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.
The Rollei SLRs (SL66, 6008, Hy6) have excellent, some may say superior, optics and an extensive system and fine ergonomics.
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.Further note, Tamron lenses are built by Bronica and I have two of their AF zoom lenses.
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?
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.
It is about the optics, the system and the ergonomics.
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.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.
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.
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.
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)
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.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.
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.
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.
The Hasselblad was much lighter, though
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?