The Hasselblad Stigma

Hasselbald - On Nikon F3 - Kodak Portra 400

Yeah, I purchased a Hasselblad this summer.  I fixed enough typewriters and sold enough model trains to afford an old 1966 model 500c.  Not the glorious CM, just the C.  I got the Zeiss Planar 80mm 2.8 t* lens (multicoated) and a C12 back whom someone engraved the name "Jensen" into.  Basically I wanted to understand this camera, and people's obsession over it.  I wanted to see what made it such an amazing camera, and why it was supposed to be the subject of every photographer's dream.

I'll make it short and sweet.  It is not any more intuitive, or any sharper, or any more glorious that any other camera.  It's just famous.  It takes stunning photos, but despite its ultra-high resolution, it doesn't take tack sharp images under normal handheld shooting conditions.  For the run-of-the-mill photographer, it just isn't everything its cracked up to be.  Don't hate me, this is just my opinion, and I'll explain it all in due time.

I shot several rolls on the C12 back before it broke, and the most rewarding rolls on the A12 back after I got a feel for the camera and hand developing 120 roll film in C-41.  The other factor: 12 shots.  That's what made my final two rolls so great.  I limited myself.  I restricted myself from taking shots I wanted to, and only took shots I was dying to take.

So onwards with the photos.  I want to compare this with my Nikon lenses, specifically my basic 50mm 1.4.  I shoot wide open most of the time, and the Zeiss 80mm wide open is nothing special at all.  In fact, I've been told that medium format is renown for its background blur, or Bokeh, rather than its sharpness.  

Hasselblad 500c Ektar 100 (f2.8)

Nikon F3 Ektar 100 (pushed 400) (f1.4)

Could it be?  The Nikkor 50mm f1.4 Ai lens rendered better sharpness than the Carl Zeiss 80mm f2.8 t* ?????  Of course the medium format image takes the cake with ZERO GRAIN, but the grain in the 35mm shot is also enhanced due to pushing.  If you look at the nose hair, and the fence post, you'll notice just as I did, that the cheap Nikon lens is sharper wide open than the Hasselblad.  Let's look at somne stopped down images now, specifically F11.

Hasselblad 500c Ektar 100 (f11)

Nikon F3 Kodak Ektar 100 (Pushed 400) (f11)

This one is a little different.  On the Nikon I was shooting with the 105mm f2.5 Ai-s.  This was another wide open shot stopped down, but I was also moving.  It renders about the same sharpness and detail as the Hasselblad did in a stationary setting, which made me look at it among a more forgiving light.  Next let's take a look at quick snapshots.  Yes, I understand the Hasselblad is a studio camera, but let's take a look regardless.  As in fact, many photographers take the Hassie out as a general purpose shooter, even for candid images.

Walking, handheld, Ektar 100

Walking, Handheld, HP5

In both of these shots, I was moving, and so was the camera.  Shutter speeds, while higher in the hasselblad shot outdoors, rendered more motion blur than the indoor shot.  Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, so lets look at the reverse side with the walking part out of the equation. 

Hasselblad Tri-X, seated

Nikon F3 Ektar (+2) seated

Both shots are taken stationary with an active subject.  Both shots were designed to capture a moment.  Focus in art, and Pride in...hot dog making?  Either way, they show similar sharpness wide open.  Which isn't bad or good for seeking superior sharpness in the Zeiss lens.  What about sharpness with zero camera movement and zero subject movement?

Hasselblad (notice A12 light leak) Ektar 100

Nikon F3 50mm E series (budget lens) Fuji Color Superia

Just occuring to me how few shots I have not handheld.

With these two shots, I really see that the Hasselblad lacks sharpness.  The Nikon photo was taken with a 50mm f1.8 E series lens, a cheap 40$ budget lens not known for being particularly good at anything, yet paired with a cheap (not known to be particularly good at anything) film like Color Superia, it raises a lot of questions for the hasselblad fandom.

Okay, let's wrap this up with a lightening round.  Random handheld shots, the best I've got.  Four Hassie, four Nikkor.

Okay, so here are my final thoughts.  I'll keep it short and sweet because I have Ice cream melting that I want to get to.

1) is the Hasselblad a good camera?  Yes, it is amazing.  It's a joy to shoot, it delivers high resolution, and it's massively fun to shoot polaroid on.

2) is it a good general purpose camera?  No.  It doesn't take sharp images unless it's stopped down to f11-f22.  It's meant to be mounted on a tripod for well-light studio shots to control mirror slap movement and maintain a high shutter speed. It's also slow to focus accurately and a without a built in meter it can take some getting used to.  Not an issue for me, but it that's just what it is.  Also waistlevel focusing can be confusing to some.

3) Is it useless wide open?  No, While not sharp, it delivers stunning background blur.  Beautiful photos can be achieved with this camera.

Final word?  It is not the world's sharpest camera, not do I feel it was intended to be so.  It's always better than the camera you don't have with you, and even so it's fantastic.  It's a tool used to create art, and it shouldn't be held to high regarded standards of perfection, because that's not necessary.  I have a lot to learn about my craft, and this camera is going to pave the way for that.  It already is.  It's no sharper than any other camera.  It's no better or worse than any other camera.  The Hasselblad is simply a camera that takes photos on 120 format film.  It excells in the Bokeh of an image, and the resolution with which you can print.  It renders colors and contrast stunningly, and feels good in the hands.  It's a camera like any other.  Suited for certain people and not others.