BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

This is a monster camera. I limited my discussion to the X series by Hasselblad where this work around is not present. So while you are technically correct I also was limiting my discussion to cameras no where near the $33,000.00 cost of the Hassey H6D-100c and that is without a lens. It also weighs in at 3.6 lb. without a lens; and to use as a pixel-shift device it has to be tethered.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

Different tools for different jobs. I would never have thought to take a Hasselblad to shoot one of my daughter's horse shows.

But I sure liked my Hasselblad 500EL (with a looooong cord on the remote release button) when we were taking our annual Christmas card photo with 3 small kids and a dog.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The camera wasn't cheap, but it was cheaper than fuel needed to lift the additional fuel from Earth needed to get more weight off the moon.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Got it.

The fact is, while Leica and Hasselblad make damned fine machines, there are more rational choices. Maybe they don't stir up nostalgia or present the same panache as the iconic brands, but they get the job done equally well or better at far less cost and with more ease.

No one cares what camera a photographer uses, so long as they like the images. If they do care whether it's a certain brand, they need their heads examined.

MrPhotog

There is no real problem with weight or tethering in a studio. Or, for that matter, cameras that are slow to handle. ( not that the ones under discussion are slow).

Plenty of studios used massive film cameras for decades. Dealing with one shot of film at a time was slow and deliberate work. The 4 to 5 second delay between focusing and exposure —while I hurried to close the lens, insert the film holder, pull the darkslide, and find the cable release — worried me with every portrait. That, at least, is gone!

The camera stand holds a monitor, or the entire tethered laptop computer. A big view of your composition. Upright and without hiding under a dark cloth.

Using a medium format camera like this on a copy stand, again, the weight is insignificant, but the tethering is great for ergonomics. One does not need to stand in some awkward position above the copy stand to look thru the viewfinder to focus. Since neither the camera, nor the subject are moving, the pixel shifting can be exploited.

But none of this is an attribute in a camera you might carry on a vacation, or use for photographing sports, or birds in flight.

Different cameras work better in different jobs. That’s another reason many photographers buy more than one. Well, that, and we love expensive toys. 😎

MrPhotog

Here is a link to a NASA document from 1972 discussing the cameras used in the Apollo program.

You can read their reasons for the cameras, lenses, film choices for that mission, as well as some history on cameras in space.

If you want to skip the prolog, jump to the second sentence on page 4, where they have decided that optical limits (at that time) were determined by the film. Bigger film meant more data.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.pdf

They go on about the modifications made to the cameras, and the reasons behind these mods.

Blues Dude

The big question is what are you going to use the camera for? If it's street photography or informal portraits, then Leica is better choice. If it's landscapes, still lifes, architectural/interiors, formal portraits, etc., then it's Hasselblad. I've always thought of medium format cameras as being bigger, better versions of 35mm because their film/sensor size was much greater than 35mm.
Either camera offers great optics.
Good luck!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It's a whole different world in digital photography. Thinking about digital the way we thought about film in 1972 or '73 is just wrong. Film had relatively low resolving power and lots of grain, comparatively. That's why we reached for the 645, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x5 when we needed a big print or retouching room.

Now, digital sensors can resolve more detail, with better color accuracy than film in most cases. Medium Format digital is capable of 4x5 film resolution. Full frame digital is more like 6x9 film. Even Micro 4/3 has more resolving power than most 35mm films.

I re-read the NASA publication linked above, just for nostalgic kicks. By comparison with those quaint 500C/EL 70mm frames, the images they'll make on the first Artemis landing with digital cameras will blow us all away!

Unless you have plans or hopes and dreams of making 40" x 60" prints and larger, or prints which will be pixel peeped from just inches, there is little need for medium format, unless you just want longer lenses and shallower depth of field than full frame digital provides.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

______________________________(reply)
Your description above confirms the quality of output of single focal length lens vs zooms. So far it is not possible to match the quality of image from primes, with zooms.------------------ew

Old Al Loc: Litchfield County, Connecticut

Was looking at purchasing either the Fuji 100 meg camera or the Hasselblad (I still own my beloved 500 & 3 lens)
but have decided against it. I subscribe to DIGLLOYD, Lloyd Chamber's subscription blog ( $225/yr) which is unequivocally the BEST camera/lens evaluator in the industry. (While reading the LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE blog in the
early days of digital cameras, they stopped their evaluations and recommended him). He gave the Hasselblad the edge in output over the Fuji, but the Hasselblad camera itself is so bqackwards with no modern innovations which we take for granted, I decided to pass. From my personal perspective, Hasselblad is owned & manufactured in China,
something I can not handle. As for the Leica, it is so absurdly overpriced, not up to the innovations of Canon, Nikon & Sony, and their "legendary" lens are outperformed by Zeiss & Voigtlander.

I have shot Nikon for 60 years, Canon sports cameras for the 14 shots/second, and now, painfully, Sony. The NEW A7RV with
pixel shift, along with Zeiss & Voigtlander lens (manual focus), will match/surpass current medium format.

You can read Chamber's blog free, but the detailed analysis and extensive crops of lens are reserved for subscribers. He calls it as it is, and after reading his detailed performance of a lens, you will never make another purchase relying on the "u tubers". Good luck with your decision.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I have a mint Hasselblad with two lenses; I would say they are equally as good as the Leica equivalents; I sold my
Leica some time ago

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

__________________________(reply to Old Al)

Dear old Al, sounds like you have had much experience. It would be interesting to learn the "fine points" of quality from your perspective and just what latest digital camera capabilities have gone into your evaluations.----------ew

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Correction: Hasseys including the X series are assembled in Sweden.

The Factory Tour

Old Al Loc: Litchfield County, Connecticut

Am an old dog, almost 80, and after learning about Diglloyd thru the LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE many years ago, have become fascinated with the evolving technology. I am NOT a shill for his blog, but if I was planning to spend the thousands to buy a Hassy or Leica, I would certainly advise to look before you leap and read his evaluations. His lens & camera testing is sooooo comprehensive, unlike anyone else. He calls it like it is - many companies decline forwarding new products because of his frank, comprehensive analysis. I was "set" on buying the new X2D Hasselblad (which can produce fine images) but it's lack of so many features & stupid short comings (no lossless compression) I decided to pass.

Was motivated to reply (very late from original question) as I doubt the buyer was aware of the short comings so I thought I would throw out some comments for consideration