Don't think, just get one.
Regardsm Art. (Types this as he strokes his yellow Hassey which he calls "My Precious" ...)
Thinking about a Hasselblad
-
A
- Thread starter BradS
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Kodak HIE BW Infrared film
- Started by romosoho
-
For Sale 90mm f/4.5 Caltar II-N (= Rodenstock Grandagon-N) in Copal 1
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Nikon FM kit
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
Forum statistics
Regardsm Art. (Types this as he strokes his yellow Hassey which he calls "My Precious" ...)
Get one, you'll love it.
I actually get better results with the Mamiya 645 1000S than my Hasselblad. But I believe that is due to the 150mm lens I use with the Mamiya and the lack of a 150mm lens for the Hasselblad.
With that said, the Hasselblad feels much better to handle, its lenses are great. They are fairly reliable. Today they are cheap. I want square negatives, which is why I am minimizing my setup to: Hasselblad, Holga, Pinhole 6x6, and a 5x7 studio camera. No 35mm, no other MF formats, no 4x5 to confuse me. All 6x6 or 5x7. That's my reason to keep it. Had the Mamiya been 6x6 I would have let the Hasselblad go.
If you don't need medium format - get over it. Stop drooling. They're not that great. They're good. But not miles above the rest.
- Thomas
With that said, the Hasselblad feels much better to handle, its lenses are great. They are fairly reliable. Today they are cheap. I want square negatives, which is why I am minimizing my setup to: Hasselblad, Holga, Pinhole 6x6, and a 5x7 studio camera. No 35mm, no other MF formats, no 4x5 to confuse me. All 6x6 or 5x7. That's my reason to keep it. Had the Mamiya been 6x6 I would have let the Hasselblad go.
If you don't need medium format - get over it. Stop drooling. They're not that great. They're good. But not miles above the rest.
- Thomas
I'll disagree about a Hassy being user unfriendly.
They are different in that they use the 6X6 format and while it may be 'wasteful', one never has to fiddle with turning the camera sideways - just verticle-crop, or horizontal-crop as you wish.
I would say a square format leaves you with one more thing to think about, but considering the lens quality, well worth the effort.
I own and use both the Hassy and an old, beat up RB67; both formats have their place.
To me the Blad system is truly a system camera that instills confidence. The first one I owned was truly missed once I sold it get into large format. I went through all manor of mamiya 645 systems aswell along the way and always hankered for the square in the end. That was when I scored a Mamiya 6. That too is a great system for traveling and hiking, but for close up work it's not the best and that's when the blad comes into it's own. I recently (About a year ago) acquired another Blad system and I am so glad I did. It's now my most used system. All this talk about the ideal negative size for printing does not mean squat if you enjoy composing and printing images square in the first place. Cropping is usually not something I do often, but I have that as an option I can revert to. Learning to compose and see in square format is also very refreshing. I find compositions are more easily handled, maybe now because it's what I am used to doing. To me it's intuitive, no need to rotate the camera for portrait format or anything distracting like that. Blad's also handle very well indeed. Again, something that once learned is so easy and flowing that it becomes second nature.
When it's all said and done, it comes down to what fits your personal work flow. People can tell you what system to own, but ultimately it's up to you to make the choice in system you do use. Rent one of each before you make the choice if you want to. It will make your choice more educated and will be what you feel comfortable with. Live with it, use it, and make it become second nature.
As for reliability, any minor hiccups I've encountered are normally user error! The two I have owned along the way have never let me down and I'd be stuck if I did not have the system I now own. Lens quality and reliability is also another reason I own one. My Mamiya 6 will without a doubt, trounce the zeiss equivalents, and I can see the difference, but that pails into insignificance when you factor in the limited Mamiya 6 reliability. The potential for winder failure is a real issue, and then the camera becomes a paper weight! I use it less, but mainly when I need to travel lighter. For me, my go to system for EVERYTHING is my Hasselblad 500 C/M and 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm lenses. Just a pure consistent quality product that you can rely on. If anything does go wrong, it can be fixed and spares are, and will continue to be available.
YMMV
Go for it
When it's all said and done, it comes down to what fits your personal work flow. People can tell you what system to own, but ultimately it's up to you to make the choice in system you do use. Rent one of each before you make the choice if you want to. It will make your choice more educated and will be what you feel comfortable with. Live with it, use it, and make it become second nature.
As for reliability, any minor hiccups I've encountered are normally user error! The two I have owned along the way have never let me down and I'd be stuck if I did not have the system I now own. Lens quality and reliability is also another reason I own one. My Mamiya 6 will without a doubt, trounce the zeiss equivalents, and I can see the difference, but that pails into insignificance when you factor in the limited Mamiya 6 reliability. The potential for winder failure is a real issue, and then the camera becomes a paper weight! I use it less, but mainly when I need to travel lighter. For me, my go to system for EVERYTHING is my Hasselblad 500 C/M and 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm lenses. Just a pure consistent quality product that you can rely on. If anything does go wrong, it can be fixed and spares are, and will continue to be available.
YMMV
Go for it
My history of medium format camera ownership:
1. Borrowed Rolleiflex T from my brother. Had to give it back....
2. Bought used Mamiya 645 with 3 lenses. Reason: handled like a big 35mm.
3. Sold 645, bought Mamiya 330 and two lenses. Reason: missed the square format.
4. Sold 330, bought Mamiya RB 67 and three lenses. Reason: not satisfied with the sharpness of the 330 lenses.
5. Sold RB, bought Hasselblad 550ELM and three lenses. Reason: I could finally afford a Hasselblad. Discovery: the Zeiss lenses more than made up for the format difference from the RB. They were incredible.
6. Traded the Hasselblad system for a Linhof Technika V with 5 lenses. Reason: I really, really wanted a Technika 4x5.
7. Bought a Linhof Technika 70 with three lenses. Incredible system. All stolen...
8. Bought a Rollei 2.8F 120/220. Reason: I really, really love the Rolleiflex TLR's!
9. Bought a Linhof 220. Incredible camera, but delicate.
10. Sold the Linhof 220 and bought a Rollei 6003 with 80 lens. Reason: I used a friend's SLX and loved it.
11. Bought a Hasselblad 503CX with 150 lens and two backs. Reason: it was cheaper (and easier to find) than A 150 lens for the 6003!
What have I learned after all these (30!) years? That I wasted a lot of money on second rate cameras before I got a Hasselblad and a Rolleiflex.
1. Borrowed Rolleiflex T from my brother. Had to give it back....
2. Bought used Mamiya 645 with 3 lenses. Reason: handled like a big 35mm.
3. Sold 645, bought Mamiya 330 and two lenses. Reason: missed the square format.
4. Sold 330, bought Mamiya RB 67 and three lenses. Reason: not satisfied with the sharpness of the 330 lenses.
5. Sold RB, bought Hasselblad 550ELM and three lenses. Reason: I could finally afford a Hasselblad. Discovery: the Zeiss lenses more than made up for the format difference from the RB. They were incredible.
6. Traded the Hasselblad system for a Linhof Technika V with 5 lenses. Reason: I really, really wanted a Technika 4x5.
7. Bought a Linhof Technika 70 with three lenses. Incredible system. All stolen...
8. Bought a Rollei 2.8F 120/220. Reason: I really, really love the Rolleiflex TLR's!
9. Bought a Linhof 220. Incredible camera, but delicate.
10. Sold the Linhof 220 and bought a Rollei 6003 with 80 lens. Reason: I used a friend's SLX and loved it.
11. Bought a Hasselblad 503CX with 150 lens and two backs. Reason: it was cheaper (and easier to find) than A 150 lens for the 6003!
What have I learned after all these (30!) years? That I wasted a lot of money on second rate cameras before I got a Hasselblad and a Rolleiflex.
Been there, done that eddym, I now have a Rolleiflex 3.5F and a Hasselblad 500C/M system. Zeiss lenses are quite superb and second to none, and the precision engineering of both cameras puts the competitors in the shade.
Well, I'm not going to get into all the medium format gear I have -- but suffice it to say I'm not getting rid of the 500C/M or the Rolleiflexes. (Yes, that's a plural -- talk about addictive.) They deliver the goods, and are well worth the money, which fortunately isn't as much as it used to be!
6x6 wastefull?
Probably you never use teststrips to find the optimal time/gradation, but in my case I use the strip that is beside the square as test strip.
Otherwise buy a roll and cut it into squares. This is even cheaper than buying boxes.
The mean thing you have to think about is the quality of the lenses, and the simple use of the camera so that it will still work after 20 years. That's the main thing.
Which model Hasselblad ?
Assuming one were to take the plunge, any guidance on what would be the best model? A late 500cm seems to be the best value for the long term at around $500 for an EX condition used body. Just curious if any of the later models such as the 501 or 503 offer any practical advantages. Obviously, I am an amateur here, not needing auto-winders, TTL-OTF flash metering, etc.
-Mark
Assuming one were to take the plunge, any guidance on what would be the best model? A late 500cm seems to be the best value for the long term at around $500 for an EX condition used body. Just curious if any of the later models such as the 501 or 503 offer any practical advantages. Obviously, I am an amateur here, not needing auto-winders, TTL-OTF flash metering, etc.
-Mark
The 501CM, and the 503 (i think) has the "sliding mirror" feature, that reduces vignetting with 150 or longer lenses.
I recently got a 150 for my 500CM, and don't notice the vignetting. After handing a 501 a few months ago, my subjective view is that the 500 seems more robust, in particular, the little "feet" that support the bottom of the magazine look to be thicker on a 500 CM, FWIW. Based on that I'd recommend a 500 C/M, but you might want to be prepared to spend some money on a CLA. Also FWIW, 500 USD seems pretty high for even an ex 500CM body. Last time I looked, KEH had bare ones for 200 or less.
If you want TTL metering, it can be added via a prism, though that prism is probably more costly than a body.
If you go with a waist-level finder, I highly recommend the newer style that is less hassle to fold.
I have a question to pose, is the Accu-Matte screen worth double or more the price of the standard screens? Comments?
Barry
I recently got a 150 for my 500CM, and don't notice the vignetting. After handing a 501 a few months ago, my subjective view is that the 500 seems more robust, in particular, the little "feet" that support the bottom of the magazine look to be thicker on a 500 CM, FWIW. Based on that I'd recommend a 500 C/M, but you might want to be prepared to spend some money on a CLA. Also FWIW, 500 USD seems pretty high for even an ex 500CM body. Last time I looked, KEH had bare ones for 200 or less.
If you want TTL metering, it can be added via a prism, though that prism is probably more costly than a body.
If you go with a waist-level finder, I highly recommend the newer style that is less hassle to fold.
I have a question to pose, is the Accu-Matte screen worth double or more the price of the standard screens? Comments?
Barry
It´s worth the investment yes, the Minolta made screens are brighter, therefore, helping you alot in low-light photography situations.
Makes it easier to focus and inspires you to do better photographs.
Cheers
André
The 503 CW does indeed, the 503 CX and 503 CXi do not.
Most parts of these cameras are the same. A 501 CM is a 500 C/M with different mirror mechanism, and a few other, rather minor differences.
The 'structural bits' are the same. Robustness is too.
But yes, all but the later 500 C/Ms have two separate feet, whereas all later 500-series cameras have them joined in a single metal bit.
The separate two feet construction is in fact the lesser of the two, possibly leading to a wobbly magazine.
If not for my Maxwell screen, I couldn't shoot with the Hasselblad....eyes just aren't as good as they once were. I found the Accu-Matte to be just as bright as Maxwell, just a little more money.
Neal
Yes. The old standard 500CM screen truly sucks. It's one of the reasons I traded away my 500ELM.
The old screens are dim, and have a rather coarse structure, but have a more definite focus, and are easier to focus than Acute Matte screens (in both versions). Provided there is enough light.
Acute Matte screens also not show the out of focus parts as they will appear on film. The plain old diffusing screens will.
Acute Matte screens also not show the out of focus parts as they will appear on film. The plain old diffusing screens will.
i used a 500cm and since a few months the 501cm.
The 500cm has problems showing the whole picture with my 250mm lens. The 501cm shows the whole pic.
The bottom of the 501 is somewhat higher with left and right two plastic items that keep the body standing.
The quick release plate at the bottom on the 501 body is different than the 500 (higher).
The 500cm has problems showing the whole picture with my 250mm lens. The 501cm shows the whole pic.
The bottom of the 501 is somewhat higher with left and right two plastic items that keep the body standing.
The quick release plate at the bottom on the 501 body is different than the 500 (higher).
Thanks for the comments re the screens, I certainly agree that the standard screen truly sucks. I currently use a grid/microprism screen in one body, and a split image in another. But the split image is just about useless with the 150. The microprism does ok with the 150, but it's hard to focus in dim and soft light, so I've been curious about finding something brighter.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |