Leica or Medium Format

[atournas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rob,

 

Perhaps you should consider the following points as well:

 

1. Medium format (for the first time?) will take quite some time before it starts delivering obviously better results than your M9's.

 

2. You could shoot some 1200 images with the M9 during the time you need to EXPERTLY set up your Hasselblad, tripod included, and get a respectable B&W picture (let alone the process and enlarging time).

 

3. B&W negs are notoriously difficult to scan; actually, only slide film scanning is straightforward---and that irrespective of the scanner.

 

4. Medium format photography is much more than sharper and more detailed negs, and the entire slow shooting procedure is just part of the fun.

 

However, if you are determined to find that extra time and patience (nerves?), go for your Hasselblad and enjoy both worlds.

 

Paul

[Advertisement]

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

[menos I M6]

I recently added a Hasselblad 203FE + 80 CFE to my gear.

 

I use these days mainly a M8.2 and M9 as a pair of bodies with 2 to 4 lenses in a bag, out shooting.

I also use still a not small part of film, mixed with the digital files.

I shoot mainly in low light (read: handheld night photography with fast lenses and pushed film).

I almost exclusively shoot B&W, converting my files in Lightroom.

 

I have a well sorted and key worded archive, that meshes well with my physically archived negatives and prints.

 

Why did I wanted to try the Hasselblad?

- 6x6 format

- unique viewing, composing experience with waist level finder

 

First thoughts:

The Hasselblad is big, heavy and inconvenient to handle (even a massive brass made Leica MP + Leicavit + 75 Summilux feels like a point and shoot compared to the Hasselblad).

 

Film loading is easy and quick, no problems here.

 

Outsourced film development with medium format will get expensive.

 

Focussing is A LOT slower and more difficult than with a Leica rangefinder.

Don't even dream of just peeping into the finder at waist level and quickly focus and be done! You have to use the loupe, pressed into your eye ball, to focus properly!

 

The prospect of a new way of composing your shots with the waist level finder and new possibilities are actually a big limitation - it's pretty awkward, to shoot in any other way than having the camera on your belly. With a Leica, changing shooting angles is as easy as pie by comparison.

 

Slow shutter speeds? No.

Handholding a 75 Summilux @ 1/30 is no big deal - with wide angle lenses, 1/8sec is even not unusual, to get consistent results. For fun, disassemble the Hasselblad, place the charged mirror box on your opened hand and initiate the shutter release by release cable - the darn thing jumps right at you with that big mirror doing it's dance!

 

Think, the focal plane cloth shutter in the 200 series is a cool addition, to shoot those fast leaf shutter less lenses in low light? Nope, better rethink.

We all know, the Leica cloth shutter in the film bodies is as smooth as silk and allows for really slow shutter speeds handheld, right? Well, Hasselblad managed, to take the cloth shutter design and put an inertia into the system, like launching a F16 from an aircraft carrier.

be prepared, the Hasselblad to be launching in a similar fashion, when pressing the shutter button @ 1/15sec.

 

Make sure, you hold that thing with strong arms and don't get your face close to the body, as it may result in bruised eyes.

 

Seriously, after the first week of trying to get the hand of the system, my romantic thoughts about the Hasselblad are gone and only the very few factual pros about the system remain, compared to the Leica Ms, I shoot.

 

The very only remaining pro for me in the Hasselblad is, that the negative is so much bigger, than a 35mm negative. That's it.

 

The lenses are not nicer.

The camera's fit, finish and mechanics are not nicer (quite the contrary, charging a Hasselblad V body very much feels - and sounds - like operating a large and rough pepper grinder).

The big finder is nice at once, but quickly turns out, to be nice looking, but not better working, than a Leica M viewfinder (both in focus and composition).

The work of darkroom, scan and print is the same, as with the 135 film, but adds oddities in specific scanners being demanded (you don't want to scan those gorgeous big negs with your regular flatbed or you could stick with 135 film, to begin with).

 

…

 

All in all, you really should think, if your drive trying out a Hasselblad V body is out of wanting to try out a Hasselblad V body or out of wanting a bigger negative and bigger enlargements (13x19 seriously is NOT big and can easily achieved with regular 135 film and without any doubt with a M9 file).

 

Understand, that the advantage of the bigger medium format neg of 120 film can be practically used, if your workflow is enabling it.

Get your scans done at Walmart? Forget about buying into the expensive medium format system!

 

Another thing regarding lenses.

I am in love with quite a few very specific lenses in Leica mount, be it my favorite, the Noctilux f1 or a Nikkor 5cm f1.4 Sonnar or a Canon 35 f2 LTM or even the spectacular modern Leica ASPH glass.

 

Seriously, I didn't see one photograph, shot with the V system so far, that really blew me away, thinking "Man, that lens renders beautifully!"

Don't get me wrong - I have seen many, many wonderful photographs, made with V-bodies, but they sparkled not because of a certain rendering of the lens for me.

I have to admit, that I don't really are sold to the Carl Zeiss Planar 80 f2.8 - it surely is a very different look form the Leitz glass, I like most.

 

Are you one of the persons, who heard about the mythical Zeiss 110/2 and thought … "Mmh - let's try that out! A Noctilux for medium format!" Or what about the super fast 50 f2.8 (super fast )?

 

Well - on the internet and even on paper, it sounds pretty cool (I thought about that lens, until I handled one for a day), but let's explain it this way:

 

Try, handling your regular kitchen toaster, glueing a 1kg flower pot to the front, while handholding the contraption with your left hand (yes, that's right, your LEFT HAND), twisting the flower pot with your only left free hand, being your right hand (ever focussed with your right hand?).

 

Now, as this thing get's a bit unbalanced and heavy, let's pull the belt out of your pants and fix that front heavy toaster to your neck with that belt - feels better?

 

To repeat - it sounds quite cool, and I bet, pictures will be great, once, you manage focus, studio shoots will be wonderful, once, you get your model, to hold still for a minute, but it surely will not be your daily shooter, you will pack in the bag (try the toaster and flower pot for a week or two - bet, you'll leave it at home on day 2).

…

[erl]

Menos | M6,

that last post of yours is utter rubbish and bosh! I am left wondering if you left about 20 smileys off. You just can't be serious.

 

I have spent 40+ years working, yes working, with many Hassy bodies and lens kits and totally and utterly refute your summation above. I still own three Blad bodies, five mags and eight lenses, which I will never part with.

 

It's Xmas day right now and the dog is demanding a walk, but if time presents later in the day I will detail some of your errors. Yours, by the way, not Hasselblads.

 

Have a happy Xmas day anyway and may you enjoy your other cameras. Briefly, don't try to replace your Leica gear with the hassy, that's not how it works. They are meant to compliment each other.

[nikau]

As someone who has used Leica and Hasselblad side by side for 30 years I do agree with ERL, above, and would be interested in reading more from him on the subject. The two systems are complementary and I've always thought the Hasselblads handed beautifully, even the clunky-looking EL- series. The only thing I have against the 'blads is that they're a heck of a lot heavier to cart around than an M (or R) Leica.

[Studio58]

I would agree with some of what the op states. I have not used a Blad for a while but did use them for 90% of my work for about ten years before I changed completely to digital in 2001. My main issue would be the focusing. Erl may have developed a good technique but I was always quite slow at it. Loved loved loved using the Blad though.

I feel the same about the Leica now... FAR easier to focus though.

[erl]

Xmas dinner and drinks under the belt, I will attempt to address Menos | M6's earlier post.

 

Menos, it would appear you have chosen the wrong camera (Hassy) for your requirements. Further, to quote you, you trialled it for a week! I bet it took much longer than that to come to grips with your Leica. It took me 12 months with mine.

 

The Hasselblad is a brilliant modular design, built around the hand of Victor Hasselblad specifically for himself, a diminutive man with small hands. The camera was designed to sit comfortably across his left hand such that the shutter release was naturally presented directly under the forefinger of that hand. His right hand, being his 'natural' hand was then free to operate the mechanics such as focus, film advance, aperture and speed settings. Entirely logical and ergonomic.

 

Being a modular system, eg. body, lens, film magazine, winder, viewing system, these five basic functions all have many alternative components allowing the photographer to build their own Hasselblad system. It does require the photographer to understand how they wish to work to make the correct component choices. I think all of your objections to the Hasselblad, above, have a suitable component to address the need.

 

Randomly addressing some of your criticisms that don't have suitable components to correct your worries:

 

a) Noisy. Yes. It is NOT intended as a stealth camera. Leica is not as good as some would have one believe either!

 

Heavy/ bulky. Any serious professional gear is. If you can't lift it, get a job teaching! (no offense intended to teachers. I've been one too).

 

c) Difficult to focus! Get your glasses upgraded. Nothing is harder than leaning to find a focus patch in a Leica until you can do it. Hasselblad has a whole range of alternatives for focussing. Choose the correct one for your application. It IS easy.

 

d) Hand held slow shutter speeds on a Blad. Why would you? It is not meant to be used that way. That would be patently stupid.

 

e) 2000 series cloth shutter. A great alternative to the speed limited Compur shutters (1/500th). There was a time I 'outshot' the nikon press at the Grand Prix with my Blad shooting 1/2000th sec. against their (then) 1/1000th sec. My pics were sharper and came from larger negs. Not the usual call for a Blad, but I did it. I knew my pics had to go BIG for the client.

 

f) Comparing 6x6 with 135 film! Well on that alone, 135 loses, if area is the argument. If you want to introduce all the other REAL variables, you no longer have a basis of fair comparison, to either format. They are different tools!

 

g)Comparing the Zeiss 110/2.0 with the Noctilux. I am wondering why, but since I own and use both, I know they require similar dedication and skill to use, but I don't think you have discovered that yet. You will of course correct me if my assumption is wrong.

 

h) Introducing comparisons with electric toasters and flower pots typifies your level of real knowledge in this area and I shan't say what is really coming to mind here.

 

h) Getting models to sit still for a minute while you focus, adjust, shoot.!!! That says more about you (lack of) technique than I care to write.

 

Summary: Hasselblad and Leica are both fine instruments, but demand a high level of skill from the photographer. Not just 'anyone' can use them. Give me a paint pot and a brush, but I will never be a Picasso.

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Erl, it's a bit disappointing, to read such statements, especially, when seeing you as part of the moderation of this forum.

 

I might rephrase my (highly sarcastically painted first impressions, yes, that means first impressions after a week of use, not final verdict, as I read you interpreting it) post to a more clear list of FACTS after being back from shooting this night.

 

Did I touch a deep nerve of Hasselblad love?

[Studio58]

concur. I have offended Erl also. Try not to express your personal findings ... this type of behaviour is often frowned upo.

[andybarton]

Menos has stated his opinions of using a Hasselblad. So has Erl.

 

I see no reason to criticise the latter for him sharing his long term experience and explaining why the former needs to think differently when using one, if experienced in the "Leica way". The experience _is_ different and needs to be approached with the left brain rather than the right, or the other way round.

 

In my experience, it would take me about 10x longer to shoot a shot with my 503CX than with any of my Leicas, and there is something really special and different about the results.

[Studio58]

 

In my experience, it would take me about 10x longer to shoot a shot with my 503CX than with any of my Leicas, and there is something really special and different about the results.

 

Yes my experience also. In my case I will produce better images with the Leica because it suits me at the moment. Of course any results are informed by the tools you have used in the past and by the images you have created through them. In my case, using 21/4 square for a long period followed by 10 years of shooting dslr has heavily influenced my current methods. So for me, at this point, the Leica suits the way I want to work and is therefore superior to the Hasselblad.

It is horses for courses......

 

and,

[erl]

Erl, it's a bit disappointing, to read such statements, especially, when seeing you as part of the moderation of this forum.

 

I might rephrase my (highly sarcastically painted first impressions, yes, that means first impressions after a week of use, not final verdict, as I read you interpreting it) post to a more clear list of FACTS after being back from shooting this night.

 

Did I touch a deep nerve of Hasselblad love?

 

Deep nerve of Hasselblad love? No. an unemotional opinion based on extensive use and practice.

 

Sorry you are disappointed to read my statements, as you say, because I am a moderator. Please be assured, when I post as does anyone, with an opinion, I am NOT being a moderator and seek no special priveledges in that respect. In fact I was personally moderated yesterday by another mod. Fair cop as far as I am concerned.

 

My tone, as you detected was, was confrontational, because I intended to match the tenor of your original post as I read it, which IMO is off target and very short on useful facts. I stand by my criticism of your criticisms, but offer an apology if you have been personally offended.

[erl]

An omission on my behalf. Regarding the M9 (not the film Leicas) V's the Hasselblad. Technically they can be argued as very close together. However, the form factor of use is radically different. It is always erroneous to make comparisions without considering all the variables.

 

One thing that will not vary is the absolute need to choose the right tool for each job if optimum result is sought. Hasselblad and Leica will always be complementary to each other. Never competitive. Of course, the biggest variable of all is the photographer!

[erl]

concur. I have offended Erl also. Try not to express your personal findings ... this type of behaviour is often frowned upo.

 

I don't recall being offended by you, but if you say so..........

 

Expressions of personal findings are NOT frowned upon, but the manner and basis of those findings and the way they are presented, may be.

[Allen in Montreal]

Hello all

 

I have been shooting the M9 for a while........... I cannot get anywhere near the 'soul' of Tri X shots. .........

 

Thanks in advance

 

Rob

 

 

Dear Rob,

 

I have not read through this thread, I am skipping straight to the punch, so forgive me of I am repeating others.

 

In photography, there is no real "A or B".

Every format, every film, every developer has its own palette. Which palette will please you most often is the question.

 

You say "or" so I assume you may ditch the M9?

Don't.

You may regret it later.

Perhaps once you find a camera/film/developer combo you really love, that might be the time to think about selling the M9. Not sooner.

 

I have 3 medium formats (4 if you count the Holgas ), they are all great, and very, very different.

 

What do you shoot? have you ever shot Hassy? Can you rent one for a weekend? It may be money very well spent. Try the Mamiya 7 if you can, depending on what you shoot, it can out perform the Hassy, or fall totally short.

 

I say camera/film/developer combo because more than likely with time, you will want to process your own film for total control (most labs are just ok, unless you find a true gem). It is very easy, it takes little space and can be done quickly once you get it down.

[Messsucherkamera]

A great image will always transcend the materials used. I'd personally not worry too much about 'soul' coming from the materials but more about the 'soul' from the content of the image itself. A viewer will become attracted to a good image despite how it was produced; DX, FX, 35mm, 6x7, 4x5, etc.. You'll be chasing your tail forever because in the end there really is no 'magic bullet' (expect for that thing that sits between your ears.)

Agreed.

 

The magic comes from within the photographer. The camera/lens/film (or sensor) are all inert objects. They have no volition, no intellect, no ability. They have no photographic vision or intuition. They are merely tools.

 

Asking if Leica cameras/lenses are "better" than Hasselblad cameras/lenses is like asking if apples are "better" than peaches. Better for what??

 

True, bigger negatives make higher quality prints with a given film at a given print size than do smaller negatives. But then how big of a print does a person need or want?? Henri Cartier-Bresson made his images with the tiny and supposedly "inferior" 35mm camera and film.

 

If you want to make giant-ass barn size prints, an 8x10 view camera is the only way to go, but if you want to make prints sized for real people with real homes with real sized walls (or a real business or gallery) 35mm and/or 120 will produce exhibit quality results if you do your part.

 

Some of the most beautiful, powerful prints I've ever seen were 6x8 inches in size. But then the images and prints were made by a photographer who was a Guggenheim grant recipient. It's all about photographic vision.

 

Every format, every film, every developer has its own palette. Which palette will please you most often is the question.

Agreed again.

[pierovitch]

I still like scanning B&W for the tonal range but not for the grain.

pro film scanners add huge amounts of unsharp masking which gives very sharp grain.

You could try creating a sharp grain layer and use blend modes in photoshop to add grain after you have the tonal look from B&W conversion.

[BobYIL]

So to complement my digital setup I am looking to get back into film - for printing to 12x18 or thereabouts. I would also like the occasional option to go larger with prints if needed but this will be the exception rather than the rule.

 

I won't get into printing my own photos from negs (famous last words) so I would be going down the self scan route. Having poked about on various sites, I am now facing the option of whether to go for a Leica M film or to go for medium format. (Hasselblad most likely 500).

 

This is where the confusion arises - will the larger negative size of MF allow me to get better scans than scanning 35mm negs or will it be limited because of home scanning? The scans I have had done commercially, allow me to use photoshop to tweak levels etc but they are so low resolution that blowing them up to any good size print just turns them to mush. In simple terms, will a scan of a MF neg give me a larger file to play with than a 35mm neg scan or is this irrelevant with home scanning?

 

Rob,

 

Let me suggest you an easy solution to help you with your decision:

 

Since you have the M-lenses, just borrow or rent an M film body for a weekend. Load it with a low speed film like the PanF for example and have it developed & scanned by a professional lab. The results would be more or less the highest resolution with good gradation you could be achieving with the 35mm format.

 

Compare them to your shots with the M9. Enlarge them on your computer up to 20" size and see whether they would be OK for you. If your criteria would weigh toward the resolution then you need the MF format for anything faster than the Pan F would result in more graininess and less resolution.

 

Then you can borrow/rent an Hasselblad with the 80mm Planar and repeat the same, if you like also with the Tri-X, HP5 this time.

 

FYI, as far as resolution, grain size, tonality and speed are concerned, a good compromise with the 35mm format could be achieved with the Acros and a developer like the D76 and up to ISO 200.

 

Regards,

 

Bob

[Studio58]

One thing that will not vary is the absolute need to choose the right tool for each job if optimum result is sought. Hasselblad and Leica will always be complementary to each other. Never competitive. Of course, the biggest variable of all is the photographer!

 

I think Erl has it summed up right here. At the end of the day, it all comes back to the skill of the operator to extract the best result from the tool at hand.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[theendlesshouse]

Nachtway shoots with a canon 1V. (See War Photographer)

 

Buy an old hasselblad shoot some film, if you dont love it sell it and carry on down the digital rabbit hole. I wouldn't set much store by online reviews of sharpness and resolution!

[Studio58]

Nachtway is a machine. I don't think there is any way you could do that with a Leica.

 

BUT.... I reckon I could well be proved wrong on that point.