Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / May 2007
UK - Medium Format running costs (Hasselblad)
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Eddy Aldrin - 27 Apr 2007 15:29 GMT Hi I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad 500c/el (always wanted one), but I'm pretty clueless about running costs for medium format. Can someone give me an idea of : 1/ film costs by type(b/w, colour, slide) - I'm assuming max 12 shots at 6x6 2/ Processing costs
That should talk me out of it.
Cheers Buzz
Matthew McGrattan - 27 Apr 2007 18:17 GMT > Hi > I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers > Buzz Medium format film is about 2 pounds a roll for black and white. If you process it yourself it's pennies per roll (30 - 40p something like that). Colour film is about the same price.
Slide film is more, but not an enormous amount more. 3 or 4 pounds, depending.
Commercial processing is around 4 pounds for slide, colour or black and white.
[I am going by prices at places I've used, I'm pretty sure they vary wildly]
I find black and white 120 film quite economical -- it's cheaper than 35mm, it's easier to scan and for me to print on an enlarger, and I get more 'good' shots per roll.
Matt
MLIDDELL - 27 Apr 2007 21:23 GMT If you dev your own b&w (which is the only way to get it done properly) the costs are low at ~£2 for film and the chems are cheap. It does depend on how much you shoot, I end up dumping more developer than I use because I just don't shoot enough and it doesn't last. This puts up the cost.
Matt's figures on the costs are typical.
The biggest thing for you to consider cost-wise is how you will be printing - running costs often pale in comparison! All colour printing is pretty much done by digital processes which means scanning the film. For drum scans you are looking at £45+ per frame(!), a nikon coolscan 90000 which gives quality not far off is still in the thousands to buy, cheapo flatbeds are just not up to the job making all the pain of shooting film not worth it since you could just use a dslr. The best solution I have found is to use R&K photographic who use a coolscan 9000 and change £4 a frame to scan. Other places that use an imacon may only be slightly more.
For b&w if you have no darkroom you need to send out the printing; this is what I do and get hand prints made on fibre. Costs are horrific (£40 for a 16x12" anyone?) but digital b&w just can't match it yet and for these prices you get the best printers in the business printing your negs :)
Matt Clara - 28 Apr 2007 15:38 GMT If you dev your own b&w (which is the only way to get it done properly) the costs are low at ~£2 for film and the chems are cheap. It does depend on how much you shoot, I end up dumping more developer than I use because I just don't shoot enough and it doesn't last. This puts up the cost.
Matt's figures on the costs are typical.
The biggest thing for you to consider cost-wise is how you will be printing - running costs often pale in comparison! All colour printing is pretty much done by digital processes which means scanning the film. For drum scans you are looking at £45+ per frame(!), a nikon coolscan 90000 which gives quality not far off is still in the thousands to buy, cheapo flatbeds are just not up to the job making all the pain of shooting film not worth it since you could just use a dslr. The best solution I have found is to use R&K photographic who use a coolscan 9000 and change £4 a frame to scan. Other places that use an imacon may only be slightly more.
For b&w if you have no darkroom you need to send out the printing; this is what I do and get hand prints made on fibre. Costs are horrific (£40 for a 16x12" anyone?) but digital b&w just can't match it yet and for these prices you get the best printers in the business printing your negs :) ____________________________
Surely that's for big exhibition prints. My local pro shop can print up to 11 x 14 (as I recall) using their in house machine at something less than $20 a print. If you want larger, they'll scan for $23 and print it out on an epson. I have an 8000ed, so I don't know how good those scans are at that price. My point is, unless you're a pro who needs lots of large prints for your clients or the galleries, you don't need a lot of big expensive scans and prints.
-- www.mattclara.com
David J. Littleboy - 28 Apr 2007 02:01 GMT > Hi > I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad > 500c/el (always wanted one), Either that or a Rolleiflex 3.5F with a Planar. I found that 'blad lenses are pricey enough that I never bought a second lens (way back in the '70s) and repeated that mistake with a Mamiya 7, for which I only have the 65/4.0 (should have bought the Fuji GSW690, sigh). Despite the claims of MF getting cheaper, the good stuff is still expensive.
Still, anyone interested in photography should spend some quality time with either a 'blad or a 'flex.
> but I'm pretty clueless about running costs for > medium format. Can someone give me an idea of : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That should talk me out of it. I found that running costs were not a significant issue for medium format, simply because I shoot many fewer frames than I do with digital or would with 35mm. With careful spotmetering you don't have to bracket (and it ends up being just as fast as digital where you check the histogram and reshoot), and one spends more time setting up each shot.
So an afternoon shooting would rarely involve more than, say, three rolls of film.
Then scanning takes an age (each frame requires individual attention for focus and exposure), so that prevents one from shooting a gross number of frames.
And at the end of the month, one has just as many keepers with medium format as one does with digital.
David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
Alan Browne - 29 Apr 2007 14:08 GMT >>Hi >>I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (should have bought the Fuji GSW690, sigh). Despite the claims of MF getting > cheaper, the good stuff is still expensive. I'm buying my 3rd used 'blad lens tommorrow (120 Makro f/4). Your problem I think is that Tokyo used prices are outrageous (I visited a half dozen stores in Shinjuku and the Ginza area a few years ago...).
 Signature -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
David J. Littleboy - 29 Apr 2007 14:55 GMT > I'm buying my 3rd used 'blad lens tommorrow (120 Makro f/4). Depending on the grade, that's anywhere from painfully pricey (over US$800) to insanely pricey (US$2000) at KEH.
> Your problem I think is that Tokyo used prices are outrageous (I visited > a half dozen stores in Shinjuku and the Ginza area a few years ago...). Japan certainly is nuts for "brand name" stuff.
But I'm looking at KEH prices for 'blad stuff.
US$1,000 for a bargain grade 40/4.0? Give me a break.
David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
Alan Browne - 29 Apr 2007 20:24 GMT > US$1,000 for a bargain grade 40/4.0? Give me a break. Can you do better in Tokyo?
 Signature -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
David J. Littleboy - 29 Apr 2007 23:51 GMT >> US$1,000 for a bargain grade 40/4.0? Give me a break. > > Can you do better in Tokyo? I don't have to: KEH ships to Tokyo.
David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
Alan Browne - 01 May 2007 02:03 GMT >>>US$1,000 for a bargain grade 40/4.0? Give me a break. >> >>Can you do better in Tokyo? > > I don't have to: KEH ships to Tokyo. Well, just picked up the 120 f/4. Excellent condition, I'd rate it as an EX+ on the KEH scale. CAD$950 + Tx. (About US$940 all in).
Test shots this week I hope.
Cheers, Alan
 Signature -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Andrew Price - 29 Apr 2007 21:08 GMT >> Your problem I think is that Tokyo used prices are outrageous (I visited >> a half dozen stores in Shinjuku and the Ginza area a few years ago...). > >Japan certainly is nuts for "brand name" stuff. > >But I'm looking at KEH prices for 'blad stuff. I think a lot depends on what the local market thinks a reasonable price is, which must be a prime factor for KEH when fixing their prices.
Mamiya equipment is a good example of that - the KEH prices are no doubt reasonable, in relation to the prevailing prices in the US market. But they sell second hand Mamiya gear for almost as much as it can be bought brand new from Robert White in the UK.
David J. Littleboy - 29 Apr 2007 23:52 GMT >>> Your problem I think is that Tokyo used prices are outrageous (I >>> visited [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > market. But they sell second hand Mamiya gear for almost as much as > it can be bought brand new from Robert White in the UK. Yep. Used Mamiya 645 stuff is quite reasonable here. Unfortunately, used Mamiya 7 lenses are pricey everywhere. Sigh.
David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
j. fabian - 30 Apr 2007 06:49 GMT > US$1,000 for a bargain grade 40/4.0? Give me a break. Don't forget that KEH grades equipment very conservatively. So that "bargain" (a step above "Ugly", BTW) grade means that first and foremost the glass is perfect -- they don't sell bad glass. And it will fit securely. Any obvious dents or whatever are disclosed in their listing, like "UG+ dent in filter ring".
Also remember that the _new_ price of a Zeiss 40mm f/4 is US$5,061 at B&H.
 Signature well, it looked good on paper
Matt Clara - 10 May 2007 01:39 GMT >> US$1,000 for a bargain grade 40/4.0? Give me a break. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > securely. Any obvious dents or whatever are disclosed in their listing, > like "UG+ dent in filter ring". Yes, agreed, they disclose any real problems, including scratches in glass.
> Also remember that the _new_ price of a Zeiss 40mm f/4 is US$5,061 at > B&H. That does sound like a bargain when you put it that way, but those prices are what drove me to sell my Rollei 6008i, eventually. At a fraction of the cost, the mamiya RB/RZ glass isn't far behind (and in some cases, isn't behind at all).
-- www.mattclara.com
David J. Littleboy - 10 May 2007 02:55 GMT >>> US$1,000 for a bargain grade 40/4.0? Give me a break. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, agreed, they disclose any real problems, including scratches in > glass. BGN by definition includes defects that "probably don't affect lens performance".
So US$1000 seems a lot to spend for a BGN grade lens. Whatever the lens.
Also, the 'blad 40/4.0 is an uninspired lens (it's been redisigned in with better sharpness (but more distortion) for the current version), but the Mamiya 7 43/4.5 is one of the most inspired lenses around. And is only US$300 more in EX grade.
>> Also remember that the _new_ price of a Zeiss 40mm f/4 is US$5,061 at >> B&H. As above, that's a different lens. Redesigned to compete with the Fuji 35/3.5 for the Fujiblad.
> That does sound like a bargain when you put it that way, but those prices > are what drove me to sell my Rollei 6008i, eventually. At a fraction of > the cost, the mamiya RB/RZ glass isn't far behind (and in some cases, > isn't behind at all). The 65/4.0 and 110/2.8 RZ lenses are seriously excellent, especially for landscape work, since their edge performance edges out that of the classic 'blad lenses (although the current 65/3.5 and 100/3.5 for the 'blad are very good).
David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
j. fabian - 10 May 2007 04:39 GMT > Also, the 'blad 40/4.0 is an uninspired lens (it's been redisigned in with > better sharpness (but more distortion) for the current version), but the > Mamiya 7 43/4.5 is one of the most inspired lenses around. And is only > US$300 more in EX grade. As one who uses both, I don't see what's uninspired about the Zeiss 40mm. The Mamiya 43mm is a true wide angle and so I suppose should be compared with the 38mm Biogon. However, I don't see any difference between the retrofocus 40mm and the 43mm in terms of color contrast, sharpness, lack of distortion etc. I find both to be perfectly rectilinear, and both give me what I'm looking for in Ilford HP5 negatives.
I may have a different version of the 40mm than the one you don't like -- I bought it (new) in 1998, it is an FLE lens, but this was years before the Hasselblad 645 came out.
All of that being said, lens choice is a personal thing. There is nothing wrong with Schneider/Rollei lenses, Mamiya RB/RZ lenses, Mamiya 6/7 lenses, Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. They all have their plusses and minuses. I always recommend people looking to lay out some serious money on equipment first rent several different outfits. Many rental houses have a 1-day/weekend special -- that is Friday to Monday for 1 day's rental cost. I rented a Leica 24mm lens to evaluate it and was glad I did because I absolutely hated it. Saved me a lot of money.
As always: YMMV; just my $0.02; You probably shouldn't listen to me as I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
j f
 Signature well, it looked good on paper
j. fabian - 28 Apr 2007 03:42 GMT > Hi > I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers > Buzz Running costs shouldn't scare you away -- although I can only give you figures for the USA. BTW used Hasselblad equipment prices are tremendously depressed here. Along with the strength of the Pound you might want to take a brief vacation to New York City & pay a visit to one of out fine emporia such as B&H Photo. (no, I don't work for them, nor am I an owner, but boy do I wish I were!)
Film costs:
Ilford HP5 Plus 120 Black/White $ 3.29 / roll 120 Fujichrome RDP III Provia 120 100sp $ 3.49 / roll 120
Lab costs:
Black & White Process & Contact Xtol in a Refrema dip & dunk $10.00 / roll 120
E-6 Process & sleeve, dip & dunk $ 5.00 / roll 120
B&W custom RC prints 8" x 10" $10.00 / each B&W custom fibre prints 8" x 10" $12.50 / each
Personally I never shoot 220 and never have a need to scan anything. On the rare occasions I want a print from a transparency I get a 4" x 5" interneg made.
Hope this helps
j f
 Signature well, it looked good on paper
Andreas Gugau - 30 Apr 2007 19:52 GMT j. fabian schrieb:
>> I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad >> 500c/el (always wanted one), but I'm pretty clueless about running costs for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > B&W custom RC prints 8" x 10" $10.00 / each > B&W custom fibre prints 8" x 10" $12.50 / each You can lower costs with a little dark room and a used Jobo processor. Maybe some enlarging stuff. For b/w it's almost nothing. I am here in Germany - in euro:
b&w-film: 1 gallon of D-76 is 5 euro and enough for 15 films. 0,33 euro/film. Add 0,15 Euro for fix. Less than half a Euro per film.
E-6: Tetenal 3-bath is 65 euro/5 liters. That's for 60+ film. You can develop 70-80 film if you work with many films at once. So it's 1,10 euro per film.
And the used Jobo-processor is 50-100 euro.
It's not expencive at all! And it makes fun.
Andreas
 Signature Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/
Alan Browne - 28 Apr 2007 21:11 GMT > Hi > I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 6x6 > 2/ Processing costs Screw that! Jump in mate. You'll love it. Shoot less frames. But much nicer frames.
Cheers, Alan.
 Signature -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Eddy Aldrin - 01 May 2007 13:40 GMT > > Hi > > I'm thinking of a technology retrograde and buying an old Hasselblad [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
|
|
|