How great is Hasselblad REALLY?

Asha said:
A nice outfit but very easy to turn down if it’s not going to offer what the tog wants in a practital and ergonomic capacity. . ;)
Click to expand...
I don't see the robot to carry it around for you! :naughty:
 
I really like the 500CM. I traded my Leica M6 in for one several years back (I want to say 2015).

This was when you could get them for like £750-800! The prices have shot up since then.

I've used Rolleiflex/Cords in the past. They weren't for me. I love the handling dynamics of the 500 C/M and there is just something about how the Zeiss renders IMO. Though saying that, the Bronica SQA also looks a solid option.
 
Thanks All

So amazing seeing the diverse responses, every input appreciated!

For me, personally, I still believe the RB67 is still the ultimate…maybe I’m a masochist…

The Hasselblad is pretty but I reckon the square aspect ratio is probably the deal breaker for me…after the fact that I simply can’t afford one…:naughty:
 
antonroland said:
The Hasselblad is pretty but I reckon the square aspect ratio is probably the deal breaker for me…after the fact that I simply can’t afford one…:naughty:
Click to expand...
I have a 6 X 4.5 back for mine with viewfinder mask.
Granted it's not 6X7 but I do get 16 shots off a 120 roll.
 
antonroland said:
the square aspect ratio is probably the deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...
That does make sense. I really quite liked the 6x7 negs. But after a couple of years, the weight became the back breaker deal breaker :)
 
I do take the point about the weight, but, having come from 35mm where I routinely carried not only the camera and standard lens but several other lenses besides, with the RB/RZ67 and only one lens I found that the total weight being carried was less. There are subjects where square works well, and I do have a 6x6 camera (Mamiya C330f), but I can always crop a 6x7 if needed.
 
Never in all these years did I get the issue of heavy kit…:thinking:

I remember doing hours of kiddies rugby with a 1D and 300/2,8…

OK, my daily drive is a LandRover Defender 110…maybe that explains a bit…;)
 
antonroland said:
Never in all these years did I get the issue of heavy kit…:thinking:

I remember doing hours of kiddies rugby with a 1D and 300/2,8…

OK, my daily drive is a LandRover Defender 110…maybe that explains a bit…;)
Click to expand...

Some people are just "stronger" than others.

Someone's" too big and heavy" is another's "reassuringly solid and well laid out" and vice versa someone's "light and portable" is another's "small, fiddly and cheap feeling"

You see this come up on the digital sections of the forum in regards to DSLR and mirrorless etc and FF vs M43
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
Some people are just "stronger" than others.

Someone's" too big and heavy" is another's "reassuringly solid and well laid out" and vice versa someone's "light and portable" is another's "small, fiddly and cheap feeling"

You see this come up on the digital sections of the forum in regards to DSLR and mirrorless etc and FF vs M43
Click to expand...
You are so right…I saw this so many times over the years and I still don’t get how anyone but petite ladies with 100 pound frames can consider a full frame D-SLR heavy…:naughty:
 
I've been up the north face of Ben Nevis path with a 4.2kg 5x4 monorail in my hand, a tripod and RZ67 plus lens in backpack plus double dark slides etc. etc. so I could carry weight if necessary. I suppose though given my advanced age (21, as I count - like all normal people - in base-36 rather than the decimalised base-10) I might not be quite as strong as I was...
 
antonroland said:
You are so right…I saw this so many times over the years and I still don’t get how anyone but petite ladies with 100 pound frames can consider a full frame D-SLR heavy…:naughty:
Click to expand...

They're not. I have a D850 and I described it as a nice little camera which got someone going on social media.
 
antonroland said:
I remember doing hours of kiddies rugby with a 1D and 300/2,8…
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Which of these two Canons would I prefer to carry all day every day?

Hint - I no longer have the big black one... :naughty:

Canon Eos 1Ds II with 28-135mm lens and Ixus Digital TZ7 1020222.jpg
 
antonroland said:
You are so right…I saw this so many times over the years and I still don’t get how anyone but petite ladies with 100 pound frames can consider a full frame D-SLR heavy…:naughty:
Click to expand...

Like Stephen, I have carried heavy kits but now, due to health issues, I am often glad to have lighter LF outfits to hand.
 
I'm happy to have a petite 100 lb lady to help me carry my kit!
 
I used to sell Hasselblad cameras for Wey Cameras in Weybridge Surrey from 1992 to 1999. I loved them the absolute crisp quality of the Zeiss lenses they are awesome. I shot a great deal of weddings on one and loved the ability to shoot square or just compose the image as a cropped landscape or portrait without loss in quality. It can be used in one hand or on a tripod. Victor H designed it to sit comfortably in his left hand with the index finger to trigger the shutter. I found the Acute Matt focusing screens a fabulous accessory along with the quick release plate. The T* lenses are definitely the ones to buy but even the pre T* have a lovely quality.

Ansel Adams used one and his work is top quality.

I can understand why some would go for the 6x7 Mamiya with the rotating back over a Bronica 6x7 or a smaller 645 for 16 shots, though Hasselblad did an A16 back with viewfinder accessory to compose the rectangular image. There's no doubt in my mind the lenses are superior to Japanese high contrast


Image below of the Square format always worked pretty well for smaller group shots for me (image is a scanned print BTW) 80mm f2.8 Planar Black T*

Nigel & Rosie with friends.jpg
 
Last edited:
chivers67 said:
Ansel Adams used one and his work is top quality.
Click to expand...
He used LF outfits too, from which he produced some excellent quality results.

I suppose then that outside of LF and Hassy, nothing else comes close :thinking:
 
Asha said:
He used LF outfits too, from which he produced some excellent quality results.

I suppose then that outside of LF and Hassy, nothing else comes close :thinking:
Click to expand...

I suppose you have seen his portraits of Alfred Stieglitz and Georgia o'Keeffe taken with a Contax? (They are both in his "Examples" book.)
 
Last edited:
chivers67 said:
It can be used in one hand or on a tripod. Victor H designed it to sit comfortably in his left hand with the index finger to trigger the shutter. I found the Acute Matt focusing screens a fabulous accessory along with the quick release plate.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to agree that ergonomics can make all the difference when using a camera, hence the often repeated advice to handle before buying. I'm also happy to agree that a good focusing screen is a big benefit in nailing your focus, especially in pressure situations such as weddings. Once the camera goes on the tripod, I'm not just as convinced that Victor's left-hand holding design is out in front of others, but that's always going to be down to preferences.

I'm more interested in whether you had the chance to compare the Hasselblad lenses to the ones fitted to the Rollei SL66, since that was the camera I used to hanker after because of its tilt ability?
 
Pretty similar quality to be honest. Even the Rollie TLR had planar lenses attached that were fantastic.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This is a debate that I remember going back to the 1960s. There were several specialists in feature photography who argued that a Rollei twin lens reflex was all that anyone required to earn a good living. If you're a pessimist or want to make colour and monochrome images at the same time, carry two.

I tried this theory out for a year or so when I was doing local press stuff in the '70s and it turned out to be not entirely silly.

Just another thought for the pile...

View attachment 347649
Click to expand...

I used Rollie's and 5x4 professionally for years, could not get on with Hasselblad.
Once worked for Alex Pearlman for about 6 months in his Harrow and Watford shops, but retail was not my thing at all.
 
Regarding ergonomics, the Hasselblad 503cw is at its best with the winder cw.
I do prefer the 35mm style shutter button placement.
 
I worked for a company as a weddding photographer in the early to late 1970's and used a 500C teamed with a Metz hammerhead flashgun and bracket. Combined with a bunch of spare backs it was a beautiful camera to use both on and off a tripod using a QR system. We were given other 6x6 cameras to evaluate but we all prefered the Hasselblads. Towards the end of the 70's some of the cameras were begining to get a bit 'touchy' in use and the company had to have them serviced - an expensive business.

I would love another one but the prices are way beyond me now and I'm not sure my nerves would stand the reliability issues that many Hasselbalds seem to have these days so I'll stick to my Yashi's and Mamiyaflex's.
 
Our wedding pictures were shot with a Blad. It had a shutter sync problem with the flash, and about half the flash pictures failed. :runaway::LOL:

FWIW that was more than 40 years ago. The togger was the chemistry teacher from my wife's school (she left in June, after A levels we married in October) who was an operator locally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top