Hasselblad 503cw w/ CFV-39 Digital Back

[Buckster]

Lenses have to be made larger to as image sensor size increases, adding to the cost.

Why aren't the lenses on my MF Mamiyas and Hassy larger than the lenses on my 35mm and DSLRs if that's true?

If I added a digital back to a Mamiya or Hassy, would their old lenses no longer work? Would I need to buy larger lenses for them?

 

[Ballistics]

The reason Hassleblad is so expensive is because (a) they are produced with maximum quality and (b) there are not many people out there wanting one, so the advantages of mass production cannot be used.

Its pretty much like the Leica M9 or S2, really - the people doing the production arent cheap and the production has to be done by hand.

If tomorrow everyone would call Canon and Nikon demanding a maximum quality medium format camera, the end result would probably be much cheaper.

Also, you wont actually be very happy with Hassleblad for certain applications. Modern stuff like image stabilization isnt present, and autofocus wont compare at all to what your D7000 has.

I don't know if we will ever be shooting hand held. Don't know if that makes a difference, but the cameras are attached to this very large mobile stands.

 

[Derrel]

You are "bummed" that you will no longer be doing studio work with a Nikon D7000 and some low-cost Sigma lenses, and a pair of Nikon kit zooms? So, you'd rather be using entry-level equipment instead of high-end digital MF gear from Hasselblad? I have absolutely no fricking idea why that would make you "bummed out", except for the fact that shooting with top-level equipment will make your own gear seem pedestrian forever after. You will learn another entire "type" of shooting when using a MF camera and studio flash. The Hassy ain't no D7000 though, that's for sure. One thing you will learn about is the need for PRECISE FOCUSING. I think after the semester is over, you'll really have truly learned, from actual experience, just where the D7000 fits in the camera hierarchy; and, I do not mean that it is inherently inferior to a MF camera--but a lightweight, high-end consumer d-slr is an entirely "different" thing than a MF with digital back. Education is supposed to be about broadening one's experience, and about learning NEW things...not doing the same old thing, over and over. Try not to be "bummed out" that your educators are forcing you to shoot studio work with a studio camera. Give in to the wisdom of those with more experience than yourself. Roll with it.

Here's one of those lame MF cameras in action on a world-famous supermodel for a world-famous publication name.
http://egotastic.com/photos/candice...magazine-brazil-photoshoot-september-2012-01/

 

[Mike_E]

You are "bummed" that you will no longer be doing studio work with a Nikon D7000 and some low-cost Sigma lenses, and a pair of Nikon kit zooms? So, you'd rather be using entry-level equipment instead of high-end digital MF gear from Hasselblad? I have absolutely no fricking idea why that would make you "bummed out", except for the fact that shooting with top-level equipment will make your own gear seem pedestrian forever after. You will learn another entire "type" of shooting when using a MF camera and studio flash. The Hassy ain't no D7000 though, that's for sure. One thing you will learn about is the need for PRECISE FOCUSING. I think after the semester is over, you'll really have truly learned, from actual experience, just where the D7000 fits in the camera hierarchy; and, I do not mean that it is inherently inferior to a MF camera--but a lightweight, high-end consumer d-slr is an entirely "different" thing than a MF with digital back. Education is supposed to be about broadening one's experience, and about learning NEW things...not doing the same old thing, over and over. Try not to be "bummed out" that your educators are forcing you to shoot studio work with a studio camera. Give in to the wisdom of those with more experience than yourself. Roll with it.

Here's one of those lame MF cameras in action on a world-famous supermodel for a world-famous publication name.
http://egotastic.com/photos/candice...magazine-brazil-photoshoot-september-2012-01/

I think the "bummed" part was just that he wouldn't be learning on his own gear.

Not to worry, the camera is just one part of the whole experience. (although a pleasant one no doubt!)

 

[Derrel]

I would wager that the studio semester in his photography education has been designed with an emphasis on L_E_A_R_N_I_N_G...and not merely doing the same old things, with the same old, limited-quality equipment...and I also have a sneaking suspicion that standardizing on the digital Hassy will ALSO EQUALIZE the playing field for ALL participants in the program....and it will also make it possible to directly compare results, EXIF, and pictures, as well as talent and ability and results-delivery capability with ALL students sharing the same, identical equipment capabilities/limitations/equipment selection.

I recall a college journalism situation years ago (mid 1980's) when the ONE guy that had a COMPLETE, professional-level Canon F1n system with 85/1.2-L, 24/1.4-L, and 300/2.8-L (and even MORE gear to boot!) got virtually ALL of the BEST sports assignments because he had equipment that gave him literally, HUGE advantages over the rest of us with more-modest gear. As far as being assigned jobs, he got the plums and we fought for scraps. Standardizing on the equipment used is a cornerstone of MANY types of instructional programs...and has been for a long time. It actually "works".

 

[Tuffythepug]

That's what I'm asking you. Minolta was the first camera in space, does that make it as good as Hasselblad?

No. And I assume that this was a rhetorical question. I think you might be looking for an argument or perhaps be trying to be sarcastic so I won't bother with any further response. I do hope you enjoy working with the Hasselblad.

Nope, just complying to the tone of your post. Not a fan of those who assume.

I'm surprised that any serious photographer or photography student has not heard of it.
Why do you think NASA chose it for the first missions into space ?

This came off a bit condescending to me. Kind of took it as, I'm not a serious photographer or a student for that matter because I've never heard of this specific camera.
Which is why I didn't understand why the NASA reference was relevant, being that it wasn't the first camera in space, and was never the only camera in space.

I'm afraid you took offense where none was intended. My apologies if I came off condescending. If you are enrolled in a photography program in college you must be a serious student of photography; On your way to being a wonderful photographer, no doubt. However, If you picked up a camera for the first time a year ago then it stands to reason you have a lot to learn. I suppose I am guilty of being naive by thinking that most people would have heard of the Hasselblad. I come from a different era when every photographer I knew coveted one of those wonderful cameras.

 

[Ballistics]

You are "bummed" that you will no longer be doing studio work with a Nikon D7000 and some low-cost Sigma lenses, and a pair of Nikon kit zooms? So, you'd rather be using entry-level equipment instead of high-end digital MF gear from Hasselblad? I have absolutely no fricking idea why that would make you "bummed out", except for the fact that shooting with top-level equipment will make your own gear seem pedestrian forever after. You will learn another entire "type" of shooting when using a MF camera and studio flash. The Hassy ain't no D7000 though, that's for sure. One thing you will learn about is the need for PRECISE FOCUSING. I think after the semester is over, you'll really have truly learned, from actual experience, just where the D7000 fits in the camera hierarchy; and, I do not mean that it is inherently inferior to a MF camera--but a lightweight, high-end consumer d-slr is an entirely "different" thing than a MF with digital back. Education is supposed to be about broadening one's experience, and about learning NEW things...not doing the same old thing, over and over. Try not to be "bummed out" that your educators are forcing you to shoot studio work with a studio camera. Give in to the wisdom of those with more experience than yourself. Roll with it.

Here's one of those lame MF cameras in action on a world-famous supermodel for a world-famous publication name.
http://egotastic.com/photos/candice...magazine-brazil-photoshoot-september-2012-01/

I think the "bummed" part was just that he wouldn't be learning on his own gear.

Not to worry, the camera is just one part of the whole experience. (although a pleasant one no doubt!)

Exactly this. I would rather learn on my own equipment vs using the best out there. My portfolio would be a bit misleading, and once this semester is over, I have to relearn everything on my own equipment.
I'd rather have the limitations of my gear, than be limitless. Sure my portfolio would benefit, but what happens after I graduate, and I'm back with a D7000? Kind of counter-intuitive
to me. I think it's awesome that we are exposed to this equipment, but to go throughout the course solely on this camera makes me scratch my head.

 

[Ballistics]

You are "bummed" that you will no longer be doing studio work with a Nikon D7000 and some low-cost Sigma lenses, and a pair of Nikon kit zooms? So, you'd rather be using entry-level equipment instead of high-end digital MF gear from Hasselblad? I have absolutely no fricking idea why that would make you "bummed out", except for the fact that shooting with top-level equipment will make your own gear seem pedestrian forever after. You will learn another entire "type" of shooting when using a MF camera and studio flash. The Hassy ain't no D7000 though, that's for sure. One thing you will learn about is the need for PRECISE FOCUSING. I think after the semester is over, you'll really have truly learned, from actual experience, just where the D7000 fits in the camera hierarchy; and, I do not mean that it is inherently inferior to a MF camera--but a lightweight, high-end consumer d-slr is an entirely "different" thing than a MF with digital back. Education is supposed to be about broadening one's experience, and about learning NEW things...not doing the same old thing, over and over. Try not to be "bummed out" that your educators are forcing you to shoot studio work with a studio camera. Give in to the wisdom of those with more experience than yourself. Roll with it.

Here's one of those lame MF cameras in action on a world-famous supermodel for a world-famous publication name.
http://egotastic.com/photos/candice...magazine-brazil-photoshoot-september-2012-01/

Yep, never said anything about this camera being lame, in fact I called it the Bentley of the studio world.
Also never said I was unhappy about using the Hasselblad.
I am unhappy that I will not be able to use my own equipment in the studio during this semester. That's the bummer.

I know you love to preach, but you should read the post first before you saddle up.

While I am excited to use this camera, I'm kind of bummed that I wont be continuing studio work with my own gear.

 

[Ballistics]

No. And I assume that this was a rhetorical question. I think you might be looking for an argument or perhaps be trying to be sarcastic so I won't bother with any further response. I do hope you enjoy working with the Hasselblad.

Nope, just complying to the tone of your post. Not a fan of those who assume.

I'm surprised that any serious photographer or photography student has not heard of it.
Why do you think NASA chose it for the first missions into space ?

This came off a bit condescending to me. Kind of took it as, I'm not a serious photographer or a student for that matter because I've never heard of this specific camera.
Which is why I didn't understand why the NASA reference was relevant, being that it wasn't the first camera in space, and was never the only camera in space.

I'm afraid you took offense where none was intended. My apologies if I came off condescending. If you are enrolled in a photography program in college you must be a serious student of photography; On your way to being a wonderful photographer, no doubt. However, If you picked up a camera for the first time a year ago then it stands to reason you have a lot to learn. I suppose I am guilty of being naive by thinking that most people would have heard of the Hasselblad. I come from a different era when every photographer I knew coveted one of those wonderful cameras.

Fair enough, however it's not hasselblad that I have never heard of. It was this specific camera that we are using.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

It's in the studio, not concerned about manual focus.

Unless you're photographing immobile mannequins, you should be. Granted studio work is less intensive, but MF is still a chore.

I've used my Hassy to photograph dogs in the studio, and it was easy, but still not a "set it and go" type of thing.

 

[Derrel]

I would rather learn on my own equipment vs using the best out there. My portfolio would be a bit misleading, and once this semester is over, I have to relearn everything on my own equipment.
I'd rather have the limitations of my gear, than be limitless. Sure my portfolio would benefit, but what happens after I graduate, and I'm back with a D7000? Kind of counter-intuitive
to me. I think it's awesome that we are exposed to this equipment, but to go throughout the course solely on this camera makes me scratch my head.

You're scratching your head because you are a photography newbie, with a year's worth of "experience", and you do not even have a CLUE what it is that there is to learn about "photography".The fact that you think there is something counter-intuitive shows that, despite you being almost thirty years old, you're not very capable of thinking outside the box. You are still at it, still being a dumb-a$$, and STILL trying to justify your protestations that your TEACHERS know LESS than YOU do. Good luck. You apparently MISSED all of the points I made about the way the course is designed to teach you NEW things, AND to equalize the equipment playing field for ALL the students in the program. And you continue to try and be a smart-a$$ toward me. Get a clue. You obviously don't have a CLUE about what there is to learn about "photography"...and you think what you learn about "photography" is dependent upon using your crappy D7000 and Sigma and kit zoom lenses!!! Snort!

Do you expect a course that teaches just YOU how to use YOUR little Nikon D7000? Or do you expect an education in "photography". DOAH! RTFM if you want to be taught how to use your camera.

One of the biggest problems I have with newbies who accuse me of "preaching" is that the comments come from snotty-mouth newbies who do not have ANY real experience at anything other than buying a brand-new d-slr, a computer, and some software, and cranking out utter crap, without even a hint of a whiff of a clue about what "photography" as an art, as a science, or as a profession or field, is all about. The idea that your "portfolio" must in ANY WAY be associated with the little Nikon D7000 that you currently have as your first d-slr is ludicrous. The fact that you STILL THINK YOU KNOW enough to even begin to second-guess you instructors reveals to me what a cocky frame of mind you are possessed of. You don't even KNOW what it is you don't know. Your lack of reading comprehension and your utter lack of respect for those with vastly more knowledge and skill than you is sad.

WHAT will happen if you buy a newer, better Nikon crop-body? Will your portfolio somehow,magically, get "better"? (Please don't answer that...the question does not need to be answered in a reply.)

Good luck. Try not to show up your classmates with that year's worth of brilliance and skill and photography knowledge you have. Maybe after the course is over, you can set up your very own school.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

While I am excited to use this camera, I'm kind of bummed that I wont be continuing studio work with my own gear.

I'm not beating you or your gear up, but after a class or two using a great body and the lighting you'll not want to tote yours to class.

 

[Ballistics]

You're scratching your head because you are a photography newbie, with a year's worth of "experience", and you do not even have a CLUE what it is that there is to learn about "photography".The fact that you think there is something counter-intuitive shows that, despite you being almost thirty years old, you're not very capable of thinking outside the box. You are still at it, still being a dumb-a$$, and STILL trying to justify your protestations that your TEACHERS know LESS than YOU do. Good luck. You apparently MISSED all of the points I made about the way the course is designed to teach you NEW things, AND to equalize the equipment playing field for ALL the students in the program. And you continue to try and be a smart-a$$ toward me. Get a clue. You obviously don't have a CLUE about what there is to learn about "photography"...and you think what you learn about "photography" is dependent upon using your crappy D7000 and Sigma and kit zoom lenses!!! Snort!

Yup, you know how to knock em out of the park don't you. It's awesome reading your posts. So, you're allowed to talk down to people, but no retaliation is allowed right? I know you wear glasses, do you have them on when you're reading posts? You cement head. You are the one that needs to get a clue. What you do, is come into threads, talk down to people, and provide zero besides your own pig-headed opinion.

Do you expect a course that teaches just YOU how to use YOUR little Nikon D7000? Or do you expect an education in "photography". DOAH! RTFM if you want to be taught how to use your camera.

Because I want to use my camera along with the hasselblad, I'm what exactly? Ignoring what? You assume way to much for a grown man. So, in order for me to learn photography, my camera is now no good?

One of the biggest problems I have with newbies who accuse me of "preaching" is that the comments come from snotty-mouth newbies who do not have ANY real experience at anything other than buying a brand-new d-slr, a computer, and some software, and cranking out utter crap, without even a hint of a whiff of a clue about what "photography" as an art, as a science, or as a profession or field, is all about. The idea that your "portfolio" must in ANY WAY be associated with the little Nikon D7000 that you currently have as your first d-slr is ludicrous.

So what is all of this if it isn't preaching? Using extreme sarcasm and condescension in your posts is what? You want to be respected? Be respectable. Other wise you come off like a whiny *****. I'm curious, you are such a pretentious A-hole, I'd actually like to see some of your world famous work. Because after-all, the entire forum should revere you and your "knowledge".

The fact that you STILL THINK YOU KNOW enough to even begin to second-guess you instructors reveals to me what a cocky frame of mind you are possessed of. You don't even KNOW what it is you don't know. Your lack of reading comprehension and your utter lack of respect for those with vastly more knowledge and skill than you is sad.

What that reveals to me, is that you assume too much. I want to use my gear in the studio, so... I'm cocky? I'm never going to have this specific camera after I graduate and don't understand why it's the *only* camera being used this semester... and that makes me... cocky? See, there's this thing, Derrel. It's called logic. I, as a grown man, possess it. You masters of photography, have the ability to

A) Be dead wrong
B) Make Mistakes
C) Fight change

Allow yourself to be enlightened once in a while. You might learn something.

WHAT will happen if you buy a newer, better Nikon crop-body? Will your portfolio somehow,magically, get "better"? (Please don't answer that...the question does not need to be answered in a reply.)

So, then if equipment doesn't matter, then why use a $20k camera? For kicks? Because it will make me a better photographer?

Good luck. Try not to show up your classmates with that year's worth of brilliance and skill and photography knowledge you have. Maybe after the course is over, you can set up your very own school.

You know what's awesome about you Derrel; usually it takes a lot of back and forth to know who the oblivious ******* is in a conversation. Nope, not you. You just come up and show that you are right out of the gate.

A good identifier would be, the comparison of length of posts. Your posts are a large paragraph, mine are 3 or 4 lines (prior to this one). What you do is, read 4 or 5 words, and some how know the rest. Meanwhile, if you read correctly, you would see that you are arguing points that haven't been mentioned by me, and are even arguing things that I mention that I am for.

For example, I'm excited to use the hasselblad, and that to you, translates to

You are "bummed" that you will no longer be doing studio work with a Nikon D7000 and some low-cost Sigma lenses, and a pair of Nikon kit zooms?

 

[Ballistics]

While I am excited to use this camera, I'm kind of bummed that I wont be continuing studio work with my own gear.

I'm not beating you or your gear up, but after a class or two using a great body and the lighting you'll not want to tote yours to class.

I guess that can fit into me asking, why not allow both?

 

[Ballistics]

The most beautiful, wonderful, lovely thing about being a student in anything - Is the ability to ask why. While some totalitarians believe that asking why is
a disrespectful, the further understanding and learning of something can be expanded right through answering a simple question.

If your answer for me asking why, is because the person with x amount of years of experience says so is the least thought out, irresponsible and lazy response any person can give a student.
Whether they are 27, 17 or 5. This is coming from a someone who served in the military. This whole do what you're told, no questions asked nonsense is what is ludicrous.

Besides, my initial posts before your bi-polar outburst did not warrant that kind of reply.