BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Mark Kononczuk
 

digital hasselblad


Has anyone got a digital Hasselblad? Is it good?Or in fact does anyone use medium-format digital equipment?How good is it in comparison to top of the range 35mm?


To love this question, log in above
11/19/2007 5:15:22 AM

 
Mark Feldstein
BetterPhoto Member Since: 3/17/2005
  Greetings Mark. I've used one a few times using my Hasselblad lenses for catalog work, mostly although I shoot a lot of medium format anyway. The digital back is incredibly sharp when working at ISO 250 or so, but whaddya want for (last I heard) about $5,000 bucks? .

In terms of resolution, you may be comparing apples to oranges though, by comparing MF to 35mm since 120 format is about 4 times the size. I suppose in the end result, it depends on the finished size you want to go to, right? For a lot of info on the digital Blad system, go to http://www.hasselbladusa.com

Take it light ;>)
Mark


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 6:48:00 PM

 
Dennis Flanagan
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/31/2005
  Isn't it closer to $25-30K?


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 8:07:17 PM

 
W.   
$5,000 for a Hassie bod?
Sounds like a steal.
So I'll take that with a grain of salt for now.


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 8:08:27 PM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  I used the H2D-39 a few times on some fashion shoots in LA and it is VERY nice. My good friend bought the H2D and the 1DsMarkII...when we compared them both he ended up keeping the Canon and saving $25K... soooo that being said you better have a heavy pocketbook and only want to shoot High Fashion and portraits professionally.


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 8:17:21 PM

 
W.   
The funniest thing is people often focus on that body price, completely forgetting that you also need a couple lenses, a good light system, a backup cam, tripods and other accessories, and often a studio and an assistant, to be able to make good use of that (Hassie) body.
By then the tab is more likely very near, or well over, 100,000 bucks . . .

LOL!


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 8:47:28 PM

 
W.   
Oh, and that's forgetting you need a WHOPPER of a workstation PC (and the skills) to process those ginormous files!


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 8:50:51 PM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  Oh yeah....TIFF's are over 150mg....I think with 300DPI and layers they were like 180mg each...the lenses are very expensive....but they use it on America's Next Top Model so its gotta be a great camera.


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 9:08:14 PM

 
W.   
And those 150MB files tend to temporarily inflate to Terabyte size during rendering and processing. Try THAT on your average vanilla flavor PC!

LOL!


To love this comment, log in above
11/19/2007 9:31:38 PM

 
Richard Lynch
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/12/2005
  Gee, I only have a Sigma SD10, and after processing my files can often fall in the 300-500MB range (unflattened, of course). Even with work I do for other pro photographers I've never gotten a submission off a medium format back. The 1DS almost all the time...and those files get quite large enough.

I'd want to see a file before I went and bought a Hasselblad and not take anyone's word for it. As is rightly stated here, your investment starts with the body and back...so much more to think about, and if that applies to what you really use images for (business or personally).


To love this comment, log in above
11/20/2007 4:13:47 AM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  You do get a FREE 512mg card with every purchase....lol I just got the email from my buddy...he said his RAW files were just under 100mg because they're compressed straight outta the camera. You gotta get the firewire cable because it's the best way to with the harddrive on your belt. selling today for $29,995 (comes with the 80mm 2.8 lens)


To love this comment, log in above
11/20/2007 7:09:41 AM

 
Mark Feldstein
BetterPhoto Member Since: 3/17/2005
  When I used just the back, a few years ago, it was about $5K. The body, 100 f 3.5, and shade were mine. That was before they offered the entire rig which I guess is now about $30 grand.
Fashion, portraits? I don't know. I'd still rather stick with film but you know us old(er) guys. Nothing like an A-70 back for catalog work.
M.


To love this comment, log in above
11/20/2007 9:12:04 AM

 
Mark Kononczuk   Isn't using any medium format film camera, not to mention a Hassselblad, just a different experience to digital?
And the excitment of the images magically forming in the liquid in the darkroom....ahhhhh!!!!!
I just don't have the damned time for this anymore, such a shame.


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2007 8:28:44 AM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  Medium Format...great but you gotta have the necessity to utilize it or its better to use a regular 35mm or DSLR. The new darkroom is called Photoshop so get used to it... Hasseblads digital is a Medium Format so you're not giving that up.


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2007 11:10:17 AM

 
W.   
"And the excitment of the images magically forming in the liquid in the darkroom....ahhhhh!!!!!"

And the excitment of the images magically forming on the screen in front of you. In normal light levels so you can actually SEE what's going on....ahhhhh!!!!!
No extra room neccessary, no messing with agressive chemicals . . .


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2007 4:05:38 PM

 
Dennis Flanagan
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/31/2005
  I need to wear my glasses more often. I got excited thinking this thread was on David Hasselhoff.....


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2007 7:17:19 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  "When I used just the back, a few years ago, it was about $5K. The body, 100 f 3.5, and shade were mine. That was before they offered the entire rig which I guess is now about $30 grand."

Their digital camera(H2)is $30 plus, always has been as far as I know. A digital back with a Hasselblad body is still I think around $5k.
Mamiya is offering their 645D for $10k. All digital, not a film body with a digital back. The reduction in price for mf digital is one of the next things people are hoping for.


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2007 9:03:04 PM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  Used the Mamiya as well...I think my comment was...to put it kindly...POS compared to the H2D-39...I thought the Canon's images were far more impressive....at my daughters Baptism there was a Dad with the the Mamiya and after I saw his images I was not impressed at all....I mean My Daughter is soooooo much cuter than his...oh yeah and his camera bites as well.lol If it was my choice I have NO doubt the Canon's images are superior over the Mamiya's.


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2007 11:09:43 PM

 
Mark Kononczuk   David Hasselhoff???????????????????
Gets you excited?
You pervert, that's the sickest thing I've heard all year.


To love this comment, log in above
11/22/2007 1:15:59 AM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  Has anyone else ever wished for a digital back for old film SLR's, or is it just me?


To love this comment, log in above
11/22/2007 3:22:43 AM

 
W.   
From 1999 to 2005 there was a 'company' called E-Film with a website (2 webpages really) that released press announcements that they had developed a "digital back for 35mm film SLRs". It was "soon" going to be available to the general public.

This press release was picked up and copied without checking by a range of ICT publications (magazines and websites). However, that digital back never made it to market.

This scenario a press release about "a new digital back for 35mm film SLRs" and subsequent, mindless, publishing by the mags and websites was repeated every 6 months. Probably because of eager, ignorant, in-experienced editors, who stupidly fell for it with their hunger for more sensational news.

As we all know, the "digital back for 35mm film SLRs" never materialized. So why did someone release that "news" time and again?
Imo because it was an investment scam: the publicity was supposed to get eager investors of the 'get-rich-quick' kind to part with considerable sums "to get the digital back to the market" and make big profits of course.

And since that press release was repeated at least 10/12 times over the course of 5/6 years, and each time managed to generate publicity, one may conclude that this was a very succesful scam....


To love this comment, log in above
11/22/2007 5:37:22 AM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  This sounds like a great incentive for some energized inventor to corner the market!

I..for one, would LOVE to keep the simplicity and ruggedness of my present arsenal of bodies without worrying about the cost and future demise of film and processing.


To love this comment, log in above
11/22/2007 10:06:12 AM

 
Dennis Flanagan
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/31/2005
  If you draw my name for Christmas, I'd love to have a digital back for my 4X5.


To love this comment, log in above
11/22/2007 1:13:01 PM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.