanks.

Wow; you will get many (strong) opinions on this question. I'm fortunate in having both, and the experiences are obviously quite different. Have you shot medium format before? It might be a new experience that could be interesting for you. You obviously cannot go wrong with either choice. Perhaps you can rent both and see what meets your needs best prior to committing to one or the other. Best of luck in your decision; it's a nice one to have.

I think the question is size and weight. When I was younger I hiked the Smoky Mountains with a Hasselblad and 3 lenses. Now I prefer something lighter. I want to try Leica but don't have any experience with it.

My reason for voting M2 is of the two it's the one I'd be most likely to carry with me because of its size and weight being less than the Hasselblad.

Here's my take-

 

I shoot a lot of 35mm film, but when it comes down to it and I want quality, I grab medium or large format.

 

Either would serve you well, but since you already have some good quality 35mm equipment my personal inclination would be to go with the Hasseblad.

 

With that said, you need to keep in mind that medium format tends to be more slow and deliberate than 35mm. Although Hasselblads can and have been handheld for years, you'll want to use a tripod for the best results. You are looking at a VAST difference in size between a medium format SLR and a 35mm rangefinder, with the former being probably as heavy as if not heavier than an F3+MD4+longish lens and the latter being light and small. The ergonomics of a Hasselblad(and most other MF SLRs) are quite different than 35mm cameras.

 

A Hasselbad gives you 12 exposures per roll(we'll discount 220 since Fuji discontinued the last one a few months ago). Of course, you can buy and carry multiple film backs or even just inserts that are pre-loaded, but otherwise most MF SLRs are a bit more clunky to load than 35mm cameras. When you finish a roll, you pull it out, fold the backing paper under, then either lick and stick the retaining sticker(Kodak, Ilford) or peel and stick it(Fuji). To load a fresh roll, you pull out the insert, move the empty spool to the take-up side, put the fresh spool on the feed side, feed the backing paper around the pressure plate, hook it on the take up spool, advance the backing paper until the arrows line up with the index in the camera, and the put it back together and crank until the camera stops cranking. It gets faster with practice, but there again there's a reason why folks will often have a couple of film backs(of course that also lets you easily switch film types).

 

The standard finder for 6x6 and larger SLRs, along with TLRs, is the waist level finder. Basically, this is just a hood(almost always with a pop-up loupe) that fits around the focusing screen to shield it from light. It's large enough in medium format that looking at the bare screen is generally more than sufficient, although I almost always use the magnifier to make sure focus is dead on. WLFs give an image that is upright but inverted right to left. Some folks find this difficult to use, although with a bit of practice it doesn't bother me(at least it's not upside down like a view camera :) ). There are prisms for the Hasselblad and virtually all other MF SLR systems, but they are heavy and are also often fairly dim. If I do use a prism, I prefer a 45º to a 90º-both are available for most systems. Also, I'm not sure about the specifics for Hasselbad, but you can get basic TTL metered prisms for most cameras.

 

Bear in mind that every Hasselblad 500-series lens has its own shutter, and especially if you buy older chrome bodied lenses you'll likely need to budget in having every one of them serviced. There again, this is typical of MF cameras, albeit with some notable exceptions.

 

I would still vote for the Hasselbad. I just say all of the above to warn you that the Leica is going to be a more "comfortable" camera for you to use coming from digital and an F3.

All good answers above. I have both and I use one or the other based on what subject I plan to shoot. I will not take the Hassy for a street shoot but I would take it for urban architecture for example. Also I would rarely use Leica for landscape. Sure there are exceptions but you have to consider what you shoot more often and how you shoot in order to make the right decision. You know what, why not get both and save the headache:)

Either way you win. Trouble is, which ever one you get, you'll wish you had the other. Me, I have had both and for no really good reason I'd go 500CM

All good answers above. I have both and I use one or the other based on what subject I plan to shoot. I will not take the Hassy for a street shoot but I would take it for urban architecture for example. Also I would rarely use Leica for landscape. Sure there are exceptions but you have to consider what you shoot more often and how you shoot in order to make the right decision. You know what, why not get both and save the headache:)

 

I would love to get both, and depending on which one I get I plan on getting the other when I have the money. At the moment I'm considering the Hassie a bit more, I have my F3 for my street work and the Hassie would be great for landscapes, and I already have a fairly nice tripod for it.

Two very different cameras with different shooting experience.

I went with the Hasselblad, cuz I have my 35mm SLR.

And to get better image quality I decided I needed a larger negative.

I just went through a similar thing myself. I wanted to go with either a Leica M6 or a Hasselblad. My reason was they are out there to purchase and they can be repaired. However I finally went cheap and bought a Mamiya 645e. I process the film at home and had to also purchase a film scanner. I bought the Epson V600 and also bought Silverfast SE software, a packable tripod, contrast filters for B/W and other misc stuff. I probably spent about $1200.00 on the set up. I am going to Yosemite next week and do some hiking and some shooting. It's a two day trip and I have a permit for Half Dome so I am going to hike that on the 8th and take photos on the 9th. Just my cell phone camera for the hike to keep the weight down.

These are dramatically different cameras. For "street" shooting I use a Leica IIIc. The Leica lenses are small and the camera is very discreet. For landscapes I use a 4x5 or 5x7--lens movements are the main reason. I would not buy a Hassleblad for street shooting--the thing is honking big and attracts attention. I would not buy a Hassleblad for landscapes--if want 120 based camera for that I'd get a 6x9 or something like Momamiya or Pentax 67. Or a Fuji 680 which gives lens movements.

 

 

Kent in SD

Since I was contemplating getting a Leica M, but had little experience with rangefinders, I decided to first get a cheaper rangefinder to see how I'd actually like rangefinder focussing. So I wasted a little money on a Kiev-4, and later a bit more on a Kiev-2. I've used the latter a fair bit, enough to give myself some idea.

What I do like is the silent shutter, and the fact that it's a discrete size. What I don't like is rangefinder focussing. It's just not for me; I prefer SLR-style focussing. Personally, before spending a rather serious amount on a Leica M (and aside from the M2, I'd also consider the M4), I'd first get some sort of rangefinder to see if it actually suits you. Now, the Hasselblad is basically the exact opposite from the M: large, loud but I'd like the focussing.... The other thing with medium format is whether the rest of your workflow (be it darkroom, be it digital) can handle the larger negatives.

 

Nobody can seriously answer this question for you as we all have different preferences. For that kind of money, I'd consider adding a F2, FM2 or F3 and a bunch of Nikon top-end lenses from that era, or something like the Leica SL2 or R6 with a fairly nice collection of primes. If Medium Format, something Bronica or Mamiya. Simply because I'd always rather spend money on good lenses than bodies.

For street portraits and everything other than macro, I tend to use Rolleiflex a lot. Hasselblad 500C/M tend to stay home a lot, probably prefer a more studio setting. (btw, I have an extra kit if you are interested) Leica M2/M3 are so beautifully crafted, it is worth owning in any case.

The Leica is smaller than the Hasselblad but it is quite heavy for its size.

Thanks for all the suggestions and opinions, I think that I will be going with the Hasselblad, due to its reputation for being well built, having high quality lenses, and for the type of photography that I plan to use it for, not to mention my swedish heritage is telling me to get it :) . Now I just have to find someone to purchase my Nikon kit, if you know anyone looking for one feel free to direct message me. Thanks everyone

I have Leica Ms and Mamiya TLRs, a Pentacon + Linhofs. To do drugstore / image factory printed color, I'll stick to 35mm. When it comes to home processed B&W I prefer the larger formats. My darkroom stamina is too limited to go with trigger happy 35mm vacations. For a hybrid "film to file" workflow MF might be more tempting than the tiny 35mm format. While I tried 6x6 slides, I recommend sticking to 35mm for projection. It takes a serious investment in film to get a slideshow worth rigging up a screen together from just 12 frames per roll.

With my not super sharp eye sight I like rangefinder focusing more than guessing what a 35mm SLR lens might be focusing on. Things seem to get equal beyond 50mm.

I loaded one magazine or two and shot a roll in a friend's elderly Hasselblad. it is a nice kind of compact SLR. - OTOH: SLRs aren't ideal for my landscape shooting. - Do you love composing through your red or orange filter? - I don't. The close focusing distance of the 80mm I used seems too big for my taste. It admittedly isn't great on a Leica wide or normal either. I am just stating that 35mm Pentax or Nikon spoiled us in that field and Mamiyas' built in bellows are sometimes nice to have.

I hope you'll be lucky with your Hasselblad hunt and also that your budged will allow a basic 2 lens kit. I shot 55 & 135mm most of the time on Mamiyas. I also have 250 and 80mm. Starting a new format with just a standard lens doesn't give that many options. - I know nothing about current prices. With good eyes an M2 with 35mm combined with F3 for the long end seems a decent kit to carry. Another thought: Try to get hold of a body upgraded to Hasselblad's later brighter focusing screens. - Those must be awesome and older MF TLRs / SLRs are horribly dim compared to the 35mm ones we are used to. Good luck!

I'd get the Leica. It's smaller and you can realistically handhold it down to 1/30th. The Hasselblad will need support below 1/250th. Medium format scanners are poor: not an issue if you are printing at home. Commercial printing of 120 film is pricey. Focusing is much slower and more difficult than with the Leica. You may get frame spacing issues, light leaks with A12 backs, unless maintained or in tip top condition. Lenses are slower. 120 film is not as easy to handle in general. If you find you want more lenses, then a 'blad system will get large very quickly. Leica lenses are very small. If you want an MF camera then I would suggest a leaf shutter rangefinder (Fuji 645, Bronica 645, Fuji 6 x 7/6 x 9, Mamiya 6 or 7).

If you want an MF camera then I would suggest a leaf shutter rangefinder (Fuji 645, Bronica 645, Fuji 6 x 7/6 x 9, Mamiya 6 or 7)" Robin S.

Wow, I completely disagree.

Coming from the technical & practical side, & when someone asks me what I think of these 'compact' models in the medium format world. I basically state that they're pretty "light duty" in their design and choice of materials. Plus, good luck obtaining service & parts for these Japanese brands (Parts support has never been their strong suit).

 

Even with some of their fussiness and quirks, the Hasselblad V system cameras (i.e. 500c/m), have been around so long that parts & service are never an issue. Additionally, accessories are plentiful; heck you can easily attach modern digital backs to them!

 

But most importantly, these ultra quality 'system' cameras & lenses, used hardened metals, no electronics to speak of, no bellows and Pro torture tested simplistic designs...

Gus has a good point, but it will depend very much on what kind of photography the OP does. If he is a more casual, "I walk around and take pictures when I am out and about" type of photographer then an M2 or a r/f MF camera is, to me, a much better match. If he wants tripod work and a full kit and wants to take a slower, more contemplative approach then the Hasselblad is probably better for the reason Gus mentions. I have to say I don't consider the big Fujis are "light duty".

If you go the Hasselblad 501cm is a very nice camera and has a bright viewfinder.

Gus has a good point, but it will depend very much on what kind of photography the OP does. If he is a more casual, "I walk around and take pictures when I am out and about" type of photographer then an M2 or a r/f MF camera is, to me, a much better match. If he wants tripod work and a full kit and wants to take a slower, more contemplative approach then the Hasselblad is probably better for the reason Gus mentions. I have to say I don't consider the big Fujis are "light duty".

 

I have my Nikon F3 for daily shooting and general photography, I have a fairly nice Manfrotto tripod already and would be looking at a full kit for the Hasselblad.

 

 

Wow, I completely disagree.

Coming from the technical & practical side, & when someone asks me what I think of these 'compact' models in the medium format world. I basically state that they're pretty "light duty" in their design and choice of materials. Plus, good luck obtaining service & parts for these Japanese brands (Parts support has never been their strong suit).

 

Even with some of their fussiness and quirks, the Hasselblad V system cameras (i.e. 500c/m), have been around so long that parts & service are never an issue. Additionally, accessories are plentiful; heck you can easily attach modern digital backs to them!

 

But most importantly, these ultra quality 'system' cameras & lenses, used hardened metals, no electronics to speak of, no bellows and Pro torture tested simplistic designs...

 

 

Are you 'the' Gus Lazzari, world renowned Leica repairer/CLAer

That's funny Soren, "world renowned".

Talk about inflating my already healthy ego; yeah, I guess that would be me...

That's funny Soren, "world renowned".

Talk about inflating my already healthy ego; yeah, I guess that would be me...

 

Haha, it's just cool that you responded to my post, that's all.

It's just up to you to decide what would fit your needs.