Any Hassy Users using A16 backs?

[bags27]

Thinking about getting an A16 back (the horizonal, not Vertical or Slide one). I dunno. Gives me 4 more shots/frame, which, with the price of color film today, is a big difference. Nice for landscape. Not instead of, but in addition to, my A12.
Thoughts?

 

[BrianShaw]

Go ahead and get one if it meets your needs and desires.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The A16 backs violate Hasselblad's advice that "Square is the perfect format." I would never expose my cameras to such sacrilege, Sacra Bleu!

 

[eli griggs]

I have and use the A16 'S', a 4cm x4 cm if I recall correctly, simply marked "16".

If I find the right opportunity, I'd also add a portrait 4.5CM x 6CM and just flip it on it's side, just because.

 

[bdial]

I have one, but don't use it very much.
Viewing for doing verticals can be challenging, leastwise I found it so using a 45° prism finder, a WLF might be worse. Having the camera on a tripod helps a lot.
Using one of the gridded screens helps because the grid lines show you the 645 frame edges, so you don't have to rely on a mask.
But, it might be a good choice if you intend on doing rectangular final images instead of squares.

 

[BrianShaw]

Do an economic analysis if the rationale is just 2 more frames. Figure out the cost/value of those 2 frames and figure out if the price of the back is really worth it.

 

[itsdoable]

I've shoot the A16 back on occasion, but I'm currently into square & panos.

My dad shot a lot of 645 on his Rolliecord, I think he saw more in that rectangle - and it was more economical on film in days with less $.

 

[BrianShaw]

I've shoot the A16 back on occasion, but I'm currently into square & panos.

My dad shot a lot of 645 on his Rolliecord, I think he saw more in that rectangle - and it was more economical on film in days with less $.

Like your Dad, I also shot a bunch of 645 with Rollei TLR. The adapter kit was quite affordable (much more so than an Hasselblad back) and, thus, an option well worth considering. One of my long-term projects is to convert that Rollei 645 adapter to vertical framing for portrait, but it’s been deferred for a long time because it’s just too easy to shoot 6x6 and crop.

 

[bags27]

Do an economic analysis if the rationale is just 2 more frames. Figure out the cost/value of those 2 frames and figure out if the price of the back is really worth it.

You have a lot more experience, so I defer to you. But wouldn't it be 4 more frames, and therefore cut the cost of film by 1/3?

The cost is secondary (by a lot). The aspect ratio is just different. I am loathe to part with my Mamiya 7 because there are times the horizontal is important to me. But I enjoy 7:6 far more than 3:2. I'm just wondering how many use the A16 and for what purpose. I get why the A16v for portraiture and of course the A16s.

 

[BrianShaw]

LOL… yes, 4 frames more. 16-12=4, not 2! Seems like I failed elementary arithmetic this morning!

If it’s the format you’re interested in then a 16 back is very useful and will make shooting that format easier.

If it’s only to save a bit of money on film/processing by getting 4 more frames, then it might not be worth spending a couple of hundred dollars on a back.

And… if you just want one “because “… that’s a good enough reason.

Back in the olden days I used an A16S for superslides. Other than that I used an A12. After the demise of superslide the back became a paperweight.

 

[BrianShaw]

… but I’ve heard about the A12V, which is rather uncommon, but never heard of an A16V. Have I missed something?

 

[bags27]

… but I’ve heard about the A12V, which is rather uncommon, but never heard of an A16V. Have I missed something?

It was my impression that there was both an A12V (very rare...because, why?) and an A16V which make more sense for fashion photographers.

 

[Arthurwg]

I use my A16 occasionally but may use it more now thanks to economics. And I would very much like an A12V. I passed up a NOS one years ago because it was too expensive. Big mistake. Have not seen one since.

 

[Sirius Glass]

… but I’ve heard about the A12V, which is rather uncommon, but never heard of an A16V. Have I missed something?

It was my impression that there was both an A12V (very rare...because, why?) and an A16V which make more sense for fashion photographers.

The A12V is very rare. I went shopping for one and gave up. It makes more sense to shoot 6x6 and crop if necessary.

 

[BrianShaw]

It was my impression that there was both an A12V (very rare...because, why?) and an A16V which make more sense for fashion photographers.

A12V is 645 portrait orientation on 120 film. 12 exposures. For head-and-shoulders portraiture, it was said.

Probably rare because cropping 6x6 is just too easy.

Can you link to anything describing this A16V? I’m not finding anything except random mentions in various chatroom threads.

 

[Nokton48]

I just got a Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back 36cmx36cm.

Thinking of getting a 16S back for shooting B&W, could shoot Digital, then switch to 16S loaded with B&W, format is close, 16S is just a -smidge- bigger in both dimensions. The advantage being, not to have to reconfigure the camera, to get identical views in color (digital) and B&W (16S) quickly without fuss. Nobody wants the 16S backs anymore, back in the seventies, I used one for Underwater Photography in the Bahamas.

 

[BrianShaw]

As an alternative, @bags27, have you looked into a Hasselblad mask set rather than a back? I know they fit the “more recent “ v-series cameras and not sure if they fit older. They can be used in both orientations. The genuine masks seem expensive but there are aftermarket that seem more reasonably priced. They come in 645 and 6x3 panoramic, if I’m not mistaken. 12 exposure, though, so might not meet all of your goals.

 

[Roger Cole]

The A16 backs violate Hasselblad's advice that "Square is the perfect format." I would never expose my cameras to such sacrilege, Sacra Bleu!

Square was promoted by the makers of cameras that were difficult or at least awkward to use if rotated 90 degrees, meaning anything with a waist level finder by default.

I shoot 6x6 in my TLRs but end up cropping to a rectangle more often than not, though not always.

 

[eli griggs]

Do an economic analysis if the rationale is just 2 more frames. Figure out the cost/value of those 2 frames and figure out if the price of the back is really worth it.

Four frames, so a third of extra medium format film for same price.

 

[eli griggs]

As an alternative, @bags27, have you looked into a Hasselblad mask set rather than a back? I know they fit the “more recent “ v-series cameras and not sure if they fit older. They can be used in both orientations. The genuine masks seem expensive but there are aftermarket that seem more reasonably priced. They come in 645 and 6x3 panoramic, if I’m not mistaken. 12 exposure, though, so might not meet all of your goals.

But the camera back still only does 12 or ,24 frames, with smaller images.

 

[MattKing]

Do you have other rectangular frame SLRs that you use in landscape orientation most/all of the time?
And do you print or otherwise display to a rectangular frame most/all of the time?
If your answer is "Yes" to both questions, it sounds like the A16 back would suit your needs.

 

[BrianShaw]

Four frames, so a third of extra medium format film for same price.

“For the same price” only is the back is already owned or is free. Amortization of the cost of the back…

When things are obtained free, or for a barley-corn, the equation is a bit different than if one has to pay for their equipment.

 

[Hassasin]

“For the same price” only is the back is already owned or is free. Amortization of the cost of the back…

When things are obtained free, or for a barley-corn, the equation is a bit different than if one has to pay for their equipment.

You can have A16 for 100-120 with some patience. With film prices it does not take long to offset that cost.

 

[Hassasin]

A12V is 645 portrait orientation on 120 film. 12 exposures. For head-and-shoulders portraiture, it was said.

Probably rare because cropping 6x6 is just too easy.

Can you link to anything describing this A16V? I’m not finding anything except random mentions in various chatroom threads.

A16V does not exist, never made.

 

[Hassasin]

Perfection of square is as perfect as that of any other. Key element still being what is captured within. 6x7 was also perfect, so was 6x8. Point of reference being the judge of such nonsense.

Good used car salesman would have every day a successful day, even if only junk was being handed over to an uninitiated buyer. Some of those moved to advertising business and continued their promising careers.

As for A16 back, without 90 prism it is kind of odd to handle, but not impossible (same would apply to any camera with similar shortcomings when flipped 90 degrees).

When you use 45 prism is almost as odd, but you can play with compound viewing angle, perhaps that will help.

I often wondered (to this day) how inverted image on LF's ground glass was making people better photographers, but never contested that notion. It's important to believe in what or how you do it and trying to undermine that would have been pointless.

I find A16 good to have in the bag, but if I intend to shoot 645 I take a better camera out.