M'ers,

I am about to fall( have fallen ) under the spell of Hassy medium format photography. I like to take pictures of people and the M lends itself to that very well but when I enlarge the pix to 20" by 16" or so the quality difference is obvious, the Hassy shots win almost every time. I realize that this is not news to anyone. The thought of taking people shots with a MF box is not good news either. Has anyone any experience with software like Genuine Fractals or the like to improve 35mm pix when they are enlarged.

Please, someone help me before I hurt myself.

Dan

-- Dan Roe (roedj@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002

Answers

The Hasselblad system is awesome! It's the MF analog of a Leica- long history, tradition, and super quality. Just do it!!! *grin* : ) And let's not mention those ZEISS (made in Deutschland) lenses...

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

Can't disagree with James there - why would I want to! But if you're wanting to shoot people on rollfilm it might be worth looking at the Mamiya 7 or the Bronica RF645. Both are "giant Leicas" with from all I've heard terrific lens quality.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), March 31, 2002.

Yeah, those REAL Zeiss lenses!

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 31, 2002.

No experience with any software that lets you make 35mm look like 2-1/4....

I think you'll find that once you use both systems in different sorts of situations, you'll see the merits of EACH. I tend to grab the Hasselblad if the shots are going to be posed, or static (landscape, buildings, scenery). If the shots are more informally posed, or if I have to grab what I can, then of course 35mm is the answer.

One thing that has gotten me back to RF shooting - the fact that Hasselblad or even Canon EOS is just too damn big to stick in someones face. Grab a Hasselblad with 150 or 180 lens, or a Eos5 or Eos3 with a 100 or 135 lens, and its a lot of camera to put before someone. Using the Leica and 135 is much more discrete (tho not as handy as the Eos). I find that people are less afraid of it.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 31, 2002.

Dan, please let me know if you find a way out of your dilema. I currently am finding myself suffering from the same disorder. Does this also mean I'll need another camera bag???

-- Rob Steinberg (rstein@erols.com), March 31, 2002.

Horses for courses...

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 31, 2002.

Rob- yes you will. A nice Billingham is in order : )

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

The SWC rules at street photography!

I can't wait for a new monopod to mount it to and use it's self timer (SWC or SWC/M only CF no timer) when the Spanish festival season to start.

Awesome depth of field.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 31, 2002.

As a long suffering gear grabber, you know Dan that there is really no end to this logic. After the medium, you'll need a large format for the shifts and tilts, and bigger neg, then an 8x10 not 4x5 etc. etc. etc. Wish I could just learn to stick to one system and put the photo shopping energy into making more and better images. Hard to do, since gear is so fun though. But maybe, while you have a chance to stay "simpler," you should hesitate and decide if you want to go down that path of what others cameras can do. Will be harder to apply the breaks further down the path.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), March 31, 2002.

I shot Hasselblad for years, and loved the quality - both result and equipment-wise. Just too darn big to lug about. If I needed the larger negative, I wouldn't hesitate to go to the Hasselblad again. I find that the 24 X 36 mm is sufficient for virtually all of my uses (I love the Leica lenses wide open); but if you find that you need larger enlargements on a consistent basis, buy the 'blad! The cost is premium, but so are the results.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), March 31, 2002.

One more thing--if GF or any other program made 35 look like 2-1/4, we'd all know it and hassy sales would drop. Wish it were so....

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), March 31, 2002.

I agree that there is nothing that can replace a projected MF slide or large format contact print. However this article, and other readings, has me reaching for my M6 or R8 more often than I would have in the past.

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op699.html

Also, I have a Mamiya 7II with several lenses. This is a fantastic MF system. However I would not recommend as an all around system, especially for people. None of the lenses focus close enough for a head and shoulders portrait. Check on www.mamiya.com for more specifics.

Good luck!

-- Scott (PFD261@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

Interesting:

I haven't been taking photo's recently. I am trying to organize what I have and scan it. I think I have learned more about what works for me in the last few months of non-photography. My negatives and slides are well over the 10 to the fifth range [my wife was a photojournalist for a while and there was me]. I got my first Leica when I was a young thing in 1960, my first Nikon in 1964 and started with the Blad in the 70's.

The quality of the 6 x 6 is infinitely better than 35 mm; no question. When I judge by technical quality of the negatives [excluding the 8 x 10's], the series is Linhof>Blad>Nikon/Leica. When I look at the quality of the content, it is clearly Leica and Mamiya TLR [where did that come from ;)]. I have a few hundred thousand more to go through, so my opinion may change.

By the by, if you think a Blad is heavy, try backpacking a Linhof or a Deardorff. ;<).

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), March 31, 2002.

"By the by, if you think a Blad is heavy, try backpacking a Linhof or a Deardorff. ;<)."

Been there, done that....

Gimme an M6 and 35/1.4ASPH anyday!

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), March 31, 2002.

Dan,

Just let go and give in to those temptations!!! Hell, you only go around once, etc., etc. Here's my firm vote for the 'Blad. I started with one in '69 and can now sell it for almost twice what I paid for it new! The quality (body and lenses) is first rate. The lenses are so sharp it is scarry! And Hasselblad is into the incentive idea as well. Try the 501cm and get a free 45 degree viewfinder!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), March 31, 2002.

At the risk of being flamed to death, may I suggest an X-pan? Handles somwhat similar to a Leica. Doesn't weigh all that much compared to a Big Hassy. And the panoramic pix are fantastic when scanned. The lenses are a touch slow, but no more so than the Zeiss lenses on a 501 CM. I often carry a X-pan with an M6 ( for its' faster lenses ), using the twice as big pano for scenics and what not if I anticipate making larger prints. The built quality of this camera is excellent as are the lenses. And, except for the super wide angle, the kit is less expensive than a full blown Hassy system Just a thought.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 31, 2002.

Well, well, but an XPAN isn't really a Hassie, no matter what it says on the front. It also doesn't sound like anything Dan is looking for. Dan, if you go for the Hassie, some of their lenses are better than others. The camera best comes into its own either with normal and longer lenses, especially the 100mm and 180mm; or else, as Chris or I can tell you, with the SWC. I can get a better 11x14 with a 28mm Elmarit than with a 50mm Distagon. Choose wisely.

Oh, and the Hassie requires more maintenance than a Leica. The magazines need to go in for adjustment every few years (not every 20- 30 years like a Leica).

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 31, 2002.

Psst! Rollei 6008...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 31, 2002.

Jeeze Bob... magazines need to go in every few years? I last had my mags gone thru in 1990, and have put 100's of rolls thru each one - never a hitch of any kind. I will probably have to do the light trap thing one of these years... but thats a literally do it at home for minumal $$$ sort of affair.

As for the 50 Distagon, I cant say, but the 38 Biogon and 60 Distagon I've got leave little to be desired. The only lens I've not really been pleased with in the Hasselblad lineup was the 350 TeleTessar. Its just not quite up to the rest. I hear the new one is outstanding though.

Come to think of it, the 50 Distagon (non FLE) was a bit of a dog wasn't it.....(yes!)

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 31, 2002.

MF cameras are great for some types of shooting, not great for others. "Hassy shots win almost every time"--try low light hand holding a blad and compare the results to those taken with an M camera under the same circumstances. I wouldn't be without one even if it was a simple Rollei TLR because sometimes you can really use the larger negative than 35mm. As far as Hasselblad goes, if you think Leica stuff is expensive...

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 31, 2002.

Dan,

Let go, and give yourself over to temptation. The Hassy makes an excellent compliment to your M. I shoot both, too - sometimes even in the same session. But, the Hassy stays on a tripod most of the time.

You'll develop your own boundaries between the two formats and when to use one over the other. Having already become accustomed to Leica's "a comma for every price tag" (or a dot if you're in Europe), the Hassy system will seem like another home away from home.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), April 01, 2002.

Sorry to upset this cosy hassy party but......heavy,difficult to hand hold,crashing mirror,big,i do not like tonal quality.Bronica half the weight,half the price,quieter mirror crash, nicer tonal quality.

Sorry hassy fans...jusst another point of view.

Keep it in the studio,that is where it belongs.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 01, 2002.

Dan

How often do you enlarge to 16x20? Is it worth spending thousands of dollars on a new camera to achieve it? 120 film is much more expensive than 35mm too -- and you have to get your film at a pro store too. They are heavy -- do you have a 6 x 6 capable scanner/enlarger? Do you propose to lug both Leica and Hassy around together? MF lenses are slower than Leica and for the equivalent field of view the lenses have less depth of field. The Hassey is harder to hold still.

Think very carefully before you leap. There is a very good reason why 35mm is so popular! I do have a Hassey and use it MUCH less than I thought I would. I constantly wonder whether I would not be better off with a Fuji 6 x 9/Mamiya 7/ Rollei TLR. Maybe this would all change if I bought a $3000 scanner - or invested in an MF enlarger - there we go, more money....

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

M'ers,

Thank you all for your input. Of all the responses, and they were all very helpful, the one that struck home hardest was Art's. The quality of the 6mm X 6mm is better, of course it is, but the content is better with the camera that's with you more for the grab shots and the one you really like to use.

Thanks again, Semper M,

Dan

-- Dan (roedj@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Dan, improved image quality is the result of larger negatives exposed in a larger camera. There is a good news compromise not found in any software. The RF645 is light, priced right if discounted, ergonomic, and is nearly as fluid as any system in ANY format. The larger negative offers real flexibility and quality over small format. You can equal (in most ways) the image quality of a subject shot with a small format 85mm lens by enlarging a portion of the medium format neg. The RF645 and TLR's provide the advantage of vibration free leaf shutters.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), April 04, 2002.