Investing in one vs. trying them all

[LMNOP]

G.A.S is a real pain.... I turn to APUG for guidance, as always. I'm sure this is the worst group to ask about this, but I struggle with my medium format purchases.

I've pretty much settled on two cameras that I believe to be perfect. Saving for new pieces, I am faced with the decision of investing more and more into my current kit/backup body, or try new MF a SLRs? I love my RZ and all that I've accomplished with it, and I want to continue my experience with this kit, hopefully get paid work using it, and my kit is pretty minimal right now. I also have a burning desire to get a 500CM, and if they weren't so damn pricey I would have by now. It feels like a major deterrent from building my mamiya arsenal, am I wrong?

how do you balance the practical purchases with the flat out distractions? Does anyone think a 500 series would give me substantially better portraits?

 

[Alan Gales]

I have owned both and I preferred the RZ67 for portraiture. The 500CM is better for carrying around though. Neither will give you substantially better portraits than the other. Practice will though.

 

[LMNOP]

I have owned both and I preferred the RZ67 for portraiture. The 500CM is better for carrying around though. Neither will give you substantially better portraits than the other. Practice will though.

Well said. I guess part of this is that I've seen a major improvement in my work on the RZ, having shot is so much this past year, I actually understand how to nail a portrait just right. The carrying around factor is pretty big though, it feels like I should always have my tripod, so the work has no spontanity.

 

[Alan Gales]

Well said. I guess part of this is that I've seen a major improvement in my work on the RZ, having shot is so much this past year, I actually understand how to nail a portrait just right. The carrying around factor is pretty big though, it feels like I should always have my tripod, so the work has no spontanity.

When I owned my RZ I mostly used it on a tripod with studio lights. For shooting handheld I also owned a Pentax 645Nll. I mostly shot it at events like many shoot 35mm.

If curiosity is really getting to you and you really can't afford both systems (RZ and Hasselblad) then maybe pick up a Bronica 6x6 with a couple lenses and try it out. If you buy right and later sell you will at worst get most of your money back. Consider any loss a cheap rental fee.

 

[markbarendt]

Well said. I guess part of this is that I've seen a major improvement in my work on the RZ, having shot is so much this past year, I actually understand how to nail a portrait just right. The carrying around factor is pretty big though, it feels like I should always have my tripod, so the work has no spontanity.

Monopods are way cool for out and about.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Forget the others and buy the Hasselblad. You will never look back.

 

[Alan Gales]

When David Bailey wanted spontaneity, he grabbed a 35mm camera which was a big deal back in the 1960's London fashion photography scene.

 

[frank]

500cm would give you mobility/handholdability advantages over the RZ.

 

[LMNOP]

500cm would give you mobility/handholdability advantages over the RZ.

Thats what I am looking for, especially for winter and fall hiking. Less gear, further distance.

 

[DannL.]

I am squarely in the "try them all camp". And I can say that for the cameras that have interested me, I have tried them. Now I have returned to the type of camera that first caught my fancy many years ago. I am pleased. It's not fantastic. There are no great lenses to buy for it. No bells and whistles. But, it pegs my fun-meter, and it fits my personality. The exposures don't come out too bad either. I think that is what really counts.

My wedding photographs were made from negatives from a Hassy. They could have been made just as easily on 35mm.

 

[LMNOP]

I am squarely in the "try them all camp". And I can say that for the cameras that have interested me, I have tried them. Now I have returned to the type of camera that first caught my fancy many years ago. I am pleased. It's not fantastic. There are no great lenses to buy for it. No bells and whistles. But, it pegs my fun-meter, and it fits my personality. The exposures don't come out too bad either. I think that is what really counts.

My wedding photographs were made from negatives from a Hassy. They could have been made just as easily on 35mm.

What do you mean by this? While I shoot MF almost exclusively, I have recently considered devolving (on the less artistic occasions) to the camera I shot in school, an outdated canon eos with a fixed focal length lens. It was basic but I didn't use a case. Just slung it over my shoulder. What makes you think the hassy is not much better than 35?

 

[frank]

There is a clear and obvious difference in technical quality (artistic quality aside) between 35mm and MF.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Try as many as you can to see what suits you best, but try to invest in one and master it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

500cm would give you mobility/handholdability advantages over the RZ.

+1,000

Availability of parts and service. Plus square is the perfect format.

 

[DannL.]

What do you mean by this? While I shoot MF almost exclusively, I have recently considered devolving (on the less artistic occasions) to the camera I shot in school, an outdated canon eos with a fixed focal length lens. It was basic but I didn't use a case. Just slung it over my shoulder. What makes you think the hassy is not much better than 35?

Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to steer you in any particular direction. I think it's good if you can try and test as many cameras types as possible. Then you can say that one type fits you better than another. It's just like buying shoes. With regard to the Hasselblad and the wedding portraits . . . I'm saying that mine could have been taken with a 35mm had the photographer chosen to do so. He could have used his skills and produced prints that were equivalent. Had I not noticed his camera in the studio, I would have never known what camera he used by just looking at the final prints. He could have also made the same prints with 4x5, but he chose the Hasselblad. That was his choice. And that was also 30 years ago.

Sometimes the type camera you drive is just for showing off, while other times it's a necessity. I like to balance the two. "I'll bet that won't go over well". ;-)

 

[film_man]

You have to try them all. Otherwise there is always the "what if". The good thing is that even though it is pricey to get a Hassy you can sell it (and actually pretty much anything MF nowadays, not just Hasselblads) for what you paid. So while you will have to pay a lot when owning multiple systems, once you dump what you don't need you will not lose out vs just buying one system.

One thing with the RB/RZ vs the Hassy is that while you get portability with the Hassy you loose 2 stops handheld (I can handhold the RB at 1/15, the Hassy never below 1/60) and the close focus ability so in the end portability may not mean much if you can't do what you want to do. In any case the Hassy lenses are spectacular in their own way but so is the RB/RZ glass and you are not losing out in quality with either system, you just get square vs rectangle, a slightly different lens signature and a very different user experience.

I had Hasselblads for 5 years, now I have a RB but and have been Hassy and hassle free for 2 years now but I think I'll get my hands on a Hassy 200 series once I have some spare cash, that 1/2000 top shutter speed would be cool to try. Right after I get my hands on a Mamiya 6.

 

[LMNOP]

You have to try them all. Otherwise there is always the "what if". The good thing is that even though it is pricey to get a Hassy you can sell it (and actually pretty much anything MF nowadays, not just Hasselblads) for what you paid. So while you will have to pay a lot when owning multiple systems, once you dump what you don't need you will not lose out vs just buying one system.

One thing with the RB/RZ vs the Hassy is that while you get portability with the Hassy you loose 2 stops handheld (I can handhold the RB at 1/15, the Hassy never below 1/60) and the close focus ability so in the end portability may not mean much if you can't do what you want to do. In any case the Hassy lenses are spectacular in their own way but so is the RB/RZ glass and you are not losing out in quality with either system, you just get square vs rectangle, a slightly different lens signature and a very different user experience.

I had Hasselblads for 5 years, now I have a RB but and have been Hassy and hassle free for 2 years now but I think I'll get my hands on a Hassy 200 series once I have some spare cash, that 1/2000 top shutter speed would be cool to try. Right after I get my hands on a Mamiya 6.

Haha I like this response... the Mamiya 6 & 7 have haunted me for a long time now, if you have seen my posts you'd know. But something about the Hassy mythology really grabs me, I've always wanted to try one out, if only for the user experience and to see my work forced into a square, not just cropped.

Why is the minimum shutter speed 1/60 for handheld? I have shot my RZ as low as 1/30 handheld no problem.

 

[film_man]

Haha I like this response... the Mamiya 6 & 7 have haunted me for a long time now, if you have seen my posts you'd know. But something about the Hassy mythology really grabs me, I've always wanted to try one out, if only for the user experience and to see my work forced into a square, not just cropped.

Why is the minimum shutter speed 1/60 for handheld? I have shot my RZ as low as 1/30 handheld no problem.

Maybe you can do better than me but with the Hassy 1/60 was the min I could shoot without shake showing up. With the RB I can do 1/15 without a problem.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Monopods are way cool for out and about.

+1 monopods are great and unfortunately underated

 

[DannL.]

You are probably already aware . . . http://www.anseladams.com/photography-lesson-moon-and-half-dome-by-ansel-adams/

I acquired a later 70's print of Moon and Half Dome, and while researching it found the reference to Hasselblad. There's hope for us mortals after all.

 

[gone]

35mm would be more appropriate, and much "better" for out and about portraits. I wouldn't call those type of pics portraits exactly. Perhaps grab shots, which could be good head shots. You can find phenomenally good 35mm glass in 90 and 135 focal lengths for peanuts, and the latter will keep you far enough from the victim so that there are no problems. W/ a big, loud, heavy MF camera that has to be closer, problems can occur. Spontaneity goes right out the window. TLRs are also great for quick portraits. A Rolleicord w/ a sports finder and Triotar lens is the bomb, especially as people tend to feel comfortable and relaxed around TLRs.

In the first photo, the guy never knew that I took it, and the second shot of the wife was taken many years ago in a coffee house that had really good light (the main ingredient to a portrait). Both shots were spontaneous and shot very quickly. Cost of the gear that took the first pic was $40, and about the same on the second pic (FT QL w/ SC FD 135 2.5, and Pentax K1000 w/ 50 lens). They both have lots of problems, but I like them. For formal set portraits, you have the gear already. For optimal outdoor shooting, or anywhere, get yourself an R 90 Summicron.

 

[Jim Jones]

There is a clear and obvious difference in technical quality (artistic quality aside) between 35mm and MF.

Yes, indeed. Someone who needs or really wants the technical edge of MF over 35mm should use MF. Others may find that selecting good 35mm equipment and honing their technique more practical. For a few decades my career involved travelling light, so I rarely used MF or LF. I had no need for really large prints. In retirement I occasionally use LF where it is obviously superior, but find small cameras usually adequate. Good enough is good enough.

 

[Alan Gales]

Maybe you can do better than me but with the Hassy 1/60 was the min I could shoot without shake showing up. With the RB I can do 1/15 without a problem.

It wasn't you. It was the mirror slap of the Hassy.

I saw a test where they compared a Rolleiflex TLR, RZ67, Hasselblad 500CM, and I believe a Pentax 6x7. Unsurprisingly the Rolleiflex came in first place for hand holding. The RZ came in second and the Hasselblad came in dead last. Of course shooting at a faster shutter speed eliminated the problem.

I'd say that the best walk around medium format cameras are the Rolleiflex TLR, Fuji rangefinders, and Mamiya 6 or 7. Of course some may disagree.

 

[4season]

I've owned a whole lot of medium format gear including several Hasselblads. But my single most successful medium format walk-around camera was the Fujifilm GA645zi (zoom), followed by the Mamiya 6 w/75mm lens and Fujifilm GA645 (prime). Why? All were relatively compact and worked very well as all-around shooters. Very much liked the GA645zi's data imprinting outside of the image area too.

Very much like the Fujifilm 6x9 cameras but kind of a waste of film versus 6x4.5 if your shooting style is looser and there might be some camera shake, and when you see what one of these can do under ideal conditions, you won't want anything less than perfect!

 

[houstonphotographics]

I have both an RB and a Bronica SQaI system, the 6x6 having 5 lenses. Used the 6x6 more than the 67. Love the SQ with the exception of the battery design being pesky.Would like to know what the OP ends up doing. Just following this thread..