Thanks, does it mean the shutter will still be able to function like the barn door of the 500 series without the battery?
What Hasselblad?
-
A
- Thread starter hiroh
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Panasonic S5II + 20-60mm Lens Kit, Barely Used
- Started by NortheastPhotographic
-
For Sale Schneider Kreuznach Super Angulon 8/120mm MC
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale FS: Rodenstock Imagon 200mm Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Commercial Congo 210mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica Elmar 50mm f/2.8, M mount (1st. version, 1960)
- Started by Manual Camera
Forum statistics
Thanks, does it mean the shutter will still be able to function like the barn door of the 500 series without the battery?
Hasselblad threads are always kind of funny. Mostly one sided responses with few road blocks thrown in here and there. Problem is Hasselblad isn't what it is claimed to be, even if it is a great camera in its own right. If I were to buy one again for sex appeal alone, I'd go with the 1000 or 1600 ... if they were to be for display case. As image capture device neither is a lasting option (if one can be found to start).
Hasselblad has SWC // Flexbody (Arcbody is a different beast due to lenses) // then the rest. Had I not start my line up with SWC, I'd probably never buy SWC.
The SWC is a spoiler, it's basically fake news when it comes to Hasselblad quality. It feels great, it spews precision in most every part of it (film magazine being the only system common piece, finders aside, as that is not how SWC is mostly used). Of course before getting a 500 body one does not necessarily think of missing flipping mirror, stupid barn doors, the whole shebang that is needed in a SLR set up .... and then in a Hasselblad's own way.
I'm not going to argue about lenses. If anyone wants to keep saying there is nothing like Zeiss they can. But even if that were the case, is Hasselblad what is being described as it is?
I'll just list a few things:
In all this, consider 553 ELX if you want to go into 500 series. To me that is a cut above the rest of 500 line up, even if larger and heavier. But at least it sounds like a camera ought to sound
Hasselblad has SWC // Flexbody (Arcbody is a different beast due to lenses) // then the rest. Had I not start my line up with SWC, I'd probably never buy SWC.
The SWC is a spoiler, it's basically fake news when it comes to Hasselblad quality. It feels great, it spews precision in most every part of it (film magazine being the only system common piece, finders aside, as that is not how SWC is mostly used). Of course before getting a 500 body one does not necessarily think of missing flipping mirror, stupid barn doors, the whole shebang that is needed in a SLR set up .... and then in a Hasselblad's own way.
I'm not going to argue about lenses. If anyone wants to keep saying there is nothing like Zeiss they can. But even if that were the case, is Hasselblad what is being described as it is?
I'll just list a few things:
- palpas coating: WTF was this about? Age accelerating testing has been around since 1920's and Hasselblad never read the news? It is simply disgusting to see what palpas looks like, an inexcusable switch, my SWC is an M so no palpas, but 503CW sadly has it, even if intact at this point in time
- when you claim high precision, top quality, the Moon thing etc. you better back it up. If you put a single lens on the market that does not mount tightly on the camera, you failed as an engineer, and even more so as quality controller. I know I am not the only one with such a lens, late David Odess confessed same in my private exchange with him. I don't care how little play there is, there ought to be none, not at this price point. Buying a Hasselblad lens and needing to ask seller if it mounts tightly on the camera? It's an utter joke
- dark slide: the number of mangled dark slides from Hasselblad is likely much above all other brands combined, why they never changed the alloy to make it more rigid I have no idea, but you do need to handle them with a lot more care, not a show stopper, they can be kept flat, but at least make sure you ask this question before buying a film magazine, or a spare one, lots of them are pictured in "best look mode"
- ergonomics: this is personal and applies to any camera. I'm not a fan of how Hasselblad sits in my hands, and all I can say ... handle one before purchase, or at least have return option. By handling I mean good two weeks of frequent use. It may be right for you, or you may end up where many have.
In all this, consider 553 ELX if you want to go into 500 series. To me that is a cut above the rest of 500 line up, even if larger and heavier. But at least it sounds like a camera ought to sound
I change film backs all the time. That is one of Hasselblads best features. I also change lenses. I always thought that Rolleiflex owners looked silly walking down the street with three cameras around their necks.
Yeah there’s more than one way to do it thankfully. I don’t carry multiple cameras or multiple lenses, and don’t look down on those who do. It’s all good. I’ve never seen someone carry two Rolleiflexes, let alone three.
One thing that has turned me off considering the CFV (beside the fact I currently can't afford it) is the fact that the Hasselblad backs can't rotate to take a portrait-oriented photo. You have to rotate the entire camera. As I use my digital back on a Hasselblad V camera (I have a 500CM, a 500ELX, and a 553ELX) mostly to make portraits, that's a deal-killer really.
The Phase One backs *do* rotate quite easily--I have a friend who shoots clubs, music events, and loads of other stuff with a P45, and it's brilliant on a Hasselblad V camera. (You can see quite a bit of his work at www.robinbharaj.com; he does use other cameras, but if you click on the music and fashion links at the top, *most* of that work, I believe, is with a 553ELX/Phase One P45. And nearly *all* the stuff in the reportage/live tab, definitely--I know because I served as human light stand for him on several of those galleries.)
Don't ever let anyone tell you that it doesn't make sense to shoot digital on old Hasselblad V cameras/lenses. They are *entirely* capable of producing great results, even though most of them date from pre-2000, sometimes well before. I not only can't afford a CFV, I can't swing an older Phase One, either--and they're getting rarer and more expensive. What I use is an ancient (2004 vintage) Sinarback 54M. It's so old I have to use an old (FireWire) MacBook with ancient software, and it has no card slot, no battery, and no screen, so I have to shoot it tethered. It's "only" 22 megapixels--but it's 22 *glorious* MP. And you can find them regularly on eBay for $750 or so (although the adapter, if not included, can hit you a couple hundred more--and they are getting rarer, too). If you want to see what a 19-year-old digital back can do on a Hasselblad V, here you go:
Portrait 1
Portrait 2
Macro
Make sure to view those full-resolution images at full size. The first portrait was taken with the 180mm CFi Sonnar and an extension tube, stopped down to about F16. The second one was taken with the 150mm CF Sonnar, wide open--using electronic flash, dialed way down. The last shot was me playing around--it's a photograph of an approximately 1.5x1 inch area of a coffee sack I had hanging on my studio wall. It was taken with the 120mm CFi Makro-Planar and the Auto Bellows. Fun stuff.
But yeah, if you're not going to shoot in landscape orientation all the time and can afford a Phase One back, I think you'd be happier with it than with a Hasselblad digital back. Shooting V series cameras digitally comes with some inherent awkwardness, and the Phase Ones seem to reduce that much more significantly than the Hasselblad backs, or the one I use (which really can't be used very practically outside of a studio).
Eugene Smith traveled with three Rollies: wide, tele and normal.
I never heard anyone regretting buying a Hasselblad; got three (3) 501cs myself. They feel like an extensio of my hands. I'd expect the 500c/m to be very similar.
I just did. I just regretted getting a 3rd one while shooting less then 30 rolls of film per year. So I returned it. I figured that at this rate the two bodies I already have should last me a lifetime. Am I wrong?
Yes, I believe that is what I just said.
The CFV gives similar results as the X1D. It uses the same sensor and similar hardware and processing as the X1D ii.
In a nutshell, I am *very* happy with the CFV mounted on a 500-series body. It handles very much like with a film back, provides great results, is very convenient and fast. Obviously the sensor is 33x44mm therefore there is a crop factor involved. Apart from that it’s as great as it can get!
As much as I love it on the 500-series, I cannot come to terms with the so-called 907x i.e. the back + 907x « camera » which is just an adapter between the back and an X-series lens. I bought the 45mm P to go with it. Many compare the shooting experience to an SWC. To me it is everything but that. Again nothing wrong with image quality (which is exceptional), it’s just about usability. Some love it, I don’t. It’s not about the camera, it’s just me.
However, the 500-series is limited on the wide angle side, due to the crop factor. I realized I do not use long lenses much with digital. My most used lens is the 60mm followed by the 120 and 135 macros.
Given that,
1) I do not use the back enough with the 500-series to justify the cost, (as a matter of fact, when I carry around the weight of the Hassy I prefer to shoot film!)
2) I do not care for the 907x value proposition,
I am now thinking about either replacing it with an X1D / X2D, adding a 55 or 65mm native lens to it for general (digital) shooting; or selling the entire Hassy digital gear I own (apart from the CFV, mainly the 45mm P and a few lenses adapters) and move on.
Does this answer your question?
the 60 and 80 are too close for me as well so, I stick to the classic 80. I like the 180 over the 150 for that little bit more distance and resolution for portraits. For even more reach, I take the 250 and the 40 in the rare cases here the 50 isn't wide enough, but it's a luxury.
Never met him.
You may run into him in the afterlife.
Yes,
But, an Acute Matte replacement screen will cost you, from what I've seen, more than $200.
I'd jump on a $200 C too, but only when/if my budget says so.
In general, you're probably right. But if I could find a 500C body in decent condition for $200, I'd jump on it
I shot a fair bit with the 500Cs and never really had a problem focusing. Worst case, and after market screen upgrade would cure that. The real benefit of the 501C/M is that it shows you the entire image with that sliding mirror arrangement, whereas the 500C does not display 100% of the image.
But, an Acute Matte replacement screen will cost you, from what I've seen, more than $200.
I'd jump on a $200 C too, but only when/if my budget says so.
The 501cm viewfinder shows the same amount of the image as the 500c (not 100%). Also the same as the 2000/200 series. The GMS sliding mirror just prevents vignetting at the top of the viewscreen when using long lenses (>150mm).
I disagree with 50% of this, Sirius. It does announce you have arrived but it does hurt. Just ask Sugar Ray and here's the proof
Feb. 5, 1943: Robinson vs LaMotta II The Bronx Bull Defeats Sugar Ray
Feb. 5, 1943: Robinson vs LaMotta II. Jake LaMotta scores a rare victory over the great Sugar Ray Robinson and thus begins one of boxing's great rivalries.
www.thefightcity.com
pentaxuser
I disagree with 50% of this, Sirius. It does announce you have arrived but it does hurt. Just ask Sugar Ray and here's the proof
Feb. 5, 1943: Robinson vs LaMotta II The Bronx Bull Defeats Sugar Ray
Feb. 5, 1943: Robinson vs LaMotta II. Jake LaMotta scores a rare victory over the great Sugar Ray Robinson and thus begins one of boxing's great rivalries.
pentaxuser
Not a problem for me because I do not go to boxing matches or even boxing cigarette/cigar lighters.
Not a problem for me because I do not go to boxing matches or even boxing cigarette/cigar lighters.
Sounds like it is now "fifteen all" at Queens to me
pentaxuser
Sounds like it is now "fifteen all" at Queens to me
pentaxuser
Please translate.
Sounds like it is now "fifteen all" at Queens to me
pentaxuser
Even Stephen
or should that be Ephen Steven?
On a different topic, anyone has insights on traveling with the Hasselblad? I am planning a trip to Europe towards December and thinking of brining one body and one lens only to keep things light. I will be traveling with my wife so won't be taking to long on a scene hence the lighter set up. I feel that 503CX + 50mm CF is a good combo to start with.
I have brought my Hasselblad 503 CX and Hasselblad 903 SWC to Europe several times with the 50mm and 80mm lens. The overall weight traveled well and was convenient. Taking the 250mm lens would have been less useful and a bit too heavy for me.
Agreed. But perhaps you can get your wife to carry a 120mm CF for you as well? Then you'll be set.
| 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:  |