i'm thinking about getting a 6x6 hassy. any comments on what i'm likely to experience after having been a leica m6 user?

any recommendations on which one to get if i get one? i'm frankly confused over the current models and 'must have' accessories..

i certainly won't be getting rid of my leica, i'll just be adding to my toolbag with the hassy...

-- tristan tom (tristan@tristantom.com), November 20, 2001

Answers

Hello Tristan-

I'm positive there are other much more qualified people here to advise you. But I have had quite a bit of experience with older Hasselblad's: my experience is with the 500CM and 500ELM (motor driven) bodies, assorted backs and lenses.

For what it is worth, I think they are very well built and I don't think you can complain much about the sharpness of the lenses. Just remember that it's an SLR and unlike the Leica, the shutter sounds something like a cannon.

I'll leave it to others to advise regarding the current basic setup of body, lens and film back.

Best Regards.

Jeff

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), November 20, 2001.

I am an owner of a M6 and a couple of Leica lens. Last week, with the help of a full-time photographer friend and a full endorsement from my better half, I got myself a used 2000FC, 150/2.8 F lens (both in mint condition), brand new A12 magazine and Acute Matte screen with grid for US$2'200. My test slides showed up wonderful pictures. I've looked at 500 series body but it does not have the flexibility of the 2000 series body with built-in electronic focal plane shutter. And the current 200 series is overpriced and come with the features I don't need 90% of the time. Discontinued 2000 series enables the use of larger aperture FE lenses without lens shutter and all other Hassy lenses with lens shutter. I prefer that you email me for further questions since this is a Leica forum. I'll try to answer.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), November 20, 2001.

Tristan, I find the Hasselblad comes into its own mostly with the normal and longer lenses, as opposed to the retrofocus wide angle lenses, which are heavy and clumsy for handholding; and some of them, like the older 50mm Distagon, do not maintain good sharpness out to the edges until you stop down to nearly f/16. The 60mm Distagon is an exception, delivering a reasonably crisp image wide open, and improving sytematically with stopping down.

The 38mm Biogon, which is not a retrofocus, is a remarkable lens; the above comments don't apply to it. It is really crisp, and deals with backlight/flare situations well. Of course, it comes attached to its own camera body.

I shoot with the 38mm Biogon, 60mm Distagon, 100mm Planar, and 150mm Sonnar. I am satisfied with all these lenses. The Sonnar aleady delivers an image sharp to the edges wide open at f/4. It improves slightly on stopping down. The 100mm Planar is also very sharp, even wide open. I use the 500CM with no complaints. I like to shoot with the Chimmney finder or with my PME 45 degree meter prism. I can give info on compensating the older PME to read right with the Acute- Matte, if desired. I use my Hassie mostly for black and white, but not for color slides, because the MF projectors are so expensive. I might mention that a Leica photo on Delta Pro 100, developed in XTOL and blown up to 11x14, will make a person question why he needs a Hasselblad.

Hassie magazines don't go for 40 years between CLA's like Leica bodies can. They need attention every 2 to 5 years or so, or they start doing tricks like uneven spacing, winding through the whole roll without stopping at frame 1, and letting light leak in during the film advance cycle.

Have you looked at the Mamiya 6x7? It's a natural for a Leica M6 photographer!

If I haven't talked you out of it yet, go for it!

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 20, 2001.

Try before you buy. Looking down through an SLR is really not the same as straight-ahead through a RF. I've worked with both Hasselblads and RB67s through the years, and never felt very comfortable with them. There's no questioning the quality, though. If you're not carrying it around, I prefer the RB67. It doesn't have the build quality, but my experience is that the additional film size makes the quality of the results equivalent to the Hassy, with more convenience for things like closeups. The Hassy is jewelry, like an M6, and the RB67 is more like a pickup truck, though.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), November 20, 2001.

I've used Hasselblad cameras since 1976. I currently have two 2000FC/Ms. I use them because I like the way they feel and shoot. I like square pictures.

They do require maintenance. Plan on it.

My favorite lens is the 80mm. My next favorite is the 150.

Looking down through the waist level is different than using a Leica. You might just hate it.

Why not rent an out fit for a weekend and see how YOU like it.

If you want a quite 6x6, a Rollei 2.8 will do the trick. But if you want to stay with a MF RF camera, try the Fuji GW690 III.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), November 20, 2001.

i think i may have been talked out of it actually. a friend of mine (also a Leica shooter) just left having showed me some of his cropped 8" x 8" black and white prints that he did on an M6. they were stunning! he brought them over after i had called him mentioning that i was thinking about getting a hassy. he exclaimed on the phone that a few years ago he had the same thoughts but wanted to see if he could simulate similar square format results with the camera he already had (an m6).

he rushed right over to my place with these prints and i'll be darned if i'm not convinced that the very m6 ttl i have in front of me right now has the potential to reach medium format quality, yet with much more versatility in terms of wide angle and also smallness/quietness, etc...

this was good because i was really looking for an excuse not to buy a hassy. i think if i get good in the darkroom, and perfect my m6 handling techniques, i can have all i want with the leica..

-- tristan tom (tristan@tristantom.com), November 20, 2001.

Try a late Rollie twin reflex....very quiet...great lens...similar to a Leica lens...and 20x24's possible on 100 to 400 asa.Cheap too! Try that with your Leica!I wouldnt with mine.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), November 20, 2001.

Tristan,

I moved to the world of a Leica M6 TTL after using Hasselblad 500 series (500 C/M and 503CW) cameras for about nine years. I find there to be similarities and differences, each amplified depending on which accessories I use with the Hasselblad.

This represents the first difference -- The Leica M6 TTL system is a very clean, "what you see is what you get" system. For me this promotes a "make the photograph and stop worrying about whether you have the right gizmo" style of shooting. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed macro / close-up photography, which I cannot do with the Leica M6.

The Hasselblad represents a real systems approach to photography. You can accessorize the basic body for most any situation, macro / close-up, sports / action, portraiture, candid / street shooting, etc. Keep in mind that the transitions between each situation can be time consuming.

When I pick up and hold the Leica or the Hasselblad I get a sense of high build quality. They have a very solid feel in my hands. I find the optics for each to be most excellent.

On-camera flash with the Leica M6 TTL and the Hasselblad 503CW is very similar in terms of operation and performance. Both have TTL capabilites, although the Hasselblad D-Flash 40 is intended primarily for TTL operation. I find the SF-20 more flexible in that respect and also becauase balancing ambient / fill flash can be accomplished on the flash itself, rather than by changing the film speed dial on the camera.

I do not use the Hasselblad waist-level finder except when shooting "formal portraits" with the camera on a tripod. Normally, I use the PME45 prism finder with integral weighted, spot, and incident light metering. I find the Leica M6 TTL and PME45 meters to be quite accurate, such that I refer to a hand-held meter very infrequently. The PME45 is not coupled to the camera. That is, you must set film speed on the meter. Aperture and shutter speed settings must be transferred to the camera. The PME45 does provide for aperture or shutter priority metering modes. However, in changing situations, I don't find the overall operation to be as fast as the Leica M6. Otherwise, the all-manual modes of operation make moving between the Leica M6 and the Hasselblad fairly easy.

While I do use the Hasselblad for action / sports, candid / street shots, portraits, etc., I find that I am most at home with the Hasselblad on a tripod, working slowly and methodically. Recently, I was asked to photograph an individual who was to receive an award. I made a series of portraits with the Hasselblad prior to the ceremony and then photographed the awards ceremony and the reception with the Leica M6. This was about as ideal of marrying the right gear to the situation as I had ever experienced. As other folks have noted, the Hasselblad is not a quiet camera compared to the Leica M; and would not have been appropriate during the awards ceremony (the Hasselblad Winder CW is damn loud). Also, carrying a bag full of Hasselblad gear on my shoulder for long periods of time can get painful. Nothing with the Hasselblad is small or lightweight (but it is smaller than other medium format systems).

Since the Hasselblad is an SLR, judging the effects of filters and the like is very straightforward. Also, the Leica and Hasselblad lenses focus in the same direction (infinity to near is clockwise as you are holding the camera).

While rectangular format (6x4.5) backs are available for the Hasselblad, I exclusively use the square (6x6) backs. I really like the square. I find that my compositions are freer when I do not have to worry about horizontals or verticals. Masks and viewfinder screens are available that indicate say, 8x10 vertical or horizontal cropping patterns. This is really a matter of personal preference, so I am not going to spend any more time on it. You need to decide how it is that you want compose and what the finished product is to look like.

For some Hasselblad bodies, you can get digital backs from third parties. Scanners for medium format film are not as widely available (i.e., the number of choices) as for 35mm and cost a whole lot more. You can buy one scanner for both formats. Medium format film and processing typically costs more than 35mm film and there fewer labs available for processing medium format film. If you are always in a hurry, medium format may not be for you.

By all means, rent a Hasselblad, ideally configured with what you might want to buy, for a few weekends to try the gear. You might want to scan Ernst Wildi's "The Hasselblad Manual" for a perspective on getting the most out of the Hasselblad system.

As others have suggested, you might want to look into the medium format rangefinders, as they might be a more natural transition from the Leica. Michael Reichmann has written quite a lot about Leica and medium format rangefinders on his website (www.luminous- landscape.com). I do not always agree with his conclusions, but his coverage of topics is generally exhaustive.

Good luck.

-Nick

-- Nicholas Wybolt (nwybolt@earthlink.net), November 20, 2001.

A few years ago some wag (David Vestal?) wrote an article called "32 Ways to Jam a Hasselblad."

-- Wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), November 20, 2001.

Hi again,

Typing and single malts don't mix too well. After hitting the "Submit" button I remembered that Mr. Reichmann recently posted a tutorial on medium format photography at http://www.luminous- landscape.com/u-medium.htm that may be of interest. The article seems to be generally system-independent, focusing ;-) on what it means to be "medium format."

-Nick

-- Nicholas Wybolt (nwybolt@earthlink.net), November 20, 2001.

In addition to Leica M and R, and Nikon AF, I use Hasselblad. I have 2 503CX bodies, 3 A12 backs, 50CF-FLE, 60CF, 80CF, 150CF and 2x Mutar, plus a PM45 prism and a gazillion other accessories. I love the results from the Hasselblad, which to me put 35mm--including Leica--to shame. However, IMO the Hasselblad works best in 2 disparate situations: tripod-mounted with the mirror locked up for static shots, carefully composed and metered, for which I use the waistlevel finder (but with the magnifier and my eye right up to it); and with flash, using a grip-bracket and the prism. Neither fits in with general travel photography, and a bag full of Blad, while not very heavy, is quite bulky. In addition, the short film load (even with 220 film), slow winder, and lack of long, fast lenses makes wildlife photography less productive. For those types of photography I stick with 35mm. Yes, a Mamiya 7 has occured to me, but I've handled them and think they're way overpriced for their plasticky construction. So, I strongly endorse the Hasselblad, but only for what it's best at, not as a replacement for Leica or Nikon or Canon.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 20, 2001.

Tristan: After seeing what good custom developing (B&W) and printing can do for 35mm, I pretty much swore off Med. Format. Like the gun fanciers say, "If you are ever going to be in a gunfight, be sure to have a gun." Same thing with photography: Be sure to have a camera! When I had Med. Format gear, I tended to not have it many times. Just too heavy. I have owned a Fuji 690 III and must say it was an excellent value. I got it new and it did everything it was supposed to. The lens is very good. I had planned on getting proof sheets and cutting the individual frames out for my album, but the cost of proof sheets went through the ceiling. If you use the 6x9 format, you need to develop your own film and likewise print. Most custom processors were not equipped to print 6x9cm, and they cropped the pictures mercilessly. I was wishing I had got the 6x7. Commercial developing and printing of 120 was much slower and MUCH costlier. Once more I must say I'd like to see a cassette film, perforated, with a 44x55mm frame size, like 35mm. With Med. Format accounting for less than 1% of 35mm sales, it is hardly likely we will see the film companies bring out another film size for stores to stock. As strictly an amature, I can't get excited about Med. Format.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

I used Hasselblad equipment for more than a decade and enjoyed the experience and results, but NOT the heft of the equipment. The results were primo, and flash fill with the leaf shutters of the Zeiss lenses was a breeze. I used 500 C/M's with NC-2 prisms; lenses used were 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150, and 180 with 2X Mutar. I liked the system and results, but NOT lugging the equipment around (and I am a BIG person). I had always wanted to shoot Leica rangefinder equipment, so I took the plunge several years ago and soon realized that I was enjoying photography more than I ever had. I also noticed that the Hasselblad went unused the great majority of the time, so I sold all of it. Although I occasionally miss the flexibility of the leaf shutters and the polaroid back, I find the results with Leica M to be more than worthy of my efforts. If you require a medium format SLR system, Hasselblad should be considered. The Leica and Hasselblad systems complement each other, but should not necessarily be considered as replacements for each other (although it was for me). I found that I can do most of what I want with the 35mm rangefinder; I take great pleasure in the quality of the results from the smaller format and have greater flexibility in film choice.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), November 21, 2001.

Hi Tristan

I have recently bought a small Leica kit to supplement my Hasselblad kit so I can give some observations.

Medium format exists because its image quality is a quantum leap above 35mm period! If there are differences between top quality 35mm we are still talking margins. If this wasn't true then medium format wouldn't sell no one is going to put up with the extra weight, slow response time etc if this wasn't true. My principle is that if I could take a picture with the blad I would do so.

At this point we come to the crux - Medium Format just cannot be conveniently used for everything, it is slower to use, lenses are slower, depth of field is less and it is heavier.

I spent several years with nothing but mf and whilst I tried to do everything with it, sometimes it is not worth it. Want to take candids it is easier with the Leica, want a light weight outfit to take up the mountains or have a camera ready just in case - go 35mm.

My real reason for the Leica then - looking around at the current 35mm SLR gear a Canon EOS 1 some F2.8 zooms weigh more and cost more than my blad outfit, I don't do sports so why bother. The Leica provides a real weight and size benefit over my blad.

Tapas

-- Tapas Maiti (tapasmaiti@aol.com), November 21, 2001.

One of the reasons I went to an M6 from a Nikon was due to the weight factor so I know that I would hardly feel comfortable hefting a Hassleblad around despite the increased resolution of the medium format. What good will it be if you cannot conveniently get the shot?

Further, if you think that you need an expensive camera to achieve beautiful results, check out:

Millicent Harvey's Holga Photos

All were done with a Holga which costs at most what $15.?!

-- jack barnes (emulsion71@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

tristan,

I recently sold off all my Hassy equipment because I found that the advantage that medium format has over 35 mm doesn't warrant the constant $$$$TLC$$$$ that the Hasselblad system demands. If I got back into medium format it would be with the Mamiya system. Preferable with the RZ67 workhorse. However, for the same $$$$ that you will be spending on a Hasselblad system have you ever considered getting into large format? You can get a Sinar X (used) with a superb Rodenstock lens for the price of a so-so Hassy system... both will weigh the same more-or-less.... the Sinar will require even more patience and consideration when composing... not good with candids. But the upside is that a properly composed shot on 4x5 negative/positive can be blown up BILLBOARD size. Something that 35 mm and medium format cannot lay claim to.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), November 21, 2001.

i'm thinking about getting a 6x6 hassy. any comments on what i'm likely to experience after having been a leica m6 user?

poverty

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), November 21, 2001.

Tom:

I have used Leica since the 60's and blad since 70. The blad is the obvious step from the M6. Both are idiosyncratic. You won't experience the growing pains. ;)

For me, I have found the prism useless on the blad. It is hard enough to focus without it. The results, because of the film size, are much better than the Leica [assuming that you are in a situation where the camera design works]. Weight; hey you are talking to someone who has backpacked a Linhof. No pain=no gain. I would recommend the leaf shutter lenses; especially for cold weather.

Using the waist level finder requires a different way of seeing things. Otherwise, I agree with most of what has been said above.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), November 21, 2001.

Tristan,

With all the wise contributions already made I almost feel ashamed to throw in my humble 0.02... I have a basic 500CM set with 50/80/150 lenses, a prism finder and some gimmicks. I bought everything used and still spent much too much in relation to the few occassions on which I really feel I need MF and am ready to face the downsides (weight, bulk, slowness in handling, extra costs for stock, processing, etc.)... The one advantage though I still see over a pure RF equipment is the possibility to perfectly control perspective and dof through the finder - the classic SLR advantage - although given the forementioned downsides, these advantages are substantial only with studio work, portraits, still lifes - or landscapes and architecture (but here the LF may be the ultimate choice). With everything similar to Leica RF photography the Hassy just doesn't seem right. And since I just fell for rapid and casual shooting lately, the Hassy stays in the closet.

But, there's one other thing no one has mentioned so far: the true *advantage* of *low* depth of field in MF, aesthetically speaking. An effect which is practically unobtainable with 35mm.



This is a recent shot I took with a Plaubel Makina 67 and its 80mm lens wide open @ 2.8, on Ilford Pan F @ ISO 50. 80mm is a "normal" focal length comparable to a 50mm on a Leica. I doubt that you can achieve this effect even with a Noctilux. Anybody out there to take the challenge...? ;o) BTW, the 6x7 RF Makina is a Leica M "twin" - in built, optical quality and handling. Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), November 21, 2001.

BTW, I have my first *real* assignment tomorrow! I'm going to take a basic M6 equipment (28/35/50/75) - plus the forementioned Makina. Wish me luck.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), November 21, 2001.

With all due respect, Lutz, you could easily achieve that effect with an Elmarit M 90/2.8. The field of view would just be narrower.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 21, 2001.

Lutz, if you took the same picture with Noct wide open you would not be able to recognize any subjects on the desk (in the background). And it comes with four darkened corners for free.

I wonder if my FE150/2.8 would have the similair bokeh.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

This is for Lutz:

"Andy"
Noctilux wide open

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 21, 2001.

Nice pics people! Tony I've been contemplating a noctilux or a 75 lux....How do you like your 50 f 1.0? And...more importantly...what dont you like about it?....if you dont mind! Regards,

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), November 22, 2001.

There's not much that I don't like about the Noct, but there is one thing that I really do like about it: It's massive weight prevents the stap from creeping down off my shoulder when my camera is under my coat. Interesting benefit, I know, but it's something I've noticed lately.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 22, 2001.

Years ago when I first started shooting weddings I would rent a medium format camera from a local camera store. It would be a different camera each time. They would rent me whatever used medium format camera and lens they had for sale at that time. I would pick up the camera first thing in the morning, run a roll of TMax through it, soup up the film and check for problems then go shoot the wedding.

So I had the oppurtunity to try out many different makes and models of medium format cameras. I must say the best images were from the Hassy. Excellent color, sharpness and contrast. If I had stayed in wedding photography that would be the system I would own.

My $.02 Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), November 22, 2001.

Nice shot, Tony! However, I made a slight mistake: 80mm on a 6x7 actually equal 40mm in 35mm format. So, (while trying to compare apples and pears...) besides the angle of view we would have to look at two identical subjects as well. Your character is sitting at roughly 0.8 meters from the camera and about 8 to 12 metres from the background, mine at exactly 1 meter (the closest possible) from the camera and about 1 to 2 meters from the BG.

And, Dan, with all due respect, angle of view vs. d.o.f. is exactly what I'm talking about. I wouldn't be surprised about narrow(er) d.o.f. at anything below the roughly 50 degrees of an 80mm (for 35mm format read: 40mm) lens.

BTW, the assignment was fun. I was supposed to cover a lecture given by Aussie screenwriter Terry Hayes (Mad Max 2, Dead Calm, Vertical Limit...) in Geneva. The interior setting (cinema) was rather boring and darkish, so I was happy to have at least my SF 20 (and SFILL prototype) with me. But later on we moved to a nice and sunlit bistro for lunch, and I'm anxious to see how those turned out... Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), November 23, 2001.

I have the Hasselblad 500CM and 50mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses, all bought secondhand. I like the 45 degree prism. It is fun to use, but I use it surprisingly little. Processing and printing from it is a pain (even digital - good MF scans are expensive) as you have to go to a pro lab. I process my own B & W. I love the results, but I am not really comparing like with like. When I use the 'blad it is virtually always on a tripod in a slow "measured" mode. This is fun. Modern Leica optics are better than the MF Zeiss in my opinion, but of course, the size of the film more than makes up for it. Still, do not forget that the Leica is a truly formidable machine when placed on a tripod and when using slow film. Sure you can blow up a 'blad image more -- but in all seriousness, how many 20 x 24 inch photos do you make every year?

In short I like the 'blad and the results I get from it, but it is a pain to lug it around and I shoot much less with it than I thought I would. Everything about MF is expensive compared to 35mm. Every now and then I consider selling it or exchanging it for a Fuji 6 x 9 or a Mamiya 7, but I do like the close up abilities of the reflex system. The 80mm Planar or the 150mm are just wonderful portrait lenses and I find focussing to be surprisingly easy considering that these lenses are not so very fast. There is nothing quite like a fine Planar or Sonnar B&W portrait.

I suggest you buy a 500CM or similar and the 80mm to start with. This is about the most useful lens anyway in my opinion. You will need probably at minimum 2 backs. A12s are the most useful. Then you can see whether you like it. I have had my 'blad for 3 years and I do like it, but every now and then I do wonder whether I should not sell it all and get that Noctilux or 280APO etc.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

Hello Tom Tristen, A step to Hasselblad is logical to many people with an appreciation for beautifully made camera equipment . The old rule states "use the largest format permissible" and that has certainly been true in my case but there is an interesting alternative you may consider if camera size in relation to image quality are crucial, that is if you do a lot of wide angle work. The choice? Hasselblad SWC. Superb optics, utter simplicity, ultra compact, silent, fast and beautiful! In my opinion the purest camera available. The one everyone talks about but very few actually own. Use one for a day and see if you agree! Cheers, R.Hageman

-- R.Hageman (hagemandesign@hetnet.nl), March 10, 2002.