Hasselblad V-Series ends production

Incidentally, the 1600F used a Kodak tessar-design lens.
 
Sad but not a surprise, end of an era. all good things come to an end!
 
Supply dries up prices go up. :)
 
I thought they discontinued it when they brought out the H series. Just goes to show every days a schoolday
 
robhooley167 said:
I thought they discontinued it when they brought out the H series. Just goes to show every days a schoolday
Click to expand...

Me too.... I assumed they had been discontinued years ago.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well 6X6cm was a daft idea anyway :)
Click to expand...

It was always the best format solution for a medium format twin lens reflex or SLR . It was the professional standard hand camera format for many years years. So not such a daft Idea.
Only amateurs thought you had to compose your shots square.
Film was about the cheapest element for pro work. so the added option to change a shot from vertical to horizontal at the printing stage was a bonus.
When a standard print was a 10x8 there was little waste anyway.
 
It was inevitable that production would end with demand.

I loved the quality of the v system cameras but could never hold them still. my natural reflex shake coincided with the shutter/mirror lag.
 
Seems mad to formally end production of such an iconic camera from a PR point of view. If they just continued making them to meet orders - however few they may be - at least they are still producing them and supporting their customer base. It cannot be that much of an inconvenience can it?

Mark
 
Threeracers said:
Seems mad to formally end production of such an iconic camera from a PR point of view. If they just continued making them to meet orders - however few they may be - at least they are still producing them and supporting their customer base. It cannot be that much of an inconvenience can it?

Mark
Click to expand...

I imagine there will be enough in their stockrooms to last for a good few years
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It was always the best format solution for a medium format twin lens reflex or SLR . It was the professional standard hand camera format for many years years. So not such a daft Idea.
Only amateurs thought you had to compose your shots square.
Film was about the cheapest element for pro work. so the added option to change a shot from vertical to horizontal at the printing stage was a bonus.
When a standard print was a 10x8 there was little waste anyway.
Click to expand...

Well if you guys did colour printing for neg, transparencies and Cibachrome you would wince at wasting expensive paper doing square prints....if you are going to crop you might as well get a 6X4.5 camera for 15 shots a roll. Anyway I formed this opinion about 35 years ago and would never go back to 6X6cm so I wont miss a Blad.
...... but agree it was probably introduced for the twins relex cameras and come to think of it, 35mm format is odd as well. :|
 
excalibur2 said:
Well if you guys did colour printing for neg, transparencies and Cibachrome you would wince at wasting expensive paper doing square prints....if you are going to crop you might as well get a 6X4.5 camera for 15 shots a roll. Anyway I formed this opinion about 35 years ago and would never go back to 6X6cm so I wont miss a Blad.
...... but agree it was probably introduced for the twins relex cameras and come to think of it, 35mm format is odd as well. :|
Click to expand...

But with a 10x8 piece of paper, you cut off 2 inches to use as a test strip and then do the final print on the remaining 8x8 :)
 
excalibur2 said:
Well if you guys did colour printing for neg, transparencies and Cibachrome you would wince at wasting expensive paper doing square prints....if you are going to crop you might as well get a 6X4.5 camera for 15 shots a roll. Anyway I formed this opinion about 35 years ago and would never go back to 6X6cm so I wont miss a Blad.
...... but agree it was probably introduced for the twins relex cameras and come to think of it, 35mm format is odd as well. :|
Click to expand...

News papers and magazine publishers did not like square pictures, nor did most commercial clients. 10x8 was the rule of the day for proofs or reproduction. Mostly square prints were unsaleable.

I never even thought about the film I was throwing away (from up to 100 rolls a day) I expect I could have carpeted Buckingham palace with it. I did not waste paper as I did not make square prints. I remember doing 20x30 ciba prints of apple qualities for East kent packers in the 70's though for that I took 5x4 tansparencies.
The client mostly paid material costs any way.
The only square prints I made on a regular basis were the twelve or so monthly 3 meter square ones I did for Gallerial Preciados in the late 50's.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
News papers and magazine publishers did not like square pictures, nor did most commercial clients. 10x8 was the rule of the day for proofs or reproduction. Mostly square prints were unsaleable.
Click to expand...

...and I would suggest most famous painters in history didn't like the square format either ;) and looking around my room from monitors to wardrobe... 99% of things ain't sq either, so there is something about sq they people inherently don't like :shrug:
But would have to agree in some few cases a sq photo looks nice.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well if you guys did colour printing for neg, transparencies and Cibachrome you would wince at wasting expensive paper doing square prints....if you are going to crop you might as well get a 6X4.5 camera for 15 shots a roll. Anyway I formed this opinion about 35 years ago and would never go back to 6X6cm so I wont miss a Blad.
...... but agree it was probably introduced for the twins relex cameras and come to think of it, 35mm format is odd as well. :|
Click to expand...

The square format Predates the Rolleiflex and was often the preferred choice for early sterio cameras. It also solved the lens coverage problem on cheap folders with poor lenses, as it made better use of the availabe image circle.
Cost of film was never an issue.

I never understood why a professional would use a 6x4.5 reflex camera.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I never understood why a professional would use a 6x4.5 reflex camera.
Click to expand...

Well as an amateur owning an ETRS if would be daft for me using it without prism and speed grip, and with these added, it's just a large 35mm SLR. And in the darkroom its less of a problem when enlarging for problems with spots etc compared to 35mm.
 
freecom2 said:
I'm confused. What on earth are you two talking about? :thinking:
Click to expand...

:lol: To use a 6X4.5 reflex camera (I assume SLR) on a tripod WITH NO PRISM for studio work, is a bit daft esp the bother of adjusting the tripod for vertical shots..so might as well get a RB67 with revolving back or even stay with a 6X6cm camera....same as above for landscapes etc
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top