Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Rest in peace V  (Read 5417 times)
Lacunapratum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2013, 05:48:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I was always amazed how long the V system lasted, as it was so antiquated compared to everything else.  Even 10-15 years ago, I found the Pentax 645, the Rollei 6008i, and the Fuji 680 systems vastly superior, while Hasselblad appeared to be frozen in time.  Hasselblad had excellent marketing skills, and they got more mileage out of the Zeiss aura than anybody else.  In their time, the Superachromat and the UV Sonnar were some unique lenses, but otherwise I was never able to see the point. 
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778


« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2013, 06:11:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this is a bit unfair.  I like the V, in fact I love the V, I have two, but the RZ is an incredible camera and not a dog at all.  I made my career on that camera.  The VF is second to none.  The reliable electronics just work and work, the modularity is incredible as are the lenses.  As to the square, I dig it but the V is/was a commercial tool above all else, and commercial work is mostly un-square.  The A16V back handled this well, but the big RZ negative put it in a different league, closer to 4x5 quality.  As to the D800, it will not be a paperweight in a few years unless you want it to be.  There are so few things that need improvement with the D800 that there is no reason to not use it far into the future.  My only complaint is with the finder.

Agreed, the rz67 is anything but a dog. It might not have the sexiness of the V but it's all business where it counts, and the lenses are second to none.
Logged
Lacunapratum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2013, 06:21:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed on the RZ67.
Logged
Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2013, 08:07:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I was always amazed how long the V system lasted, as it was so antiquated compared to everything else.  Even 10-15 years ago, I found the Pentax 645, the Rollei 6008i, and the Fuji 680 systems vastly superior

GX680 - king dog, all 3 versions.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2013, 08:14:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed, the rz67 is anything but a dog. It might not have the sexiness of the V but it's all business where it counts, and the lenses are second to none.

The Mamiya RZ is a great system. I moved to Mamiya when my Hasselblads failed one time to many.
But keep in mind I bought mine in a period where Hasselblad was having bad quality control issues.
Light leaks and torn film with two new backs. Body problems.
Never had a problem with an old used one I had.
The RZ gave me a better crop and the lenses were great.

IT's a dog, but in the sense of mans best friend.
It did however make very strange noises with the motor winder....

Image quality of both the Hasselblad V and RZ is excellent.

RZ image quality:



Crop from above.

Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4999



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2013, 08:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

You guys are like the Westboro Baptist Church  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2013, 08:18:30 PM »
ReplyReply

GX680 - king dog, all 3 versions.

It's all in the folds of the bellows... Wink




But really the Hasselblad V system combined with the way it was marketed made history.

Countless times like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/nov/23/photography-twiggy
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 09:31:55 PM by FredBGG » Logged
Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2013, 08:29:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed, the rz67 is anything but a dog. It might not have the sexiness of the V but it's all business where it counts, and the lenses are second to none.

I'm responding to Harperphoto's comments about the V being a piece of crap. It's not, not by a long shot. Not one single crap lens: 38 Biogon, 30 Fisheye, 40 FLE, 40 IF FLE, 50 FLE, 100, 180 etc.

RZ, great camera, lenses second to zeiss, second to Mamiya 6/7... and a dog when it comes to portability - it's a beast (but nothing compared to the 680 - good luck using that brick outside the studio). Hasselblad didn't make it on marketing but on image quality.

Rollei 6008, great camera not enough wides.




Logged

Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2013, 08:52:13 PM »
ReplyReply

It's all in the folds of the bellows... Wink


But really the Hasselblad V system combined with the way it was marketed made history.

Countless times like this:

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/nov/23/photography-twiggy[/url}

But mainly because of the lens quality.

Hasselblad SWC/M quality (handheld @ 1/30th):



Crop from 40 inch print above:
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 09:06:22 PM by Paul Ozzello » Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2013, 09:33:02 PM »
ReplyReply

SWC/M

The master of wide angle.

What film did you use?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 10:23:10 PM by FredBGG » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 03, 2013, 12:44:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have seen a few of the original Hasselblad, before the arrival of the "Acute Matte" screens and was not impressed by the viewfinders. Also, as far as I recall, the viewfinder did not show the full image, because the mirror being to short.

It is my understanding that later models were much better, but I can certainly see Harperfoto's point if he compared early model Hasselblads with early Model Mamiya.

Regarding lenses, I have two C series lenses I bought for different reasons, and both are very sharp, at least in the center where I have tested.

A crucial point is that features and image quality nothwithstanding a camera that you cannot use efficiently would not achieve the quality the camera is capable of. What is efficient may depend on user, like eyesight. For instance I could never use a waist level finder without a loupe, and always preferred the chimney type ones.

Best regards
Erik

I'm responding to Harperphoto's comments about the V being a piece of crap. It's not, not by a long shot. Not one single crap lens: 38 Biogon, 30 Fisheye, 40 FLE, 40 IF FLE, 50 FLE, 100, 180 etc.

RZ, great camera, lenses second to zeiss, second to Mamiya 6/7... and a dog when it comes to portability - it's a beast (but nothing compared to the 680 - good luck using that brick outside the studio). Hasselblad didn't make it on marketing but on image quality.

Rollei 6008, great camera not enough wides.





Logged

carloalberto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #51 on: May 03, 2013, 04:43:42 AM »
ReplyReply

@ Paul Ozzello

Amazing example of the SWC quality. Your post is to the point and says in a picture what many of us say in words regarding our love and appreciation of the V system.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #52 on: May 03, 2013, 07:46:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have seen a few of the original Hasselblad, before the arrival of the "Acute Matte" screens and was not impressed by the viewfinders. Also, as far as I recall, the viewfinder did not show the full image, because the mirror being to short.It is my understanding that later models were much better, but I can certainly see Harperfoto's point if he compared early model Hasselblads with early Model Mamiya.

Regarding lenses, I have two C series lenses I bought for different reasons, and both are very sharp, at least in the center where I have tested.

A crucial point is that features and image quality nothwithstanding a camera that you cannot use efficiently would not achieve the quality the camera is capable of. What is efficient may depend on user, like eyesight. For instance I could never use a waist level finder without a loupe, and always preferred the chimney type ones.

Best regards
Erik


The funny thing is, both of mine were old-style (500C and 500 C/M); I never noticed there was a viewing problem: they just worked fine. I hated the standard w/level finder and when I bought myself the 45 degree one life took on a happier note. At first, it felt strangely as if I were looking up/down a hill, but soon got used to it.

Screen accuracy never let me down, either; unlike 35mm there was always room to spare for layout crops.

Rob C
Logged

Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2013, 09:10:08 AM »
ReplyReply

SWC/M

The master of wide angle.

What film did you use?

TMAX 100
Logged

jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2013, 09:32:10 AM »
ReplyReply

...

Crop from above.



Did you focus here?

Best,
Johannes
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #55 on: May 03, 2013, 10:08:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm responding to Harperphoto's comments about the V being a piece of crap. It's not, not by a long shot. Not one single crap lens: 38 Biogon, 30 Fisheye, 40 FLE, 40 IF FLE, 50 FLE, 100, 180 etc.

RZ, great camera, lenses second to zeiss, second to Mamiya 6/7... and a dog when it comes to portability - it's a beast (but nothing compared to the 680 - good luck using that brick outside the studio). Hasselblad didn't make it on marketing but on image quality.

Rollei 6008, great camera not enough wides.

I like the Zeiss lenses, but there was a time I really did not like them.  At all.  They have too much contrast, I thought at the time.  I liked the RZ lenses better.  I guess my tastes changed.  I'm now smitten with the 150 sonnar, its the only lens I use for portraits now adays, on any camera system.  Its brilliant on the D800 as well as on TMAX at 6x6. 

The Mamiya 7 lenses are, by far, the best lenses I've ever used.

I've used the RZ outside of a studio.  Lots and lots.  Handheld.  Annie L used it outside, for everything, for years.

One point in favor of the RZ compared to the V is that the mirror is so well damped that mirror slap is much reduced compared to the V.  I think this is because of better mirror travel mechanism, the slight delay between mirror up and the leaf shutter opening, and the GREAT WEIGHT of the RZ.  I'm not taking a piss on the V, its just my observation.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot:  The RZ's bellows allow for close focusing with ANY lens without resorting to tubes.  This is handy.




Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2013, 10:20:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I never really used Hasselblad. Sad The Mamiya RZ's were popular back in the day. I personally like the Pentax 6x7's so thats what I used. I still have 2 bodies, one with a Polaroid back. I really liked the look of that format and system for people. Not the sharpest tool in the shed but for shooting people camera handling and overall particular look of the image is more important to me. I did use it also for cityscapes and architecture shots and they came out great. The weakness of the cameras was/is the film winding mechanism.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #57 on: May 03, 2013, 10:40:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I never really used Hasselblad. Sad The Mamiya RZ's were popular back in the day. I personally like the Pentax 6x7's so thats what I used. I still have 2 bodies, one with a Polaroid back. I really liked the look of that format and system for people. Not the sharpest tool in the shed but for shooting people camera handling and overall particular look of the image is more important to me. I did use it also for cityscapes and architecture shots and they came out great. The weakness of the cameras was/is the film winding mechanism.


In which way? I had a new one for about a year, and one of its problems for me was loading and unloading film. Winding on always functioned fine.

Rob C
Logged

Lacunapratum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #58 on: May 03, 2013, 11:58:32 AM »
ReplyReply

The hype about the Zeiss lenses was more myth than reality.  They were easily surpassed by their Mamiya 7 counterparts and were equal or slightly less equal to some of their competitors...  In their time though, the Superachromats were special, but already the Biogon was surpased by the Mamiya copy.  Sad, but true. 
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 03, 2013, 02:35:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

According to the MTF curves I have seen that would be perfectly true. That said, I have two Hasselblad C-type lenses that are really good.

Best regards
Erik


The hype about the Zeiss lenses was more myth than reality.  They were easily surpassed by their Mamiya 7 counterparts and were equal or slightly less equal to some of their competitors...  In their time though, the Superachromats were special, but already the Biogon was surpased by the Mamiya copy.  Sad, but true. 
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad