chris_tribble Posted January 28, 2014 Share #1 Posted January 28, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've been playing with the idea of getting a Hasselblad and working with film again, but then, after a bit of reading around (e.g. Shootout + others) I have been asking myself whether, apart from the pleasure of the thing (it's a beautiful piece of engineering) and the fun (?) of messing with a chemical dark room again, it would be worth the effort. I can get square format images like the one below (full image + crop) that I can confidently print to 30" x 30" - so why bother. And note - this was hand held and with the little 50mm Elmar-M. While I fully accept that MF digital trumps 35mm digital, I'm not sure if film will be worth the effort (even for B&W). Does any one have thoughts? Examples? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/221082-hasselblad-cm-or-leica-m-240-for-landscape/?do=findComment&comment=2520692'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Hi chris_tribble, Take a look here Hasselblad C/M or Leica M-240 for landscape. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jip Posted January 28, 2014 Share #2 Posted January 28, 2014 I like the medium format style, and way the lenses render differently from the smallformat camera's... but it wouldn't replace it for me... I want to buy a 500C sometime, next to the M240, for B&W film or Kodak Portra, maybe for portraits, but then again I like the 90mm elmarit-M allot too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted January 29, 2014 Share #3 Posted January 29, 2014 After some experience with the M9 and the Hasselblad in b/w I can say: The M9 is at least equal to the Hasselblad. Film renders a bit different (better in my opinion), especially in the highlights, but the Hasselblad is big and heavy. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 29, 2014 Share #4 Posted January 29, 2014 There's more to it than just comparing resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gilgamesh Posted January 29, 2014 Share #5 Posted January 29, 2014 I sold my 500M with a couple of lenses. A mistake. The two experiences are not the same, both individual and not-the-norm. That's why you own both. The 'blad and the two Mamiya rangefinders are not big at all. Most every quality competition is being won on film if you hadn't noticed, and you don't need to stuff about in a darkroom either, get it dev & CD instead from the local high street lab. Why shoot landscapes on a M240? Am I missing something? To me landscapes are not its natural domain. Tell me more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delcredere Posted January 29, 2014 Share #6 Posted January 29, 2014 If you are considering going to all the pleasurable bother of chemical dark rooms why not go the whole hog and get a 5x4 large format field camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 29, 2014 Share #7 Posted January 29, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why shoot landscapes on a M240? Am I missing something? To me landscapes are not its natural domain. I think you are missing that the M240 is a camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share #8 Posted January 29, 2014 Thanks for the comments. Several points. I sold my 500M with a couple of lenses. A mistake.The two experiences are not the same, both individual and not-the-norm. That's why you own both. I know what you mean about the experience, having been brought up on my father's WW2 period Rolleicord 3.5 and Leica f. with a little 50mm Elmar 3.5. This is part of what I'm thinking about with the 'blad. Tripod, slow, considered - all that analog goodness... The 'blad and the two Mamiya rangefinders are not big at all. Well - they're not as small and light as an M-240 + 35 f2 cron asph and a 50 Elmar f2.8! Most every quality competition is being won on film if you hadn't noticed, and you don't need to stuff about in a darkroom either, get it dev & CD instead from the local high street lab. I'd be grateful if you could point me to some examples of the prize winners - I wasn't aware of these... Why shoot landscapes on a M240? Am I missing something? To me landscapes are not its natural domain. Tell me more. But why not? 1. Part of the justification for medium format was that you couldn't get big enough prints from 35mm. I'm not convinced that this is the case with modern high quality digital. I've printed to A1 from M-240 files and had accolades for the results - and sales. 2. I like doing landscape work in places that it takes time and effort to walk to. Carrying a Leica set up + Gitzo Traveller tripod to the top of a mountain is also a different experience from carrying a 'blad + Manfrotto 190CX3 tripod with 488 RC2 large ball head! 3. With the M-240 + LR and SilverEfex I can get images which will print to square or other formats up to 30x30, which I find pleasing and which others are willing to buy. Again - an example below + 100% crop. I am not making any great claims for the image - but I'm genuinely not sure if changing my EQUIPMENT would help me make better images. I'm intrigued by the idea of messing around with film again + having one of the best mechanical cameras ever made - but I'd be interested to hear from others how they compare the results from these two systems. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/221082-hasselblad-cm-or-leica-m-240-for-landscape/?do=findComment&comment=2521038'>More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted January 29, 2014 Share #9 Posted January 29, 2014 For landscape I sometimes use the M240 with a slightly longer lens, 50mm say rather than a 28mm, take sufficient frames to cover the subject and then use Photoshop Merge. Better than any medium format film camera, probably better than 5" X 4", and very simple. Of course one has to remember to set everything to manual so that each frame is identically exposed and not change the focus as this changes the size of the image. With landscape. assuming there is nothing very close, the exact viewpoint is not critical. If there are objects to be included which are close then a tripod is a good idea. Things have to be very close to justify rotating the camera about the entry pupil of the lens. Film is fun but I'm currently scanning some film from about 8 years ago and the scratches and the dust bring back "happy memories" despite the film being processed in laboratory conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 29, 2014 Share #10 Posted January 29, 2014 I'm genuinely not sure if changing my EQUIPMENT would help me make better images. I'm intrigued by the idea of messing around with film again + having one of the best mechanical cameras ever made - but I'd be interested to hear from others how they compare the results from these two systems. Chris, I think you need to identify what it is that is drawing you to "messing around with film again" or what it is about your M system that isn't satisfying you for landscape. It might be that the two are unrelated. You have already given plenty of good reasons as to why your M and lenses are a good option for landscape photography but I'm not sure what case you are making for moving to medium format for the same work. "Tripod, slow, considered - all that analog goodness…" Apart from the "analog" part, the rest can be accomplished with your existing gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted January 29, 2014 Chris, I think you need to identify what it is that is drawing you to "messing around with film again" or what it is about your M system that isn't satisfying you for landscape. It might be that the two are unrelated. You have already given plenty of good reasons as to why your M and lenses are a good option for landscape photography but I'm not sure what case you are making for moving to medium format for the same work. "Tripod, slow, considered - all that analog goodness…" Apart from the "analog" part, the rest can be accomplished with your existing gear. Wattsy - I am tending to agree. It was probably one of those dangerous moments when I was walking to a meeting in Central London and went past Aperture and saw a lovely 'blad C/M with a clean lens for around £800. What I've been doing since is to read around and get a bit excited! Probably a case of technolust + mid-winter cabin fever . Since the intial posting, I've been thinking about the cost of setting up a dark room again or the cost of getting a decent scanner for 120 (at least a Plustek as Nikon 9000's are silly prices, and I couldn't justify the cost of Imacon for the small volume of work I'd be doing.... I've also been remembering the joy of dust etc... Having just broken away from a report I have to write to play with an R 28/PC I'm thinking how nice it will be to take this set up to the hills for panoramas (I just love the combination of the shift lens + the digital horizon on the M makes it so straightforward to produce beautiful compositions) + my usual 35 cron, 50 elmar and 135 Apo-Telyt for other kinds of shots. On a day walk or longer trek, this is all perfectly manageable. For the moment, the gentle advice of fellow forum members is helping me to resist the temptation of buying stuff just because it's beautiful as opposed to being USEFUL Thank you! PS - Ian - this exchange encouraged me to re-visit your website. Lovely things there + I have a strong sense of sympathy with your approach to landscape. C: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozoyo Posted January 29, 2014 Share #12 Posted January 29, 2014 I own both and although you might accomplish almost the same with each of these two cameras, the pleasure and approach are very different things. I love the square format, it is too me photography's natural format. Ok, you can crop 24X36 but it is never the same experience as using the square frosted glass screen. Also, having to deal with only 12 shots on a film does affect the way you take your pictures and probably contributes in making you a better photographer. I often walk with both digital and MF film strapped around my neck, they are complimentary. But more often than not I am more pleased with what I get from the Hasselblad or Rolleiflex. Here is my analog blog for examples : an Analog blog I have had the M240 for a month and just started an M blog : an "M" blog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted January 29, 2014 Share #13 Posted January 29, 2014 ....For the moment, the gentle advice of fellow forum members is helping me to resist the temptation of buying stuff just because it's beautiful as opposed to being USEFUL .... Probably not as gentle as you would like, it seems to me you don't know what you want, or why, but you want something to 'mess about with'. On the one hand you talk about square images and on the other you talk about panoramas, neither of which are the forte of your current choice but can be achieved with varying degrees of success (especially panoramas), with a bit of messing about. My own firm opinion is that cropping square from 3:2 never was a good idea. If you want square, buy a square format camera and control your depth of field and angle of view properly. Likewise panoramas. Are you a photographer or a software geek? You can shoot landscapes with just about any camera and in any format, but until you know exactly what you want to achieve, you risk being frustrated by the equipment or the format and success will be elusive. Buying stuff out of pride of ownership is absurd but if you can be certain that 500CM is going to fulfill your desire , then buy it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 29, 2014 Share #14 Posted January 29, 2014 Since the intial posting, I've been thinking about the cost of setting up a dark room again or the cost of getting a decent scanner for 120 (at least a Plustek as Nikon 9000's are silly prices, and I couldn't justify the cost of Imacon for the small volume of work I'd be doing.... I've also been remembering the joy of dust etc...: For 120 and up (to 8x10) an Epson V700 is fine for scanning, its just not good at 35mm which is where a lot of ill informed judgement comes from. Processing can be done at the kitchen sink, and there are so many Paterson tanks and measuring cylinders on Ebay that you hardly need to spend anything. But if you want to re-engage in the craft of photography and want something at least as good as the quality of your M240, with tilt and shift functions, terrific lenses that cost next to nothing, offers a high degree of satisfaction using it, easy to get film and processing (B&W can still be done at home), and a complete change from digital, why not go the whole hog and try 4x5? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 29, 2014 Share #15 Posted January 29, 2014 If you go the glad route and want large images (ore than 30" on any one side) then get a Phase One P45+ digital back. Even though all can be had used, it will still be a sizable investment of around US$12k here in the US. I personally like the SWC/M for landscapes and shoot vertical and merge. The files though can often get to be over 2GB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share #16 Posted January 29, 2014 Hmmm - I was thinking more in the region of £800 to £1000 for the 'blad and then had thoughts about using a friend's dark room! Different budget all together ... Can't see myself going in the digital back direction... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 29, 2014 Share #17 Posted January 29, 2014 I spent more years than I care to remember shooting film with 500 series cameras and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. That said - and as a user of Hasselblad and Leica digital cameras - nothing on God's earth could persuade me to repeat the experience. There again I'm thankful that we are all different, it makes for an interesting life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philcycles Posted January 29, 2014 Share #18 Posted January 29, 2014 I shoot both Leica 240 and a Blad. They aren't mutually exclusive. I shoot Velvia 50 in the Blad and it produces a different look than the 240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redge Posted January 30, 2014 Share #19 Posted January 30, 2014 Hi Chris, Until recently, my principal cameras were an M3 and a Mamiya 7II. I've owned various Nikon digital cameras, but I haven't used them in a serious way. I purchased an M 240 a couple of months ago because I've had enough of scanning, Also, while I use a V700 Epson (mentioned above), there is a strong temptation to do it once and do it right, which in the case of the Mamiya means V700 scans followed by drum scans for select photographs. This is time-consuming and the drum scans, farmed out, can get expensive really fast. I am not ready to sell the film cameras, and in particular the Mamiya. In terms of resolution, it leaves the M3 in the dust, and I am ever mindful of the words of a highly accomplished commercial photographer who told me during a workshop five years ago "If you go digital, which you probably will at some point, don't sell that camera". I plan to shoot the same subject with the M 240 and the Mamiya and compare the results, but I haven't gotten to it yet (we're having a rough winter here in New York, and I want to do this outside). Sorry I can't be of more immediate help on a comparison. I also use the Arca-Swiss modular large format camera system, which enables me to shoot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. If you really want to get into landscape photography, a 4x5 is well worth considering, but at that point you really will be tempted to have drum scans done, and you need to take that expense into account. Every large format photographer that I know in New York is going the drum scan route for work they want to show. I think that there's a pretty good argument, if one wants to go down this road, to shoot 8x10 black and white and make contact prints. As I'm sure you know, this can be done in a dark room with nothing more than a low powered lightbulb, say 15 watts or less. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian H Posted January 30, 2014 Share #20 Posted January 30, 2014 Hi I have been shooting film with my blad quite a bit recently and really getting into it again. I kept it really simple to start with, handheld, one film stock [usually HP5+], one "lens of the day" and my Pentax Spotmeter. I have been taking the approach of making every shot count and getting 12 totally different images on each roll. The whole experience has been quite liberating. Developing in some of my old fave Rodinal that I had in the cupboard, it has aged really, really well! I am "scanning" with my DMR, 60mm Macro Elmarit and an old studio flash in a Heath Robinson set up that is proving quite rapid and very workable for modest size prints of say around 8" square. I have not tried beyond that size and am not really "into" big prints. The beautiful look of MF shines through, wonderful tonality, crisp but totally "natural" nonetheless, not razor edged. Also, the speed of working with the blad is different, the viewing is different which subconsciously may lead you to different results. I think you should try MF again. IMO, don't spend lots on a blad to start with, maybe a Yashica 124G or similar. Work with what you have got wherever possible. Fortunately for me I didn't have to spend anything but am already thinking I might splash out on a Rollei or Mamiya TLR. Enjoy the experience, keep it simple and see how you get on. Sure the instant gratification of digital is a bonus but as I have experienced, there are many advantages to film too. Best of luck, Julian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.