I always thought that I wanted a Hasselblad.

[removed account4]

hey wayne

have fun with your new rig ..
it sounds to me like a no-brainer ...

john

 

[sunbeamland]

I run a Rolleicord IVB, my favorite camera; It's comfortable and a wonderful lens. I use a C33, but it needs a tripod. I have been using a Voightlander Bessa I, which is wonderful to travel with. My system camera is a Mamiya Universal with a 65, 127 and a 100. Sold a 250 F8 because it was hazy. Ultimately I like to shoot full frame and I love 6x9. I had a guy ask me last week (who was using his whiz bang new Nikon DSLR) about my Bessa. He asked "what lens, blah, blah". When you shoot 6x9 most optics from the majors are all good enough. Shade the lens and fire away! Snobs worry about brand names. Blads are great, don't fit my hand the way I expect a camera should; I would take one, but wouldn't buy one until they're cheaper. That's personal. Some people like the little notch on their neg and print all of their Blad images full frame so you know what he's using. If I am going to carry a hunk of metal, I want the biggest neg in return.

If your happy and you know it, keep the Pentax. It's cool you can use the Blad for awhile because you may find it works better for you.

My dad was an amatuer photographer when I was a kid. Shot a Graflex XL and later a Mamiya 645. Just the other day he was asking me about DSLR's and how he read lenses more than a couple years old are no good. My best lenses are at least 30 years old.

What I learned about photography from RIT that always sticks with me is this "It aint about accuracy, it's more about consistancy". Perfect camera holding, processing, exposure, composition etc. makes a much greater impact on image quality than the optic. The optic, unless it's been dropped or something, contributes about 1% to the overall quality of a finished print. All of you you do your own processing KNOW I am speaking the truth!

 

[Sirius Glass]

My dad was an amatuer photographer when I was a kid. Shot a Graflex XL and later a Mamiya 645. Just the other day he was asking me about DSLR's and how he read lenses more than a couple years old are no good. My best lenses are at least 30 years old.

I guess I should go home and throw out my folder, a 1935 Certo Dolly SuperSport with an f/2.8 7,5cm Zeiss lens because of what the DSLR bloggers are saying. After all they know more than the rest of us because they have newer and more expensive equipment with built-in automatic obsolescence built in! I don't have that feature on any of my cameras!

Steve

 

[MattKing]

I really, really want a Hassie, but just can't swing the bucks at the moment. I want it because I love the square format that I've become so fond of with my C330 with prism finder. But the C330 hasn't the dof preview that I think is essential, and the ability to see polarization through the lens. So I use my P67 in the landscape orientation for everything, and simply crop to square when composing and printing.

But, I WILL NOT leave this mortal coil without owning a 'blad someday, ...I continue to buy lottery tickets too!

John:

I don't want to discourage you from you 'blad longing, but viewing polarization through a C330's lens is slow, but straightforward:

1) buy two identical polarizers and install them on the viewing and taking lenses (both viewing and taking lenses have filter threads);

2) rotate ring on the polarizer on the viewing lens until you obtain your necessary effect. Note the position of the "mark" on that ring;

3) adjust the mark on the ring on the polarizer on the taking lens to be in the same position as the ring on the viewing lens; and

4) take your photograph.

You can do the same with just one polarizer, but you have to move it from lens to lens, so it is even slower.

The cheaper, linear polarizers work fine for this

Matt

 

[Kerik]

Kerik, thank you. If I knew for certain that photos as good as yours automatically came from a Hasselblad, I would have gotten one ages ago.

Wayne - Thanks for the kind words! BTW, I use my Hasselblads hand-held probably 75% of the time. 501C, 201F (for the Focal Plan shutter) and the ultimate: SWC!

 

[Venchka]

Whatever happened to my 1 year, 2 cameras, 3 lenses project? Who knew, hey?

Since then, several cameras and lenses have found their way into life. What a long strange trip it's been.

 

[Joe Grodis]

Hmmmm... Ken Rockwell said, "The camera has nothing to do with taking good pictures."

Just a thought

-Joe

 

[Q.G.]

Except, of course, that without a camera you do not take pictures (good or bad) at all.

Just a thought.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hmmmm... Ken Rockwell said, "The camera has nothing to do with taking good pictures."

Just a thought

-Joe

Why is it that the people who say that always have the best and most expensive equipment?

 

[Q.G.]

Because people only say things like that when (and because) they know they cannot blame their best and most expensive equipment for the poor results they get.

 

[Venchka]

You got that right

Because people only say things like that when (and because) they know they cannot blame their best and most expensive equipment for the poor results they get.

Amen Brother! I can give the most respected names in photographic equipment a bad name!

I never never ever ever say, "I coulda done better if I had a decent camera, lens, etc."

 

[John Jarosz]

As a long time Hasselblad owner I'll say that you have to decide about the loss of the rectangular format. 6x7 is a long way from 4.5x6 which is what you'll get if you try to match the format using a Hass.

That said, I would get a kit that is an SWC, and a 60mm lens and then a 150 (or 250mm) lens. You will want a couple of backs. I never used the prism finder but many people do - you'll need to try it and see.

The SWC is the best wide angle imaginable. But I am currently using a Fuji 6x9 GSWII. I really wanted the larger format that the Fuji gives.

The 6x6 format using Hasselblad hardware is almost as small as 35mm hardware (especially the SWC). Everything gets bigger after that.

John

 

[removed account4]

Hmmmm... Ken Rockwell said, "The camera has nothing to do with taking good pictures."

Just a thought

-Joe

i agree, it probably doesn't have anything to do with seeing/taking good pictures,
often times the best camera is the one you have in hand or the one you are used to using/has become part of you ..

but it makes life fun to dream and someday have the dreams become a reality.
sometimes 'stuff' just is not like what one expects, and sometimes it is better.
the beauty of a hassy is if it is not as "expected"
it can always be sold become the realized dream of someone else

 

[Rinthe]

i just got my hasselblad 500c/m and i am in love, that is all.

 

[PVia]

Like Lance says, "It's not about the bike."

 

[Q.G.]

But it is.

Put Lance on a bike they used 100 years ago, and the only thing we will know him for from then on is coming last.

The quality of the tools we use is important. Don't kid yourselves thinking it is not.
Tools limit you to the thing they can do. Obviously, things other tools do better are impossible to perform at that better level with the tools you have.
Now, what is good, better, or worse, depends on your intentions. (Want to get that Holga look? Then the Holga might be the best tool. Etcetera.).

People who have the best tools, and say it is not about the tools, are the ones who have noticed that tools are not the only thing that can and will limit the quality of the results.
You do not need to have the best tools to know that. But without the best tools, you cannot do things at the level (or with the same ease) that makes these best tools the best, the ones you have less than the best.

 

[Steve Smith]

Roger Hicks used to talk about a quality plateau. A point at which the quality of the equipment exceeds our competence with it.


Steve.

 

[Q.G.]

That's where we need to be.
To never have to curse (or blame) our equipment.

 

[gr82bart]

Is this a trick question? Doesn't everyone want a Hasselblad?

Regards, Art.

 

[Richard Wasserman]

I thought I did until I picked up a Rollei SL66. I use the tilt fairly often, and I'm in the process of adapting some weird lenses for it. Can't do that with a Hasselblad.

Is this a trick question? Doesn't everyone want a Hasselblad?

Regards, Art.

 

[PVia]

But it is.

Put Lance on a bike they used 100 years ago, and the only thing we will know him for from then on is coming last.
.

Well, you see, you have to go to extremes to refute the point.

You have to have vision, an eye, before the camera does anything. Give a good photographer a 50 year old camera and you will still have better photographs than most people using the latest equipment. I'm not talking using old broken equipment, but equipment that's been maintained in good working condition.

Michael Kenna uses a few old Hasselblads. Keith Carter, too. HCB used who-knows-how-old Leicas and his images easily outshine so many others that have come after him. Kertesz, Sudek, etc...God...Sudek used old, fogged paper to make so many of his prints!

Certain features on newer cameras may make your life easier, but as far as making your photographs better I think there is less of an impact.

Now if you're talking sharper, low-light, motor-drive spraying, or any of that stuff, then I'll concede the point.

 

[Q.G.]

Now if you're talking sharper, low-light, motor-drive spraying, or any of that stuff, then I'll concede the point.

"Now, what is good, better, or worse, depends on your intentions. (Want to get that Holga look? Then the Holga might be the best tool. Etcetera.)."

The thing is about the suitability of a tool to do the job you want it to do.
Armstrong's lightweight bike is eminently suited for peddling up to Alpe d'Huez, but not quite so for fetching some baguettes, a pint of milk and today's newspaper. A Holga can be better than anything else if you want that Holga look, yet might be the worst thing to have for anything else.

The qualities cameras and lenses bring along are of limited nature. Besides durability and all that (also important of course), it's pretty much all about technical image quality.
Noone implied that technical image quality was the only thing that makes a good photograph.

But if you need it, and it's not there, you're stumped.
If you need it, and it's not there, even though the equipment has no problem delivering it, you'll know why you are stumped too (then "it's not about the bike ... uhm ... camera" indeed).

Yet Armstrong would struggle trying to be the first on Alpe d'Huez on a three wheeled delivery bike.
I'd like to hear him explain that "it's not about the bike" then.

 

[benjiboy]

Roger Hicks used to talk about a quality plateau. A point at which the quality of the equipment exceeds our competence with it.


Steve.

Roger writes a lot of sense,speaking personally my gear is better equipment than I'm a photographer, I don't believe that photography is a problem that can be solved by throwing money at, if I want to improve my work I'll do it by study and practice.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i agree, it probably doesn't have anything to do with seeing/taking good pictures,
often times the best camera is the one you have in hand or the one you are used to using/has become part of you ..

but it makes life fun to dream and someday have the dreams become a reality.
sometimes 'stuff' just is not like what one expects, and sometimes it is better.
the beauty of a hassy is if it is not as "expected"
it can always be sold become the realized dream of someone else

jnanian

You may be an exception, because your beautiful images are mainly the result of your creativity and not so much the camera, but in many other cases, equipment makes a big difference. Just give a pinhole camera to a sports photographer, and you'll see how important his high-tech gear was to the quality of his images.

 

[bdial]

One interesting thing I've noticed about good tools vs. bad tools is that whether you are an expert or a beginner it's easier to get good results with good tools, and it takes expertise to get good results from poor tools.