is hasselblad top banana

[big paul]

after reading joreynolds thread about his disappointing distagon lens
and also reading that some people were having focusing problems with a 500cm ,,are these problems age related or are these cameras and lenses over rated ,,,looking at the price of these things would have you believe that they are the best money can buy ,,,would I see any difference between a 500cm and my zenza bronica etrsi other than neg size ...I have had my bronica for some time and it has never let me down ,,,I have the ae-111 prism finder e with dioptre adjustment and the motor winder ei 11 ,they both make the etrsi a gem to handle .. .
I have never used or handled a Hasselblad,, ,and I don't need one ,but when did need come into it,,, I have been looking at the 500cm and the 500 elm or elx would you recommend buying or leave well alone ...???

[alexmuir]

I use a Bronica SQAm for 6x6. It is cheaper than an equivalent Hasselblad, and produces excellent images. I was looking for a medium format SLR when I bought this, and I don't see any reason to upgrade. Like you, I have no experience of using Hasselblad equipment, but don't see any need to try it now. There was an interesting lens test in the Amateur Photographer mag this week. It was looking at 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras, but the Zeiss lenses did not score very well, despite the price. The conclusion seemed to be that they were a bit "dated" in their design. I would stick with your Bronica. Alex

[JOReynolds]

In the 1960s, as a technical exercise, my student colleagues and I measured the characteristics of several 80mm f/2.8 lenses, among them Mamiya Sekor (TLR), Rollei (TLR) and Hasselblad Zeiss Planar. The Planars gave higher resolution two stops down but the Sekor looked sharper, more contrasty. It's a long time ago but I remember being surprised at this.
I previously used a Bronica SQ with 50, 80 and 150mm lenses. The main work was pictorial, which never led me to test the lenses. But, looking back at some old negatives, the 50mm was excellent, perhaps better than Distagon, although this is not a proper test because I am comparing B&W with colour neg.
Then I begain to use the 150mm for portaits and children. I found the mirror/shutter noise to be excessive, which put off the sitters. So I bought old Hasselblad. I, too, was seduced by the reputation of the Zeiss optics. The 80mm f/2.8 and 150mm f/4 are superb - only the 50mm f/4 is disappointing.
I enjoy the feel of Hassselblad and the use of the chimney hood with dioptre adjustment and I have used the high shutter speed synchronisation of the Synchro-Compur on two jobs - the Bronica could not have matched this.
I don't recollect seeing any published rigorous comparative tests on MF lenses. Anyone with a better memory?

[DaveP]

Originally Posted by JOReynolds

I don't recollect seeing any published rigorous comparative tests on MF lenses. Anyone with a better memory?

Here you go:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

[JOReynolds]

Originally Posted by DaveP

Here you go:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

Thanks, Dave. These tabulated results confirm my findings on Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 Planar and 150mm Sonnar f/4.0 but omit 50mm f/4.0 Distagon. Perhaps that's just as well - I should get on and take more pictures.

[cesare]

For me, the hasselblad system is the best one from an actual taking photos point of view - it feels good in the hand, and I feel very confident with the focus screens that i'm going to get what I think.

Saying that, i've had some mechanical issues with my 500, with a stuck lens, and occasional lens tripping. Saying that, I forgive it, as it's a 1980s camera which has taken a lot of shots for me, and goodness knows how many before it came to me.

I'm also of the opinion that the lenses aren't anything exceptional, or maybe a better way of seeing it, there are some fantastic underrated lenses available for other camera systems. Saying that, i'd rather have a lovely to use camera with good lenses, than a horrible to use camera with great lenses.

[big paul]

Cesare I totally agree with you half the fun is using the gear, its a very tactile hobby, I get great enjoyment out of using all the kit that goes with film photography, just setting up the darkroom is fun ,developing a roll of film still to this day gives me great enjoyment , there were cameras that I always wanted but could never afford ,I used to dream about the new Nikon f2 when it first came out, all I could afford was a Nikon fm I had a young family to keep ,now I have 15 Nikon bodies mostly the f series loads of nikkor lenses manual and af ,A bronica and A rb67 which goes to prove that cameras are cheaper than kids ,,
I have been looking at a Hasselblad 500elm or a 500elx as I said not because I need one ...........

[cesare]

Paul,

The elm and elx are the heavy cameras with built-in motor wind - i'd avoid those as the motor wind is of no use outside a studio, and i'm not sure about the availability of batteries/chargers to get them working.

If you want to have a dabble, look for a 500cm with 80/2.8, A12 back, and standard waist level finder. I'd expect that to be around £500-£600 depending on condition and the exact lens age. The chrome ones look best, but i've got plain black bodies as that was what turned up when I was looking.

One other thing, the fancier acute matte screen is nice, but i'd not say it's essential. I've got a borrowed one in one of my hasselblads and although nice i've not felt the urge to rush out and track one down for my other camera, and in fact, this week shot the hasselblad with the older screen.

[Mark Snowdon]

I have been using a 501cm for about 12years now and have never had any problems. Before I got the camera I borrowed one from a professional photographer to compare the 80mm lens with my 80mm mamiya TLR lens. I shot 2 rolls of fp4, one in each camera and dev'd them together. I found that the mamiya was sharp when stopped down a bit but was not sharp at the wider apertures. The Hassie was good at all apertures. The biggest difference however was in the shadow areas. On the hasselblad the shadows sparkled but on the mamiya they were dull and lacked detail. This is just my opinion based on enlargements from the negs, not scientific at all.