zoomphoto Loc: Seattle, WA USA

Now I'm going to really make you cry. I still have 41 rolls of Neo 400 in the freezer. I use it sparingly when I feel nostalgic.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

As a film camera, there were few to compete with it. Full frame 35mm was faster. But with a negative or transparency at ~2.5 times the size of a 35mm, full frames were no competition for detail, especially with large groups. 4X5s view cameras and up were the only way to surpass the Hasselblad.

But in the digital age, the differences have changed. It would be difficult to produce a 6X6cm sensor with few defects (and they do not make a 6X6 yet). It is hard enough to just produce the 4.5X6cm sensor. And the sensors are not like film. Film records the light and is processed out the same no matter what the size. With digital, the information on a larger sensor takes more time (two frames per second versus 15 to 60 frames per second), uses more memory space, and requires more processing power. So this is all time and cost. But it is not all doom and gloom for medium format. The dynamic range for a Hasselblad sensor is 14 stops without doing anything other than pressing the shutter button. And with pixel counts of 50 to a future 250, along with a high dynamic range, full frames can emulate but not produce the type of image a Hasselblad can produce. And even Hasselblad is willing to see that the future of photography will be mirrorless. Are the differences between Hasselblad and full frame great? It depends on how and what one is shooting. For how and what most of us are shooting, I feel for most of us the answer is no. But there are some pros and a few advance amateurs that it makes all the difference in their shooting and processing.

Kuzano

The Hasselblad X-Pan was made by and branded for Hasselblad by Fujifilm. The slightly less expensive way to get an X-pan under the Fujifilm name.... same camera.

In fact, Fujica (Fujifilm) was the reason I got rid of my Hasselblads. Bigger format and equally good lenses, with the EBC coating. Film format for the Fujifilm "Big Leica Rangefinder" was 6X9 CM or 4.7 times bigger than 35mm film frame.

marty wild Loc: England

Been to a presentation night! They are completely strip able all parts are sent in for service repair by which part is not working. You can mix and match with bodies by a clever click and lock system. The mirror is in the lens. So I guess that means less wear, I did lose interest when the cost of getting kitted out is in excess of £20,000. So it's no good if you have deep pockets and short arms. So if you have the cash to splash expect to only lose about 10% of your investment after 10 years. All other manufacturers you will lose 90% after 10. If it's still working if not! I am afraid it's the big one hundred %

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

No bl**dy comment!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I used some Hassy's back in the day.... they are wonderful cameras and even better lenses.

But... except for their Xpan panoramic, you had to be happy with the square image format on film (no longer the case, with digtal Hasselblads). That has the advantage of never having to re-orient the camera or rotate the film back for vertical/portrait orientation, but the disadvantage of not matching up particularly well with most print formats. You ended up cropping their images a lot, which effectively reduced them to slightly better than 645 format film cameras... i.e., significantly smaller negatives than 6x7cm, 6x8cm and 6x9cm medium format cameras could produce. Mamiya, Pentax, Fuji, Rollei, Bronica and others offered different and more image format/aspect ratio choices.

Hassy, on the other hand, rigidly offered only that format for their film cameras, as well as oddball filter sizes for their lenses. But their mechanical quality was second-to-none.... maybe too good (so close tolerance that they sometimes would jam or need special "winterizing" with lighter weight lubricants, to use out in cold weather (same with Leica). They also stuck with manual focus, manual exposure control and mostly manual film advance, long after other manufacturers adopted new AF and motor drive technologies (though Hasselblad at least was quicker than Leica to adopt "new-fangled fads").

Today's Hasselblad is quite different from back in the days of film. They've gotten more innovative and appear to be working harder to remain relevant. But I guess that's true of any camera manufacturer who wants to survive in the "Brave New World" of digital in the 21st century!

gtoll2

I used a 'blad 1000F. Loved it! Had it overhauled and the focus was incorrect after that. I suspect that the ground glass was installed wrong side up. Had stopped doing the kind of photography that I bought it for, so never had it fixed.

PhotobobII

that should read 110mm F2.0 lens

zoomphoto Loc: Seattle, WA USA

I feel bad now. Send me an address and I will send you a roll.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

I used a Hasse along with a twin lens for over thirty years in my wedding photography. Never had any trouble with either.

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

Thank you.
You are kind, as I would expect of a man of such discernment, but I do still have a couple of rolls.
My trouble is more like that of a man who has a Bugatti full of petrol - and nowhere to go. . .
Kind regards,
G.

bwilliams

Used one in the mid 70's to 80's for yearbook and weddings. Built like a tank and tack sharp one year I took 10,000 photos with out a problem.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

Yes! I used a 503 CW for several years.

zoomphoto Loc: Seattle, WA USA

Your not tempted to spend every minute roaming between the 100 or so camera stores in London and taking pictures in between?

brrywill

Is that H5D-50 the 50 back or 50C (CMOS)? I have a 500C/M with 8 or 9 lenses and was thinking of either a 50 back for the C/M or a used H3 or H4D with a 50 back. Haven't tried either so not sure which way to go. I know the 50C is a smaller sensor and wasn't sure if the image quality would be up to the larger CCD 50 sensor?

Thanks