Close up - Hasselblad VS Mamiya c330

[rytz_matthieu]

<p>Hi,<br>

I need to make a photo essay with some close up portrait and some macro photography.<br>

I see 2 options :<br>

One is the Mamiya c330 the other is the Hasselblad 500 CM with 80mm and an extension tube.<br>

I will use some HP5 film.<br>

What would be the best solution ? What is the pros and the cons ?<br>

Thanks</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

In general a single lens reflex camera is better suited for that type of photography than a twin lens reflex. That, because no matter how close you get, you will be seeing through the viewfinder what you get on film using an SLR, but not with a TLR.<br>Many TLRs have a parallax indicator, showing the difference in framing between taking lens and viewing lens, but that works down to about 1 meter. Not closer. Not just because the framing is different with the viewing lens sitting above the taking lens, but the perspective is too. You could get round that using a 'paramender' (a device that raises the camera after composing so that the taking lens is put where the viewing lens was) or by raising the centre colum of the tripod.<br>Another limitation of TLRs is that it's harder to get closer. With bellows and tubes not being an option, you depend on close-up lenses ("diopters") put in front of the lens(es). They work, but can't get you as close as tubes and bellows can. And the image quality suffers using close-up lenses on your lens.

[rytz_matthieu]

<p>Thanks. <br>

So the image quality from the Hasselblad will not suffer from the use of the tubes and will still be better than the C330 ?</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

How image quality fares depends on how close you go and what lens you use. Some lenses are better suited for close-up work than others. Generally, standard lenses are very good also in the close up range. Better still are lenses designed for close-up work.<br><br>In the Hasselblad line up, the 80 mm standard lens is already a very good choice for macro work. As their name suggests, the 120 mm and 135 mm S-Planars/Makro-Planars are too.<br>You can use other lenses with tubes as well (150 mm, 250 mm), and when not too extreme they also work well. But not quite as good. (Trouble with long lenses in particular also is that you need a lot of extension to get at the same magnification. For instance, using the 150 mm lens, you need almost twice as much compared to a 80 mm lens to cover the same field of view.)<br><br>The problem with close-up lenses/diopters is that you add a poorly corrected single lens or achromatic group of two lenses to an already well corrected complex lens. It works, but to a degree. You will not see much degradation when using a close-up lens to get just a bit closer. But it will be rather apparent when coming in closer, and you can't use them at all to get as close as you can using tubes.

[rytz_matthieu]

<p>Thanks so much, so if I understand well the best would be to use a 80 mm with a tubes rather than the Mamiya C330 with a 135mm ?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

If you have to buy either: yes. Then a SLR will be the better choice for doing this.<br><br>If you already have a C330, it depends on what you are aiming to achieve. Moderately close up will still be doable (though not as 'nice') with the C330 (the longer the lens, the harder it is to get close though. So a 80 mm lens on the C330 would be better.).<br>Can you give an idea of what you are after (field of view, i.e. subject size, you are aiming for)?

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The longer the lens, the greater the working distance you get for the same magnification, but the longer extension is required. That's a great advantage for living things, not so much for plants or documents.</p>

<p>An 80mm lens is a little short for portraits, since the perspective is not particularly flattering to the subject when you work up close. You can crop to the ears with a 150mm Sonnar or a 120mm Makro without resorting to extension tubes. The Makro lens will be noticeably sharper at the corners at magnifications of 1:2 or greater with extension tubes, and yields about 1:4 magnification by itself.</p>

<p>Newer extension tubes come in lengths of 8, 16, 21 and 56 mm, and you can use up to three tubes in a stack. Attach the first one to the camera, and build outward, attaching the lens last. When striking the setup, reverse this order (start by removing the lens). Otherwise you may cause a jam by accidently tripping the coupling. Make sure all the couplings are cocked before assembly, using a coin if necessary.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>There's no right answer here - both cameras can do the job. Each has its own advantages.</p>

<p>The natural advantage of the Mamiya C330 is that its bellows has a long throw, so with a normal or wideangle lens you can focus closer than probably any other TLR, and certainly closer than a helicoid-focusing SLR like the Hasselblad, unless one adds extension tubes to the latter.</p>

<p>An SLR like the Hasselblad on the other hand does not present parallax issues, offers TTL metering with the appropriate viewfinder, allows you to preview the depth-of-field, and gives you a wider choice of lenses and extension accessories.</p>

<p>Perhaps a bellows-focusing SLR like the Mamiya RB67 or Rollei SL66 gives you the best of both worlds!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You could get round that using a 'paramender' (a device that raises the camera after composing so that the taking lens is put where the viewing lens was) or by raising the centre colum of the tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One potential 'gotcha' with TLRs is that the camera must be bolt upright for the centre column trick to work. If you tilt the camera (as many would do for a "table-top" or macro-type composition), then the plane fomed by the two lenses is not parallel to the centre column, and no amount of column movement can put the taking lens where the viewing lens was. The same can happen with a paramender-type device if it's placed under the tripod head...but you're fine if the paramender is directly under the camera itself - although it needs a very sturdy tripod/stand and head, as clearly the moment arm is much longer than with an SLR. <a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/paramender/interesting/">This Flickr collection </a>shows the correct positioning of a paramender, and some very nice close-up and portrait work made with the Mamiya TLR + paramender.</p>

[mike_rosenlof2]

I agree with the last poster that there is no best solution. As others have said, an SLR is often a better choice for close up photography. Bellows focusing is also a nice feature for close up. If none of this equipment is currently in hand, you might want to consider a Mamiya RB or RZ 67 (as someone else has mentioned).

 

I'm a Mamiya TLR user, and have been successful with close up photographs using a Paramender. At least with non-moving subjects. I can get very close with the lenses up to 80mm, and with the Paramender framing is precise. It is definitely another step in the shooting process compared to an SLR, so keep that in mind! They're usually fairly easy to find at KEH or on the Bay.

[rytz_matthieu]

<p>Thanks.<br>

Maybe the Fuji GX680 could be the best solution ?<br>

What you thing about ?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Fuji GX680? Big. Heavy. And big and heavy. Quite heavy, and big, too. And [etc.]<br>Also relatively hard to get things for. Expensive. And not offering much in return for being big, heavy, hard to get and expensive. Then rather a Mamiya RB/RZ 67

[rytz_matthieu]

<p>It is bigger than the Mamiya RB/RZ 67, but not so much<br>

do you think that the tilt/swift option may be useful for macro photography ?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

"Not so much" is a matter of interpretation, i guess. About 60-70% bigger in 2 dimensions, 33% in the other (both with 'standard' lens on). Weight: well over 4 kg vs 2.7 kg.<br>Those are just specs. When you actually try to use the thingies, you'll find that they may perhaps be close in appearance, both nearing some limit that separates two 'modes of usability', with each on one side of it: the RZ67 though big and heavy still quite 'wieldy', the GX680 an inert monster of a thing.<br>Tilt is useful, yes.

[rytz_matthieu]

Thanks

So if the size is not a big deal in term off image quality will the Fuji be much better ?

[q.g._de_bakker]

I don't think you will notice any difference in image quality.<br><br>So i would let size be the big deal it (if you would ask me) is.<br>If i'm going to have to lug a slow camera like a GX680 around, i'll make sure it is a camera that offers a bit more than that GX680 in terms of image format and movements (i've shown what i would then use in the "shots of medium format cameras" thread. Such a thing (a 4x5" view camera) is even bigger, yes. Heavier too. But that doesn't mean that it is more difficult or slower to work with. On the contrary, i'd say: the GX680 handles (not as an MF camera, but) as a view camera with restrictions.<br>The Mamiya RB/RZ67 is just on the other side of that "limit" i mentioned. Though also being quite hefty, It still 'works' like a 'regular' MF camera.<br><br>For me, the Mamiyas (most excellent cameras and lenses) were too big too (if i really need BIG, i have that other thing to turn to. You hardly ever need a BIG format though. But the movements are great.), and i went for a smaller camera (without having to compromise on image quality - there really is not much difference in image quality between the smallest and largest 'regular' MF formats).<br>So how about a thing like that 500 C/M you asked about originally? ;-)

[david_smith35]

<p><em>or by raising the centre colum of the tripod.</em><br /> Only true if the camera back is parallel to the tripod column. Far more accurate to use a paramender.</p>