Lets be honest!

[Sirius Glass]

Hasselblads look great and are a real part of film photography history. I'll probably never own one and can say I have never used one. But why all Anti-Hassy vibes? What is not to like about this...

View attachment 330607

Same thing happens for Leicas.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tribalism, jealousy, people trying to rationalize their decision not to buy one.

Yep

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some of us own most MF brands, so direct comparison is easy. Biased? Perhaps in some cases, but being part of history is kind of a moot point, since same can be easily ... easily said about Bronica, among others. Going to the Moon makes a marketing difference for sure, but Hasselblad is not what a lot of people make it out to be. I won't go into my points of all the what and why did they do it, as I find it just as moot.

Since I do own Hasselblad (and most other brands), in my opinion it is love or hate gear, far more than any other, probably partly due to actual cost of acquiring one (as one expects more, spending so much). And frankly that more practically never comes. I will stay out of any discussion about Zeiss glass, I find it simply silly to argue, no offence intended.

All of it is of course subjective, but I do agree with anyone having trouble with Hasselblad ergonomics. It is not a well balanced camera, even if it is on lighter side. Brilliance of Bronica's Speed Grip comes to mind a lot of times.

But that "lighter" also comes at a cost. As I mentioned earlier, main frame of the camera is scary skinny. One cannot see it, let alone feel it, but it is worth touching just for the sake of having own opinion.

So seeing that frame in naked mode, then thinking of a heavy lens in front and film magazine in the back, it does make me pause.

Is it affecting long term rigidity?

Maybe, maybe not. But that is not the point. But `I do know I will care for my 503CW a lot more at any point of handling, a lot more than any other brand, simply because I do not trust it to remain in alignment. Now, surely Hass lovers will come right back saying it's been around for so long .... Fine, does not make me feel any better.

Then the case of machining go-together pieces. Is it understandable to expect perfection in pieces matching, especially given brand's social status, fame of mechanical perfection etc.? I sure think so.

Yet my new (not a mark on it anywhere) Distagon 60 CB when mounted on the body ... wobbles, and that is wobbles in the mount to the point of questioning if it was somehow mounted wrong. But no, and sadly, this is not an isolated case from my research. I was told not to worry, which makes no difference, it wobbles.

I do not have a single lens in any system that wobbles once mounted on a camera. How did that make it out to the market? It should have never left the factory. Blame swiss cheese QC system if you like, but I've done enough reading of their marketing materials, history etc. Judging by that, this should have never happened. Since there are, reportedly, more lenses with same problem out there, it only supports my lack of trust in what they produced over the years. I now ask sellers to confirm lens mounts on camera with solid fit before jumping into further considerations. Call it nitpicking, then check out the prices.

There are some design decisions that I will never understand either. Like release latch on the focusing adapter (as for use on SWC or Flexbody). The way it sticks out, it makes it prone to accidental release. With heavy prism mounted on it, the whole thing just flies off. I know, it happened to me, luckily caught early enough to prevent major damage to this several-hundred-bucks assembly. There were much better ways to make it, a pure design brain fart.

I could give more examples of strange design decisions, or lack of production precision, but I'll stop here. I won't make any minds change how they feel about Hass anyways.

I will also restate my earlier: SWC is a different beast. It spells great mechanics, feels super solid, and can easily spoil anyone regarding what Hasselblad is. Flexbody is fairly close second in that department, but not as much, probably because of all the moving parts not giving same solid feedback when heavy lens is mounted on front standard.

All in all, as I had stated, Hasselblad is surely a fine photographic tool, and one can indeed just have V-system and get the required pieces for any kind of work, but anyone longing for one, rent it out before jumping in. It is not all what people make it out to be.

And no, I have no regrets, getting into it, but I also fully understand anyone who made no love with it.

The wobbling is a concern. Do not ignore it. If the wobbling is only with one lens, it is a lens problem. More than one lens then a body problem and maybe a lens problem. I have 15 years of Hasselblad experience and a few years more reading postings and articles about Hasselblads, and I have not come across any discussion of a wobbling problem. Get it taken care of before it becomes a real problem.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think the first concern is square format vs horizontal in other cameras. If you don't like square, then Hasselblad isn't for you regardless of the other qualities.

 

[Pieter12]

I think the first concern is square format vs horizontal in other cameras. If you don't like square, then Hasselblad isn't for you regardless of the other qualities.

You can crop vertical or horizontal from square. And there are always 6x4.5 backs if you find cropping offensive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You can crop vertical or horizontal from square. And there are always 6x4.5 backs if you find cropping offensive.

But you're framing in a square viewfinder. That means you're placing the objects to fit a square format then depending on luck that something is salvageable when cropping. So what are you composing for? Square or horizontal or vertical?

 

[Pieter12]

But you're framing in a square viewfinder. That means you're placing the objects to fit a square format then depending on luck that something is salvageable when cropping. So what are you composing for? Square or horizontal or vertical?

There are viewfinder masks available. Or use your judgement.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are viewfinder masks available. Or use your judgement.

Do Hasselblad users mainly do that or do they just frame for square format? I frame for whatever the finder view is 6x7,4x5, 3x2,4x3, or 16x9, but like I said that could be habit from my projection days.

 

[MattKing]

By far and away the majority of Hasselblad images were printed on to standard print sizes - 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, whatever the European equivalents were in the professional photography markets. Historically, most Hasselblads were not used by hobbyists or art photographers.

 

[Pieter12]

By far and away the majority of Hasselblad images were printed on to standard print sizes - 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, whatever the European equivalents were in the professional photography markets. Historically, most Hasselblads were not used by hobbyists or art photographers.

I guess it depends on what you mean by historically. For example, Robert Adams used a Hasselblad extensively, as did Ansel Adams. Many more shot square format with other brands: Brett Weston, Irving Penn, Faye Godwin, god knows who else. But, yes, the majority of Hasselblad users were commercial photographers. They were among the few who could afford them, and because they were used commercially so much, rentals of bodies and lenses were readily available as well.

 

[eli griggs]

Working Professional photographers, especially those shooting for catalog and magazines will use a temple, often made of a cut side of a 5"x4" clear plastic negative sleeve, which has been made directly from a layout of the editor's formating perimeter.

It's easy enough to do, and 5"x4" sheet plus roll film back camera work is often done in this manner.

The only issue I've ever had with the Hasselblad is simply removing a well fitting template from the WLF, without removing it first, haste makes waste, in this case, wasting time when in a hurry.

It's easy enough to make one.

Say, for instance, you want to use the 6x6 camera to shoot the same formating (no film size) as an Edward Weston shell or pepper.

1) First cut the plain template acetate accurately.

2) Lay the template on top of the image you want to format, with the bottom left corner and baseline aligned to the same corner and baseline of the photograph or image's format and hold it securely in place.

3) take a rule and overlay the secure acetate, with a diagonal from the L-corner baseline point to the top right corner of the image and...

4) With a fineline marker, run a strongly inked line from the bottom left of the photo/acetate, up to the far right point of the acetate.

5) Use a 90° angle to draw up the left and right sides of the baseline, stopping within the new templet field, and draw the Top Line from the RIGHT SIDE of the Diagonal Line to the left side, within the acetate, to define your final templet.

It's easier than this telling and much quicker.

Good Health to all and Godspeed!

 

[Sirius Glass]

By far and away the majority of Hasselblad images were printed on to standard print sizes - 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, whatever the European equivalents were in the professional photography markets. Historically, most Hasselblads were not used by hobbyists or art photographers.

All of mine are printed 5"x5" when I get C41 film developed and printed. I print my black & white as 8"x8" or 11"x11" for first viewing.

 

[MattKing]

All of mine are printed 5"x5" when I get C41 film developed and printed. I print my black & white as 8"x8" or 11"x11" for first viewing.

Which, not surprisingly, means you are out of the "mainstream".
But as the "mainstream" with Hasselblad film cameras is now in the relatively distant past, and you still use them, there is nothing unusual about that.
They are/were very fine instruments, designed for commercial markets that no longer exist - in particular the 120 film wedding photography and portrait photography market. Their strengths were oriented toward those markets. Not having to turn the camera on its side to move from a rectangle in landscape orientation to a rectangle in portrait orientation was perfectly suited to those uses.
And many of the pro labs offered low cost customer masking solutions that made it easy for photographers to both control cropping and obtain machine prints that could be sold - at high profit - to their customers.

 

[eli griggs]

The Hasselblad's strength was that it worked so well for n so many areas of photography.

Older cameras, great and lesser cameras in the age of the ubiquitous 4cm x 4cm & 6x6 cameras, the period before 135 SLR hit it's stride, replacing the 127, 4 x 4cm as the top favorite consumer format, proved the square format was the most popular "standard" consumer and professional roll film formats, and the photographs coming out of labs and darkrooms fed that need very well.

I believe the "portrait" & landscape formats, made by many photographers, were still mostly in imitation of traditional painters and the viewpoint of keeping the image framing tight, no real 'empty space' and keenly focused on the sitter, or sitters,band perhaps the painted/photographic scenes behind them.

Even Polaroid, (the real Polaroid) left behind the out of square formats of the Land Series, including the old, roll type 47 films, when it modernized it's consumer and Professional line with the Swinger and SX70, plus following lines, using the basically square format.

Square is an excellent formating solution!

Hasselblads, besides the Apollo missions, and Moon Landings, also were used professionally as underwater kit, together with super expensive Ikelite housings, Aerial Photography, Landscape, Wildlife and various Studios work, as well as Scientific, Street, and Art imaging.

Abiut the only thing I've never seen a Hasselblad do is micro photography onto of a microscope.

I also believe it's about the perfect weight, size and layout in its use of a supporting left hand and ergonomic controls.

Small hands or large, the 500 c/CM just fits and feels right when "correctly" held.

One of the very few issues that camera has, is the possibility to jam the lens and body interface, and all cameras with detachable lenses suffer from that possibility, with the Hasselblad being quite easy to resolve without great expense and a trip to a repair center.

Hasselblad 500 Seriesand it's Zeiss lenses have/has held it's place, professionally, as a 'go to' tool for serious photography, film and
di*ita**, and it's no like Kelly that will change among film photographers for many years to come.

IMO.

 

[Edgy01]

When you begin to truly test one particular lens to another there is a lot to it, to figure out if it is the lens that is delivering the difference or if it is you. The better you get as a photographer, the better that you will be actually able to see a difference. Many average photographers bugger up other things to such a degree that you may never be able to see that difference.

If you have a fleeting opportunity to capture a special time, condition or place, you will realize that a substandard optic will do you little favors, because we all strive for the best at the end of the day.

dan