I want A Hasselblad. Talk Me Out Of It!

[mshchem]

CT 68 【Top Mint w/ Box】 Fuji Fujifilm GW690III Medium Format Film Camera JAPAN | eBay

No problem in the view. ■ Total Condition. Very beautiful condition. There are a few dusts. There is no scratch.

www.ebay.com

 

[chuckroast]

Back to basics, talk me out of a Hasselblad!
I have owned and still own some highly regarded glass .
That said , within my collection of negatives the "best" photos are not always produced by the best of the best equipment but by myself when my mind was focused!
I appreciate the lure of buying into the most advertised or discussed camera systems but it will not improve your photographic output.
Having seen the original posters (Andrew) work /input , I feel he has nothing to gain by a move to the 'elite side' other than self esteem!?

For the same reason Ansel got one - portability.

If your subject doesn't require view camera movements, with modern emulsions, you can't tell the difference between a Hasselblad image and 4x5 at any usual level of magnification when making prints.

The more portable the camera, the more likely you are to take a picture.


I still shoot 4x5, just not as much.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup. Portability. I'm thinking of when the times comes and I can no longer hump LF/ULF around.

 

[Arthurwg]

When was that?

Trying to remember. 76, 77?

 

[mshchem]

Hasselblad has a sale right now on their 100 mp back that fits the 500cm . That would be fun to play with. Not sure what I would do with it. Still 7 grand USD.

 

[Arthurwg]

Hasselblad has a sale right now on their 100 mp back that fits the 500cm . That would be fun to play with. Not sure what I would do with it. Still 7 grand USD.

I don't like the idea that it's not a square format.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I don't like the idea that it's not a square format.

Maybe you have a need for the full 100mp, but as someone using a Fuji GFX 100mp, believe me, the resolution allows for some serious cropping. 75mp is still getting close to view camera resolution (I think, having not seen a real analysis).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, I can tell you that I am not ever going to get a digital back, even if I could afford one.
I'll be heading to our photography/darkroom club meeting this morning... I'm hoping the camera in question will make an appearance, so I can drool over it one more time...Hope he takes a cheque!

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Well, I can tell you that I am not ever going to get a digital back, even if I could afford one.
I'll be heading to our photography/darkroom club meeting this morning... I'm hoping the camera in question will make an appearance, so I can drool over it one more time...Hope he takes a cheque!

Sorry , we are not going to crowd fund for you!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sorry , we are not going to crowd fund for you!

 

[mshchem]

Well, I can tell you that I am not ever going to get a digital back, even if I could afford one.
I'll be heading to our photography/darkroom club meeting this morning... I'm hoping the camera in question will make an appearance, so I can drool over it one more time...Hope he takes a cheque!

Godspeed Andrew O'Neill!!! You are good for 3 orbits!

 

[mshchem]

I wouldn't have a freaking digital back period. Yuck. Would ruin my aura

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm at the meeting. He didn't bring it... which is probably a good thing. I need to give Matt King all of my attention for the demo he's going to give us.

 

[itsdoable]

Hasselblad has a sale right now on their 100 mp back that fits the 500cm . That would be fun to play with. Not sure what I would do with it. Still 7 grand USD.

I wouldn't have a freaking digital back period. Yuck. Would ruin my aura

I'll have to admit that I shoot both Digital and Film on my Hasselblad.

One really useful thing about a digital back is for testing lens centering and focus screen calibration. Way faster than using film. Unless you have access to an optical bench. It's also nice for IR photography, much easier than managing a deep IR film (provided you can find them).

Film gives you the glorious full frame...

 

[DREW WILEY]

We used to have fuzzy little pixels running around here, but the cats caught and ate most of them. Maybe they haven't encountered a megapixel yet - that sounds like some kind of oversized Pleistocene rodent hunted by saber-toothed cats instead.

Until I'm extinct myself, it's going to be a stick-shift truck and real film for me. I don't like "virtual" anything.

 

[DREW WILEY]

chuckr - have you visited an optometrist lately? A pair of prescription glasses might change your mind about the enlargement capacity of 6x6 vs 4x5.

Apples to apples, cropped to the same proportion, it's the diagonal difference between 6X4.5 cm versus almost 4X5 inches. That's quite a difference. I shoot 6x9, which has twice the surface area as 645; and it's still nowhere near in the league of 4x5,
though sufficient up to a point, and convenient in other ways.

 

[Pieter12]

I don't like the idea that it's not a square format.

Easy to crop square. There is a square mask that can be applied so your viewfinder (monitor) image is square.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm at the meeting. He didn't bring it... which is probably a good thing. I need to give Matt King all of my attention for the demo he's going to give us.

He may have read this thread and knows tgg he at your commitment is iffy.

 

[Nokton48]

New to Me Hasselblad ELM Ten Years On The Moon ser 0078 by Nokton48, on Flickr

My 500CM is out for tune up, so I decided on a second 500EL/M, as a backup. Here is my new camera, it's the "Ten Years On The Moon" EL/M numbered #0078. Since this is a backup I wanted something different and this is it. My 500C/M is the Anniversary Edition Numbered and signed by Dr. Hasselblad, so it made sense to me to get the Moon Anniversary model. In the studio I prefer the EL/M model. You can crank a 500C/M a lot faster than an EL/M will cycle. The focusing screen is the CFV16 37x37 Digital Acute Matte Screen, that came with my Digital. This digiphoto is by my EL/M with digital back.
I got a second CFV16 Acute Matte for like $100 which is an absolute steal, they seem to be $600+.

 

[MattKing]

I'm at the meeting. He didn't bring it... which is probably a good thing. I need to give Matt King all of my attention for the demo he's going to give us.

Andrew is a really good, attentive audience .
The demonstration went reasonably well, subject to some challenges inherent in planning a demonstration in someone else's darkroom, a fairly long distance away.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@MattKing you did very well considering the challenges!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Now back to the topic at hand... Currently arranging a "final" meeting with seller in the coming week.
There is still time to talk me out of it!!

 

[chuckroast]

chuckr - have you visited an optometrist lately? A pair of prescription glasses might change your mind about the enlargement capacity of 6x6 vs 4x5.

Apples to apples, cropped to the same proportion, it's the diagonal difference between 6X4.5 cm versus almost 4X5 inches. That's quite a difference. I shoot 6x9, which has twice the surface area as 645; and it's still nowhere near in the league of 4x5,
though sufficient up to a point, and convenient in other ways.

Recall I stipulated this for ordinary magnifications. Up to 11x14 - which is the majority of what people print - I doubt you'd see significant differences. If you put a loupe on the print, sure but that's not how prints are supposed to be experienced.

 

[lecarp]

Recall I stipulated this for ordinary magnifications. Up to 11x14 - which is the majority of what people print - I doubt you'd see significant differences. If you put a loupe on the print, sure but that's not how prints are supposed to be experienced.