I want A Hasselblad. Talk Me Out Of It!

[skahde]

So, another attempt to prevent Brian from getting into physical contact with such a swedish beast was sunk before even leaving the harbour. You guys really are the plague to your fellow photographers financial balance. You're worse than the crowd following the cult of the german bottom-loaders.

 

[lecarp]

Nope. Still want one!

Well on the bright side (in reference to your other thread)

It's much easier to throw away hasselblad negs than large format.

Fit in the bin much easier than 4x17!

 

[flavio81]

According to at least one Grok query

The answer of a LLM (large language model) cannot be considered trustable in any way, and anybody who pretends to believe that Grok / ChatGPT or other tools are a reliable source of information, are fooling themselves into costly mistakes to come.

 

[cliveh]

Buy one. In this digital age film cameras are cheap as chips. Or do you want a Hasselblad with a digital back?

 

[chuckroast]

The answer of a LLM (large language model) cannot be considered reliable in any way, and anybody who pretends to believe that Grok / ChatGPT or other tools are a reliable source of information, are fooling themselves into costly mistakes to come.

No, the answer is that they cannot be seen as solely authoritative and can only reasonably be used as part of a proper research approach. I used perplexity.ai regularly for normal fact checking and it's quite good at it AND provides its sources for me to check if I don't believe the answers.

I read the original claim of Hassies on spy birds many years ago long before the LLMs ever existed. I cannot seem to find the source of that claim, hence my appeal to the machine monkeys.

Until/unless I can find a primary source, I remain with the "Questionable" conclusions.

What was fun about this was disovery - new to me - that the 500 series was used by NRO to examine the pictures from space somehow to orient them. That is confirmed, though details are missing.

 

[Pieter12]

Buy one. In this digital age film cameras are cheap as chips. Or do you want a Hasselblad with a digital back?

It's a rabbit hole. First the camera, back and a prime lens. Then a wide angle and a mild telephoto for portraits. Maybe a sturdier (or lighter) tripod and a nice ball-head. A new case or bag to put it all in. The distant call of a high-resolution digital back that just connects without modifications, cables or hassle. A faster computer with more RAM to handle those humongous files. A large-format inkjet printer to really show-off those incredible photos...and don't forget the expensive divorce!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, the 500 CM kit that I eyeballing includes 3 backs, and 3 lenses... If I do purchase it, and I get along with it, I may add a couple more lenses. Film only. No digi-back. I'm also saving up for Ilford's next ultra-largeformat campaign. I really would like a box of 14x17 pan film, instead of always being stuck with XRAY... $2 a sheet vs $36 Cdn a sheet! Do NOT tell the wife!

 

[BrianShaw]

Depending on what the 3 lenses are, one generally doesn't need more than that.

 

[mshchem]

Well, the 500 CM kit that I eyeballing includes 3 backs, and 3 lenses... If I do purchase it, and I get along with it, I may add a couple more lenses. Film only. No digi-back. I'm also saving up for Ilford's next ultra-largeformat campaign. I really would like a box of 14x17 pan film, instead of always being stuck with XRAY... $2 a sheet vs $36 Cdn a sheet! Do NOT tell the wife!

When I was a kid I thought CM stood for Apollo "Command Module" . Certainly don't need a digital back, Instax for sure.

ULF campaign. 10 or 25 sheet boxes? Yowsa that's a lot of money. Sure is nice film!

 

[chuckroast]

It's a rabbit hole. First the camera, back and a prime lens. Then a wide angle and a mild telephoto for portraits. Maybe a sturdier (or lighter) tripod and a nice ball-head. A new case or bag to put it all in. The distant call of a high-resolution digital back that just connects without modifications, cables or hassle. A faster computer with more RAM to handle those humongous files. A large-format inkjet printer to really show-off those incredible photos...and don't forget the expensive divorce!

What's your point?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Depending on what the 3 lenses are, one generally doesn't need more than that.

A 50, 80, and 150...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I was a kid I thought CM stood for Apollo "Command Module" . Certainly don't need a digital back, Instax for sure.

ULF campaign. 10 or 25 sheet boxes? Yowsa that's a lot of money. Sure is nice film!

25 sheet box.
The Nons back is definitely an option...

 

[BrianShaw]

A 50, 80, and 150...

Classic combination. A 250 can be useful…

 

[Besk]

A Hassy kit with 3 lenses, two back gets pretty heavy. I just as soon have a 4x5.
The Hassy kit sure was faster though.

 

[Pieter12]

A Hassy kit with 3 lenses, two back gets pretty heavy. I just as soon have a 4x5.
The Hassy kit sure was faster though.

You know, you don’t have to carry it all around all the time. A 4x5 with a half dozen holders, three lenses and boards, a dark cloth, loupe and tripod isn’t that easy to manage either.

 

[Arthurwg]

The Nons back is definitely an option...

I have one and love it. Works perfectly. Now tell me the best way to scan Instax.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I hump around my 8x10, with 6 lenses, 6 holders...Same with my RB...3 lenses, 3 holders... And don't forget the 14x17 + 4 lenses (mind you I drag it around on wheels LOL). All way heavier than any Hasselblad kit, I'll bet!

 

[John Wiegerink]

A 50, 80, and 150...

I started with just a body (500C), older 12 back with view window and a non-"T" 80mm. Shot several weddings with just that and then took the earnings from those weddings and bought two more backs, a 50mm and then the 150mm. I used that setup for many years and loved it. I did add a EL body just for backup, but never used it much for weddings since it was a little noisier than the 500C. I maybe an odd duck, but I still buy the old 12 backs when I see them cheap enough. They are, or were for me, much more trouble free and I never minded checking the window for frame number "1". In fact, I liked making sure that darn film advanced to frame "1" since I could see it with my own eyes. Andy, that setup you're talking about will be perfect for you. As for your 14X17 system and good film? I think my 8X10, two lenses and 5 holders was expensive and heavy..........? I can't imagine the back pain and the wallet pain you're experiencing with 14X17 and don't want to either. I do bet you smile when you see the results from the 14X17 and that's something I'll probably never be able to afford or do. You got me there!
Go easy on the donuts and save your loonies!

 

[chuckroast]

A 50, 80, and 150...

Or a 60, 100, and 180

 

[mshchem]

I just got out my three (3) 553 ELX bodies 2 of the 3 are running fine 1 is hanging up. Meant to be used in an active studio. Letting these sit isn't good. The dud is from 1988, might be time to retire

 

[MattKing]

I hump around my 8x10, with 6 lenses, 6 holders...Same with my RB...3 lenses, 3 holders... And don't forget the 14x17 + 4 lenses (mind you I drag it around on wheels LOL). All way heavier than any Hasselblad kit, I'll bet!

Here is an example of Andrew with the said RB:

And yes, I did miss focus!

 

[tcolgate]

I do occasionally just pick up my 500cm and repeatedly fire the shutter just for the hell of it. It's very satisfying ka-chonk of a sound. Casually stripping down everything and putting it back together is also a bit of a pointless and pleasantly meditative act (don't forget the film crank!).
I've given up taking more than one back with me. The one time I tried taking colour and B&W on one outing (admittedly a fairly hectic group dog walk), I just spent far too long flipping back and forward and reloading the backs. I have the cheaper basic versions of the 50, 80 and 150. All three definitely have enough distinct character to give me an good excuse to use them.
Obviously you can't do anything with it that you couldn't do with the rest of your gear, but you know that already, so there's really no talking you out of it is there!

 

[skahde]

Or a 60, 100, and 180

Given the choice and having the funds... Add a 40mm FLE on the short end and it is a dream-setup if the focal length suit you. It sure was for me but out of my reach and so I had to get along with 50 CT, 80F, 150 CT and 250CT which was very enjoyable too.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here is an example of Andrew with the said RB:
View attachment 412284
And yes, I did miss focus!

Missed focus aside, the scale is impressive!

 

[mshchem]

Here is an example of Andrew with the said RB:
View attachment 412284
And yes, I did miss focus!

I think you hit the focus! All the roots looks like the creepy crawling roots coming to get our intrepid Educator/ULF cameraman/Alt Process warrior!
Here's to those that DO! just watch out for the bears!