Favourite medium format?......

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Adam, your photos remind me more pictures studio.  What remarkable clarity, very impressive.

I think in b&w some pictures shown will be prettier too !

Have you tried with b&w film ?

Cheers

Henry

Edited June 16, 2015 by Doc Henry

[A miller]

 

Adam, your photos remind me more pictures studio.  What remarkable clarity, very impressive.

I think in b&w some pictures shown will be prettier too !

Have you tried with b&w film ?

Cheers

Henry

 Thanks, Henry.

I will be trying some tri-x in due course...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[A miller]

Hassy SWC w/ built-in 38mm T lens or Mamiya 7 with 43mm

Which is better for landscapes and architecture.

Please disregard the Mamiya's practical benefits including the interchangibility of the lenses.

I want people's views on the raw quality output at the super wide angle.

 

I understand that the Hassy is a square format whereas the Mamiya is a 6X7.

 

Thanks in advance for your insights.

adam

 

 

 

[erl]

Adam, I am a great fan of Hasselblad (traditional). Never had a SWC but believe it to be the ultimate for W/A correction etc. My particular 'bent' is the square format. I find it sooo much more liberating than the rectangular format of V or H. It is all done 'mentally'  through the VF if you want crop. No physical  clumsy rotating of camera ever required.  Personally, I find the square to be mostly, more subject friendly.

[philipus]

Hi Adam

 

Did you see this old photo.net thread? And Rockwell's brief review/comparison.

 

If you want square there's of course also the Mamiya 6 (I guess you've seen Rockwell's comparison of the 6 and the 7; he also has a fairly glowing review of the 43mm lens). 

 

I looked at the SWC for a very compact 6x6 camera (and also the Mamiya 6) but realised I wanted an SLR system (including waist-level finder). The Biogon, however, gets absolutely amazing reviews (search the Hasselblad fora at photo.net and APUG - there's a lot there). I would think the differences between them in actual use would be fairly small but it depends what one wants/needs.

 

Btw, I believe Andy Piper shoots with an SWC (see an earlier post a page or two back in this thread) so he might be able to offer more on point advice. And Ming Thein has a review of the 903 which is a more modern incarnation and very good.

 

br

Philip

[A miller]

Many thanks, Erl and Philip - I actually have an old Zeiss Biogon that is fitted to my "baby" Linhof Technika Press 23 MF camera.  It is a 53MM.  My issue is that I want a super wide lens.  In order to get my 53mm Biogon to be super wide I need to use a 6X9 film back.  This would make the focal length roughly equal to a 23mm in 35mm format.  The 38mm on the hassy SWC is equal to about 21mm in 35mm format. 

While I have a 6X7 (rwhich translates into a roughly 26.5mm focal length in 35mm format) and 6X6 (which translates into roughly 29mm) film back for my Linhof, I don't have a 6X9 film back.  The 6X9 film backs are VERY expensive and hard to find (B&H has one on sale for $2400 - just for the film back! - and it is a final sale with no possiblity of return, which gives me the creeps as these are old tools). 

 

A mint- SWC with the T version of the 38mm lens costs less than this.   

 

So I think I might give it a try and see how it goes.

 

Thanks again and all the best,

Adam

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Re square format: "You can crop a square anywhere" -- David Vestal (I think)

 

To mention another MF wide angle - Horseman 6x12 with 35mm Grandagon lens.

It is so wide I can barely manage it, and I love wide angle! It must be used at F16

or smaller (physical) aperture.

 

Possibly repeating myself, and sidetracking, here are a couple LF wides.

I made this one. 4x5" with 47mm F/5.6 Super Angulon in focusing helix.

Sinar 4x5 with modified Pacific Optical 3" lens in #5 shutter. (A Biogon)

 

Oh heck, go all the way with an 8x10 'sky camera' with 152mm Metrogon lens.

Edited June 30, 2015 by pico

[philipus]

About formats, I agree in theory with that quote, Pico. The problem is that I find it difficult to do in practice (I think Mary Ellen Mark said something once; not that that's at all relevant but what the heck). I visualise differently depending on the camera I use. When I considered MF, I realised that based on how I use 35mm cameras - mainly in landscape mode - the focal length comparison that mattered the most to me was not the vertical or diagonal angles of view, but the horizontal. So far that has proven to be correct in practice. 

[adan]

Adam, I'd say if your goal will primarily be rectangular pictures, a Hassy 6x6 negative gets cropped to 645, or barely more than half the area of a Mamiya 6x7 negative. That'll outweigh any small differences (and they are small - if any) between the lenses themselves.

[A miller]

Thanks, Adan.  My goal is not primarily rectangular.  I'd point out the converse comment that you made, which is that using the 43mm of the Mamiya to create square format images (through cropping) will narrow the FOV to the 35mm equivalent of approx. 24mm vs the Hassy's approx 21mm FOV.

Edited July 1, 2015 by A miller

[menos I M6]

Adam, have a good thought on how the different cameras operate and handle vs. the diminutive differences in their (both excellent) optical qualities.

 

One issue I always had was the awkward handling of Hasselblads.

 

I sort of got used to it after a while but it never at any point felt natural or comfortable but rather like trying to drive a motor vehicle, seated in the trunk, viewing the road through a periscope cut through the trunk lid, steering the vehicle through rubber bands attached to the steering wheel while doing the pedal work by means of three different broom sticks and having the manual transmission locked in 2nd gear at all times as per lack of a third hand.

That is exactly how Hasselblad 6x6 cameras feel to me to this day.

 

When being used to compact and fast handling systems like 35mm SLRs or Leica M rangefinders, a Mamiya 6/7 feels absolutely natural.

It really feels nothing different in operation from a more bulky (but well balanced) Leica M.

 

My Hasselblad gear lingers in storage mainly for this very issue.

[erl]

Menos | M6, Please re think your Hasselblad  handling technique!

 

My first reaction is that you are using it 'backwards'. ie. Holding with the wrong hand (many people do for some reason). The camera must sit in the palm of the left hand such that the shutter release falls naturally under the tip of the forefinger. The right hand is used for focussing, setting aperture and advancing the film. It is all a most natural and ergonomically thought out system. For many years I competed with 35mm film camera users (press) and generally outshot them while using my Blad. I did take the trouble to configure my Blad with a 45 deg prism finder and a winder.

 

I would love to shoot you, with a Blad, sometime while you are driving your car in your unique style.

[philipus]

Dirk, very amusing description. Brought an image to my mind of Hightower driving from the rear seat in Police Academy 

 

Erl, I actually hold mine the "wrong" way  then again I prefer the wrong direction on the shutterspeed dial on the TTL/M7 too so it is perhaps to be expected, haha. I prefer focusing with the left and operating the buttons on the left-hand side of the camera and use the right hand for the shutter button and advancing the film. It just feels more natural to me. I suspect it is because that is how I use other cameras. But I still find the 203 very intuitive to use.

 

Adam, I would have thought that given that you shoot your Ms a lot in landscape format you would also have translated the 43mm focal length using the horizontal, not diagonal, equivalent. But we all see differently of course. 

 

A mint- SWC with the T version of the 38mm lens costs less than this.   

 

I guess it depends on where you buy but for instance this SWC is 1900€ at Leicashop. For that you should be able to find a 500 series and the 40 Distagon FLE. This is certainly a larger package (the lens is very big) but a much more versatile system. And if you go for the non-FLE version it'll be considerably less expensive (with still fantastic optical performance).

 

The best is to try out the different cameras. Can you rent them or are there perhaps forum members in NYC with these cameras whom you could meet up with?

 

br

Philip

Edited July 2, 2015 by philipus

[menos I M6]

Yes Erl, I do hold the Hasselblad "the right way" and actually find it also usable "the wrong way" (operating all controls on the lens with the left hand, while cradling the camera in the right hand and triggering the shutter release with the right thumb or index finger and then switching hands for advancing the frame.

 

When holding the Hasselblad the right way (without grip or motor drive) it is ergonomically well thought out but as all hands feel somewhat bound to the camera like having a scruffy police officer handcuff your wrists to a hot radiator pipe ;-)

 

It is funny how there always seem as equally many people who like and dislike the Hasselblad concept. These are great cameras and truly wonderful lenses. I have learned though - these are definitely cameras one should try out before committing (and everyone should at least have tried one for a while).

 

The negatives are without a doubt fantastic ;-)

[A miller]

Thanks for all the further insights. 

 

The ergonomics of the SWC are slightly different from other models.  The camera is more compact and the shutter release is in a different place.  

The lens on the swc is widely reputed as markedly better than the 40mm that is made for the 503 models.  

I am principally interested in a super wide pov.  I like the idea of having different film backs for the swc. 

I find my "baby Limhof" technika press to be quite amazing with the three custom Zeiss lens, for everything from headshots to wide angle landscapes.  The ability to use 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 film sizes is very nice.  As i mentioned, the 6x9 film backs are super rare to find used and quite expensive new; but with the 53mm biogon they can produce a super wide pov (equivalent of about 23mm in 35mm format) with a giant negative, which is quite uniqe. The only problem is the weight of the camera, which makes it not a good travel camera.  But that is where the swc would come in.

Edited July 2, 2015 by A miller

[ColColt]

I loved the Pentax 6x7 with the 90 and 165 f/2.8 LS lens. I did studio work and many weddings with that camera and the quality was superb giving a 16x20 that looked as good as 35mm would a 5x7. Some scans of photos taken with that camera but scans don't do justice to the original negative.

 

Francis and Kami004a by David Fincher, on Flickr

KathyB013b by David Fincher, on Flickr

WorldsFair0003 by David Fincher, on Flickr

[Jager]

You'd think with its boxy, unergonomic design, the Hasselblad would be a pain to use.  And surely it is for some (just like rangefinders are for some).  But I love it!  There's something very special about staring down into that floating image of the world in the ground glass, and the heavy, rolling thwaaaap as the shutter releases.

 

I use my 500C/M differently, according to mood and situation.  Sometimes held in the right hand and focused with the left.  Sometimes vice versa.  FWIW, here is Hasselblad's 'official' recommendation...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here's a picture from a few weeks ago.  Tmax 100 rated at 50.  Rodinal 1:75.

 

 

 

 

 

[erl]

You see!

Even the guitarist is using the Hasselblad Grip to play.

LOL.

[honcho]

......I want people's views on the raw quality output at the super wide angle......

 

......I understand that the Hassy is a square format whereas the Mamiya is a 6X7.....

No one can tell you which to buy, you'll have to work that one out for yourself. What it comes down to is personal preference including format, ergonomics, versatility and build quality.

 

Just to throw another idea at you because on cost you are approaching the ballpark, I would suggest you also take a close look at the Fuji GF670W (although obviously not as wide as either the SWC or M7(ii) with 43mm Sekor).  From my extensive experience of using all of these cameras, my opinion is that as a portable medium format travel camera the Fuji is head and shoulders better than either the SWC or M7(ii) in every way, except the ability to change backs as with the SWC or lenses as with the M7, if either of these criteria are important.

 

The Fujinon lens is a match for both and you have the option of switching from 6x6 to 6x7 format, better focusing, a better meter and more robust build than the M7. Having owned and used all three, if they were in front of me now and I had to choose only one, it would be the Fuji GF670W without hesitation.

Edited July 7, 2015 by honcho

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

Thanks, Honcho.  I went with an swc/m and i also was able to find a used 6x9 film back from the Linhof Studio in England (who are fabulous) for a reasonable price.  A 53mm biogon with a 6x9 film size is truly pretty awesome and unique (an effective focal length of just under 24mm with a giant 6x9 film size), and i am excited about using it.  Likewise, the 38mm square format of the hassy is quite unique.  True, the mamiya's 40mm gets you essentially to the same place.  But with the Linhof system i dont need a new camera system.  And the hassy is quite a perfect travel size and gives the potential to use multiple film backs, which is very useful.  The Linhof is a bear, but i have plenty of use for it in NYC where i live.

 

the Fuji's lens is not wide enough for what i am looking for.  And the Linhof's stable of lenses (53 biogon, 100mm planar and 180 sonar), with the three different film back sizes, offer better opitcal quality and NINE different effective focal lengths and POVs, which subsumes what i would get from Fuji's 80mm.

Edited July 7, 2015 by A miller