Hasselblad 500c "debating" Need Help
- Thread starter hmfilmer
- Start date
egproductions
Veteran
I don't think there are too many consistent medium format users in this forum but I would imagine this pretty much a pros and cons discussion of film V.S. digital.
Digital is a faster workflow, cheaper if you shoot professionally. DSLRs have faster frame rates and are faster in general when you need to take a lot of pictures at an event/sports etc.
The hasselblad or any film camera is going to offer you superior quality (although these days it can be negligable), The film will be future proof being able to be scanned at any point in time with better scanners while digital is going to be stuck in 2009 quality. Film offers better dynamic range and is true "RAW" (as ken rockwell puts it) without any bayer interpolation. It doesn't have any of the problems digital has like dead pixels, firmware troubles or miore effect. Oh and the "film look".
Bottom line is that it comes down to what you are doing and what you are shooting. If you demand only the best quality, tons of resolution and you are shooting in a studio..maybe you do want to shoot film. If you have many clients and you need to edit and get the pictures out then digital is probably the way to go.
With the hasselblad you always have the option of putting a digital back on it (although its really expensive and only good for places that have lots of light and don't need fast frame rates (like the studio or landscapes) High ISOs are very bad in MF digital backs.
Digital is a faster workflow, cheaper if you shoot professionally. DSLRs have faster frame rates and are faster in general when you need to take a lot of pictures at an event/sports etc.
The hasselblad or any film camera is going to offer you superior quality (although these days it can be negligable), The film will be future proof being able to be scanned at any point in time with better scanners while digital is going to be stuck in 2009 quality. Film offers better dynamic range and is true "RAW" (as ken rockwell puts it) without any bayer interpolation. It doesn't have any of the problems digital has like dead pixels, firmware troubles or miore effect. Oh and the "film look".
Bottom line is that it comes down to what you are doing and what you are shooting. If you demand only the best quality, tons of resolution and you are shooting in a studio..maybe you do want to shoot film. If you have many clients and you need to edit and get the pictures out then digital is probably the way to go.
With the hasselblad you always have the option of putting a digital back on it (although its really expensive and only good for places that have lots of light and don't need fast frame rates (like the studio or landscapes) High ISOs are very bad in MF digital backs.
stevenbruce
Active member
I shoot Film MF and have a really hard time trying to find anywhere that will do a good job of scanning my negatives. There are places where you can send off for which are supposed to do a good job but friends who have used them were not very happy with the results.
Film does not have an infinite resolution, and unless you are using really high end low ISO film (and a great scanner), you can get a similar resolution out of a MF negative as you can out of a pro DSLR.
I shoot film because I really like the dynamic range and the colours it gives, also it is much cheaper to get older cameras and lenses than new DSLRs.
You could try getting a Bronica ETRS and trying that out, it is a very similar, but much cheaper MF camera.
I really like the "look" of film, but the work flow is killer. When i need to get something done quick, or I'm doing jobs for friends I will go digital.
As for resolution, I don't think you have to worry now about your camera becoming obsolete, The canon 5D mk2 has something like a 21MP sensor!! I don't think I will be needing any better than that any time soon.
I would recommend NOT getting into Hasselblad until you are sure you like the 120/220 film workflow, 6x6 format, and can afford it. Hasselblads with a few zeiss lenses will be really expensive. Instead buy a Bronica SQ-A or SQ-B 6x6 package which go for around $300 on ebay in good condition. That's really cheap. See how you like shooting 6x6 film.
With the money you save, you can buy a DSLR and have both. Then if you really like 6x6 and MF, you can think again about upgrading to the Hasselblad.
I've shot with Hassys and I like the contrast of the Zeiss lenses, but Bronica image quality is really good, and never left me feeling like I had inferior lenses or body.
With the money you save, you can buy a DSLR and have both. Then if you really like 6x6 and MF, you can think again about upgrading to the Hasselblad.
I've shot with Hassys and I like the contrast of the Zeiss lenses, but Bronica image quality is really good, and never left me feeling like I had inferior lenses or body.
Thank you so much for the all the fee back, this gives me more light on how to make my choice..
But I got a little off topic question for medium format camera's-
"How do you refill a Bonica polaroid back?" like do you buy a new polaroids from the store a put it in the back? and didn't they stop making polaroids?
Thanks
But I got a little off topic question for medium format camera's-
"How do you refill a Bonica polaroid back?" like do you buy a new polaroids from the store a put it in the back? and didn't they stop making polaroids?
Thanks
Loading a polaroid back is a bit too futzy to get into detail here.
But you can buy polaroid backs for Bronicas like you can for most medium format cameras - they are almost free nowadays because Polaroid is out of business.
You can still buy Polaroid film at some places, but for the most part the stocks you need to get a replication of ISO100 and ISO400 black and white are all gone.
Sad, because they were a lot of fun to mess around with.
Ironically, I use my digital camera as a "Polaroid" sometimes, to get instant feedback on exposure, and then proceed to shoot expensive 120 TMax.
But you can buy polaroid backs for Bronicas like you can for most medium format cameras - they are almost free nowadays because Polaroid is out of business.
You can still buy Polaroid film at some places, but for the most part the stocks you need to get a replication of ISO100 and ISO400 black and white are all gone.
Sad, because they were a lot of fun to mess around with.
Ironically, I use my digital camera as a "Polaroid" sometimes, to get instant feedback on exposure, and then proceed to shoot expensive 120 TMax.
I just saw this thread and I would like to chime in and say I have a Hasselblad 500C, and I love it to death, my friend has the Broncia. The Broncia is a good camera to start with, I still perfer the Hasselblad, the quality of the Zeiss lens is what sells it for me. The Hasselblad 500C cost around 600-700 for a full package. The CMs tend to go for a grand. My friend spent, about the 600 for his Broncia and got a few lens and backs, I only got a lens, body, finder and back.
You might also want to look at the Contax, I had one of those the manual 645s, they where pretty nice too.
You might also want to look at the Contax, I had one of those the manual 645s, they where pretty nice too.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
I have a good friend who is a professional photographer who is doing VERY well.
He mentioned that every time he goes to his local photo store that they are seeing a lot of photographers trading in their Hassy's for Nikon D300s and Canon 5d Mark IIs.
He mentioned that every time he goes to his local photo store that they are seeing a lot of photographers trading in their Hassy's for Nikon D300s and Canon 5d Mark IIs.
Huh... Hassy prices have come down fast recently, and I wasn't even aware of it.
I guess when faced between a choice of Bronica and a 500c, if the cost difference is only a two hundred dollars, the 500c would be a better buy only because the Zeiss lenses are nicer (in general). Bronica bodies are just as reliable as Hasselblads but I think the Blads look nicer with their chrome.
Anyways, all film camera prices took a dive off a steep cliff. I wish I didn't have such a regard for film, to be honest I use my digital camera 90% of the time now so my ten cameras and two 4x5's were not a good "investment". :violin:
I guess when faced between a choice of Bronica and a 500c, if the cost difference is only a two hundred dollars, the 500c would be a better buy only because the Zeiss lenses are nicer (in general). Bronica bodies are just as reliable as Hasselblads but I think the Blads look nicer with their chrome.
Anyways, all film camera prices took a dive off a steep cliff. I wish I didn't have such a regard for film, to be honest I use my digital camera 90% of the time now so my ten cameras and two 4x5's were not a good "investment". :violin:
Jokerswild
Well-known member
Heck I will sell you a MF Jenoptik Eyelike Precision back for that Hassy..I have been shooting MF since they came out, even with Dicomed scanning backs, Megavision, and then the great Jenoptik. I used that Jenoptik on a Digiflex II (sold) and on a Hassy. You should figure out what back you want to use first, then buy the Hassy. For instance my Jenoptik will not work on a 500-C. Rather, you would need a Hasselblad ELM motor driven body to fully use the 16-shot capability of my Jenoptik. This back is great for Giclee work but I too have focused more on filmaking lately and sold my other digital backs for a pair of 5DMK2 bodies. If you have any interest in the Jenoptik, let me know. $22K back going for $3k!!! Works perfectly.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
You don't say...
1. Pro or hobbiest?
2. Is this your main camera or a backup?
3. What is your film experience? I you have never dealt with film, it requires more of the photographer than digital does to make equivalent or better quality images
4. What type of photography/subjects do you do or want to do?
My vote is for the Pentax 645N. Cheap and the excellent lenses are as well but you don't get the square negative like the Hassy gives you. Personally, I am not crazy about square aspect ratio but YMMV. The 645N is definitely easiest to use, friendliest and simplest MF camera out there.
Dan
1. Pro or hobbiest?
2. Is this your main camera or a backup?
3. What is your film experience? I you have never dealt with film, it requires more of the photographer than digital does to make equivalent or better quality images
4. What type of photography/subjects do you do or want to do?
My vote is for the Pentax 645N. Cheap and the excellent lenses are as well but you don't get the square negative like the Hassy gives you. Personally, I am not crazy about square aspect ratio but YMMV. The 645N is definitely easiest to use, friendliest and simplest MF camera out there.
Dan