Why Don't More Landscape photographers use Hasselblad?

Looking at various landscape photography books and web sites, I see

the photographers use a lot of medium format cameras - Pentax 6x4.5,

Pentax 67, Contax 6x4.5, Rollei 6x6, etc. I don't seem to see many

using the Hasselblad 501 6x6 type series.

 

I've never used one of these, but it seems it would be a good

choice, with it's ground glass viewfinder and Zeiss lenses.

 

Am I just missing this or is there a reason the Hasselblad is not as

popular for landscape photography?

 

Thanks,

Steve

Adams is said to have done much of his later work on a Hasselblad.

see for instance: www.michaelkenna.com and www.rolfhorne.com

 

there are many, many Hassy landscape shooters. Not all of them have websites. Hasselblad is great for all kind of photography, with the exception of sports of anything moving very fast.

Steve, I do!!! Seriously, maybe you didn't see a real cross section. However some points worth noting are: 1. often a rectangular ("landscape") format is preferred for obvious reasons (even though Hasselblad does offer 6x4.5 capability) 2. panoramic formats have become increaingly popular over the years - from 6x9 to 6x17. 3. Large format still has its niche where 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 are offered by equipment that also enables panoramic 120 film backs to be used. In addition large format offers lens movements that are valuable to some creative effects.

 

I, like many others find 6x6 square a wonderful creative format, but it does have challenges and limits. I also find that with the superb big 6x6 I can slice out nice panoramics and still get quality enlargements.

 

At the same time I also now use a Linhof 4x5, but was motivated to buy it for architecture and other things requiring lens movements.

 

Finally, I agree with you about Zeiss lenses. I recently spent a week shooting in the Australian outback using my Hassey mostly using a 50mm FLE and 180mm lenses - the images are sensational, like you are in the scene.

That's actually quite interesting that you are asking this question Steve, I am also looking for a camera to do some street shooting and LANDSCAPE, and I have been shooting 35mm so far and digital SLR............thinking of going medium format ! Because the pixs from a 35mm or a 6.5Mp dSLR ijust don't compare to a MF Velvia !

 

And I have explored so many options, but I seem to like the 6x6 format. Simon, how about posting a few outback pixs for us to check out. Might inspire me to "do the deed" soon ! Haha !

 

Wee-Ming

The answer to "Why Don't More Landscape photographers use Hasselblad?" is that they use something else?! No, I mean that other systems may have virtues, which in turn may influence peoples' choices but that does not damn Hasselblads as landscape cameras.

 

There are the issues such as the film format, lack of movements (for those landscape photographers who use a bellows camera, the Arc/Flex Bodies notwithstanding), cost, electronic control or even no real reason at all.

 

For those who do use the square 6x6, I suspect many DO use a Hasselblad, or if using a Rollei, Bronica etc it is NOT because the 'blad does not do a superb job.

 

Also, in your comparison you are comparing one thing (Hasselblad) against many (ever other MF SLR system). If you compared Hasselblad to each in turn, the disparity might be different.

Steve, I wouldn't use anything else ;-) I use my Hasselblad 501CM and ArcBody, utilising the square format for just about everything. However many people prefer a rectangular format for landscape work, it's simply a matter of personal preference. I've included a link to my website and also a link to the websites of Wim van Velzen and David Henderson who both use the square format for landscape work.<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim van Velzen</a><p><a href="http://www.photography001.com">David Henderson</a>

Thanks Keith.

 

Steve, how about Charlie Waite, and Christopher Burkett who

has some amazing photographs made on a Hasselblad as well

as excellent large format stuff. Then there's Bill Schwab.

 

Steve I'm not sure your central premise is right- more a question

of where you look really. I'm sure Keith's right when he points

out the influence of format selection. Within the people who

choose square for landscape, I'm sure Hasselblad are

absolutely dominant and its people like me with Bronicas that

are the exception.

I`m about to return to the 6 x 6 format - mainly for landscapes, and planning to buy a 503CM after regrettably parting with a Rolleiflex 2.8f a few months ago. (Links to Wim van Velzen`s and David Henderson`s web sites much appreciated btw)

 

James (UK)

There are a lot of Hassy landscape shooters. If you like the square format

Hassy has some advantages due to it's reasonable system weight. I used

hassy for many years and when I started doing landscape work I switched to

the Rolleiflex 6008i because I preferred it's Schneider lenses and I thought it

was a better designed camera and system. However that comes at a price in

weight.

 

As I prefer to shoot in a narrow horizontal, my Rolleis sit in the safe while I

primarily shoot with a Fuji GX680III or a Fuji GX617. Far larger cameras with

far bigger negatives.

I shoot landscapes with a Hasselblad - <a href="http://www.vir3x.com">www.vir3x.com</a>

David Plowden does [did].

The landscape is a relatively static subject. An SLR like the Hasselblad really comes into its own with dynamic subjects, and I would include portraits in that. For architecture and landscapes, where the ability to control the shape of objects in the frame and the plane of focus is an advantage, and one wants to render as much detail as possible, the view camera is the best tool for the job. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been excellent landscape work in all formats (Galen Rowell, for instance, in 35mm), but I would say that most serious landscapists work in large format.

<<Looking at various landscape photography books and web sites, I see the photographers use a lot of medium format cameras - Pentax 6x4.5, Pentax 67, Contax 6x4.5, Rollei 6x6, etc. I don't seem to see many using the Hasselblad 501 6x6 type series>>

 

Assuming you're speaking of the older Rollei's not new ones, those you mention were all quite a bit less expensive than Hasselblad. I say "were" because now that film, and especially rollfilm, is falling faster and faster into disuse because of digital, the price differential between MF brands isn't as big as it used to be even a year ago...and it will get smaller. I have used Hasselblad for landscape for many years. To me, short of LF with the movements, there is nothing better.

David there are many "serious" landscape photographers who use MF.

Perhaps more now than those who use LF.

 

Jay, if you want a MF camera with movements check out the Fuji GX680III.

When I became interested in photography years ago, I looked at the various popular systems. I looked at a Hasselblad, and I looked at Pentax 6x7. They were close to the same price (used) with normal lenses.

 

Then I looked at the prices for additional lenses.

 

I went with Pentax. No regrets!

What? Take a perfectly good camera outside? Into the sun? Where it could fade the finish or even worse maybe get a little bug on it?

 

There have been lots of Hasselblad landscape shooters. I used to shoot only landscapes and swore that when I could afford decent gear I would get a hasselblad. Well, I now have a couple blads along with a bunch of lenses but no longer do landscapes. Go figure. I have been playing with street shooting with the 180 though. Gets challenging.

 

Your post makes me want to go and play a bit with some landscapes, it has been a while.

 

vic... :)

In addition to the above-mentioned people, Jeff Grant has a superb Hasselblad landscape portfolio on this web site:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2420734

 

Another favorite of mine, (though he uses Pentax 6x7 and is off your question topic), is Leping Zha:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=514482

 

Best wishes!

Steve I think the answer to this is to use what ever you feel comfortable with, and not what makes others comfortable, it must come down to how you see the finished image in your head, cameras are tools, not jewelry to be worn as a badge of office. So look at loads of landscape pictures, and go with the format that suits your style and not be driven by the brand of camera that is sitting on the tripod.

 

 

Just enjoy being out there.

Regards.Kevin

The current issue of _Outdoor Photographer_--a magazine I don't particularly like, but I seem to have received a free subscription--is dedicated to landscapes, and I was surprised to see that in a magazine mainly aimed at 35mm and digital photographers, of four photographers featured in a "Landscape Masters" piece, three were working mainly in LF and only one with a DSLR. Yes, there are many fine landscapists (such as those listed above) working in MF, 35mm, and digital, but I still think that LF continues to dominate in the fine art (as opposed to stock, commercial, etc.) landscape world.

Towards the end of his life, Ansel Adams mostly used a pair of Hasselblads. Reportedly, they were the only cameras he still owned when he passed away.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photonews.net/outtakes/adams.html">And they soold for a pretty penny, too...</a>

David I might not consider "outdoor photographer" the bible of landscape

photography. It is primarily targeted towards 35mm or DSLR amateur

photographers. If you want to know what the landscape photographers use in

the fine art (gallery/museum) world it is not the best source for information.

 

I make my living as a landscape photographer, and in that environment I

know a handful that use LF and many that use MF. I use both but

predominantly MF.

 

www.kosoff.com

Thanks for all the answers and links. One thing that puzzles me, though. I keep reading people stating that digital is killing MF (or, that MF sales have been plumeting because of digital. What I don't understand is, the current state of digital does not equal the quality of MF images.

 

For instance, it takes approx. 22 megapixels to achieve 35mm quality. It takes approx 50 megapixels to achieve MF quality. It the photographers were using MF for increased film size and quality, why would they be leaving it in droves for digital, only to realize a smaller quality than 35mm? (And even MF digital backs start around $15k, so that's not an option for the average photographer.)

 

Am I missing something here? (Maybe I'm a little worried and paranoid, because I have a decent sized investment in MF gear and don't want to be left without film, etc...)

 

Thanks again,

Steve

Steve, MF is probably a fairly safe bet in the digital age. First DSLR's can't

match it, second with interchangeable backs you can shoot either film of

digitally with a MF, third as digital backs improve you can keep your current

MF system and simply upgrade to a newer digital back.

 

I think 35mm is in serious trouble as DSLR's are either as good as, or soon

will be as good as or better than 35mm film.

I completely agree that _OP_ isn't the place to look for this sort of information, but what surprised me was that in spite of the fact that their market is completely elsewhere, they decided to feature LF in their landscape issue. Just a curious data point.

 

It may be that I tend to read more publications (_View Camera_ obviously, _Camera Arts_, _Black and White Photography_ (UK), _B&W_ (US), _LensWork_, the former _PhotoVision_) and go to more gallery/museum shows that feature LF work, because that reflects my own taste, but there's a lot of it out there.