Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

UK - Medium Format running costs (Hasselblad)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.