Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

My guide to buying a cheap Hasselblad medium format camera

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I have owned and shot with a Praktisix and 80mm Biometar, Hasselblad 500c and 80mm Planar & 150mm Sonnar, Pentax 645 N and N II with 35mm f:3.5, 40, 50, 75, 120mm f:4.0 Macro (Superb) 135mm, 300 f:4.0 Manual and 300mm f:5.6 AF fixed focal lengths.   I also have the Pentax AF 33-55mm, 45-85mm, and 90-160mm old school Zooms.   I added a Pentax 645D (33 x 44MM sensor) in 2014 for $3800, and never looked back.   By the way I spent between $150 and $750 on each of the lenses, all of which I still own.   Lola was shot with the 45-85mm @ 70mm - f:11 - 1/125 sec 800iso , no flash hand held.   One really nice thing is Pentax RAW can be Saved in camera as DNG as I always do.   I think my higher Def images didn't load due to sizes over 20MB.   All are Jpegs.

I also Shoot Canon 5d Mk II, Panasonic GH4.  

59bb2078b1e23_LolaandMomsScarves.thumb.jpg.d17a8e5f2e52f0bf5e7b487234a02c39.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies to anyone who wanted to see Medium format pictures.   Here is a ink to my Public One Drive folder:

https://onedrive.live.com/?id=53750B1189D3F308!11702&cid=53750B1189D3F308

When viewing click the top toolbar "View Original" to get close to the original.    I believe you can also save the picture to use your own tools to examine.   They are Jpegs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

But the quality of art is, which is why I specified 'aesthetic'.

So would you agree, Tim, that there are commonly accepted measures of image quality - dynamic range, moire, aliasing, bokeh, sharpening, color saturation, color accuracy, noise, contrast, barrel and pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration, artifacts, skin tones, etc. - and that everything is not entirely relative? If so, many, if not most, aspects of image quality are indeed quantifiable, and specs do mean jack. 50 lpmm, 800 nits, 28 Mbps, HLG, 540p, 8 bit 4:2:0, log, 60 CRI, 42% vignetting and on and on - all of these specifications have meaning for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonpais said:

So would you agree, Tim, that there are commonly accepted measures of image quality - dynamic range, moire, aliasing, bokeh, sharpening, color saturation, color accuracy, noise, contrast, barrel and pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration, artifacts, skin tones, etc. - and that everything is not entirely relative? If so, many, if not most, aspects of image quality are indeed quantifiable, and specs do mean jack. 50 lpmm, 800 nits, 28 Mbps, HLG, 540p, 8 bit 4:2:0, log, 60 CRI, 42% vignetting and on and on - all of these specifications have meaning for me.

Sure - these are all technical aspects of image quality and they are technically meaningful - I take notice of them myself. In my original comment I was referring to @jcs's (who I admire greatly in most things) notion of setting up semi-scientific tests to determine compression and DOF differences between two sensor/film formats - essentially trying to quantify an aesthetic quality or preference. The essence is that no scientific test will ever determine why a medium format photograph appeals more to an individual than the same scene shot on full frame or micro four thirds, or vice versa. It seems a pointless exercise, which was the crux of my comment.

I spend and have spent an inordinate amount of money on cameras and I like to have instruments that are as close to the best as I can't afford but can justify to myself (if not to my wife). That's not because I think they will make me a better photographer or film maker - if they do it will only be tangentially because they make the process easier. The best camera in the world can't make up for a lack of artistic sensibility or vision, while the worst camera in the world won't fully obscure the same qualities. I buy expensive cameras for the same reason that I rarely take photographs or videos on my phone - because I enjoy the sensual aspect of making images with a well-made tool designed for that purpose. Scientific tests have their place in determining the measures you mention, but I just can't see their value in determining immeasurable phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tim Sewell if we set up the cameras and lenses using equivalence, each person can see the differences, whatever they may be. Larger formats will have a harder time with commonly available lenses to get deep DOF and smaller sensor formats will have a harder time with shallow DOF. In the region of common overlap where the formats can be matched with equivalence, we can see if a particular format has characteristics that we prefer, which will be unique to each person. If we don't match cameras and lenses with equivalence, how can we tell if a specific format and lenses has any special characteristics? How can we justify spending the money for the larger formats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jonpais said:

Image quality is not completely subjective. 

Yes it is.
You can never say that a higher resolution is always better than a low. Because we know for a fact that people like both.
DR.. some prefer a contrasty look.
Sharpness can make an image both beautiful and ugly (just look at your new lenses. They do not win any sharpness measuring contests, but you still like them).
This list goes on and on.

Name one variable and I will find you people that prefer both sides of a scale.
IQ is a subjective feeling.  Not a measurable fact.
Understanding this is one of the things that separates a creator from a "guy with a camera" imo.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kaylee said:

hey i wanna see! do i have to make a onedrive account?

You should not have to have a One Drive to see the pictures I posted.   Let me know if the link is not opening, I may have to share them differently.   They are in my Public folder.

Please let me know.

By the way, I put in the fact I have a Canon 5D MkII and a Panasonic GH4 so you guys would know I haven't crawled off into the Medium format corner of Photography and hid.

The Panasonic is Stellar as my Travel rig.  7-14mm, 14-140mm, & 100-300 in a tiny bag no one trys to steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@Mattias Burling You can insult my lenses all you like, just don't talk about my mom's stew, all right?

I have never insulted or even said anything remotely negative about your lenses. I have only mention them once (the post you just read) and that was 100% positive.

Winning sharpness measuring lab tests is a bad thing imo. Thats why Leicas are so expensive and magical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:

Funny, the same day you publish this article, I've tried an Hasselblad 500/C x planar 80/2.8 x Phase one p20+ sold for 2000 EUR. After reading you article, this is not the sweat spot for Hassenblad, but what do you guys think about this combo? (I've very limited knowledge)

P20+ is 16mp - as you say probably not the sweet spot. I'd be looking at a P45+ for my 500/c but then if you haven't got a set of lenses it gets expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

I have never insulted or even said anything remotely negative about your lenses. I have only mention them once (the post you just read) and that was 100% positive.

Winning sharpness measuring lab tests is a bad thing imo. Thats why Leicas are so expensive and magical. 

We're way off topic here, but I tend to prefer sharp lenses to fuzzy ones. A quote from Roger Deakins:

Deakins: I think the Master Primes are the fastest and cleanest lenses out there, as far as I can tell. So that’s why I used them. I don’t know why I’d want to screw around with the image from the LEXA. I quite like the image. When we did Skyfall, [director] Sam [Mendes] and I talked about adding [digital] grain [in postproduction]. Then we saw some tests when we were doing the final timing and we both decided that it didn’t make any sense. It looked good as it was. There is a fad, I suppose, for using older lenses, but I’m not sure I quite understand it. I’ve used lenses to distort an image for a particular effect like in The Assassination of Jesse James, but I’m not sure why I’d want to use a soft lens all the way through a film. My eyes are pretty good and the world looks pretty sharp and crisp to me (laughs). So I like to reflect that in the way I shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...