What cameras are you comparing it to? I've handled several Hasselblads over the years, but the price tag has kept me from running film through one for real. However they didn't seem 'bad' for a waist level finder camera cradled to my chest. I find that style more 'hand holdable' than range finders or SLRs held up to my face. Assuming a hedge or something isn't in the way. Not a great setup for photographing over a crowd either.
@Sirius Glass as I a Hasselblad owner let me tell you, another Hasselblad owner, that I suspect you never used your Hasselblad. It is by far the least-handholdable medium format camera I've used or owned.
It isn't THAT bad, and I find it fairly fun to lug around. Saves on silly things like gym memberships.
Putting the 500mm lens on it did remind me just how much time I've spent behind a desk and relaxing on my couch for the last two years, but that's beside the point.
What cameras are you comparing it to? I've handled several Hasselblads over the years, but the price tag has kept me from running film through one for real. However they didn't seem 'bad' for a waist level finder camera cradled to my chest. I find that style more 'hand holdable' than range finders or SLRs held up to my face. Assuming a hedge or something isn't in the way. Not a great setup for photographing over a crowd either.
They aren't bad, they're just not as hand-holdable as:
That's quite a list! Hasselblad mechanics allows too much vibration, it is not a camera one can easily shoot with 1/focal-length shutter speed rule. And despite this, the Hasselblad platform is by far my favorite system because of the feelings it evokes when I'm using it. A Hasselblad is more engaging than even a Leica, IMO. But it's happier on a tripod.
- All TLRs
- All rangefinders, and most folders
- Other SLRs I own: the Mamiya 645 Pro and Bronica GS-1
And if you spend equal amount of time with Mamiya 645 Pro or Bronica GS-1 you will be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds than your Hassy. It's not you, it's just physics. I don't know if it's the barn doors, or something else, but even the Bronica with its larger mirror manages to move it with less drama.
Well I know the problem exists, it's about helping you to find it. You don't print every photo with large magnification, and AFAIK you do not scan at good resolution, so how do you know what's on your negatives? Here's a 6,000x6,000 scan of a Hasselblad negative made on a tripod. You will not get the same crispness with a 100mm Planar handheld at 1/125s.
What I do know is that if I don't use mirror-lockup with my P67 for exposures for slower than 1/60th, the mirror slap with be strong enough to seismically level structures within a ten mile radius, so there won't be any walls left big enough to hang a large print on anyway.
Image quality or intelligence quotient depending.What is mean with "IQ" in this context?
There must be some law of nature that all threads about medium format eventually turn into people yelling at each other about Hasselblads.
Image quality or intelligence quotient depending.
That's because it's the best camera and some people won't accept that.
Hasselblad is the best in the same way as Leica. It set a high standard for a medium format system camera, which other brands have tried to emulate with varying success. Some are better at certain things, and some are worse. But a Hasselblad is the benchmark everything else is measured against, just like Leica is the benchmark rangefinder, and Rolleiflex is the benchmark TLR.
I think these iconic cameras were successful because of one thing: balance. They aren't really outstanding for one specific thing, and also have no glaring weaknesses. Any product, especially something as complex as a camera, presents numerous trade-offs for its designers to navigate through. The 500-series is extremely well-balanced. It starts with the 6x6 negative size (the most efficient trade-off between negative size & glass weight & shooting ergonomics) and continues with lenses, repairability, modular design, materials, etc. Most products force you to deal with a wider amplitude between their "highs" and "lows". The Bronica GS-1, which I shared my experiences with just recently, is a prime example of an unbalanced product: brilliant in some ways and "WTF they were thinking?" in others. The same can be said of every other MF camera I own.
People cut them no end of slack and read intent and purpose into the design, mostly because of the halo effect.Hasselblad is the best in the same way as Leica. It set a high standard for a medium format system camera, which other brands have tried to emulate with varying success. Some are better at certain things, and some are worse. But a Hasselblad is the benchmark everything else is measured against, just like Leica is the benchmark rangefinder, and Rolleiflex is the benchmark TLR.
I think these iconic cameras were successful because of one thing: balance. They aren't really outstanding for one specific thing, and also have no glaring weaknesses. Any product, especially something as complex as a camera, presents numerous trade-offs for its designers to navigate through. The 500-series is extremely well-balanced. It starts with the 6x6 negative size (the most efficient trade-off between negative size & glass weight & shooting ergonomics) and continues with lenses, repairability, modular design, materials, etc. Most products force you to deal with a wider amplitude between their "highs" and "lows". The Bronica GS-1, which I shared my experiences with just recently, is a prime example of an unbalanced product: brilliant in some ways and "WTF they were thinking?" in others. The same can be said of every other MF camera I own.
I had a Mamiya 7, great glass. Hard to beat a Heliar, but it has a different type of look. The Mamiya pics looked as if they came from a medium format Leica, very nice and sharp w/ quite a bit of 3D.
!
Yes you can! if you live in the "Twilight Zone". Rod Sterling died far to young.That's rubbish you cannot get a 3D image out of a 2D image! Think about it. Imagination is a great thing.
Much agreement here. I’ve written before about my love and hate of Hasselblad. I couldn’t get used to the quirky ergonomics, the noise it makes, etc and so the first year I owned it I barely used it, while thinking of selling it. It wasn’t until I accessorized it with a prism viewfinder and a few other things that it started to fit me and the way I like to work. It’s still not my favorite camera to use, but it’s easily the most flexible medium format camera for me, so it gets used. The noise, size, and weird ergonomics are trade-offs for features that matter.Hasselblad is the best in the same way as Leica. It set a high standard for a medium format system camera, which other brands have tried to emulate with varying success. Some are better at certain things, and some are worse. But a Hasselblad is the benchmark everything else is measured against, just like Leica is the benchmark rangefinder, and Rolleiflex is the benchmark TLR.
I think these iconic cameras were successful because of one thing: balance. They aren't really outstanding for one specific thing, and also have no glaring weaknesses. Any product, especially something as complex as a camera, presents numerous trade-offs for its designers to navigate through. The 500-series is extremely well-balanced. It starts with the 6x6 negative size (the most efficient trade-off between negative size & glass weight & shooting ergonomics) and continues with lenses, repairability, modular design, materials, etc. Most products force you to deal with a wider amplitude between their "highs" and "lows". The Bronica GS-1, which I shared my experiences with just recently, is a prime example of an unbalanced product: brilliant in some ways and "WTF they were thinking?" in others. The same can be said of every other MF camera I own.
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?