One can be rehabilitated from the 3:2 format. Think square and buy the Hasselblad. Lens, parts and service are readily available. You will have to wait a little longer between buy lenses. If you buy something else, you will be wishing you had one and going through all the alternatives, never being happy. Save yourself grief and just go buy the Hasselblad, you will be glad you did.
IMHO the square format of the Hasselblad is the easiest to get used to and the most flexible. I crop in the darkroom enlarging phase. Hasselblad ist not the most economical option but, once you go Hasselblad you'll never regret it. Buying used is OK but, make sure not to buy a shelf queen. These cameras like to be used;They don't get better from laying around for decades; same for Carl Zeiss lenses.I've been shooting exclusively on 35mm film but have been thinking about adding a medium format camera for use in landscape photography. I've done some research and have a short list of possible cameras, but I'm undecided on the aspect ratio that I should go with.
I have a soft spot for Hasselblads as my father used one when I was growing up so I've been leaning in the direction of a 501CM. Of course this is one of the more expensive options and I'm not sure how I'll get on with the square format considering I'm used to framing using the 3:2 ratio. Another option is the Fuji 6x9. I'm comfortable with the aspect ratio and currently use a Leica M so rangefinder focusing is familiar to me. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of a fixed lens but I understand it is of high quality. The final option I've been considering is something like the Mamiya 645. It's pretty close to the aspect ratio I'm used to and it seems like it's fairly compact for a MF camera. My one hesitation there is that I'm wondering if it's worth going to the smallest size of MF film - perhaps it isn't a significant enough bump in size.
I realize I'm kind of rambling a bit here but thought that perhaps others familiar with these cameras could weigh in on the pros/cons and help steer me in the right direction.
One can be rehabilitated from the 3:2 format. Think square and buy the Hasselblad. Lens, parts and service are readily available. You will have to wait a little longer between buy lenses. If you buy something else, you will be wishing you had one and going through all the alternatives, never being happy. Save yourself grief and just go buy the Hasselblad, you will be glad you did.
As a Hasselblad owner, I tend to agree with this sentiment. On one hand, I never have to wonder what might have been. On the other, it insults my sense of getting a good deal to have a camera system that cost me $1500 (and I got tremendously good deals on just about every part of it...market value of my system is closer to $2500), when I could be perfectly happy with one that costs $500. And I still hate the huge fresnel screen in my 500c, and if I want to get it changed it will cost several hundred dollars!Or..buy a Bronica and spend the price difference on plane tickets to scenic locales...
Or..buy a Bronica and spend the price difference on plane tickets to scenic locales...
That was my next question.Except: Lenses, parts and service are not as available as Hasselblad.
That was my next question.
Hmm;Hasselblad;thre just is no substitute!MF is the photographic equivalent of a gate way drug. I started with an old Rolleicord. I was immediately hooked upon seeing the first prints. As I got used to the square format and composing a reversed image, I also jumped in to doing my own processing. This eventually led me into 4x5. All of this helped me to rationalize building a Hasselblad 500CM system.
Thanks for the advice. If I go Hasselblad I'll try and find a good 501CM and ensure that the Acute Matte is included.If you do go for a Hasselblad, I would advise shelling out a little more to get the more modern Acute Matte D focusing screen. They are MUCH brighter than an ordinary screen, and consequently a lot easier to focus with; doubly so if you get a model with a rangefinder patch and/or microprism array.
I believe only the 501CM and 503CW came with one by default, but of course there is nothing stopping you from buying a separate screen and installing it in an older model (apart from the 500 C; those do not have user-changeable screens). The screen costs several hundred on its own, but it is worth every penny IMO. Just be careful if you buy a camera which is supposed to come with one, and make sure that the screen hasn't been swapped out for an older one so that the seller can sell the Acute Matte D separately.
I think there is a huge "snob" value to Hasselblad's. The lenses on the Bronica, Mamiya and Pentax MF systems are easily their equal, but don't dare tell a Hasselblad owner that!
If you do go for a Hasselblad, I would advise shelling out a little more to get the more modern Acute Matte D focusing screen. They are MUCH brighter than an ordinary screen, and consequently a lot easier to focus with; doubly so if you get a model with a rangefinder patch and/or microprism array.
I believe only the 501CM and 503CW came with one by default, but of course there is nothing stopping you from buying a separate screen and installing it in an older model (apart from the 500 C; those do not have user-changeable screens). The screen costs several hundred on its own, but it is worth every penny IMO. Just be careful if you buy a camera which is supposed to come with one, and make sure that the screen hasn't been swapped out for an older one so that the seller can sell the Acute Matte D separately.
Seems like the Hasselblads have gone up quite a bit since you bought. Given what I've seen lately, a nice 501CM with an 80mm CF lens and A12 back is close to $2K.I am probably the last person to listen to but here's what I went through. First off I only shoot film occasionally but always wanted a chrome hasselblad because I loved the feel and looks of it. I also have a collection of old cameras in a little display and it sits there mostly.Before I had the Hasselblad I bought a Bronica SQ-A with the speed grip and prism finder and loved the way it handled, but before I really got familiar with it I came across a good deal on the Hasselblad so I had to sell the Bronica to help fund it. If I were to do it again I would stick with the Bronica SQ-A for the amount of film I shoot. I only paid about $350 for my Bronica which is about half the Hasselblad was.
Nice Haiku.*-+-*-+*-+*-+*
Many like Hasselblad
Choose her over something else
You must love the square
Mine is a 500 C/M.Seems like the Hasselblads have gone up quite a bit since you bought. Given what I've seen lately, a nice 501CM with an 80mm CF lens and A12 back is close to $2K.
I shoot film exclusively so the expense is somewhat easier for me to justify.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?