thinking about a hasselblad

[t_t1]

i'm thinking about getting a 6x6 hassy. any comments on what i'm likely to experience after having been a leica m6 user?

 

<p>

 

any recommendations on which one to get if i get one? i'm frankly confused over the current models and 'must have' accessories..

 

<p>

 

i certainly won't be getting rid of my leica, i'll just be adding to my toolbag with the hassy...

[jeff voorhees]

Hello Tristan-

 

<p>

 

I'm positive there are other much more qualified people here to advise

you. But I have had quite a bit of experience with older

Hasselblad's: my experience is with the 500CM and 500ELM (motor

driven) bodies, assorted backs and lenses.

 

<p>

 

For what it is worth, I think they are very well built and I don't

think you can complain much about the sharpness of the lenses. Just

remember that it's an SLR and unlike the Leica, the shutter sounds

something like a cannon.

 

<p>

 

I'll leave it to others to advise regarding the current basic setup of

body, lens and film back.

 

<p>

 

Best Regards.

 

<p>

 

Jeff

[damond_lam]

I am an owner of a M6 and a couple of Leica lens. Last week, with the

help of a full-time photographer friend and a full endorsement from

my better half, I got myself a used 2000FC, 150/2.8 F lens (both in

mint condition), brand new A12 magazine and Acute Matte screen with

grid for US$2'200. My test slides showed up wonderful pictures. I've

looked at 500 series body but it does not have the flexibility of the

2000 series body with built-in electronic focal plane shutter. And

the current 200 series is overpriced and come with the features I

don't need 90% of the time. Discontinued 2000 series enables the use

of larger aperture FE lenses without lens shutter and all other Hassy

lenses with lens shutter. I prefer that you email me for further

questions since this is a Leica forum. I'll try to answer.

[Rob F.]

Tristan, I find the Hasselblad comes into its own mostly with the

normal and longer lenses, as opposed to the retrofocus wide angle

lenses, which are heavy and clumsy for handholding; and some of them,

like the older 50mm Distagon, do not maintain good sharpness out to

the edges until you stop down to nearly f/16. The 60mm Distagon is

an exception, delivering a reasonably crisp image wide open, and

improving sytematically with stopping down.

 

<p>

 

The 38mm Biogon, which is not a retrofocus, is a remarkable lens; the

above comments don't apply to it. It is really crisp, and deals with

backlight/flare situations well. Of course, it comes attached to its

own camera body.

 

<p>

 

I shoot with the 38mm Biogon, 60mm Distagon, 100mm Planar, and 150mm

Sonnar. I am satisfied with all these lenses. The Sonnar aleady

delivers an image sharp to the edges wide open at f/4. It improves

slightly on stopping down. The 100mm Planar is also very sharp, even

wide open. I use the 500CM with no complaints. I like to shoot with

the Chimmney finder or with my PME 45 degree meter prism. I can give

info on compensating the older PME to read right with the Acute-

Matte, if desired. I use my Hassie mostly for black and white, but

not for color slides, because the MF projectors are so expensive. I

might mention that a Leica photo on Delta Pro 100, developed in XTOL

and blown up to 11x14, will make a person question why he needs a

Hasselblad.

 

<p>

 

Hassie magazines don't go for 40 years between CLA's like Leica

bodies can. They need attention every 2 to 5 years or so, or they

start doing tricks like uneven spacing, winding through the whole

roll without stopping at frame 1, and letting light leak in during

the film advance cycle.

 

<p>

 

Have you looked at the Mamiya 6x7? It's a natural for a Leica M6

photographer!

 

<p>

 

If I haven't talked you out of it yet, go for it!

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[michael_darnton1]

Try before you buy. Looking down through an SLR is really not the

same as straight-ahead through a RF. I've worked with both

Hasselblads and RB67s through the years, and never felt very

comfortable with them. There's no questioning the quality, though. If

you're not carrying it around, I prefer the RB67. It doesn't have the

build quality, but my experience is that the additional film size

makes the quality of the results equivalent to the Hassy, with more

convenience for things like closeups. The Hassy is jewelry, like an

M6, and the RB67 is more like a pickup truck, though.

[Aoresteen]

I've used Hasselblad cameras since 1976. I currently have two

2000FC/Ms. I use them because I like the way they feel and shoot. I

like square pictures.

 

<p>

 

They do require maintenance. Plan on it.

 

<p>

 

My favorite lens is the 80mm. My next favorite is the 150.

 

<p>

 

Looking down through the waist level is different than using a

Leica. You might just hate it.

 

<p>

 

Why not rent an out fit for a weekend and see how YOU like it.

 

<p>

 

If you want a quite 6x6, a Rollei 2.8 will do the trick. But if you

want to stay with a MF RF camera, try the Fuji GW690 III.

[t_t1]

i think i may have been talked out of it actually. a friend of mine

(also a Leica shooter) just left having showed me some of his cropped

8" x 8" black and white prints that he did on an M6. they were

stunning! he brought them over after i had called him mentioning that

i was thinking about getting a hassy. he exclaimed on the phone that a

few years ago he had the same thoughts but wanted to see if he could

simulate similar square format results with the camera he already had

(an m6).

 

<p>

 

he rushed right over to my place with these prints and i'll be darned

if i'm not convinced that the very m6 ttl i have in front of me right

now has the potential to reach medium format quality, yet with much

more versatility in terms of wide angle and also smallness/quietness,

etc...

 

<p>

 

this was good because i was really looking for an excuse not to buy a

hassy. i think if i get good in the darkroom, and perfect my m6

handling techniques, i can have all i want with the leica..

[emile_de_leon9]

Try a late Rollie twin reflex....very quiet...great lens...similar

to a Leica lens...and 20x24's possible on 100 to 400 asa.Cheap too!

Try that with your Leica!I wouldnt with mine.

[nicholas_wybolt]

 

Tristan,

 

<p>

 

I moved to the world of a Leica M6 TTL after using Hasselblad 500

series (500 C/M and 503CW) cameras for about nine years. I find

there to be similarities and differences, each amplified depending on

which accessories I use with the Hasselblad.

 

<p>

 

This represents the first difference -- The Leica M6 TTL system is a

very clean, "what you see is what you get" system. For me this

promotes a "make the photograph and stop worrying about whether you

have the right gizmo" style of shooting. On the other hand, I have

always enjoyed macro / close-up photography, which I cannot do with

the Leica M6.

 

<p>

 

The Hasselblad represents a real systems approach to photography.

You can accessorize the basic body for most any situation, macro /

close-up, sports / action, portraiture, candid / street shooting,

etc. Keep in mind that the transitions between each situation can be

time consuming.

 

<p>

 

When I pick up and hold the Leica or the Hasselblad I get a sense of

high build quality. They have a very solid feel in my hands. I find

the optics for each to be most excellent.

 

<p>

 

On-camera flash with the Leica M6 TTL and the Hasselblad 503CW is

very similar in terms of operation and performance. Both have TTL

capabilites, although the Hasselblad D-Flash 40 is intended primarily

for TTL operation. I find the SF-20 more flexible in that respect

and also becauase balancing ambient / fill flash can be accomplished

on the flash itself, rather than by changing the film speed dial on

the camera.

 

<p>

 

I do not use the Hasselblad waist-level finder except when

shooting "formal portraits" with the camera on a tripod. Normally, I

use the PME45 prism finder with integral weighted, spot, and incident

light metering. I find the Leica M6 TTL and PME45 meters to be quite

accurate, such that I refer to a hand-held meter very infrequently.

The PME45 is not coupled to the camera. That is, you must set film

speed on the meter. Aperture and shutter speed settings must be

transferred to the camera. The PME45 does provide for aperture or

shutter priority metering modes. However, in changing situations, I

don't find the overall operation to be as fast as the Leica M6.

Otherwise, the all-manual modes of operation make moving between the

Leica M6 and the Hasselblad fairly easy.

 

<p>

 

While I do use the Hasselblad for action / sports, candid / street

shots, portraits, etc., I find that I am most at home with the

Hasselblad on a tripod, working slowly and methodically. Recently, I

was asked to photograph an individual who was to receive an award. I

made a series of portraits with the Hasselblad prior to the ceremony

and then photographed the awards ceremony and the reception with the

Leica M6. This was about as ideal of marrying the right gear to the

situation as I had ever experienced. As other folks have noted, the

Hasselblad is not a quiet camera compared to the Leica M; and would

not have been appropriate during the awards ceremony (the Hasselblad

Winder CW is damn loud). Also, carrying a bag full of Hasselblad

gear on my shoulder for long periods of time can get painful.

Nothing with the Hasselblad is small or lightweight (but it is

smaller than other medium format systems).

 

<p>

 

Since the Hasselblad is an SLR, judging the effects of filters and

the like is very straightforward. Also, the Leica and Hasselblad

lenses focus in the same direction (infinity to near is clockwise as

you are holding the camera).

 

<p>

 

While rectangular format (6x4.5) backs are available for the

Hasselblad, I exclusively use the square (6x6) backs. I really like

the square. I find that my compositions are freer when I do not have

to worry about horizontals or verticals. Masks and viewfinder

screens are available that indicate say, 8x10 vertical or horizontal

cropping patterns. This is really a matter of personal preference,

so I am not going to spend any more time on it. You need to decide

how it is that you want compose and what the finished product is to

look like.

 

<p>

 

For some Hasselblad bodies, you can get digital backs from third

parties. Scanners for medium format film are not as widely available

(i.e., the number of choices) as for 35mm and cost a whole lot more.

You can buy one scanner for both formats. Medium format film and

processing typically costs more than 35mm film and there fewer labs

available for processing medium format film. If you are always in a

hurry, medium format may not be for you.

 

<p>

 

By all means, rent a Hasselblad, ideally configured with what you

might want to buy, for a few weekends to try the gear. You might

want to scan Ernst Wildi's "The Hasselblad Manual" for a perspective

on getting the most out of the Hasselblad system.

 

<p>

 

As others have suggested, you might want to look into the medium

format rangefinders, as they might be a more natural transition from

the Leica. Michael Reichmann has written quite a lot about Leica and

medium format rangefinders on his website (www.luminous-

landscape.com). I do not always agree with his conclusions, but his

coverage of topics is generally exhaustive.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

 

<p>

 

-Nick

 

[wilhelm]

A few years ago some wag (David Vestal?) wrote an article called "32

Ways to Jam a Hasselblad."

[nicholas_wybolt]

Hi again,

 

<p>

 

Typing and single malts don't mix too well. After hitting

the "Submit" button I remembered that Mr. Reichmann recently posted a

tutorial on medium format photography at http://www.luminous-

landscape.com/u-medium.htm that may be of interest. The article

seems to be generally system-independent, focusing ;-) on what it

means to be "medium format."

 

<p>

 

-Nick

[jay_.]

In addition to Leica M and R, and Nikon AF, I use Hasselblad. I have

2 503CX bodies, 3 A12 backs, 50CF-FLE, 60CF, 80CF, 150CF and 2x

Mutar, plus a PM45 prism and a gazillion other accessories. I love

the results from the Hasselblad, which to me put 35mm--including

Leica--to shame. However, IMO the Hasselblad works best in 2

disparate situations: tripod-mounted with the mirror locked up for

static shots, carefully composed and metered, for which I use the

waistlevel finder (but with the magnifier and my eye right up to it);

and with flash, using a grip-bracket and the prism. Neither fits in

with general travel photography, and a bag full of Blad, while not

very heavy, is quite bulky. In addition, the short film load (even

with 220 film), slow winder, and lack of long, fast lenses makes

wildlife photography less productive. For those types of photography

I stick with 35mm. Yes, a Mamiya 7 has occured to me, but I've

handled them and think they're way overpriced for their plasticky

construction. So, I strongly endorse the Hasselblad, but only for

what it's best at, not as a replacement for Leica or Nikon or Canon.

[frank_horn]

Tristan: After seeing what good custom developing (B&W) and printing

can do for 35mm, I pretty much swore off Med. Format. Like the gun

fanciers say, "If you are ever going to be in a gunfight, be sure to

have a gun." Same thing with photography: Be sure to have a

camera! When I had Med. Format gear, I tended to not have it many

times. Just too heavy. I have owned a Fuji 690 III and must say it

was an excellent value. I got it new and it did everything it was

supposed to. The lens is very good. I had planned on getting proof

sheets and cutting the individual frames out for my album, but the

cost of proof sheets went through the ceiling. If you use the 6x9

format, you need to develop your own film and likewise print. Most

custom processors were not equipped to print 6x9cm, and they cropped

the pictures mercilessly. I was wishing I had got the 6x7.

Commercial developing and printing of 120 was much slower and MUCH

costlier. Once more I must say I'd like to see a cassette film,

perforated, with a 44x55mm frame size, like 35mm. With Med. Format

accounting for less than 1% of 35mm sales, it is hardly likely we

will see the film companies bring out another film size for stores to

stock. As strictly an amature, I can't get excited about Med. Format.

[david11]

I used Hasselblad equipment for more than a decade and enjoyed the

experience and results, but NOT the heft of the equipment. The

results were primo, and flash fill with the leaf shutters of the Zeiss

lenses was a breeze. I used 500 C/M's with NC-2 prisms; lenses used

were 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150, and 180 with 2X Mutar. I liked the

system and results, but NOT lugging the equipment around (and I am a

BIG person). I had always wanted to shoot Leica rangefinder

equipment, so I took the plunge several years ago and soon realized

that I was enjoying photography more than I ever had. I also noticed

that the Hasselblad went unused the great majority of the time, so I

sold all of it. Although I occasionally miss the flexibility of the

leaf shutters and the polaroid back, I find the results with Leica M

to be more than worthy of my efforts. If you require a medium format

SLR system, Hasselblad should be considered. The Leica and Hasselblad

systems complement each other, but should not necessarily be

considered as replacements for each other (although it was for me). I

found that I can do most of what I want with the 35mm rangefinder; I

take great pleasure in the quality of the results from the smaller

format and have greater flexibility in film choice.

[tapas_maiti4]

Hi Tristan

 

<p>

 

I have recently bought a small Leica kit to supplement my Hasselblad

kit so I can give some observations.

 

<p>

 

Medium format exists because its image quality is a quantum leap

above 35mm period! If there are differences between top quality 35mm

we are still talking margins. If this wasn't true then medium format

wouldn't sell no one is going to put up with the extra weight, slow

response time etc if this wasn't true. My principle is that if I

could take a picture with the blad I would do so.

 

<p>

 

At this point we come to the crux - Medium Format just cannot be

conveniently used for everything, it is slower to use, lenses are

slower, depth of field is less and it is heavier.

 

<p>

 

I spent several years with nothing but mf and whilst I tried to do

everything with it, sometimes it is not worth it. Want to take

candids it is easier with the Leica, want a light weight outfit to

take up the mountains or have a camera ready just in case - go 35mm.

 

<p>

 

My real reason for the Leica then - looking around at the current

35mm SLR gear a Canon EOS 1 some F2.8 zooms weigh more and cost more

than my blad outfit, I don't do sports so why bother. The Leica

provides a real weight and size benefit over my blad.

 

<p>

 

Tapas

[gl5]

One of the reasons I went to an M6 from a Nikon was due to the weight

factor so I know that I would hardly feel comfortable hefting a

Hassleblad around despite the increased resolution of the medium

format. What good will it be if you cannot conveniently get the shot?

 

<p>

 

Further, if you think that you need an expensive camera to achieve

beautiful results, check out:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://millicentphoto.com/">Millicent Harvey's Holga

Photos</a>

 

<p>

 

All were done with a Holga which costs at most what $15.?!

[john_chan2]

tristan,

 

<p>

 

I recently sold off all my Hassy equipment because I found that the

advantage that medium format has over 35 mm doesn't warrant the

constant $$$$TLC$$$$ that the Hasselblad system demands. If I got

back into medium format it would be with the Mamiya system.

Preferable with the RZ67 workhorse. However, for the same $$$$ that

you will be spending on a Hasselblad system have you ever considered

getting into large format? You can get a Sinar X (used) with a

superb Rodenstock lens for the price of a so-so Hassy system... both

will weigh the same more-or-less.... the Sinar will require even more

patience and consideration when composing... not good with candids.

But the upside is that a properly composed shot on 4x5

negative/positive can be blown up BILLBOARD size. Something that 35

mm and medium format cannot lay claim to.

[ron_buchanan2]

<i>i'm thinking about getting a 6x6 hassy. any comments on what i'm

likely to experience after having been a leica m6 user?</i>

 

<p>

 

poverty

[art_karr]

Tom:

 

<p>

 

I have used Leica since the 60's and blad since 70. The blad is

the obvious step from the M6. Both are idiosyncratic. You won't

experience the growing pains. ;)

 

<p>

 

For me, I have found the prism useless on the blad. It is hard

enough to focus without it. The results, because of the film size,

are much better than the Leica [assuming that you are in a

situation where the camera design works]. Weight; hey you are

talking to someone who has backpacked a Linhof. No pain=no

gain. I would recommend the leaf shutter lenses; especially for

cold weather.

 

<p>

 

Using the waist level finder requires a different way of seeing

things. Otherwise, I agree with most of what has been said

above.

 

<p>

 

Art

[lutz]

Tristan,<BR><BR>

With all the wise contributions already made I almost feel ashamed to

throw in my humble 0.02... I have a basic 500CM set with 50/80/150

lenses, a prism finder and some gimmicks. I bought everything used and

still spent much too much in relation to the few occassions on which I

really feel I need MF and am ready to face the downsides (weight, bulk,

slowness in handling, extra costs for stock, processing, etc.)... The

one advantage though I still see over a pure RF equipment is the

possibility to perfectly control perspective and dof through the finder

- the classic SLR advantage - although given the forementioned

downsides, these advantages are substantial only with studio work,

portraits, still lifes - or landscapes and architecture (but here the

LF may be the ultimate choice). With everything similar to Leica RF

photography the Hassy just doesn't seem right. And since I just fell

for rapid and casual shooting lately, the Hassy stays in the closet.

<BR><BR>But, there's one other thing no one has mentioned so far: the

true *advantage* of *low* depth of field in MF, aesthetically speaking.

An effect which is practically unobtainable with 35mm.

<BR><BR><center>

<IMG SRC="http://www.konermann.net/bigbutzel.small.jpeg">

</center><BR><BR>

This is a recent shot I took with a Plaubel Makina 67 and its 80mm lens

wide open @ 2.8, on Ilford Pan F @ ISO 50. 80mm is a "normal" focal

length comparable to a 50mm on a Leica. I doubt that you can achieve

this effect even with a Noctilux. Anybody out there to take the

challenge...? ;o) BTW, the 6x7 RF Makina is a Leica M "twin" - in

built, optical quality and handling. Cheers.

[lutz]

BTW, I have my first *real* assignment tomorrow! I'm going to take a

basic M6 equipment (28/35/50/75) - plus the forementioned Makina. Wish

me luck.

[dan_brown4]

With all due respect, Lutz, you could easily achieve that effect with

an Elmarit M 90/2.8. The field of view would just be narrower.

[damond_lam]

Lutz, if you took the same picture with Noct wide open you would not

be able to recognize any subjects on the desk (in the background).

And it comes with four darkened corners for free.

 

<p>

 

I wonder if my FE150/2.8 would have the similair bokeh.

[tony_rowlett2]

This is for Lutz:

<p>

<center>

<img

src="http://www.alaska.net/~rowlett/images/noctilux/andyneck.jpg"

width=444 height=659 alt="Andy"><br>

<b>"Andy"</b><br>

Noctilux wide open

</center>

[emile_de_leon9]

Nice pics people! Tony I've been contemplating a noctilux or a 75

lux....How do you like your 50 f 1.0? And...more importantly...what

dont you like about it?....if you dont mind!

Regards,