Shouldn't a medium format folder give the same IQ as an SLR?

[BMbikerider]

Yes you can! if you live in the "Twilight Zone". Rod Sterling died far to young.
I have had and still do own, several MF systems. No, I'm not a collector of MF cameras. I just never sold the ones I acquired. The two I use the most are the Pentax P67's and the Hasselblad V with Rolleiflex coming in third. I'm not a square kind of guy and for that reason only, I'll take the Pentax. But, as a camera system the Hasselblad V is hard to beat. In my opinion the Hasselblad V became highly successful and sought after for one reason. Victor Hasselblad himself. A lover of photography will build a better camera system than any bunch engineers and bean counters can. If he saw a need for something, he had it made to fit into the system and we as Hasselblad users all benefitted from it. I tip my hat to Victor for a truly stunning camera. I do agree with Drew in that the P67 has been completely trouble free for me, but I've only had mine for 37yrs not 45yrs like Drew. With my V Hasselblad's it's the Compur shutters that require attention from time to time, but otherwise are very dependable, for me anyway. One other downside to the Hasselblaad, like the Leica, is the blasted cost, but that's the price one has to pay for quality I guess. JohnW

We don't all exist in what you may call the twit-zone. It is a law of optics that you cannot have a 3d image when the image is only 2D . even what is called a 3D image is only an optical illusion! Or are your attempting (miserably) to spread fake news?

 

[John Wiegerink]

No fake news here! As Detective Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet would say, "Just the facts ma'am". I'm actually a 1st dimension person myself, but have been known to enter the "Twilight Zone" from time to time. This is all in good humor of course. Dragnet and Twilight Zone were two TV shows I grew up with. JohnW

 

[DREW WILEY]

What I heard is that the reason a Hassie was chosen for the Apollo Moon mission is that nobody on earth wanted one, and that only a government budget could afford one. ... Actually, one of my wife's patients was one of the last living Mercury then Apollo team. He never went to the moon himself, but was an alternate astronaut if needed, and in charge of training them as well as matching vessel ergo design. He was already about 96 when I last spoke to him, still extremely sharp, but more interested in guidance systems which he engineered, rather than space photography. But I still heard some interesting tidbits about the cameras. ... They were so specially tweaked that it took a flight to the moon to find a camera store up there stocking film which would actually fit the anti-gravity re-re-reverse film curl of the back. Another reason they're so expensive to shoot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

People cut them no end of slack and read intent and purpose into the design, mostly because of the halo effect.
The name, the history and the price sets a scene where these heroic cameras can do no wrong.

Of course they are well crafted. They cost an arm and a leg back in the day.
But that doesn’t mean that other cameras aren’t well crafted too, in their own way.
Both the Leica and Hassy are in a sense and in their own way over-designed.
The Hassy is a concept taken from elsewhere and polished by watchmakers to what they saw as perfection.
It still has the frailty and overcomplexity of a watch though. Good ideas don’t often scale. Neither does mindsets.
Leica is the idea of small, light, well crafted and, for what you got, reasonably priced camera, IE the Barnack Leica, “perfected” to probably it’s inversion in the M series.
Both have glaring problems that are brushed off or made into features.
Macro and tele work (and even very wides, where wide angle was supposed to be Leicas forte) is a circus side show with a Leica. You have no way of getting even the faintest visual idea of depth of field unless you turn it into an SLR.
Hasselblad is bigger than a camera that includes two cameras stacked on top of each other (Rolleiflex). Has a pretty dim finder with anything below 2.8 lenses, which are super expensive and scarce outside normal lens territory.
And the party trick of changing magazines turns into a complex rite with lose bits all over the place for what is supposed to be a field camera.
You have twelve frames FFS. How often does changing film become necessary‽ Just finish the film or bring a second body.

No real single point to the above. There are good cameras and there are better. But engineering in industrial design, is as much the art of careful and poetic compromise, and knowing when to stop, as it is the art of convincing people that something is worth it.

Victor Hasselblad used watch makers to design the 1000 and 1600 and learned from that. After that the Hasselblads were designed and built by camera makers. As far as being expensive, yes they were and they are getting expensive again because of supply and demand. If you had listened to me ten years ago on this website when it was still called APUG, I repeatedly posted that at that time Hasselblad bodies were on the order of $400US and most lenses between $400US and $800US and that they were a bargain because professional photographers were dumping them for digital cameras. Did you, listen to me? No! You knew better! You probably said something like, "If Hasselblads are so cheap, they must not be any good. Let the dentists buy them!" Now I have mine. You cannot afford one. Eat your heart out because you thought that you were just too damned smart to listen to me.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you had listened to me ten years ago on this website

Then again, the prices you quoted are on the edge of out of my reach now, and were certainly out of my reach ten years ago.

Doesn't matter how good a camera is if you don't have the money.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Then again, the prices you quoted are on the edge of out of my reach now, and were certainly out of my reach ten years ago.

Doesn't matter how good a camera is if you don't have the money.

Buy the best camera you can afford. But note that if a camera and lenses cause more, one just has to wait longer between buying additional lenses. Of course I would never encourage one to wait for the Twelfth of Never.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Buy the best camera you can afford.

I did. I got my RB67 with two film backs (6x7 and 6x4.5), WLF, and 90 mm lens for less than a bare Hasselblad body would have cost at the time (spring 2020), and I've since added the 50 mm, 250 mm, 2x teleconverter, 0.46x wide angle adapter, both macro tubes, 6x6 and 6x9 roll backs, metered chimney, unmetered prism, and left hand grip w/ trigger. Just passed $1000 total invested when I got the 6x9 back (which came with a Century Graphic and 101 Ektar lens). For my money, it's better than a 'Blad, because much more versatile, and I can still occasionally afford another lens (next will be either the 127 or the 180, I think -- 140 soft is too expensive and usually doesn't have the disks, and the 140 macro isn't needed).

BTW, just realized, I've got more "system" camera here than any 35mm I've ever owned.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've passed up all kinds of fabulous bargains. I was once asked by a friend/customer to liquidate his Hassie system for him - an upper end model, unused. Could have had it dirt cheap. But I just don't need any more gear, regardless of how nice it is. I could have done the same with some lovely near-mint RZ67 gear, like wise quite desirable, but redundant to me. I've turned down almost two dozen serious pro enlarger for free - nowhere to put them. Got four already. I'm not a dealer, not a collector, and definitely not into renting a storage unit. Nor do I want to attract burglars like flies to you know what; but they're not likely to be interested in unbolting and hauling off a 700 lb enlarger 12 feet tall. I'm more worried about them getting a catalytic converter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I did. I got my RB67 with two film backs (6x7 and 6x4.5), WLF, and 90 mm lens for less than a bare Hasselblad body would have cost at the time (spring 2020), and I've since added the 50 mm, 250 mm, 2x teleconverter, 0.46x wide angle adapter, both macro tubes, 6x6 and 6x9 roll backs, metered chimney, unmetered prism, and left hand grip w/ trigger. Just passed $1000 total invested when I got the 6x9 back (which came with a Century Graphic and 101 Ektar lens). For my money, it's better than a 'Blad, because much more versatile, and I can still occasionally afford another lens (next will be either the 127 or the 180, I think -- 140 soft is too expensive and usually doesn't have the disks, and the 140 macro isn't needed).

BTW, just realized, I've got more "system" camera here than any 35mm I've ever owned.

Then enjoy it!

 

[Down Under]

Something I've long wondered. If Victor Hasselblad was such a genius, why didn't he give us a 6x7 or even a 6x9 'blad? I've often thought about this, and so far nobody, not even the self-styled wizards on this site, have provided any explanation.

Before the word-lynchers turn on me for this verbal heresy, let me say in self-defence that I've owned several Hasselblads in my time, and quite enjoyed them, though in the end they were too limited in use and too expensive to maintain for my taste and budget. Let me just say my big stomach and their ergonomics didn't really match. Produced some truly wonderful images, but.

Maybe it was best that no 6x7 or 6x9 backs were ever produced for this baby - a new enlarger for my darkroom would have cost too much here in Australia. Contact prints, maybe. A new thought.

But a 6x9 Rolleiflex, now there's a camera...

 

[JPD]

But a 6x9 Rolleiflex, now there's a camera...

Even better: A couple of 9x9 Rolleiflexes were made.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Something I've long wondered. If Victor Hasselblad was such a genius, why didn't he give us a 6x7 or even a 6x9 'blad? I've often thought about this, and so far nobody, not even the self-styled wizards on this site, have provided any explanation.

Before the word-lynchers turn on me for this verbal heresy, let me say in self-defence that I've owned several Hasselblads in my time, and quite enjoyed them, though in the end they were too limited in use and too expensive to maintain for my taste and budget. Let me just say my big stomach and their ergonomics didn't really match. Produced some truly wonderful images, but.

Maybe it was best that no 6x7 or 6x9 backs were ever produced for this baby - a new enlarger for my darkroom would have cost too much here in Australia. Contact prints, maybe. A new thought.

But a 6x9 Rolleiflex, now there's a camera...

Your question contains the answer. It's quite obvious for a genius to realize that the square is the perfect format. Everything else is just a pre-cropped square with usability and weight penalty.

Old Gregg called that one correctly. Square has always been the perfect format according to Hasselblad. Once the format became perfect, it could never become less than perfect and will be perfect forever. 6x7 be damned!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I always associate squares with someone wearing plaid Bermuda shorts and watching ancient reruns of the Lawrence Welk show while drinking milk.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I always associate squares with someone wearing plaid Bermuda shorts and watching ancient reruns of the Lawrence Welk show while drinking milk.

Good then when I use a Hasselblad, you can just eat your heart out. Maybe I should get a Rollei or Mamiya tlr to drive you nuts.

 

[Down Under]

Your question contains the answer. It's quite obvious for a genius to realize that the square is the perfect format. Everything else is just a pre-cropped square with usability and weight penalty.

I agree entirely, but I really wouldn't know where to start in order to debate this, so I'll pass.

Victor Hasselblad was a true genius in that he gave us a most unique and marvelous camera, the likes of which has never been bettered. The (sad) fact that it and I don't get along with it is just that - a personal and entirely minor problem for me, my somewhat large stomach and the 'blad dimensions tend to clash when they connect and I mostly shoot without a tripod, so this camera was overkill for me. My 'Hassy period' lasted ten years and cost me more than I care to remember. As well, I've lived with Rolleiflexes all my life, and they suit me almost to perfection (I say "almost" as perfection doesn't exist in the real world, so let us agree on 99.5% perfect and let the matter rest at that). So for me the Hassy versus Rollei debate was a non-event.

As well I've no argument at all that the 6x6 square is ideal as a format - my question was entirely rhetorical (or theoretical) as a happenstance thought about, well, why no 6x7 or no 6.9 Hasselblad? No-one in this thread has as yet answered this satisfactorily. All responses to this odd conundrum will be duly considered and responded to. I await others' thoughts on the matter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree entirely. Victor Hasselblad was a true genius in that he gave us a most unique and marvellous camera, the likes of which has never been bettered. The (sad) fact that it and I don't get along with it is just that - a personal and entire minor problem for me, as I've lived with Rolleiflexes all my life, and they suit me almost to perfection (I say "almost" as perfection doesn't exist in the real world, so let us agree on 99.5% perfect and let the matter rest at that).

As well I've no argument at all that the 6x6 square is ideal as a format - my question was entirely rhetorical (or theoretical) as a happenstance thought about, well, why no 6x7 or no 6.9 Hasselblad? All answers to this connundrum will be duly considered and responded to. I await others' thoughts on the matter.

[wink wink]Because square is better. Besides it is a regular shape according the ancient Greeks.[/wink wink]

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rollei TLR's were what the yearbook crew used in high school. Might seem expensive for school kid use/abuse, but at least those cameras survived year after year. My bother had a couple of Rollei SL66's, and I inherited his square negs; but when he was alive he preferred to borrow my P67 for its more intuitive ergonomics and viewing. A well-off backpacking pal of mine used a Contax 6X6 with very pricey Zeiss lenses. We were way way back behind several high off-trail passes. He had brought along a prototype new tent that didn't have its own support system, so used his trekking poles to keep it standing. So one evening he tried hopping across rocks in a stream without any pole, with his fancy 6X6 over his shoulder rifle-style on a new Gitzo CF tripod, plus a different WA lens in a shoulder bag. He slipped and hurt his ankle, and the camera and lens went into the drink, plus the shoulder bag. He managed to pull the camera out before water got into it; but one lens was already fogged up, and the other had a dented filter ring. The Gitzo had two broken legs.

We got his foot reinforced enough with duct tape to make the long strenuous 5-day hike out. And I whittled a wooden pull that allowed me to straighten out his filter threads on the unfogged lens, then whittled two prosthetic legs out of bare whitebark pine branches and duct taped them on. It all worked. Whew. But when we finally got back to his van at the trailhead at dark, where he hid his key in a magnetic Hideakey behind the front bumper, it was gone! Some marmot or chipmunk had carried it off. So we searched around the chaparral brush with headlights until something sparkled, and we finally found it. But things got even worse. He wanted to sort out all his roll film in the dark, and with those rolls on end (and it was Ekfe film without a particularly good anti-halation backing), he was shining directly down upon it with his bright headlamp. I spotted him doing that too late. For all those grueling ten days of hiking and daily high altitude storms, nearly all his shots were hopelessly fogged. Some lessons are learned the hard way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rollei TLR's were what the yearbook crew used in high school. Might seem expensive for school kid use/abuse, but at least those cameras survived year after year. My bother had a couple of Rollei SL66's, and I inherited his square negs; but when he was alive he preferred to borrow my P67 for its more intuitive ergonomics and viewing. A well-off backpacking pal of mine used a Contax 6X6 with very pricey Zeiss lenses. We were way way back behind several high off-trail passes. He had brought along a prototype new tent that didn't have its own support system, so used his trekking poles to keep it standing. So one evening he tried hopping across rocks in a stream without any pole, with his fancy 6X6 over his shoulder rifle-style on a new Gitzo CF tripod, plus a different WA lens in a shoulder bag. He slipped and hurt his ankle, and the camera and lens went into the drink, plus the shoulder bag. He managed to pull the camera out before water got into it; but one lens was already fogged up, and the other had a dented filter ring. The Gitzo had two broken legs.

We got his foot reinforced enough with duct tape to make the long strenuous 5-day hike out. And I whittled a wooden pull that allowed me to straighten out his filter threads on the unfogged lens, then whittled two prosthetic legs out of bare whitebark pine branches and duct taped them on. It all worked. Whew. But when we finally got back to his van at the trailhead at dark, where he hid his key in a magnetic Hideakey behind the front bumper, it was gone! Some marmot or chipmunk had carried it off. So we searched around the chaparral brush with headlights until something sparkled, and we finally found it. But things got even worse. He wanted to sort out all his roll film in the dark, and with those rolls on end (and it was Ekfe film without a particularly good anti-halation backing), he was shining directly down upon it with his bright headlamp. I spotted him doing that too late. For all those grueling ten days of hiking and daily high altitude storms, nearly all his shots were hopelessly fogged. Some lessons are learned the hard way.

Rule Number 1: Do not hop across rocks with an expensive camera. It is not worth it.

 

[Helge]

Victor Hasselblad used watch makers to design the 1000 and 1600 and learned from that. After that the Hasselblads were designed and built by camera makers. As far as being expensive, yes they were and they are getting expensive again because of supply and demand. If you had listened to me ten years ago on this website when it was still called APUG, I repeatedly posted that at that time Hasselblad bodies were on the order of $400US and most lenses between $400US and $800US and that they were a bargain because professional photographers were dumping them for digital cameras. Did you, listen to me? No! You knew better! You probably said something like, "If Hasselblads are so cheap, they must not be any good. Let the dentists buy them!" Now I have mine. You cannot afford one. Eat your heart out because you thought that you were just too damned smart to listen to me.

AFAIK the core designer-engineers was much the same to the early sixties.
Hasselblads thing was never exceptional durability or reliability, though not very bad when take care of. But rather the availability of parts and service technicians. That is not such a give anymore.
Most Hassyes need regular service at least every decade or half decade, if used regularly.

 

[warden]

Rollei TLR's were what the yearbook crew used in high school. Might seem expensive for school kid use/abuse, but at least those cameras survived year after year. My bother had a couple of Rollei SL66's, and I inherited his square negs; but when he was alive he preferred to borrow my P67 for its more intuitive ergonomics and viewing. A well-off backpacking pal of mine used a Contax 6X6 with very pricey Zeiss lenses. We were way way back behind several high off-trail passes. He had brought along a prototype new tent that didn't have its own support system, so used his trekking poles to keep it standing. So one evening he tried hopping across rocks in a stream without any pole, with his fancy 6X6 over his shoulder rifle-style on a new Gitzo CF tripod, plus a different WA lens in a shoulder bag. He slipped and hurt his ankle, and the camera and lens went into the drink, plus the shoulder bag. He managed to pull the camera out before water got into it; but one lens was already fogged up, and the other had a dented filter ring. The Gitzo had two broken legs.

We got his foot reinforced enough with duct tape to make the long strenuous 5-day hike out. And I whittled a wooden pull that allowed me to straighten out his filter threads on the unfogged lens, then whittled two prosthetic legs out of bare whitebark pine branches and duct taped them on. It all worked. Whew. But when we finally got back to his van at the trailhead at dark, where he hid his key in a magnetic Hideakey behind the front bumper, it was gone! Some marmot or chipmunk had carried it off. So we searched around the chaparral brush with headlights until something sparkled, and we finally found it. But things got even worse. He wanted to sort out all his roll film in the dark, and with those rolls on end (and it was Ekfe film without a particularly good anti-halation backing), he was shining directly down upon it with his bright headlamp. I spotted him doing that too late. For all those grueling ten days of hiking and daily high altitude storms, nearly all his shots were hopelessly fogged. Some lessons are learned the hard way.

what?

 

[Pioneer]

Highly underrated especially since people by cameras via internet today, is the size of the camera. Large camera in small hands or a small camera in large hands may not fit well. A camera has to fit in your hands and please you not everyone else on a website.

Well spoken sir. I prefer cameras other than the Hasselblad for that very reason.

 

[Down Under]

Rollei TLRs were what the yearbook crew used in high school. Might seem expensive for school kid use/abuse, but at least those cameras survived year after year. My bother had a couple of Rollei SL66's, and I inherited his square negs; but when he was alive he preferred to borrow my P67 for its more intuitive ergonomics and viewing. A well-off backpacking pal of mine used a Contax 6X6 with very pricey Zeiss lenses. We were way way back behind several high off-trail passes. He had brought along a prototype new tent that didn't have its own support system, so used his trekking poles to keep it standing. So one evening he tried hopping across rocks in a stream without any pole, with his fancy 6X6 over his shoulder rifle-style on a new Gitzo CF tripod, plus a different WA lens in a shoulder bag. He slipped and hurt his ankle, and the camera and lens went into the drink, plus the shoulder bag. He managed to pull the camera out before water got into it; but one lens was already fogged up, and the other had a dented filter ring. The Gitzo had two broken legs.

We got his foot reinforced enough with duct tape to make the long strenuous 5-day hike out. And I whittled a wooden pull that allowed me to straighten out his filter threads on the unfogged lens, then whittled two prosthetic legs out of bare whitebark pine branches and duct taped them on. It all worked. Whew. But when we finally got back to his van at the trailhead at dark, where he hid his key in a magnetic Hideakey behind the front bumper, it was gone! Some marmot or chipmunk had carried it off. So we searched around the chaparral brush with headlights until something sparkled, and we finally found it. But things got even worse. He wanted to sort out all his roll film in the dark, and with those rolls on end (and it was Ekfe film without a particularly good anti-halation backing), he was shining directly down upon it with his bright headlamp. I spotted him doing that too late. For all those grueling ten days of hiking and daily high altitude storms, nearly all his shots were hopelessly fogged. Some lessons are learned the hard way.

Good reminisces, well written, most interesting to read. Many thanks!! It is always good to get a more full-on version of a story than only the this-camera-is-perfect rants we all too often get fed. Warts and all make for more amusing (and often informative) reading. The MF Contaxes were popular kits in Australia in the '60s and '70s and many now famous (and sadly now departed) nature photographers used them. A publisher I knew in Sydney once told me the production work required to get acceptable color separations from 35mm slides (mostly Fujichromes or Ektachromes in those days as there seemed to be an ingrained prejudice against Kodachrome among most photographers Down Under, for reasons I've never fully understood) involved so much work that they paid better money for MF slides which required much less effort to make the production images from.

As a lifelong Rollei man I am of course totally prejudiced in favor of this wonderful camera - I happen to own four but in my time I've owned five or even six Hasselblads so I say this with some experience - which happen to suit my 'body ergonomics' far better than the 'blads which sadly to me were more like handling small bricks.

In my time I took my older Rolleis out backpacking and trekking with me often. They always served me well and produced the goods even with my outdated Weston Masters for metering, often in such dim forest light that I could only get very minimal exposure readings from them and had to do the actual computing in my head, not always easy when one has celebrated rather too well in front of a campfire the night before and ingested a little too much Bundaberg overproof rum for one's liver to process.

Now those of us who have survived are all well beyond the three score and ten mark, or as we like to think over the hill and a fair few kilometers beyond. Our older cameras, be they Hasselblads, Rolleis, Contaxes, Bronicas, Fujis et al, have mostly almost all survived, unlike all our first digital SLRs which are now mere shelf queens (or "door stops" as the Aussies say). Also all my black-and-white negatives and almost all my color work (the latter more from good luck than any technique.)

Most of us miss film which now seems to be heading into the dinosaur pit along with the rest of us, but that's life and it's how it goes.

So yes, the good old days, eh what, ha!

 

[JPD]

When I adjust the focus on a folder with front element focusing I fist use a ground glass on the film plane and then I take a test roll with minor changes in the focus per each picture, according to a scale. I examine the negatives and set the front element to the number on the scale where the focus (at infinity) is perfect, and lock the focus scale in place. This way I take the film bulge into account.

 

[JPD]

For 6x6 (and cropped to a rectangular format) I use Rollei TLRs. For 6x9 I use an East German Zeiss Ercona II with Tessar, that I have adjusted for perfect focus. Sometimes a 6,5x9 plate camera and sheet film. I have never beed interested in a medium format SLR, since I like the normal lens and SLRs have more mechanics that can break.

Something like a Retina IIIc Heligon scaled to just 6x6 would have been one heavy and fat fucker.

Yes, they would have had to use a lot of plastic to make them lighter for the 6x6 size and lose some quality. The Retina c/C and b/B models are among the best designed 35mm folders. No scissor struts that can bend, but a big machined block of aluminium on guide rails to ensure perfect parallelism. Unit focusing lenses.

 

[LittleParallelograms]

Often I read about someone who went from 35mm to a big medium format SLR, and they talk about the better image quality that resulted from the switch. To me, medium format is just different, not necessarily better. But they usually mention this as the reason for why they're not going back to a smaller camera and smaller film size.

I have negs from lots of folders and MF SLR's, including 2.8 Rolleiflex, 'blads, Autocords, etc. The shots from my old 6x6 Voigtlander folder w/ a Heliar lens look as good as almost any of the SLR 6x6 negs. It's hard to beat that 2.8 Xenotar on the TLR for sheer sharpness of course, but the Tessar on an old Ikonta came pretty close.

Leaving aside the convenience and versatility factors that come w/ an SLR, shouldn't a folder give IQ that's essentially the same as a bigger SLR? Or have I overlooked something?

If you stop down the lenses to ƒ11 then yes you can get comparable results with a front element focusing folder at infinity. But as others have said close-up the focusing and framing is inexact, and the lens performance also suffers. The main issue for me is the lens coatings which is 1950s technology for most of the best old folders. You just don't get the same color and contrast pop as from more modern SLR lenses with better coatings. The Industar-58 on the Iskra is the best in that regard in my experience, contrast is excellent, although color is only decent.