Hasselblad 500cm or...

max_ebb · Jun 25, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
That's one reason I went to Linhof for one job, even when I had Hasselblads: c/u with tubes and Proxars is horribly limiting next to a bellows. An RB would have been better still. I was shooting an airbrush artist at work, showing technique (distance from ground, finger movements, etc.) and continuous focusing is MUCH easier.

Cheers,

Roger

There are two distinct advantages of using bellows instead of extension tubes (assuming the bellows are long enough for macro). The most obvious advantage is that changing the length of the bellows is much faster and easier than changing the length or number of extension tube(s).

The biggest advantage though is with a bellows rail system that has movement at both ends (or a 4x5 rail system with movement on both ends). If you are doing extreme close up, with the front of the lens about 6" away from the subject, trying to focus without moving the camera itself can be an exercise in futility. When adjusting the focus (whether using a bellows or extension tube), the distance from the lens to the subject changes while you are trying to focus.

It can be like a dog chasing his tail. If you need to focus closer, the lens gets even closer to the subject as it moves farther from the film, so it's still out of focus. The same thing if you need to focus farther. As the lens gets closer to the film it's getting farther from the subject so it's still out of focus. With extreme close up, you generally have to move the camera to get it in focus.

With a rail system, you can leave the lens at a fixed distance from the subject, and focus by moving the film plane. Then move the lens when you need to change the degree of macro (ie; going from 1:1 to 1:2).

Another thing that I found to be extremely handy for macro is through the lens metering. With extreme close up, it's difficult to use a spot meter because you can't get the same angle of view that the camera is getting, and you also have to figure out how many stops you have to compensate for the length of the extension tube(s) or bellows.

I use a Pentax 67 with a set of extension tubes and metered prism finder for extreme close up macro work. I get great results and find it fairly convenient to use. I would like to have the bellows rail system for it, but it costs $500. For that kind of money, I'll just stick with the extension tubes.

My original question though was about using a macro lens as opposed to (or in combination with) macro extension tubes or bellows. I can get a macro lens for my Pentax 67 for about $70. I'm wondering if there are any advantages to using a macro lens (possibly in combination with the extension tubes) over using just the extension tubes with a regular lens.

max_ebb · Jun 25, 2007

epatsellis said:
I use both RB's and Hasselblads, Paul is right, for macro/close up work, the RB wins hands down. In fact, for most tabletop/product work, it's 1000 times easier to shoot with.

1000 times easier? Just curious, what is it about the RB that you feel makes it easier? I've used an RB before, and something that big and awkward (for me anyway) would definitely not be my choice for macro work. The bellows is way to short for any significant macro work. You still have to use one or more extension tubes for extreme close up (1:1 or larger), so I don't see any difference between using an RB and using any other MF SLR, except that the RB is bigger and heavier. The only advantage I see with the RB is the rotating back. To me it's not worth the trade off of the increased size and weight.

epatsellis said:
Even with an extension tube it's quite easily managable, though a prism becomes needed

Why don't you like the waist level finder for macro, is it not as bright as a prism finder? Harder to focus? A metered finder REALLY comes in handy for macro.

epatsellis said:
Try as I might, even with the auto bellows on the 500c/m, it's far more of a struggle to get the shot, so much so that I will probably be selling the bellows and just using the 500 for what I bought it for, as a nice small, lightweight, out of the house/studio shooting outfit.

I don't understand how it could be a struggle. Is it a rail system with movement at both ends? If so, did you leave the lens at a set position and focus by moving the film plane? Personally, I would love using a bellows with a rail system for macro, but I just can't see spending that much money for one.

max_ebb · Jun 25, 2007

bdial said:
For macro with a 6x6 a Mamya C-330 or one of it's variants would be a good choice. These have a bellows and can focus very close. You would have parallax to contend with, but that isn't a difficult problem to solve.

How long is the bellows? How close is "very close"? 6 inches? A foot? 2 feet?

bdial · Jun 25, 2007

I no longer own one, and don't have the specs at hand. As I recall it can focus to 6 inches or so. Not a true macro capability if one is looking to fill the frame with very small things. But it can focus way closer than something like a Hasselblad without resorting to close up lenses or extension tubes.
IDK what Willie has in mind for his macro shots, so the Mamiya may or may not fit his requirement.

max_ebb · Jun 25, 2007

bdial said:
I no longer own one, and don't have the specs at hand. As I recall it can focus to 6 inches or so. Not a true macro capability if one is looking to fill the frame with very small things. But it can focus way closer than something like a Hasselblad without resorting to close up lenses or extension tubes.
IDK what Willie has in mind for his macro shots, so the Mamiya may or may not fit his requirement.

If it can focus at 6" I would personally consider it true macro capability (depending on what "or so" means). 6" generally gives close to 1:1. I would be pretty impressed if a TLR could focus to within 6" (I can't help but be a little skeptical).

epatsellis · Jun 25, 2007

replies inline...

max_ebb said:
1000 times easier? Just curious, what is it about the RB that you feel makes it easier? I've used an RB before, and something that big and awkward (for me anyway) would definitely not be my choice for macro work. The bellows is way to short for any significant macro work. You still have to use one or more extension tubes for extreme close up (1:1 or larger), so I don't see any difference between using an RB and using any other MF SLR, except that the RB is bigger and heavier. The only advantage I see with the RB is the rotating back. To me it's not worth the trade off of the increased size and weight.

Perhaps it's the several years of shooting tabletop/product with RB's and sinar P 4x5/8x10's that give me a tremendous familiarity with them. IF I was shooting true macro (>1:1), I would probably start with the 90 and the 82mm tube, though 99% of the time, I use a 180 with either the 45 or 82 tube to achieve the close focusing while having a decent working distance. One of my RB's has a permanent home on a studio stand, and is perfectly counterbalance, so the weight/mass is insignificant in that situation.

max_ebb said:
Why don't you like the waist level finder for macro, is it not as bright as a prism finder? Harder to focus? A metered finder REALLY comes in handy for macro.

I find the 45 degree eyepiece angle helps greatly, as well as the additional magnification. brightness isn't an issue, at least in the studio. I suppose the metered prism would be helpful, though I have a bellows correction factor slide rule thingy that's probably 20 years old and has served me quite well, do they still even make them? (I just checked b&h and apparently they do make them, but they got pretty expensive)

max_ebb said:
I don't understand how it could be a struggle. Is it a rail system with movement at both ends? If so, did you leave the lens at a set position and focus by moving the film plane? Personally, I would love using a bellows with a rail system for macro, but I just can't see spending that much money for one.

I take it you've never seen the Hasselblad Auto Bellows, camera body is fixed, lens moves, entire carriage can move. In an reality, I'd never spend $2k on it, that's for sure (even one where it rained money). In fact, I'm 99% sure it's going up for sale, as the more I think about it, the less I like it. I have too many other options than to deal with that one pain in the ass solution, soley to use a format that I'm not that fond of (6x6 square)

In all fairness, for true macro I have a front lensboard for the 4x5 that takes rb lenses and a rear board that takes RB backs, so between the RB as-is, the various combinations of RB Lens / 4x5 lens / RB back / 4x5 back (and let's not even get into the 8x10 permutations) I can pretty well cover any subject at any magnification needed, should I want to. It's just not my cup of tea, I limit my macro type shooting to product details and the like.

erie

max_ebb · Jun 25, 2007

epatsellis;

I'm with you on 6x6 format. I never print square, so when I shoot 6x6, by the time I crop for standard size print paper (8x10, 16x20, etc), in reality I'm actually shooting 6x4.5.

I also often use a longer lens with a shorter extension tube to get more working distance. With a 165mm lens and 70mm extension tube, I can get close to 1:1 macro, but still be a couple feet or so from the subject. That way I don't have to move the camera to focus like I do when I'm 6" from the subject.

The Hasselblad bellows does sound like a bit of a PITA if you can't move the camera forward and backward without moving the lens. Although if the entire carriage moves, at least you can change the distance without moving the whole tripod (although it would affect the weight balance).

Thanks for the responses. I always like getting other photographers' views on things. Sometimes hearing other ideas makes me change my own view of things.

epatsellis · Jun 25, 2007

max,
one place where the hassie/Bronica/645 cameras really shine is size, and that's one of two reasons I have a hasselblad system, the other being it was offered to me at a price I couldn't say no to. After lugging around the RB with 6 or 7 lenses, the 500c/m with a 50/80 outfit seems like a feather. (now I just need a 150mm sonnar and a few other odds and ends.)

erie

MattKing · Jun 25, 2007

For macro with a 6x6 a Mamya C-330 or one of it's variants would be a good choice. These have a bellows and can focus very close. You would have parallax to contend with, but that isn't a difficult problem to solve.

max_ebb said:
How long is the bellows? How close is "very close"? 6 inches? A foot? 2 feet?

I came home today and pulled out my C330, along with the 80mm lens and the 65mm lens. I used a "Post-It" note as a subject (3" x 3" or 76mm x 76mm square).

With the 65mm lens, when the bellows is extended to it's maximum, the camera plus lens is about 177mm (7 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the back of the camera. When the bellows is extended to it's maximum, and the subject is in focus, the subject is about 75 mm (3 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the subject. The image in the viewfinder is about 2 1/4" x 2 1/4 " (60mm x 60mm) or approximately life size.

With the 80mm lens, when the bellows is extended to it's maximum, the camera plus lens is about 165mm (6.5 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the back of the camera. When the bellows is extended to it's maximum, and the subject is in focus, it is about 190 mm (7.5 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the subject. The image in the viewfinder is about 3" x 3" (76mm x 76mm) or approximately 0.80 life size.

These measurements are "tape measure" measurements, rather than "laboratory quality" measurements, but I hope they assist.

By the way, with a good paramender, close focus work with a Mamiya TLR is very satisfying.

Matt

Roger Hicks · Jun 26, 2007

I find tubes extremely limiting if I am working outside the very narrow range in which an individual tube permits focus; I'm forever changing tubes otherwise. With 500-series Hasselblads I've used both bellows lenses (a custom set-up) and one of the Hasselblad macro lenses (120mm as far as I recall, but it was 20+ years ago), and as compared with tubes or (equally bad) Proxars, I'd go for the macro lens first and the bellows second -- unless, again, I needed the extra extension of the bellows. It's not image quality: it's convenience.

I fully take your point about conjugate image distances which is why today I'd be more inclined to stick a roll-film holder on the back of my Technikardan, leaving me with only the problem of exposure determination. Actually most of my extreme close-up/macro stuff is commercial pack or product shots where I'd use digital anyway.

Cheers,

Roger

Phillip P. Dimor · Jun 26, 2007

My point of view versus the hassy or pentax was availability and options.
Bellows and tubes are available for the hassy but are tough to find for the pentax. I was not aware that willie jan uses a 4x5 w/ 135mm lens for macro (I use this combination as well!)

I was always under the impression that a macro lens would be better than tubes due to the lens being designed for a flat field with minimal fall off at the edges.
Tubes and even bellows are more affordable than the makro-planar and will be my first choice since i'm poor. If I find another job or win the lottery, makro-planar it will be.

Roger Hicks · Jun 26, 2007

Phillip P. Dimor said:
I was always under the impression that a macro lens would be better than tubes due to the lens being designed for a flat field with minimal fall off at the edges.

Dear Phillip,

True enough, but how often do you photograh flat, corner-to-corner subjects? For copying (for example) illuminated manuscripts, a macro lens (or a process lens, in most applications) would win hands down, but for normal 3D objects, there's rarely a visible difference, unless you're using a wildly unsuitable lens (Retrofocus, ultra-speed...)

Cheers,

Roger

Mark Burley · Jun 26, 2007

Hassel!

Personally I find the Hasselblad bellows suit me fine. Not forgetting that those nice men and women in the Hasselblad factory have released a nice shiny digital back for the 'V' system... Having said that, you could get through a hell of a lot of film for that money...

Going back to the very original question - once you play with a 'Hassy' you stay with one.

I've managed to acquire a full set of lenses with various backs for what is really very little money.

Mark

Roger Hicks · Jun 27, 2007

Mark Burley said:
Having said that, you could get through a hell of a lot of film for that money...

Dear Mark,

True, but the simple truth is that even without the pressure from the clients for immediate results, by the time you've couriered a roll of tranny film to and from the lab, and paid the rush fee, your cost per exposure is so high that the digiback pays for itself quite quickly. At least that is true in advertising. When I started in the 70s it was quite normal to make two or three trips to the lab a day, plus rush fees of 100-200 per cent for immediate processing. Go to overnight shoots, where the lab stayed open just for you, and it got REALLY expensive.

Cheers,

Roger

Sirius Glass · Jun 27, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Mark,

True, but the simple truth is that even without the pressure from the clients for immediate results, by the time you've couriered a roll of tranny film to and from the lab, and paid the rush fee, your cost per exposure is so high that the digiback pays for itself quite quickly. At least that is true in advertising. When I started in the 70s it was quite normal to make two or three trips to the lab a day, plus rush fees of 100-200 per cent for immediate processing. Go to overnight shoots, where the lab stayed open just for you, and it got REALLY expensive.

Cheers,

Roger

True, but then I am in photography for myself. No clients, no pressure, no rushing ... and with opto-chemical custom photofinishers still alive and healthy in my area I'll stick to film.

It depends on your purposes and needs.

Steve

Roger Hicks · Jun 27, 2007

Stever said:
True, but then I am in photography for myself. No clients, no pressure, no rushing ... and with opto-chemical custom photofinishers still alive and healthy in my area I'll stick to film.
Steve

Dear Steve,

Me too, wherever possible!

Cheers,

R.

Helen B · Jun 27, 2007

For macro/micro and portraits I'd consider an SL 66, SL 66E or SL 66SE. All the lenses can be reverse mounted without any special equipment, and there is a limited amount of tilt. It is easy to mount LF lenses like the 120 mm macro lenses or enlarging lenses.

Best,
Helen

Willie Jan · Jun 28, 2007

Helen,

i talked to a friend of my who said exactly the same a you do. use a SL66...
it's good to know all the options possible.

max_ebb · Jun 28, 2007

MattKing said:
I came home today and pulled out my C330, along with the 80mm lens and the 65mm lens. I used a "Post-It" note as a subject (3" x 3" or 76mm x 76mm square).

With the 65mm lens, when the bellows is extended to it's maximum, the camera plus lens is about 177mm (7 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the back of the camera. When the bellows is extended to it's maximum, and the subject is in focus, the subject is about 75 mm (3 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the subject. The image in the viewfinder is about 2 1/4" x 2 1/4 " (60mm x 60mm) or approximately life size.

With the 80mm lens, when the bellows is extended to it's maximum, the camera plus lens is about 165mm (6.5 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the back of the camera. When the bellows is extended to it's maximum, and the subject is in focus, it is about 190 mm (7.5 inches) from the front surface of the front lens element to the subject. The image in the viewfinder is about 3" x 3" (76mm x 76mm) or approximately 0.80 life size.

These measurements are "tape measure" measurements, rather than "laboratory quality" measurements, but I hope they assist.

By the way, with a good paramender, close focus work with a Mamiya TLR is very satisfying.

Matt

Thanks for providing all that info. I am very surprised to learn that a TLR can be focused that close to the subject. It seems that if the focusing/viewing lens is only 3" or 4" away from the subject, then the subject would be almost completely out of frame (if not entirely) for the taking lens. Would you use some sort of mechanism that would allow the camera to slide up and down (or side to side if mounted horizontally) a fixed distance so you could focus, then change the camera position to take the shot, then slide the camera back into place to focus the next shot?

bdial · Jun 28, 2007

The "paramender" Matt referenced was made by Mamiya exactly for this purpose. It is mounted between the camera and tripod and allows the camera to be shifted by the distance between the viewing and taking lenses. The paramender makes it easy, but it's not essential.

max_ebb · Jun 28, 2007

bdial said:
The "paramender" Matt referenced was made by Mamiya exactly for this purpose. It is mounted between the camera and tripod and allows the camera to be shifted by the distance between the viewing and taking lenses. The paramender makes it easy, but it's not essential.

Oh so that's what a paramender is. Thanks for the info. Doing macro work at 3" or 4" away seems like it would be extremely difficult without such a mechanism. It makes since that Mamiya would design a accessory like that when they designed a TLR that could focus at that distance.

MattKing · Jun 28, 2007

I'm especially fond of using my C330 for close-up work, because I happen to have one of the relatively rare paramenders (the Type 3) that is built into a tripod head.

Here is a picture of the more common paramender type 1, sourced from Graham Patterson's wonderful Mamiya TLR resource:

Dead Link Removed

Matt

Roger Hicks · Jun 29, 2007

Be warned, though, that Mamiya TLRs are love-'em-or-hate-'em, and that these responses are all from the love-'em camp.

Cheers,

Roger

Sirius Glass · Jun 29, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Be warned, though, that Mamiya TLRs are love-'em-or-hate-'em, and that these responses are all from the love-'em camp.

Cheers,

Roger

Please place me in the hater column. I never cared for them when I was younger. When I inherited the C330 mit lenses, I had them CLA'ed and shot a number of rolls of film. The fiddle factor was too high for me and I turned it into a Hasselblad.

Steve

Willie Jan · Jun 30, 2007

Hi,

i made up my mind and went for a hassel 500cm with cf 80 lens. The set is as new (never left the studio..) and the seller his friend )old hasselblad employee checked and CLA´d the whole set before selling it. So i could not resist buying the set for 850 euro...

The sl66 becomes to heavy to take it along on a trip. Yes this body goes into my backpack in the mountains... The pentax is much heavier and the lack of changing backs where the most important issues to change the camera. Quality was no issue.

So i will be checking the quality of the 6x6 hass lens along with my pentax 75mm lens on the 645 next week to see myself what the difference is...

I bought a hassel to 645 adapter for almost nothing, so i can put the hassy lenses onto the pentax too!

Hasselblad 500cm or...

max_ebb

max_ebb

max_ebb

bdial

max_ebb

epatsellis

max_ebb

epatsellis

MattKing

Moderator

Roger Hicks

Phillip P. Dimor

Roger Hicks

Mark Burley

Roger Hicks

Sirius Glass

Roger Hicks

Helen B

Willie Jan

max_ebb

bdial

max_ebb

MattKing

Moderator

Roger Hicks

Sirius Glass

Willie Jan

Hasselblad 500cm or...

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency