EQUIPMENT
Cameras
Lighting
Hardware
Software
Accessories
|
|
Cameras: Hasselblad H1
For a long time now, the main workhorse of my photographic bag of tricks has been the Hasselblad H1. It’s no secret that Hasselblad has had a long and fruitful reputation of making top of the line medium format gear and I am happy to say that with the H1 this reputation is defiantly well earned.
|
This isn’t to say that I didn’t have my reservations about the camera when I first looked into purchasing it. The H1 represented two major changes for Hasselblad as a camera manufacturer and I’m always a little nervous about buying the first generation of any sort of new technological efforts. First, the H1 is the only Hasselblad to feature auto focus, and second it is the first to be based around a 645 film format rather then the more traditional 6x6.
My initial fears ended up being complete waist of energy. The auto focus works smoothly and quickly for the most part though on occasion the lens will just start spinning and go through the entire focus range to calibrate itself. This seems to happen most often with HC 50-100mm lens that I use and can be slightly irritating. Still, there is nothing to prevent me from switching to manual focus in such instances.
As for the 645 format versus the 6x6 of more traditional medium format cameras, I quickly looked toward this as a welcome change from the Hasselblad’s of old. 645 offers a more rectangular format which for me seems more logical when attempting to make dynamic and interesting compositions. The square format of 6x6 is often too static making the dimensions of 645 a welcome compromise. I can still retail the high quality of medium format (film or digital) while having the advantage of a rectangular frame to compose my images.
Coupled with a body design that feels pleasant in my hands, the H1 also sports what is perhaps the biggest and brightest viewfinder I have ever had the pleasure of using. It is so bright and detailed in fact that when I move my eye to another camera with an inferior viewfinder I find it almost depressing. Why is Hasselblad the only one who seems to get this right?
My only major complaint with the H1 is the fact that it is important to frequently upgrade the software in the camera together with all the lenses. This means you have to send off your gear to an authorized Hasselblad dealer and that translates to a lot of shooting downtime. On one hand I’m glad Hasselblad throws in a lot of support for its customers and keeps on top of updates, but on the other this can get rather annoying when I have to go without my favorite camera for extended periods of time.
With a nice collection of lenses and of course a half a dozen removable backs (everything from Polaroid, to traditional film, to digital) the Hasselblad H1 has proved time and time again to be an extremely versatile photographic tool that delivers consistent high quality and remains a joy to use. I tend to stick with the standard 80mm lens about 90% of the time but have also been known to use a 150mm and 50-100mm when the situation demands it. I have a feeling that this is going to be my camera of choice for a long time to come.
|
| Sensor dust
I have spotted sensor dust on many of your photographs. It can be easily removed in Photoshop but you don't seem to do that. The advanced amature line of Canon and Nikon etc. all have dust removal built in.
Posted at 5th Apr 2008 6:21 – Julius |
|
|
|
| H-1
How is the model shoot world doing in changing to digital? And would you say the H-1 and H-2 are good enough with the p45 tp do the most challanging work of a model shoot? Conventional model shoot that is :-) It seems to work well with your style of natural lighting and outdoor photos :-)
Posted at 4th Nov 2006 13:46 – Einar Myklebust |
|
|
|
| Quality Photography
Dear Petter
I’d like to pay you a compliment as Photographer, but in order to do so I need to give you some background on myself in short.
I’ve loved Photography since I can remember, and started at the age of 14 as school’s Photographer, then fashion Photography, then Head Photographer at a leading newspaper.
For the last 7 years I’ve been Photo Manager onboard luxury cruise ships, mostly sailing out of Miami and currently working shoreside for the same company, Ocean Images as Technical Support Manager for our 30 something cruise ships.
I say this because I’ve been living Photography and related gadgets for 16 years now and your Photography stands out head and shoulders above the rest. Excellent equipment you use with pin-sharp images time and time again. But to be honest, what I like most in the images is the mood that you capture, painting with light.
Just wanted to acknowledge you and your team’s excellence.
Thanks
Francois
Posted at 10th Apr 2006 19:10 – Francois Botes |
|
|
|
| Hasselblad H1 vs Nikon, etc.
Petter & Accomplices:
As a Leica and Nikon devotee, and having gone from analog film (often Velvia or Tech Pan) to digital via the F5 to D1X, I was astounded that quality (dynamic range, resolution, only giving up a little color depth) up to 24 x 36" (5MPix) could be maintained while drastically improving workflow.
Admitted, the medium format is very forgiving, producing oustanding results time after time, providing the pre-exposure work investment is made. Whereas, with the smaller format, a lot of post exposure work had to be invested to match the time after time results. But it can be done. And it provides a more flexible pre-exposure environment, which quickly translates into time savings at the most costly end of the photo-business workflow. If you are doing action video during the same session, the setup takes less time to optimize for that purpose.
Now I wonder what your experience (and opinion) with the H1 and its digital variant has been when compared to that offered by the smaller format Nikons, Canons, Leicas etc. The photo media business, slow at first to adopt and master digital, is now showing sensational results compared to film of just a few years ago. And yet I gravitate back toward the Hasselblad. Over and over. Despite proving the technical equivalence of optimized digital small format vs. medium to my critical satisfaction. Assuming pixel to pixel sensor equivalence, do you think that you could achieve technically and artisticallly comparable results with the digital format vs. the Hasselblad? Why not?
I am reminded of the still continuing contest between audiophiles using $100K equipment and equally sophistiscated audio devotees claiming equivalent results and pleasure from $10K equipment. It seems that there is a large tangible but not measurable (and sometimes inaudible) "cost" in reaching 99% perfection vs. 95% perfection. The last 4-5% is the very costly, difficult and seemingly insurmountable gap between the two.
So I am raising the question; if you could only be satisfied with 99% percent of attainable perfection, do you think you would always reach for the Hasselblad? If you could prove to yourself that there was no discernible difference in quality and artistic attainment potential between the 2 tools (the Hasselbelad and the Nikon/Canon/Leica) would you still be drawn to the Hassslblad, despite the pre-exposure cost, inconvenience cost in workflow, and tool cost?
Regards,
Ed Benz
Posted at 31st Dec 2005 12:54 – Edmund W. Benz |
|
|
|
|
|
Join
