Hasselblad Magic - is it actually worth the pursuit?

[KenS]

I was 'introduced' to photography under the dark-cloth of an old 8x10 "woodie".. Many years later, when a 'working' photographer, and I can't really remember ever being 'asked for a 'square' print from one of the contact 'proof's'. However, while in one pro' position, we did make a significant number of 38mm Ektachromes for 'projection', from a Hasselblad but,... when a B/W print was requested for publication in a scientific journal, It was 'rarely (if ever) 'needed as a square'... it was usually an 8x10, 5x7 or 4x5.
I do use my RB67 (on occasions when I REALLY believe I can use up the whole roll for the one 'job'/project. However, mostly... I much prefer the large format 'rectangle' of my 4x5 Linhof... or my B&J 8x10...and use only that which I 'have with me' but neither of which can 'really' be used 'hand held' (especially when 'shifts or tilts' are required.

Ken

 

[Vaidotas]

Yet lots of Blad owner's (and who aspire to it) claim the exact MAGIC of it, like everything else was in a different picture taking league (not). Same applies to Leica against the rest of it.

Interesting remark.
But maybe they keep in mind another part of tandem, which produced V system too.
And such evaluation of Zeiss makes sense to them?

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I agree with the Rolleiflex statement. It's a camera one doesn't have to think about much. It does what it does very well without much fuss, far more quietly, and with far less complication than the Hasselblad. But the Rolleiflex is limited to one lens, and the film that's in it.

The Hasselblad on the other hand, is a system that was made for working professionals who need a lot more versatility. It's heavier, more complicated, has a steeper learning curve, has more points where it can fail, and therefore requires more maintenance and attention.

Both make wonderful photographs.

- If you're a one lens, one film type, normal focal length type of photographer get a Rolleiflex.

- If you need multiple focal lengths and film types, like to have all the options at your disposal, and don't mind the weight, complexity, and maintenance, then get the Hasselblad.

Speaking from experience - I have both.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Interesting remark.
But maybe they keep in mind another part of tandem, which produced V system too.
And such evaluation of Zeiss makes sense to them?

I just don't think most of them are actually honest in their remarks. I don't argue about quality of Hass and Zeiss lenses, but the fact that majority of those "supremacy" comments are so far disconnected from reality (when linked / compared to everything else available) I can't see how they can possibly be honest.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I agree with the Rolleiflex statement. It's a camera one doesn't have to think about much. It does what it does very well without much fuss, far more quietly, and with far less complication than the Hasselblad. But the Rolleiflex is limited to one lens, and the film that's in it.

The Hasselblad on the other hand, is a system that was made for working professionals who need a lot more versatility. It's heavier, more complicated, has a steeper learning curve, has more points where it can fail, and therefore requires more maintenance and attention.

Both make wonderful photographs.

- If you're a one lens, one film type, normal focal length type of photographer get a Rolleiflex.

- If you need multiple focal lengths and film types, like to have all the options at your disposal, and don't mind the weight, complexity, and maintenance, then get the Hasselblad.

Speaking from experience - I have both.

In other words you also support the idea that all images NOT taken by either are in a different (lower) league then? Which is such a disgrace to think that.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

In other words you also support the idea that all images NOT taken by either are in a different (lower) league then? Which is such a disgrace to think that.

Are you kidding me? There are plenty of great cameras - I was describing those that I have experience with.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I just don't think most of them are actually honest in their remarks. I don't argue about quality of Hass and Zeiss lenses, but the fact that majority of those "supremacy" comments are so far disconnected from reality ... I can't see how they can possibly be honest.

What you are seeing is the internet effect; people who spend more time spreading their opinion than making photos.

Hasselblad was my first medium format system, decades ago, and I still have all the bodies and lenses. But it was only relatively recently I realized that 6x6 was a format I disliked. Since then I've acquired Mamiya RB and Fuji 6x9, which I like more. Image quality between those and Hasselblad is close enough to not warrant discussion (see my signature).

I will say, however, that the Hasselblad SWC is truly amazing and in a class of its own.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Are you kidding me? There are plenty of great cameras - I was describing those that I have experience with.

I'm glad we agree then. Must have taken your post too literally.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

What you are seeing is the internet effect; people who spend more time spreading their opinion than making photos.

Hasselblad was my first medium format system, decades ago, and I still have all the bodies and lenses. But it was only relatively recently I realized that 6x6 was a format I disliked. Since then I've acquired Mamiya RB and Fuji 6x9, which I like more. Image quality between those and Hasselblad is close enough to not warrant discussion (see my signature).

I will say, however, that the Hasselblad SWC is truly amazing and in a class of its own.

Fully agree on all of your points (although never had a chance to shoot with SWC). Digital age has taken visual experience into high resolution territories and is now considered THE factor in evaluating image quality. Once you buy into that, the most minute differences that come out of a testing lab make it or break it for any piece of equipment, which drives sales, but (sadly) not necessarily image quality. The "magic" of Hasselblad has nothing to do with photographs it was used to make, although owning one could indeed be the magic one needs to pursue photography with more conviction.

Original poster seemed to be asking "is there something special in owning a Hasselblad", to which I typically say NO. But to rephrase that, there might be.

I think lots of people fail to understand what it takes to be happy with images they make, and I feel it is the destination a photographer should aim at (unless photography is for making a living, which is an entirely different argument). And for one to be happy, there is going to be a combination of events that blend into one cohesive process from start to finish. And the tool used to record an image is part of it, sometimes a BIG part of it. So in the latter sense, holding that coveted Hasselblad might just do the trick, even if it is only for reasons of justifying the money one had to splurge on it (or thinking that some well regarded photographer used one). At the end of the day it isn't the camera that saw the image.

This gear magic argument is hardly any different than Group f64 slamming pictorialists (sadly, they also succeeded to a large degree). One image is going to bring out visual satisfaction when it is rendered as sharp as technically possible (where gear used is going to be of importance), another might be better off if shot with a box camera and a one element plastic lens (not to mention the many aesthetically superior images taken with pinhole). Even, if we correct this statement for personal preferences and hard headed opinions, the proof is all over the published pudding: it is not the equipment.

 

[ic-racer]

The advantage of Rolleiflex over Hassleblad is the electrical connection from body to lens that eliminates any jamming issues. The built-in motor and exposure meter on the Rollei are nice also!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Its definitely worth to try.
Put aside stereotypes according status and all this hype around V system.
My experience ( its includes work with all common 6x6 slr, tlr, rangefinder systems) is very positive.
I'm feeling absolutely confident with my v500
And if it dont sticks to your palm, its easy to get money back.

that's a very good point; they definitely stick to your palm. One day they will have to prey thenm off my cold ,dead hands. But see, that's why I love them so much; They turn into an extension of your arms and then work intrensicly.

 

[baachitraka]

Nothing is really high until you make the prints from darkroom. Of-course you may need a reliable camera but I put darkroom work higher than anything else.

 

[Sirius Glass]

After taking photographs for fifty years, I found out that my photography took a quantum leap after I switched to Hasselblad.

 

[mshchem]

Hasselblad makes me feel good. This day in age to have something so elegant and perfectly designed is refreshing.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had some gear in common with OP. Mamiya TLR and 645. Like any made in Japan MF gear I used, their lenses totally lacks of character.
Rolleicord, Flex lens is superior to any made in Japan MF lens I have tried, seen. And so is lens made for Hassi.
Both brands are also differently made. Not just a tool made in Japan, but something just very pleasing to hold in hands.

Mind you, I'm happy user of made in Japan SLR and modern lenses .

 

[Arklatexian]

I have been going the traditional way, starting with Mamiya 1000S, over Bronica Etrs, ending with Hasselblad recently.
If i had known then, what i know now, i would have begun with the ending. (Hasselblad).
If it has to make sense, you must be prepared to go into the whole system with a couple of lenses and at least 2 backs. Otherwise a nice Rolleiflex would give you the same wonderful Zeiss experience.
Michael.

+1

 

[Deleted member 88956]

After taking photographs for fifty years, I found out that my photography took a quantum leap after I switched to Hasselblad.

How does photography leaps this far by a simple switch to different gear? It's simply against common sense. I'm happy you like your Hasselblad, but going blind (or numb) with regard to what does count, isn't really helping, especially with ... photography.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

+1

What exactly is different from Bronica/Mamiya vs. Hasselblad one that final thing called image?

 

[Nokton48]

Yes but I believe you take off in the direction the equipment takes you. It's not an argument. You can photograph with any light tight box. If you want to do that it is cool.....

Would be kind of limiting, though

 

[Sirius Glass]

How does photography leaps this far by a simple switch to different gear? It's simply against common sense. I'm happy you like your Hasselblad, but going blind (or numb) with regard to what does count, isn't really helping, especially with ... photography.

With the prism I have a much larger viewing screen, almost like jumping from 35mm to 4”x5”.

Swapping backs between color and black & white again much like LF.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

With the prism I have a much larger viewing screen, almost like jumping from 35mm to 4”x5”.

Swapping backs between color and black & white again much like LF.

You mean you have climbed a curb and claim to have climbed the Mount Everest? My problem is with "quantum leap", but at least I know what you meant, something that is also available with most MF systems out there. But key is to be happy with gear used before full enjoyment of photography can take hold. For you it is the Hassier the merrier, and that is fine. Just not in the quantum magnitude as some might take it as indeed a "magic" in getting one.

 

[sixby45]

Thats interesting to read. After handling a 500CM with prism finder, it's not much off the RZ67, but far easier to hold and assemble on a tripod.

Also the focus throw is very different from the RZ 67 in my experience - as the hasselblad lens has a much farther focus throw when looking for crcritic focus YMMV.

 

[NJH]

I will say, however, that the Hasselblad SWC is truly amazing and in a class of its own.

This for me is why I have moved in the main to a V system. The SWC is like a gateway drug, for me it very quickly became my favourite camera ever despite its quirkiness. If one wants and likes the SWC your inevitably going to end up with a V system of some sorts.

The SWC also highlights why so many people end up with Hasselblad, its unique products that if one wants to use your going to end up with this system whether its the SWC, or some of the other unique lens options or something else like the Flexbody/Arcbody.

 

[chris77]

After taking photographs for fifty years, I found out that my photography took a quantum leap after I switched to Hasselblad.

Hallelujah Hallelujah!!!
He made a blind man see!!
Praise the Lord..

..from Sweden.

 

[pressureworld]

I own a 501c and there's no magic, but I find it light, small enough and very easy to load. The lenses are sharp and the backs save a lot of time. I don't like the waist level finder, but the PM45 prism with the built in diopter was perfect for me.

I owned a Pentax 67II at the same time. The camera was great, and the images were neck and neck, but it was to large, and to heavy for what I do. (tripod only)