cytafex Loc: Clarksburg MA

I have 2 Hasselblad bodies, 201F and 500CM and the Zeiss leans are awesome and can be had very inexpensively. What I enjoy is the
simplicity and can do very long time exposure and no noise!

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

I was thinking about getting a KIEV 88, but after seeing this post I realize a Holga - ANY Holga - is far superior.

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

Indeed! And to think they considered downgrading the optics to glass! The horror....

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i own both a hasselblad which is 6x6 square and a mamiya rz which is 6x7 centimeters. now here is the interesting problem. i assume you are going digital. okay.
the only digital hasselblads, hold on now, in current production are 6x 4.5 centimeters. the mamiya rz model III will take a digital back. the hasselblad 203, 205 series cameras will also take digital backs. however, for cost benefit i would take the mamiya.

the other way to go is the wonderful contax 645 with its auto focus 6x4.5 format and zeiss lenses and film or digital backs. they are a joy to use but good used ones are expensive. the 120mm manual focus lens for that camera is just brilliant.

and then there is the mamiya 645 another 645 with a non interchangeable prinsm and af lenses and film and digital backs.

any one of these will provide results far exceeding that of a full frame dslr.

so pay your money and take your choice.

ShooterRod

The sensor size of the Hassy 1XD-50c is roughly 4.4x3.3 cm..but your saying the sensor is 6x4.5 cm?? Or are
you talking about the size of the image at the focal point? Obviously, I'm, confused..Thanks... Rod

Shutterbug57

I think he is noting that both 4.4x3.3 & 6x4.5 are both 4x3 aspect ratio rather than square like Hasselblad has traditionally been.

ShooterRod

OK Thanks...I missed it...

V-man

Me too, brother...on my second Pro S now, with the 127mm 3.5 K/L lens and the 100-200mm 5.2 zoom. Really nice glass. I need a couple more backs, but I'm working on that.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

The RH 10 (6x7) backs for the Graflex XL fit, though there is no automatic double exposure prevention.
I had several of those for my RB.

V-man

I can see by the many responses here that most of us still hold dear those magical qualities of film cameras we owned as
youngsters (and still own and use), before the emergence of the "pixelated capture". I own a nice digital, with an L series Pro lens, and admittedly it takes nice images. Big deal. As a dedicated film user too, there is no comparison. I'll take a film neg or slide over a digitized attempt of the same image any day. I've heard it said that with digital, most folks (like those with a "workflow") take tons of photos because they can, not because they should. I've seen projected 6X7 professional transparencies and they are an absolute wonder to behold. I also just recently read that with fine grain 4X5 sheet film, a person would need a camera with 500 megapixels to create a similar image.

Just shy of making sure I've chosen the correct white balance or ISO, the digital camera requires nothing further of me. Sure, it's fun...but I use it for convenience and nothing else. For stirring my creative juices, it ranks up there with turning on the radio. But for stoking the creative fire, for keeping the learning curve steep but attainable, for broadening my goals and horizons, and for the sheer joy of practicing the art of photography....I'll gladly wait, with the anticipation of a child on Christmas morning, for the darkroom results. Film photography is simply too good!!! And the difference is HUGE, unless you're just making postcards!
Kudos to you, ShooterRod...your post is a reminder of how a lot of us came into this marvelous hobby and pastime of photography, and all the joy it brings. With the film equipment market the way it is nowadays, you can find some very affordable deals on wonderful photo items that at least for me were not obtainable even 10 years ago.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Reading all the comments, one would think this thread is about film - even though the OP made it clear four days ago that it’s about digital!

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

It was kidnapped by film or former film shooters wanting a voice.
The OP did say 2 1/4 as MT shooter correctly pointed out is a film format, not digital.

Shutterbug57

My 2 finders came in yesterday. They are in much better shape than I thought from the pictures and the metered finder is the AE finder. It works to automatically set the shutter in aperture priority. I got a bargain with the AE finder and waist level finder for $75.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

correct, and that is why i offered all the choices he/she might be able to make for medium format cameras with available digital film backs. the hasselbad H series are actually made by fuji photofilm and are very, every expensive. whereas the mamiya 645, for instance, with a digital back comes new for around $10,000.00. very inexpensive considering the fact it takes all the traditional film lenses from the original film 645 onwards.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Partly correct:
"The H1 camera used Fujinon manufactured lenses and prisms, thus departing from Hasselblad's long association with Carl Zeiss when it comes to lens manufacturing. The shutter in the lenses was still manufactured by Hasselblad as well as the body"

Speaks well of Fuji.