Considering a move from Hasselblad 501CM to Pentax 645 or Contax 645?

[ted_smith]

I have not decided for sure to sell my Hasselblad 501CM, so please don't abondon me yet, fellow Hasselblad users, as a lost cause. But I am considering it, and am seeking fellow APUG'ers wisdom and consult.

I've owned my 501CM for several years. I have an 80mm, 120mm and 150mm CZ lens and 2 x A12 backs with matching inserts. It has an Acutte Matt D WLF screen. I have shot some amazing photos with it and was surprised at the simplicity of it overall once I got used to it and really do love the camera. I had it serviced just a few weeks ago as well.

But I continue to be plagued by focus problems. I shot a wedding with it recently and although I got several nice shots with the Blad, I got a lot of failed ones because of focus problems. Either my inability to get it right or due to last-second movements of the subjects for which I was too slow to respond to. If it weren't for my use of my Nikon F5 in addition to the Blad, the wedding couple would not have the selection they have now. In addition, I photograph my kids a lot, and they too, all too often, result in focus failures with the occasional stunning shot where everything was bang on.

So I am mulling over selling it\exchanging it for a MF camera that can auto-focus in the hope I get more 'keepers'. I still want the benefit of big bright negatives, and the feeling of using MF cameras with awesome high quality lenses and the visual stunning'ness of MF. I just want to be able to get more of my shots in focus under quick or time critical situations without losing them due to focus problems.

I am looking at either a Contax 645 or a Pentax 645N. Both are, I gather, very reuptable brands of medium format, and both can auto-focus. And I know that Jose Villa (great wedding photographer from the USA) uses a Contax 645 a lot. I'm also curious to know what the lens quality is like for these compared to the CZ lenses for Hasselblad?

What are your thoughts? Would any of you do the same or would you just stick with the Blad and just keep trying?

 

[frank]

Depends on your particular circumstances. If you're young and just starting out, keep practising with the Hasselblad. If you're an old guy, the issue isn't inexperience, it's probably aging eyes, so find an AF camera.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I had some focus issues with my Hassy at events, switched to a split-image center circle focusing screen to help me better confirm the locking-in of the focus and most issues gone. The bright but overall matte screen (yes Acute-matte) I have are great for more slow, methodical shooting like landscapes and cityscapes and such but for birthdays, friend's weddings, etc I was getting too many out of focus shots when I had thought I had focused. Split screen: great results.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

I've used split screens on every camera that could even remotely be switch to use one. Aftermarket or otherwise. More if you count rangefinders with the patches and alignment.

 

[cowanw]

Well, the Contax lenses are made by the same firm, I assume they are the same.
The Auto focus is great, much faster than Manual focusing. Exposure metering is a bonus, There is a flash meter. And 16 shots to a 120 roll.
The frame size is a bummer.
I have both Hasselblad and Contax and concluded, where time and focus is an issue, the Contax is the body of choice.

 

[benjiboy]

When was the last time you had your eyes tested Ted ? because contrary to what many people think in SLR cameras split image focusing aids unlike coincidental rangefinders on Leica type cameras depend on the users eyesight being perfect you make need an eyesight correction lens ( dioptre) fitting to the camera, and also before I took such an extreme step I would explain my problem to a camera repairer and have him check the focusing accuracy of your camera.

 

[Alan Gales]

The Contax uses Zeiss lenses so you get more of the same.

Pentax FA lenses are excellent. Especially the 75mm and 150mm that I had.

I shot Contax 35mm cameras for many years. I have never shot the 645. Some of the controls look just like on the 35mm cameras which are fantastic. The Pentax is nice too though. I've owned both the N an Nll and recommend letting price and condition be your choice on which to buy. Autofocus is a little slow compared to modern DSLR's but I had no problem with it hand held shooting people. I didn't try to shoot sports with it. The Matrix metering is great!

I've also owned a Hasselblad 500cm.

Just remember that the autofocus cameras are getting older and so are the electronics in them.

I agree with the above comments on getting your eyes checked if you haven't in a while. As we age sometimes our eyes can get worse pretty quick. Good luck to you!

 

[Chris Livsey]

Just to add split screen works for me on the 500 series, have you done some tripod static tests on both your accuracy and the camera accuracy not under subject pressure, autofocus on MF can be a tad slow compared to F5 do you may still not catch subject movement if that is the error, all brands but varies with lens mounted, Jose Villa seems now to be using a Rolleiflex for some work.

 

[BrianShaw]

I know what you talking about, Ted, and can relate. Rather than dumping Hassy for anything else I changed my ways and it has helped. I've always had a "monopod orientation" and do that plus more tripod use. Also changed from WLF to a prism. Much fewer incidences of bad focus now.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Try an inexpensive Hasselblad prism. I bought an old non-metering hc-3/70 which gives me 4x magnification over the entire viewing area. Focusing is easy and much more precise.

You will be amazed at how nice everything looks through a prism.

This prism also has a diopter adjustment. They're inexpensive and plentiful.

 

[spijker]

If autofocus is the main objective, then I think that you should also check out the Mamiya 645AFseries. See (there was a url link here which no longer exists) here. The links in there are slow but still working. My main objective was getting autofocus for the same reasons as yours. I've used the Mamiya 645AFD3 for about a year know and I'm happy with both the AF and the lens quality. But for fast moving objects, I'd suggest to use a advanced AF 35mm camera. All autofocus MF camera's are too slow for that.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I had focus issues as well but they were solved by changing the magnifier against a -1 one. How ist your eyesight? Otherwise I would guess your mirror is not adjusted properly but since you said the camera had a recent CLA I doubt that.

 

[phass]

Did you try the focusing screen with micro prisms? I consider it more accurate, plus you have the much bigger area for focusing points not dependent to orientation to the split line.
Cheers.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ted, I cannot compare my P645N and AF lens to the best of the AF 35mm SLRs such as Nikon F5 and 6 but the P645N with 75mm auto-focus(AF) lens compares well to my 35mm Pentax MZ7 in the kind of shots where you'd normally use a Med Format(MF) camera.

In a people gathering situations such as weddings etc the P645N with say two extra, loaded inserts make film changing quite a quick operation.

As the P645N is the only MF-AF capable camera I own I cannot compare it to other MF-AF capable cameras but I have used it at weddings and it does a very good job

pentaxuser

 

[Mick Fagan]

The first time I started to have problems focusing remotely quickly, was shortly after I changed from a fixed focal length pair of spectacles, to a variable focus pair of spectacles. I persevered for a couple of years until one day I could only find my old single focal length spectacles, I had a revelation as even though things weren't too flash, I seemed to be able to focus more correctly, in fact, far better than I had been able to focus for over a couple of years.

I then got a pair of spectacles that are distance focused, with an insert for reading, commonly referred to as, Bi-Focals. I haven't had a problem since.

I also use matte screens on all of my cameras, and, more or less, had the same issues as you.

Mick.

 

[ted_smith]

Thanks all for the advice so far.

They say a picture says a thousand words, so here are some examples. Some are quite well focused and supplied to show that I can do it, but the others show the frustrations I am referring to. The ones named "badX" are the ones I wish were focused better. The ones named "good" are the focused ones that I am happy with. The most frustrating example is the one of the girl under the chair. You can see the chair is pin sharp in focus, but just as I pressed the shutter the girl moved back just a few inches and the result is she is out of focus. Then the one of the girl sat on a bench...you can see that her shoulders are in focus but her face is not. Yet through the WLF, it looked OK.

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=VZdsWSZRG02XVKzCDmndjk6iwOiAYDUn5w7

I know many will say "just inc the DOF" but with a blad, I take a meter reading with the Sekonic then set the EV and generally go for about f5.6 to f8 were light will allow. Several of these were taken with my 150mm which I have since learned is almost as bad as a Macro lens for punishing DOF, but nonetheless...you see my point?

As for glasses, yes, I have eye tests each year and wear glasses. I wore them for this. And yes, the camera was serviced and I specifically asked them to check focus alignment of the mirror plane.

 

[essensebe]

I have a Hasselblad 500, Contax 645 and Pentax 645n.
My Hasselblad is a camera I wouldn't sell.

If you want autofocus I would go for the Pentax 645n.
It's less sophisticated as the Contax, but it is as good, works like a tank and is cheap compared.
With the Contax I'm always scared that it's going to stop working, batteries go down after only 4 rolls!!
And all, really all parts of this camera are expensive. Try to find 120 inserts ... (if you can)

 

[MattKing]

Thanks all for the advice so far.

They say a picture says a thousand words, so here are some examples. Some are quite well focused and supplied to show that I can do it, but the others show the frustrations I am referring to. The ones named "badX" are the ones I wish were focused better. The ones named "good" are the focused ones that I am happy with. The most frustrating example is the one of the girl under the chair. You can see the chair is pin sharp in focus, but just as I pressed the shutter the girl moved back just a few inches and the result is she is out of focus. Then the one of the girl sat on a bench...you can see that her shoulders are in focus but her face is not. Yet through the WLF, it looked OK.

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=VZdsWSZRG02XVKzCDmndjk6iwOiAYDUn5w7

I know many will say "just inc the DOF" but with a blad, I take a meter reading with the Sekonic then set the EV and generally go for about f5.6 to f8 were light will allow. Several of these were taken with my 150mm which I have since learned is almost as bad as a Macro lens for punishing DOF, but nonetheless...you see my point?

As for glasses, yes, I have eye tests each year and wear glasses. I wore them for this. And yes, the camera was serviced and I specifically asked them to check focus alignment of the mirror plane.

I've looked at your examples, and it looks to me like your problems are as much with timing and anticipation as they are with anything particular to your camera system.

Short of moving to either a TLR or rangefinder, I would suggest that the solution is to practice. Even if you did move to either a TLR or rangefinder, I would still suggest that the solution is to practice.

You are more used to how your F5 (in your hands) responds to changing circumstances. You will have to shoot a fair bit before the speed and flexibility of the Hasselblad comes close to that.

You would most likely be observing similar problems with an auto-focus medium format camera - particularly in situations like the girl under the chair.

 

[cowanw]

With regard to the Contax, there is a back button to program for focus when pushed. then one can recompose at leisure without messing with the focus. The girl under the chair would be a strength of the system.
With regard for less than razor sharp eyesight and glasses, sharpest will still be sharpest, as long as the GG is in the correct registration.
From a battery point of view, one must turn the camera off when not being used.
From an expense point of view, what are missed shots worth?
I have never used a Pentax; It looks nice.

 

[apoglass]

If having difficulty seeing whether the Hasselblad is in focus, try adding additional viewfinder magnification. (Especially helpful as vision gets worse with age.)

For example, use the Hasselblad 2x flip up prism viewfinder eyepiece magnifier 42459 [that have been priced $115-$218 in Ex to Ex+ condition] on the Hasselblad PME-51 Metered Prism (c.1994-2000) 45° 2.5x digital metering finder 42296 or on the Hasselblad Prism Finder 45° 2.5x unmetered PM 42307. The magnifier is attached by unscrewing the eyepiece glass or diopter lens to hold the magnifier's metal ring when screwed back in. [Be aware that unlike the prism models mentioned, the newest (and more expensive) Hasselblad V prisms (which have a more rounded body) require a different eyepiece magnifier that instead hangs off the prism's accessory shoe.]

 

[apoglass]

It isn't correct to assume that Zeiss Hasselblad V lenses are always equivalent to Zeiss Contax 645 lenses. For example, the Contax 645 Carl Zeiss Apo-Makro-Planar T* 120mm f/4 is reported to be optically better ("outperforms by far") than the Zeiss Hasselblad Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 CF lens for Hasselblad V.

 

[Chris Livsey]

It isn't correct to assume that Zeiss Hasselblad V lenses are always equivalent to Zeiss Contax 645 lenses. For example, the Contax 645 Carl Zeiss Apo-Makro-Planar T* 120mm f/4 is reported to be optically better ("outperforms by far") than the Zeiss Hasselblad Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 CF lens for Hasselblad V.

Indeed that Contax Optic is excellent and superior, but many others in that line are not superior to the Hasselblad equivalent, where that exists, based on MTF charts as well as subjective opinion on optical performance. MTF charts are from Zeiss for both lens sets so unusually can be compared without issues of measurement equivalents and do show the Contax 120mm macro is outstanding.The rest of the Contax line-up does not match some individual Hasselblad fit optics such as the 38mm Biogon, the 40mm IF, the 100mm f3.5 for lack of distortion in particular, the Hasselblad V system 180mm, the Hasselblad V system 350mm tele-superachromat etc. However that does not, as we all know, tell the full story, the subjective performance of a lens is a major factor and many shooters have preferences for the Contax glass and I would never dismiss that as not being valid. Indeed the "look" of an early 150mm Zeiss/Hasselblad 150mm C lens without T* coating can be magic for portrait work for example. Let's say both sets of lenses are good enough

 

[Alan Gales]

Why don't you pick up a Pentax 645 N or Nll with the 75mm FA lens and try it out. If you buy right and later decide to sell it you won't get burned. Consider any small monetary loss as a cheap rental fee.

Photographers swear by the Mamiya C220 and C330 TLR cameras. I've never owned a TLR so I recently decided to try a C220. I really like it except that the focussing screen is a little dim indoors. My eyes are not the best either. I decided to buy a C220F which comes with a brighter focussing screen and so far it seems to be fine. I just shot a roll of Portra of some of my family that was in town. Indoors I could see the focus snap. I plan on turning the roll in for development this afternoon so I have not seen the results yet.

Sometimes the best answer is to actually try something for yourself.

 

[Jim Noel]

I have not decided for sure to sell my Hasselblad 501CM, so please don't abondon me yet, fellow Hasselblad users, as a lost cause. But I am considering it, and am seeking fellow APUG'ers wisdom and consult.

I've owned my 501CM for several years. I have an 80mm, 120mm and 150mm CZ lens and 2 x A12 backs with matching inserts. It has an Acutte Matt D WLF screen. I have shot some amazing photos with it and was surprised at the simplicity of it overall once I got used to it and really do love the camera. I had it serviced just a few weeks ago as well.

But I continue to be plagued by focus problems. I shot a wedding with it recently and although I got several nice shots with the Blad, I got a lot of failed ones because of focus problems. Either my inability to get it right or due to last-second movements of the subjects for which I was too slow to respond to. If it weren't for my use of my Nikon F5 in addition to the Blad, the wedding couple would not have the selection they have now. In addition, I photograph my kids a lot, and they too, all too often, result in focus failures with the occasional stunning shot where everything was bang on.

So I am mulling over selling it\exchanging it for a MF camera that can auto-focus in the hope I get more 'keepers'. I still want the benefit of big bright negatives, and the feeling of using MF cameras with awesome high quality lenses and the visual stunning'ness of MF. I just want to be able to get more of my shots in focus under quick or time critical situations without losing them due to focus problems.

I am looking at either a Contax 645 or a Pentax 645N. Both are, I gather, very reuptable brands of medium format, and both can auto-focus. And I know that Jose Villa (great wedding photographer from the USA) uses a Contax 645 a lot. I'm also curious to know what the lens quality is like for these compared to the CZ lenses for Hasselblad?

What are your thoughts? Would any of you do the same or would you just stick with the Blad and just keep trying?

I did essentially the same thing years ago and regretted it within a month,and still regret it.

 

[GRHazelton]

I have a Pentax 645n and a good assortment of manual focus lenses. (I can't afford the autofocus lenses, especially since the introduction of the Pentax digital MF cameras.) I own the 35mm, 55mm, 75mm, 120mm macro, 200mm, and the 80 - 160mm zoom. All are excellent, with proper metal construction and smooth focussing. The 35mm in particular is stellar! Ken Rockwell gets it right. BTW, he also lauds the 645n, showing good sense for once.

The viewfinder is large and bright, and the camera has a focus confirmation indicator making focussing easy. If you use flash the 645n has TTL ability, NOT PTTL, so be careful which flash unit you might choose, if you buy a 645n. See this review of the 645 series in PentaxForums.com http://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/pentax-645n.html

Others have suggested an eye exam. I'd agree. At 72 my eyesight isn't what it used to be, although I have no troubles with the 645n or my other Pentax gear.

While I don't own a Hasselblad, I have a Bronica S2a which I'd imagine handles in a similar fashion to a Hasselblad. IMHO the Pentax is far more intuitive in use than the Bronica, more like a big 35mm camera. I'd hate to be without either. The Bronica's interchangeable film "backs" are nice, but thus far I've had no need to change films mid-roll. The Pentax, of course, uses inserts which, if pre-loaded, can be changed out very rapidly. BTW, the inserts can be "converted" from 120 to 220 or 220 to 120 in minutes with only a small screwdriver. And they are cheap, at least compared to the Bronica's backs and, I'd imagine, backs for a Hasselblad.