Hasselblad for street shooting? MF advice needed.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Barry here is more on the P645n, when using AF lenses and you desire to manual focus the lens. These autofocus lenses have a two position swithch marked MF- AF , just slide the switch out of AF autofocus to MF and turn the focus ring, pretty standard and easy.

 

My view is if you like the wide the SWC is really a 24mm lens field of view, the composition is via a simple metal frame not a viewfinder.

 

I have seen pictures with the Pentax 35mm lens which is about a 21mm lens field of view. This I was told is very much like a Biogon lens formula, I never compared the layout but its very well regarded. Here is its spec.

 

SMC Pentax-FA 645 35mm f/3.5 [iF] AF - w/case

 

Angle of View: 90

 

Lens Construction(group/elements) 7 groups 10 elements

 

Min. Aperture (f): F32

 

Min. Focusing Distance: 0.3m

 

Diameter & Length (mm): 88mm x 90mm

 

Filter Size (mm): 82mm

 

Weight (g): 560

 

Model No.: 26910

 

 

So its wider than an SWC and its AF focuses close and it can be used with a polarizer since IF means internal focus so the front element won't rotate. I would really rather have something less wide equivalent to a 28-35mm on a 35mm format field of view that has less perspective distortion of faces on the street and can be used easier since this is a really wide lens great for landscapes.

[spanky]

I've been using an RZ67 ProII in the street for a couple years now. I also regulary make 16x20 prints. Yes this is a large camera and yes it does attract attention but not as much as you would think. People who shoot street and try to hide the fact are the ones who get spotted and make others nervous.

 

I take an incident reading, set the shutter and f-stop, focus using the waist level finder and shoot away. In close quarters like the subway, this method works like a charm. Even using Delta 3200 in the image below my 16x20 showed much less grain then I expected and even then it was mostly noticeable in the mid-tones and you had to get fairly close to the print to see it.

 

Keep in mind that unless you print the full square on 16x20, you will have to crop in order to fit the paper. Thus in doing so you've just cut down your negative to more like 645. So maybe look into a 645 or go for broke with a 6x7 and take advantage of the full negative.<div></div>

[spanky]

<div></div>

[harvey_edelstein1]

The RZ looks much bigger than the Pentax 645, this is not a street camera its a good landscape and studio camera.

[q.g._de_bakker]

A good street camera is any camera that you use to produce good street photography. If someone does that with a Graflex, a Graflex is a good street camera. So what if it is a bit bigger than a Pocket Instamatic?

[harvey_edelstein1]

I agree up to a point, except, if it has a non return mirror, is awkward

when you use it at eye level, like having it at eye level and having to look downward like thru a magnification finder used for macro work. I hate having my neck kinked over. The FF Nikon and Canon dslrs are large actually bigger than the Pentax 645n but they are very ergonomic and the command dial both for horizontal and vertical holds make for reaching all the controls without removing your eye from the cameras VF. So you are right that size and weight are not as important as the layout ergonomics. What makes you stand out in a crowd is all the raising and lowering the camera to your face and how noisy the camera is when focusing, shooting and advancing to the next shot. Some cameras are bulky and shaped like a brick and were not designed for eye level shooting. Sometimes the Sun makes it hard to see waist finders, my TLR on a cloudy day is a decent street camera since I can see it well enough.

[Ed_Ingold]

Any hammer will pound a nail. If you have 1000 nails and an objective in mind, it pays to be a little pickier ;-)

[mike dixon]

I've used a Pentax 645 (not the later, autofocus version) for street shooting--it does the job quite well. It meets all of the requirements you listed, though it might be a bit heavier than the lightest Hasselblad body/lens combination.

 

Being "discreet" while street shooting has far more to do with your behavior and attitude than it does with the equipment you're using. People don't react to me much differently whether I'm shooting with a Leica M3, Canon DSLR, or Pentax 645.

[fred_mueggelhopper]

The Pentax 645 will meet your needs very well.

It was engineered to be a handheld camera from the outset.

When you have mastered the camera, learn to visualize the

field of view for a few lenses. You can have them pre-focused,

and get some discrete shots without raising the camera to your eye.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Any hammer will pound a nail. If you have 1000 nails and an objective in mind, it pays to be a little pickier ;-)"</i><br><br>If the objective is to pound a nail, then any hammer will do.<br>If "your objective" presupposes that not any hammer will do, not any hammer will do.<br><br>But what would your objective be that presupposes not any hammer, uhm..., a Graflex (to stick with the one from the example) might not be suited? Taking pictures you cannot take using a Graflex?<br><br>You'd have to explain why you couldn't, before it would "pay to be a little pickier" would begin to resemble a reasonable assessment, and not just prejudice. ;-)

[jean-louis llech]

Undoubtedly, for street photography, I prefer a viewing hood than a prism. "Aiming" people with a camera through a prism is always considered as something aggressive, while framing through a viewing hood seems more peaceful.<br>

A square format, either a 6x6 TLR, or a 6x6 SLR is better. But a 6x7 with revolving back can be used in the same way.<br>

[spanky]

While I agree with Jean-Louis above using a WLF does have it's draw backs such as it's harder to get critical focus and as mentioned before the sun can cause glare on the ground glass (hence the hat I'm wearing in the pic above). Oh yeah and sometimes strangers come up and want to look down at the glass.

[wayne_crider4]

Barry as you can read, there are many different attitudes and approaches to doing the kind of photography your interested in. I guess if I were to suggest anything, it would be to not try to expect one camera do all you want it to perfectly, and not to limit yourself in what you believe to be better. There is not one MF camera that doesn't have it drawbacks in handling or for certain subject matter. You can either work around them or buy another camera that is more suited to what your trying to accomplish. In regards to shooting, I have, as an advanced amateur, shot everything you have noted. I've shot street with everything from a 4x5 hand held Graphic to a Minox with MF included. Yours will be another experience. What you need to do is quit looking for perfection in any one camera system and develop your own style based on what you have at hand, or perhaps, what system you are drawn to, or can afford. In closing I will say that recently I have seen two photographers win awards using something as unremarkable as a Holga. Both photographs were in my estimation, superb. It's not the camera, it's the photographer and their skill at displaying their conception in their own way.

[bwbob]

The great street photographer's Alfred Eisenstaedt, Andre Kertesz, Henri Cartier-Bresson etc all used Leicas. Do you really think you can improve on them using MF? Heavier, noisier, more obtrusive cameras. I've seen many nice blowups to 16x20 using 35mm. A camera is just a tool and in this case IMHO the benefits of 35mm outweigh its liabilities.

[harvey_edelstein1]

If Eisenstaedt was alive when a camera like the Pentax 645 or Mamiya afd were available I am sure he would have preferred an camera with all the advantages these cameras have. I have 35mm Leica and Nikon and I would not tell anyone it was superior to medium format in picture quality a case cannot be made for that.

[bwbob]

I never said 35 mm was superior to medium format, just that I have seen "nice" blowups to 16x20. Many medium format cameras were available when Eisenstaedt was shooting but my guess is that he preferred the lightweight, sharp fast lenses and unobtrusiveness of the 35mm format for his photojounalistic style ( check his biography on that). I use MF all the time for landscapes, architecture and portraits but I recognize the advantages of 35mm for photojounalism.