Hasselblad ..... which one?

Tareq wrote in post #6903747
Just i want anyone here to show me where i did say i want that hassy or medium format "TO BE BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER", i just said for larger and so large printing thats all.

Man, how big to you really want to print your prints? and how many of them You must have some big walls

Tareq wrote in post #6904439
in fact there is no rent here

Not even for a film medium format?

René Damkot wrote in post #6904174
I think it means that if you can afford it (not getting in trouble for it), why not get it? It's your money, and it'll probably make you happy

I've processed images of an Aptus P75 (Can be used on a Hasselblad 503). It's a nice set, but it's very different from a 1DsMk2. Better? Yes, at low ISO. Worth it? Depends on you.

I'd say: Rent one first, and see whether you like it (doesn't even need to be digital for that). Working with medium format is different from shooting with a Canon.

Yes!!! "...if you can afford it (not getting in trouble for it), why not get it? It's your money, and it'll probably make you happy "

jothefish wrote in post #6904628
Man, how big to you really want to print your prints? and how many of them You must have some big walls

Even at smaller sizes you can see a difference.

Its like in the old audio days why have 300 watts rms per channel and .002 distortion? Because its really sounds clean at 50 waits.

jothefish wrote in post #6904628
Man, how big to you really want to print your prints? and how many of them You must have some big walls

How big i can go with medium formats?

René Damkot wrote in post #6904894
Not even for a film medium format?

Not even a film medium format, unless i buy online which is as some said it is cheap, but which one.

Wilt wrote in post #6904914
Yes!!! "...if you can afford it (not getting in trouble for it), why not get it? It's your money, and it'll probably make you happy "

ok

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6904949
Even at smaller sizes you can see a difference.

Its like in the old audio days why have 300 watts rms per channel and .002 distortion? Because its really sounds clean at 50 waits.

Thanks for explanation!

It's been a while so I may be wrong, but I didn't think the 500/C series could mate with a digital back. I thought it had to be something in the 503xx series.

Croasdail wrote in post #6904161
The body would be cheap, relatively speaking... under a grand (USd). Databack would be at whatever price you can bear.... most are now running between 7 and 12 grand. Film back would be really cheap. .....

sapearl wrote in post #6905283
It's been a while so I may be wrong, but I didn't think the 500/C series could mate with a digital back. I thought it had to be something in the 503xx series.

If i will use only B&H then i didn't find 500/C new, only saw 503 series.

Correct - I've got the 503CW which I purchased back in 1998 and I believe there are several decent digital backs out there that will work well with it. But I don't want to invest that kind of money in that direction, while I currently enjoy the flexibility of my Canon dSLR system.

Tareq wrote in post #6905300
If i will use only B&H then i didn't find 500/C new, only saw 503 series.

Tareq wrote in post #6905300
If i will use only B&H then i didn't find 500/C new, only saw 503 series.

Go to www.keh.com. They have tons of used Hasselblad bodies of all sorts, and all of their "bargain" condition equipment is the equivalent of "excellent" by any other used dealer.

If you're thinking about buying a medium format film SLR system to match with a digital back, you might also keep in mind the Rollei system and the Mamiya RB67. Rollei also uses Zeiss lenses (effectively the same as Hasselblad), but also has Schneider lenses which are just as good as Zeiss. Mamiyas are a steal, much better prices for equipment that is comparable to Hasselblad, and their lenses may even be sharper than Zeiss (the Mamiya rangefinder lenses certainly are sharper than anything by Zeiss).

I chose Hasselblad because there are so many choices for it and it's compact and portable -- which the RB67 really isn't.

sapearl wrote in post #6905439
Correct - I've got the 503CW which I purchased back in 1998 and I believe there are several decent digital backs out there that will work well with it. But I don't want to invest that kind of money in that direction, while I currently enjoy the flexibility of my Canon dSLR system.

Stuart, have I ever told you how jealous I am of you? I would absolutely love a Hassie 503CW. Well priced, it'd let me get rid of all my current film gear, and is there in case digital MF backs ever get affordable.

Man that's a sweet camera...I love waist level finders.

I understand your feelings Perry .

With the waist level finder, that LARGE viewfinder was phenomenal with the brightscreen, even with my f/3.5 lenses. But.... I quickly put the 45 degree angle prism housing on it, which was pretty bright.

With the WL finder, I was literally holding the camera at my waist (go figure :rolleyes. Problem is, when you are somewhat close to the person, they look "down" at the lens, which causes them to create a double chin on their neck. Very unflattering. It also "lowered" the flash which could cause some hot spots.

The eye level prism put things in place like a convention SLR viewfinder and eliminated the aformentioned problems. But yes, I hang onto the 503CW against the day that digital backs become both affordable and practical in function.

perryge wrote in post #6906290
Stuart, have I ever told you how jealous I am of you? I would absolutely love a Hassie 503CW. Well priced, it'd let me get rid of all my current film gear, and is there in case digital MF backs ever get affordable.

Man that's a sweet camera...I love waist level finders.

sapearl wrote in post #6906509
I understand your feelings Perry .

With the waist level finder, that LARGE viewfinder was phenomenal with the brightscreen, even with my f/3.5 lenses. But.... I quickly put the 45 degree angle prism housing on it, which was pretty bright.

With the WL finder, I was literally holding the camera at my waist (go figure :rolleyes. Problem is, when you are somewhat close to the person, they look "down" at the lens, which causes them to create a double chin on their neck. Very unflattering. It also "lowered" the flash which could cause some hot spots.

The eye level prism put things in place like a convention SLR viewfinder and eliminated the aformentioned problems. But yes, I hang onto the 503CW against the day that digital backs become both affordable and practical in function.

I know what you mean about the double chin effect. The waist level finder certainly isn't for every application. I LOVE the fact that the body doesn't need batteries.

I'd love the hassie to shoot landscapes too, especially with the waist level finder. Medium format film still feels like a magnificent way to shoot them, especially with that sweet german glass.

Hmm....

For shooting weddings the eye level finder is almost a must. I wish that I would have kept one of my 500C/Ms and my 180mm and a 50mm FLE lens

In my opinion the square format is just perfect for portraits.

I think that maybe next yeear I might pick one up or maybe an SWC ..

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6906543
In my opinion the square format is just perfect for portraits.

I love it for portraits, too, but on the other hand getting custom prints and custom frames of square format is a lot more expensive than a 4:5 enlargement. And I so habitually try to fill my composition with the subject that it becomes very difficult to crop down from the square.

I think that maybe next yeear I might pick one up or maybe an SWC ..

I was thinking about an SWC as well, but realized that I don't use my 50mm enough to justify having a 38mm. And for the same price (actually LESS money), I bought myself a Noblex 150, which yields a 137 degree field of view on a 6x12 format -- and that camera is the sharpest thing I've ever seen.

DrPablo wrote in post #6907722
I love it for portraits, too, but on the other hand getting custom prints and custom frames of square format is a lot more expensive than a 4:5 enlargement. And I so habitually try to fill my composition with the subject that it becomes very difficult to crop down from the square.

I was thinking about an SWC as well, but realized that I don't use my 50mm enough to justify having a 38mm. And for the same price (actually LESS money), I bought myself a Noblex 150, which yields a 137 degree field of view on a 6x12 format -- and that camera is the sharpest thing I've ever seen.

When I did weddings I only offered square flush (Leather Craftsman) 8X8 or 10X10 bridal books and 5X5 parent books. You can always go with a traditional frame and a mat with a square or just print an 6X6 on a 8X10 sheet of paper with border. It actually makes for a nice presentation.