Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

[Mike Lopez]

The day I'm given a Hasselblad is the day I join that team. For now I don't have one nor can I afford one.

Easy fix: go to the classifieds and ask for one for ten bucks. (The irony of post #274 in light of the Leica request is just dripping.)

 

[Cholentpot]

Easy fix: go to the classifieds and ask for one for ten bucks. (The irony of post #274 in light of the Leica request is just dripping.)

Oh I'll get one some day. It'll just float into my lap. I wont even have to ask. Yep yep yep.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For now I don't have one nor can I afford one.

Same here, only I don't need one, either. I have an RB67. And a couple 6x7 on 220 backs, as well as 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7 (and 6x9, but I can't cover that frame, quite) on 120. And if I'm feeling retro, all of those backs will fit my Century Graphic, too (and it will cover 6x9).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Look what I've started.

I'm on Team TLR because they look cooler. Plain and simple. And the Mamiya C line look twice as cool because they're twice as big. And it says 'Professional' on the front.

I am very happy with your decision. Now I do not have to worry about you competing with me for Hasselblad lenses and film backs. Thank you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have yet to see how the Hasselblad 500 series, the Zeiss lenses, the backs and all the other wonderful bits and pieces have been "bettered"

Those lenses and bodies are still the standard bearers for 6x6 analog cameras, medium format SLRs and the almost boxed 6"x6"s such as Pentax, Rollie (135), etc.

Even though the current Hasselblad digital MF cameras and backs are no made by the same company as that which made the 500cm I carry, that some of those dbacks can fit and function on that camera and other 500 series bodies attest to the enduring vision of their creators, with it's small, marvelous form factor and the best glass in the World.

Show us a camera that even meets the fullness of the analog paradigm of the 500cm, much less the digital enhancements in today's World and perhaps we'll better understand your reasoning.

Film backs allow me to switch between color and black & white, infrared film, and film speed all options for every subject.

 

[Cholentpot]

Same here, only I don't need one, either. I have an RB67. And a couple 6x7 on 220 backs, as well as 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7 (and 6x9, but I can't cover that frame, quite) on 120. And if I'm feeling retro, all of those backs will fit my Century Graphic, too (and it will cover 6x9).

Century Graphic for me when I need to cover 6x7 and 6x9. Does a fine job.

I am very happy with your decision. Now I do not have to worry about you competing with me for Hasselblad lenses and film backs. Thank you.

Much obliged.

 

[eli griggs]

Film backs allow me to switch between color and black & white, infrared film, and film speed all options for every subject.

That's a big part of why I recommend that those that want the best medium format analog cameras go to the 500 series Hasselblads.

More actual workflow on a location, set, or with expensive models make multiple backs/films the best bang for the buck, IMO.

 

[eli griggs]

They do sell bulk rolls of 46 mm during their annual custom cut event -- don't know that I've heard of them doing the same in 61.5 mm, but I don't know any reason they wouldn't if enough people ordered it. A hundred foot roll of that would yield 17 or so rolls of 220...

The cost of 70mm hp5+ is grown too high for simply 50' of film, for just over three A-70 cassettes, at 15' each, plus five feet, more if you load with dead film tails and tongues, and you can always load less than 15' cassettes, for example, for a set of normal, neg.1 or plus one short rolls for Zone System outings.

I would be happy to see rolls of 46mm bulk films in HP5+, if affordable.

 

[Helge]

My A-70 backs hold up to about 65-70 frames, vs. the A-24, vs A-16 (4x4), vs. A-12, plus the cut film holder in their little inserts.

Plus the polaroid and Instax instant film backs and the (cursed) digitals.

There may be even a tiny negative or paper printer one day, invented by other Hasselblad owners.

My backs are in sync, all have original inserts and I have spare, new dark slides, In case I forget to insert the dark slide into the holder on the back and loose one, though I am entirely capable to make new brass, bronze, etc dark slides on my own.

Lens quality of Zeiss glass and leaf shuttered lenses are very much the apex optical glass, in medium format, and continue to be the prize in pursuit by other analog lens makers, plus the "V" lenses shutters are repairable by the owner, if they dare to learn how and do it themselves.

These lenses, up to the 350 and 500mm (plus teleconverter, if you roll that way) give you reach beyond any TLR I know of, but, rare, bespoken tech may exist somewhere but no in competition to with these lenses.


Ask folks here to post shots from their 180mm lenses or macro from the 135mm or 120mm lenses on bellows do you can see but a sample of why The Hasselblad 500 series, the Flex and arc bodies, etc, when the shooter is in the mood or need, are worth their weight in the Studio and, the field.

As I said before show us a camera that matches the Hasselblad 500 system, in a very wide selection of abilities, if you can.

We'll be waiting...

Cheers

There is a quote function you know Eli.

Look…
I’m not saying the Hasselblad system is bad, or even that I wouldn’t like to own one with an assortment of lenses, given the chance.

Problem is, all of the time when I see a Hasselblad in the wild, and talk with owners it’s with the standard 80mm/f2.8.
A lens that is terrific but not leaps and bounds above the competition and is even outdone by a few other 6x6 normal lenses.
If they own other lenses it’s very rare that they actually use them.

The second you get into other focal lengths, problems arise.
The wides has the typical problems of wides on an SLR with added tele optics to focus beyond the mirror, with all the problems of optical degradation, loss of speed, weight and size. Only scaled up.
Hasselblad even made a body that addressed that particular problem. In which case the advantages of the system starts to thin out, if you need whole different bodies.

That leaves long lenses. The portrait/medium long lenses are superb, I’ll give you that.
But they are also insanely expensive and/or slow and takes the camera from moderately luggable to a chore and a liability.
And you can in fact make portraits just fine with an 80mm lens.
You can even crop to gain some tele effect, without getting into 135 grain territory.

The longer long lenses are just ridiculous.
Apart from being so expensive that you could buy a superb ED APO short refractor telescope for the price, still have money left over and get better results, they are also so heavy that you will have to carry a tripod.
And to get the sharpness worthy of the format too, you have to stop down so much with EI 100 rated film that you are into dangerously low speeds.
Again, good ideas don’t often scale.

So in short, these lenses are just not practical.
People like the idea of them more, than they actually own and use them.

If you look at studio use mainly, there is the Mamiya RB series that is at least as good with much more bang for the buck, but a lot bigger and heavier. But that’s OK because they were mainly meant for tripod use and in a studio.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is a quote function you know Eli.

Look…
I’m not saying the Hasselblad system is bad, or even that I wouldn’t like to own one with an assortment of lenses, given the chance.

Problem is, all of the time when I see a Hasselblad in the wild, and talk with owners it’s with the standard 80mm/f2.8.
A lens that is terrific but not leaps and bounds above the competition and is even outdone by a few other 6x6 normal lenses.
If they own other lenses it’s very rare that they actually use them.

It is the optics and the system.

The second you get into other focal lengths, problems arise.
The wides has the typical problems of wides on an SLR with added tele optics to focus beyond the mirror, with all the problems of optical degradation, loss of speed, weight and size. Only scaled up.
Hasselblad even made a body that addressed that particular problem. In which case the advantages of the system starts to thin out, if you need whole different bodies.

This is not a problem with Hasselblads.

That leaves long lenses. The portrait/medium long lenses are superb, I’ll give you that.
But they are also insanely expensive and/or slow and takes the camera from moderately luggable to a chore and a liability.
And you can in fact make portraits just fine with an 80mm lens.
You can even crop to gain some tele effect, without getting into 135 grain territory.

Not so, a few years ago I bought a 500mm C lens for ~$480US with a discount the KEH offered to me.

The longer long lenses are just ridiculous.
Apart from being so expensive that you could buy a superb ED APO short refractor telescope for the price, still have money left over and get better results, they are also so heavy that you will have to carry a tripod.
And to get the sharpness worthy of the format too, you have to stop down so much with EI 100 rated film that you are into dangerously low speeds.
Again, good ideas don’t often scale.

The 1750mm Hasselblad is too hard to find one available and its price would be pricey.

So in short, these lenses are just not practical.
People like the idea of them more, than they actually own and use them.

If you look at studio use mainly, there is the Mamiya RB series that is at least as good with much more bang for the buck, but a lot bigger and heavier. But that’s OK because they were mainly meant for tripod use and in a studio.

The RB requires that male users wear a truss if they are going to carry around and use hand held.

 

[mshchem]

Now I want a White Russian

 

[MattKing]

I was sad to sell my RB67 system a couple of years ago - space issues and a move mandated that the body, the accessories and the 4 lenses had to go. The selling price was about the same as most Hasselblad lenses, and the larger negative size gave me results that were as good or better than the Hasselblad shot negatives I printed in the past.
If I was in the market to buy another medium format system I'd buy an RB67 system again in a heartbeat - long before I'd buy a Hasselblad.
I was 64 when I sold my RB67. I used it for handheld work on a regular basis, although more commonly I carried it, a couple of lenses, some accessories and a tripod as I traipsed through the woods and trails and other interesting locations - often a few kilometres at a time.
The RB67 is bulky. But if you need to have assists to help you carry it, it probably means you should restrict your photography to something with more limited capabilities, in order to protect your health.

 

[Cholentpot]

It is the optics and the system.

This is not a problem with Hasselblads.

Not so, a few years ago I bought a 500mm C lens for ~$480US with a discount the KEH offered to me.

The 1750mm Hasselblad is too hard to find one available and its price would be pricey.


The RB requires that male users wear a truss if they are going to carry around and use hand held.

I prefer my Bronica S2.

 

[Helge]

I was sad to sell my RB67 system a couple of years ago - space issues and a move mandated that the body, the accessories and the 4 lenses had to go. The selling price was about the same as most Hasselblad lenses, and the larger negative size gave me results that were as good or better than the Hasselblad shot negatives I printed in the past.
If I was in the market to buy another medium format system I'd buy an RB67 system again in a heartbeat - long before I'd buy a Hasselblad.
I was 64 when I sold my RB67. I used it for handheld work on a regular basis, although more commonly I carried it, a couple of lenses, some accessories and a tripod as I traipsed through the woods and trails and other interesting locations - often a few kilometres at a time.
The RB67 is bulky. But if you need to have assists to help you carry it, it probably means you should restrict your photography to something with more limited capabilities, in order to protect your health.

Well then you “just” brought the studio with you. That is definitely an option.
But realistically most amateur photographers don’t have the time and dedication to pack that kind of gear and lug it along more than maybe once or twice a year.
They need something that can, irritating as it sounds, be combined with a vacation, a country side trip with family, a quick spontaneous joyride, or just a walk around the block.
An anchor of a camera plus three lenses a tripod and misc. is not compatible with the above.

 

[mshchem]

Same here, only I don't need one, either. I have an RB67. And a couple 6x7 on 220 backs, as well as 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7 (and 6x9, but I can't cover that frame, quite) on 120. And if I'm feeling retro, all of those backs will fit my Century Graphic, too (and it will cover 6x9).

I remember when I first experienced an RB in the early 70's, the fact that one could use Graphic roll backs made these wonderful cameras seem more affordable. Still couldn't afford one then.

 

[mshchem]

I did a ton of out and about photography with my RZ67II, 110mm lens and a left hand grip, never fooled trying to carry the AE prism as it's quite heavy. I love most medium format cameras.

 

[MattKing]

Well then you “just” brought the studio with you. That is definitely an option.
But realistically most amateur photographers don’t have the time and dedication to pack that kind of gear and lug it along more than maybe once or twice a year.
They need something that can, irritating as it sounds, be combined with a vacation, a country side trip with family, a quick spontaneous joyride, or just a walk around the block.
An anchor of a camera plus three lenses a tripod and misc. is not compatible with the above.

While I don't disagree with you about the needs of "most", I also don't think that Hasselblads are the answer for them.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was responding to the "truss" post.
And for clarity, the RB67 and lenses and accessories fit nicely in one fairly large shoulder bag.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The RB requires that male users wear a truss if they are going to carry around and use hand held.

A user who needs this might either be a candidate for surgery, or need to spend more time in the gym.

I remember when I first experienced an RB in the early 70's, the fact that one could use Graphic roll backs made these wonderful cameras seem more affordable. Still couldn't afford one then.

Not to mention the increased versatility. I've got 6x7 and 6x4.5 Mamiya backs (Pro models), 6x6 and 6x9 Graflex backs, plus one of each in 6x7 on 220 (ProS and RH20 respectively). I don't know that Mamiya ever sold a 6x6 back for these, and the 6x4.5 is apparently "less common". Back when 2x3 was a viable sheet format (as was the case when these were fresh) you could also mount a 2x3 Grafmatic, and there were pack-film Polaroid backs (still to be found, but film not so much), which didn't rotate but did expose the full 8x8(ish) body opening onto the Polaroid material. Add the (metered and unmetered) chimney viewfinders, (metered and meterless) prism finders (the last of which used mirrors instead to save significant weight), and the sports finder that mounts to the accessory shoe on the left side of the body, plus the three different side handle options, and IMO this is a more versatile system than anything Hasselblad ever offered.

Yes, Hasselblad offered the SWC and superwide lens(es), but with a screw-on attachment, I can get a rectilinear 23 mm on my RB with 50 mm lens, and if I were made of money, there's a 37b mm fisheye. And if I had one of those antigravity pallets to carry stuff, there are also 360 and 500 lenses for the RB.

 

[BrianShaw]

I prefer

That’s all that really matters.

 

[Cholentpot]

That’s all that really matters.

I prefer it because I have one. If I had a Hasselblad I'd be telling everyone that it's the greatest camera of all time and you're all fools for not having it so there.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If I had a Hasselblad I'd be telling everyone that it's the greatest camera of all time and you're all fools for not having it so there.

Hey, that's the same "killer feature" my RB67 has! Who knew?

 

[Duceman]

Problem is, all of the time when I see a Hasselblad in the wild, and talk with owners it’s with the standard 80mm/f2.8.
A lens that is terrific but not leaps and bounds above the competition and is even outdone by a few other 6x6 normal lenses.
If they own other lenses it’s very rare that they actually use them.

I am by no means a professional photographer, but I have found truth in the above statement. In taking my Hassy out "in the wild" I rarely, if ever, carried anything more than the 80mm Planar. The advantage in hauling along the Hassy, to me, was the ability to change film stocks. But since getting a TLR (or two), it's just as easy to carry along two TLR's with differing film stocks (if that's what I wanted to do), and not deal with the bulk of the Hassy when taking shots. In that regard, I now rarely take my Hassy "in the wild" instead sometimes opting for a TLR.

 

[Cholentpot]

Hey, that's the same "killer feature" my RB67 has! Who knew?

The same feature for -insert latest camera that I bought- has! It's something else.

 

[benjiboy]

220 film stands about as much chance of a comeback as Kodachrome, in the current climate I'm just thankful that film of any format is still being manufactured.

 

[Cholentpot]

220 film stands about as much chance of a comeback as Kodachrome.

Yet it's still being sold fresh. Kodachrome can't even be developed.