Advice on buying my first medium format film camera

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[logan2z]

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.

I'm starting to think that this might be the right answer for me.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

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.

 

[abruzzi]

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.

Or..buy a Bronica and spend the price difference on plane tickets to scenic locales...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Or..buy a Bronica and spend the price difference on plane tickets to scenic locales...

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!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or..buy a Bronica and spend the price difference on plane tickets to scenic locales...

Except: Lenses, parts and service are not as available as Hasselblad.

 

[logan2z]

Except: Lenses, parts and service are not as available as Hasselblad.

That was my next question.

 

[MattKing]

Sirius is an ardent fan of Hasselblad equipment, and I know of no reason why he shouldn't be.
But it isn't perfect for everyone. The ergonomics are particularly awkward for me - I used to sell medium format film equipment and the Hasselblad stuff was much harder for me to use than the competing Mamiya equipment that I own and use today.
I strongly suggest people investigate how well they get along with any medium format camera they are considering. It isn't the technical capabilities that make the photographs.

 

[abruzzi]

That was my next question.

That is the weakness of Bronica, however, it’s been rock solid reliable for me since I bought it, and I bought a spare body for $60 that I exercise with a roll every few months.

Don’t get me wrong, the Hasselblad is a thing of beauty, but the Bronica keeps me shooting because I can afford the bits I want. I’d estimate that I’ve spent about $1800 on two bodies, four backs, three finders, nine lenses and a teleconverter. The lenses may not be as good as the Zeiss lenses in a Hasselblad, but they’re pretty good (all my lenses are the later PE series.)

 

[GLS]

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Decide on format first - there are several good choices of equipment for each format.

I started with Hasselblad in 1994 and have four of the things (500C/M, 501C, 553ELX, and SWC) plus plenty of lenses. Nearly 20 years later I realized I didn't like 6x6 at all (despite having Rolleiflexes as well).

My solution was the RB67 Pro S. Two bodies and a good set of lenses were relatively inexpensive. The RB is a high quality system - though it doesn't have the "carved from a cube of steel" feeling that the Hasselblad has. I don't worry about service - plenty of places can service them. I like 6x7 so much I also recently bought a Pentax 6x7 outfit. I don't consider either camera "heavy" - but a good strap and proper carrying technique mitigates the weight.

As for 6x9 - I have the Fuji GW690III - essentially 35mm format scaled way up. It's a good camera to toss around your shoulder when you don't want the baggage of medium format SLRs and their lenses.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

Hmm;Hasselblad;thre just is no substitute!

 

[logan2z]

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.

Thanks for the advice. If I go Hasselblad I'll try and find a good 501CM and ensure that the Acute Matte is included.

 

[markbau]

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!

 

[logan2z]

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!

I don't doubt there is some truth to that. My attraction to Hasselblad isn't really about the name or the bragging rights that may or may not come along with it. The cameras seem to have a reputation for high quality, serviceability, parts availability, etc. that make it attractive to me. There's also a bit of sentimentality around the camera for me because I remember my father using one when I was a little kid.

Similarly, I own Leica Ms not because of the name or the associated snob appeal, but because I really love the way the cameras feel and operate (The M models that I have don't even have a red dot on the front ). Yes, they're more expensive than the typical 35mm camera but I honestly haven't regretted spending the extra money for one minute. IMO, the cameras are a joy to use and make me want to get out and shoot.

After a lot of thought I think I'm sold on giving the 6x6 format a try. Looking forward to trying something very different and pushing myself in a new direction. So I'm leaning towards buying a 501CM but I will certainly try and check out a Bronica before making any final decisions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Great point PLUS buy as new a model as you can afford. I also recommend buying CF or later lenses most of which us B60 size filters, that way you will only need one set of filters for almost all the lenses [for example the 40mm, 350mm and 500mm lenses use larger size filters]

 

[campy51]

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

*-+-*-+*-+*-+*
Many like Hasselblad
Choose her over something else
You must love the square​

 

[logan2z]

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.

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.

 

[logan2z]

*-+-*-+*-+*-+*
Many like Hasselblad
Choose her over something else
You must love the square​

Nice Haiku.

 

[Alan Gales]

You say that you shoot landscapes. Most landscape photographers prefer a rectangle. I have seen lovely square landscape images so it can be done. You really need to decide on format first and then camera second.

Look at a lot of landscape images in both formats. This will help you decide.

 

[campy51]

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.

Mine is a 500 C/M.

 

[anthonym3]

Logan I haven't read all replies and wonder if anyone has suggested a ZEISS/IKON IKOFLEX TLR.The post war models are very affordable and they are built like tanks. I have two a ll/lll transition model with a TESSAR 75MM 3.5 pre war in excellent working condition and a post war IKOFLEX 1 with a coated TESSAR T 75mm 3.5 coated lens. For the price you can't go wrong ZEISS engineering and ZEISS GLASS.

 

[KenS]

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.[/QUOTE]

Why not 'think' of a 4x5 camera and then 'invest' in a roll film back that will 'fit' that model of large format camera...

Ken

 

[anthonym3]

If you want horizontal landscapes which may or may not require cropping consider 6x9 folders. Many are equipped with excellent lenses albeit possibly un coated however you get that look and glow that many modern lenses cannot achieve,think ANSEL ADAMS who used many formats not just 4x5 and 8x10. and who produced beautiful images with all formats.