Greetings but the 500C/M is not proving all it's cracked up to be.

[emo supremo]

I do not like my new 6x6. As 'everyone' migrates south into digital my course has been 180 opposite back into film taking advantage of people unloading their film gear. I've shot 4x5 and 8x10 for decades but never owned a MF setup so, lulled by the siren's call, I overspent on a 500C/M with 80mm lens at B&H >$1,000.
Well, I don't see what all the hubub is about this configuration. the 8x10 enlargments are not significantly finer than a good 35mm film with both cameras on a Gitzo 1541 tripod. The local shop won't develop them in house anymore because of low volume. On top of having to wait over a week (usually closer to 2) for the results, these color prints (color prints were 85 cents a piece for 4x4 inch ON TOP of the c-41 development of the negs) look like my Kodak 110 film prints from my instamatic back in the 70's. I tried my own BW development and rented enargment space; my efforts were equal to or better than the lab.
I'm so far off base with this camera and B&H wouldn't take it back (after overcharging me come to think of it from the Ebay auctions). Point is, the 120 film back on my 4x5 with a 150mm Schneider Symmar lens gives beautiful 6x9 prints. I do not like this format. It is going to take a lot more work.
Not all young Americans are brain dead or motivated only by instant gratification and, I suppose, some might be thinking of dallying with the snare of film. Do it. Know, however, that there is nothing formulaic or cookbook about MF and any adventuring young buck/buckess should recognize that a additional expense of a darkroom should be budgeted in and MUCH additional time (more than 4x5) will be required to get the beautiful prints that enticed me on the 'reverse migration' back into film.

 

[polypal]

Your post contains too little information about the camera/lens/film back to comment on the price you paid.

Upload a couple of pictures and it may be possible to tell more.
Lens/body/back numbers are useful to know for that purpose.

To give you an idea there are 9 different 80 mm Planar lenses starting in 1956 till the current model.

If results do not meet your expectations it may well be there is a problem with the set you bought.
It may be useful to have a good technician check the set.
That may also give you some ammo to shoot at B&H.
Try David Odess he is qualified to give an opinion. His work is of a high standard.

 

[cs_foto]

and everything you complained about has to do with film. not with the camera or system itself.

depends on where you live you might find a better 'local shop' so you don't have to wait for 2 weeks

large format when it comes to image quality obviously(?) beats medium format, but there are other characteristics to consider.

personally i think hasselblad V is as good as it gets when it comes to medium format. i love the way the carl zeiss lenses render highlights, overall tones and specially skin-tones, portraits done with a hasselblad V system have something magical about them, plus the ability to enlarge from a well focused and well produced negative is still amazing.

if you don't like the square format, that's fine but does that make it a mediocre camera?

 

[polypal]

If you do not like the square format there are 6X4.5 film backs giving 16 exposures on 120 roll film.
They need more enlargement than the negatives from your 4X5 inch.
Still they have the advantage of an easier to use and faster camera system.
If Hasselblad is a disappointment to you sell the camera and concentrate on 4X5 cameras.

Your remark that MF requires more time than 4X5 inch cameras is strange.
Those cameras have a good reason to exist and can deliver quality high IQ but will not allow fast operation.
MF is the ideal average between larger format and systems that require much more time to set up.

 

[meniscus]

I'm also new to Hasselblad, and partly agree with much of what you said.
I use 35mm MF, and LF, all for different reasons. I don't reach for MF gear if I expect to make pictures I want to see no bigger than 8x10. When I shoot 35mm I cringe at how tiny the neg is, and how little detail a small portion of the neg will provide. But there are pics I can only get with a small fast camera. Or a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, which is to me the champion in quality to convenience ratio. If I want an excellent image 11x14 to 16x20 or so, MF seems the best choice. 4x5, though a pleasure to use, seems overkill for those size enlargements. 8x10 contact printing just does some wonderful, impractical magic. I don't print huge, and my opinion on which camera to reach for to achieve a particular photographic goal is entirely personal. But also purpose driven.
LABS ARE TRAGIC. I mourn their growing dementia almost daily. MF lines often have less than fresh chemicals. Most of them scan our negs at the lowest possible rate for the selected print size. I buy pro film and cameras from my chosen local shop, and while THEIR chemicals are good, they give me garbage print results, despite my protests. These 4x4, 4x5, 4x6 prints are functionally like contact sheets, telling me which (color) negs to send somewhere else.
SQUARE is strange, probably conceived for untippable cameras.
OLD SCREENS are terrible to view and focus, check which yours is.
Presently I'm more likely to reach for a Pentax 6x7 or Fuji 6x9 when shooting MF. But I'm giving the lovely old Swede a chance to win me over.
Thank you for carrying the torch for film.
Best of luck with the new machine, Ben

 

[drwatson1234]

I'm new to MF myself too. I'm young, and have only been shooting for about 8 years now. I've progressed from a Canon 10D > 5D > 5DM2. I love my Canon gear and still have the last two cameras listed.

However, I have really slowed down my workflow the last year+. I consider myself an "advanced amateur". Photography is my hobby, not my day job. I have not taken any formal training, but have read a lot of books and a lot of forums in my brief time shooting. I also have the desire to take the highest quality pictures I can, which led me to MF Hassy.

I consider myself lucky. I just purchased a Hassy 500C/M and the following lenses: 30mm f/3.5, 50mm f/4.0, 80mm f/2.8, 135mm f/5.6, 150mm f/4.0, & 500mm f/8.0.

I got them from a family friend who personally know took care of the glass and had 2 A12 backs. Granted, I've only had the system for 3 weeks now and have only had one roll of Kodak Portra 160VC developed, I can tell you that will be hard to go back to digital for a while. I am headed out of town for work today and packed up my gear if time allows for some shooting while traveling. I grabbed all my "new" Hassy gear and left the Canons at home.

Call me crazy, but I love the idea of the Hassy for my style of shooting. I love the slower, manual control work flow, and the square format. I love not knowing how the picture turns out until I get the film developed. There's a slight excitement for me. And I understand, I only have one shop local that will develop the film, but they have quick turn around. Now I just need to invest in a high res scanner so I can get some 60-80 Mb TIFF files and start printing larger than the Canon would get me. Anyway, I hope things get better for you and start enjoying your new purchase more.

I can tell you that I am very pleased and I've only been through one roll of film like I said. I am really excited about shooting B&W the next rolls. Good luck! All the best.