With that in mind, it’ll probably be a few weeks before I get another chance to get out and really shoot the Hasselblad. In the meantime, I’ll try to post up some useful information and maybe some general photography discussion, starting with this list of internet links that I’ve found to be helpful before and after buying my 500C/M.
(1) Karen Nakamura, who runs photoethnography.com, has written an excellent summary of the Hasselblad 500, or “V” series (as well as lots of other vintage cameras). There’s a ton of useful information here for anyone who’s thinking of buying a Hassie, or is just interested in knowing more about them.
(2) Patrick Taylor also gives a very nice description of the Hasselblad “V” series, as well as some interesting info on the development and early uses of these cameras. This part is especially cool…
(3) Wikipedia’s article on the Hasselblad company is pretty good too. It goes way beyond the “V” series. Today Hasselblad is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, player in high-end digital cameras. Enough cash will buy a Hasselblad camera capable of 200 megapixels!
(4) If you're in the market for a 500C, 500C/M, or 503, this youtube video is an invaluable resource that explains how to assemble/dissasemble a Hasselblad “V” series, as well as some things to look for when buying used.
(5) There are lots of youtube videos showing how to load film into the Hasselblad. 120 or 220 film is used depending on which film magazine you’ve got (A12 gets 120, A24 gets 220). It’s easy to do, but a little different because, unlike 35mm film, medium format film isn’t pre-loaded in a canister - a bit more care is needed to keep the roll unexposed while loading and unloading the film from the magazine.
(6) This next video gives a good intro to shooting with a Hasselblad, although it does perpetuate two common film myths which, in my experience, have not been true:
1) Film has greater dynamic range (i.e more shadow and highlight detail). Maybe this was true 10, or even 5 years ago, but it certainly isn’t true now. Some films do have more range than others, but on the whole, film can capture a dynamic range of ~6 stops of light before some part of the image is under- or overexposed. Consumer dSLR’s do a little better than this, pro dSLR’s (bigger sensor) do a lot better (~10 stops), and medium format digital backs have nearly twice the range (~12 stops, although I should add, as a caveat, that MF digital backs have other limitations, which I’ll blog about at some point, and a really good one probably costs more than your car).
2) Film has more resolution than digital. Ummmm… I’ve said before that film and digital are apples and oranges, but if it really matters, digital wins for pure resolution. The first important thing to realize is that film can’t be generalized like digital, where more megapixels means more resolution (although even that has its limits, which is something I’ll expand upon in my next post about the Nikon D800). In contrast to digital, resolution on film depends heavily on the type of film used. Positive film will always appear to have better resolution than similar negative film, because with positive film (usually called slide film, or transparency film), the graniest parts of the image are hiding in the shadows, but with negative film, it’s just the opposite. Film speed also matters, resolution goes down as ISO (film speed) goes up. Bottom line (for film and digital): the only important measure of resolution is the size of the print that can be made and still look good. This, in turn, depends on a number of factors, including the printing techniques, so it’s not simple to say whether film or digital has more resolution. In my own experience, the Hasselblad, loaded with ISO160 color negative film (Kodak Portra) outresolves my Nikon D90 (12 MP), but the D90 outresolves 35mm film, even slide film, by quite a bit.
With those two caveats in mind, this video is full of great information…
That’s all the links for now. Enjoy them, and if you find other good ones, be sure to let me know.
