Am insane to consider travelling with the hasselblad?

[marke_gilbert]

Just looking for opinions,

 

<P>I am leaving for Asia for 3 weeks in late December, was planning on

taking a 35mm slr and selection of primes-- 14,24,35,50,85.

 

<P>Now I am starting to consider possibly taking instead, a Hasselblad

503cw with prism, 80 and 60 lenses, and a 903swc, with a sekonic L558.

I figure the two bodies could share a single back...

 

<P>Anybody trvael with a similar set up?

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>I always travel with a Hasselblad 500 series, an ArcBody, primes, two backs (never rely on just the one), meter and various accessories. Perhaps I'm insane?

[vick_ko]

It's not insane, just how much weight you want to lug around.

 

I would take two backs - just for convenience.

 

And with the Hasselblad kit, you have 2 bodies, with the SLR, only one body. You've got a backup, just in case one dies, with the Hasselblad 503/903 kit.

Are you just as fast and comfortable shooting with the Hasselblad as you are with the 35mm? Does the Hasselblad match what you are shooting (i.e. landscapes, street shooting, etc?)

 

I've traveled with only a Rolleiflex 2.8F. You get used to shooting with it really fast, if its your only camera.

 

regards,

Vick

[gary_yeowell]

I shoot nearly all my travel assignments with a Hassy and several lenses, often supplemented with a fixed wide angle camera, either my 903, Plaubel Proshift, Mamiya 7 or Linhof 612. The gear is always in a Lowe Pro Photo Trekker pack and is used with a Gitzo Carbon fibre tripod, all of which is very easy to carry and fits on a plane (except tripod)as hand luggage. I would not hesitate to take the Blad, the results will be worth it in the long run, but do take a spare mag as per Keith's advice.

[pavelp]

I think you'll do fine. If you plan to walk around a lot, consider getting a backpack for your equipment (it's world of difference when compared to a shoulder bag).

 

Last summer I travelled with C330s, 55mm, 65mm, 80mm, 105mm and 180 lens and I ended up using 65mm and 180mm mostly, with 55mm being a close third, 80mm a distant 4th and 105mm used once or twice.

 

When I saw the results, I knew that my decision to take a MF camera was the right one. Next summer I'll do it again.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

NASA sent Hasselblads to the moon! And weight really mattered. But so did quality.

 

Take the 'blad.

 

Robert

[phil_hanson]

I love travelling light with a Hasselblad. Depending on what I'm doing/where I'm going I'll either take a 501CM with standard lens, or my 903, plus a pocketable light meter. Maybe a second back if I think I'll need fast film now and then (like for interiors). After years of taking far too much heavy gear, worrying about it getting stolen and getting a permanently drooping shoulder, I find the minimalist approach refreshing. It's amazing what you can do with one lens when you have to!

[ilkka_nissila]

Why not? It does depend on what you plan to photograph.

[cpj]

You really don't provide enough information to answer your question. The real

considerations are:

 

Why are you shooting? Personal or Business? Personal weighs heavily towards 35mm while

Business may require the Hasselblad. I always think of the 'blad as a "tripod camera" and

use it primarily for shots that take a lot of carefull planning, composition and execution.

Another question is "does this job require high quality prints larger than 11x14?" which

might push you closer to the 'Blad.

 

As a working photojournalist for 25+ years, I can tell you that I have developed one stock

answer to the "minimum carry" question. It comes down to "Using two 35mm SLRs, you

can cover the world with an f2 28mm wide angle and an 80 to 200 f2.8 zoom."

 

When it comes down to "minimums" to ensure bringing back the goods, that's all you

really need. Anything else is just "extra" and not essential. Sometimes I'd even take the

wide angle on a Leica M-series to cut down weight (and battery reliance) but that would

depend on total time on scene. Losing the back-up body is not comforting for a news

photographer unless the trade off is necessary for convenience of all-day (12 hours+)

carry. (Bringing an L-558 is a no-brainer as it fits easily in any pocket.)

 

Add into the mix the question of "How many exposures will I make?" If it's 350+ then it

calls for 35mm and probably a lot of ability to move from place to place easily. Bags?

There's only one brand I've used for 20 years regularly although I buy every neat and

expensive new bag that comes out. Get a Domke--the F2 big one is a single bag for

everything. Other Domkes are available for "working" bags if news photography or

"reporting" is your line of work.

 

I hope this helps. I had to make the same decision on a personal trip a year ago and really

wanted to take a "Blad. But experience told me to bring a fast 2.8 zoom in 28-70mm and

an 18mm wide angle in dropping the 28 prime, and I was right. Even 16x20 prints made

from 35mm chromes (Tango Drum Scanned) are spectacular and need no excuses.

[Jim_Tardio]

CPeter brings up a good point about film...so much more to bring with the Hasselblad, and not that easy to find when you're on the move.

<p>

Whatever you decide, have a great trip.

[ranong]

NO! you are not crazy! i am! i carry an rb, 3 lenses, 2 backs and a spotmeter. Oh! and then the film.....

 

my newest "pitch" when i ask for a hand check is i tell them "i promise to go digital next year" they always give me the hand check. the asians are all real nice about it too. enjoy! i wish i was going.....

 

eddie

[q.g._de_bakker]

There, of course, is a gaping chasm between the "minimum carry" to "cover the world", and the reasons people use MF cameras instead of 35 mm format cameras with zoom thingies. There's that quality consideration as well.<br>So the question (determining what that "minimum" exactly means) should not be just "Why are you shooting?", but "Why are you shooting medium format?".<br>Though CPeter touched the subject, his "stock answer" evidently assumes one definite answer to that already, i.e. for no good reason.<br>But i'm sure, Marke, your considering to bring a heavier, bulkier MF kit instead of a 35 mm kit isn't an attempt to bring weigth and bulk down, but is inspired by that other bit, right? Stick with that...<br>(By the way: have you ever considered that a Hasselblad with back and 80 mm lens is less weight and bulk than quite a few 35 mm format cameras?)

[Colin O]

Earlier this year when I was in Peru, as I was coming back down after climbing Wayna Picchu (the ridiculously steep peak behind Machu Picchu), I passed a guy on his way up with his Hasselblad in his hand. The climb would be tough enough anyway, but this is at an altitude of over 2600m (8600 ft) above sea level! Go for it!

[norman_wijaya]

Check out this guy website, he's probably the guy you saw in Machu Pichu

 

http://photo.designproject.com/

[paul_chan4]

Weight is always the overriding factor for a long trip. Do not duplicate the equivalent of similar focal length for the 2 different formats. With your 903SWC you can forego the 14mm and 24mm for the SLR. If you have to trek on the countryside, keep your load to the bare essential to enjoy the trip. Improvise with your basic gear and lenses and you'd find it so much comfortable to shoot intelligently. The last thing on your mind is to get bogged down with such a wide array of lens choices that can make you so indecisive.

[johnmarkpainter]

That is a lot of weight.

 

I would narrow down to one Hassy Lens and two SLR lenses and as mentioned above, try

to not duplicate Focal lengths.

 

It it were me, I would take the SWC and an SLR with a 35/85 combo. I try to only carry one

camera with me unless I am working and HAVE to carry multiples. It ruins the trip if you

are constantly witching lenses and digging through your bag.

[thomas_breazeale1]

I have spent the last 15 years lugging my Hassie kit around Asia and the last 5 using a Lowepro Roadrunner(on wheels).I can cram my Hassie body w/back and 3 primes plus my digital w/two lenses.Included are filters,extra batteries,cable releases and up to 60 rolls of 120 film.My tripod can be attached to the side of the bag but I would not recommend this during airflights..too bulky.For just three weeks I would not think twice about bringing your Hasselblad..go for it!

[paul_neuthaler]

After many years of "Nikon F3 HP & 3-5 prime lens traveling," I will take only my 2.8F Rollei (plus a Rolleikin II in case I run out of 120/220 film & can only get 35mm!).

[tito sobrinho]

When travelling, I take my CM + the 80 and the 50FLE. Four backs are included in the "bag".

[flying_tiger]

I brought my 503CFW with 50 FLE, 100/3.5, and 150/4 on my trip to Grand Canyon/Bryce Canyon/Vegus trip. All shots are taken on a tripod with cable release.

 

If don't plan to use a tripod, bring the 903SWC and 35mm body with 35/85mm. If using tripod, I wound bring 503cw with 60/80 and 903SWC. In any case, bring at least 2 film backs and plenty of 120 films. I would bring at least 40-50 rolls of color slides/B&W print films.

[q.g._de_bakker]

I'm amazed to read this "35 mm if you do not want to use a tripod"-type of advice.<br>The difference between 35 mm and MF is there, even when you are not using a tripod. 35 mm format does not provide better results without a tripod than MF without a tripod. So by all means, if you think there is a Medium-Format advantage (and yes, there is), bring your Hasselblad, with or without tripod.

[flying_tiger]

""I'm amazed to read this "35 mm if you do not want to use a tripod"-type of advice.""

 

Don't be confused. I meant if he wants to travel light and shoot hand-held, bring the 35mm with 35/85. If he goes for the max. resolution, bring the Hassy with a tripod. Why bother with a Hassy hand-held if you don't want to bring a tripod? 35mm is more suitable for hand-held shooting in my experience.

[q.g._de_bakker]

I'm not confused, i'm amazed.<br><br>No, 35 mm format is not more suitable for hand held photography. And you always get a better result using a tripod, no matter what format.<br><br>You also always get better results using a larger format too.<br><br>So do indeed bother with a Hasselblad, even if you are going to be shooting hand-held!<br><br>If you want to travel light, and your 35 mm format kit is lighter, by all means take that. But don't expect the same quality.

[dave_unwin]

For what its worth, i'm leaving my digital slr gear at home when i'm going to europe and just taking the hassy and a couple of lenses.

 

MF is all very new to me but i really enjoy the experience of shooting. i'm sure i'll take less pictures than if i had the dslr but hopefully the good ones will be just as good.

 

all the best

 

dave

[ilkka_nissila]

Lenses for 35 mm are typically f/1.4 to f/2.8 in max aperture (while most MF lenses are between f/2.8 and f/5.6), and the depth of field is wider for otherwise the same shot, so indeed in practice you can hand-hold 35 mm in many situations where medium format requires a tripod (to get any shot). Also, because the mirror vibration in 35 mm is of much less a concern at the time of exposure, you can hand-hold a 35 mm camera easier than a Hasselblad. Yes, you can flip the mirror away but then you won't be able to view through the viewfinder.

 

I have a very hand-holding friendly Mamiya 7 (it's that way because it has no mirror and it's very lightweight) but I almost never shoot with it hand-held. It just goes without saying that if you pay for all the extra cost of MF, it doesn't make sense to hand-hold.