Now take a look at the Hasselblads.
Yeah, but... that's a pretty harsh step down in optical quality from the GX lenses.
Nice try, but chain jerking does not work with me. Joking aside, once you made the leap, you will never look back.
I admit-- I'd rather use a Hasselblad hand-held over my 12 pound Fuji Monstrosity any day. And if I were a professional photographer selling my photos to make my living, I would consider a Hasselblad (although really, at this point, a Fuji GFX would be more appropriate).
But for what I do? I can quite literally buy two Bronica SQ-A bodies and a full kit of lenses and accessories, and have them CLA'd for what a single Hasselblad body and a good lens would cost-- and in my hands, the difference in final image quality would be negligible. And the cost of a Hasselblad CLA?
Both of my SQ-A's require(d) the same service-- the electrical contacts in the body need cleaning and adjusting. No frame straightening, no multi-hundred dollar CLA, just some light electrical cleaning.
The Hasselblads are very, very good cameras, but they're not worth the extra expense and hassel, at least for me.
... and I don't think I yanked your chain quite as hard as you think I did on image quality. The Fuji EBC GX lenses are universally praised for their quality and sharpness.
Yes you could buy two Bronicas, but deep in your heart you would know that there was better out there with more capability and that would steadily eat at you until you dumped the Bronicas and bought the Hasselblad in the end. So save a round of buying and selling and buy into the camera that you know you really want.
You're funny-- except I'm not sure you're trying to be. All of that may hold true for you, but I'm not you. No, I'm unlikely to buy a Hasselblad. Ever. Or a Leica.
A Swiss watch may be spectacularly engineered, but it doesn't really keep time that much better than a good quartz watch from Japan or Germany. I don't buy nameplates-- I buy value. If the Hasselblad was slightly more expensive than the Bronica, it might be worth considering. But it's not-- and it doesn't magically make you a better photographer, either.
To try to wrench the conversation back on-topic, the GX680 lenses are not only sharp, and downright gorgeous as a rule, they're not that expensive either-- which in terms of value, makes them far, far better than the Hasselblad.
But the camera's a beast, and for handheld, almost anything will win in the "convenience" category.
I am being somewhat tongue in check, except that I when through camera after camera for years as new features came out, then changing format and in the end I ended up with almost what I wanted as a teenager, a Bronica S. The difference is that a) the Hasselblad is better built, has better parts and services today, b) I bought the Hasselblad over ten years ago spending a whole lot less for the systems with many lenses and c) as adult I have a lot more expendable income. However if I had gone to Hasselblad from the start, I would have saved a lot of buying and selling as well as much more time photographing with a system that I wanted from the start instead of settling for all those decades.
The problem with Hassleblad is that it's missing a cm off of each side of the negative. I don't care how well built it is, it's not a replacement for the mighty GX680.
And, in all seriousness, the 680s lenses are sublime. Sharp, yes, but there's a quality to them that's hard to describe. But it's a very good quality.
Not in a thread about 6x8 cameras it isn't.I never found that so called missing cm a problem, because I can compose without it. Remember square is the perfect format.
Not in a thread about 6x8 cameras it isn't.
I'm not aware of any option on the older backs to set the film format.
I believe that only the new NIII supports the various masks. The back itself is backwards compatible with the older I and II camera models. I doubt the I and II models have the auto format detection as well.
Now let us sit back, relax and wait for Sirius to chim in and tells us that not only all Hasselblad backs are compatible with all Hasselblad bodies but that this has been every since the beginning of time and always will be until the end of time
The III is supposed to be much lighter, and not need the bulky battery pack of the I/II models. The interchangeable masks are also nice-- I may try to hunt down a mk III film back so I can play with those too.
It's really not the weight. It's 11ish lbs. It's the size itself, they're bulky and hard to carry. Also, a good tripod that'll handle 12 lbs and that bulk has been my issue, more than the camera itself.
Nice try, but chain jerking does not work with me. Joking aside, once you made the leap, you will never look back.
Who makes the Hasselblad lenses now? Hint: it's a company that starts with F, located in japan, and it's mission is to slowly kill its film products.
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?