FilmFilmFIlm

Hassy vs RZ67... don't think about taking the RZ67 into the field, it is a brute of a camera best suited for studio usage!

Any film i will bought i want to use for indoor or studio only, not looking for field at all because my country is better for indoor and studio, weather outside almost 45+ degree most of the year and raining one month time to time, so nothing to shoot out with film that is worthy, but indoors i can find heaps to shoot and in cold [A/C].

AutumnJazz wrote in post #8336821
The RZ67 has better lenses. Adorama's used department has a ProII w/ 100mm ƒ/2.8, back, and AE finder for next to nothing.

It doesn't have better glass than Hasselbald Zeiss. In fact the 180 CF was one of the sharpest medium format lenses ever made. I've shot with RB,s RZs which the RB was a better body that the RZ. Even with the larger negs for the Mamiya the Hasselblad images were sharper. I've tested both.

They're just as sharp, if not sharper, and have much better color.

That said, the 503CW and RZ67 II are great cameras. Rent each for a week, and see which one you like. I prefer the RZ67, even for street.

AutumnJazz wrote in post #8340876
They're just as sharp, if not sharper, and have much better color.

That said, the 503CW and RZ67 II are great cameras. Rent each for a week, and see which one you like. I prefer the RZ67, even for street.

I saw RB67, so big camera, 500CM/503CW is smaller, not sure if that RZ67 is smaller than RB67, but if so then it will make the choice even more difficult.

AutumnJazz wrote in post #8340876
They're just as sharp, if not sharper, and have much better color.

That said, the 503CW and RZ67 II are great cameras. Rent each for a week, and see which one you like. I prefer the RZ67, even for street.

Actually in one of my classes in college we tested most medium format cameras/lenses and that not true. I also worked in a high end portrait studio and asked the owner why he wasn't using his hasselblads in the studio instead of the rb he had and he said the larger format was sharper. I did a series of tests to prove him that wasn't the case. Not only did I show him the test chart LPM I laid down two 8X10s of the same subject in the same lighting and he picked the blad image every time. The next day he put he RB away and we used blads for the studio from then on. Adams also shot with blads and wrote a bit about it in the book the camera. And he shot with 4X5 & 8X10 view cameras so it wasn't for the blads being smaller I've shot with both EXTENSIVELY. And shot with an RZ also. The RZ was always having problems with the gears in the film advance.
I'm not saying the RZ is a bad camera just the glass isn't on the same level as most Blad Zeiss is. Just like MOST Canon Ls are not on the same level as Leica M series.

Tareq wrote in post #8340937
I saw RB67, so big camera, 500CM/503CW is smaller, not sure if that RZ67 is smaller than RB67, but if so then it will make the choice even more difficult.

Same size...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8341267
Same size...

Then i will go with blad, too bad it is a square, even that is not a bad thing but i was hoping if that blad 500 series were at least 6x7 or 6x8 or 6x9, but i am now in a process to buy a LF maybe 4x5 but i hope to get 5x7 or 8x10 if i can find then maybe i will not think about film MF.

Tareq wrote in post #8341290
Then i will go with blad, too bad it is a square, even that is not a bad thing but i was hoping if that blad 500 series were at least 6x7 or 6x8 or 6x9, but i am now in a process to buy a LF maybe 4x5 but i hope to get 5x7 or 8x10 if i can find then maybe i will not think about film MF.

I also think square is PERFECT for portraits..

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8341316
I also think square is PERFECT for portraits..

Sorry for the less than perfect scans. A lot more shadow detain on the prints.

If you're lucky you might be able to find an old Deardorff around.

Yes, i know, but i prefer to have larger or rectangular format than a square, i can crop to a square if i want, and i will use it for many things not just a portraits, maybe landscapes or still life and so, so square format is not always a better choice maybe, but i know many can get used to any format.
Wish i can find 500cm "NEW" camera, not used even like-new, maybe it will be cheaper than that 503CWD, even 503CW is little expensive same as RZ67, where can find "NEW" film MF cheaper than $1500 and not RB67 or Holga?

Tareq wrote in post #8341353
Yes, i know, but i prefer to have larger or rectangular format than a square, i can crop to a square if i want, and i will use it for many things not just a portraits, maybe landscapes or still life and so, so square format is not always a better choice maybe, but i know many can get used to any format.
Wish i can find 500cm "NEW" camera, not used even like-new, maybe it will be cheaper than that 503CWD, even 503CW is little expensive same as RZ67, where can find "NEW" film MF cheaper than $1500 and not RB67 or Holga?

It can be a great choice you just have to learn to see square. Find images that work as squares. I don't do a lot of lanscapes but one of my favorites that I shot is square

Tareq wrote in post #8341290
Then i will go with blad, too bad it is a square, even that is not a bad thing but i was hoping if that blad 500 series were at least 6x7 or 6x8 or 6x9, but i am now in a process to buy a LF maybe 4x5 but i hope to get 5x7 or 8x10 if i can find then maybe i will not think about film MF.

Hasselblad, in the film days, was always 6x6cm. There was reluctance to offer a 645 film back, and finally now in the digital backs it is forced to use a format a tiny bit smaller than the 645 frame.

Mamiya and Bronica both offered 645, 6x6, and 6x7 cameras. Pentax offered 645 and 6x7 film cameras. Rollei offered only 6x6.

Wilt wrote in post #8341513
Hasselblad, in the film days, was always 6x6cm. There was reluctance to offer a 645 film back, and finally now in the digital backs it is forced to use a format a tiny bit smaller than the 645 frame.

Mamiya and Bronica both offered 645, 6x6, and 6x7 cameras. Pentax offered 645 and 6x7 film cameras. Rollei offered only 6x6.

I have read about some film medium format, i still remember the photographer who i met in Scotland, was using Pentax 6x7 and Contax, i am still not sure if i should get film medium format or large format, i love how film-like and really i want to have more time to learn on film of larger formats than 35mm.

Tareq wrote in post #8341619
I have read about some film medium format, i still remember the photographer who i met in Scotland, was using Pentax 6x7 and Contax, i am still not sure if i should get film medium format or large format, i love how film-like and really i want to have more time to learn on film of larger formats than 35mm.

The dynamics of using film is slower than digital. They dynamics of using large format is VERY different than using medium format. Carefully consider WHAT you want to shoot, and where, and whether or not you need the camera movements that large format offers, before jumping into that.

Wilt wrote in post #8341641
The dynamics of using film is slower than digital. They dynamics of using large format is VERY different than using medium format. Carefully consider WHAT you want to shoot, and where, and whether or not you need the camera movements that large format offers, before jumping into that.

Don't worry, as they are become cheaper over the time it is not harm to have one anyway, i can spend up to $2500 for a film medium format, and i am ready to spend even $5000 on a large format if it is worthy, doesn't matter What and Where to use as long i want to learn and enjoy, who knows what will happen in the future, i may enjoy shooting with film more or find something, but i know i will not shoot thousands with film anyway but that will never stop me to get one if so.
I have time to decide if i will go with portraits or with landscapes, as i only travel for landscapes and in my country i shoot portraits.