Lets be honest!

[Sirius Glass]

Sure. I'm an amateur now too and CLA doesn't cross my mind. I wanted to explain that I had extensive experience with Hasselblad, trading them for something else I had extensive experience with, and why I traded them. I stand by my opinion making B/W images you won't see any pertinent difference in prints between the Blad and other pro level MF cameras of the time. That said I'm a long term Zeiss fan and have a couple Zeiss lenses for my Rollei

It is about the optics, the system and the ergonomics.

 

[Pieter12]

It is about the optics, the system and the ergonomics.

The Rollei SLRs (SL66, 6008, Hy6) have excellent, some may say superior, optics and an extensive system and fine ergonomics.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Rollei SLRs (SL66, 6008, Hy6) have excellent, some may say superior, optics and an extensive system and fine ergonomics.

Yes, but available parts and lenses are less than those for Hasselblad. Also Rolleo SLR service is not as available which is a shame for a MF camera which has movements.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm not trying to further muddy the waters here, and I am truly curious to hear what the members here that use Hasselblad a lot have to say. Are there any "cult" Hasselblad lenses? I fully realize that this question depends a bit upon your subject matter. In the 4x5 world it would seem like the Schneider 150mm Xenotar has a cult like following. As I understand it, the reasons that lens has the cult like following make it less sought after if all you tend to shoot are landscapes.
So, are there any odd-ball Hasselblad lenses that give a "look" like no other?

 

[Randy Stewart]

Further note, Tamron lenses are built by Bronica and I have two of their AF zoom lenses.

Not quite. Bronica went insolvent. Tamron bought up the company, mainly to acquire some patents Bronica held. Tamron continued to operate parts of Bronica for several years in a fairly brutal manner, the most aggreges of which IMO was to issue the Bronica RF645 before it was properly finished and tuned for public sale. This resulted in what might have been one of the finest 645 camera systems ever made landing like a broken, high priced turd on the backs of its very few, unfortunate buyers.

 

[Steven Lee]

I'm not trying to further muddy the waters here, and I am truly curious to hear what the members here that use Hasselblad a lot have to say. Are there any "cult" Hasselblad lenses? I fully realize that this question depends a bit upon your subject matter. In the 4x5 world it would seem like the Schneider 150mm Xenotar has a cult like following. As I understand it, the reasons that lens has the cult like following make it less sought after if all you tend to shoot are landscapes.
So, are there any odd-ball Hasselblad lenses that give a "look" like no other?

My view is NO, and this situation is unique (or rare). The incredible consistency between Hasselblad lenses is one of the reasons I am attracted to it. You can find MTF curves and spend hours bending over a light table armed with a 10x loupe and you may find some variations, but no other system I've ever used boasts such consistent optical performance across its lenses. Sharpness, coatings, filter diameter, ergonomics, etc. Basically, they deliver the so-called "clinical" high contrast look. I have used the 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm and 250mm.

P.S. Some folks will say that the 60mm, 100mm and 180mm are the standouts. Others will say that 250mm Superachromat focuses visible light and IR onto the same plane. But I never noticed these differences in my images. The SWC's 38mm is another often mentioned gem, because of how well-corrected it is.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not quite. Bronica went insolvent. Tamron bought up the company, mainly to acquire some patents Bronica held. Tamron continued to operate parts of Bronica for several years in a fairly brutal manner, the most aggreges of which IMO was to issue the Bronica RF645 before it was properly finished and tuned for public sale. This resulted in what might have been one of the finest 645 camera systems ever made landing like a broken, high priced turd on the backs of its very few, unfortunate buyers.

Evidently Tamron has kept the optical skills in place. I have no problem with their optics.

 

[250swb]

It is about the optics, the system and the ergonomics.

Magical thinking doesn't always translate into good photographs, but it would be good to see some examples that demonstrate the superiority of a Hasselblad. Otherwise a man with a Holga and a photograph to show for it is well ahead of the game.

 

[Pieter12]

Magical thinking doesn't always translate into good photographs, but it would be good to see some examples that demonstrate the superiority of a Hasselblad. Otherwise a man with a Holga and a photograph to show for it is well ahead of the game.

Anyone can take at least one good picture with any working camera and lens. The appeal of systems such as Hasselblad is the fact that a talented and proficient photographer does not have to rely on chance for their pictures to turn out consistently as they imagine them at the time the shutter is released. As far as examples are concerned, there are a myriad of professional and art photographers who use or used the Hasselblad system with tremendous success. Look at Michael Kenna's work. Or Fay Godwin. Or Lee Firedlander (SWC). Or Rodney Smith. The overwhelming majority of square-format photos you see in a book or exhibition have been shot either with a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex.

 

[MTGseattle]

I owned a Bronica Rf645 for 2 years.
It never let me down. I couldn’t get past the vertical 6x4.5 format though.
Maybe I was lucky?

 

[250swb]

Anyone can take at least one good picture with any working camera and lens. The appeal of systems such as Hasselblad is the fact that a talented and proficient photographer does not have to rely on chance for their pictures to turn out consistently as they imagine them at the time the shutter is released. As far as examples are concerned, there are a myriad of professional and art photographers who use or used the Hasselblad system with tremendous success. Look at Michael Kenna's work. Or Fay Godwin. Or Lee Firedlander (SWC). Or Rodney Smith. The overwhelming majority of square-format photos you see in a book or exhibition have been shot either with a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex.

Yeah, but that's not what I suggested. But I'll add to your comment by observing that I can't imagine any of the photographers you mention making a point that they need a Hasselblad or their work wouldn't exist. It may dictate a transient style, but not a life's work. Neither does an amateur need a Hasselblad unless they hang around camera forums where talking about gear trumps having a good photograph to show for it. Cameras should allow a photographer to fulfill the image that's in their minds eye, it is however an unfortunate side effect that the majority of amateur photographers attempt to promote their so-so image to a higher league simply by tagging it with 'Hasselblad'. This is nearly as bad as just talking about the superiority of Hasselblad instead of showing it, which is where I came in. The Hasselblad thought police couldn't tell the difference between a print made with a Rolleiflex (Bronica etc.) or their favourite camera.

 

[Klaus_H]

In 1999 I was locking for new 6x6 camara to replace my defect EXAKTA 66 (with Schneider Xenotor 80mm, Curtagon 60mm, TeleXenar 150mm and TeleXenar 250mm). I could rent as Hassi 203, a Hassi 503 and a BRONICA SQAi. All cameras did have a 80 mm Lens. I exposed 3 Delta 100 with the each of the 3 cameras from a tripod changing the camera after every shot. The 9 films had been developed in one Paterson Tank with PMK. Then I enlarged the pictures (Schneider Apo-Componon 90mm) (full negative from 3 pictures of every film) up to 30 x 30 cm and then I enlarged up to 100 x 100 cm on the enlager base and produced 30 x30 cm crop enlargements from the upper left edge and of the center.

All prints looked acceptable, but if you could compare the prints side by side, then you could see differences, not on the prints from full negative to 30 x 30 cm, but on the 30x30cm crop enlargements. The crop enlargements from Hassi with Planar lenses looked a bit better (more contrast in detail) than the crop enlargements from Bronica SQAi.

When I compared the prices for the different cameras, the Bronica SQAi was the only affordable camera, especially when I wanted to have a set of lenses I did have with my EXAKTA 66.

I purchased a Bronica SQ-B and the Zenzanon PS lenses and I did never regret.

Only one time in 23 years I did made some enlargements up to 50x60 cm. They had been acceptabe. You could not see which camera had been used.

 

[Film-Niko]

In 1999 I was locking for new 6x6 camara to replace my defect EXAKTA 66 (with Schneider Xenotor 80mm, Curtagon 60mm, TeleXenar 150mm and TeleXenar 250mm). I could rent as Hassi 203, a Hassi 503 and a BRONICA SQAi. All cameras did have a 80 mm Lens. I exposed 3 Delta 100 with the each of the 3 cameras from a tripod changing the camera after every shot. The 9 films had been developed in one Paterson Tank with PMK. Then I enlarged the pictures (Schneider Apo-Componon 90mm) (full negative from 3 pictures of every film) up to 30 x 30 cm and then I enlarged up to 100 x 100 cm on the enlager base and produced 30 x30 cm crop enlargements from the upper left edge and of the center.

All prints looked acceptable, but if you could compare the prints side by side, then you could see differences, not on the prints from full negative to 30 x 30 cm, but on the 30x30cm crop enlargements. The crop enlargements from Hassi with Planar lenses looked a bit better (more contrast in detail) than the crop enlargements from Bronica SQAi.

When I compared the prices for the different cameras, the Bronica SQAi was the only affordable camera, especially when I wanted to have a set of lenses I did have with my EXAKTA 66.

I purchased a Bronica SQ-B and the Zenzanon PS lenses and I did never regret.

Only one time in 23 years I did made some enlargements up to 50x60 cm. They had been acceptabe. You could not see which camera had been used.

Thanks for that report of your thorough test!

Very interesting that you had an Exakta 66. Do you still have it? Was it repairable?
They are so rare.......I have seen one only once in my life, in a used camera shop.

 

[Klaus_H]

The Exakta 66 I did use was not the old EXAKT 66 (vertical) < look here >, but a modified version of the Pentacon Six < look here > with first class Schneider lenses. I purchased the camera in 1989 and sold it in 1999. In this time I shot about 300 rolls of film and did send the camera for repair to factory 4 times (3 x shutter, 1 x frame overlapping)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, but that's not what I suggested. But I'll add to your comment by observing that I can't imagine any of the photographers you mention making a point that they need a Hasselblad or their work wouldn't exist. It may dictate a transient style, but not a life's work. Neither does an amateur need a Hasselblad unless they hang around camera forums where talking about gear trumps having a good photograph to show for it. Cameras should allow a photographer to fulfill the image that's in their minds eye, it is however an unfortunate side effect that the majority of amateur photographers attempt to promote their so-so image to a higher league simply by tagging it with 'Hasselblad'. This is nearly as bad as just talking about the superiority of Hasselblad instead of showing it, which is where I came in. The Hasselblad thought police couldn't tell the difference between a print made with a Rolleiflex (Bronica etc.) or their favourite camera.

In 1999 I was locking for new 6x6 camara to replace my defect EXAKTA 66 (with Schneider Xenotor 80mm, Curtagon 60mm, TeleXenar 150mm and TeleXenar 250mm). I could rent as Hassi 203, a Hassi 503 and a BRONICA SQAi. All cameras did have a 80 mm Lens. I exposed 3 Delta 100 with the each of the 3 cameras from a tripod changing the camera after every shot. The 9 films had been developed in one Paterson Tank with PMK. Then I enlarged the pictures (Schneider Apo-Componon 90mm) (full negative from 3 pictures of every film) up to 30 x 30 cm and then I enlarged up to 100 x 100 cm on the enlager base and produced 30 x30 cm crop enlargements from the upper left edge and of the center.

All prints looked acceptable, but if you could compare the prints side by side, then you could see differences, not on the prints from full negative to 30 x 30 cm, but on the 30x30cm crop enlargements. The crop enlargements from Hassi with Planar lenses looked a bit better (more contrast in detail) than the crop enlargements from Bronica SQAi.

When I compared the prices for the different cameras, the Bronica SQAi was the only affordable camera, especially when I wanted to have a set of lenses I did have with my EXAKTA 66.

I purchased a Bronica SQ-B and the Zenzanon PS lenses and I did never regret.

Only one time in 23 years I did made some enlargements up to 50x60 cm. They had been acceptabe. You could not see which camera had been used.

Yes the Hasselblad optics are better, however the main reasons that I use the Hasselblad starts with the ease of use followed by a large array of lenses which I acquired in the 2007 to 2015 year range when the professional photographers were dumping them for digital equipment. I still laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Film-Niko]

The Exakta 66 I did use was not the old EXAKT 66 (vertical) < look here >, but a modified version of the Pentacon Six < look here > with first class Schneider lenses. I purchased the camera in 1989 and sold it in 1999. In this time I shot about 300 rolls of film and did send the camera for repair to factory 4 times (3 x shutter, 1 x frame overlapping)

Thanks!
Yes, I assumed that you had the latest Exakta 66, the improved Pentacon 6. That was also the type I was referring to.
Your experience is confirming what I've heard from others about this camera: Very nice camera overall (with an excellent lens set), but with reliability problems like the original Pentacon 6.

 

[guangong]

Yeah, but that's not what I suggested. But I'll add to your comment by observing that I can't imagine any of the photographers you mention making a point that they need a Hasselblad or their work wouldn't exist. It may dictate a transient style, but not a life's work. Neither does an amateur need a Hasselblad unless they hang around camera forums where talking about gear trumps having a good photograph to show for it. Cameras should allow a photographer to fulfill the image that's in their minds eye, it is however an unfortunate side effect that the majority of amateur photographers attempt to promote their so-so image to a higher league simply by tagging it with 'Hasselblad'. This is nearly as bad as just talking about the superiority of Hasselblad instead of showing it, which is where I came in. The Hasselblad thought police couldn't tell the difference between a print made with a Rolleiflex (Bronica etc.) or their favourite camera.

I purchased my Hasselblad 1000F quite a few decades before Internet forums. Mechanical operation was iffy at best. When 1000F finally died, I replaced with a Hasselblad having improved mechanical ability. There were other 120 SLR cameras, but with regard to user ergonomics and reliability no other SLR comes close. I do have and use a Rollei, as well as several folders, but Hasselblad is most versatile. I should mention that most of my photography is handheld except when using very long lenses. Therefore, how a camera fits in my hands is decisive. Concerning lenses: because of budget constraints for many years I used my moderately long Leitz, Zeiss, and Killfit lenses with my Hassy. Only in past decade have I used Hasselblad lenses.
All automobiles can go from one place to another, but some handle better and are easier to drive, but usually cost more.

 

[Klaus_H]

Thanks!
Yes, I assumed that you had the latest Exakta 66, the improved Pentacon 6. That was also the type I was referring to.
Your experience is confirming what I've heard from others about this camera: Very nice camera overall (with an excellent lens set), but with reliability problems like the original Pentacon 6.

My Exakta 66 was Model 2. It was equipped with a better focusing screen and it "should" have an optimized film advance.
It was upgraded to model (mirror lock up) when it was send to the factory for one oft the shutter repairs.
May be it was a "1st of april - monday model".

 

[sunbeamland]

I think these discussions at some point become redundant. Unless defective or damaged, most optics and cameras from the major camera manufacturers are not the limiting factor in the creation of an image. If you study optics, you understand there is a balancing act between sharpness, resolution, etc. and the purpose of the lens (field of view, for example). I no longer shoot 35mm because if I am shooting film, I am processing it myself and prefer a larger negative (way more enjoyable to work with the biggest negative practical if you're printing). More film area affords many benefits. My most common carry camera is a Fuji GS645. I also have a Rolleiflex 6003 system (and 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and half frame 35mm for creativity). The Zeiss lenses are really sharp and amazing rendering contrast. A much different look than the Fuji; better is probably not the right word, but different. It's horses for courses. I have never liked the ergonomics of a Hasselblad. I wouldn't use it if I owned it. But for others it's the ultimate camera. Spending time taking images of optical targets may scratch some folk's itch (oh, and you better be optimizing your processing and exposure to get valid results), but I have enough luxury to be able to pick from multiple photographic tools. At the end of the day, I almost always have the Fuji with me because it is so easy to carry. Now, the practicality of being a commercial photographer in film's heyday...35mm I would have used a Nikon F series, medium format a Hasselblad and large format a Sinar. Why? They were tools designed for professionals. Service, rentals, replacement parts and local expertise if you had a problem all pointed to those being the best tools. When you're earning a living from it you need the security and network of availability. With these things now being relegated to hobbyists and aficionados I think you can venture further away from the legends and enjoy some more unique tools that may provide you with more creative inspiration. But enjoy your photography the way you see fit! Some folks love pinholes, some like toy cameras and some only want Leica's, Hasselblads and Linhofs and look at images with loupes. There's no right or wrong here.

 

[Hassasin]

I have gone full swing from staying away from Hasselblad at all costs, to going into it, almost full in. I can state from my perspective, and without reservations, Hasselblad is way overblown in most departments. I am saying this just so, hopefully, nobody feels lesser by not using one.

There are a number of issues with the system, that is stated by many as some sort of one-and-only, which in reality is a blatant lie. System wise there are all-the-same from Bronica, Rollei and Mamyia. All have comparable quality of glass, some are arguably superior in design and quality to Hasselblad, but any of these capable all the same.

I went into Hasselblad with purchase of SWC, and from further purchases into the system, I am convinced had I not bought the SWC, I would have likely stayed away from Hassellblad. The differences in build and feel between SWC and the rest are like from another world. Surely this has a lot to do with SWC design, fixed lens, integrated mechanics, no mirror, thus inherent compactness and mechanical solidity etc. You loose ALL that with all remaining bodies. To reverse that line of thought, had I bought a non-SWC first, I doubt I would have gone to SWC afterwards (and it would have been wrong decision). Call it bias and reverse bias, depending which direction you are coming from.

I could go on a long one here describing my feelings about that, yet I am not discounting Hasselblad as being a very fine photographic tool. And if anyone feels better using one than any other, that is absolutely understandable.

The problem I have is Hass being described by some users as somehow superior to the rest, and it is not, glass included. Some design aspects are indeed mind boggling, machining accuracy is NOT 100% (I have one new lens that has play once mounted on the camera, and that is NOT uncommon, yet I have not experienced it with any Mamiya, Bronica or Pentax MF lenses).

I'm not regretting spending as much as I have on Hasselblad. Without it I would have never known the actual difference. But I also know it is not a universal go to, just as none other is.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Years ago, I borrowed a friends Hasselblad and compared it with my RB67, C and KL lenses. The resulting images showed NO difference. Maybe if I shot colour... but I don't. The Hasselblad was much lighter, though

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I got into medium format, I had a similar realization but I came up with a different explanation. What I have noticed right away is that in the world of medium format cameras, there is far less disparity in quality among contemporary lenses than between 35mm format lenses. I think this is mostly because medium format has largely been a medium for professionals, and all pro-grade gear is made to a higher standard. Even if there is tangible difference between Hasselblad and Mamiya lenses, it is often eaten away by focus errors, film flatness, or grain.

The most recent example is Mamiya 135mm Sekor TLR lens which I just acquired. Supposedly it was considered to be the worst lens for C-series Mamiya TLRs. Yet, I just developed and scanned my first roll, mostly exposed at the widest aperture and I fail to see any faults in these images.

The reason I prefer Zeiss lenses and the Hasselblad system in general is their supreme build quality, simplicity in operation, heavy and slow focusing, and consistency: same coatings, same filter diameter, same ergonomics and almost the same maximum aperture for common focal lengths.

Could it also be that medium format starts with larger emulsions and less enlargements than 35mm?

 

[Hassasin]

The Hasselblad was much lighter, though

Lighter also gets it fairly close to "flimsy", shoot cannot believe I said that, it's Hasselblad.

When I first heard of Hass body getting out of shape and needed to be corrected again, I thought it was a joke. Then I acquired a skeleton of one, never used for further assembly. It's quite obvious it can indeed be stressed beyond design strength and I would imagine some of the long lenses are probably capable, if not properly supported.

Now I am getting the Sonnar 250, and even if that is not the heaviest, I am not sure if it can be safely mounted without lens support when shooting from tripod, a requirement for the most part. To my knowledge they never made any lens specific support except for the Variogon.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I started with a Rolliecord Vb in high-school - because my father had one, and over the years, I've owned and use a Hasselblad 500c, Pentax 67 & 645, Mamiya RB67, Bronica G1, Fujifilm GX680, Kiev-88, Pentacon Six, Yashica & Ricoh TLRs, and various non-SLRs (Mamiya 6 & 7s, Fujifilm GW690s and GS645, etc...). I currently use a Hasselblad 500cx and a 200fe.

What Sirius said above is correct, of the systems I've used, the Hasselblad is one of the best in multiple categories. And there are still a lot of working copies around, which speaks to their longevity and popularity.

- They were the first system MF camera with full interchangeable lenses, backs and finders.
- They were/are the smallest most compact 6x6 SLR made - idea for field use
- They had full leaf shutter synchronization for electronic flash as all speeds - something very important in the professional studio.
- They were reliable and had a professional service program
- Lenses were sharp and contrasty

Arguably, the Bronica SQ was the closest competition, as it did everything the Hasselblad did (including sharp lenses). And indeed, it was extremely popular with the Portrait/Wedding professionals as they cost less, were lighter to use hand held, and required less servicing. But even though there are still many around, they have not stood the test of time as well. If you want a square leaf shuttered MF camera system, it is one of the best deals out there now.

Some observations:

Keiv 88 lenses are noticeable inferior to Hasselblad, both in build and sharpness.

Pentacon Six Zeiss lenses are close to the quality (build ans sharpness) of the similar era Hasselblad lenses.

Mamiya 6 & 7, Bronica G1, and the Fujifilm GX680 lenses are excellent, arguably better than the Hasselblad versions. You really only see differences in rendering, which is a personal preference.

You didn't say anything about the RB67.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Years ago, I borrowed a friends Hasselblad and compared it with my RB67, C and KL lenses. The resulting images showed NO difference. Maybe if I shot colour... but I don't. The Hasselblad was much lighter, though

Do you see differences between the RB67 C and KL lenses?