Hasselblad H1 - A real dream machine.

[trixshooter]

A few months ago I purchased a Hassy H1 with 35mm, 80mm and 150mm

lenses. I was a bit hesitant to buy a 645 camera as I have been a

6x6 freak for many years.

 

As I had been shooting quite a bit of 4x5, I figured that 645 was

very close and the format would be a comfortable transition.

 

After almost 4 months I an ecstatic about this camera. It has become

almost second nature for me. The auto focus is fast and accurate.

The battery life is excellent and operation has been flawless.

 

The lenses are first rate, sharp and have nice contrast. I am so

pleased that I have been using this camera more than any of my other

MF cameras.

 

Recently a friend brough over his Phase One back and we spent the

day making "digital" images. I am now thoroughly convinced that

Hasselblad has a real winner in the H1.

 

Just my own $0.2 worth.

[ian_everhov]

Ehh... Ok, nice for you! -I would have a very hard time convincing my wife i absolutly need to buy a camera slightly more expensive than our car, and it's not a cheap car mind you. I think Hasselblad's pretty much heading for the porcelain chair in the bathroom, if you know what i mean. As a devoted hassy user (500CM) since god knows how many years, besides being swedish, this of course feels no fun. But let's face it gentlemen, MF is pretty much doomed as a tool of the professional trade in theese days of king Canon 1Ds mark II. And not too many amature shooters are willing to dish out the amount of cash it takes to get a H1.

[feli]

The 1Ds II isn't a total replacement for MF. It's good, really good, but digital doesn't have

anywhere near the dynamic range of film and IMO traditional b/w still looks better. You

also don't get that nice big focusing screen...

 

 

feli

[jnorman2]

ian - i remain convinced that MF is here for a while longer. i have been testing canon 1Ds and 1Ds mkII against scanned MF film, and comparing the resulting prints. i tend to trust my eye, and am not anal about sheer resolving power - what i want is a pleasing print. so far, the digital files seem to result in somewhat plastic looking images compared to film. i cant tell you how many pros i have talked to who have switched to digital for their commenrcial work, but continue to shoot filmfor their personal and fine art work. i also queried a friend of mine back east who owns a photography fine art gallery -he shows both digital and film-based images in his gallery - when i asked him how the finest of the digital prints compare to the film based prints, he remarked that there was no comparison - the film-based work was far preferable. i also like the idea of some way to archive work, and a well-processed piece of film still seems ideal compared to CDrs that fail, HDDs that crash, servers that go down, etc. i do, however, believe that at some point, digital imaging will solve all of these remaining issues. but even then, as long as people can find a place to buy film, some people will contiue to do so - look at the dedicated cadre of ULF fanatics, and the 4x5 sheet film folks - those people will amke their own film before they will give up...

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>But let's face it gentlemen, MF is pretty much doomed as a tool of the professional

trade in theese days of king Canon 1Ds mark II.</I><P>I'll face "it': that king is going to

have a pretty short reign. If the competition doesn't do that king in then Canon will.

<P>But yes the market for medium format cameras is definely contracting. The Contax

645Af still seems to be with us, but for how long? Bronica is gone too. & Fuji has scaled

medium format cameras way , way back. I suspect the the next company we will see

drastically reconsidering if they have a medium format future is Rollei. Who will survive/

My prediction is that it will be Hasselblad and Mamiya - Notice that these companies are

already tightly integrating digital imaging technology into their current line up. The good

news is

that as long as there are a variety of emulsions of medium format films being sold (and

processed at a professional level) any medium format gear that is in good working order

that is floating around on the used or new markets will still be very viable for a long time

to come.<P>And yes Jay, I agree: the H1 & system is a wonderful camera

[betty_blecha]

Hi Jay,

 

I love my H1 too. I have, however, gone back to using my 4x5 for black and white landscape. For color work, a digital back on the H1 is hard to beat - the digital capture is so clean relative to film. But in the shadows, to my eye anyway, scanned large format film for black and white is still better.

[cpj]

For another opinion--for what it is worth--I've been in the business 40 years and own a

complete Hasselblad "system" with three bodies, 503cw, 903swc and 203fe and nearly all

the lenses. I also have Nikon and Leica "systems." of the current models & lenses.

 

What I really don't understand is why anyone would need an "autofocus" Hasselblad. That's

like having an "autofocus" 5x7 view camera. The Hasselblad is really designed for

precision work and huge prints from 'chrome reversal film made all the better through the

use of digital scans which can reproduce the detail and sharpness of the original

transparency, something you don't often get with C-41 negative film.

 

A Hasseblad is a tool for a specific type work and used most effectively on a tripod.

Cameras on tripods don't need autofocus for the most part. It is not anybody's first choice

for sports or news photography, especially considering the quality of today's high speed

film and 14 to 16 megapixel digital cameras--megapixels now being just another

recording medium like film.

 

I sure have my share of $$$$$ invested in the highest quality cameras and lenses available

for my standard work, and I have some Rolleiflex models and even a couple of 4x5

Graphics around here for specialized uses, but an "autofocus" Hasselblad seems to be a

"camera without a mission" to me. I'll readily agree it is probably a "great camera" but so

is a Sinar view camera or a Linhoff Technika, but they aren't anybody's first choice for

general photography.

 

For most work, a Nikon F5 or the new F6 or a Leica M-6 or M-7 will handle anything that

can be shot at 200 ASA/ISO with digital prints made up to 16x20, either by yourself or a

pro lab with a $10,000 Imacon scanner. (No need to go for a $50,000 scanner any more.)

 

Beyond 35mm, for long exposures at high f-stops such as f11 to f22 for great depth of

field in landscapes or certain commercial illlustration work, a non-autofocus Hasselblad

means you can buy an extra lens or put the money toward a 6x6 digital back which are

still outrageously expensive but will come down in time.

 

Why was this camera ever developed in the first place?

[feli]

>Why was this camera (H1) ever developed in the first place?

 

Wedding shooters? The AF is pretty fast.

 

 

feli

[stefan heymann]

CPeter, I don't think you can or should compare the H1 to the V system cameras. The H1, with its motor drive, autofocus and prism finder, is a really quick camera which is perfect for shooting people or other moving subjects. When you want to shoot landscapes from a tripod, a "V" Hasselblad is probably the better choice.<br>

<br>

In fact, the only thing, which is compatible between the H and V Hasselblads is the dove tail tripod adapter ;-)<br>

<br>

I had an H1 for a <a href="http://www.stefanheymann.de/foto/h1test/h1test-en.htm">one week test in 2003</a>, and I am still missing it.

[trixshooter]

MF Dead?,

 

I think not. I have three friends with large commercial studios and they have all purchased H1's with Phase One backs. They are doing product work and other studio stuff.

 

As time goes on I have also been seeing friends who shoot fasion switch back to film. The dynamic range of the film allows them to do stuff that the Canon offering just can't do. Yes, there will always be the film/digital debate, but as the revolution shakes the foundations of the photo industry, I believe that certain major players will survive.

 

I did not mean to take this thing to digital v. film, only that the H1 is an incredible machine and a great tool. And yes, auto focus is a tool that helps thos of us with aging eyesight focus a little better on the world.

[ed_jack]

"all that is needed is for the price of MF digi baccks to come down ( thank you Mamiya) and then we will see if MF is dead"

 

I am a happy H1 user I kind of agree with all of you. I don't shoot weddings, but find the AF good although for most things superflous as mentioned.

 

Don't count on a H1 fit for the ZD any time soon (if ever). The whole point of the ZD back is to get people buying Mamiya! Wait for the aptus 17 or P20 to come down in price then re-think. I keep trying to persuade Leaf to use the Maxxum 7D image stabilised platform on their 17MP chip (apparently it is possible with not that much extra engineering), but they are not keen. With the Dalsa chip maxing out at iso 200, such a feature would be cool for those hand holding their H1's.. which if you are using the big zoom is quite an exercise. If you like the sound of this, e-mail Leaf and tell them we wnat it. You never know, they might listen to us eventually!

 

Anyone using the 300mm with the 1.7X converter together. Does it work as a natral history set up, or doesn't it get you close enough ? Again I suppose this sin't really a classic use of the Hassie, but the it seems the H1 is a bit of a "do-all".

 

 

Ed