>MF FILM Gday /p/ I want to start shooting portraits on

>>3062935
Anyone who uses this camera deserves to be punched in the face

Hasselblad is good but it is also very temperamental. never force anything with a blad, it it doesn't move, shift , come off easily you will break it because you are doing something wrong. they were far from the best 120 camera but they were a standard, so they are relatively cheap now.

for the body, look for a 500c/m, 501, or 503. stay away from the ELMs and shit, also the 500c (the 500c didn't have interchangeable focus screens but the 500c/m did)

Lenses the standard 80 is great and a 150 is nice for portraits. The C lenses can no longer be repaired (unless you can find someone to make the springs / cams) if they are not keeping proper time, and CF lenses still have new parts available from Hasselblad.

Elenchrome strobes are great just remember you need more light for the same DOF you did with 135. So your f2.8 80mm is kinda like a f1.4 50mm on 135.

the other thing to consider with 120 cameras is that if you are printing 2x3, or 4x3 you are cropping heavily on the square frame. or often printing 7.5x7.5 on an 8x10 sheet of paper. so if you prefer to do most of your composition in camera, go with a 645 or 67, you waste less film, but if you are a person who doesn't mind cropping or just like squares, 6x6 is great

>>3062959
This
Just buy a 645 or 67

>>3062935
Hblad is jewellery, not a photographers camera.

Mamiya and fuji do much better studio bodies and lenses.

>>3062935
If you're set on a 6x6 SLR you should try to get a cheap Bronica SQ (not the very old Bronica S stuff, maybe an SQ-A). They have electronic leaf shutters and while they aren't full metal and you won't be able to show off Zeiss™T* coating labels and 140+lp/mm charts you will get just as far for a lot less money/trouble.

If you are only going to do studio portraiture then you should try an RB67 or RZ67.

Since you've never shot film I'll assume you've mostly composed looking through 2:3 viewfinders so just know that any 6x6 or 6x7 camera is going to be a different experience

>>3062959

Ah I asked about this in SQT but got no response... Previous to that I did google but ghuess I couldnt phrase it properly to get any relevant results.

Please explain a bit more ?

Thanks

>>3062959
>>3063769

Sorry just realised I totally omitted any specific information:

Im interested in how the larger film plane & lenses effect the DOF. I only have a basic grasp of how the focal length changes between 120 & 135 too, so if your feeling eloquent..

>>3062935
Anything that still operates and has a lens on it will work, it's the scene that will make the photo

>>3063848
and buy a damn light meter

File: 1418866368963.jpg (58KB, 386x426px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 386x426px

>>3062956
sour grapes faggot detected

>>3063773
>Im interested in how the larger film plane & lenses effect the DOF. I only have a basic grasp of how the focal length changes between 120 & 135 too, so if your feeling eloquent..
It doesn't.

Depth of field is a function of your focal length and focal distance.

If you start talking about equivalent framing (i.e. making a subject fill about the same amount of frame in a 120 camera as a 135), then the reason that you see a thinner depth of field on a larger format is that you're able to get closer to the minimum focus distance of the lens (where DoF is minimized).

>>3062935
>gday
>not even g'day
faggot fuck off, i bet you're not even from the southern hemisphere

>>3067005
M8, how am I sour when I have two XPans. Kys