Large Format Shooters... MF as backup?

[John Kasaian]

I had a 500c. I didn't especially like it as it is a "system" with lots of very neat, heavy and expensive accessories I had convinced myself that I needed to have. I found LF with one (or two) lenses was like a breath of fresh air by comparison. I had to focus my energy on shooting, and not on finding the "right" gizmo (which I probably couldn't afford.)
As a back up for LF I'd pass on it. Better IMHO to have a "back up" lens and cable release, since those are most likely what you might need a "back up" for while in the field.
OTOH the Hassy is a fine MF camera, and MF cameras can be very useful. After parting with mine, I eventually bought a Rolleiflex T to replace it (and the only accessories I've the need for are a few bay 1 filters)

[Arne Croell]

I bring a Mamiya 7 II when LF is not an option. 6x7cm is essentially the same aspect ratio as 4x5 or 8x10.

[verney]

I have a Hasselblad system also but I never carry it with LF gear. It's just too much weight. I do however carry a D*** with a macro or a tele-zoom for insects, flowers and wildlife.

[rdenney]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Capocheny]

Hello again,

Thank you all for your thoughts on the questions I posed... much appreciate it.

Firstly, the reason I'm considering the Blad is because of a recent road trip down the Oregon Coast. At Canon Beach, it was so windy (severe wind warning the evening we arrived) that it was impossible to shoot with LF. So, no shooting on the first day. On the second and final day we were there, I shot with a Rollie TLR that a friend loaned me for the trip and the 4x5 Arca that accompanied me. Both were set up on tripods. There was slight movement in some of the LF films (in spite of shielding the camera as best as I could and waiting for lulls in the wind before firing the shuter releaset) but none on the TLR images. [To be fair, I should have taken some faster films with me for the LF instead of only the 100 ASA.] So, it's for these circumstances that I'm contemplating the Blad.

[I didn't take the Dorff 8x10 with 5x7 reducing back with us on this trip. This was my first "exploratory" trip down the Oregon Coast... what a beautiful part of the world! I'd go back in a heartbeat with the larger formats!]

Secondly, I've owned a Blad system in the past... long before I ever shot LF. So, the 6x6 format isn't a new one for me. And, in some respects, I found shooting with the Rolleiflex refreshing just because of the difference in the aspect ratio and ease of shooting.

Thirdly, the Blad I've been offered is in mint condition, very reasonably priced AND local. (Otherwise, I'd probably not be venturing down this road.) I would most likely look for a wide angle (40 or 50), a medium length (150), and a longer lens for it (a 250, 350, or 500) in the future. So, all in all, a 4 lens package.

[Lenser: A longer lens would have come in very handy on this occasion. ]

All the other MF camera systems mentioned would have been nice as well... I've shot with a Pentax 6x7 but never with a SL66 or 7-II, although I've heard nothing but good things about them.

I have to admit that 35mm didn't even enter my mind for this trip... nor a 6x9 Arca. Perhaps, on the next trip down.

Alan, yes, you're right... MF wouldn't be a back-up for 8x10. I should have explained my reasoning for considering the MF in the first place.

If I go for this Blad... I'd need a GREAT screen to focus with (the eyesight seems to be waning a bit) and it would have to be quite a bright screen. Any thoughts on what screen to go with?

[Shooting with the TV screens (8x10 and 5x7) sure does make things a LOT easier to focus on.]

Lastly, I know there's a lot of MF cameras out there being used... so, hopefully, MF films will also be around for a long time.

Again, thank you all for your valued thoughts and comments.

Cheers

[Capocheny]

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

Cheers

[Drew Wiley]

I personally use the Pentax 6x7 system. It's quicker to operate than LF for things like
portraiture, and more practical outdoors if the weather is truly nasty. Squeezing a good 16x20 out of something this small takes a bit of skill. I get rather good 16x20
black and white prints out of Efke R25 film, but color is another issue as far as enlargement is concerned. I've seen good scanned and digitally printed work from this format. A Hassy would be a little on the small side for me, because for all practical
purposes it's a 645. The lenses are also expensive, and the premium you pay for
them still doesn't get you anywhere in the league of ordinary 4x5 results. And my
preference for the Pentax system is the availability of fast good quality-lenses at a
reasonable price. You can get shallow depth of field and excellent bokeh with the
165/2.8 for example. I find this easier to compose with than the square format and
top-heavy prism of the Hassy. The biggest problem with the Pentax, however, is that
you need to use the mirror lock-up feature for exposures under 1/125 second or you
will get mirror shake. 120 roll film is relatively flimsy stuff and nowhere near as nice
to print from as polyester sheet film.

[rdenney]

If I go for this Blad... I'd need a GREAT screen to focus with (the eyesight seems to be waning a bit) and it would have to be quite a bright screen. Any thoughts on what screen to go with?

I've heard good things about the Acute-Matte D screen for Hasselblads. I understand that Bill Maxwell can also make screens for them.

I would also recommend a chimney finder. I can always focus more easily on my Kiev 88CM (which uses the same finders as a Hasselblad) using the chimney finder than any of the alternatives. My chimney finder is the older-style focusing Hasselblad model. I also have a newer-style Hasselblad waist-level finder, and I prefer the chimney finder by a good ways. You can also get a cheapie Kiev ground-glass back that will fit on a 'blad in place of the film back, and it will accept the chimney finder as well. The Kiev GG back is often under $50, and it is quite useful especially if you have the camera mounted too high to look down into it.

Rick "who feels a little silly putting Hasselblad accessories on a Kiev" Denney

[77seriesiii]

My wife is the professional photographer and I do double duty, hobbiest with primary purpose to be a sherpa. However, listening to my wife she feels that a camera is tool with a personality, each camera sees the light differently. My thoughts, each tool for the job. I think mix the two and you end up with the truth or is my wife got it right completely? Damn, I'm screwed if I admit she's right.

I would not consider a medium format anything as a backup to a large format anything. Filling a square screen is completely different than filling a 4x5 or 8x10 or 7x17, etc.. The composition of each format is different, how you shoot a MF is not how you would shoot any of the large formats but if you can, Rock on! Shoot a MF because the composition screams square format and you have it in your bag of tricks. Whether you shoot MF or LF you get lots of looks, questions and most importantly, have fun!

Erick

[Eric Woodbury]

Different cameras for different things. I prefer LF, especially 57, but also 45. When it gets windy or dark or I photograph something that moves, I use a Mamiya 7. If it is macro, I use Pentax 67. I used a 500C for years and it was a good camera, but I find the Mamiya easier with as good or better lenses and built in meter. Also, I prefer the rectangle to the square. Sometimes I use 35mm, either a Hexar AF or a Contax RF, depending on the needs.