Is this becoming a Hasselblad forum?

[eli griggs]

Though some non-Hazdelblad owners might "feel the need" of defending their decisions not to buy Hasselblad, and while some Hasselblad users, like myself will sometimes kid them about the decisions they've taken there are no Camera Police here.

If I or others vigorously point out our perceived value of these V Series cameras, well, there's little point to making half hearted 'presentations' of anything.

Non-Hasselblad owners who have chosen different should argue back their own points, with the shear expense of everything Hasselblad, being a major point.

There is a never ending line of cameras and their users on this Forums site, and I think it's great to be exposed to each and every one of them, as they are presented here.

Godspeed and Cheers,
Eli

 

[RezaLoghme]

Many people mention that a RF camera is "better" than a SLR/TLR because you can "see" the image with both eyes open.

Well, Hasselblad would not be Hasselgod if they hadn't thought of an even better solution: The Wire Frame Finder! More "eyes wide shut" is not possible!

 

[Don_ih]

The Wire Frame Finder!

While I don't think the Avus was the first, it beat Hasselblad byover 40 years.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Hasselblad has 2 different ones, even with masks for 80mm, 150mm etc.

High five, or rather: High 500CM!

 

[Don_ih]

Hasselblad has 2 different ones

You're probably not familiar with the wacky sports finder in the Rolleiflex standard - the one that has a tiny mirror in the middle you're supposed to line up such that you can see your own iris in it....

 

[RezaLoghme]

Maybe, but Roleyflexes TLRs have fixed lenses: HB wins!

 

[MattKing]

The sports finder is built into the hood on the standard WLF on my Mamiya C330 - interchangeable lenses as well.
You do have to add masks though for different lenses.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yeah, but the Mamiya TLRs do not have interchangeabe backs for 4x4 or 6x4.5 film or polaroid or digital, only for 220 and plates.

Boss-elblad1: Mammamiya: 0


Hblad is always the overall winner on all counts, so much that the Count von Count would stop counting his Hassel-bats in his castle.

 

[Luckless]

Yeah, but the Mamiya TLRs do not have interchangeabe backs for 4x4 or 6x4.5 film or polaroid or digital, only for 220 and plates.

Boss-elblad1: Mammamiya: 0


Hblad is always the overall winner on all counts, so much that the Count von Count would stop counting his Hassel-bats in his castle.

Hasselblad's ability to effectively and accurately focus with a 10 or 15 stop ND filter or any deeply coloured filter on...

Cost...

 

[RezaLoghme]

When compared to Rollei 6xxx, Mamiya Rx oder Zenza Broncia, same cost/better resale value...

 

[RezaLoghme]

Hasselblad's ability to effectively and accurately focus with a 10 or 15 stop ND filter or any deeply coloured filter on...

Not a Hasselblad-specific problem.

You can try and try, but HB WINS

 

[Hassasin]

When compared to Rollei 6xxx, Mamiya Rx oder Zenza Broncia, same cost/better resale value...

Just not better quality, egos indeed swing wild on HB anything, but on ocassions some common sense is present.

 

[Luckless]

Not a Hasselblad-specific problem.

You can try and try, but HB WINS

Sure, Hasselblad isn't the only camera that loses on that end, but there are plenty of cameras that score solid wins in that regard. That's why I have such cameras and not a Hasselblad for that style of photography.

As for suggesting Mamiya RBs are in the same cost/better resale value group, in my view Hasselblad scores 0 to 3 on that regard - I have 3 RBs, and still haven't spent as much as I would have on even a single good quality 501cm [Without a lens...] is going for in my neck of the woods.

For a camera that you claim 'wins' so much, it is weird that it has never excelled at anything well enough for me to justify getting one for myself, while plenty of other cameras that do things far better than it have.

 

[RezaLoghme]

For a camera that you claim 'wins' so much, it is weird that it has never excelled at anything well enough for me to justify getting one for myself, while plenty of other cameras that do things far better than it have.

Maybe it's your, not her...

 

[Hassasin]

And it fits so well in the hand. Despite the terrible shutter designs of the first versions (I long ago owned a 1000F until shutter died), the overall design excels all other SLR MF designs in dependability and practice. Younger Hassy users may not realize how expensive these cameras and lenses were when new, but V cameras proved to be good investment in long run.

I don't know of another system getting this much praise while requiring so much milking to remain "reliable". Never mind the built in awkwardness in handling, that some claim to love, many can't stand. Myself - I'm somewhere in the middle, and would never tell anyone to go blind and just buy a Hasselblad.

In many ways I like Hasselblad, in several I don't. At the end of the day the system is overblown by many, but it does help to stick with something, learn it, and then use it to its best advantage, whichever system that might be.

I envy those who only have one and focus on what they use it for. But not everyone will enjoy photography with just one kit. Taking another brings on different experience, one that might just give the needed variety in order to continue the journey. Sort of same thing for musicians, how many guitarists are out there who play well, could easily excel on just one, but own only one? Different sound aside, each gives different to vastly different experience.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Sort of same thing for musicians, how many guitarists are out there who play well, could easily excel on just one, but own only one? Different sound aside, each gives different to vastly different experience.

How many guitar playes became famous by using an Ibanez? Even George Benson built his fame on Guild and D'Angelico guitars before becoming lured into an endorsement deal. Or imagine Keith Emerson on a Roland SH-101 insead of a mighty Minimoog. Like A. Adams with a plastic-body RZ.

It is the same and it is not the same. I go for the real thing, always. Staying true to my values.

 

[Hassasin]

How many guitar playes became famous by using an Ibanez? Even George Benson built his fame on Guild and D'Angelico guitars before becoming lured into an endorsement deal. Or imagine Keith Emerson on a Roland SH-101 insead of a mighty Minimoog. Like A. Adams with a plastic-body RZ.

It is the same and it is not the same. I go for the real thing, always. Staying true to my values.

In other words a photograph made with Hasselblad is better than one taken with say a Mamiya, just because it was shot with a Hasselblad? Or music played on a Gibson is better than one played on a Harley Benton, just because? Good luck with that argument.

If it weren't for an Ibanez, or Harley Benton, or several other "lesser" brands, we would have never had so much great music created.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Nice try, but I am not taking the bait.

How many Zenza Bronica photographs became famous? In RZ's defence, the Windows start-up screen pic is "famous". And, yes, Ann Leibovitz.

 

[Don_ih]

How many Zenza Bronica photographs became famous?

Who knows? And what counts as famous, anyway? The camera used is generally not cited in an advertisement or photo spread in a magazine.
That someone used a Hasselblad well doesn't imply a different camera couldn't have been used just as well.

If you want to praise Hasselblad, you really don't need to mention any other cameras.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am just asking. Don't be offended just because of facts. But I am happy to learn about the world-class photographers who decided against the best tools, and - Bilderberg, Bilderberg, kept it a global secret.

 

[Don_ih]

Don't be offended just because of facts. But I am happy to learn about the world-class photographers who decided against the best tools

You can't offend me.

There are and were far more "world-class" photographers than you could ever possibly count. I'm sure plenty of them used lots of different cameras, depending what they were doing - in which case, they were using what they considered the "best" tools. In many instances, the "best" tool is the one you have.

Anyway, to nudge you a little further, consider the fact that all (not just some) of those Bronica 6x6 and 645 cameras were sold to professional photographers. They were priced out of the range of amateurs. It's a bit asinine to question "How many Zenza Bronica photographs became famous?"

 

[RezaLoghme]

I guess if you look at various rankings, halls of fame etc., that gives you a good, half-way plausible data set of "world class" photographers. And, not, I am pretty sure that the number of photographers who enjoyed global recognition is not infinite.

And "professional" photographers are something else. The Mamiya 23 and its siblings had to earn many dollars for their owners, and my guess is that a majority of the pics taken with them were wedding photographs, passport pics etc.

You can try and move the goalposts but it is not leading anywhere.

 

[Don_ih]

photographers who enjoyed global recognition

is not the same as "world-class" photographers. It takes a lot more than a photographer to make a photo recognized worldwide - and it almost never has anything to do with what camera was used.

The Hasselblads also had to "earn many dollars for their owners". Professional photography is what paid for those cameras, also. I have a 500C, purchased in a case with some filters and a couple of lenses - and a business card (featuring a gold-embossed graphic of a Hasselblad) for a wedding photographer. I suppose she had no business owning it? Or was it supposed to make her famous?

 

[RezaLoghme]

I guess I will just agree with all you say, so we can close the debate.

 

[chuckroast]

I guess I will just agree with all you say, so we can close the debate.

The last time I looked in my toolbox, I had cameras (and supporting glass) from, let's see ... Nikon, Leica, Fuji, Mamiya, Yashica, Graflex, Zeiss, Wisner, and yes, Hasselblad. I've used or owned many more brands over the course of a 50 year life in photography.

They are paintbrushes. You use the right one for the right effect and/or in the right place and/or at the right time. Each one of these causes me to "see" somewhat differently. That's true even for the same format. I work differently with a Yashica TLR than I do the 'Blad. Ditto a Nikon 35mm SLR, vs. a Leica rangefinder.

Moreover, at the age of these machines, they all need maintenance (just like me!). In my direct observation, they mostly are about the same in terms of needing upkeep. The most important thing you can do is fire all the shutters every month or two to keep the lubricants from packing.

What I notice in these equipment wars is the complete absence of example photographs. That IS the point of all this, no? Here are some scans of silver prints for you to make fun of - see if you can guess the equipment that produced the negative from which they were printed:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20240423-1-01-Logged_Out.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20240323-1-15-Framed.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20240203-1-15-Hosed_Up.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230921-1-10-Nailed_It.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230825-1-25-Love_In_Vein.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/19930816-1-10-Pecking_Order.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230525-1-14-Firmly_Planted.jpg