glad the videos were useful for you :) I think I'm permanently retired from RU-vid but had a lot of fun messing around for a year or two and would recommend giving it a shot if you feel like it
I used a guy in SF who may no longer be working, unfortunately, and was mostly retired when I visited him :( I think Red Dot Repair does Hasselblads so I'd probably use them nowadays.
no longer making videos but some quick thoughts: -80mm is probably a hair sharper but i’m nit picking and they’re both super sharp -65mm viewfinder window is pretty off. tends to capture a lot more. 80mm is actually pretty accurate. -80mm offers better max magnification but you won’t be shooting headshots with either. if you shoot many portraits you’ll probably want an SLR style MF camera too :/ -80mm feels like a wide normal 42mm lens (maybe you’ve shot some pancakes this focal length). 65 feels a bit wider than a 35. obviously different aspect ratio than 35 so your mileage may vary. I would mostly go off of your focal length preferences since these are both excellent and not very characterful/weird lenses (don’t mean that in a negative way). -lenses feel and weigh a similar amount. iirc the 80 is a tiny bit smaller.
yeah, pretty much every non mechanical film camera is on a one way trip to failure. that’s just how it is. one reason to favor mechanical ones. i mostly reach for my Leica for 35mm
Commenting about the sharpness of the Zeiss glass. You mention that they aren't as sharp as other lenses you've used but let me tell ya a story. I saw an ad on CL for a 503cm and two lenses and two film backs. I also own the 907x which includes a digital back that snaps onto the old Hasselblad 503cm turning it into a medium format 50-100 megapixel camera. So I brought the digital back with me when I went to look at the Hasselblad gear he had for sale. The images appeared sharp on the ground glass but looked exactly like your images when captured to the sensor or film. The problem is that there are pads of foam that sit under the mirror and it's metal frame. As the foam dissolves the mirror is no longer in the plane of focus so what you see on the ground glass is sharp but since the mirror is no longer supported by a specific thickness of foam the image is not correctly focused on the sensor or film in the holder. I got a great deal but it required sending the camera into a Hasselblad trained technician to have it fixed. He adjusted the distance of the mirror so it matched the distance to the film and now my film and digital images are sharp as a tack. Couldn't be happier. Have your camera checked for correct focus on the ground glass and I will almost 100% guarantee that you are having exactly the same issue. Or you can borrow a friend's 907x back and test it for yourself. Focus accurately on the ground glass and shoot a pic. If it isn't sharp then try focusing with the back in live view mode and then look through the mirror and see if it is sharp. You will easily be able to determine if it is the lens that's soft or a fault in the focusing path of the camera (the damper pads underneath the mirror that are either gone or have significantly disintegrated).
very interesting. i’ve also wondered about mirror slap - seems like shots are a bit sharper with lockup, but of course that’s a bit of a pain to work with unless you’re on a tripod.
Young man. My suggestion: Go with analogue and a wet darkroom, and only supplement with digital. Get yourself a 4x5 enlarger with a dichroic head (dichroic will allow you two print both B&W and Color negative film). Rule of thumb: Meter all of your negative film at 50% of the speed rated on the box. For example Tri X 400, enter ASA 200 in your meter. Shoot as much of your portrait stuff on black and white film. Images on black and white film age like fine wine (because they don't age at all if processed and stored properly). Images on color negative film do fade but slowly if film processed in pro color lab (another reason to make negative dense). Photography for internet use is over rated. Photography is to celebrate your life and the various things you've done across decades. Digital is good if you have established a system to archival store images 📀 - which most don't do). When you lose a 4TB disk drive of your digital images, it's the equivalent of your film library 🔥 down - a rare event, but much more common in digital data. look into getting yourself into 4x5 camera and lenses. Printing from a 4x5 negative in wet darkroom feels like the ability to mint money. Finally, however tempting, NEVER throw your images or negatives away for ANYONE, including a girlfriend you dont want to know about your other girlfriend. 🤣
I’ve gone back and forth. Everybody starts with zooms and it’s easy to get primes and think “oh it’s sharper ooo bokeh pretty” but a lot of the time it’s better to just get the right shot. And zooms are so good nowadays compared to 10 or 15 years ago.
Doesn't the rewind knob of the MP bother you? I heard that you have to turn it about 40 times. I am a digital leica shooter (Leica M typ 240 which I recently sold). I just bought my first Leica Film camera, a M6 TTL. I am thinking about buying the new M6 vs the MP to augment my M6 TTL.
Honestly yes, it’s annoying, and it’s also hard to grip well since it’s slippery brass. I assume they did it so it’s “more vintage” / more like an m3. I’ve heard you can retrofit an m4/m6 style knob but haven’t done so yet.
(Film) photography. I forget the exact quote, but the gist is, "Use drugs. It'll be cheaper." Short of flying.......sailing.......restoring old cars.......wine collecting, it's difficult to think of a more expensive hobby.
These work fine with the close up lenses , Your 3.5 is a Bay One ; and then there is the Rolleinar #1/ 2/ 3 close up lensed. I use then , and it is Amazing what this camera can do. I have a 1955 D Model Tessar 75mm F3.5 , Tessar is the lesser lens , so I am thrilled with the images from it. The Planar's are just a little sharper, with more pop. I paid 750.00 for a clean copy from Japan. Oh .. I DO have the Wide too ....that costs 6, 500 and import taxes, or 7 , 700.00 Yes , expensive.
I know people call this lens a “kit lens” - and it is, but it’s also a ridiculously strong lens. For the size/weight/range, you can’t ask for much more. Especially considering I spent $350 on it.
Looks like Alameda. Only been there once with a bunch of film photographers on a walk and the security guard kept hounding and threatening us not to take photos of the buildings, even from the sidewalk, so we split into three groups and fanned out and ran him ragged all afternoon. lol
There is always the question of what are the "right colours" when it comes to colour negative film. Actually, you would have to make a neutral filtered print using an enlarger to have anything close to a reference for correct colours. All scans and conversions are only a digital interpretation of the dyes in the gelatine of the films that were actually made for analogue enlargement.
agreed that color evaluation here is subjective, and I think I say something to this in the scans disclaimer. when it comes to colors, my evaluation is 100% "vibes based." I also don't always find scientifically "correct" colors as measured with a chart etc. to be optimally pleasant.
@@atomikpi Right, "correct" colours are not always pleasing. But a neutral filtering on a photographed grey card, for example, is the best way to compare devices and today rather profiles... I would be happy if analogue photography remains stable enough for manufacturers to bring new scanners onto the market with today's technology and know-how. A new Scanner in Imacon style could be much cheaper today than 20 years ago… It is quite annoying to work with all these old 8 bit scanners and ancient computers, SCSI interfaces and dongles.
As a landscape photographer I can say the the 35-70 is probably (I'm not biased! 🤣) the best zoom lens in the world for its range: 28-55mm full frame equivalent. It basically replaces traditional primes of 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. I keep mine glued at f/8 and if I need a faster shutter speed I just bump up the ISO. I also have the 32-64, but it needs f/11 to obtain sharp corners, whereas the 35-70 only needs f/11. As well the 32-64 is a beast of a lens to pack around and the difference in "look" from photos produced by the two lenses is too subtle to worry about. So for budding landscape photographers grab a 50r and the 35-70 and you basically have the best camera money can buy for landscape photography.
i discuss the wide 50mm f/4 in the video a bit and show some 100% very high res scans. i live in a warm/mediterranean climate and can't discuss cold handling. this takes very standard lithium batteries - no trouble finding them.
Hi there, thanks for this awesome review about this lens. Yesterday, I've ordered this lens because of its crazy discount here in Canada. I bought this lens to pair with my GFX 100s for my Food Photography Business. What is your thoughts about this lens for the type of Photography I want to do? Thanks...
Nice video. The shot at 3:30 and 6:40 is exactly why medium format film it is always my first choice against digital except if I have to shoot digital for commercial work. If you look at the sky it is very clear how the film still have information in the highlights of the sky in the upper right corner and the transition it is so much more pleasant than in the digital image. I also agree that the sky 90% of the time looks better on film, it is something that you can get close if you are good with lightroom or photoshop but never exactly the same.
thanks! yeah in super high contrast and backlit scenes, film rolloff/highlights are still not quite matched by digital, even with a bloom filter (it helps though). and film is a lot more forgiving with the skies, digital you're stuck with some combination of blinkies/chimping/praying. (on the other hand, digital can recover shadows insanely well, but crushed shadows are often ok/pleasant)
They were still expensive when I first though of one in 2007 or so, I mostly moved on from getting one. All that being said, if i happened to find one at a decent price I may just buy it lol.
Dude, I know its not the focus of the video but I just wanna say the music in your videos are sick! 🔥That piano track especially is so catchy I literally came back to the video just to listen to it again. Really cool that you made it yourself too, very rare to see that. Awesome stuff! 👏
I have never used the Hasselblad Xpan to obtain a 24x65 aspect ratio on 35mm film. I have, however, used my Mamiya RB67 medium format SLR to obtain a 24x68 aspect ratio on 35mm film. I usually use a 50mm wide-angle lens or a 90mm normal lens on my RB67 to capture panoramic images. After I develop the film, I have the option of including or excluding the sprocket holes from the image. One thing I like about my setup is that my RB67 does not rely on battery power or electronics like the Hasselblad and Fuji panoramic cameras.
