Hasselblad vs Arax

Last Saturday I met with a friend to talk photography and do some shooting. He brought along his Hasselblad kit and I brought my Arax kit. This was the first opportunity we had to compare the two medium-format kits.

Some background. I wanted to step up to medium format for several reasons. Primarily it was to be capable of making larger prints. I also figured that if I needed to use a tripod, I might as well use something larger than 35mm film. As I shoot primarily with rangefinders, I knew that if I were to get a medium format kit, it would only see occasional use so I didn't want to spend very much money on it. Used Hasselblads have gone down in price but the lenses are still very expensive. This is also the same all other medium format cameras. When it comes to Hasselblads, even the accessories are very expensive. Moreover, used medium-format cameras were primarily used by professionals and the cheaper ones on the market probably had thousands of rolls put through them so even if they may look beautiful on the outside they may not be in such great shape mechanically. (None are made like Leicas afterall ... although I read that the Rolleiflex SL66 may be comparable in quality)

So I bought an Arax CM MLU/SE, which is based on a Soviet Kiev-88. The Kiev-88 was a Soviet copy of the Hasselblad 1000, a predecessor of the Hasselblad 500 series of cameras. Unfortunately, the quality control at Arsenal plant in Kiev, Ukraine, where these cameras were made, was and still remain non-existent. However the Kiev-88 that is completely rebuilt and modified for reliability by Gevorg Vartanyan and his crew at Araxfoto. It is practically a brand new, custom-made camera. "Nando" is even engraved on it. It also features a Pentacon-6 mount enabling me to use excellent Carl Zeiss Jena and Schneider lenses from Germany that can be had pretty cheap. These lenses were made for the Pentacon-6 and Exakta-66 cameras that are now discontinued.

The Arax came with an Arax 80mm f/2.8 normal lens. I acquired a Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8 Flektogon wide-angle and a 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar. The 50 and 180mm lenses are very highly regarded. A few days ago, I also purchased a Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2.8 Biometar as it is better made than the standard Arax lens. It hasn't arrived yet. An equivalent used Hasselblad kit would have cost me about 7 times the price.

My first impression is that the Arax is very solid. I had experience some experience with a regular Kiev and the Arax is a night and day difference. It is much quieter, smoother and best of all, there are no crushing walnut sounds when cocking the shutter. A few quirks remain. For example, if I set the shutter-speed before cocking the shutter, the shutter will jam and there may be some damage. I was ok with this since Leica screwmount cameras have the same quirk. I've gotten used to it. The Hasselblads aren't free from quirks either. If one mounts a lens on a Hassy without cocking the shutter first, the shutter will jam.

My second impression is that this kit is HUGE! With a Leica, I can take a body with a 50mm normal lens on my shoulder along with a 35mm wide-angle and a 75 or 90mm telephoto in my jacket or coat pockets. Carrying the Arax with the standard 80mm normal plus 50mm wide-angle and 180mm telephoto requires a seriously big camera bag. Also, the 180mm definitely requires the use of a tripod. Luckily, I have a ThinkTank Airport Antidote backpack. On my last trip to Portugal, I took five 35mm camera bodies, nine lenses plus many accessories and this bag held everything with room to spare. However, my complete Arax kit takes almost all the space in this bag! In addition, the bag with just the kit and the tripod strapped to it weighs almost 15 pounds!

Here's a photo of the kit:


For comparison, here's a shot of a Leica M kit that is almost equivalent in terms of focal lengths. To be fair, having an extra film back for the Arax is like having two cameras so I included my two M bodies instead of just one. When I go out to shoot seriously, I usually do take two bodies with me but I can do just fine with just one. Meet Mr. White with Dino mounted, Rudolf with Snoopy mounted and Diane. (I haven't named my Arax or MF lenses yet.)


The bag. I took the extension tubes because my friend hadn't seen them yet and there was enough room for my Voigtlander Bessa-T (Panda Bear) with the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton (The Beast) mounted along with my 21mm f/4 Skopar (Sparkle) so I took them along:


But how does it compare to my friends Hassy? Along with the Hassy 501C body and standard Zeiss 80mm f/2.8 Planar, he brought his Zeiss 50mm f/4 Distagon and Zeiss 150mm f/4 Sonnar. Did I come back from this meeting with a black eye and Hasselblad written across my forehead?

Edit: My friend's camera is not a 500C but a 501C. The 500C was launched in 1957 and produced until 1970 when it was replaced by the 500CM. The 501C was introduced in 1994. I changed this post accordingly.

Well, in terms of fit and finish, there is no contest. My friend's Hasselblad 501C wins by a mile. I think that a direct comparison to a Hasselblad 1000, which preceded the 500, would have been more fair. The Hasselblad 1000 was introduced in 1952. From the photographs that I've seen of the Hassy 1000, it seems that there were great improvements in terms of fit and finish on my friend's 501C, which arrived 42 years later. However, my Zeiss lenses were close to his Zeiss lenses in fit and finish. The lenses for the Hasselblad are more complicated as the shutter is built into the lens instead of the body that makes them much more expensive. Also, the focusing screen on my Arax was around 1.5 or perhaps 2 stops darker than the super-bright Acute-matte screen on the Hassy. I couldn't believe how bright the screen on the Hassy was. However, I did find it a bit harder to focus with it than with my darker Fresnel screen on my Arax. On the Hassy, I had to rely more on the split-screen and microprism focusing aids whereas on the Arax I only use the aids when fine focusing was really necessary. This was just an impression. I didn't spend much time exploring this.

To the Arax's credit, the Hasselblad wasn't that much smoother in operation. The cranking the Hasselblad to cock the shutter and wind the film felt smoother than on the Arax but not by much. Both cameras are much smoother than a regular Kiev-88. I found that the noise level is about the same for both cameras. I couldn't tell which one was louder. They are both fire very loud and will get noticed. The sounds are different though as the shutter mechanisms of the two cameras are quite different.

Here's a photo taken at Bar1, where we stopped for cappuccinos and some photography talk. That's my friend's Hassy 501C on the left with the Zeiss 150mm f/4 Sonnar mounted. My Arax is on the left with the Zeiss 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar on it. The 180 is so heavy that it is tipping the camera downward despite the camera body being quite hefty itself.



We are still waiting for mailers so that we can send our 120 film away for development. I'm hoping that there won't be any light leaks. That's one of the main problem areas with regular Kievs. The Arax should be free from them.

In the meantime, here are some photographs that I took that day with my Voigtlander Bessa-T and 35mm f/1.2 Nokton. The light was very nice that day but unpredictable. It was also very cold. Cold enough to cause the meter on my Voigtlander to stop working and I was close to getting frost-bitten hands. The photo session basically consisted of us running out of the car, taking a few shots, running back into the car to warm up and then repeating the process.

My friend with his Hassy:





Two more...

Good job Nando. Can't wait to see the results.

I need to get a new meter so I can use my 500C and other cameras with no built-in meter. Sunny 16 only works so well.

I'd go with an external meter, of course. However, you can consider a Soviet metered prism for your Hasselblad as they are much cheaper than the Hassy ones. Of course, they are much like an external meters as they're not coupled to the camera. The prisms and viewfinders for Kiev-88 and Hasselblad V series are interchangeable. The Spot/TTL meter on my prism worked flawlessly. It matched my Sekonic L588 readings. A company called Hartblei used to modify Kiev film backs to work with Hasselblad bodies too. These were much less expensive than the Hassy ones. However they have stopped making modifications to Kievs and Kiev parts. Now, Hartblei is concentrating just on making shift/tilt lenses. I would eventually like to get a Hartblei 45mm f/3.5 Superrotator shift/tilt for the Arax.

BTW, I made a little pamphlet in Microsoft Publisher with exposure charts from FredParker.com. ( http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm ) I always have it on me just in case I forget a meter or to use as a reference. They are very accurate. Although the charts may seem overwhelming, they are quite easy to use.