Hasselblad vs. Mamiya: Image Flavour

[kill muff]

Hi, I was wondering what medium-format camera i should invest in. I am aware of the

many comparisions between Hasselblad and Mamiya on photo.net but I am unable to find

an answer to my not-so-common question: Do zeiss T* lenses of the Hassie produce

"better looking" images compared to the higher-end K/L or sekor Z lenses of the Mamiya

6x7 outfits?

 

When comparing lens quality, people commonly dispute which is sharper. But what Im

wondering is which line of lenses produce a better "mood" or "atmosphere".

 

From the limited amount of Mamiya RB/RZ users who post sample images on the net, I

have noticed that Mamiya lenses produce super "clean" images: neutral colors, realistic

tonality and very sharp. In other words, very "realistic". Most shots had the "look" of high-

resolution digital cameras.

 

Hasselblad, on the other hand, seemed to produce "moody" results. The zeiss lenses

appear to show-off detail, unlike the Mamiya lenses that definatly contain the resolution

(sometimes even more than Hassie) but seem to not flaunt it in the way zeiss lenses do. (I

guess this is a measure of how contrasty a lens is?)

Overall, hasselblad T* results appear to have a more "film-like" charm as opposed to the

cleaner digital look of the Mamiya lenses.

 

I was wondering if this was just a misconception on my part due to all the die-hard-

hassiers that post large amounts of images on the net. Perhaps Mamiya 6x7 results havent

had much chance to prove to me that they are completly capable of the same dramatic

results as Hasselblad?

 

I am totally aware of the drawbacks of the cumbersome RB/RZ outfits. I set most of my

shots up, so bulkyness is not a huge factor. I am also aware of the on going debate

between 6x6 vs. 6x7, so this is not a question of format. Price is not so much a factor: Im

willing to save up the extra bucks for ideal results. As I have read somewhere on the net,

Hasselblad tends to make otherwise non-interesting shots more interesting, just for the

reason of how the lens renders detail, tonality and contrast. What do you think of this

statement?

 

Thanks for your time.

~Raffy

[mikejanocko]

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

 

this article compares hasselblad to 3 other cameras including Mamiya. It also shows the differences in images between these cameras so you should see some difference there.

[rachellemarshall]

maybe i've missunderstood this post completely, but it's my understanding that it's the photographer and his/her techniques and personal style which contribute to the 'mood' and 'atmosphere' of a photograph. better optics equal sharper images. that's just how it is.

 

"I have noticed that Mamiya lenses produce...neutral colors, realistic tonality..."

 

i'm no expert, but isn't it film type, filters, lighting and post processing which is responsible for this?

 

the camera and the lens are the mechanics- the instrument. the mood and feel of the image comes from the photographer.

[arthuryeo]

How about some color samples to spice it all up ...

<p>Zeiss optics rules :) <p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2716996-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2569123-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3652264-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4155713-lg.jpg">

<p><p>

[arthuryeo]

This one done with a 40mm FLE Distagon with the 93 series Hasselblad polarizer applied.<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2725645-lg.jpg">

[arthuryeo]

And, a more recent one ... using the 150mm Sonnar

<p><p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4278796-lg.jpg">

[kill muff]

Rach, i couldve sworn that a cameras lens has alot to to with "mood". The way it handles

boukeh, color rendition, and contrast. If you increase the contrast post production, it wont

replace the contrast quality of the lens. ex. take a holga, it houses a very low contrast lens,

and increase contrast in post-production...not the same as capturing contrast through the

lens.

 

Each lens and format has its own quality/charm: rolleiflex vs. hasselblad vs rz67 vs holga

vs etc.

 

Yes, the photographer has alot to do with the image but each camera/lens has its unique

look. every step and every tool is key to what you want out of a photo. Duh.

[kill muff]

sorry, before i was so rudely interupted, i was going to thank Arthur for the wonderful zeiss

shots. well, done.

[tariq_gibran]

Yes, I addressed this very issue yesterday here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fwrg&tag=

 

And I think your conclusions pretty much agree with what I have found. That said, a good

photographer who knows the qualities of their equipment(lenses and Film choices) should be

able to get just about anything out of it, at least when your talking about equipment at this

level. Its just a matter of testing to see what you prefer and how each film/developer combo

works with each lens.

[rachellemarshall]

rudely interrupted, huh. thanks very much. this is a forum. you asked a question. i responded, and in turn asked more questions. nothing rude about that now is there.

[gary_yeowell]

The personality of a lens line is very real, and one which experienced photographers use to full effect. I would say Raffy that your observations are spot on, but would add that both Mamiya and Hassy lenses have great qualities. Overall my personal preference is for Zeiss, however i adore some of the Pentax 67 line which are softer than both the others but have more of the Zeiss colour palette, along with sublime bokeh.

[stuart_richardson]

I'll put it this way: my two favorite lenses for medium format are the Hasselblad 110mm f/

2 Planar and the Mamiya 43mm f/4.5L for the Mamiya 7II. Both Zeiss and Mamiya are

making some extremely good lenses. I think your impressions match pretty well with

mine. I like the bokeh and tonality of the Hasselblad lenses better, but the Mamiya

rangefinder lenses seem to be sharper with a bit more contrast. They can be slightly brutal

if paired with a film like Velvia 100 or Acros. This might be more of a lens choice issue

though. I am comparing the Mamiya rangefinder lenses to the 110/2 FE, 80/2.8 CFE and

50/2.8 FE. Zeiss has some sharper lenses like the 100mm and 120mm, so perhaps they

are more like the mamiya lenses. The bottom line is that they are both superb. I would

choose more on the basis of what focal lengths and features you want, and look at which

camera system better serves your needs. For example, if you do a lot of close up work,

you might appreciate the Mamiya system since they have the built-in bellows that can

focus closer without tubes.

[jeffery_pool]

Before I bought my 'blad I asked the same sorts of questions and looked at those same websites comparing each. Unless you spend your days studying prints at 500% you'll never see a difference. Since buying my 'blad with zeiss lenses I've used Mamiya's and been pleased with results from both cameras. Both great systems to get into.

[jeffery_pool]

...but thats just my opinion. A well-trained eye can probably spot the subtle differences, but in my experiences I haven't ever noticed a difference in image quality/tonality that would make me abandon one system for the other. I believe your film and post-processing choices will make a much larger difference.

[mark_l3]

rather unpleasant oversharpened look to some of the images, others no sharper looking to me than many images made with "non ruling" lenses. didn't spice anything up for me at all.....

[eric_brody]

This is all just an analog version of the pixel peeping so derided, and appropriately so, in the digital world. Good photographers choose their tools for many different reasons. The Hasselblad is quite a different camera than the 6x7 Mamiyas. For starters the 6x7 negative is significantly larger than the 6x6. Negative real estate effectively trumps a lot of other factors. I think the operation of the camera, a very personal issue, also plays a big role as well. There's quite a difference in operation between the Mamiya 7, a rangefinder, and any of the others, all reflex cameras with mirrors that flop around. I own both a Hasselblad and an M7II. The M7 also has an an automatic advantage in wide angle lenses since they do not need to be retrofocus designs.

 

As I often do when I see these kind of posts and cannot resist responding, I go back to the old routine of reminding people that there are a lot of factors that play a role in imge quality. Lenses are important, but there are others that also play a huge role. The great photographers, (not for a moment suggesting that I am one), do not niggle about lenses, any more than great writers niggle about typewriters or word processors.

 

Ansel Adams and Edward Weston made some of their best images with uncoated simple lenses that most of the posters on this thread would reject out of hand.

 

Go out and make photographs.

[tariq_gibran]

Eric, in my opinion the Pixel Peepers you are refering to are not quite the same as those

people rarely are able to see the big picture and only obsess over say per pixel sharpness.

In the case here, it would be like the coments where someone says flatly "Zeiss lenses are

shaper than Pentax lenses". That just shows ignorance as there is so much more to it than

just sharpness or any one lens-film-camera quality alone. The camera, lens, film, etc. are

of course just tools but most of the better photographers learn these tools inside out so

well that they then becomes second nature... freeing them to then make the photographs

they imagine while forgeting that they are even holding a camera, it becomes such an

unconscience part of the process. I have worked with many well known and not so well

known Photograhers who would favor say Pentax or Mamiya lenses for Fashion as they

loved the softer tonality a particular lens might give(considering the Zeiss lenses too

harsh) and I have also worked with many a commercial shooter who prefered a specific

Zeiss lens on their Blad exacty for the extreme, "poke you in the eye" contrast. It's very

easy to see on a light box with trannies or on a B&W neg when comparing some of these

lenses. The most dramatic incident I have seen recently was not even comparing an

uncoated lens to a coated lens(older Pre 50's Tessar to newer Tessar) but was in

comparing a Fuji 65mm EBC coated lens on a GSW690111 to a Koni Omega 58mm lens

and an older single coated 80mm Planar on a Hassy. The Koni and the Planar had extreme

contrast compared to the very low soft contrast of the Fuji. So much so that to even come

close in "equalizing" the difference would mean shooting the Fuji with Velvia 50(very much

taming the sometimes garish quality of Velvia) and shooting the other two with something

more neutral like Astia. So, the fact that one can make Velvia look like Astia just by

selecting a certain lens is not a subtle thing.

[paul_neuthaler]

I love my 500CM w/80mm Zeiss Planar<div></div>

[paul_neuthaler]

The above is Nikon. This is the Hassie!<div></div>

[ross_wilson1]

I've always found Zeiss optics to have plenty of contrast, very sharp and saturated, a kind of larger than life look. I noticed this with the Contax camera's I've used. Leica is a very different look again, Schneider again so. These lenses very much have their own look. I found the Mamiya lenses to be pretty much like you said, very true to the scene, a very 'straight' look. I think when you throw wild colours into the equation with these lenses then you'll see them do their thing.

[gary_yeowell]

Eric,

If you think that Ansel Adams did not use certain lenses for their given properties you are much mistaken, he more than most photographers tested everything he shot with along with his film and dev combinations to achieve a 'look', and of course he shot with some soft lenses, but that may have been by design or in fact all that was available at the time. Just as countless fashion photographers choose their lens, film and dev combinations for the inherent qualities that compliment their style and vision. I for one will never say that any lens will make one a 'better' photographer, but equally to say it makes no difference to experienced shooters shows real ignorance.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You can, of course, use different films to get different effects. Fuji NPS/NPH works well with Zeiss, too. Nice skin tones and tamed contrast. Or pop in some Velvia for pumped up colors and contrast. In my opinion, film choice will have the largest effect on the image (as long as we're talking about comparing the excellent lenses you've mentioned).

[BrianS1664879711]

Paul,

 

I certainly agree that Nikon can put out a wonderful portrait, as you illustrate. My fav 35mm set up is F3 with 80mm f/2 Nikkor lens. I'm ALWAYS happy with the results - clarity, contrast... as long as the subject matter and composition is good (but that has little to do with the lens).

 

But something is wrong with the sample shot from your 501CM. I get much better results than you are showing with my 501CM and Planar 80 CFE. Is something wrong with your camera... or is this just an example of how a similar portrait *might not necessarily* be better taken with Zeiss optics? Your example isn't representative of what I get out of my (similar) equipment.

[kill muff]

Mike Janocko , apr 08, 2006; 01:31 p.m.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

 

<<<yes, ive read that link before. But everytime i find hassy images, they "look" hassy-

like. The same goes for Mamiya. Mamiya tends to look Mamiya-like. This review seems to

not credit Hasselblad much, and there are many links that do the same to Hasselblad's

reputation. I guess everyone has their own opinion. The day will come when i will be able

to afford a Hassie and i guess i have judge for myself. I am lucky enough to own an

"excellent-enough" camera: a Mamiya 645 with 80mm Sekor C lens (and for many people

in my school, this would be their dream camera). Yes, i should be thankful for having it.

But once i get my hands on a Hassie and if i can decern the difference between the two

cameras... i guess thats all that matters. I know im mature enough to appriciate a lens for

its quality and not its prestigious title. Some say both companies produce strikingly similar

lenses and it wouldnt dramatically effect the "look" of the images over more important

factors ie: film, filters, post-production. People, dont get caught-up in sharpness..it is

only one factor in judging lens quality.

 

But Im still on the side that favours the thought that lens choice is crucial in the outcome

of "looks".

 

I guess ill have to see for myself.

 

Thanks to everyone that has posted!!!

[mark_l3]

"to say it makes no difference to experienced shooters shows real ignorance."

 

I am an experienced user and a pro for 20 years; do I think that using a blad over a mamiya would make a real difference to me? no-not so ignorant after all.

 

quality photographers will get quality images regardless of what camera is used.

 

I prefer mamiya to others but don't make it a religion as some do. I worry more about the quality of the image, I can't do that very well if I have my nose two inches from a print or have a microscope trained on a transparency exclaiming, "look how sharp it is!". Who cares how sharp it is if it's crap!!

 

 

Brett Weston used mamiya by the way, and Adams described Brett as using, "only the best equipment available".

 

so there.......