Hasselblad ..... which one?

i would only consider getting a hasselblad if I was doing photography full time, and I had enough work to justify a hasselblad. And even then I would probably get a 1Ds Mark III. I think an enthusiast or part time photographer investing in systems like the 1Ds Mark III and medium format backs is extreme, but that is just me. But then again, people buy Lamborghini's and drive them on the street.

brianch wrote in post #6882688
do you not like the 1Ds Mark III>? o.0

sapearl wrote in post #6882774
Based on everything he's said so far I believe it is simply the GIGANTIC file sizes he's after as well as the Hasselblad name. Part of that I can understand. For years I shot MF Mamiya which did the job, until I could afford the Hassy and those Zeiss lenses.

I could see the difference in that jump. But to do what he is proposing for the type of work I contract, it would not be cost effective, my clients don't care/don't see the difference, and I simply could not afford it. But that's just me .

brianch wrote in post #6883208
i would only consider getting a hasselblad if I was doing photography full time, and I had enough work to justify a hasselblad. And even then I would probably get a 1Ds Mark III. I think an enthusiast or part time photographer investing in systems like the 1Ds Mark III and medium format backs is extreme, but that is just me. But then again, people buy Lamborghini's and drive them on the street.

And thats why i am wondering, is Hasselblad for pro and full photographers only? 1Ds MarkIII is a professional camera and all 1-series cameras so why many non pro getting it then? because it is cheaper or affordable? so if money is not an issue then we can get any camera in the world even if it is the best and most expensive. And i want to use a medium format at least even i am a novice or hobbyist, i just don't want to use only cameras in $1000-5000 range because i am not a pro yet, and it is weird that only pro can use cameras that cost $30k, i am sure if they use those cameras that cost $1000 they will never become pros, but i care about myself now, if i want a camera and i can afford it one way or another then why not.

I know this thread will go this way 100%, but my OP question was to get 31 first or i should just think of 39mp and above only, still i am not sure that offer the salesman told me about 31 or 39, as he said there are H3D coming soon to the store, only 39 and 50 and he told me to afford even $6000, but i told him i will give him $10k so then i don't take longer to pay the rest later.

oh i forgot to say that i won in a local competition with second place [Sports competition], and the prize of second place is 20,000 AED [about $5400], and i have enough in my savings and some in card and earn from another business, so i can hardly reach around $9k-12k, all that without a problem of my bills and my another life spend, so let's not talk about money issue here, and just focus about my option of which, not an option of to get or not.

if you have the money to get it, noone is stopping you. I am guessing most people on this forum can not afford/does not want to afford the Hasselblad H3D. I was just shocked that anyone is buying that camera, maybe because I personally would never want to afford something like that. But of course for those who can, it is a great option whether it seems pratical for most people or not. I think you might be better off asking in a Hasselblad forum, I have passed by one once, and it seems pretty active. I don't think there are many hasselblad users on this forum. We are just average Joes here. At least most of us. I hope you get the one you want, you only live life once. I say just get it, seems like you already have your heart set anyways. I would get the most expensive one, the one that should be arriving in the store soon. New toys are always the best. edit: just did some research, i think this model would be suitable for what you do. Hasselblad H3D-39II

brianch wrote in post #6883643
if you have the money to get it, noone is stopping you. I am guessing most people on this forum can not afford/does not want to afford the Hasselblad H3D. I was just shocked that anyone is buying that camera, maybe because I personally would never want to afford something like that. But of course for those who can, it is a great option whether it seems pratical for most people or not. I think you might be better off asking in a Hasselblad forum, I have passed by one once, and it seems pretty active. I don't think there are many hasselblad users on this forum. We are just average Joes here. At least most of us. I hope you get the one you want, you only live life once. I say just get it, seems like you already have your heart set anyways. I would get the most expensive one, the one that should be arriving in the store soon. New toys are always the best.

OK, i will check with the guy, for me if i can't get 50 then i will start with 39 anyway, still it was my dream before that 50 is coming out, and the salesman told me that i can use 39mp now, and when i have more money the difference between 39 and 50 then i can replace my 39 with 50 without buying 50 again full cash, and in this way i can stay upgrading in less spending than keeping bodies and pay again full for new body, but i hope i hope i can earn more these days coming, so then i can go with 50 instead of 39mp, i can't wait to use it [any] and learn with it fast so i will start higher level in my area when i can, just i didn't start any business in photography as many there out using Medium formats and many agencies or companies here wants those over DSLRs owners, it is really ridiculous so fine, i will get a MF and see what they will say then.

Theres noth'n like a Blad.

I shot with 500C/Ms for 20 + years. Theres not a better portrait camera or format for portraits especially square. I know the new digital Blads are not square but you can get square backs for say a 500 C/M.

You think L glass is pricey? What'll ya get a load of the price Hassy Zeiss but its worth it.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6883704
Theres noth'n like a Blad.

I shot with 500C/Ms for 20 + years. Theres not a better portrait camera or format for portraits especially square. I know the new digital Blads are not square but you can get square backs for say a 500 C/M.

You think L glass is pricey? What'll ya get a load of the price Hassy Zeiss but its worth it.

I was very close to buy either Mamyia 645 II/III or this Hasselblad 500/503, but i know that i will not have much fun with film, in my country all or most pros using digital even with MF, because no many films labs here and most accept digital more than film, even those labs which films prices are so expensive hi, so my option is to be in safe side and get Digital MF, and what comes to mind is Hasselblad H3D.

I've shot wit most of the major film medium format cameras and I always prefered Hasselblad and the 500 series and CF lenses. But I'm sure the digital blads are every bit as rewarding to shoot with. Good luck and keep us in the loop.

Thanks!

It's for anybody who wants to spend the money for it - pure and simple.

But Tareq, in general it is NOT wierd that only pro's in general use camera's that cost $30K. That's because it's the rare amateur that can afford that huge sum of money. Pro's are generally the ones that make enough money to afford that sort of thing. You are very fortunate to be the amateur exception to the rule, who can actually afford a digital 'blad.

But your other statement is completely false if I understand you correctly.

You are saying " i am sure if they use those cameras that cost $1000 they will never become pros," - Many, many pro photographers throughout the world have produced beautiful images with far, far less gear. You are making it sound like the gear is more important than the skill, creativity and ability of the photographer. I could not disagree more, but if the 'blad is what you want then go for it.

But more importantly - congratulations on winning in the photography competition. That is certainly something to be very proud of. Is there a link to that photo somewhere?

Tareq wrote in post #6883554
And thats why i am wondering, is Hasselblad for pro and full photographers only? ........, i just don't want to use only cameras in $1000-5000 range because i am not a pro yet, and it is weird that only pro can use cameras that cost $30k, i am sure if they use those cameras that cost $1000 they will never become pros, but i care about myself now, if i want a camera and i can afford it one way or another then why not.........

sapearl wrote in post #6882774
Based on everything he's said so far I believe it is simply the GIGANTIC file sizes he's after as well as the Hasselblad name.

I'm actually not so intimidated by those file sizes. I mean the largest files I work with are 4000 dpi 16-bit scans of 4x5 film -- they are around 1.8 gigabytes and 320 megapixels. THAT will make your computer puke up its processor. With 4 GB of RAM it takes a good 5 minutes just to open the file up. But change it to 8-bit (not much reason to have 16-bit scans anyway) and you've got a 900 megabyte file that actually is not too hard to work with.

A 50 megapixel file even in 16-bits would be a cakewalk

And it's an itemizable business expense, so it's tax deductable. And many of these pros are employed by magazines or other bigger entities that will fund that equipment (so that it doesn't really belong to them). And many pros just lease or rent a camera like that for a specific job -- so it ends up costing a few hundred dollars to use it for a few days (and you have to put your house down as a deposit), but you get to use it without buying it.

Fiscal responsibility is seldom talked about among gearheads. But my god isn't there anything else we can do with money besides buy more toys? I mean why not put it in the bank and let it get some interest?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6883704
You think L glass is pricey? What'll ya get a load of the price Hassy Zeiss but its worth it.

Nah, only if it's new. The CT* series by almost all measures are just as good as the CF T* and CFi T*, and they go for a song. I mean to get a 150 f/4 CT* Sonnar for under $500 is pretty easy; the 80 f/2.8 CT* Planar is under $300 usually, and the 50 f/4 CT* Distagon is around $500.

DrPablo wrote in post #6885478
I'm actually not so intimidated by those file sizes. I mean the largest files I work with are 4000 dpi 16-bit scans of 4x5 film -- they are around 1.8 gigabytes and 320 megapixels. THAT will make your computer puke up its processor. With 4 GB of RAM it takes a good 5 minutes just to open the file up. But change it to 8-bit (not much reason to have 16-bit scans anyway) and you've got a 900 megabyte file that actually is not too hard to work with.

A 50 megapixel file even in 16-bits would be a cakewalk

And it's an itemizable business expense, so it's tax deductable. And many of these pros are employed by magazines or other bigger entities that will fund that equipment (so that it doesn't really belong to them). And many pros just lease or rent a camera like that for a specific job -- so it ends up costing a few hundred dollars to use it for a few days (and you have to put your house down as a deposit), but you get to use it without buying it.

Fiscal responsibility is seldom talked about among gearheads. But my god isn't there anything else we can do with money besides buy more toys? I mean why not put it in the bank and let it get some interest?

Nah, only if it's new. The CT* series by almost all measures are just as good as the CF T* and CFi T*, and they go for a song. I mean to get a 150 f/4 CT* Sonnar for under $500 is pretty easy; the 80 f/2.8 CT* Planar is under $300 usually, and the 50 f/4 CT* Distagon is around $500.

Its been a while since I've priced Hassy stuff. HMMM with prices like that I might just look into picking a body and a 50mm kens up. I think i paid almost $6000 for my 180 CF in the mid 1990s. .

Man, just trawl Craigslist. This is local for you: http://chicago.craigsl​ist.org/search/sss?que​ry=hasselblad

This one is highway robbery: http://chicago.craigsl​ist.org/chc/pho/953406​216.html
Another great kit: http://chicago.craigsl​ist.org/chc/pho/951014​720.html

Here was the kit I bought in Boston, all for $1400:

Hasselblad 500 c/m body
Zeiss 50/4 CT* Distagon
Zeiss 80/2.8 CT* Planar
Zeiss 150/4 CT* Sonnar
Waist level finder
90 degree prism finder
Zeiss filter kit (two softars, a starlight, and a UV)
Flash bracket
Pistol grip
Two A12 (120) backs
Compendium shade with square filter holder
Three lens hoods
Three extension tubes (10mm, 21mm, and 56mm)
And a bunch of other little doohickeys

Digital technology changes too rapidly still. If you bought a digital back from Leaf or Aptus just a few years ago, a brand new higher technology unit would have replaced that by now! So medium format digital seems to beg the practice of a business lease for working photographers.

I think that you should get whichever camera that you can afford right now. I have used the 39mp camera and can say that the files are amazing. I have yet to even see the 50mp version. Boas makes a great system and I don't think that you will be let down by any of the cameras if you know what you are getting in to and the system limitations.