Hasselblad, questions
Discussion
Im posting because I know nothing, and would merely like to learn and read a little of the opinions and passions of others. With regards to hasselblads in general, and modern digital hasselblads.
Hasselblad USA claim they make the best cameras money can buy. Most people support this claim, I belive. But why? Are canon so very far behind, that image for image, they cant compete?
Why would one want a hasselblad? From my beginners perspective, Id guess they have a smaller userbase, a smaller lineup of lenses and other accessories, they are bigger and bulkier, more expensive to buy and repair. What is the upside that makes them so worthwhile, and how do "common" top of the range manufacturers compare?
Hasselblad USA claim they make the best cameras money can buy. Most people support this claim, I belive. But why? Are canon so very far behind, that image for image, they cant compete?
Why would one want a hasselblad? From my beginners perspective, Id guess they have a smaller userbase, a smaller lineup of lenses and other accessories, they are bigger and bulkier, more expensive to buy and repair. What is the upside that makes them so worthwhile, and how do "common" top of the range manufacturers compare?
OK, so just my 2p and I'm willing to be shot down
My perspcetive is that back in the 70's and early 80's the lens quality of the Zeiss lenses for Hassleblads was really out in front of the opposition, plus you were shooting on a 6x6cm frame rather than the much smaller 35mm frame. Remember from a traditional reproduction viewpoint you were enlarging a negative that was over 2.5* the area of a 35mm frame so you could enlarge more without losing quality.
The advantages of the system were interchangeable backs so you could move from B&W to colour neg to slide film all within shots of each other rather than a 35mm user who had to run through a whole frame.
They used to be very well made, for instance my Dad's old 500CM (not sure what CM stands for but Completely Manual
is good enough) still functions perfectly to this day and I'd say it's approx 20 yaers old. That's a testament to quality, mind you his old Leica stills works nicely and he's had that since he was 21, a mere 61 years ago !
I would say that they tended to be used by "fashion" type photographers and landscape folk most of all, reportage, sport and wildlife were principally the domain of 35mm, although of course there were exceptions to this. For landscapes the quality of lenses and sheer size of the negative was key, and for the fashion folk the quality plus the fact that the shutters were in the lenses rather than the body of the camera gave the ability for flash at 1/500th sec when 35mm was struggling with 1/60th max. Nice capability for some types of shots.
Funnily enough the fact that the camera slows down the speed of your work means a lot of folk like them as it makes them focus more on the image and really take their time to craft what they are imagining.
Downsides are the square format is visually difficult to work with as our eyes are much more used to a horizontal image plsu the lenses and accessories can be biblically expensive.
Upsides, flexibility, quality, reliability and even residuals.
As things have developed other manufacturers came along such as Mamiya with their RZ67 which could take a Pros punishment, had a 6x7cm negative, interchangebale backs and crucially lenses were great quality but cheaper than the Hassleblad.
Hassleblad have continued to develop their products and have now gone digital, I have no idea what they are like as have not played with a modern one but I'd expect great quality and massive price still to be the order of the day.
Overall I'd say that for certain people and certain styles of photography they are a great tool for the job but that for other things 35mm Canon and Nikon are a much better tool. For instance look at the sports and nature photos and you'll rarely see folk using medium format as it's not as flexible a toool for that job, but on the other hand look at landscape and still life or studio work and you'll often see them used.
I do still have a hankering for one of thosee nifty Hassleblad Xpan's with a 45mm lens though but do worry about the cost of getting good scans made.
Cheers
Chris
My perspcetive is that back in the 70's and early 80's the lens quality of the Zeiss lenses for Hassleblads was really out in front of the opposition, plus you were shooting on a 6x6cm frame rather than the much smaller 35mm frame. Remember from a traditional reproduction viewpoint you were enlarging a negative that was over 2.5* the area of a 35mm frame so you could enlarge more without losing quality.
The advantages of the system were interchangeable backs so you could move from B&W to colour neg to slide film all within shots of each other rather than a 35mm user who had to run through a whole frame.
They used to be very well made, for instance my Dad's old 500CM (not sure what CM stands for but Completely Manual
is good enough) still functions perfectly to this day and I'd say it's approx 20 yaers old. That's a testament to quality, mind you his old Leica stills works nicely and he's had that since he was 21, a mere 61 years ago ! I would say that they tended to be used by "fashion" type photographers and landscape folk most of all, reportage, sport and wildlife were principally the domain of 35mm, although of course there were exceptions to this. For landscapes the quality of lenses and sheer size of the negative was key, and for the fashion folk the quality plus the fact that the shutters were in the lenses rather than the body of the camera gave the ability for flash at 1/500th sec when 35mm was struggling with 1/60th max. Nice capability for some types of shots.
Funnily enough the fact that the camera slows down the speed of your work means a lot of folk like them as it makes them focus more on the image and really take their time to craft what they are imagining.
Downsides are the square format is visually difficult to work with as our eyes are much more used to a horizontal image plsu the lenses and accessories can be biblically expensive.
Upsides, flexibility, quality, reliability and even residuals.
As things have developed other manufacturers came along such as Mamiya with their RZ67 which could take a Pros punishment, had a 6x7cm negative, interchangebale backs and crucially lenses were great quality but cheaper than the Hassleblad.
Hassleblad have continued to develop their products and have now gone digital, I have no idea what they are like as have not played with a modern one but I'd expect great quality and massive price still to be the order of the day.
Overall I'd say that for certain people and certain styles of photography they are a great tool for the job but that for other things 35mm Canon and Nikon are a much better tool. For instance look at the sports and nature photos and you'll rarely see folk using medium format as it's not as flexible a toool for that job, but on the other hand look at landscape and still life or studio work and you'll often see them used.
I do still have a hankering for one of thosee nifty Hassleblad Xpan's with a 45mm lens though but do worry about the cost of getting good scans made.
Cheers
Chris
I love this guy's medium format work shot using a Hasselblad, his name is Jeff Grant.
His photo.net portfolio
His website
It's something about the image quality, colour, contrast achieved that makes the images stand out from 35mm.
speedeight said:
I love this guy's medium format work shot using a Hasselblad, his name is Jeff Grant.
His photo.net portfolio
His website
It's something about the image quality, colour, contrast achieved that makes the images stand out from 35mm.
You are going to have to sell a f
k of a lot of 00.25c images at if you want to join that club.
To answer your question, Canon (or Nikon) is a different horse for a different course. Nothing wrong with them as such but if you want better image quality you have to move up a rung. One difference is between the bit depth of digital capture. Nearly all 35mm based digital, captures in 12 bit. Medium format digi backs capture in 14 or 16 bit. What that means is better colour and larger dynamic range. Also the backs don't have anti aliasing filters over the chip so the pictures are sharper and more detailed. I liken 35mm digital to shooting through a net curtain.
Regarding the cameras themselves, it comes down to personal choice. Hasselbald, the modern company, was taken over by Imacon, who now call the shots. The older C cameras have Zeiss lenses and are purely manual. The new H series have auto modes and AF (slow compared to 35mm). The lenses for the H series are made in Japan by Fuji or Hoya (different people tell you different stories). The Fuji lenses have a different characteristic from the Zeiss ones. Again, personal choice but I prefer Zeiss.
Hasselblad aren't the only show in town. Even though they have stopped making them, there is a big Contax following for MFDB shooters. Mamiya are still there and next year a new version of a Rollei is due out which is looking very interesting. The Contax uses some of the best Zeiss lenses known to man as does the Rollei which can also use Schneider Kreuznach lenses. Most of the lenses available for these types of camera are primes, so again, another step up in image quality.
Using the cameras is a different way of shooting. Composing pictures with a large viewfinder is so much nicer than squinting through a smartie tube of 35mm cameras. The older C series have waist level finders as well as prisms, which depending what you're shooting, is also nice. Photographers who use digi backs often work tethered to a computer, which works quicker than 35mm systems.
Most digi backs have 4:3 image ratio which is 'fatter' than the 35mm 3:2. Ok for landscapes but can feel a bit narrow with uprights. Personally I love square pictures and rumour has it that a 48mm square sensor is being worked on. Unfortunately it won't fit on the H series Hasselblad. IMHO they made a mistake when they decided to axe the 6x6 format and go 6x4.5 (Victor Hasselblad hasn't stopped spinning in his grave). They have also caused quite a stir in the professional world by recently announcing a 'closed' system. In other words you can only use Hasselblad digi backs on the camera rather than others from Phase, Leaf or Sinar. Unfortunately, I'd rate the 'blad digi backs about last and the software sucks, so good luck to them. Roll on Rollei (or rather Franke & Heidecke).
But, as already mentioned, medium format is not very good for sport... horses for courses.
k of a lot of 00.25c images at if you want to join that club. To answer your question, Canon (or Nikon) is a different horse for a different course. Nothing wrong with them as such but if you want better image quality you have to move up a rung. One difference is between the bit depth of digital capture. Nearly all 35mm based digital, captures in 12 bit. Medium format digi backs capture in 14 or 16 bit. What that means is better colour and larger dynamic range. Also the backs don't have anti aliasing filters over the chip so the pictures are sharper and more detailed. I liken 35mm digital to shooting through a net curtain.
Regarding the cameras themselves, it comes down to personal choice. Hasselbald, the modern company, was taken over by Imacon, who now call the shots. The older C cameras have Zeiss lenses and are purely manual. The new H series have auto modes and AF (slow compared to 35mm). The lenses for the H series are made in Japan by Fuji or Hoya (different people tell you different stories). The Fuji lenses have a different characteristic from the Zeiss ones. Again, personal choice but I prefer Zeiss.
Hasselblad aren't the only show in town. Even though they have stopped making them, there is a big Contax following for MFDB shooters. Mamiya are still there and next year a new version of a Rollei is due out which is looking very interesting. The Contax uses some of the best Zeiss lenses known to man as does the Rollei which can also use Schneider Kreuznach lenses. Most of the lenses available for these types of camera are primes, so again, another step up in image quality.
Using the cameras is a different way of shooting. Composing pictures with a large viewfinder is so much nicer than squinting through a smartie tube of 35mm cameras. The older C series have waist level finders as well as prisms, which depending what you're shooting, is also nice. Photographers who use digi backs often work tethered to a computer, which works quicker than 35mm systems.
Most digi backs have 4:3 image ratio which is 'fatter' than the 35mm 3:2. Ok for landscapes but can feel a bit narrow with uprights. Personally I love square pictures and rumour has it that a 48mm square sensor is being worked on. Unfortunately it won't fit on the H series Hasselblad. IMHO they made a mistake when they decided to axe the 6x6 format and go 6x4.5 (Victor Hasselblad hasn't stopped spinning in his grave). They have also caused quite a stir in the professional world by recently announcing a 'closed' system. In other words you can only use Hasselblad digi backs on the camera rather than others from Phase, Leaf or Sinar. Unfortunately, I'd rate the 'blad digi backs about last and the software sucks, so good luck to them. Roll on Rollei (or rather Franke & Heidecke).
But, as already mentioned, medium format is not very good for sport... horses for courses.
Edited by Bacardi on Monday 13th November 20:54
UKBob said:
Im posting because I know nothing, and would merely like to learn and read a little of the opinions and passions of others. With regards to hasselblads in general, and modern digital hasselblads.
Hasselblad USA claim they make the best cameras money can buy. Most people support this claim, I belive. But why? Are canon so very far behind, that image for image, they cant compete?
Why would one want a hasselblad? From my beginners perspective, Id guess they have a smaller userbase, a smaller lineup of lenses and other accessories, they are bigger and bulkier, more expensive to buy and repair. What is the upside that makes them so worthwhile, and how do "common" top of the range manufacturers compare?
Hasselblad USA claim they make the best cameras money can buy. Most people support this claim, I belive. But why? Are canon so very far behind, that image for image, they cant compete?
Why would one want a hasselblad? From my beginners perspective, Id guess they have a smaller userbase, a smaller lineup of lenses and other accessories, they are bigger and bulkier, more expensive to buy and repair. What is the upside that makes them so worthwhile, and how do "common" top of the range manufacturers compare?
I like the xpan because: ease of use, build, optically excellent and panoramic photos make my silo rise. There is something about the xpan that just feels so right when you use one (IMO).
Similar reasons with the v series. Such a simple camera, not really anything except an iso dial, a mirror and a shutter button: nothing to distract you from the purpose of creating images. The lenses are just
ing awesome: so sharp and such beautiful bokeh. The viewfinder/ viewing screen is so large and bright as well it has a real 3d look to it. An obvious difference is the larger format means bigger negs/ transparencies which has a quality improvement. Again though, for me this camera just feels great to use, even though I am a way off getting near to its potential. I love it. Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff