Camera you love vs camera you hate...

landshark said:

Hal Wilson said:

landshark said:

The cameras I hated and loved the most are in a few genres

Medium format the camera I hated the most was my Hasselblad 500CM, one of the most overrated cameras of all time, designed by a fool and had a long list of flaws. My favorite medium format is a tie between the workhorse Mamyia RZ 67 and the magical Fuji GX680III.

35mm old school, hated Leica slrs, loved Nikon F2 and F3

Digital hated any Kodak DCS camera , the worst cameras ever made. My favorite at the moment is again a tie between big stuff the Sony A7RV and for little stuff my Sony RX1RIII

Click to expand...

But you see; your subjective views about one camera or another do not in any way paint a complete picture. The 500CM most certainly wasn't designed by a fool; chances are they knew far more about camera design than you ever will. And it really isn't 'overrated' by anyone except yourself and perhaps one or two others. It was a brilliantly designed camera that was at the heart of a legendary modular system, that was used by countless photographers, some of them extremely successful. What actually happened, is that YOU didn't get on with it. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Like me with the Leica M4. Nothing wrong with it as a tool, just didn't work well for me. I'm not going to then spout subjective twaddle like it was 'designed by a fool' etc. Becasue I know that's simply not true.
The other two camera you mentioned were very different beasts, and had their own strengths and weaknesses vs the Hasselblads. I used the older RB67 at college, and really didn't get on with it. Huge, heavy, cumbersome and fiddly to use. Whereas the Hassy was smaller, lighter and more flexible.



As the picture, illustrates, some significant differences there. Give me the Hasselblad any day. I'm not going to insult the designer of the RB67 as a'fool' for making a camera far too big, heavy, cumbersome and fiddly for my liking though.

People need to be mindful about not actually hating inanimate objects. And that your subjective experience and opinion is only that.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you are so wrong, the question was what camera I hate the most. I have.... .....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz etc

Click to expand...

You see, I'm sure that many people have/had issues with all sorts of cameras. Much of what you're listing as 'flaws' with the Hasselblads are down to incorrect handling. I certainly never had the issues you mention. Ok, so there were things you didn't like, that's fine. Doesn't mean the designer was a 'fool' as you put it. It just means that YOU didn't get on with it. I've never found the Leica rangefinder system to be as quick or accurate as an SLR; a problem exacerbated by my wearing spectacles. But tons of people loved that design, and had great success with it. You see my point? Equally, I knew loads of people who loved owning and shooting with Hasselblads. Some truly excellent photographers too. Many pros. So YOUR experience isn't necessarily the same as others. This is what I'm asking you to bear in mind.



As for the RZ67; I've also used that, and once again it's significantly larger and more cumbersome to use than a Hassy. There's no getting away from that. And I do remember some people having issues with the electronics of those. So; nothing's perfect.



I'm sure that if the Hasselblad design was so poor, NASA would have chosen something else. But then, what do they know, eh?

PAntunes said:

The RB67 is a great example of a camera people used not necessarily because they liked it but because what it could do.
It's definitely a camera that is much more comfortable on a tripod, and it's not a fast or easy camera to shoot.
At the same time it has a massive 6x7negative, the back can easily be rotated for landscape and portrait, great lenses, modular, interchangeable backs not only for film but also polaroid, etc...

Click to expand...

Oh for sure. A very capable tool, no question. Fantastic for studio and tripod use. Not so great for hand holding, mind. There's quite a lot of differences between those two cameras, that make them suitable for different tasks. If I'm honest, I didn't much care for the square 6x6cm format; it meant you often had to crop quite a part of the image away, so negating the advantages of the larger format somewhat. To me, a 3:2 ratio always worked better, so 35mm suited me fine. The MF equivalent is 6x9cm, but those cameras were really quite rare and limited in function by comparison. I quite liked the Pentax 67 (not for its size and weight mind!), and will hopefully be using one again soon. As I said; different horses for different courses.

Hal Wilson said:

landshark said:

Hal Wilson said:

landshark said:

The cameras I hated and loved the most are in a few genres

Medium format the camera I hated the most was my Hasselblad 500CM, one of the most overrated cameras of all time, designed by a fool and had a long list of flaws. My favorite medium format is a tie between the workhorse Mamyia RZ 67 and the magical Fuji GX680III.

35mm old school, hated Leica slrs, loved Nikon F2 and F3

Digital hated any Kodak DCS camera , the worst cameras ever made. My favorite at the moment is again a tie between big stuff the Sony A7RV and for little stuff my Sony RX1RIII

Click to expand...

But you see; your subjective views about one camera or another do not in any way paint a complete picture. The 500CM most certainly wasn't designed by a fool; chances are they knew far more about camera design than you ever will. And it really isn't 'overrated' by anyone except yourself and perhaps one or two others. It was a brilliantly designed camera that was at the heart of a legendary modular system, that was used by countless photographers, some of them extremely successful. What actually happened, is that YOU didn't get on with it. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Like me with the Leica M4. Nothing wrong with it as a tool, just didn't work well for me. I'm not going to then spout subjective twaddle like it was 'designed by a fool' etc. Becasue I know that's simply not true.
The other two camera you mentioned were very different beasts, and had their own strengths and weaknesses vs the Hasselblads. I used the older RB67 at college, and really didn't get on with it. Huge, heavy, cumbersome and fiddly to use. Whereas the Hassy was smaller, lighter and more flexible.



As the picture, illustrates, some significant differences there. Give me the Hasselblad any day. I'm not going to insult the designer of the RB67 as a'fool' for making a camera far too big, heavy, cumbersome and fiddly for my liking though.

People need to be mindful about not actually hating inanimate objects. And that your subjective experience and opinion is only that.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you are so wrong, the question was what camera I hate the most. I have.... .....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz etc

Click to expand...

You see, I'm sure that many people have/had issues with all sorts of cameras. Much of what you're listing as 'flaws' with the Hasselblads are down to incorrect handling. I certainly never had the issues you mention. Ok, so there were things you didn't like, that's fine. Doesn't mean the designer was a 'fool' as you put it. It just means that YOU didn't get on with it. I've never found the Leica rangefinder system to be as quick or accurate as an SLR; a problem exacerbated by my wearing spectacles. But tons of people loved that design, and had great success with it. You see my point? Equally, I knew loads of people who loved owning and shooting with Hasselblads. Some truly excellent photographers too. Many pros. So YOUR experience isn't necessarily the same as others. This is what I'm asking you to bear in mind.

As for the RZ67; I've also used that, and once again it's significantly larger and more cumbersome to use than a Hassy. There's no getting away from that. And I do remember some people having issues with the electronics of those. So; nothing's perfect.

I'm sure that if the Hasselblad design was so poor, NASA would have chosen something else. But then, what do they know, eh?

Click to expand...

Again this was MY reasons for hating the camera, I never said it was anybody else's, but just because others put up with the flaws does not mean it did not have design flaws. How in any way could my incorrect handling the camera have anything to do with the mirror being to short for a full view with a tele lens, or being unable to put on a polaroid back with an eye level finder, or the method needed to un-jam the camera or lastly a back mount system that everybody I knew who shot with one had issues with. I not only used the camera I sold them at the pro store in Hollywood that I managed in my early twenties. It seems to me that your experience with the camera was on a hobbyist level, where many of these heavy use issues would not have come up.

There are idols of mine that just shot with TLRs very successfully , I could never use one well enough to have an honest opinion on their use for work. I also shot for years with Canons, never got used to what felt like backward lens controls to me, because of all the years I shot with Nikon earlier, that was not a flaw just a different approach.

As was said every camera can have some issues, but for me and most of my fellow pros shooting for work the RZ was the workhorse that rarely broke down.

The use by NASA says nothing about the use of a camera for day to day work

--
Bob
Please Do not copy, edit or use photos without permission from me

Hal Wilson said:

PAntunes said:

The RB67 is a great example of a camera people used not necessarily because they liked it but because what it could do.
It's definitely a camera that is much more comfortable on a tripod, and it's not a fast or easy camera to shoot.
At the same time it has a massive 6x7negative, the back can easily be rotated for landscape and portrait, great lenses, modular, interchangeable backs not only for film but also polaroid, etc...

Click to expand...

Oh for sure. A very capable tool, no question. Fantastic for studio and tripod use. Not so great for hand holding, mind. There's quite a lot of differences between those two cameras, that make them suitable for different tasks. If I'm honest, I didn't much care for the square 6x6cm format; it meant you often had to crop quite a part of the image away, so negating the advantages of the larger format somewhat. To me, a 3:2 ratio always worked better, so 35mm suited me fine. The MF equivalent is 6x9cm, but those cameras were really quite rare and limited in function by comparison. I quite liked the Pentax 67 (not for its size and weight mind!), and will hopefully be using one again soon. As I said; different horses for different courses.

Click to expand...

RB 67 totally different camera than the RZ67, also on squares it took me awhile after shooting with a 6x7 that I realized magazine editors preferred the square format because it made me leave more room in the frame for them to crop for their cover and not me push it to the limit.

landshark said:

The cameras I hated and loved the most are in a few genres

Medium format the camera I hated the most was my Hasselblad 500CM, one of the most overrated cameras of all time, designed by a fool and had a long list of flaws. My favorite medium format is a tie between the workhorse Mamyia RZ 67 and the magical Fuji GX680III.

35mm old school, hated Leica slrs, loved Nikon F2 and F3

Digital hated any Kodak DCS camera , the worst cameras ever made. My favorite at the moment is again a tie between big stuff the Sony A7RV and for little stuff my Sony RX1RIII

Click to expand...

I sold cameras for over 30 years , most of those in fact buying cameas for the shops I worked for.

I have NEVER heard anyone refer to Victor Hasselblad (and co) as a fool nor met anyone that had as many problems as you with that brand.

Indeed they did and do brake down but I have not ever come across a medium format camera that did not have some known issues.

I see that you were very quick dismissing NASA 's choice because, according to you, they were not to be used day after day however I do suspect (....) that NASA chose the brand that they judged to be the most relieble for the intended use.

For another point, Hasselblad still exists now, where are all the others ? Mamiya, Rollei, Bronica, Pentax MF, Kowa ? (yes Fujifilm is still making them....) Seems to me that if they were that badly designed and full of flows they woud have gone out of business a long time ago , well before the rest.

In past threads when someone would be raving on about how great the Blads were, I have pointed out that they broke down too, just like the rest....so yes , I understand your frustration but it was a bit over the top.

FrancoD said:

landshark said:

The cameras I hated and loved the most are in a few genres

Medium format the camera I hated the most was my Hasselblad 500CM, one of the most overrated cameras of all time, designed by a fool and had a long list of flaws. My favorite medium format is a tie between the workhorse Mamyia RZ 67 and the magical Fuji GX680III.

35mm old school, hated Leica slrs, loved Nikon F2 and F3

Digital hated any Kodak DCS camera , the worst cameras ever made. My favorite at the moment is again a tie between big stuff the Sony A7RV and for little stuff my Sony RX1RIII

Click to expand...

I sold cameras for over 30 years , most of those in fact buying cameas for the shops I worked for.

I have NEVER heard anyone refer to Victor Hasselblad (and co) as a fool nor met anyone that had as many problems as you with that brand.

Indeed they did and do brake down but I have not ever come across a medium format camera that did not have some known issues.

I see that you were very quick dismissing NASA 's choice because, according to you, they were not to be used day after day however I do suspect (....) that NASA chose the brand that they judged to be the most relieble for the intended use.

For another point, Hasselblad still exists now, where are all the others ? Mamiya, Rollei, Bronica, Pentax MF, Kowa ? (yes Fujifilm is still making them....) Seems to me that if they were that badly designed and full of flows they woud have gone out of business a long time ago , well before the rest.

In past threads when someone would be raving on about how great the Blads were, I have pointed out that they broke down too, just like the rest....so yes , I understand your frustration but it was a bit over the top.

Click to expand...

NASA wanted and got a modified motorized camera, which they eventually stoped using, they entire time they had Hasselblads they used Nikons as well, which they still use in the age of digital.

The vast majority of Hasselblads I sold even in the heart of the commercial professional market were sold to I hate the term but Doctors and Lawyer types. Sure there were lots of pros using them but the Hasselblads faded in the market until the H1 series done with Fuji, who made the lenses. The H1 came out at the perfect time as we started our transition to medium format digital. Like I said I shot with the Contax 6X4.5, the Hassleblad and then the Leaf/Rollei and finally the last camera before I retired the Hasselblad with a Phase One back. Rollei is interesting camera, the Leaf camera they made together had amazing potential, but again desisgn flaws. They made a great zoom that was perfect for what I was shooting at the time, but it broke down at least three times withe last being irreparable, because I was shockingly told it was never designed to shoot the number of frames per day I was doing. Those other medium format cameras all died because there was never a good solution to mount a digital back on them, no 6X7 digital backs were made ito the best of my memory. I tried to use a special mount to still use the FujiGX680III with a digital back it just did not work out. The little Mamiya had a focal plane shutter, I think and that held it back. I knew other pro photographers that hung on to their RZs with a digital back mount. it was too awkward for me. Those cameras left because they never made the digital leap as well as Hasselblad. The other issue with the other caamera makers was the market for medium digital capture was so much smaller than it was with film. Those medium format digital cameras were very expensive.

I never said I had an issue with all Hasselblads just the 500cm, and I will repeat my cameras went trough hundreds of rolls on any given shoot, multiple days of the week. I shot a lot pushing those cameras way beyond a casual use.

I also find it funny that DJI now owns Hasselblad

Lastly if you sold these %00CM and never had a custome mention that the top of the fram was missing in the viewdfinder with a 250 then the really did not use that camera.

landshark said:

Hal Wilson said:

You see, I'm sure that many people have/had issues with all sorts of cameras. Much of what you're listing as 'flaws' with the Hasselblads are down to incorrect handling. I certainly never had the issues you mention. Ok, so there were things you didn't like, that's fine. Doesn't mean the designer was a 'fool' as you put it. It just means that YOU didn't get on with it. I've never found the Leica rangefinder system to be as quick or accurate as an SLR; a problem exacerbated by my wearing spectacles. But tons of people loved that design, and had great success with it. You see my point? Equally, I knew loads of people who loved owning and shooting with Hasselblads. Some truly excellent photographers too. Many pros. So YOUR experience isn't necessarily the same as others. This is what I'm asking you to bear in mind.

As for the RZ67; I've also used that, and once again it's significantly larger and more cumbersome to use than a Hassy. There's no getting away from that. And I do remember some people having issues with the electronics of those. So; nothing's perfect.

I'm sure that if the Hasselblad design was so poor, NASA would have chosen something else. But then, what do they know, eh?

Click to expand...

Again this was MY reasons for hating the camera, I never said it was anybody else's, but just because others put up with the flaws does not mean it did not have design flaws. How in any way could my incorrect handling the camera have anything to do with the mirror being to short for a full view with a tele lens, or being unable to put on a polaroid back with an eye level finder, or the method needed to un-jam the camera or lastly a back mount system that everybody I knew who shot with one had issues with. I not only used the camera I sold them at the pro store in Hollywood that I managed in my early twenties. It seems to me that your experience with the camera was on a hobbyist level, where many of these heavy use issues would not have come up.

Click to expand...

See; you're still missing the point. No camera is perfect. All cameras have 'flaws' of some kind. For me, the Nikon F3 lacked a proper hotshoe, only had 1/2000" top shutter speed and a poor 1/80" flash sync speed. I much preferred the FM2 with its hotshoe, 1/4000" and 1/250" sync. The F3 had a better viewfinder though, so the FM2 was 'flawed'. I'm not hurling insults at the designers because of these things though. We all have subjective experiences and opinions; as we've seen here, others don't agree with you. No amount of anecdotes and attempts to assert your credentials will change the opinions of those who have different experiences. Hence why it's pretty silly to call renowned camera designers 'fools'. I hope you understand this.

landshark said:

The use by NASA says nothing about the use of a camera for day to day work

Click to expand...

Well, it really does. They will have used all sorts of cameras to record information in all sorts of ways. And decided that the Hasselblads were the best tools for the job. This is NASA. I'm pretty sure NASA scientists didn't go round calling Hasselblad designers 'fools'. No; they will have worked with those designers to help create specific products for their tasks. Hasselblads cameras have been to the Moon. Have you been to the Moon? No, so you can't tell how well they work in that environment, can you? You see? This is why it's silly to dismiss something YOU didn't get on with, in the way you have. I hope you understand this.

Hal Wilson said:

landshark said:

Hal Wilson said:

You see, I'm sure that many people have/had issues with all sorts of cameras. Much of what you're listing as 'flaws' with the Hasselblads are down to incorrect handling. I certainly never had the issues you mention. Ok, so there were things you didn't like, that's fine. Doesn't mean the designer was a 'fool' as you put it. It just means that YOU didn't get on with it. I've never found the Leica rangefinder system to be as quick or accurate as an SLR; a problem exacerbated by my wearing spectacles. But tons of people loved that design, and had great success with it. You see my point? Equally, I knew loads of people who loved owning and shooting with Hasselblads. Some truly excellent photographers too. Many pros. So YOUR experience isn't necessarily the same as others. This is what I'm asking you to bear in mind.

As for the RZ67; I've also used that, and once again it's significantly larger and more cumbersome to use than a Hassy. There's no getting away from that. And I do remember some people having issues with the electronics of those. So; nothing's perfect.

I'm sure that if the Hasselblad design was so poor, NASA would have chosen something else. But then, what do they know, eh?

Click to expand...

Again this was MY reasons for hating the camera, I never said it was anybody else's, but just because others put up with the flaws does not mean it did not have design flaws. How in any way could my incorrect handling the camera have anything to do with the mirror being to short for a full view with a tele lens, or being unable to put on a polaroid back with an eye level finder, or the method needed to un-jam the camera or lastly a back mount system that everybody I knew who shot with one had issues with. I not only used the camera I sold them at the pro store in Hollywood that I managed in my early twenties. It seems to me that your experience with the camera was on a hobbyist level, where many of these heavy use issues would not have come up.

Click to expand...

See; you're still missing the point. No camera is perfect. All cameras have 'flaws' of some kind. For me, the Nikon F3 lacked a proper hotshoe, only had 1/2000" top shutter speed and a poor 1/80" flash sync speed. I much preferred the FM2 with its hotshoe, 1/4000" and 1/250" sync. The F3 had a better viewfinder though, so the FM2 was 'flawed'. I'm not hurling insults at the designers because of these things though. We all have subjective experiences and opinions; as we've seen here, others don't agree with you. No amount of anecdotes and attempts to assert your credentials will change the opinions of those who have different experiences. Hence why it's pretty silly to call renowned camera designers 'fools'. I hope you understand this.

Hal Wilson said:

The use by NASA says nothing about the use of a camera for day to day work

Click to expand...

Well, it really does. They will have used all sorts of cameras to record information in all sorts of ways. And decided that the Hasselblads were the best tools for the job. This is NASA. I'm pretty sure NASA scientists didn't go round calling Hasselblad designers 'fools'. No; they will have worked with those designers to help create specific products for their tasks. Hasselblads cameras have been to the Moon. Have you been to the Moon? No, so you can't tell how well they work in that environment, can you? You see? This is why it's silly to dismiss something YOU didn't get on with, in the way you have. I hope you understand this.

Click to expand...

Wow wow , again I am sorry but there is a big difference between making a camera with flaws that the "foolish" company took years to address and small work a rounds that all cameras have. I will repeat , the mirror was designed and engineered in such away that it cut off the top of the frame which prevented one the ability to see what they were shooting with tight portraits with any confidence. I made my living having to shoot people, it was more than an annoyance, unlike the F3 hotshoe which had a workaround. The back pins that easily came out of alignment -is a flaw having a different sync speed is just a feature of one camera over another.

Yes the Nikon FM2 had a faster shutter than the F3, it also had the fastest shutter than any focal plane camera of it's day. At the same time it had other tradeoffs to the F3 that one had to decide what was more important for their kind of work. Everyday use for me was the F3, with the FM2 being used for what it offered when needed. The Hassy offer no such two camera choice.

Also the NASA point does not really apply, they needed a motorized medium format camera, there were really no others on the market. I am also sure they did not change backs often and if you will notice in the image provided, there is no viewfinder so any mirror cutoff did not apply. Finally that NASA camera was modified for NASA you could not buy one so, i do not see how it has anything really to offer in this discussion.I never implied the Hassy did not function, just there were bad design decisions that took years to correct

When the Hasselblad 500CM was introduced there was very little on the market that could do what it could.So when the better mouse trap came out I used that camera instead and I stand by my original comment one of the best days in camera use came the day I unloaded all of my Hassy gear and bought a Mamya RZ67. I had to use those cameras day in and day out.

There are a number of cameras over the years that many love for reason that have almost nothing to do with real hard everyday use. Some cameras have unique abilities, some appeal to those that like tradition or perceived luxury, some because of nostalgia, some bring out an emotional feeling when shooting . Where I differ from your perspective, is I do not hold any camera in some rarefied space of brand loyalty. Cameras are tools so when a company takes years to address their design flaws somebody there is a fool, whether you wish to agree or not. Hasselblad bet on their perceived superior quality for years and almost completely faded away if it were not for Fuji, Imacon and now DJI.

I do understand and I have said these were my reasons to hate this camera with it's real world design flaws. To each his own, if you would like I can list all the cameras I have ever used or owned but it feels sort of pointless, since you are convinced it is my mishandling of cameras more than the cameras them selves

And if one reads all of my comments, in the end I went back to using a Hassy because at the time it was the best at what I needed then.


Bob
Please Do not copy, edit or use photos without permission from me

Camera I love: Fuji X100S

Camera I hate: Fuji X100S

It is so beautiful, but also so clumsy to use.

Get rid of the camera system you hate, keep the camera system you love. Then the angst about which camera system to go out and use magically disappears.

landshark said:

Wow wow , again I am sorry but there is a big difference between making a camera with flaws that the "foolish" company took years to address and small work a rounds that all cameras have. I will repeat , the mirror was designed and engineered in such away that it cut off the top of the frame which prevented one the ability to see what they were shooting with tight portraits with any confidence. I made my living having to shoot people, it was more than an annoyance, unlike the F3 hotshoe which had a workaround. The back pins that easily came out of alignment -is a flaw having a different sync speed is just a feature of one camera over another.

Yes the Nikon FM2 had a faster shutter than the F3, it also had the fastest shutter than any focal plane camera of it's day. At the same time it had other tradeoffs to the F3 that one had to decide what was more important for their kind of work. Everyday use for me was the F3, with the FM2 being used for what it offered when needed. The Hassy offer no such two camera choice.

Also the NASA point does not really apply, they needed a motorized medium format camera, there were really no others on the market. I am also sure they did not change backs often and if you will notice in the image provided, there is no viewfinder so any mirror cutoff did not apply. Finally that NASA camera was modified for NASA you could not buy one so, i do not see how it has anything really to offer in this discussion.I never implied the Hassy did not function, just there were bad design decisions that took years to correct

When the Hasselblad 500CM was introduced there was very little on the market that could do what it could.So when the better mouse trap came out I used that camera instead and I stand by my original comment one of the best days in camera use came the day I unloaded all of my Hassy gear and bought a Mamya RZ67. I had to use those cameras day in and day out.

There are a number of cameras over the years that many love for reason that have almost nothing to do with real hard everyday use. Some cameras have unique abilities, some appeal to those that like tradition or perceived luxury, some because of nostalgia, some bring out an emotional feeling when shooting . Where I differ from your perspective, is I do not hold any camera in some rarefied space of brand loyalty. Cameras are tools so when a company takes years to address their design flaws somebody there is a fool, whether you wish to agree or not. Hasselblad bet on their perceived superior quality for years and almost completely faded away if it were not for Fuji, Imacon and now DJI.

I do understand and I have said these were my reasons to hate this camera with it's real world design flaws. To each his own, if you would like I can list all the cameras I have ever used or owned but it feels sort of pointless, since you are convinced it is my mishandling of cameras more than the cameras them selves

And if one reads all of my comments, in the end I went back to using a Hassy because at the time it was the best at what I needed then.

Bob
Please Do not copy, edit or use photos without permission from me
https://www.instagram.com/damicob/

Click to expand...

As a professional photographer you are in a very different position from an amateur who might be able to afford only one camera and associated lenses. You can, in effect, enjoy the luxury of disliking a camera and selling it if it falls short of your requirements. I can't do that, I need a camera that does everything I want and I need to buy the right model first time or put up with the flaws.

I never tried an F3 but I know from just looking at it that I wouldn't have liked it, even with a motordrive. The FM2 was flawed too, the on/off switch in the film advance lever for example. Every camera has flaws but for someone intending to buy only one model they matter more because I will always have to use the work around, better, for me, to buy a camera with flaws in areas I will rarely use. However, I use a camera only a few times each week so it might take a long time to find the faults, if you use a camera every day they will soon become apparent and even annoying.

Clearly your experience wasn't good with the 500CM, nobody can say that what you experienced is wrong, what you experienced, you experienced. I would be interested to know whether you passed your observations back to the manufacturer. If nobody tells them they can't fix it.

Sam--I have two S5iiX bodies, purchased for long run video, and occasional photo. Absolutely love them for video, but they are slow, clunky, low burst rate for stills. I have a Sony A1 that is fast, but clumsy for video, good for stills, but heavy and bulky. The A1 IBIS is not close to any m43 or recent Panasonic FF camera. I also have m43 OM-1.1 and G9ii for my long reach Oly lenses. Both excellent.

This year I tried the S5iiX for stills and video for kids sports. Results were excellent for both but I was slow switching between video and stills. But the burst rates using mechanical shutter were also too slow on the S5iiX. This is my main gripe about the S5iiX as far as results go.

Then the S1Rii was released but I held off, not needing the higher resolution sensor or the slower readout speeds for most of what I shoot. I held off, in spite of seeing some other changes that were of interest to me over the S5iiX.

When the S1ii came out, I saw what looked like a good match for me. Tilt/flip screen, fast sensor, faster burst rates, separate video and photo modes with a flip of one switch, responsive user interface, and a controls lock. I bought one. After only a few weeks of use, I find that I could live without the A1. No more accidentally changing settings, fewer missed shots with the higher burst rates, easy switch between photo and video mode, responsive controls, etc. Now I'm happy.

I'm finding that in my late 70's, my tolerance for poor user interface features is less and less for personal family photo/video use. I don't like having three or four different camera systems to navigate through. I love having a G9ii to use alongside the S5ii/S1ii full frame cameras, especially the S1ii. I'm not using the A1 often at all. I'm not using the OM-1 much either. Both are excellent for some uses/users however.

But the premise here for me is that photo and video quality for all of my gear choices are perfectly fine, so the "user experience" is the deciding factor. The grand kids are only going to get faster and more challenging to shoot. I'm only going to get slower and less tolerant of frustrating controls/functionality. I won't use a camera that irritates me, bottom line.

Joe L

landshark said:

Hal Wilson said:

landshark said:

Hal Wilson said:

You see, I'm sure that many people have/had issues with all sorts of cameras. Much of what you're listing as 'flaws' with the Hasselblads are down to incorrect handling. I certainly never had the issues you mention. Ok, so there were things you didn't like, that's fine. Doesn't mean the designer was a 'fool' as you put it. It just means that YOU didn't get on with it. I've never found the Leica rangefinder system to be as quick or accurate as an SLR; a problem exacerbated by my wearing spectacles. But tons of people loved that design, and had great success with it. You see my point? Equally, I knew loads of people who loved owning and shooting with Hasselblads. Some truly excellent photographers too. Many pros. So YOUR experience isn't necessarily the same as others. This is what I'm asking you to bear in mind.

As for the RZ67; I've also used that, and once again it's significantly larger and more cumbersome to use than a Hassy. There's no getting away from that. And I do remember some people having issues with the electronics of those. So; nothing's perfect.

I'm sure that if the Hasselblad design was so poor, NASA would have chosen something else. But then, what do they know, eh?

Click to expand...

Again this was MY reasons for hating the camera, I never said it was anybody else's, but just because others put up with the flaws does not mean it did not have design flaws. How in any way could my incorrect handling the camera have anything to do with the mirror being to short for a full view with a tele lens, or being unable to put on a polaroid back with an eye level finder, or the method needed to un-jam the camera or lastly a back mount system that everybody I knew who shot with one had issues with. I not only used the camera I sold them at the pro store in Hollywood that I managed in my early twenties. It seems to me that your experience with the camera was on a hobbyist level, where many of these heavy use issues would not have come up.

Click to expand...

See; you're still missing the point. No camera is perfect. All cameras have 'flaws' of some kind. For me, the Nikon F3 lacked a proper hotshoe, only had 1/2000" top shutter speed and a poor 1/80" flash sync speed. I much preferred the FM2 with its hotshoe, 1/4000" and 1/250" sync. The F3 had a better viewfinder though, so the FM2 was 'flawed'. I'm not hurling insults at the designers because of these things though. We all have subjective experiences and opinions; as we've seen here, others don't agree with you. No amount of anecdotes and attempts to assert your credentials will change the opinions of those who have different experiences. Hence why it's pretty silly to call renowned camera designers 'fools'. I hope you understand this.

landshark said:

The use by NASA says nothing about the use of a camera for day to day work

Click to expand...

Well, it really does. They will have used all sorts of cameras to record information in all sorts of ways. And decided that the Hasselblads were the best tools for the job. This is NASA. I'm pretty sure NASA scientists didn't go round calling Hasselblad designers 'fools'. No; they will have worked with those designers to help create specific products for their tasks. Hasselblads cameras have been to the Moon. Have you been to the Moon? No, so you can't tell how well they work in that environment, can you? You see? This is why it's silly to dismiss something YOU didn't get on with, in the way you have. I hope you understand this.

Click to expand...

Wow wow , again I am sorry but there is a big difference between making a camera with flaws that the "foolish" company took years to address

Click to expand...

Never heard anyone but you moan about such 'flaws'.

landshark said:

and small work a rounds that all cameras have. I will repeat , the mirror was designed and engineered in such away that it cut off the top of the frame which prevented one the ability to see what they were shooting with tight portraits with any confidence.

Click to expand...

Yet other people managed it fine.

landshark said:

I made my living having to shoot people, it was more than an annoyance, unlike the F3 hotshoe which had a workaround.

Click to expand...

This comment illustrates my point beautifully. You choose to ignore what others see as a 'flaw' in the design of the F3; you could buy an adapter to use hotshoe flashes, but that was an extra expense. Or you were limited to certain Nikon flashguns. The offset flash attachment placed the flash to the side, thus altering the balance of the camera negatively. Oh look; Nikon released a 'Press' version of the F3, with a hotshoe on top of the prism. Why? Because loads of photojournalists moaned about the 'flaw'.

landshark said:

The back pins that easily came out of alignment -is a flaw having a different sync speed is just a feature of one camera over another.

Click to expand...

Never heard of anyone else having this issue. User error, perhaps?

landshark said:

Yes the Nikon FM2 had a faster shutter than the F3, it also had the fastest shutter than any focal plane camera of it's day. At the same time it had other tradeoffs to the F3 that one had to decide what was more important for their kind of work. Everyday use for me was the F3, with the FM2 being used for what it offered when needed. The Hassy offer no such two camera choice.

Click to expand...

So you're basically agreeing with me about certain features being seen as 'flaws' in cameras? Thanks. I knew we'd get there in the end...

landshark said:

Also the NASA point does not really apply, they needed a motorized medium format camera, there were really no others on the market. I am also sure they did not change backs often and if you will notice in the image provided, there is no viewfinder so any mirror cutoff did not apply. Finally that NASA camera was modified for NASA you could not buy one so, i do not see how it has anything really to offer in this discussion.I never implied the Hassy did not function, just there were bad design decisions that took years to correct

Click to expand...

Oh dear. You clearly know very little about NASA's photographic endeavours. That was not the only Hasselblad camera used by NASA; they used loads, for all sorts of different purposes. As well as many other makes and models of cameras. Most of them simply off the shelf, unmodified units. The vast majority of the stuff NASA does never makes it into Space.

landshark said:

Where I differ from your perspective, is I do not hold any camera in some rarefied space of brand loyalty.

Click to expand...

Totally wrong assumption. Don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion.

landshark said:

Cameras are tools so when a company takes years to address their design flaws somebody there is a fool, whether you wish to agree or not.

Click to expand...

Well, they're clearly not, as we've ascertained here. I don't have to agree with something that's clearly wrong.

Interesting article about the Hasselblad Moon cameras:

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/13/735314929/the-camera-that-went-to-the-moon-and-changed-how-we-see-it

GeoffRG said:

As a professional photographer you are in a very different position from an amateur how might be able to afford only one camera and associated lenses. You can, in effect, enjoy the luxury of disliking a camera and selling it if it galls short of your requirements. I can't do that, I need a camera that does everything I want and I need to buy the right model first time or put up with the flaws.

I never tried an F3 but I know from just looking at it that I wouldn't have liked it, even with a motordrive. The FM2 was flawed too, the on/off switch in the film advance lever for example. Every camera has flaws but for someone intending to buy only one model they matter more because I will always have to use the work around, better, for me, to buy a camera with flaws in areas I will rarely use. However, I use a camera only a few times each week so it might take a long time to find the faults, if you use a camera every day they will soon become apparent and even annoying.

Clearly your experience wasn't good with the 500CM, nobody can say that what you experienced is wrong, what you experienced, you experienced. I would be interested to know whether you passed your observations back to the manufacturer. If nobody tells them they can't fix it.

Click to expand...

A 'flaw' would be something that prevents normal use, surely? For me, the F3's lack of hotshoe, plus its slow flash sync speed prevented the easy use of regular flashguns, and fill-in flash in bright light. The FM2 didn't have such problems, for me. The film advance switch thing was something I really liked about that camera. It prevented accidental firing. So here we see how such issues can be very subjective. A friend loved the F3, much preferred it over the FM2 for the feel and the viewfinder (if I were to change anything about the FM2, it would be to add the HP finder of the F3). So perhaps both cameras can be seen as 'flawed'; not perfect for everyone. But nothing ever is perfect. Everything is a compromise. And hating something that's not perfect for YOU is just....foolish.

The official number of Hasselblad cameras used during the Apollo missions is 15, 12 are still on the Moon today...

(it will be VERY disappointing for all the Moon landing deniers when some will be retrived...)

Interestingly the 500c was chosen following a suggestion by the astronaut Walter Shirra who happened to have one of those for his own hobby.

Shirra was the first one to use the modified (lighter version) in space.



before that they used a shop purchased Ansco Autoset, made by Minolta

Hal Wilson said:

GeoffRG said:

As a professional photographer you are in a very different position from an amateur how might be able to afford only one camera and associated lenses. You can, in effect, enjoy the luxury of disliking a camera and selling it if it galls short of your requirements. I can't do that, I need a camera that does everything I want and I need to buy the right model first time or put up with the flaws.

I never tried an F3 but I know from just looking at it that I wouldn't have liked it, even with a motordrive. The FM2 was flawed too, the on/off switch in the film advance lever for example. Every camera has flaws but for someone intending to buy only one model they matter more because I will always have to use the work around, better, for me, to buy a camera with flaws in areas I will rarely use. However, I use a camera only a few times each week so it might take a long time to find the faults, if you use a camera every day they will soon become apparent and even annoying.

Clearly your experience wasn't good with the 500CM, nobody can say that what you experienced is wrong, what you experienced, you experienced. I would be interested to know whether you passed your observations back to the manufacturer. If nobody tells them they can't fix it.

Click to expand...

A 'flaw' would be something that prevents normal use, surely?

Click to expand...

Having the film advance lever poking you in the eye prevents normal use, if you are left eye dominant.

Hal Wilson said:

For me, the F3's lack of hotshoe, plus its slow flash sync speed prevented the easy use of regular flashguns, and fill-in flash in bright light. The FM2 didn't have such problems, for me. The film advance switch thing was something I really liked about that camera. It prevented accidental firing. So here we see how such issues can be very subjective. A friend loved the F3, much preferred it over the FM2 for the feel and the viewfinder (if I were to change anything about the FM2, it would be to add the HP finder of the F3). So perhaps both cameras can be seen as 'flawed'; not perfect for everyone. But nothing ever is perfect. Everything is a compromise. And hating something that's not perfect for YOU is just....foolish.

Click to expand...

Hating something is pretty illogical at any time. Buying a camera that you know has serious flaws is also pretty illogical to me, I had a couple of F4s bodies that were enjoyable to use and didn't have the flaws and severely, to me, compromised ergonomics of the F3 but at the cost of a lock on almost every control.

I wouldn't call a failure to address a known problem "foolish", I would call it unresponsive but, before you can even say that you need to ensure that the manufacturer is aware of the problem, so, I ask again, did you tell them?

GeoffRG said:

Hal Wilson said:

A 'flaw' would be something that prevents normal use, surely?

Click to expand...

Having the film advance lever poking you in the eye prevents normal use, if you are left eye dominant.

Click to expand...

That's fair enough; I hadn't considered that. Never been an issue for me as I am comfortable using my right eye. But it's a 'flaw' for you, yet not for me (and others)'. See what I mean? Whether or not something is a 'flaw' can be very subjective.

GeoffRG said:

GeoffRG said:

For me, the F3's lack of hotshoe, plus its slow flash sync speed prevented the easy use of regular flashguns, and fill-in flash in bright light. The FM2 didn't have such problems, for me. The film advance switch thing was something I really liked about that camera. It prevented accidental firing. So here we see how such issues can be very subjective. A friend loved the F3, much preferred it over the FM2 for the feel and the viewfinder (if I were to change anything about the FM2, it would be to add the HP finder of the F3). So perhaps both cameras can be seen as 'flawed'; not perfect for everyone. But nothing ever is perfect. Everything is a compromise. And hating something that's not perfect for YOU is just....foolish.

Click to expand...

Hating something is pretty illogical at any time. Buying a camera that you know has serious flaws is also pretty illogical to me, I had a couple of F4s bodies that were enjoyable to use and didn't have the flaws and severely, to me, compromised ergonomics of the F3 but at the cost of a lock on almost every control.

Click to expand...

Ooh, I quite like the locks on the controls. Prevents accidentally moving the dials. My Z50ii has a 'flaw' in that it's too easy to knock the mode dial to another setting. So again; that's not a 'flaw' for me.

GeoffRG said:

I wouldn't call a failure to address a known problem "foolish", I would call it unresponsive but, before you can even say that you need to ensure that the manufacturer is aware of the problem, so, I ask again, did you tell them?

Click to expand...

Isn't it just easier to moan about things on the internet? ;-)

GeoffRG said:

Hal Wilson said:

GeoffRG said:

As a professional photographer you are in a very different position from an amateur how might be able to afford only one camera and associated lenses. You can, in effect, enjoy the luxury of disliking a camera and selling it if it galls short of your requirements. I can't do that, I need a camera that does everything I want and I need to buy the right model first time or put up with the flaws.

I never tried an F3 but I know from just looking at it that I wouldn't have liked it, even with a motordrive. The FM2 was flawed too, the on/off switch in the film advance lever for example. Every camera has flaws but for someone intending to buy only one model they matter more because I will always have to use the work around, better, for me, to buy a camera with flaws in areas I will rarely use. However, I use a camera only a few times each week so it might take a long time to find the faults, if you use a camera every day they will soon become apparent and even annoying.

Clearly your experience wasn't good with the 500CM, nobody can say that what you experienced is wrong, what you experienced, you experienced. I would be interested to know whether you passed your observations back to the manufacturer. If nobody tells them they can't fix it.

Click to expand...

A 'flaw' would be something that prevents normal use, surely?

Click to expand...

Having the film advance lever poking you in the eye prevents normal use, if you are left eye dominant.

GeoffRG said:

For me, the F3's lack of hotshoe, plus its slow flash sync speed prevented the easy use of regular flashguns, and fill-in flash in bright light. The FM2 didn't have such problems, for me. The film advance switch thing was something I really liked about that camera. It prevented accidental firing. So here we see how such issues can be very subjective. A friend loved the F3, much preferred it over the FM2 for the feel and the viewfinder (if I were to change anything about the FM2, it would be to add the HP finder of the F3). So perhaps both cameras can be seen as 'flawed'; not perfect for everyone. But nothing ever is perfect. Everything is a compromise. And hating something that's not perfect for YOU is just....foolish.

Click to expand...

Hating something is pretty illogical at any time. Buying a camera that you know has serious flaws is also pretty illogical to me, I had a couple of F4s bodies that were enjoyable to use and didn't have the flaws and severely, to me, compromised ergonomics of the F3 but at the cost of a lock on almost every control.

I wouldn't call a failure to address a known problem "foolish", I would call it unresponsive but, before you can even say that you need to ensure that the manufacturer is aware of the problem, so, I ask again, did you tell them?

Click to expand...

to answer your question yes I told them multiple times and yes they were aware of the problem with the backs and eventually addressed it with a single stronger bar with the two ears on it. It just took them a long time to do it. So I guess being a user and salesman of their product, I was not the only one that had the same issue. So they eventually moved to improve the poor design they started with.

Hal Wilson said:

GeoffRG said:

Hal Wilson said:

A 'flaw' would be something that prevents normal use, surely?

Click to expand...

Having the film advance lever poking you in the eye prevents normal use, if you are left eye dominant.

Click to expand...

That's fair enough; I hadn't considered that. Never been an issue for me as I am comfortable using my right eye. But it's a 'flaw' for you, yet not for me (and others)'. See what I mean? Whether or not something is a 'flaw' can be very subjective.

Hal Wilson said:

Hal Wilson said:

For me, the F3's lack of hotshoe, plus its slow flash sync speed prevented the easy use of regular flashguns, and fill-in flash in bright light. The FM2 didn't have such problems, for me. The film advance switch thing was something I really liked about that camera. It prevented accidental firing. So here we see how such issues can be very subjective. A friend loved the F3, much preferred it over the FM2 for the feel and the viewfinder (if I were to change anything about the FM2, it would be to add the HP finder of the F3). So perhaps both cameras can be seen as 'flawed'; not perfect for everyone. But nothing ever is perfect. Everything is a compromise. And hating something that's not perfect for YOU is just....foolish.

Click to expand...

Hating something is pretty illogical at any time. Buying a camera that you know has serious flaws is also pretty illogical to me, I had a couple of F4s bodies that were enjoyable to use and didn't have the flaws and severely, to me, compromised ergonomics of the F3 but at the cost of a lock on almost every control.

Click to expand...

Ooh, I quite like the locks on the controls. Prevents accidentally moving the dials. My Z50ii has a 'flaw' in that it's too easy to knock the mode dial to another setting. So again; that's not a 'flaw' for me.

Click to expand...

In theory, it's a good idea, in practice a robust detent mechanism would be better. The mode is selected by a lever under the exposure compensation dial, the mode doesn't have a lock (not so good) the exposure compensation dial does (also not so good) it's the most difficult to operate with the camera to an eye.

Hal Wilson said:

Hal Wilson said:

I wouldn't call a failure to address a known problem "foolish", I would call it unresponsive but, before you can even say that you need to ensure that the manufacturer is aware of the problem, so, I ask again, did you tell them?

Click to expand...

Isn't it just easier to moan about things on the internet? ;-)

Click to expand...

Easier but not guaranteed to work

Hal Wilson said:

Never heard anyone but you moan about such 'flaws'.

Click to expand...

Hal Wilson said:

Yet other people managed it fine.

Click to expand...

Who are all these other people, perhaps you never new all the pros who used one

Hal Wilson said:

Hal Wilson said:

I made my living having to shoot people, it was more than an annoyance, unlike the F3 hotshoe which had a workaround.

Click to expand...

This comment illustrates my point beautifully. You choose to ignore what others see as a 'flaw' in the design of the F3; you could buy an adapter to use hotshoe flashes, but that was an extra expense. Or you were limited to certain Nikon flashguns. The offset flash attachment placed the flash to the side, thus altering the balance of the camera negatively. Oh look; Nikon released a 'Press' version of the F3, with a hotshoe on top of the prism. Why? Because loads of photojournalists moaned about the 'flaw'.

Click to expand...

Except the F3's hot shoe was never an issue nor was the flash sync for me, I shot mostly with studio strobes or off camera battery units using a sync cord which was well designed on those cameras because it screwed in. As well a remote trigger, which never minded being on the side. Also when I needed high speed flash sync there was always the Hassy or Mamiya leaf shutter cameras. So what you call a flaw of the f3 I "never" heard any of my fellow pros complain about. As I have said different genres of professional photography have different needs. If your needs were to shoot that Hassy once in awhile then my flaws may have not shown up as a problem, just like me not needing an on camera flash with a F3. I never shot a wedding and only a handful of events, on camera flash was not something I ever needed to do or like for that matter.

You also bring up Nikon forced you to buy the hot shoe adapter but did not comment on how useless a Hassy was on a tripod unless one bought the quick crank which was never offered with the 500CM in the box. Handheld shooters who did not have the quick crank would do the camera flip to wind it not the most convenient design, which I am sure nobody ever complained about.

When it comes to the FM2my biggest flaw with that camera was I had two of them stolen from me in the Madrid airport, my first of fortunately only two equipment thefts over those 45 plus years of shooting professionally.

Again NASA use or choice of cameras has nothing to do with everyday use by those on Earth shooting everyday. Am i to assume that Nikons are much better than Canons or Sonys because NASA chose to use Nikons.

Hal Wilson said:

Hal Wilson said:

Where I differ from your perspective, is I do not hold any camera in some rarefied space of brand loyalty.

Click to expand...

Totally wrong assumption. Don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion.

Hal Wilson said:

Cameras are tools so when a company takes years to address their design flaws somebody there is a fool, whether you wish to agree or not.

Click to expand...

Well, they're clearly not, as we've ascertained here. I don't have to agree with something that's clearly wrong.

Click to expand...

Sorry the fact that you are so triggered by my calling the design flaws of the 500CM foolish seems like more than seeing it as just another tool.

I will admit I have one camera that I have an emotional attachment to, but it is a singular camera. My first Nikon F which I still own because it is where this whole journey started, flaws and all.

Whatever camera you would like to call out as being flawed, I have no issue with, it is your experience. I have zero loyalty to any brand or type of camera, they either did what I needed them to do or not. It was just some that had a few particularly bad design elements in my my experience and use. I have used over 70 camera types and brands, as well as selling even more in my youth, over the years. You can believe my experience with the Hassy 500Cm was user error if you wish, but I and my ex-assistants know better. Good day.

--
Bob
Please Do not copy, edit or use photos without permission from me