Hasselblad 500cm or...

[Willie Jan]

Hi,

i currently use a pentax 645nii. During the last vacation i had a problem with shooting scenes that i would like to shoot in b/w and the next in color.
(The 645 lacks changing of the back while the film is in)
Besides that i want a manual backup camera for the future when the electronics in the current will fail. Now they are cheap, but you will see that in some years there is not much left on the market and the prices will increase.
So i am now investigating in a different medium format camera. In my opinion the hasselblad (6x6) 500cm would be a good choice for me.

Can anybody tell me if the zeiss lenses are that really much better than pentax, or are they dust different.
And would i be a good choice...

 

[Pinholemaster]

I haven't used Pentax lenses since high school when I owned a Pentax Spotmatic II. A classic with excellent glass.

I own an almost complete system of Hasselblad gear (no 38mm, 40mm, 120mm, 180mm, 350mm), and the Zeiss optics are fantastic. I can't imagine topping them.

So I can't say the difference is dust or great, but you won't be disappointed.

 

[clogz]

Suggestion: get yourself a nice second hand Pentax 645. In this way there is no need to buy lenses etc.

Regards
Hans

 

[Antje]

I found that if you hanker after a Hasselblad, resistance is futile.

Antje

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hasselblads are very much like Leicas. Yes, they're very good; no, they're not perfect. If they suit you, there is no better 6x6 camera. If they don't...

It's not so much the image quality, though that is unbeatable, as the compactness and ease of use of the camera. The only reason I stopped using Hasselblads in the '80s was that in those days it was normal to supply 6x6 trannies to origination houses. Art directors and layout artists habitually cropped 'em wrong, so I switched to 6x7cm (Linhof and Mamiya RB), which reduced their options. I've also used Pentax 67 professionally.

Now that origination houses are no longer a problem for me, I'm thinking of buying another Hasselblad. I might even check to see if Tim, who bought my 500C over 20 years ago and used it professionally for mamy years afterwards, is still using it, and if not, what he wants for it.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

As far as optics go;
I own a Pentax 645 and a Hasselblad 503cx. I only own the 'normal' lenses for both cameras. I've compared negs between both cameras. To be fair, the Hasselblad lens is a C 80mm f/2.8 planar. It 'looks multicoated' but I don't think it really is. Both lenses are 'used'. The pentax lens focuses much closer. Both are very sharp. Both have great 'bokeh'.
To me and my eye, they are very similar (atleast the normal lenses are).

 

[Sirius Glass]

As I have said before, "Handling a Hasselblad can be hazardous for your financial well being."

Steve

 

[Alan9940]

Hi,

i currently use a pentax 645nii. During the last vacation i had a problem with shooting scenes that i would like to shoot in b/w and the next in color.
(The 645 lacks changing of the back while the film is in)
Besides that i want a manual backup camera for the future when the electronics in the current will fail. Now they are cheap, but you will see that in some years there is not much left on the market and the prices will increase.
So i am now investigating in a different medium format camera. In my opinion the hasselblad (6x6) 500cm would be a good choice for me.

Can anybody tell me if the zeiss lenses are that really much better than pentax, or are they dust different.
And would i be a good choice...

Hello Willie,

Obviously, the least expensive route would be to buy a good used sample of the Pentax 645. That said, though, IMO ya can't beat a Hassie for interchangeability, quality and compactness. As for the optics, I'm not a "Zeiss snob" and have directly compared the Zeiss glass I own to Pentax 67 lenses that I own. To my eye, and at normal enlargement sizes, I can't see much of a difference (if any) at normal viewing distances. Perhaps, if the 6x6 neg/trannie was enlarged to 30x40 (something I wouldn't do) one might begin to see the advantage inherent in those Zeiss lenses. YMMV, of course.

Something else to think about...a manual Hasselblad body will keep shooting as the temp drops when more electronic bodies--like your Pentax 645--give up the ghost. During many northeast winters (USA), I very much appreciated the fact that I didn't have to worry about the camera! The tethered battery holder for my Pentax 67, which is kept inside your coat, was always a pain...I pretty much always forgot that I was on that "short leash!"

Hope this helps with your decision. Best of luck!

 

[David H. Bebbington]

As I have said before, "Handling a Hasselblad can be hazardous for your financial well being."

Steve

Whereas, as I have discovered the past few days, the Mamiya RB67 is the absolute bargain of the moment, with plenty of bodies available in conditions ranging from lightly used by amateurs to pounded to scrap by pros, together with any number of lenses in the range 50 to 180 mm, and brand-new items currently available at 25 to 33% of normal list price from Robert White in England in (apparently) a close-out sale.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Whereas, as I have discovered the past few days, the Mamiya RB67 is the absolute bargain of the moment, with plenty of bodies available in conditions ranging from lightly used by amateurs to pounded to scrap by pros, together with any number of lenses in the range 50 to 180 mm, and brand-new items currently available at 25 to 33% of normal list price from Robert White in England in (apparently) a close-out sale.

There is nothing like the solid feel of a Hasselblad. Well, or a Leica RF.

Metal bodies and lenses just have that feel.

Steve

 

[Roger Hicks]

There is nothing like the solid feel of a Hasselblad. Well, or a Leica RF.

Dear Steve,

Or a Linhof or an Alpa or a Robot. Nor need it be metal: Gandolfi...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sirius Glass]

ROFLMAO

Steve

 

[Willie Jan]

As far as optics go;
I own a Pentax 645 and a Hasselblad 503cx. I only own the 'normal' lenses for both cameras. I've compared negs between both cameras. To be fair, the Hasselblad lens is a C 80mm f/2.8 planar. It 'looks multicoated' but I don't think it really is. Both lenses are 'used'. The pentax lens focuses much closer. Both are very sharp. Both have great 'bokeh'.
To me and my eye, they are very similar (atleast the normal lenses are).

Why do you use a 645 and a 6x6. Is it for several purposes?
I now use a 645 and a 4x5 shen hao. I would like to use the 6x6 for portraits and when a macro lens can be found for stillife macro work. I think that with a 6x6 the contact between me and the model is better than standing behind the prism finder of the 645.

A second point is that a fully manual body will maintain longer (im 39, so it should work for at least the next 35 years...) than an electronic powered machine. Don't get me wrong. The pentax is a very nice camera. But i want to buy a manual one now, because in the next 5 years they will become more expensive when the crowds have sold there stuff....

 

[Paul.]

I baught a Hasselblad 500CM some 4 years ago and love it. Does it produce better pictures than the Yashica it replaced? Only in that I enjoy useing it so much, technicaly I see little differance in sharpness, the Ziess lenses have a different quality to them that is hard to define but makes a differance to the print, it is different not nessisarily better.
The big advantage of the Hasselblad is that because I enjoy useing it so much I look to use it. As others have said they are very very addictive.
My advise is if you want one buy one, I did the sums and the head said Yashica, 2 years later I listened to the heart and baught the Hasselblad.

Regards Paul.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Willie Jan;
My first 'real MF camera' was the Pentax. I recently bought the Hasselblad due to having always wanted one and liking 6x6. With macro, Hasselblad is your best bet (except the price on the makro-planar. The Pentax macro lens is much cheaper). With flash photography, the Hassy again wins IMHO .

If I need to take pictures of kids, puppies, or go to rough places I bring the Pentax. It's easier and quicker to use. I enjoy using the hasselblad more

 

[max_ebb]

With macro, Hasselblad is your best bet (except the price on the makro-planar. The Pentax macro lens is much cheaper).

Why not just use macro tubes? Do you feel the macro lens gives better sharpness? More depth of field? Just curious. Most of my work is macro, and I get good results with macro tubes (or sometimes I use my 4x5 with a 135 lens and the bellows close to fully extended).

 

[DrPablo]

Why not just use macro tubes? Do you feel the macro lens gives better sharpness? More depth of field? Just curious. Most of my work is macro, and I get good results with macro tubes (or sometimes I use my 4x5 with a 135 lens and the bellows close to fully extended).

Much as I love my Hasselblad, I think a RB67 or RZ67 would be considerably better for MF macro with its bellows option.

 

[max_ebb]

Much as I love my Hasselblad, I think a RB67 or RZ67 would be considerably better for MF macro with its bellows option.

The bellows on the RB/RZ isn't long enough to get anywhere near 1:1 macro. They sell macro extension tubes for RB's and RZ's. Bellows is not an 'option' for those cameras, that's the method of focusing that they use.

Bellows are more convenient than than extension tubes (although macro bellows set ups are typically very expensive), but they both do the same thing; move the lens farther from the film plane.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why not just use macro tubes? Do you feel the macro lens gives better sharpness? More depth of field? Just curious. Most of my work is macro, and I get good results with macro tubes (or sometimes I use my 4x5 with a 135 lens and the bellows close to fully extended).

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

 

[sgoetzin]

I do have a 501 CM and just love it for my studio shootings. The only thing I had to get used to was the square format. Of course, you can crop the image afterwards, but doing the composition in a square format isn't that easy if you are not used to it. (no horizontal or vertical composition).
The best way to see if a Hasselblad will do the work for YOU, is to "borrow" one play around with it, shoot some films and see if that's the camera you feel comfortable with.

 

[epatsellis]

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. Even with an extension tube it's quite easily managable, though a prism becomes needed quickly.

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.


erie

 

[Willie Jan]

if the object is large enough, i use my 4x5 for macro work. For smaller objects i would like to use a 6x6.

 

[bdial]

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Or go for a 'baby' Linhof or a 4x5 inch camera with a roll-film holder on the back. No parallax; true macro (1:1 or bigger); low prices; and the option of a bigger film format than 6x6. But a completely different camera from a Hasselblad...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Willie Jan]

besides macro, i would use it for portrait...

I use my 4x5 for still life and landscapes.