[matthew]

I'm not actually sure how many cameras I own at this point - I need to be well-rested to count that high - but I've been looking for another one for a while. My criteria have been fairly straightforward and common:

• as a travel camera it needs to have a good lens,
• be simple to use,
• easy to carry,
• be able to take a few bumps,
• not have me tethered to A/C power,
• have a picture quality not too far below my favourite big camera,
and,
• not be too expensive.

Simple, right?

I've compared and tried dozens of point-and-shoot cameras.
At one point or another I nearly bought:

- Canon SD1400,
- Panasonic FX65,
- Panasonic TS10,
and
- Fujifilm F300EXR.

Each one had something that stopped me from buying it.

(Bad lens, personal apathy, slow performance, and fiddly operation, respectively.)

But after doing a lot of research, talking to my co-workers, and a couple of tests, I finally found what I was looking for.


Ta-da!:

[nia]

WOW! This is amazing. I heard this camera but now with your words, I searched again and yes, Hasselblad seems so good! It's said that the world's most high-resolution photo machine. Good luck with your new camera, dear Matthew,

Have a nice and enjoyable day,
with my love,
nia

[Irma]

Congratulations Matthew...

I can't imagine the jump from a P&S to a Hasselblad. Specially when you say "not be too expensive". Is it digital or film? I'd love to have more details about your most recent beauty...

Looking forward to seeing your pictures...

[Toad]

Great stuff. I will wait to make more meaningful comments when we get beyond the "teaser" level in this thread. Given your stated requirements, this seems like a strange choice, but I will suspend judgement pending your detailed discussion. It may well be that your requirements have changed, or more likely - that you have found a unique way of satisfying them. (Picture quality should be satisfied nicely without compromise, I expect)

[shuttertalk]

Ha ha... so wait, is it replacing your SLR??

[matthew]

Nia, it's mostly true - they are very good cameras, and along with Phase/Mamiya, they make some exceptional digital camera systems as well. They're still a very successful company, and one with a great deal of history. Of the eight people who were working at the camera store with me yesterday, only three hadn't owned a Hasselblad at some point.

Irma, this is a film camera; while there are digital backs available for it, they start at about $10,000. A few places in town rent them, though, so that is an option. Renting costs about $200/day, which is a big lump sum but actually isn't that expensive compared to doing 10-15 rolls of film and then having the best frames professionally scanned. All I need is to know in advance when I'm going to take some really great photos.

Rob, I was being a little cute about the P&S connection, but it does legitimately tie in. I've been looking for a digital compact that I could carry with me when I travel with my Fuji GX680, whether it's just a day trip around town, a weekend photo-excursion, or a multi-week family visit. But as I get more experience with the fujifilm I learn both how much I like MF film and how impossible it would be to manage a major trip with 30+ lbs of bulky gear. My general approach to life is that if I don't like the answer, I need to ask a different question. The question of 'what else will give me the quality and flexibility that I want' is what led me from the 680+p/s combination to the Hasselblad. (I reserve the right to still get a little p/s camera to accompany it, though. )

Julian, yes, it will be replacing an SLR, but probably not the SLR that you're thinking. It's taking over the role of a high-quality travel camera from my GX680, consigning that ten-pound beast to studio and near-home work, the way nature and Fuji intended. My D700 had already lost the travel-camera role to my GH1 and Zeiss Ikon, which are either less valuable or more robust than the Nikon. (Although my D700 and F100 are another exceptional digital+film pair, which I'll use together occasionally.)

Here's my criteria breakdown again:

• as a travel camera it needs to have a good lens,

I have the Carl Zeiss CF 150/4 T*; this is a classic 'portrait' lens that's just about the sweet spot for my favourite field of view. I got lucky on that, though, since I shop for lenses by looking at their distortion before I consider minor details like focal length. I do have to admit that the chance to own another Zeiss lens was a big part of why I picked Hasselblad over some of the similar cameras that sell for a little less money.

• be simple to use,

The lens has linked aperture and shutter speed controls, so since my hand-held light meter reads out EV values, it essentially works like a 'program shift' mode. Of course the aperture and shutter speed can be set individually as well. And that's it - there's no automation or other controls. One of my huge frustrations with my p/s shopping was having to outsmart these fussy little electronic devices. Even the click-wheel on the GH1 annoys me, and I'm frequently frustrated by my Nikons. Cameras, like art, shouldn't need to be clever to work.

• easy to carry,

While the camera seems big, its boxy profile actually takes up less room in a camera bag than a 70-200/2.8 lens, and only weighs a half-pound more. Few photographers carry only a 70-200 with them - most have a camera as well, at the very least - so the Hasselblad's weight isn't unreasonable. It even fits in the same slot that the GH1+zoom takes up my Billingham Hadley Pro without moving any dividers. (I checked that before I bought it.) This leaves my favourite travel bag mostly empty, so there's still enough room for my entire GH1 kit or my Ikon kit with extra film, although this isn't something I would carry for fun. Alternatively, I can sling my tripod over the bag strap and still be under my ten-pound travel limit even with my other necessities.

• be able to take a few bumps,

This particular camera was made in 1987, so it's unlikely that I'll be the worst thing to happen to it. I bought it in 'bargain' condition from KEH, so it's not the prettiest, but it has passed every test I've thrown at it.

• not have me tethered to A/C power,

The 500c/m model is one of the fully mechanical Hasselblads, so it needs no batteries; the Sekonic 308 light meter that I use lasts months with a single AA. Battery management is enough of a hassle with my blackberry, and when I went on my Chicago round-trip I was carrying four batteries for my GH1. The light meter takes up less space and is lighter than that.

• have a picture quality not too far below my favourite big camera,

That would be my GX680III, which has a 56x76mm negative. The 56x56 negative from the Hasselblad is smaller, and loses even more if I want to crop it into a rectangle, but it's still plenty big enough to give me the detail and tones that I love.

• not be too expensive.

Even a beaten hasselblad isn't cheap, but this one was a good deal. I'll spend more than what it cost on my cell phone plan before this year is done, but there's no reason why I can't still be using it five or ten years from now. With used film cameras in general depreciation isn't really a factor, and a couple of the former hasselblad owners that I work with have sold their systems for more than what they paid after years of use.

Here's another photo that I took, which shows a bit more of the condition of the camera. I'd like to do an artsy-glamour session with it where I highlight and feature every ding, dent, and scratch, but that will have to wait until I have more time.

[Toad]

C'mon - enough teasers - show us your rig. (I'll show you mine...)

[nia]

Nia, it's mostly true - they are very good cameras, and along with Phase/Mamiya, they make some exceptional digital camera systems as well. They're still a very successful company, and one with a great deal of history. Of the eight people who were working at the camera store with me yesterday, only three hadn't owned a Hasselblad at some point.

http://photo.matthewpiers.com/photos/116...zqme-L.jpg

Sounds so exciting dear Matthew, and I would be looking for your new photographs now Good Luck once again,

and thanks,
with my love,
nia

[matthew]

Rob, I'm not being intentionally coy, I just don't have any other photos of it yet. These were from my first evening with it, and all I had was my GH1+50/2 and a cabled flash. Give me a little more time and I'll have some more revealing photos of it, although I doubt they can be any sexier.

I was looking at the 500c/m just now and thinking about how it looks like such a camera - iconic. But then I realized that it's because the Hasselblad 500-series itself is the standard that defines what a medium format camera looks like. When I was out on the street with it I felt that people were treating me with more respect than usual for a photographer/Guy-With-Camera. Even my GX680, which dwarfs it in every way, doesn't get that reaction. I guess it looks more like an instrument to be ignored than a camera.

I've run a test roll through the camera, and it's solid: no light leaks, no timing problems, and solid focus. I've also continued to resist buying any additional accessories for it, which is unusual for me.

[Zig]

When I looked through your initial list of "must haves" in your opening post, I thought indeed the only way to cover the "not too expensive" requirement was for you to go for film. It wasn't till I got to the end that I realised you had actually bought the 'Blad!
Congratulations my man!
Am delighted you didn't go "niche" and do the "anti-hero/smug-mac-user" dying swan of getting a Holga!
Until I realised you'd actually bought the Hasselblad, I was going to suggest the Fuji GSWII either in its 6x7 or 6x9 incarnation: extremely light, rhinoceros-build and optically ripping. Also, any "accessorising path" is either maddeningly or satisfactorily curtailed.
Mind you, for that matter, knowing that you are also attracted by "rendering" quality of a lens rather than outright acuity, I wouldn't have put it past you to go for a Leica...but "not too expensive" gets eaten away pretty quickly when you pop a lens on....so, Fuji I would have betted on(a small sum, albeit!)

[Simon_Leung]

Matthew here is a suggestion from an old film guy:

If you get the negatives developed, scan the roll onto a CD or DVD at SHQ.
This would give you the equivalent of a 10 megapixel image per photo.
I used to have a Mamiya RB67 with a 180mm lens and a Rolleiflex MX of 1951
and every time I used one of these cameras that is what I did with the negs.

Cheers,
Simon

[matthew]

When I looked through your initial list of "must haves" in your opening post, I thought indeed the only way to cover the "not too expensive" requirement was for you to go for film.

It's true, and I am partial to the stuff these days. My impression is that film use is increasing: rather than being killed off by digital, a tiny percentage of people who wouldn't be photographers at all if not for digital cameras, such as myself, are starting to pick it up.

But I do still want a digital p/s camera; I'm leaning toward the as-yet-unreleased Fujifilm XP30, a cheapish waterproof model with a GPS that can be used to backtrack to the places where photos were taken. Add an eye-fi card that can link to a tablet computer that can upload to my web host and let me post photos on forums and blogs, and I'll be able to simultaneously geek out in two different centuries.

Am delighted you didn't go "niche" and do the "anti-hero/smug-mac-user" dying swan of getting a Holga!

Then I'd also need large plastic-framed eyeglasses and a single-speed bicycle. But I do use a Mac, and my photos are hosted by Smugmug.

I was going to suggest the Fuji GSWII either in its 6x7 or 6x9 incarnation: extremely light, rhinoceros-build and optically ripping. Also, any "accessorising path" is either maddeningly or satisfactorily curtailed.

I looked at the Fuji - and yashicamat, rolleiflex, bronica, mamiya - but the fixed-lens design just seemed to make it too bulky for my camera bag. While I can't imagine carrying another system with it too often, the relatively compact box-style cameras do leave enough room for my Ikon or GH1+20mm. And the `blad does fit nicely, with just a little tightness in the bag because of its rather substantial knob.

What can I say? There are worse problems to have.

I was actually about to buy the Bronica GS-1, which is just slightly larger than the `blad but has a 6x7 negative. But ultimately I saw that the smaller supply of used equipment and parts could be a serious problem as I try to get another decade or two of service out of the camera. That's something that I'm also sensitive to with my GX680, so I'd much rather expose the hasselblad to the dangers of the big bad world - travel, weather, droppage - and having such a common camera makes me more likely to use it. I wouldn't expect it to be as tough as my Olympus E-1, which is what I carry to riots in the pouring rain, but I don't plan on coddling it.

knowing that you are also attracted by "rendering" quality of a lens rather than outright acuity, I wouldn't have put it past you to go for a Leica...but "not too expensive" gets eaten away pretty quickly when you pop a lens on....

Nah, no Leica for me - too much investment in only one camera to keep me happy for long. At least with the hasselblad, I can recycle my knowledge of what the Zeiss lens names mean from my 35mm Ikon rangefinder. Not that I can remember what 'sonnar' means at the moment, but if I did, it would apply to both the CF150 and the ZM50mm. Infinite knowledge is just a search engine away.

[matthew]

A few more photos, this time on white.

Here are my two medium format SLRs together. And before anyone says that the size comparison is unrealistic, I should point out that the Fujifilm camera is also sitting on top of a quick release plate:



Here's the hasselblad sitting on top of my second film back for the GX680, which has a 6x8cm negative instead of the `blad's 6x6. Having a second back means that the type of film can be switched mid-roll, and is one of the big advantages of a 'system' camera. Must… resist… hasselbald… accessories…



Both of my Carl Zeiss sonnar lenses together. Despite the prominent Zeiss name on the rangefinder, it and its lens are lovingly made in Japan by Cosina, making the CF 150 lens my only German glass that isn't in a B+W filter. (Hasselblad is Swedish.)



The sum of its parts:



The whole. It's fun to flip through these next three quickly:

[Simon_Leung]

Both the GX 680 and the Hasselblad 500-501 C/M are great studio cameras.
I've never owned either of them but the results from the Fuji as I recall were stunning.
The Hassy on the other hand was just a little bit too sharp for my liking, meaning that I don't
like seeing skin pores in my portraits. With the way medium format prices are going at the moment,
this is a good time to buy one and use it because unlike their 35mm counterparts, these cameras
often lead an easy life.

A big congratulations to Matthew on his new found Hassy friend.

Cheers,
Simon

[matthew]

Thanks, Simon.

I'm saved from excessive sharpness by my rather mediocre flatbed scanner. The film holder that it came with isn't particularly good, and lets the film curl quite a long way from the plane of focus. But I've ordered a replacement for it that should improve my results; in a couple of weeks I'll be able to see for myself. Right now my medium-format film is giving me detail that's just slightly higher than my small-format gear that I've put through my Nikon V scanner. The tones are still better for MF, but I know that there's a lot more in there.

(But even with the better scanning flatbed film holder, I'll need to get some negatives professionally scanned just to see what these cameras can really do.)

[Toad]

This is very exciting, Matt. Can't wait to see the output. The Hassy should be quite carry-able in your Billingham, and still leave room for a digital backup.

[Simon_Leung]

Thanks, Simon.

I'm saved from excessive sharpness by my rather mediocre flatbed scanner. The film holder that it came with isn't particularly good, and lets the film curl quite a long way from the plane of focus. But I've ordered a replacement for it that should improve my results; in a couple of weeks I'll be able to see for myself. Right now my medium-format film is giving me detail that's just slightly higher than my small-format gear that I've put through my Nikon V scanner. The tones are still better for MF, but I know that there's a lot more in there.

(But even with the better scanning flatbed film holder, I'll need to get some negatives professionally scanned just to see what these cameras can really do.)

You're welcome Matthew.

.

[Pavel]

Matthew Minox next?

[matthew]

Pavel, you joke, but I have been looking at the digital Minox. It's essentially a cellphone camera without the phone, but it's very small with an optical 'viewfinder'.

Rob, I've been practicing carrying the camera in my Billingham, but it's been too cold to stop and take it out. There is indeed plenty of room left for the GH1+20/1.7 & 7-14. And when my tripod's slung over the shoulder strap, it's just exactly the right length to smack me in the back of the knee. Life's a barter.

[Simon_Leung]

Speaking of Zeiss:

I own a 1971 Kiev 4 with a Jupiter-8 50mm f2. The optical configuration is a Russian Copy of the famous
Sonnar 50mm f2, the camera itself looks like a Post-War Contax IIIa with a baseplate of a Pre-War model.

Link to Simon's Cold War Friend

[Kombisaurus]

Congrats Matt! I missed all this thread until now..

At the beginning when you read off your requirements and then showed the teaser pic, I was waiting for the "april fool" comment from you.
But reading on I can see your logic... well, twisted logic anyway. From what I gather, you've now got a perfectly good D700 sitting at home which basically doesn't get used any more... correct?

And I thought I was a bad gear-head....

[matthew]

Well, yes and no. My D700 doesn't get out for fun much these days, but I use it (typically with the 85pc-e micro and 105VR micro) for product photography several times a month, and it's always my go-to camera when good results are vital. But partly because of its usefulness as an absolutely dependable workhorse, I haven't regularly used it as a walking-around camera since I got the GH1 almost a year ago. It's simply too valuable to risk for an enjoyable afternoon that won't ever amount to anything, in addition to being bigger than I need to get the results that are good enough for most uses I'll have.

(My new 'blad, incidentally, is a solution to the same problem. If I can use film and get my GX680 to the subject, then it's the camera that I'll want to use, but it's far too big and valuable to carry if I'm just fooling around. If a 1987-vintage 500c/m takes a tumble, it's no great loss to me or the world. If I prang my Fujifilm, then it's one less of a very special and capable camera. I'm not paralyzed by risk, but I want it to be sensible.)

Almost all of my 'fun' personal photography has been done on film for the past half-year. (Much of my product photography is both fun and personal, but I hate to use the word 'art'.) But I'm increasingly working with projects in mind, and choosing one specific type of tool for each. Winter is a good time for monochrome film, but I can see going back to digital and colour in the spring.

[matthew]

I use cybershot & I think I'm gonna share some of my picture in this forum.

You're a spammer & I think I'm gonna delete you.

[NT73]

Although you could try one of these.

http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=24&L=1

[Zig]

I use cybershot & I think I'm gonna share some of my picture in this forum.

You're a spammer & I think I'm gonna delete you.

Made I larf.