Hasselblad - big disappointment!

[sk_arts]

<<I don't sit here stroking my Bronica!>>

 

... I just cannot get over the image of someone fondling a Bronica. Sure they are pretty, just never really thought of them as something someone would buy to keep in a teak case and stair at before bed being as relatively inexpensive they are ...

[christopher perez]

When Hasselblad was the only serious game in town it had the best optics and people got used to the rest. Rather like getting used to a Saab automobile. It you "got it" you were really hooked.

 

But 50 years is a long time and competition is now quite fierce. Everyone's ability to grind good glass means that, while outstanding, Zeiss has a few challenges balancing quality with cost against what the market will tolerate.

 

Your first reaction to the Hasselblad is similar to mine. In my case the 500CM feels "clunky" by comparison with my Mamiya 7. And the 'blad feels slow compared to my Mamiya RZ.

[mishka]

Same here. I keep picking Rolleiflex TLR over 'Blad over and over.

I *know* my 'Blad has better glass, I have more than one standard lens for it, it has all that hassy aura and stuff... </p><p>

But 'flex just feels right, and this is all to it, in my case anyway.

No mirror slap (I have really got used to it), lighter, faster... But,

hey, courses for horses (or is it the other way around?)...

[kelly_flanigan1]

Hasselblads used Kodak Ektar lenses in their first models; along with others too.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>Hasselblads used Kodak Ektar lenses in their first models; along with others too.</i><br><br>That's right. But the others were Kodak Ektars too, until they started using Zeiss lenses, and one Cook and Perkins/Dallmeyer.<br><br>There were third party lenses available that would fit the early Hasselblads. But these were not "used" by Hasselblad, but by Hasselblad users. ;-)

[christopher perez]

Just a quick note about Kodak optics: During the 1950's into the early 1960's, no one on the planet could make as fine a lens as Kodak. Their Ektar series remain some of the sharpest lenses ever to make their way into common commercial use.

 

I am familiar with Kodak Commercial Ektar large format lenses. If the optics supplied to Hasselblad and others were of similar quality, I think going to Zeiss brought lens designs where the edges of the field were perhaps sharper at wide apertures than Kodak offered. But Kodak lenses wide open were incredibly sharp in the center of the field. And the edges improved as the aperture was stopped down.

 

Horses. Of courses. Or something like that... :-)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Christopher,<br><br>As far as i can tell, you're right about the Kodak Ektars. The 80 mm one they made for Hasselblad is a very fine lens indeed. The Tessar Zeiss produced to replace it is not noticably better, if not worse.<br>I would love to compare the 135 mm Ektar that was available for Hasselblad to the Zeiss Sonnar 135 mm that replaced it. But alas, i don't have that 135 mm Ektar. The Zeiss 135 mm Sonnar however is a very, very good lens. Hard to beat, i'd say.

[neil_browne1]

I own 3 Hasselblad bodies, 5 lenses,and 5 backs. Ive been shooting with this

gear since /96 (8 years) and have never been let down. I've only had to repair

a shutter in a lens.(even then it was because I dropped the camera)

I used Bronica for one year before I bought my Hassy. equipment, and that

was the reason I went with Hasselblad, Bronica felt cheap, and I found it to be

not as reliable as Hasselblad.

[kparratt]

I was close to clicking off and doing something more useful with this computer, especially when I came to Dick Roadnight's less than intelligent comment about "serious" photography, however I thought it may actually be helpful to make a contribution. For the most part Richard Silfverberg's $0.02 worth speaks well for me, so I suggest it be read again.

 

In the mid 1980's I bought a Bronica S2A from a guy who was an ardent proclaimer of the virtues of all things Bronica, in spite of the fact that he was forever complaining about electronic failure in his state of the art SQ.. something. He was also critical of Hasselblad, in spite of the fact that he had never owned one.

 

The S2A was put to work in a variety of applications, with the 75mm Nikor lens delivering some excellent results. I documented a two and half month tour of Germany and Scandinavia with it. Fine. Then came the day when the winder began to tighten and very soon seized up completely. Not even the best camera repair place in town wanted to look at it. This added to the concern that finding accessories for any Bronica was frustrating for the simple fact that almost NOTHING was compatible from one model to the next. Not so with original modular MF SLR from Sweden.

 

I had been noticing the Hasselblads come and go at the Camera Exchange in Melbourne. Considerable time was invested in reading everything I could get my hands on. I bought a Hasselblad manual, studied brochures and made a decision. Scraping up the funds I was able to secure a 500c with it's chrome 80mm and fim magazine. Over the years the 250, 100, 120 and recently a chrome 50mmT* have been added, plus an ELM, a handful of film magazines and other accessories.

The effectively distorsion-free 100mm and 120mm objectives are used for making reproduction quality negs and transparencies of artworks. Printers and clients have had nothing but praise for the results. The entire outfit is used constantly, in the studio and on location, fotographing everything from macro to mountains. It is an amazingly versatile and reliable system. For quick table top work requiring minimal movements, I use the very handy FlexBody. For more demanding assignments, the H'bland mag is mounted on a Linhof M679 (borrowed) and I have even used the camera+mag mounted on another friend's Sinar. Brilliant! (Sinar make the adapter)

 

I now live a four-hour train journey from the home of Hasselblad in Gothenberg, where I eventually had that first 500C refurbished. I have nothing but praise for their service, their support generally, and their products overall. High on my shopping list of major purchases are a Superwide and the 203FE. It's going to be a tough decision.

[desmond_kidman]

Everyone's impression of quality is indeed different. I knew a guy who thought European cars, including Ferarri, were cheaply built. He used the shifter of a Ferarri as an example: "I can SLAM my Muncie tranny with Hurst shifter from gear to gear, drop the clutch time and time again, and my big block GTO will take it." "Do that with a 96 Testa Rossa and you'll trash the tranny and blow the clutch within a few burnouts." Well, he's right that you'll fry the clutch of the Testa Rossa after a few holeshots. Does that make the GTO a better car? A better engineered car? Does it make the Ferarri cheaply built?

 

I bought a Bronica ETRS, and I thought it was so tinny I hated using it. I liked the Hasselblad much better, it felt more solid to me, and I thought that it exuded quality when fired. I'm not easily fooled, I was a product designer and manufacturing engineer in defense for a number of years. But I'm realistic enough to know that my impression of the Bronica does not mean that it really was built poorly.......just that it felt that way to me.

 

That's why different companies can all succeed in the marketplace. The track record of thousands of pros using both Bronica and Hasselblad indicate that neither is poorly built.

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

Owen this is better than "my camera is better than yours" debate. While Hasselblad has operational quirks -- e.g when changing lens/back, but is 500CM "cheap" and "tinny"?

 

I was recently in a Museum, and they usually do not allow cameras, and ask you to check them at the counter. But the lady sitting at the counter saw a Hasselblad hanging from my neck, and when her assistant asked whether I should check my equipment in, she said "no", for that is an "expensive camera"..!

 

Maybe you got a lemon. 500CM is a beautifully crafted machine! I prefer to use Rolleiflex 600x cameras. But Hasselblad is a joy to hand hold.