What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

New to Hasselblad/MF -- looking for advice

mijosc

mijosc

New Member
I'm currently a 35mm shooter looking to expand into MF. I've been looking at a 500C/M with A12 back and WLF. I've done a fair bit of research, but I've got a few questions.

  • My local used camera shop doesn't have much in the way of Hasselblad gear, so I will probably be buying online. I've used eBay before for equipment I'm familiar with, but I don't really feel like I know enough about Hasselblads to purchase there. I was thinking Keh or B&H instead. Thoughts? My budget would be about $1500.
  • I'd consider myself primarily a landscape/architecture photographer. If I got one lens to start with, what would you recommend? Most kits seem to come with the 80 Planar, but I've been thinking the 50 Distagon instead. In 35mm terms, I often find a 50mm to be a bit restrictive for my style of shooting; it's usually easier to get closer versus farther away.
  • Any recommendations on a decent MF scanner? I've got a 35mm film scanner now, so I'm primarily looking for something that will produce a good 2400dpi scan from 6x6 slide film (Velvia and Provia). My budget would be right around $500. I was thinking the Epson V700. What about the V500 or V600?
  • Any other general recommendations for someone new to a 500C/M?
 
Both KEH and B&H are good sources. I've bought used Hasselblad from both and had very good experiences with both. With both companies I've had to return one item each that didn't come up to expectations but there was absolutlely no problem returning the items. KEH seems to have better prices most of the time and ratings are extremely conservative where as B&H isn't as strict on ratings and find their 8+ to be less than KEH bargain grade. Unfortunately KEH doesn't check equipment mechanically oroptically it's only based on cosmetics and B&H is a little sloppy on inspecting their gear.

I had the 50 C T* and went digital (CFV39) this year and upgraded to the CF FLE 50. I liked the C T* fine but really like the increased edge sharpness of the CF FLE.

If you wind up going with the C version I would suggest looking at KEH and buying a bargain grade chrome non T*. the multicoating of the T* is minimally different than the T8 and the chrome are optically the same as the black but go for much less.
 
Scanners are a problem these days finding a reasonable good quality scanner for MF. The mentioned scanners will not deliver the quality of your MF equipment. Unfortunately until you get into some very expensive scanners the quality is not going to be there. I've yet to see an Epson or a low priced flatbed that will deliver quality. Until you get into a flatbed scanner like the Creo Eversmart Supreme or Pro or the Fuji Finescan series or Lanovia Quattro you won't get back what your camera produces. There are a few others in this quality level but all are very large, heavy and very expensive. I have the Lanovial Quattro Fuji and they sold for over thirty thousand dollars. Aso parts and service are an issue for most of these and can be extremely expensive if you can evern get them serviced. Next in line are drum scanners but they are also quite expensive and high priced to keep running. Most run on old OS computer platforms which can be a problem. That leaves you with the Nikon which is no longer made and has gone through the roof in price and the Imacon / Hasselblad machines. I had a really nice 343 Imacon which did a great job but they're not made any longer and go for four to five thousand used. the new Hasselblad units run eleven to nineteen thousamd dollars and I've never seen a used one.

Consider a cheap flatbed for rough and small scans and send the film out to a good prepress scanning opperation for your final scans.
 
Nikon LS9000

I must admit that I am happy with my Nikon Coolscan LS9000, scanning at 4000 ppi, so a 6x6 picture scans in as a 80 MP file.
The Coolscan LS9000 is not particularly cheap, but I believe a good value propositions certainly compared with today's Imacon scanners at the same resolution.
I use this along side with my CFV-39.
 
Unfortunately the Nikon scanner is no longer available, and it is difficult to run it on modern OS systems.

I agree with DD on his sentiment to use a cheap scanner to identify good images and then have these scanned professionally - in the long run it may be the easiest solution.
 
Thanks all.

As far as scanners go, I'm not necessarily looking for something that will resolve every bit of grain from the film. I'm looking for something that will give me good 2000 - 2400 dpi scans, where I have some ability to crop. The images will mostly be digitally stored and viewed for the most part. Prints would likely be small (8x10 in at the most.) If I needed more for some reason, I'd send the film to be professionally scanned on a Imacon or similar.

I agree, the landscape for film scanners is pretty pathetic right now. You've got cheap flatbeds on one side, FlexTights on the other side, and not much in between except some used, older, unsupported equipment. I'd love a $2000 scanner that could give me really nice 4000dpi scans from 35mm and MF.

I've heard rumors that PlusTek might be developing a MF scanner. I use a 7600i for 35mm now and I'm reasonably pleased. It would be a nice upgrade from a flatbed anyway.
 
to Mijosc

You do have some problems with the way you want to go. I have shot film in all formats, had two scanners and now a V system digital back and Canon bodies too.

The scanners are a bad way to go. There are many inherent problems with scanning and it isn't just dpi. It is also how they interpret the color. Also there is the interface with the computer. Mine are both SCSI and work fine on PC systems but I switched to a Mac Pro and I couldn't find a SCSI card to run them. Easiest solution was to dump the Mac. Not to mention the dust and dirt especially on older film.

You are also getting in with the Hassey in the wrong way for what you want to shoot. At least look for the newer 503cw model. But for architecture, a SWC (interiors) or using a flex body would be better.

But the best solution for you would be to spend some money for a 4x5 view camera (cheap now) with a 75mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses (also good buys now). The 4x5 film will scan better than 6x6 on the Epson and you will have vertical corrections on the 4x5 camera (you can use roll film backs on the 4x5 too). It is a win win situation.

BC
 
mijosc said:
Thanks all.

As far as scanners go, I'm not necessarily looking for something that will resolve every bit of grain from the film. I'm looking for something that will give me good 2000 - 2400 dpi scans, where I have some ability to crop. The images will mostly be digitally stored and viewed for the most part. Prints would likely be small (8x10 in at the most.) If I needed more for some reason, I'd send the film to be professionally scanned on a Imacon or similar.

I agree, the landscape for film scanners is pretty pathetic right now. You've got cheap flatbeds on one side, FlexTights on the other side, and not much in between except some used, older, unsupported equipment. I'd love a $2000 scanner that could give me really nice 4000dpi scans from 35mm and MF.

I've heard rumors that PlusTek might be developing a MF scanner. I use a 7600i for 35mm now and I'm reasonably pleased. It would be a nice upgrade from a flatbed anyway.
Click to expand...

Hi, I've been scanning my 6x6 on my Microtek Scanmaker i900 for several years with very good results. I use Microtek's proprietary software as well as Laser Soft. Although it is a full size flatbed, it scans negative and reversal via a mechanism which scans the media directly without the use of a glass flatbed. Microtek sells on line directly through it's website--microtek.com. I've been successful in having digital prints up to 11x14 with very high quality. I currently use a 500c plus various Mamiya and Fuji medium format cameras. Hope this helps.
 
I ended up finding a very nice condition 500C/M and 80mm Planar on Ebay for $850. The back had some light leaks and the lens had some haze. I sent everything off to David Odess for a full CLA. I expect to be getting them back next week.
 
mijosc said:
I'm currently a 35mm shooter looking to expand into MF. I've been looking at a 500C/M with A12 back and WLF. I've done a fair bit of research, but I've got a few questions.

  • My local used camera shop doesn't have much in the way of Hasselblad gear, so I will probably be buying online. I've used eBay before for equipment I'm familiar with, but I don't really feel like I know enough about Hasselblads to purchase there. I was thinking Keh or B&H instead. Thoughts? My budget would be about $1500.
  • I'd consider myself primarily a landscape/architecture photographer. If I got one lens to start with, what would you recommend? Most kits seem to come with the 80 Planar, but I've been thinking the 50 Distagon instead. In 35mm terms, I often find a 50mm to be a bit restrictive for my style of shooting; it's usually easier to get closer versus farther away.
  • Any recommendations on a decent MF scanner? I've got a 35mm film scanner now, so I'm primarily looking for something that will produce a good 2400dpi scan from 6x6 slide film (Velvia and Provia). My budget would be right around $500. I was thinking the Epson V700. What about the V500 or V600?
  • Any other general recommendations for someone new to a 500C/M?
Click to expand...


Hi Mijosc,

50mm in M format = 35mm and 80mm=standard 50mm. I think I have seen lot of architectural photography done on the 80mm and and 6x6 format. They
are amazingly good and I think the perspectives from the standard lenses are not limited to architectural work. That explains the uniqueness of the square format i think.
 
I have had decent results from the Epson 750 Pro with 16" square prints as well as the Nikon 8000 Coolscan Super which perhaps does a slightly better job. The digital ICE etc unfortunately do not work well with B&W grain. Sometimes one must find the proper resolution, which given the grain size may not be the maximum.

Cheers. Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top