Hasselblad worth it?

nicefor88 · May 4, 2009

Hi All,
I've been thinking to get an Hasselblad but I've always found an excuse not to do so: too heavy, not so easy to find a lab for processing/printing, etc, etc.
I've been equipped with 35mm Nikons (F3 and FE) since the late 1970s and one Leica M6.
But I'd like to see the difference in quality...
All your comments and suggestions are most welcome.
Thanks,
Serge

Dave Swinnard · May 4, 2009

Try it, you might like it. I did. (disclaimer... I process my own b/w, seldom shoot colour these days and frequently carry, and use, a tripod.)

nicefor88 · May 4, 2009

Thanks Dave. What about weight?
Is handling this camera very different from small format?

André E.C. · May 4, 2009

It's not worth it, if you have to ask!

"I've been thinking to get an Hasselblad but I've always found an excuse not to do so: too heavy, not so easy to find a lab for processing/printing, etc, etc."

You've answered your question in the past, anything changed?

Cheers!

André

Christopher Walrath · May 4, 2009

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

It can be handheld but it is very heavy, like the much less expensive, Poor Boy's Camera of the Year, the Mamiya RB67. Not built for speed but really awesomw when in hand.

Kerik · May 4, 2009

I never thought I'd like using a brick-shaped camera. That was probably an excuse because of the high price of the gear. Now that Hassie prices have dropped like a brick, I own three (501, 201 and SWC) and LOVE using them. Most of the time I use them handheld. You can see some results Dead Link Removed. But, my perspective is from a long-time large format and ultra large format shooter that finds these cameras tiny and light.

JRJacobs · May 4, 2009

Christopher Walrath said:
It can be handheld but it is very heavy, like the much less expensive, Poor Boy's Camera of the Year, the Mamiya RB67.

The Hassie is about half the weight of an RB67.

bdial · May 4, 2009

Subjectively, a 500 C/M isn't any heavier than an F3 with its motor, nor is it truly larger, though they are shaped differently.
I traded in a Hasselblad to buy an F3 new years ago. Now since getting another Hasselblad, I've barely touched the F3.

Absent other constraints, a larger negative is always better. But whether it's worth it depends on the the tools you'd like to work with to make your images. Both are capable of making outstanding photographs.

stealthman_1 · May 4, 2009

The price kept me away for many years, but that has all changed now. I love my pair of 503s and carry one of them very often. Shot mostly hand held, a mix of 6x6 and 6x4.5 b&w and color, buying into Hasselblad is one of the best things I ever have done. The camera is light compared to some 35mm and digital combinations...Since this is APUG...my F5 + 24-70 f2.8 weigh over a pound more than a 503cx+PM3 finder+150mm f4 lens. The interchangeability of the Hasselblad system makes it extremely versatile and the ability to carry 3 or 4 film backs makes switching film and ISO on the fly very, very easy.

mikebarger · May 4, 2009

I've used Nikon glass (F's to F'3's) for many years and have had a Hassy for the last five or six years. Color snapshot size prints, I can't tell which is which (if printed to same format). For me, it has to be 11x14 to really see a difference.

But, I love using the blad. Stick it on a tripod and I'll play with it all day. I go slower and probably do a better job with it. I only use the Nikon to chase the grand daughter now.

Only you can determine if it is worth it to you. But think about this... I didn't stop at the square format, now I have a Zone VI and Sinar F 4x5 also. Hoping the 8x10 bug doesn't bite.

Mike

Colin Corneau · May 4, 2009

FWIW, I started my career some 20-odd years ago on 35mm gear (newspaper photographer) and found it hard to imagine using any other format.

Once I started shooting more for myself, with a personal revival of film work, it's been a huge difference. You think differently and approach image-making differently when you use different tools, from my observation.

I still use 35mm, but now have a MF kit, 4x5 as well. Different tools for different jobs, really. If my experience helps at all, there is a difference. I urge you to explore a bit for yourself - try a MF camera out for a roll or two and see what the difference is for you and your tastes.

Ian David · May 4, 2009

As far as MF systems go, the Hasselblad is pretty compact. Admittedly I have quite large hands, but I have always found it very comfortable to use handheld. It is a real pleasure to shoot with, and the larger negs are great, but it is also nice to be able to pick up the 35mm rangefinder instead from time to time...

tjaded · May 4, 2009

I've used quite a few different MF cameras and the Hasselblad is by far my favorite. To be honest though, I think the most important thing is getting one system and sticking with it. Not advice I have ever taken, but there you have it! To me, the most important thing is to have something that becomes second nature. For me that is the Hasselblad. I don't have to stop and think about how to make it work, I get to use all the thinkin' time to deal with composition and all that fun stuff. It's relatively small, not too heavy (to me) and there are some pretty good lenses out there If you have a rental place near you, try out a few different systems and see what you think. A great camera that you never use because you find it awkward is not such a good thing. Just my two cents--biased two cents...I love my Hasselblad stuff!

Sirius Glass · May 4, 2009

I have Nikon slrs and a Hasselblad. My hands are small, but I have no problem handling the Hasselblad. After all Victor Hasselblad had small hands and designed the camera so that it was comfortable for him.

The Hasselblad is much easier to handle than a Mamiya C330.

I tend to take more time composing and choosing the exposure with the Hasselblad even though I can use it almost as quickly as the Nikons. When I want more detail or more textures I will choose the Hasselblad. If I want a fine arts photograph I will usually use the Hasselblad.

The feel of the camera and the optics versus the Nikon [or Mamiya C330] harkens to the holy wars waged in APUG about the Leicas verus other rangefinder cameras.

Very importantly, now I can afford a Hasselblad, before I could only wish for one. This is one of the benefits of the digital age!

Steve

andrewkirkby · May 4, 2009

This is my first post here - after reading the forums for quite a long time i decided it was time to contibute

Anyway, I have a Hasselblad 503cxi with various lenses. It's kind of hard to compare with 35mm cameras as they are really designed for different things. With the Hasselblad you have amazing Zeiss lenses and obviously the advantages of medium format films (better for scanning etc). With the 35mm cameras you have something that is not intrusive, generally more compact and more straight forward to operate. That said i generally get better images from the Hasselblad because a different creative process is applied when i use it. More time is spent on composing the image and thinking about what i want the final product to look like. Exposure is checked, checked and checked again. I don't like wasting film.

A Hasselblad camera is certainly a fine piece of equipment. My 503CXi is a real joy to use, ultra reliable and i have no doubt that i prefer using it to the 35mm cameras which i own -I quite like the 6x6 format as well. I find it a bit more inspiring than the 35mm standard frame..

I have also used much heavier cameras like the Mamiya RZ/RB67 but the Hasselblad is half the size and weight and is far more practical. If you like to travel into the wilderness you will definitely prefer the Hasselblad over all medium format (SLR) cameras because of this.
At the end of the day, a Hasselblad camera will not make poor photos better but it will force you to think harder about every exposure and i think in the long run your photography will improve.

I think the single best thing about Hasselblad cameras is the selection of lenses. Even a 35 year old C T* 2.8/80 lens will give you fantastic results and is almost identical optically to the $5000 (Australian Dollars) CFI lens which is sold today.

Sirius Glass · May 4, 2009

andrewkirkby said:
At the end of the day, a Hasselblad camera will not make poor photos better but it will force you to think harder about every exposure and i think in the long run your photography will improve.

I disagree, the Hasselblad will not force you to think harder; the Hasselblad will encourage you to think harder.

Steve

david b · May 4, 2009

In 2001, I bought a Hasselblad 503cw kit. Still have it

In 2002, I bought a Pentax 67 kit. Sold it

In 2003, I bought a Hasselblad Flexbody. Still have it.

In 2004, I bought a Mamiya 7II kit. Sold it.

In 2008, I bought a Fuji GSW690III. Sold it.

In 2009, I bought a Hasselblad 905 SWC. Still have it.

For me, the Hasselblad is a great camera and a great system.

I am pretty sure I will always have a Hasselblad.

Sirius Glass · May 5, 2009

david b said:
In 2001, I bought a Hasselblad 503cw kit. Still have it

In 2002, I bought a Pentax 67 kit. Sold it

In 2003, I bought a Hasselblad Flexbody. Still have it.

In 2004, I bought a Mamiya 7II kit. Sold it.

In 2008, I bought a Fuji GSW690III. Sold it.

In 2009, I bought a Hasselblad 905 SWC. Still have it.

For me, the Hasselblad is a great camera and a great system.

I am pretty sure I will always have a Hasselblad.

It is like the advertisement for the Packard automobile said, "Ask the man that owns one."

Steve

Brandon D. · May 5, 2009

JRJacobs said:
The Hassie is about half the weight of an RB67.

Exactly. I've owned both (and I also have an F3), but weight is something that people seem to get used to with the right amount of experience.

Some of my DSLR set-ups are much more heavy than my Hasselblad set-up. And to be frank, I'm built like a pretzel, not like a body builder. So it's not like I necessarily have a strength advantage when dealing with "heavier gear." But over time, I think I've developed a stamina for handling photography gear to the extent that nothing really feels as heavy as it did when I first started.

Adrian Twiss · May 5, 2009

When I was replacing my MF kit I priced three systems, namely the Rollei SL66, Hasselblad and Bronica. The objective was to do an entire replacment viz one body, 4 magazines and 5 lenses of varying focal length. The Rollei system topped out at just over £4000.00 ($5960), the Hasselblad was £2800 ($4172) and the bronica with additional polaroid back and chimney finder was £1495 ($2228). My reasoning was that as bronica lenses have a very good reputation and as I don't enlarge any bigger than 16x12 I did not need the optical advantage given by the reputedly superior Zeiss lenses. I wanted a quality system and I believe I succeeded in that. Although the cost was secondary to quality it was still an important consideration. To me a Hasselblad was not worth it despite the fact its a very find camera indeed.

andrewkirkby · May 5, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I disagree, the Hasselblad will not force you to think harder; the Hasselblad will encourage you to think harder.

Steve

Well said. That is exactly the wording i should have used.

Andrew

2F/2F · May 5, 2009

The quality will be good. The question is what do you shoot, and how much of a system do you want? If all you want is to try a camera that shoots medium format ("to see the difference in quality", as you stated), with few accessories (if any), I think there are options that will give you more bang for the buck, and will not require such an initial investment as a Hassy. If you are on a budget, still want a large system, and are not addicted to square format, I would look at the various 645 SLR systems that are out there.

My personal dream camera for 6x6/645 format SLR would be a Hassy, and it would primarily be used with 645 backs. Going Hassy means that everything for the camera can be pricey, however. Therefore, I went with Mamiya 645 instead. I have a very nice kit with two bodies, three lenses, a metal case, winder, et al for a few hundred less than what I would have spent just getting a basic starter Hassy kit. Plus, I get 645 without having had to have track down several Hassy 645 backs. For square format, I prefer a TLR, personally.

If you are a fan of 4:5 ratio prints (8x10, 16x20, etc.), and can do what you need to do with a larger camera, the Mamiya RB/RZ system is great. Superb quality, and superb versatility. For a large print that aims to fill a standard paper size, the quality will be "technically" better than a Hassy as well, due to less enlargement. (The useful area of a Hassy frame has to be reduced by about 25% if printed to fill an 16x20 piece of paper, while the RB/RZ frame might require just the tiniest bit of cropping.)

...but I would begin with a "starter camera", personally, based on what you wrote. How about a Yashica TLR? A Pentax, Mamiya, or Bronica basic 645 kit could also be had very cheaply now, as could an SQ kit (Bronica 6x6; basically a Hassy clone).

Q.G. · May 5, 2009

andrewkirkby said:
It's kind of hard to compare with 35mm cameras as they are really designed for different things.

I disagree.

They are designed to take photos.
You can do almost everything with an MF camera you can do with a 35 mm camera (i do. I haven't touched 35 mm cameras for years).

The only things you can't do, you can't because, for instance, extremely long telephoto lenses are not available for MF as they are for 35 mm format.

But apart from these extremes, they really are designed to do the same thing, and indeed do it with equally great ease.

The Big Difference is image quality.
Though many 35 mm cameras are indeed as big and heavy as many MF cameras, they still only produce puny negatives on tiny films.

JRJacobs · May 5, 2009

Absolutely the Hassy can do what a 35mm SLR can, but with better picture quality. It can also do some things 35mm can't. For example, you can change from color film, to black and white film mid roll with a Hasselblad.

Look at it this way - Hasselblad systems are not that expensive now. All you really need to get started is a basic setup of a 500 series camera, WLF, 80mm lens, and a back. A basic kit such as that should run you around $500 these days. You really don't need more to get started - I use my 80mm lens most of the time. In the future, you can obtain additional lenses if you need them, and used Hassy lenses go for less than consumer grade DSLR lenses these days.

If you should decide Hassy isn't for you, you certainly can always resell it for what you paid for it - no harm, no foul.

chrome76 · May 5, 2009

I had bought a Hasselblad 500 CM a few weeks back and I can say that it felt as light as my DSLR that I own. I think if I were to go walking down the street shooting pictures, I could do it easily without breaking any sweat.

Hasselblad worth it?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency