Hassleblad cameras

spav

Can someone explain to an idiot (me) why these are so expensive? I know the image quality is extremely high, but I can't get my head around why they're tens of thousand of Euros more expensive than the really top-end Nikons and Canons.

quilmore

badge?

also R&D has to be founded by the few that buys them

Nikon D3x is meant to have more detail than most of them...
some attachments on HB's are unique, like the tilt and shift that can be used with any lens

nilhg

The camera bodies are not that dear, its the digital backs that cost....

Was reading this the other day, looks as if they migh have to sharpen their game.

Gambler

Looking at the site it appears they have a fairly unique sensor system. The low end seems to start at 31 mega pixels and it's 48x36mm in size..

Fajitas!

Quality.

Mine would and will survive pretty much anything I throw at it, and give me impressive results.

Gambler

nilhg wrote: »

The camera bodies are not that dear, its the digital backs that cost....

Was reading this the other day, looks as if they migh have to sharpen their game.

Interesting post, the earlier article he posted about the comparison between the Hassleblad and a Canon G10 was very interesting to read too

duffarama

Gambler wrote: »

Interesting post, the earlier article he posted about the comparison between the Hassleblad and a Canon G10 was very interesting to read too

The LX3 trumps the G10 though by my reckoning.

A Hasselblad is a very particular tool for a certain type of photography, hence the price. "Full frame" 35mm sensors can't compete really

spav

Gambler wrote: »

Interesting post, the earlier article he posted about the comparison between the Hassleblad and a Canon G10 was very interesting to read too

That's a very interesting article. I saw a Hassleblad in action today, and while the image quality was, of course, extremely impressive, it's hard to square in my head that the images that I was looking at on screen were taken on a camera that costs at least 100 times the price of my humble Nikon D40.

Dragan

Fajitas! wrote: »

Quality.

Mine would and will survive pretty much anything I throw at it, and give me impressive results.

I reckon i could throw some things at it that might do some damage!:pac:

Fajitas!

I'd give it a far go at it Dragan

If my camera can survive shooting in over 120° C in the sun, and minus 65° C in the shade, extremes of gravity, incredible levels of radiation and plenty of space debris, among other things, without any modification, I'd say it's high up there with the best

DaireQuinlan

As a side note, the Nikon F3 and F4 also made trips into space. I'm not too sure whether they were actually exposed to quite as much as the hassies that went up to the moon though.

Someone once said that if you wanted to fund a private space programme all you'd have to do is make sure you got to the moon and retrieved those hasselblads the apollo crew left behind. The prices that collectors would pay for them would be literally astronomical

Dragan

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'd give it a far go at it Dragan

If my camera can survive shooting in over 120° C in the sun, and minus 65° C in the shade, extremes of gravity, incredible levels of radiation and plenty of space debris, among other things, without any modification, I'd say it's high up there with the best

It's time like this i miss my metal plated ban hammer, that would have done the job!

Damn technology, thinks its so much better than me!:)

challengemaster

Read this somewhere, but pretty much at 100x crop on a picture, a hassleblad has 4 times the amount of detail. i.e. A 5DmkII picture cropped to 100% and a hassleblad picture cropped to 400% have the same level of detail.

Seems like a fair enough reason for a markup

stcstc

there are some subtle things about most of the medium format digital cameras compared to the 35mm stuff

things like range and colour

also when your talking about enlargements it make a big difference

Fajitas!

Dragan wrote: »

It's time like this i miss my metal plated ban hammer, that would have done the job!

Damn technology, thinks its so much better than me!:)

It'd still give you a fair run for it's money! Welcome back to normality btw, it's fantastic.

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

As a side note, the Nikon F3 and F4 also made trips into space. I'm not too sure whether they were actually exposed to quite as much as the hassies that went up to the moon though.

Someone once said that if you wanted to fund a private space programme all you'd have to do is make sure you got to the moon and retrieved those hasselblads the apollo crew left behind. The prices that collectors would pay for them would be literally astronomical

I'm not sure if the rumours of the hassey's being left on the moon is fully true (Never mind them being made of silver! ), but it's humorous either ways! The first one that went up is the same model that I have, and it just has some of the 'fancy bits' stripped to make it lighter, and was used outside with no protection! Afaik, the Nikon's weren't subjected to that much! Either way, it's an impressive task, whether Nikon or Hassey!

Dragan

Fajitas! wrote: »

It'd still give you a fair run for it's money! Welcome back to normality btw, it's fantastic.

It would lead to a fantastic shoot anyways!

And yeah, it's just nice to be able to float around and talk nonsense, isn't it!

Fajitas!

Mmmhmm

quilmore

I think the D3x scored higher in the DxOmark than most HB/backs (can't find the figures now)
will that kills the quality discussion?

Fajitas!

No, quality also = dynamic range - The 120 format will come up trumps there.

Also, a lot of the 'facts' put forward on these tests are off smaller prints (a4 - a3), when really they should be compared at their largest sizes...

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

No, quality also = dynamic range - The 120 format will come up trumps there.

that woulda been my only point in favour, for smaller prints

Borderfox

A recent test in Pro Photographer explained that the HB 16mp back had more detail in it than the D3x. Also dynamic range in the HB trumps all the slr's

stcstc

one point about all of the medium format cameras is that it depends on wether the return is worth the investment

IE depends on the kind of photographyyour doing

I know some of the commerical / advertising photographers dont bother because when they produce these images they are then mashed up by people in a retouching house, so it aint worth the bother in the first place

Mycroft H

How much are we lookin for a entry level hassey? Couple of grand?

Fajitas!

Depends. Going second hand, you'll get an outfit quite cheap, as with most 120 systems. Start adding in the extras, autofocus, automatic winding, exotic glass and so on, and the price goes up quite fast. If you need these, all well and good, if not, well... it's not something to worry about

I reckon you'd rig yourself up for about 800.

http://cgi.ebay.ie/HASSELBLAD-500-ELX-WLF-Batteries-Charger_W0QQitemZ350148568837QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Photography_Film_Cameras_ET?hash=item350148568837&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1301|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318

http://cgi.ebay.ie/Hasselblad-500-c-m-80mm-2-8-Planar-A12-View-Finder_W0QQitemZ250371515059QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Photography_Film_Cameras_ET?hash=item250371515059&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1301|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318

quilmore

Fajitas! wrote: »

No, quality also = dynamic range - The 120 format will come up trumps there.

are you talking digital or film?

stcstc

a new digital hassy will cost in excess of 10K

Fajitas!

I'm talking about film.

stcstc

yea i know but the discussion started with digital so thought would give that side too

Fajitas!

Lol, was replying to Quilmore's question, not your reply!

spav

stcstc wrote: »

a new digital hassy will cost in excess of 10K

I could be wrong here, but isn't it a load more once you've bought the digital back, lens, flash etc.? The guy I was speaking to yesterday had about €50k's worth in his hand, apparently.

Fajitas!

Depends on when, where and what you're buying!

For example, a 500c/m body, 80mm 42.8 and a 50 f4, WLV, and an older digital back would put you back less than 10,000, whereas a H3D with the same lenses in AF coupled with their newest back would cost 50,000+++

spav

Fajitas! wrote: »

Depends on when, where and what you're buying!

For example, a 500c/m body, 80mm 42.8 and a 50 f4, WLV, and an older digital back would put you back less than 10,000, whereas a H3D with the same lenses in AF coupled with their newest back would cost 50,000+++

I think he had a H2D with all the bells and whistles. The sheer size of the images it could produce was extraordinary, everything is pin sharp no matter how far you zoomed into the image it seemed.

Fajitas!

Out of interest, what was he shooting?

stcstc

they seem to be running a promo at moment

one of the H series 31Mp back for 12K +vat, then lenes on top etc

duffarama

Would a Leaf digital back help to get your costs down when putting together a Hassy system?

spav

Fajitas! wrote: »

Out of interest, what was he shooting?

Just pretty straight forward product photography, but he does a huge range of stuff, from simple commercial shots right the way up to art gallery standard work.

jackdaw

Fajitas! wrote: »

Quality.

Mine would and will survive pretty much anything I throw at it, and give me impressive results.

you own one !! :O !!

wiow

Fajitas!

Well, as I said, I'm talkin' film here, not digital, and they're not *that* pricey anymore, depending on what you're looking at buying. I don't need a high end digital back, I don't need an automatic winder and I don't need automatic focus! I do have some nice Zeiss glass though.

I use mine for art rather than work, bigger negs=more to work with.

challengemaster

jackdaw wrote: »

you own one !! :O !!

wiow

He has all sorts of nice cameras! He probably has over 100 by now I'd say...

outspann

Ah yes, the curse of 'camera collectioning'. How many times have I convinced myself with "when I buy X i'll recoup some of my money by selling Y". Instead, I just end up with an ever-increasing collection.

Luckily, I don't have room to do that with cars. Or girlfriends. Interesting though that may sound....

Fajitas!

Cameras fit onto my shelves just so much better than my girlfriends.

Added bonus that I don't have to cook for them or talk to them (much), just the occasional spin down the park, or ride around the beach and they're delighted. Hell. Some of them don't even mind if I forget to meter.

Fact.

ThOnda

And you can lend one or two without a hassle. And also you can borrow, use and enjoy other cameras too.

enzyme

I have a H3D 39 and the difference in quality is huge in comparison with any 35mm full frame sensor camera. The bit depth, the resolution, the dynamic range are all way ahead. The optics are the business too. But the software that's used with it is da bomb as they say. It basically can eliminate pretty much all the imperfections that remain on what are already some of the best optics available. Rights that's me sounding like a knob finished.
One of the main reason they are sooooo expensive is just that it's a very small market. The technology is really advanced and they are always pushing things, which costs big money. It would be no different if the Canon EOS 1DS mark III were sold in the same quantities.
And there's the bloody badge thing as well.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/367608-REG/Hasselblad_53423_Lens_Shade_for_the.html
That's some lens hood. :eek:

Mycroft H

^ do they not come with some sort of lens hood with the lens? Or do you have to factor the 200 sheets when buying a lens?

enzyme

They do. But you better now loose it.

punchdrunk

Fajitas! wrote: »

It'd still give you a fair run for it's money! Welcome back to normality btw, it's fantastic.



I'm not sure if the rumours of the hassey's being left on the moon is fully true (Never mind them being made of silver! ), but it's humorous either ways! The first one that went up is the same model that I have, and it just has some of the 'fancy bits' stripped to make it lighter, and was used outside with no protection! Afaik, the Nikon's weren't subjected to that much! Either way, it's an impressive task, whether Nikon or Hassey!

thankfully there's still a few Nikon's floating around up there!

frag420

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'd give it a far go at it Dragan

If my camera can survive shooting in over 120° C in the sun, and minus 65° C in the shade, extremes of gravity, incredible levels of radiation and plenty of space debris, among other things, without any modification, I'd say it's high up there with the best

So i see you have been in to sligo with your camera then...........

Fajitas!

Era, try Waterford