The problem with Hasselblad is that it is mechanically complex, so despite being well made, it requires routine maintenance by an expert repair technician. This is exacerbated by each lens having its own shutter.
And with no focal-plane shutter (in a standard 'blad), it's impossible to play with it. You either use Hassy stuff or nothing.
If you can find stuff in excellently maintained condition, and if you don't use it too often, it will work beautifully."
Hi Rick,
I posted just a few minutes after you did... thanks for the input.
There's an expert Blad repair fellow here in town so maintenance will never be an issue for me if I decide to buy the Blad.
"I went to the opposite end of the quality scale, and bought into the Ukrainian and East German stuff. It is NOT beautifully made, but once you get one that works well it tends to keep doing so. What I particularly liked about it was the focal plane shutter that allows me to only have to learn the quirks of one shutter. I can also adapt many lenses, including barrel lenses by mounting them on a body cap and putting them on a bellows for focusing (it will focus anything longer than about 110mm to infinity). And the lenses are far simpler and cheaper, and some of them are really excellent. For the price of a well-equipped Hassy kit with two or three lenses, I ended up with half a dozen bodies and a dozen lenses, ranging from 30mm fisheye to 500mm. For some of the folks here, that may actually recommend against it.
I like the square format for people pictures, and for making portraits, I use this stuff pretty happily. The 180/2.8 Zeiss Jena Sonnar is a major reason for that. I also have several lenses with some movements."
I'm considering the Blad only because of it's condition, price and I'm able to pick it up here in town. Otherwise, I probably would not be considering a MF camera at all.
"Medium format is not a "backup". It is an "alternative". Many times, I'm unable to bring large-format equipment with me on a given trip where I anticipate photographic landscape opportunities. In those cases, I will bring a Pentax 6x7. But I nearly always miss camera movements in those cases, and not having movements limits my subject material. But within that boundary, the image quality is outstanding and I don't feel like I've compromised my outlook on life. As a hobbyist, I'd rather spend time with a medium-format camera that not spend time making photos at all, and that's often the choice I face depending on the situation. Adams famously said, in response to the question of his preferred camera size, "The biggest one I can carry." Sometimes, it's the view camera. Sometimes, it's the Pentax 6x7. Sometimes, it's a Kiev 60. Sometimes, it's a Canon 5D."
Yes, you're quite right in calling it an "alternative to" as opposed to a "back-up" system. After all, getting the shot is the end-objective of the exercise. In my case, if I wouldn't have had the MF Rolleiflex TLR with me... the probability of getting the shot could have been far lower. As it was, I think one or two of the 4x5 shots will work out. Thankfully!
"For "backup", I usually bring digital equipment, as much as anything to document the situation and try different compositions. I have been known to spend a lot of time setting up a camera to make a picture that should never be made, because I did a poor job of visualizing the scene. The digital camera helps with that. But it works because of the instant feedback, and medium-format can't fill that need."
Rick "who doesn't regret having choices" Denney
Makes good sense... but I dumped all my digital stuff a few years back. :>0
Bookmarks