Same thing happens for Leicas.
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
Tribalism, jealousy, people trying to rationalize their decision not to buy one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?