Are Hasselblads really that special? Yes. Probably. That is the honest answer and I am slightly annoyed by it.
I borrowed a Hasselblad 500C/M for a day, used it to shoot some portraits for a friend, and went in genuinely hoping to find that the hype was overblown. It is not. They are beautifully engineered, the lenses are gorgeous, and the photos came back lovely even when I was rushing and getting the exposure slightly wrong. There is a reason these cameras have the reputation they do.
So this is not my usual forensic teardown. It is shorter, because the conclusion is simple, and because the more interesting question turned out not to be “is it good” but “why don’t I want one anyway.”
The camera
This is a Hasselblad 500C/M, one of the earlier ones, a design that dates back to 1957. There is an enormous amount of history and detail on Hasselblad online if you want to go deep. The short version: it is a modular medium format system shooting 6x6 on 120 film, and almost everything is removable and swappable.
The lens comes off. The viewfinder comes off. The film back comes off, and crucially it is hot-swappable. You can shoot a few frames on one loaded back, pull it off (the dark slide goes in first to protect the film), and put on another back loaded with different film. Black and white in one back, colour in another, switch between them mid-shoot. It is a genuinely useful system feature and it is beautifully implemented.
![PLACEHOLDER: the Hasselblad 500C/M with the film back, finder and lens, showing the modular components]
How it compares to the Bronica S2A
I shoot a Bronica S2A, which is the same basic concept: a modular 6x6 SLR with removable lens, finder and back. So the comparison is natural and I did a direct one.
The Hasselblad 500C/M with the 60mm f3.5 lens weighs 3lb 15oz. The Bronica S2A with its standard 75mm f2.8 lens weighs 4lb 2oz. So the Bronica is actually slightly heavier, despite the Hasselblad’s reputation as the more refined, more compact instrument. The Hasselblad is no lightweight, but it is a touch less of a brick than the Bronica.
That weight comparison is a decent microcosm of the whole thing. The Hasselblad is better made and a little more elegant. The Bronica is rougher and heavier. Both take a 6x6 negative and both can produce a beautiful image.
![PLACEHOLDER: the Hasselblad 500CM and the Bronica S2A side by side, showing the size and build difference]
The lenses
I had two lenses to play with: a Carl Zeiss Distagon 60mm f3.5 and a Carl Zeiss Sonnar 150mm f4.
As anyone who watches the channel knows, I like wide lenses for portraits, so the 60mm was always going to be my favourite, and it was. There is something lovely about the rendering. The 150mm is a more conventional portrait focal length and it is also very good, but the 60mm is the one that made me sit up.
The prices tell you which the market agrees is the better lens. A Carl Zeiss Distagon 60mm f3.5 runs somewhere between £600 and £800. The Carl Zeiss Sonnar 150mm f4 is more like £250. The 60mm is considered the better optic and is priced accordingly.
![PLACEHOLDER: a portrait shot on the 60mm Distagon, showing the wide-lens-for-portraits look]
Loading and shooting
Loading is much like the Bronica. Move the take-up spool to the top, feed the paper around keeping tension on it, wind until it sits tight, put the insert back into the back, and lock it. Then the loaded film back goes onto the body. Straightforward once you have done it once.
I shot a roll of Ilford FP4 first, because that is what I do, and then a roll of Fuji Pro 400H once the light dropped and I needed the extra speed. The shoot was a set of headshots for my friend Tom, working with whatever light I had: one constant light, after the wind picked up and knocked over and smashed one of my flash guns. “It wasn’t so much flash as it was smash,” as Tom put it.
Even rushing, in poor light, with a borrowed camera, the results came back genuinely good. Some frames were slightly underexposed because I was hurrying, but the overall standard was high. That is the thing about a tool this good. It flatters the operator.
![PLACEHOLDER: a couple of the headshots from the Tom shoot, including one of the slightly-underexposed-but-still-good frames]
The price, since you are wondering
These are not cheap, and the prices have gone somewhat bonkers. At the time of the original video, a 500C/M with the standard 80mm Carl Zeiss lens was running between roughly £1,000 and £2,000, with some up around £2,500. The more modern 503CW along the same design was £2,500 and up, and there were plenty out there at £3,500 to £4,000. Four thousand pounds for a camera.
Are they two-thousand-pounds good? Probably, if you have two thousand pounds. Are they worth my two thousand pounds? That is a different question, and the answer is where this gets personal.
Why I don’t want one anyway
Here is the bit I had to think carefully about, because the camera is clearly excellent and I still do not want one, and that needed explaining to myself as much as to anyone watching.
It is not the results. The Hasselblad’s images are beautiful, rich, full of character. This is not the situation I had with the Mamiya C330 where the camera itself put me off. The Hasselblad’s output is lovely.
It is not really even the price, although the price is a genuine barrier. The price is the thing that physically stops me buying one. But there is something underneath that, something that stops me even wanting to save up for one.
For me it is the same thing as Leicas. Yes, I think they are overpriced. Yes, I think people get too excited about them. But the deeper thing is the underdog instinct. I am not drawn to the top-of-the-table team. I am drawn to the lower-mid-table side. There is something more rewarding to me about backing the camera nobody else is backing.
This is exactly how I feel about supporting sports teams, and it is probably a psychologist’s playground. I am not naturally attracted to the side with all the silverware. I would rather be in the smaller, more close-knit group of people getting great results out of the underdog.
That is why I love the Bronica S2A. It is a rough diamond. Nobody is rooting for the Bronicas, which makes being a Bronica shooter feel like membership of a smaller club. And being able to take a great photo with a Bronica feels, to me, more rewarding than taking the same photo with a Hasselblad, precisely because the Hasselblad is supposed to make it easy.
The Hasselblad is top of the table. It has all the trophies. It has enough fans already. I am more interested in the unloved diamonds in the rough.
There is your insight into my character, for whatever it is worth.
So should you buy one
If you have the money and you want a medium format camera that is beautifully engineered, takes gorgeous photos, and will not disappoint you, then yes, buy a Hasselblad. The reputation is earned. You will not regret it.
If, like me, you get more out of finding the overlooked, underpriced, slightly-awkward camera that nobody else is shooting and wringing great images out of it, then you already know a Hasselblad is not for you, and you also already know that has nothing to do with whether it is a good camera. It is.
Either way, the question in the title has a clear answer. Are Hasselblads really that special? Yes. They genuinely are. Whether that matters to you is the only thing left to work out.