Do pros still use these?

[mark cortella]

<p>The 50,100,120,and 180,latest versions,are considered the best lenses,along with the 38 mm on the SWC.</p>

[brandon_andreadakis]

<p>What is the difference between the 500C and the 500CM. Both seem to be in my price range with lens and basic waistlevel finder. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>But don't get hung up on that "considered the best lenses" thingy.</p>

<p>The other lenses are not far behind, if at all. Base a choice on focal length, not what people might consider to be better.<br />For instance, the 80 mm Planar standard lens is one of the best, yet people seem to think it not so, just because it is the standard lens, and believe the 100 mm Planar mentioned above is much better.<br />As long as you do not do photogrammetry, it isn't. And the 'lowely', very easy to find, cheapish 80 mm lens makes an absolutely great choice for a first lens.<br />Yet the 100 mm is mentioned in lists like the one above, while the 80 mm isn't.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p><em>"What is the difference between the 500C and the 500CM"</em></p>

<p>The 500 C/M has user interchangeable focussing screens. You just let the screen drop out (after pushing the retaining tabs aside, of course), and drop in the new one.<br />In the 500 C, the screen can be changed, but needs adjusting for correct focus. Doable without fancy equipment, but a lengthy process, and not something you'd want to do very often.</p>

[brandon_andreadakis]

<p>so what did the 501CM add?</p>

[brandon_andreadakis]

<p>Does anyone have a complete comparison chart of all of the Hasselblad bodies? I found one at B&H but it is very incomplete. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>The 501 CM is a 501 C (which in turn is a 500 C/M) with larger mirror.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HS/HSTable.aspx">Look here.</a></p>

[mike_walmsley]

<p>Fine art black and white photography using film is my preferred shooting for artistic purposes. For B&W, I still shoot film, 35mm and 6x6 cm. Certainly a "blad" or a 6x7 cm format would be wonderful because of their large negatives just as a larger format (4x5", 8x10" even 11x14") would be superior to that. One of my pals swears by his 11x14" Deardorff. However, do you have the budget for a medium format camera and are you doing your own printing? A digital back for a Hasselblad is very costly to purchase. Use film and fibre-base baryta type photographic papers for fine art photography. You can still scan the print (or negative) if you want to work in the digital domain later.<br>

I use an Olympus e3 DSLR for most of my colour photography now, and I have a couple of Oly OM-1 bodies and a set of prime lenses from 21mm and up as well as an old Yashicamat 124 that works nicely. I use a range of B&W film types ranging from Technical pan and Tmax 100 to Kodak HIE Infrared, Tri-X and even Recording RE film. How much longer will film be made, well Kodak announced recently that they will cease Kodachrome shortly so I can't answer that. But as fine art imaging goes, my preference is film and I don't know that getting a larger format is necessary in your situation. Good luck shooting.</p>

 

[sallymack]

<p>Brandon, my used Hasselblad 500CM with 80mm lens cost around $1,500 and the price included some "extras" such as an eye-level prism and a couple of magazines. Perhaps I was thinking of getting a digital back at some point but realized from shooting the Hasselblad that I still love film.</p>

<p>Like you, I had qualms about using a handheld meter--one more thing to cart around and keep track of--until I purchased a knob meter. It fits on the camera, doubling as reflective/incident meter (detaching from and re-attaching to the camera easily) and knob for winding film. It also uses no batteries. It's worked fine for me but, depending on what you need, you may want a more accurate meter.<br /></p>

<p>A bigger problem for me was using a tripod. But, considering the pictures the Hasselblad allows me to take (which I couldn't with 35mm), using and lugging a tripod is a small price to pay. <br /><br>

I like using the Hasselblad, I like the pictures I take with it. Am I member of "an obscure group of traditionalists"? Do I care? </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Thank you, Andrew Lynn. That link to the guide on Alamy's website is great. It gives you a complete set of instructions on how to end up with a nice big digital file for fine art photography, and is packed with tips on what to do and not to do. Brilliant. Its a great example of workflow made simple.</p>

[nikbryant]

<p>Brandon,if you haven't made the desision to go Hasselblad yet you might take a look at the Mamiya RB67. very nice camera, i used one through the 70s and still miss it. looking on ebay I see a used kit with TWO LENSES for ONLY $850 USD!!! (I would buy it if i didn't just blow the budget on the Nikon D300)!!!</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Hasselblads have great build quality and optics, but don't overlook the 645 format. I always thought that the square negative format essentially wasted a lot of film, as most photos are enlarged in a rectangular format. Having said that, both the Contax 645 and the Mamiya 645 have excellent systems that make a 6cm by 4.5cm negative. The Contax even has a digital back available. The Mamiya RB67 also makes rectangular negatives (6 X 7cm) but I never liked the extra weight and expense of that system.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i feel that with a Hasselblad, you will take different types of images than with something like a Leica. Whether that suits your style is something that only you can answer. i shoot with some of the finest glass available in 35mm, but even the tonality of medium format shots taken with a Holga reminds me that film real estate is key.</p>

[Paul Lewis1664881697]

<p>Even though I have respect for the Hasselblads and their amazing lenses, it's not a camera that I would use as a regular shooter. For instance, I'm often shooting in dark situations, using long exposure, shooting quickly, needing to change film in the dark or needing to change quickly, etc. The 'Blad with a prism finder is quite a large and heavy camera. Lenses, even used, are expensive. A 35mm camera such as the Nikon F4s, F5 and F6 are much more suited to my needs.<br>

If I were shooting in a studio, on a tripod, and not in a big rush, I'd love to have a 'Blad.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>If you had to choose the best system for fine art b/w photography what would it be (Digital? Film? 35mm? Medium Format? Hasselblad? Nikon?)</p>

<p>First choice: A lightweight (relatively speaking) but sturdy 8x10 view camera. A Chamonix, for example.</p>

<p>Second choice: A Mamiya 7 (or 7 II) or a Pentax 67 (or 67 II). Portable, good lenses, easy to use, much larger then 35mm. I would avoid the 6x6 Hasselblads because I'm not a fan of square picture.</p>

<p>Third choice: A 4x5 or 5x7 view camera. More portable than the 8x10. Better lens selection. Not really big enough for contact prints, so maybe not worth the extra work (which is why I rated the 6x7 systems higher).</p>

<p>Runner up: A 35mm film camera with GOOD LENSES. Emphasis on GOOD LENSES. A Leica, for instance, or an AF Nikon body (N80, N90s, F100, F4s, F6) with the latest AF/AFS/G lenses. You need great lenses if you want to make quality enlargements from 35mm film.</p>

<p>I have yet to see a digital photo that looks like a real black and white print, but maybe some of you can surprise me. IMHO, digital is for COLOR.</p>

<p> </p>

[walter_strong5]

<h1>Any fine are photographer worthy of the name can make prize winners using Tri-X in a Minox!</h1>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>That old horse again...<br />That would depend very much on what the photographer and the viewer are looking for, and is by no means generally true.</p>

<p>Now tell us Walter, do you only use a Minox and Tri-X?<br />

<h2>Why ever not???</h2>

</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Well sure but even a really good photographer can't make low grain large prints from Tri-X and a Minox. Choice of camera can be important, depending on what you're trying to do.</p>

[tom grubbe]

<p>I strongly recommend a Pentax 67II for both value and quality. It's been my main landscape camera for eight years. I also had a Hassleblad 503CW but didn't care for the 6x6 aspect ratio. The Pentax lenses are very good as well!<br>

<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2808526-md.jpg">Pentax 67II</a></p>

[bjcarlton]

<p>Brandon -- regarding the developer. If you care to invest in a Jobo processor, you only use a small amount of developer at once, and it's no problem to just discard it afterwards. Otherwise, you can re-use your developer a number of times, and certainly store it more than 24 hours; it's just that after a certain number of uses, you should adjust your development time. I don't know if it's still true, but Kodak used to have all sorts of information about this on its website.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>A final word on Alamy. They do not discourage scanned film: they do describe what kind of scanners will meet their requirements. (What kind, not what brand). They also say the rebate (dark edge) must not be visible. They do not rcommend scanned prints.<br>

I just read all this.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>No question, you will get outstanding image quality with MF film given equipment of this calibre and good technique. When I first started shooting MF (Pentax 67, Mamiya 7), my photos attracted many more compliments than they had when I shot 35mm, and I could honestly say that it was the equipment, not me! Tonal depth and detail are are another level entirely and the longer lenses and big format film give photos a "you-are-there" impression that can't be duplicated with the smaller film. (The Mamiya 7 lenses have outstanding contrast, essentially zero distortion and are sharp to the edge; photos just have this arrestingly natural look that must be seen to be appreciated.) That said, I've switched to digital and haven't looked back. The instant feedback and post-processing flexibility of digital was a dramatic inflection point in my evolution as a photographer, much more significant than a move to pro formats and lenses. But the look and benefits of the equipment are different. The best of my MF shots have qualities which I don't see with my digital outfit, but that's OK, because I get 10x as many strong images with digital than I did with MF.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Brandon -- I've explored this and am still doing so. In late 70's I bought a Blad, and took a few terrific pictures with it. I still display the prints, and I'm about to scan the negatives and print them again. The 45 degree prism finder I found most pleasant to use. But, before you make the leap, carry a Hasselblad kit around for a while, a shooting rig and a second lens, and see how it feels. For me, the 35mm went with me and the Blad stayed home. I sold the Blad after ten years for most of what I paid.</p>

<p>(However, notice that today the prices are down to half. Glad I sold then. Film gear feels cheap now, but will it hold value?)<br>

Today, I've decided to try for detail and tonality better than a DSLR, that 6x9 is what it will take, and I'm assembling a 6x9 rig. Why 6x9? Everyone has their own assessments, but I think digital with APSC is about on a par with 35mm and a Coolscan V or 5000. Then full size DSLR might match 645 film today with good scans. I decided it would take 6x9 to get a difference that's worthwhile. A MF digital setup is beyond my investment range. It's a hobby for me.<br>

Another route for fine art, with stationary subjects, is multiple exposure stitching. Shooting a Cape Cod home, I easily made a 100MPx image that's absolutely amazing printed 58" wide.<br>

Also, for what it's worth, my film vs. APSC digital experiments showed me that film has some great qualities and I'd forgotten how much fun it is to shoot. Film has higher res and different tonality, digital has <em>much</em> less noise. I'll be shooting some 35mm film along with my (mostly) digital. Just for fun, here's a comparison between D100 and Fuji 200. Cheers Pub Spring 2009: <a href="http://2under.net/images/Karash-Image035-ScannedFilm-Cheers-8A-ScreenOpt.jpg">Fuji 200, Coolscan V</a> and <a href="http://2under.net/images/Karash-DSC_0035-D100-Cheers-ScreenOpt.jpg">D100</a> and <a href="http://2under.net/images/Karash-Image035-Cheers-Comparison.jpg">Actual pixels</a><br>

Have fun shooting!</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>There's a great book on the Hasselblad system by Ernst Wildi which is good to get if you are seriously contemplating purchase and invaluable if you actually marry into it.</p>

<p>PS: Nobody mentioned this, so let me bring it up. The Hasselbad makes an incomparable kur-phloff sound when you release the shutter and the mirror swings back. Make sure you experience it yourself before making a decision. It's enough to make you forgive a thousand little inconveniences that come with the system.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I shoot digital with a 5DII (probably Canon's best current sensor) and MF with Mamiya 645 and Fuji GX680 IIIs. I scan with the Nikon 9000 which delivers very good results and I shoot Fuji Velvia and B&W in the main. The Canon and Mamiya deliver very similar quality results - I prefer the colours of Velvia and like the viewfinder of the Mamiya better. However in terms of IQ there is nothing to choose between them in the real world. The Canon is quick, easy and portable - scanning MF film is a slow process. The GX680 gives better results than the Canon but not by much - most viewers cannot tell the difference. The big advantages of the Fuji are;<br>

The lens performance is much better as the bigger image allows them more latitude - in addition some of these Fuji lenses (e.g. the 180 F3.2) are as good as it gets<br>

The handling of the camera makes you slow down and think - the DSLR encourages sloppy technique<br>

The Fuji has substantial front element movement (tilt, shift and swing) which a DSLR cannot compete with</p>

<p>That said the Fuji weighs over 10lbs, has to be shot from a tripod in MLU with a remote and takes a while to focus. In addition the Raw scan of a single image can be up to 650MB.<br>

For studio use a tethered pc to a live view DSLR produces very good results. the PC screen allows you to compose shots.</p>