Top of the line Hassy lenses vs 4x5

[azhar_fadzil]

Dear Hassy Users,

 

Maybe this is a tired question or discussion... it's generally about

Hasselblad vs 4x5.

 

What's your opinion(s) on the performance from the top line of Hassy

lenses (38mm Biogon, 100mm, Superachromats and Makro-Planars) when

compared to 4x5... say if the prints (from trans or b/w) are the same

size (20x20 inches).

 

Can we see any differences in terms of sharpness, details and what

not? Is the print shot with Hassy lenses any better?

 

Hope you can share your experiences,

Azhar

[peza]

Film, unless you shoot best B&W films, and processing is limiting factor. What concerns image quality - no comparison, 4x5 wins by great margin.

[cg]

I shoot both and shots with the Hasselblads are very sharp and possibly sharper than my 4x5 Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. But at that print size the film grain is can be very visible in 120 prints compared to prints from 4x5 negatives. Because the 4x5 film doesn't need to be enlarged as much there is finer grain and more apparent detail/sharpness. Medium format also cannot compete with the tonal range of 4x5 film.

[desmond_kidman]

Agreed with the above posters. I have 35, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 systems including the lenses you mention. I am meticulous about technique, mirror up, sturdy tripod, sharpest apertures, etc......

 

4 x 5 runs away from 6 x 7, not just the sharpness, but the even nature of the tone, the realism: you just can not mistake it. The only area I've seen mf beat my 4 x 5 is the color saturation and impact of the 250SA. I wish the equivalent was available in 4 x 5.

[bill_dewberry]

It's the difference between lightning & a lightning bug; a 4x5 is an image to behold, surpassed only by 8x10.

[sergio_ortega6]

Azhar,

 

Everyone's correct. All things being equal, If carefully focussed, on a tripod with MLU, perfectly exposed and at optimum apertures I'd say results from the Hasselblad lenses you mention would be superior to most current lenses for 4x5...IF you're just comparing negatives/transparencies on a light table. Enlarged to any size over 8x10, the 4x5 format is clearly superior in all respects.

 

Clearly if all things were equal everyone would be using only LF, not MF or 35mm. But when are all things ever equal?

[terrestrikon]

Some people swear by Tech-pan, since it's virtually grainless, but what they don't realize is that they usually lose detail or edge definition. Their pictures don't look very sharp.

 

Similarly, some people who swear by 4x5 don't seem to realize that the inherent limitations of a view camera usually mean that medium format will produce sharper images. Unless you use a 4x5 for still life, certain portraits, simple architecture, or shooting test patterns, as soon as you take the camera outside, stop down the lens and increase exposure times, you run into the problem of things moving. And things that move are not sharp.

 

People use 4x5 because they like having the camera movements, or greater tonal range, or perhaps just like the experience of using sheet film. But to say that the greater real estate of a 4x5 negative automatically results in a sharper enlarged image, when comparing enlargements to the same dimensions from 4x5 and medium format negatives, is simply incorrect.

 

Plenty of photographers print, display, and sell stunningly sharp 20x20 images using Hasselblad gear.

[roger_michel]

the biggest difference (at least in b&w) is tonal range. the smooth tonality of LF is totally unmatched by MF. as for sharpness, apart from LF's inherent size advantage, the extreme camera movements possible with LF (as compared to movable mount MF, let alone fixed MF), make any comparison silly.

[roger_urban3]

"Some people swear by Tech-pan, since it's virtually grainless, but what they don't realize is that they usually lose detail or edge definition. Their pictures don't look very sharp. "

 

Have shot lots of Tech-pan in 35mm and 120 [developed in Technidol] and soon LF (4x5 and 8x10, the 8x10 isoutdated but hopefully still good without much base fog). Will try the 8x10 in full strength XTOL in a JOBO processor.

 

That said, all the prints made with 35mm and 120 are noticably sharper than anything else I've ever been able to print with other film/developer/paper combinations.

[steve_barnett2]

George Kenny has made a good point about the use of the 4x5 in the landscape. Anybody who has seen a range of original A Adams 4x5 (or above)derived prints, will have seen that they are often less than perfect in terms of sharpness. But beautiful in the tonal range and execution. And Hasselblad lenses are also not necessarily as 'superb' as people may believe, if you believe MTF charts. Often Mamiya etc can beat them. Which basically says, its horse's for course's. When going into the landscape at the 'high' end of the format range, you still need to use the equipment thats correct for the day and conditions. A Hasselblad will not record the tonal range of 4x5, but 'can' deliver better sharpness, if its windy.

[feli]

In my experience medium format is very, very good, but pales in comparison

with 4x5 and a modern lens. The amount of detail that a finegrain 4x5

negative contains is staggering and the tonal range is remarkable. I have

never seen a modern 8x10 negative, but it must be a revelation. It's like Leica

vs. MF. The Leica lenses are extremely good, but there simply is no substitute

for square inches of negatives.

 

feli

[roger_urban3]

My equipment choice decision depends on available light [cloudy and low light? Indoors?], necessity for tripod, who is the intended audience for the pictures and what size prints are required, what type of subject [sports and fast action, or street shooting, or?], the convenience factor...[will I be staying put or have to trek all over the place?], how windy it is [not good for stability when using a bellows], whether or not I have the right speed film and if not can I make a purchase quickly enough before when I'm supposed to take pictures or do I have to make do with what I have? Let alone other considerations, such as "Will I be shooting in an area that is known to be risky for muggings, and if so, do I want to be seen with expensive camera equipment?".

 

For the convenience factor (camera size and weight), speed of shooting [built-in light meter helps a lot], quality of the lenses, how many shots you can get on a roll of film, 'Blad and other MF offer a nice mix of advantages. But it's up to you as to which factors dominate your equipment choice. It's a personal decision.

 

There are always tradeoffs, many more than I've mentioned so far. Probably until the end of time photogs will be debating equipment choices and value for the dollar over their purchases. It continues to be informative, educational as well as entertaining.

 

That said, I've recently done some street shooting with a 4x5 Cambo Wide which gave me a lot more mobility. There are others mobile LF outfits available, for those interested: 8x10 and 5x7 Hobo outfits from Bostick-Sullivan, or a Gowland TLR LF, or Sinar 4x5 Handy, or Speed Graphic and/or Linhofs and others.

 

Landscape photography? If the light, wind/weather gods are smiling on you, then LF rules.

 

Wedding photography? 6x6 and even 35mm are much better choices than LF.

 

You can even the playing field by using Kodak Technical Pan in 35mm and 120 format, but if it is a fast action shoot, then you have to compensate for the slow ASA by developer choice, use of a flash [not always practical] etc. With LF, grain is not much of a consideration and you can shoot low light with 800asa Polaroid and throw the negs in water until you get home. Or, shot some 400asa film and push it to 800 or higher, and compensate as necessary in the development and darkroom. On the other hand, depth of field is less on LF.

 

 

Probably some of the very best UW photo's yet were taken with either a 35mm or a Hasselblad 903SWC in one of those $5,000 housing. The 35mm were grainy but it was a nice effect. The 'Blad shots must have been taken at f/22 and depth of field was to die for. You don't see LF UW photo's, or at least I haven't.

[steve_hamley]

Folks,

 

Interesting thread with a lot of things to think about. I only have a couple of comments that I can't resist. Mr. Kenney remarked that maybe 4x5 users don't always know that medium format could give sharper pictures (wind, etc.). I can assure you that anyone who has shot LF in the woods with Velvia and a polarizer can NEVER overlook this (and wished for the MF in the backpack!). But that "wind" sword cuts both ways.

 

People don't use cameras with movements because they like movements, rather they like movements because you can adjust the plane of sharp focus. In this respect, a LF user may be able to shoot at faster shutter speeds than a MF user because you can adjust the orientation of the DOF unlike fixed-body cameras, where the only choice is to stop down. So if the subject plane isn't parallel to the film plane, the LF folks may well get sharper pictures - it has nothing to do with lenses or film size though.

 

For example, I was shooting some orchids in the Smokies (LF), two plants in heavy woods with light breeze, with the camera and orchids roughly in a triangle with different camera-to-orchid distances. Getting both orchids in focus with a nice background at less than 1-2 sec exposure wasn't possible without movements and the small f-stop needed (minimum f/32, better f/64). The wind wouldn't let me do 1 second. Solution? Swing the front standard to get both plants in focus at f/16-f/22. The swing was worth 2-3 stops in this case, the difference between making the shot in the breeze or not.

 

BTW, the Fuji GX680 will let you do this in MF.

 

Thanks!

 

Steve

[marc_falcone]

What size will be the final print?

In the case of rectangular print, we are comparing 6x4.5 cm to 4x5", which is a great difference of negative size.

In the case of square print, we are comparing 6x6 cm to 4x4" which is not a big difference. In this case, a Hasselblad 250mm superachromat will give better than a rodagon N, but for close-up, 4x5 with an apo-ronar will surpass everything of a Hasselblad!

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

How do Hasselblad pictures compare with LF lenses and roll film backs?

 

Grain would be the same for the same format, but the LF RF would be superior if you needed movements.

 

If you only need tilt, a MF view camera like the Flexbody is a usefull tool.

 

What makes a big difference here, particularly to saturation, is the use of a good lens shade.