fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

3 4 end

Archive 2012 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

ken.vs.ryu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/hs/hstable.aspx

Sep 27, 2012 at 07:17 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

Makten wrote:
Once you've tried the prism viewfinder, you'll probably change your mind. Yes, it's a bit bulky, but you get an 1.0x magnification with the 80 mm lens and I haven't tried any camera with a nicer OVF ever. It's just amazing.

Which prism finder do you have?

Sep 28, 2012 at 03:07 AM

wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

carstenw wrote:
There is this: http://www.photoethnography.com/equipment.html (look down a bit), but it is not complete.

Basically, unless you are using flash, all 500-series cameras can be summarised by saying that they have no metering or other features, and use only leaf-shutter lenses (C, CF, CFi, CFE)

The 2000-series has a focal plane shutter and can use F and FE lenses, but still have no metering. The 200-series is a bit mixed, but some of them are fairly advanced, with metering. They also have a focal plane shutter and take F and FE lenses. Both 2000- and 200-series cameras can also use C/CF/etc....Show more →

Thanks. Missed to subscribe to the thread.. :-)

Yes I am playing with the thought. Pricewise they are if not cheap - at least affordable. But that model park is a jungle. I dont mind the lack of automation too much, film seem a bit more forgiving (SOOC) than digital anyway. Could not find anything about Hasselblad on the link though. thanks for the walk through. Do you know about lens availability between the 500 and 2000-series? If I take the step I will be looking for the most classic setup and would prefer something a bit wideangle (say 28 to max 45:ish on an 35mm cam)

Sep 29, 2012 at 05:03 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

carstenw wrote:
Which prism finder do you have?

I think it's the PM-5. Here's a nice page on Hasselblad finders:
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/HasselbladFinders.html

Sep 29, 2012 at 07:25 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

The 2000-series was short-lived and some models had shutter problems. The 200-series was outrageously expensive back in the day, so there are not many around. The two top models were the 205TCC/205FCC and the 203FE, both of which had metering, the former with some kind of strange spot/zone system setup, and the latter with more normal (apparently amazingly reliable) centre-weighted, and it supports aperture priority. After reading much about it, I decided this was probably the ultimate Hasselblad, and bought one, along with the amazing 110/2 and 50/2.8 lenses (the latter is *really* heavy, at about 1.5kg). Several previous owners were always ranting about this camera, saying it was essentially the perfect film camera, including a couple of pros over on getdpi who I respect.

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/Hasselblad200.html

It didn't work out that way for me though. I don't know exactly what it was about it, I just couldn't bond with it. I found the operation a bit quirky, and hard to remember. Clearly some others don't feel that way, and just love it to bits. Anyway, I am selling mine, probably on eBay, where they fetch good prices, up to 2000 Euro in near-new condition, or about 1300 Euro in used but good condition. Mine is probably somewhere in between good and perfect, but I will price it around 1300 to sell fast, I suppose. It does need a special version of the waist-level finder with a cutout for the meter readout panel. I have such a finder, but bought it new for 250 Euro, and don't expect anyone to want to pay me that much, so I will just keep it, I guess, and use it with my older camera.

After that experiment, I pretty much decided that the perfect Hasselblad V camera is the 500-series. Primitive, weird, but charming and with a nice assortment of lenses for fair prices. I would avoid the 500C, which has a non-interchangeable screen, and look for a clean 500C/M, or one of the newer 501/503 models. It doesn't really matter which, the changes between models were small, and the most advanced models only add flash features, which I do not intend to use. The 503CW is the latest. None have metering. I plan to use my iPhone for metering

I do also have both a Gossen Lunasix and a Pentax Digital Spotmeter, in case I feel old-fashioned. I would recommend the CF/CFi/CFE lenses, as they are more flare resistant and modern, but realise that the C lenses have a special charm. Martin (Makten) has a black 500C/M with a black edition of the 80/2.8C, I believe.

I currently still have a 2000FC/M with an 80/2.8 CF lens, which is to me the perfect setup, except that I will probably swap the 2000FC/M for a 500 one day. I also have a Rolleiflex 6008i with 50/4, 60/3.5, 80/2.8 and 150/4. This camera is much more modern and has approximately normal operation even by today's standards, but it isn't as charming, and is also bigger and heavier, due to the built-in motor drive.

Sep 29, 2012 at 07:43 AM

thrice
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

I think one of you should buy my 501CM

Sep 29, 2012 at 07:59 AM

corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

wfrank wrote:
Do you know about lens availability between the 500 and 2000-series? If I take the step I will be looking for the most classic setup and would prefer something a bit wideangle (say 28 to max 45:ish on an 35mm cam)

carstenw has a nice write up. You can use 500 (V) lenses on 200 series cameras (and also many other modern (i.e. digital) medium format systems with adapters), but you can't use 200 (F/FE) lenses on 500 series cameras, because there's no shutter in the body. That's why people love the F/FE lenses, since they are often 1 to 2 stops faster.

The 80mm Planar, which is about 45mm in 35mm terms, is a "classic" lens. I am not sure Zeiss ever updated the optical formula through the years. I prefer a longer than normal standard lens, so I have the 100mm Planar (~55mm), which is more modern (designed for NASA to photograph Earth from the moon). If you like 28mm, you will love the 50mm Distagon FLE.

Sep 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

thrice wrote:
I think one of you should buy my 501CM

Chrome or black? I think you should move to Germany before I buy it, so I don't have to pay 25.7% upon import and take a half a day off work to pick it up at the customs office

Sep 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

Thanks Carsten for that comprehensive write-up! I read some stuff about the 203FE and I realize it's a lot of things to fall in love with there

But maybe the point is to have something that can be used every now and then, not needing to keep up with how a specific model works so I am with you that the more basic models is probably where to go.

Just because the 500EL was the one in space I find that one very attractive, found some 9V adaptation to the winder which would make it possible. It's the same as Kai is using in the Hong Kong streets. But it's bulky, and the space one dont have exchangable screens. The CM/ELM version does. How important is that?

[ For me, if the 5D2 didnt have the EG-S screen I would never have gone manual at all, and I would never have spent any time at Fred Miranda Alt, so I assume this is critical? ]

I think I would go for a basic version, a chrome 500CM with a chrome 80mm (or lower) FL.

Martin: You have the Hasselblad "basic" and you have also used a Pentax MF (right?). How do they compare? Also, I think I recall a comparison between the NEX 5N with Voigt 35/1.2 and an MF where the conclusion was about the superority in detailing and DOF of the MF I believe (though I personally am very impressed by some of the FM-members usage of the 35/1.2-5N). It was a car shot, some kind of "bossanova swap meat - Atomic Swing" kind of US muscle car. I think.

Corposant, thank you too. The FL conversion factor is what, 1.8? I realize aspect ratio differs, one of the attractive features of MF is the square format. If you crop a Hasselblad image to 2x3, is 1.8 valid, or is it defined differently?

This leads to a magazine/back-question. The A12 seem to be the standard one, yielding 56x56mm negatives. What's the point of anything else?

Sep 29, 2012 at 02:05 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

corposant wrote:
The 80mm Planar, which is about 45mm in 35mm terms, is a "classic" lens. I am not sure Zeiss ever updated the optical formula through the years. I prefer a longer than normal standard lens, so I have the 100mm Planar (~55mm), which is more modern (designed for NASA to photograph Earth from the moon). If you like 28mm, you will love the 50mm Distagon FLE.

The 80mm Planar CB does have a different optical formula than the rest. I have one, and I've read from others that the CB is a little better in the center and a little worse at the edges, but I've never tested that myself.

Sep 29, 2012 at 02:17 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

wfrank wrote:
Martin: You have the Hasselblad "basic" and you have also used a Pentax MF (right?). How do they compare?

I'd say they are very different. I have the Pentax 67II with four lenses; 55/4, 75/4.5, 90/2.8 and 105/2.5. The camera is a joy to use, but it's very large and heavy. Lenswise, I prefer to just bring either the 55 and 105, or the 90. They are all very good and in some ways superior to the Zeiss 80/2.8. However, I enjoy the Hasselblad more. It gets you back to the roots and I don't need more lenses than just the normal, as it's very versatile on the square format.

Furthermore, the Hasselblad is modular and you can have several film backs with you for color, slide film, black and white, and so on. If you want a prism finder, the PM-5 gives a huge view compared to the P67II. I prefer the folding hood though.

If you want shortest possible DOF, the 105/2.4 on the Pentax wins easily over the 80/2.8. The bokeh is better and you get a look that is very hard to replicate without using even larger formats. Still I like the simple Planar very much and it behaves a bit like a 50/1.4 Planar on 24x36, but sharper. Busy bokeh at short distance and smoooooth looks at a couple of meters and beyond.

Also, I think I recall a comparison between the NEX 5N with Voigt 35/1.2 and an MF where the conclusion was about the superority in detailing and DOF of the MF I believe (though I personally am very impressed by some of the FM-members usage of the 35/1.2-5N). It was a car shot, some kind of "bossanova swap meat - Atomic Swing" kind of US muscle car. I think.

The comparison is here, in swedish: http://www.fotosidan.se/blogs/hertsius/sony-nex-5n-mot-hasselblad-500.htm

Sep 29, 2012 at 02:40 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

wfrank wrote:
Just because the 500EL was the one in space I find that one very attractive, found some 9V adaptation to the winder which would make it possible. It's the same as Kai is using in the Hong Kong streets. But it's bulky, and the space one dont have exchangable screens. The CM/ELM version does. How important is that?

The EL variants are much bulkier and heavier. At that point I think a Rolleiflex is just infinitely better, with all the same lenses and more. The reliability of the earliest ones is in question too. If you really want to get the "moon" camera, get it as a collector, and get a 500C/M for every day. Anyway, the EL/M is not what was used:

http://www.digicamhistory.com/Hasselbald%20500EL%20sep.html

There is one really nice thing about the 500/2000 cameras: when you close the waist-level finder, they hang nose down and can tuck under your one arm. The 200 series started moving the lugs around to fit more electronics, and they don't hang nose down any more. The various prism finders make them into really ungainly blocks of metal, leather and horse hair (remember those old Hasselblad ads, from the backs of... erm... other magazines than Playboy?), and the EL cameras were monsters without the elegance of the hand winders. Furthermore, I would postulate that the act of winding the film is a large part of the experience, which you would completely miss with such a camera.

To answer your question about screens, it is *crucial* to be able to replace it. The early screens are incredibly dim. The Acute Matte screens are awesome. Night and day difference. Of course, if you are a fanatic about it, you could get someone to unscrew the 500EL/M screen, fit a new screen and shim it until it is just right, but you would be sinking a lot more money into the camera than you would ever get back out.

I think I would go for a basic version, a chrome 500CM with a chrome 80mm (or lower) FL.

Chrome = C. Recall that these lenses flare a lot more, unless you find one of the early chrome T* copies.

This leads to a magazine/back-question. The A12 seem to be the standard one, yielding 56x56mm negatives. What's the point of anything else?

On the newer E series, the ISO and exposure compensation will be carried over to a 200-series camera. There are also different versions of the A12. The early ones had no place to store the dark slide (another area where the Rolleiflex is infinitely better), but they are more beautiful. The later ones have a slot on the back, but look a little Frankencamera.

One huge reason for getting one of these cameras is just the (side-to-side) view through a giant, bright viewfinder (Acute Matte). The look is incredibly 3D, leading you to waste a ton of shots on mediocre subjects, just because you think the 3D in the viewfinder will land on the photo. The reality is different: it is just as hard as with Canons and Nikons. But that viewfinder! Sigh.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22849490@N08/7217154678

Edited on Sep 29, 2012 at 03:03 PM · View previous versions

Sep 29, 2012 at 02:44 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

douglasf13 wrote:
The 80mm Planar CB does have a different optical formula than the rest. I have one, and I've read from others that the CB is a little better in the center and a little worse at the edges, but I've never tested that myself.

Yes, the CB were budget versions.

Sep 29, 2012 at 02:55 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

EL vs. non:

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/003-kamera-Hasselblad-500-EL-schwarz-seitenansicht.jpg

http://musicaememoria.altervista.org/thumbnails/tn_hasselblad_500c.jpg

Sep 29, 2012 at 03:00 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

carstenw wrote:
Yes, the CB were budget versions.

Yeah, on the used market, the 80 CBs go for about the same price as the 80 CFs. From what I understand, MFDB users like the CB, because the center is sharper, and the edges are cropped off.

Sep 29, 2012 at 03:40 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

carstenw wrote:
To answer your question about screens, it is *crucial* to be able to replace it. The early screens are incredibly dim. The Acute Matte screens are awesome. Night and day difference.

I must disagree with you here Carsten (and 99% of the internet crowd) about the viewfinder screens. I find the accumatte terrible if you want to see what the final image will look like. The stock screen of the 500 c/m is a bit dim, yes, but very accurate and not as bad as you might think. It's just like a Canon EG-S screen compared to a screen optimised for AF use. Dimmer, but showing real DOF better.

So, if you shoot in good light, there is nothing wrong at all with the stock screen or the non-interchangable one in the older 500 series cameras. In lower light situations, the accumatte screen helps, but there is NO WAY you can see where focus ends up if you don't rely on the split prism.

I usually bring both screens as it only takes seconds to switch them with the c/m body. For daylight use outdoors, I prefer the stock screen.

Sep 29, 2012 at 04:36 PM

corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

+1 to carstenw - you want to be able to switch screens. I have the Acute Matte split prism/grid, and it's great. I actually like the microprism collar you get on the Britescreens too.

That's the great thing with a truly modular system - you can build it the way you like it (prism/wlf, winder/crank, grip, etc), and always have the option to switch.

I have a couple A12s, and one A24 since I have some 220 film hanging around.

Sep 29, 2012 at 04:52 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

Makten wrote:
I must disagree with you here Carsten (and 99% of the internet crowd) about the viewfinder screens. I find the accumatte terrible if you want to see what the final image will look like. The stock screen of the 500 c/m is a bit dim, yes, but very accurate and not as bad as you might think. It's just like a Canon EG-S screen compared to a screen optimised for AF use. Dimmer, but showing real DOF better.

So, if you shoot in good light, there is nothing wrong at all with the stock screen or the non-interchangable one in the...Show more →

Interesting, you are the only one I know of who likes the old screen. I had a 500C with 80/2.8C for about a decade, and I got a large number of out of focus shots with it. Only in bright daylight did I find it workable. Even in outdoor shadow, like in a forest, I would immediately have trouble. This improved when I got a newer body with the Acute Matte.

Sep 29, 2012 at 07:12 PM

Policar
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

Interesting...I used the loupe all the time with my Mamiya RZ67, and if I remember the Hasselblad I tried had a similarly good pop up loupe and that was enough for me...but the righted image might be nice in some cases and the assembly is just so big relative to the camera.

That said, I suspect once I tried it I might change my mind.

Sep 29, 2012 at 08:15 PM

Grenache
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Anyone shoot Hasselblad?

Love me some 503CW. I just wish there was a cost effective untethered digital back. I don't have the time to process film these days.

Jim

Sep 29, 2012 at 09:29 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end