Big Purchase: Hasselbald 500cm or Fuji GFX50R?

[Tegid]

Hiya,

I've saved up and I can purchase either:

Hasselblad 500cm + 60CM f2.8 £1700-£2000
OR
Fuji GFX 50R + 63mm OR Mamiya Sekor f1.9 £2600-£3000 (used)

So I know these are two very different cameras and quite different costs too but I'd like peoples thoughts.

I make films for a living, some photography. I own a load of digital and film cameras. (A7iii, A7siii, FX6, Fuji x100V, Rolleiflex Automat, Olympus OM-1, Pentax ME) Examples of what I like to shoot can be found here on my very out of date flickr.

I really like medium format. Technical debates aside, I like the experience, I like the lenses, I really like the theatre of using a camera that shoots medium format. I really enjoy my Rollieflex for instance, but it's a very very inconsistent camera.

I'm looking to do more portraiture in the next year, and some more crafted work with natural light in studios and outdoor. Mostly wrangling friends and family, maybe some models stuff. I also, just want to treat myself to a GREAT camera. I own a lot of very good ones tbf.

Hasselblad 500CM
Love the camera, love that it lasts, love waist level viewfinders. The price is good for me. I'd put some money aside for film and development.
Worry - Film, you know? I shoot a lot of digital and while I enjoy film I've never taken it too seriously? Maybe the camera would change that, maybe not.

GFX 50R
I've REALLY enjoy having the X100V - I'm printing photos straight off it and they look great. I love Fuji colours and can't say enough good things about it tbh. Thats what's tempted me into the GFX system. Digital might mean I just take more pictures?
Price is a bit prohibitive, I'd have to start with a converted lens and then buy a 63mm or an 80mm later in the year when I've earnt some more cash.
Worry - it's digital so it's going to become redundant in a few years in a way that a Hasselblad won't.

There's my exceptionally pleasant conundrum. Looking forward to owning one of them anyhow. Partner is sick of me debating so here I am, asking well-informed strangers instead.

Thanks in advance!

 

[JimKasson]

Hiya,

I've saved up and I can purchase either:

Hasselblad 500cm + 60CM f2.8 £1700-£2000
OR
Fuji GFX 50R + 63mm OR Mamiya Sekor f1.9 £2600-£3000 (used)

So I know these are two very different cameras and quite different costs too but I'd like peoples thoughts.

I make films for a living, some photography. I own a load of digital and film cameras. (A7iii, A7siii, FX6, Fuji x100V, Rolleiflex Automat, Olympus OM-1, Pentax ME) Examples of what I like to shoot can be found here on my very out of date flickr.

I really like medium format. Technical debates aside, I like the experience, I like the lenses, I really like the theatre of using a camera that shoots medium format. I really enjoy my Rollieflex for instance, but it's a very very inconsistent camera.

I'm looking to do more portraiture in the next year, and some more crafted work with natural light in studios and outdoor. Mostly wrangling friends and family, maybe some models stuff. I also, just want to treat myself to a GREAT camera. I own a lot of very good ones tbf.

Hasselblad 500CM
Love the camera, love that it lasts, love waist level viewfinders. The price is good for me. I'd put some money aside for film and development.
Worry - Film, you know? I shoot a lot of digital and while I enjoy film I've never taken it too seriously? Maybe the camera would change that, maybe not.

GFX 50R
I've REALLY enjoy having the X100V - I'm printing photos straight off it and they look great. I love Fuji colours and can't say enough good things about it tbh. Thats what's tempted me into the GFX system. Digital might mean I just take more pictures?
Price is a bit prohibitive, I'd have to start with a converted lens and then buy a 63mm or an 80mm later in the year when I've earnt some more cash.
Worry - it's digital so it's going to become redundant in a few years in a way that a Hasselblad won't.
There's my exceptionally pleasant conundrum. Looking forward to owning one of them anyhow. Partner is sick of me debating so here I am, asking well-informed strangers instead.

Thanks in advance!

I would buy the 'blad only if I wanted to do all chemical (darkroom) processing through to final mounted print.

 

[SrMi]

Hiya,

I've saved up and I can purchase either:

Hasselblad 500cm + 60CM f2.8 £1700-£2000
OR
Fuji GFX 50R + 63mm OR Mamiya Sekor f1.9 £2600-£3000 (used)

So I know these are two very different cameras and quite different costs too but I'd like peoples thoughts.

I make films for a living, some photography. I own a load of digital and film cameras. (A7iii, A7siii, FX6, Fuji x100V, Rolleiflex Automat, Olympus OM-1, Pentax ME) Examples of what I like to shoot can be found here on my very out of date flickr.

I really like medium format. Technical debates aside, I like the experience, I like the lenses, I really like the theatre of using a camera that shoots medium format. I really enjoy my Rollieflex for instance, but it's a very very inconsistent camera.

I'm looking to do more portraiture in the next year, and some more crafted work with natural light in studios and outdoor. Mostly wrangling friends and family, maybe some models stuff. I also, just want to treat myself to a GREAT camera. I own a lot of very good ones tbf.

Hasselblad 500CM
Love the camera, love that it lasts, love waist level viewfinders. The price is good for me. I'd put some money aside for film and development.
Worry - Film, you know? I shoot a lot of digital and while I enjoy film I've never taken it too seriously? Maybe the camera would change that, maybe not.

GFX 50R
I've REALLY enjoy having the X100V - I'm printing photos straight off it and they look great. I love Fuji colours and can't say enough good things about it tbh. Thats what's tempted me into the GFX system. Digital might mean I just take more pictures?
Price is a bit prohibitive, I'd have to start with a converted lens and then buy a 63mm or an 80mm later in the year when I've earnt some more cash.
Worry - it's digital so it's going to become redundant in a few years in a way that a Hasselblad won't.
There's my exceptionally pleasant conundrum. Looking forward to owning one of them anyhow. Partner is sick of me debating so here I am, asking well-informed strangers instead.

Thanks in advance!

I would buy the 'blad only if I wanted to do all chemical (darkroom) processing through to final mounted print.

IMO, a film camera can be very much enjoyed while using commercial development and scanning the negatives. One does not need to have a darkroom. Next optional step would be to develop film yourself, which could be fun.
it is still more complicated than digital and there is no instant gratification. However, there is something special about film.
There is also great joy of using a mechanical marvel like 5xx series, that is missing in digital cameras.

 

[BlueEventHorizon]

When I was in college about 300 years ago we all wanted a Hasselblad. Nobody had one of course because nobody could afford it.

Couldn't afford the film either, we all shot 35mm purchased in bulk and wound onto reusable cartridges and of course processed our own film and printed in whatever space we could make dark enough.

300 years later and one day I realized that now I could afford a Hasselblad. eBay was absolutely awash with excellent condition bodies and I found a 500 that you would have sworn was brand new. It's my understanding that lots of these things were purchased by professional people who were told they were excellent cameras and that's what they bought. After the new wore off they ended up in the back of a closet where they languished until somebody like me grabbed one, sent it off to David Oddess for CLA, and started up again using a wet darkroom.

Which is where reality set in.

I remembered how much actual work was involved in getting from a shutter click to a paper print. And my wife was less tolerant of my converting the laundry room into a temporary darkroom than my mother had been

But the camera was really fun for me to use, my digital Nikons were collecting dust, and I was finally getting to use the camera of my teams from 300 years ago.

And then I found an actual bargain on a 16mp Hasselblad digital back. The display on the back was good enough to tell you had gotten an exposure but not much else, the small form factor battery was kinda hard to locate, and the AA filter was prone to getting spots underneath, but damn it was fun to use. I even lugged the thing to France one year and never once wished I'd brought something lighter.

Unfortunately the back, much like myself, was elderly and somewhat cranky and I was concerned it was about to brick on me and I really didn't need a multi thousand dollar fishing weight so off it went to eBay. I really should have kept the body but the Fuji GFX50r had just come out and things went off in another direction. If digital backs weren't so expensive I'd probably do the same thing again.

So the point of this rather long and rambeling post is that if you enjoy the photography experience I think you'd have a good time with the Hasselblad. I would suggest however that you send it off to David Odess for a CLA.

If you just want to make some photos get the Fuji

--
https://www.thecoupleonthetrain.com/f502784390

 

[JimKasson]

IMO, a film camera can be very much enjoyed while using commercial development and scanning the negatives.

I've been scanning a lot of 6x6 501c TMX and TX negs in the last month. I can tell you that the overall quality is a big step down from a GFX 100x capture.

One does not need to have a darkroom. Next optional step would be to develop film yourself, which could be fun.

The only time I thought developing film was fun was when I was about 7 years old. After that, it was routine, and not something at which you could excel, but only something that you could, with skill and luck, not screw up. It is a purely mechanical operation if you're not developing by inspection, which I don't recommend at all.

it is still more complicated than digital and there is no instant gratification. However, there is something special about film.

There is something special about an optical silver gelatin print, especially an 8x10 or larger contact print.

There is also great joy of using a mechanical marvel like 5xx series, that is missing in digital cameras.

 

[SrMi]

IMO, a film camera can be very much enjoyed while using commercial development and scanning the negatives.

I've been scanning a lot of 6x6 501c TMX and TX negs in the last month. I can tell you that the overall quality is a big step down from a GFX 100x capture.

I agree that the technical quality is a step-down. However, have you noticed how much effort is spent trying to emulate film with digital?

One does not need to have a darkroom. Next optional step would be to develop film yourself, which could be fun.

The only time I thought developing film was fun was when I was about 7 years old. After that, it was routine, and not something at which you could excel, but only something that you could, with skill and luck, not screw up. It is a purely mechanical operation if you're not developing by inspection, which I don't recommend at all.

By 'fun', I mean that one can be creative with development. I read about people having fun with it. I wouldn't know .

it is still more complicated than digital and there is no instant gratification. However, there is something special about film.

There is something special about an optical silver gelatin print, especially an 8x10 or larger contact print.

No doubt, to get the maximum out of a film is to go the 'chemical' way. But, IMO, you can enjoy the film even without extracting its full potential. The same is valid for digital.

There is also great joy of using a mechanical marvel like 5xx series, that is missing in digital cameras.

 

[Rich42]

IMO, a film camera can be very much enjoyed while using commercial development and scanning the negatives.

I've been scanning a lot of 6x6 501c TMX and TX negs in the last month. I can tell you that the overall quality is a big step down from a GFX 100x capture.

I agree that the technical quality is a step-down. However, have you noticed how much effort is spent trying to emulate film with digital?

Have you noticed how poor a choice that is? Hopefully, such nonsense will slowly go away.

One does not need to have a darkroom. Next optional step would be to develop film yourself, which could be fun.

The only time I thought developing film was fun was when I was about 7 years old. After that, it was routine, and not something at which you could excel, but only something that you could, with skill and luck, not screw up. It is a purely mechanical operation if you're not developing by inspection, which I don't recommend at all.

By 'fun', I mean that one can be creative with development. I read about people having fun with it. I wouldn't know .

Creative with development? Development can be modified to accommodate (to some extent) departures from indicated exposure. But the purpose then is to maximize the possible results, given the need for compensation, a process which is even more arduous than standard development itself.

it is still more complicated than digital and there is no instant gratification. However, there is something special about film.

There is something special about an optical silver gelatin print, especially an 8x10 or larger contact print.

No doubt, to get the maximum out of a film is to go the 'chemical' way. But, IMO, you can enjoy the film even without extracting its full potential. The same is valid for digital.

The 'chemical way' gets the maximum out of film? Is there some other way? That works, but is not optimum?

There is also great joy of using a mechanical marvel like 5xx series, that is missing in digital cameras.

Rich

 

[SrMi]

IMO, a film camera can be very much enjoyed while using commercial development and scanning the negatives.

I've been scanning a lot of 6x6 501c TMX and TX negs in the last month. I can tell you that the overall quality is a big step down from a GFX 100x capture.

I agree that the technical quality is a step-down. However, have you noticed how much effort is spent trying to emulate film with digital?

Have you noticed how poor a choice that is? Hopefully, such nonsense will slowly go away.

No argument there, but it is what it is. Many are not happy with what they can accomplish with the default neutral raw files. I think that film emulation is here to stay, especially in Fujiverse.

One does not need to have a darkroom. Next optional step would be to develop film yourself, which could be fun.

The only time I thought developing film was fun was when I was about 7 years old. After that, it was routine, and not something at which you could excel, but only something that you could, with skill and luck, not screw up. It is a purely mechanical operation if you're not developing by inspection, which I don't recommend at all.

By 'fun', I mean that one can be creative with development. I read about people having fun with it. I wouldn't know .

Creative with development? Development can be modified to accommodate (to some extent) departures from indicated exposure. But the purpose then is to maximize the possible results, given the need for compensation, a process which is even more arduous than standard development itself.

it is still more complicated than digital and there is no instant gratification. However, there is something special about film.

There is something special about an optical silver gelatin print, especially an 8x10 or larger contact print.

No doubt, to get the maximum out of a film is to go the 'chemical' way. But, IMO, you can enjoy the film even without extracting its full potential. The same is valid for digital.

The 'chemical way' gets the maximum out of film? Is there some other way? That works, but is not optimum?

A hybrid approach has a lab develop the film, and the user or lab scans the film. Dodge and burning (and other darkroom techniques) occur in the post.

It does not involve chemicals on the user side. But, of course, chemicals are used in film development.

There is also great joy of using a mechanical marvel like 5xx series, that is missing in digital cameras.

Rich

 

[highdesertmesa]

...However, have you noticed how much effort is spent trying to emulate film with digital?...

Conversely, how much effort is put into shooting film in the hopes of achieving the look of the digital emulation? A lot.

 

[Barry Twycross]

I like the GXF50R, it really suits the style of shooting I bought it for, which is slow and considered. A lot more like film used to be.

I couldn't speak to the 63, but I really like the 50 which is more my favorite viewpoint. Or the 110, which is amazing, but bloody expensive and humongous. (or the 30.) The general consensus is you can't go wrong with a GF lens.

I'm pretty much over film, so I wouldn't be going for the Hassy. I have done a little 4x5 work just for amusement, but I don't get much more out of it digitally than I do out of the 50R. Now Jim's suggestion of end to end wet printing is something which might be interesting, but much too much hassle to do except for occasional "fun".

As someone said, you do film for "sport". Film is not an efficient way of producing images.

 

[SrMi]

...However, have you noticed how much effort is spent trying to emulate film with digital?...

Conversely, how much effort is put into shooting film in the hopes of achieving the look of the digital emulation? A lot.

Yeah, that is funny, isn't it .

 

[franticskwerrel]

I don't think you've told us enough of what you're trying to get out of this, personally. Costs aside, what do you hope to get out of these cameras? Or do with the photos after? If you're not doing much processing and pretty much shooting straight out of the camera and you like the look of film, totally go for the Hasselblad. If not, GFX 50R.

Looks like you own the X1D. I use the X1D II and love it. But if you want the GFX, I'd sell the X1D since you'd have that covered. I also shoot film, but not with a 500cm, but an H6D. Everything's different, but I love the experience (albeit a lot more automatic than the 500cm) and the result. It's absolutely for shots I won't process much and put a lot of planning in.

It sounds like this purchase is going to be something made with the heart, and I dunno if you've noticed, but this isn't the best forum for that. I remember all the insults thrown at Hasselblad here and in article comments because people keep looking at the white paper. More "stuff" and features without thinking of the art/what you actually need.

Hiya,

I've saved up and I can purchase either:

Hasselblad 500cm + 60CM f2.8 £1700-£2000
OR
Fuji GFX 50R + 63mm OR Mamiya Sekor f1.9 £2600-£3000 (used)

So I know these are two very different cameras and quite different costs too but I'd like peoples thoughts.

I make films for a living, some photography. I own a load of digital and film cameras. (A7iii, A7siii, FX6, Fuji x100V, Rolleiflex Automat, Olympus OM-1, Pentax ME) Examples of what I like to shoot can be found here on my very out of date flickr.

I really like medium format. Technical debates aside, I like the experience, I like the lenses, I really like the theatre of using a camera that shoots medium format. I really enjoy my Rollieflex for instance, but it's a very very inconsistent camera.

I'm looking to do more portraiture in the next year, and some more crafted work with natural light in studios and outdoor. Mostly wrangling friends and family, maybe some models stuff. I also, just want to treat myself to a GREAT camera. I own a lot of very good ones tbf.

Hasselblad 500CM
Love the camera, love that it lasts, love waist level viewfinders. The price is good for me. I'd put some money aside for film and development.
Worry - Film, you know? I shoot a lot of digital and while I enjoy film I've never taken it too seriously? Maybe the camera would change that, maybe not.

GFX 50R
I've REALLY enjoy having the X100V - I'm printing photos straight off it and they look great. I love Fuji colours and can't say enough good things about it tbh. Thats what's tempted me into the GFX system. Digital might mean I just take more pictures?
Price is a bit prohibitive, I'd have to start with a converted lens and then buy a 63mm or an 80mm later in the year when I've earnt some more cash.
Worry - it's digital so it's going to become redundant in a few years in a way that a Hasselblad won't.
There's my exceptionally pleasant conundrum. Looking forward to owning one of them anyhow. Partner is sick of me debating so here I am, asking well-informed strangers instead.

Thanks in advance!

 

[John Crowe]

I have had excellent results digitizing Velvia 50, in particular, so I have considered a return to film over the past 2 years. My decision not too has been because of the cost of film and processing in my location and of course the effort required.

In the past year I have even bought two medium format lenses that I use to shift and stitch images together on my full frame camera. While I think it would be cool to try them on medium format film, I know it makes far more sense to try them on a GFX.

I suggest to you as well, that it is time to let film go. I know how well the best lenses of the 80's still perform today, so if I do add a GFX at some point, I won't be rushing out to spend a large fortune on the current lenses for it. I will be more interested in adapting some of the best legacy lenses to it, to see what they can do first.

 

[MF ratios]

very interesting thread!

I feel that there is another case to be made about the camera as a tool that influence the way you shoot.

I had a blad and I really loved shooting with it. I also did a small portrait project while tree planting with a Yashicamat. I can tell you that these 2 cameras had a different handling (top finder) that helped to capture moments differently. I also have a 4x5 that I use to develope BW in cafenol (I cant bring myself to dev E-6 and color at home these days).

All this to say that I mostly grab my aps-c fuji for snapshots, the GFX 50R for more carefully framed shots and the 4x5 and 6x6 to relax and enjoy the handwork.

In the end you probably just need to try an option and see for yourself

 

[architekt_1]

IMO, a film camera can be very much enjoyed while using commercial development and scanning the negatives.

I've been scanning a lot of 6x6 501c TMX and TX negs in the last month. I can tell you that the overall quality is a big step down from a GFX 100x capture.

I agree that the technical quality is a step-down. However, have you noticed how much effort is spent trying to emulate film with digital?

One does not need to have a darkroom. Next optional step would be to develop film yourself, which could be fun.

The only time I thought developing film was fun was when I was about 7 years old. After that, it was routine, and not something at which you could excel, but only something that you could, with skill and luck, not screw up. It is a purely mechanical operation if you're not developing by inspection, which I don't recommend at all.

By 'fun', I mean that one can be creative with development. I read about people having fun with it. I wouldn't know .

it is still more complicated than digital and there is no instant gratification. However, there is something special about film.

There is something special about an optical silver gelatin print, especially an 8x10 or larger contact print.

No doubt, to get the maximum out of a film is to go the 'chemical' way. But, IMO, you can enjoy the film even without extracting its full potential. The same is valid for digital.

There is also great joy of using a mechanical marvel like 5xx series, that is missing in digital cameras.

After trying some film, I think although I like the result and the experience, I am uncomfortable about how many waste this process generates, digital is great in this sense. Plus I really do not think GFX pictures look any bad at all.

If I ever went back to film again, I guess I may get a Mamiya 7

 

[Bags27]

I have two large prints in our family room, one I took with a Leica Q, the other with a Mamiya 7. Technically, the IQ of the one with the Q is probably better, but no question which I'm more emotionally attached to.

Today was a so-so day professionally. At 5:00, I went down to my dark room and developed a roll of film. Came up feeling a lot, lot better.

i just find the whole film process, from start to finish, a lot more therapeutic and satisfying than digital. My GFX-R is essentially only being used to digitize film now.

 

[ashleymorrison]

Examples of what I like to shoot can be found here on my very out of date flickr.

.. I really like medium format. Technical debates aside, I like the experience, I like the lenses, I really like the theatre of using a camera that shoots medium format...

.. I'm looking to do more portraiture in the next year, and some more crafted work with natural light in studios and outdoor...

Hasselblad 500CM
Love the camera, love that it lasts, love waist level viewfinders...

.. Maybe the camera would change that, maybe not.

I reckon the Hasselblad will force you to think differently about everything - because to start with, you will probably always need to use a tripod...


(Behind the scenes during the shoot at the Kilmurry Lodge Hotel in Limerick)

.. and then, since you are not relying on a motor drive or auto focus or anything like that to help you, you will find yourself looking at the subject more rather than into viewfinder, as you wait for the right moment to press the shutter...


(Behind the scenes during the shoot in Nelligan's Bar at the Kilmurry Lodge Hotel in Limerick)

.. which you know you won't be able to do again for at least a few seconds.

Would I recommend it?

No!

But then again, you probably won't ever find me standing behind anything else ;-)

--
Cheers
Ashley

 

[hasslebad]

Based on your Flickr photos, I think you would enjoy the Hasselblad. If you shoot film with it, it will definitely look different from your digital images. If you end up buying an old digital back, it would still look different from the images out of your other cameras.



Some of my favorite artists used Hasselblads. I rented them when I was younger, and I bought one several years ago because I’ve always wanted one. I have never regretted it. It is by far my favorite camera. Like many people said, you will likely use it on a tripod, and it is a slower process. It’s not the camera you can use in all situations but I found the people photos and, especially, studio photos to be endearing.

 

[Rich42]

Based on your Flickr photos, I think you would enjoy the Hasselblad. If you shoot film with it, it will definitely look different from your digital images. If you end up buying an old digital back, it would still look different from the images out of your other cameras.

Some of my favorite artists used Hasselblads. I rented them when I was younger, and I bought one several years ago because I’ve always wanted one. I have never regretted it. It is by far my favorite camera. Like many people said, you will likely use it on a tripod, and it is a slower process. It’s not the camera you can use in all situations but I found the people photos and, especially, studio photos to be endearing.

This fella has never used anything else.



I hear he does pretty good work with it.

www.platonphoto.com

Rich

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

If you want to shoot film, Hasselblad is the way to go.

But, film and digital are different animals...

The GFX 50R will give you an excellent digital image, that you can view on screen or print at any size you want.

With film you end up with either a slide that you need to project, or a negative film that you need to scan. Neither will be great, compared to a digital sensor.

Transparency film will have the 'film look', but once you scan it it will have the scanned film look.

I have a Hasselblad 555 ELD, with a 39 MP digital back. That combo can yield great images.
I also used to have a Pentax 67, but I have never used since going digital, although having a pretty decent scanner for 120 film.

So my advice would be:

• If you want best image quality, the GFX 50R is a great option.
• If you want to shoot film, it is OK, but you need to consider your options.
• Scanning film may not be a great option.

At times, I enjoy shooting Hasselblad 555 ELD. Although it is old technology, it can deliver excellent results. But, the digital back I use is still quite expensive. The GFX 50R will be cheaper and deliver far better results.






Hasselblad 555/ELD with P45+


Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles