Camera: Hasselblad 500c/m Lens: Zeiss Planar T* 80mm f2.8 C with 10mm extension tube Film: Ilford Delta 100 Settings: 1/8th of a second, f22 Physical comparisons So I unpacked my old S2a kit and set out for a day of head to head shooting. I think many might find the comparison slanted, yet these two cameras could have been sold side-by-side through most of the 70s with their pricing much closer than it is today. And I wonder if my experience with the Bronica will be different after getting used to the Hasselblad. I’ve shot a fair bit with both cameras at this point and I know how they differ in use, but I don’t know how they differ in final images. I could see why so many name this particular lens and camera combo as a masterpiece.Īnd so recently, while doing a bit of cleaning, I came across the still-boxed-up Bronica kit. Though not much smaller, the design was very ergonomic and the images looked incredible. Meanwhile, I’d been shooting with the 500c/m and really enjoying it. Feeling rattled, I stored it away until I could decide the best way to resell it. I was ultimately able to get the camera back, but it was an unpleasant enough experience to get me off Ebay for awhile. Unfortunately, the buyer backed out while the camera was still in transit and the whole thing got pretty hairy. Two other standard lenses with good reputations are an 80mm f2.4 Zenzanon and an 80mm f2.8 made by Zeiss Jena, though both are very rare and tend to be pricey a few years back and found the P to have lower contrast and slightly different rendering, but overall quality was very similar, which is to say they were both excellent. I shot a comparison between the P (cheapest of the group) and the H.C. 75mm was the last of three 75mm lenses that Nikon made for the S series, with the prior two being the P and the P.C. 75mm f2.8 with 8x ND filter Film: Kodak Ektar Settings: 4 seconds, f22 The H.C. It seemed unnecessary to own two 6×6 systems though, so I reluctantly put my Bronica kit up on Ebay and shipped it to its new home. So seeing one at a good price when I had some cash to spend, I had to scoop it up. He traded his kits off in the early 2000s when folks were switching to digital and I’ve always regretted that those cameras are gone now, scattered to the winds. Besides their reputation and besides that they went to the moon, it was the camera that my step-father used for many years. I’ve just always had a romance for the Hasselblad 500 series. It wasn’t that I was so unhappy with the S2a. So when I saw my local shop selling a very reasonably priced Hasselblad 500c/m, I decided to “trade up.” It’s fully mechanical, aesthetically beautiful, and in perfect working condition. It’s been serviced and has an updated BrightScreen and the late model standard lens, the Nikkor H.C. I’ve owned it for a few years and find it dependable and capable. I anticipate them to be pretty similar in image quality, with their differences coming through more vividly in handling. After all, they were both designed for the professional market. I just want to understand how these two systems differ in use and images. The goal is not to name a winner or loser. 50 years on, there’s quite a gulf between them in reputation and price and this makes me really curious how they would compare head to head. The other was a rival that eventually faded away. One of them was a staple of professional photography for half a century.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |