sfcole

Wait...there's still a Luminous Landscape?

Plus-X, and other black and white films in 220. So much nicer to have 24 vs 12 shots in medium format.

Hasselblads are so cheap now that you might as well get a new one in nice condition.

Don't rush out and buy a new prism. Yes, the image is reversed, but it's not difficult to get used to. Otherwise, it's more money and more big pieces of stuff to carry around. And don't necessarily get a CLA yet. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Remember that the back is its own thing: it may need work if the framing is very uneven. A Hasselblad back in good adjustment should have pretty consistent frame spacing.

I read the Atlantic article and found it a little odd. For one thing, why would editors at this magazine care about such an esoteric and obsolete topic? The article neglects to mention the economics of the 50mm lens. They can be made cheaply, and are fast and reasonably sharp. In the 70s, when 35mm photography became a mass-market hobby, the salesmen at the camera stores always tried to sell you a 50, or they bundled it for a deal. However, whatever the merits of the 50, I still find it the most boring of all lens choices. Too short for portraiture, too long for scenery. And I find the "normal" field of view of the medium format 75 or 80mm lenses to be the same: B-O-R-I-N-G.

If you haven't noticed, film is still a "thing." As a professional musician, I've seen many more photographers recently who, in addition to their digicams, are also sporting medium format film cameras. I don't know if this is demand-driven, or photographer's hipster schtick. But it's there.

Many are asking why one should scan film in the first place. If you just make a digital file, why not shoot a digital camera, right? The answer is, in my experience, even a scan of film retains certain qualities of film that are very difficult to duplicate with digital. The particular granularity and contrast are just not the same. There's nothing like a fiber-based darkroom print, even if Epson or Canon will try to convince you otherwise. If you just don't want any grain, don't use film. To me, grain, especially the very tight but sill visible grain of MF, is what is beautiful about film. Anyone who jumps into MF expecting large-format results is barking up the wrong tree. If all that matter is zero grain and eye-bleeding sharpness just get a digital camera. MF was eclipsed by even the cheapest ones two decades ago. The Nikon 8000, which I use (I don't currently have the space for an enlarger), can be had for under $1000. Just look at completed listings. Mine has chugged along for years. Not perfect, but I know its limitations, and it produces a sharper corner-to-corner image than a darkroom print (even with expensive enlarging lenses). Trying to use Nikon scanning software is a waste of time--just get Vuescan. I have a new iMac and the adapter works perfectly. This whole argument is similar to those arguing over whether you should play an acoustic piano or an electronic keyboard. The former has LOTS of disadvantages: it needs tuning and maintenance by someone like me (I'm an RPT). It's more expensive and takes up room in your house. Bu tin the end, as many people discover, an electronic keyboard is not an acoustical instrument. Either you want an acoustic instrument with its imperfections or you don't.

Either the M3 or 500CM. You can call them iconic, beautiful, or both. Or neither, I guess.

Hi, I'm not sure my case is 100% relevant in terms of connection, but I have a Nikon 8000 ED with a 1384 Firewire card. When I upgraded my computer to a new iMac (2017, 10.13.4 High Sierra), I wasn't sure the scanner would work. However, with a small adapter, the firewire plugs into the computer's thunderbolt port and works perfectly. I use Vuescan, by the way.

Jim and Gus, Thanks for the explanation. While I've enjoyed having the F-1, I've found it has some confounding weaknesses for what it was supposed to be (Canon's top professional camera at the time, to compete with Nikon and others). For example, the battery compartment is inaccessible with the winder on. The winder has a cheap and easily-damaged plastic door. And the worst design sin: lack of an exposure lock in AE mode.

Thanks, Sounds like it could be the spring. I'll send it off...

Sorry, I'll clarify: no, I'm not pulling up on the rewind knob. Yes, I know to push the rewind button in and then turn the knob on the left side. It just doesn't engage. I've had and used the camera since the early 90s. I'm wondering if this is a known weakness.

No one prints or normally views 100% crops, so since the posted image is sharp, the image as a whole is certainly fine. In fact, it is likely sharper and more detailed than any 35 mm or even medium format crop of that magnification. Besides, the most common factors in lack of sharpness or detail is usually not the quality of modern lenses but rather camera shake, incorrect F-stop for desired depth of field, or a simple focusing error. I'll bet if you matched even a cheap 18-55 lens at F5.6 against a very expensive prime you'd be hard pressed to see the difference at normal viewing or print sizes.

Echo the warning about using CA inside of either glass or plastic: you'll have a white mess inside.

About 10 years ago, I had my F-1 serviced because the rewind mechanism failed to engage. I really haven't used the camera much after getting into medium format, but when I pulled it out to show to my son, I tried to get the film out and the rewind knob will again not engage when pulled out and turned. Yes, the "R" rewind lever near the shutter release has been activated.I suppose it's possible that KEH didn't really fix the original problem. Has anyone had this issue?

As musician, I play many weddings. It's interesting to see how many wedding photographers these days are sporting (affecting?) medium format cameras along with their digicams. Usually a Pentax 645 or some such on a strap, banging around. Once in a while they take a film shot after they've take 500 digital shots of the same scene. Why they have these is a mystery. Hard to imagine that many customers would know or care enough about a film "look." There's so much software help that any professional should be able to reproduce a film look. Perhaps the photographers are hipsters attempting to be "genuine." Maybe they feel like real photographers with these totems. Anyway, I doubt a young couple these days would care. Unless of course they fashion themselves "genuine" hipsters themselves.

There are several reasons I shoot medium format film: 1. I happen to think the very subtle granularity is beautiful. You can try to copy this with software but I don't find it convincing. 2. Medium format because in spite of the grain, it can still be very sharp. 3. There is simply something about the contrast levels and tonality that seems to elude digital. Even if it's scanned.

There is an inexpensive alternative to the Nikon 9000: the 8000, which I have. Yes, they're getting older, but if it works it does a good job. I think the only difference from the 9000 is speed. But frankly, having made numerous comparisons, my Epson v500 also does a good job. You can't really see a big difference unless the print size goes over like 26x26 inches. And at that size, you'd need a fine-grain film, a tripod, and a good stopped-down lens.

Thanks everyone. The problem was in fact that it was cocked first. When I tried it uncocked, it did go into 1/500. It's an odd way to do it--not sure what they're trying to prevent. And it takes a rather long throw of the wheel to get it to 500. But it does work.

Hi, I've inherited a Rollieflex. I'm not 100% sure about the model, but the serial #1451499 indicates it's from 1952-55, and possibly a 2.8c, model k7c. It has a Schneider Xenotar 2.8/80 taking lens, and the shutter is a Synchro-Compur. Here's my question: all of the models I've seen go to 1/500 second shutter speed (1 has 1/400). However, on this camera, the shutter markings in the window just above the viewing lens only goes to 1/250. The wheel will go no further, and there's no 500 even visible to the right. Does the fact that 1/500 is absent mean there is something wrong with the linkage mechanism, or are there actually models that only go to 250? thanks

<p>I'm not sure why there's an argument concerning the sharpness of Hasselblad lenses when using film. They're ok, but not transcendant, and certainly no sharper than Mamiya. And I've never seen a Bronica photo that lacked for sharpness.<br> People who are that obsessed about absolute sharpness and being able to zoom in on every tiny detail of a photo probably shouldn't be using medium format film in the first place. People think that they'll get 4x5 results when they won't. Medium format is better than 35 mm. Period. Don't expect miracles, just fine grain and good detail. My Pentax K3 out-resolves my Hasselblad by a wide margin--forget the number of pixels and theoretical file size because the photos simply look sharper.</p>

<p>Used with a Mac, I have learned to A. turn off the computer B. plug in the scanner C. restart</p>

<p>Jeff,<br> Thanks,<br> Sometimes I wish I kept that Bronica. For some reason I worked better than with my current Hasselblad...<br> Scott</p>

<p>I don't know why people say scanning is so difficult, or that you have to have a megabucks scanner. An Epson V500 is fine for the job, unless you make humongous prints. For 11x14, or 8x10, you won't see the difference. In fact, if you did go out and buy a Nikon 9000, you'd see more grain. Photoshop Elements is all you need for film, because the major issue is often cloning dust and scratches. I've compared Nikon and Epson scans directly, and it can be very difficult to tell the difference at smaller sizes.<br> Bronica is a great alternative to Hasselblad, and you can buy a Bronica S2 outfit for probably $300-400. Jimmy Koh often has one, and lenses are dirt cheap. In some ways, Bronicas are better-designed than Hasselblad. Just check Ebay--there are plenty of outfits (and many are from Japan...). Personally I'd stick with a 6x6 SLR. They're them most versatile, and can focus the closest.<br> I've never scanned a negative with a DSLR, but you'd have to have a very good macro lens with a flat field and some kind of rig to do it. Otherwise, yes, what's the point?</p>

<p>Ben,<br> I have had the flare issue occasionally, usually when there is a light area such as sky. Apparently there is some kind of spillover from the light source or something. I wonder if these were really designed with getting the frame in to begin with. I suspect not, and it seems to be a fairly recent aesthetic. If you go back in history, most photographers don't include the frame. Perhaps we film photographers now have the need to tell the world "hey, it's film!"<br> Masking off is probably the best answer for a critical scan. I doubt two pieces of glass would help with flatness, and anyway there's not room. Something might catch upon insertion. I don't think it's necessary, though--I just make sure my negatives are flat to begin with. I don't scan them immediately after development but flatten them in a book or something.<br> So far I don't remember any difference in sharpness with the ANR glass on top or flipped over (versus none at all). As far as 8000 vs 9000, I'd probably get the newer 9000, but it's like 3 times more expensive. Maybe if I were using it day-in and day-out and wanted faster scans and it would pay for itself...So far everything I've read has suggested that there is no difference in image quality, only speed.</p>