907X--better for shooting manhole covers or people?

[rweissman]

Having viewed the hundreds of image posted in the "Fun with 907X" thread here and on the similarly named Hasselblad Digital subforum , I am struck by the virtual absence of images of people. The 41 pages on the "Fun with 907X" GetDPI thread actually have more photos of manhole covers than of people. This is not true of the X1D forums or of medium format forums more broadly, where images of people are plentiful.

As I'm considering buying one this week to complement my X1D2, and as I photograph people, primarily, I am curious if there is a systematic reason for this. Several hypotheses come to mind:

1. Photographers attracted to the 907X tend to be more introverted and prefer things, landscapes, still lives, etc. to people.
2. There is no systematic preference for things over people. What I've observed is just the product of random, 'luck of the draw' posting. (But the 100:1 or closer to 200:1 preference for things to people in what is posted argues against this. the probability of a 100:1 or worse ratio being explained by chance is rather small.)
3. Shooter preference for adapted lenses (which fill many of the interesting postings here) requires the use of the electronic shutter. Does use of the electronic shutter and its very slow scan times, limit the ability to shoot people? (I wouldn't think so and Godfrey's few people shots argue otherwise.)
4. Overall, the 907X, for reasons of usability, form factor, the absence of on camera flash, the popularity of the waist finder perspective (making the photographer, perhaps, connect less directly with people), or some related reason, makes the camera a poor choice for photographing people. (I didn't include autofocus on this list since the identical meandering autofocus doesn't seem to deter X1D people shooters.)

Do any of these hypotheses make sense to you? What has been your experience in people shooting with the 907X? Are there inherent limitations in shooting people (besides the lack of easy use of flash/strobe shooting without sync cables)? How often do you shoot people with the 907X? For those of you who are most active on this forum, if you take them, why aren't you posting people shots?

 

[Godfrey]

I tend to be more interested in graphic subjects anyway, so I shoot more of them than people. I also tend to want to use a tripod more of the time with larger cameras like the 907x or 500CM/CFVII 50c, and usually that means a slower, more studied portraiture approach in those people photos, whereas a light camera like the Leica CL or a Polaroid SX-70 is easier and more fun with casual people photography.

The eshutter's 300ms readout time does pose its own limitations too. People work needs careful timing, I toss a lot of them for lack of the quality I'm after. Expressions can be very fleeting, the 45-65-90 native lenses on the 907x seems a better choice for people than most adapted lenses for this reason. I haven't got the 65 yet, and it would be my natural choice for people being the format "normal".

Your point #4 ... hmm. I don't use flash much ever anyway, that's not an issue. The WL finder setup lets me talk to the subject without a camera in the way of my eye, so that's not an issue. I manual focus 90% of the time with native lenses too, so that's not an issue.

By and large, the 907x is a fine camera for doing anything a photographer wants to do with, but it's just a bit bigger and heavier to carry about than I normally use for photographing a lot of street type scenes with. Those types of scenes generally don't need the kind of extreme dynamic range and super fine detail that the larger format is capable of, so why work harder to get what you want when something lighter, smaller, etc, will do the job just fine? I have a range of different cameras for this reason.

G

 

[Frederic]

I’d cast a vote for #4 AFAIC
Tried to shoot in portrait orientation with one, kept my X1D.

 

[darr]

I own the 907x, but bought it primarily for using the CFV50CII on my tech cameras. When I shoot portraits, the 907x + 45P (only lens I own for it) is not the camera I choose. Why? Because it does not have an electronic viewfinder and I prefer using a live viewfinder to look through the lens when I photograph people. I do photograph people with my 4x5 and film on an occasion, but that is not what I consider to be candid portraiture, and more of a fine art approach. If I wanted to shoot 44x33 sensor for portraits, I probably would choose a Fuji 50R.

 

[glennedens]

None of the above The people photographs I make (some with the 907x) are family, friends, memories and personal moments not intended to be shared here. I'll send friends images that I believe might have meaning, however it is for them to share, if and where they wish. Other than the electronic shutter issue the 907x with XCD lenses is similar to working with the V-series except you have autofocus and flash sync to 1/2000 and works well for photographs of people - although there are some photographers who need eye-tracking, etc. I also totally agree with the points made by Darr, Frederic and Godfrey.

 

[MGrayson]

Disclaimer: I seldom photograph people, nor do I own a 907x.
I did once assist at a portrait class. The emphasis was not on lighting technique or equipment, but on maintaining contact with the subject while still having a camera in front of your face. This is much harder to do than it sounds. Students would get a stunning smile or subtly revealing expression from their subject .. and then raise the camera to their eye - too late! A waist level viewfinder might make this connection difficult. (Yes, Hassy 500 photographers did it all the time.) Using an LCD screen would not be much better. I only have a hope of it with an OVF (old fashioned, I know).

 

[docholliday]

I don't own either a 907x or X1D2 - the reason is no OVF. Most of the items I shoot, especially if it involves people, needs the OVF for the fast paced action that is happening. That also means that 1) the finder is in front of my eye with me directing the subject or 2) the camera is framed and focused, but I'm nowhere near the camera finder.

When shooting models and dancers, the camera is in my hand, eye glued to the finder so I can watch every little nuance and fire accordingly. I always shoot a prism in these situations and track the subject to maintain framing while watching for the fine expression. This requires a finder with absolutely no lag to accomplish successfully and have a high keeper rate.

For "sitting" portrait work, I usually frame and focus the camera on stand or tripod, tuck a wireless remote into my hand, and stand behind or next to the camera conversing/directing the subject. Since I already know my frame and focus limits, I just interact with them until a moment occurs where I trip the shutter. There's usually a tether and feedback monitor facing me so I can see how things are progressing during the shoot. For these shots, it doesn't matter if it's a prism, WLF, or chimney. I want the sitter to forget the camera and focus on me.

Directing is the hardest part of any shoot involving people. And many times, it's that millisecond period between direction and the person comprehending it where the perfect expression occurs before they become self-aware of what their doing. I also keep the studio in low light (pitch black many times) except for the modeling lights on the subject so that the sitter is less aware of the other people or distracting items in the room. It helps keep their focus on me and my voice. When it's dark like this and you are looking at an EVF, it's blinding and distracting to me. You can have the best lighting, best gear, and perfect model - but if you can't direct and establish a connection between you and the subject, the images will show.

When I shoot portraits in LF, I'm never, ever behind the camera. I get the focus set, film loaded, and place a remote in my hand. I'll then stand next to the camera or sit under the lens. I'll just have a conversation with the sitter and when the moment is right, trip the shutter.

 

[Shashin]

Landscapes are the dominant genre at GetDPI. So the fact there are few or no portraiture does not surprise me.

Some cameras are "easier" to shoot portraits than others, but portraits can be taken with any camera. I have certainly used cameras that are not considered appropriate for a particular style of photography quite successfully. Part of photography is to get the camera work for you, rather than be a slave to the camera.

If you are inspired to use the 907X for portraits, I would go for it. It might not be the easiest camera to use, but it might lead to some interesting results.

 

[rweissman]

Thanks, to all of you--Godfrey, Frederic, Darr, Docholliday, Shashin, Glennedens, MGrayson-for very intelligent and consistent replies.

Yes, of course, I have other cameras fit for purpose (Canon C70 & Lumix S1H for video, Leica SL2-S for hybrid situations and low light and a brace of Profoto and Good strobes and flashes.)

In any case, since I really like the quality of the files coming off of the X1DII and, for certain situations (especially for day trips and travel) I thought of lightening my kit and having two very high quality yet small bodies able to use the same lenses. For that reason, I did want to understand the portrait limitations of the 907x and am now better educated by this group. (And, yes, this website does tend towards landscapes, but the same absence of people photos was found as well at Hasselblad Digital's 907x photo subforum, so I suspected something systematic was going on. Of all the things I failed to consider, the difficulty of shooting in portrait mode had not yet occurred to me--and I will test the handgrip to see if that makes things easier.) Thanks to all of you, what I'm now considering is a modified version of my original intention: keep a general purpose / portrait lens like the 65 or 90 on the X1Dii and a wide angle like the 21mm or 30mm on the 907x for landscapes + the jack of all trades 45p. available as needed for either body.

And, I too, had thought that one reason for the absence of people photos was privacy and confidentiality. One of the groups I shoot for forbids any web publication or sharing of photos for exactly those reasons, but I didn't realize that this was a fairly widespread concern. (It is why I rarely post photos, either.). Again, thanks to all of you for exactly the kind of helpful and enlightening discussion I had hoped to provoke.

 

[rweissman]

And this is the kind of IDXII SOOC file that I find so seductive. (Using the 120 Macro lens). No editing (yet).

 

[PabloR]

I have been shooting for a long time with Hasselblad, many Hs and now Xs, today many portraits and some stories for fashion magazines ( next will be Numéro Russia

Original Hasselblad were square format based designs, 907x is a beautiful design, but the sensor is not square.

So the V system is not ready to turn the camera but Hasselblad doesn't give the rotate possibility to their CFVs. In my opinion it is a really SAD decision.

Who will use a landscape horizontal design camera to shot portraits ??? no body does!

Crop to 33x33 is too small for medium format shooters. 44 is the minimum for me, 54 was better. So, crop to square is not for purist.

There are many many advantages with this camera for portrait, as use it at chest level on a tripod, you can check the screen while your hands and face are free to direct your subjetc. Still there are many professionals using Hasselblad V, but them use phase one because you can rotate the back. You can check ( Nick Knight, Mert & Marcus, Paolo Roversi, David Sims, Steven Meisel... )

I will use it as Hasselblad fan when Hasselblad decide to give a solution.

also screen are not useful on a sunny day...

kind regards

 

[Godfrey]

I'm sorry, but you can do many types of people photographs with a horizontal frame ... they do it in cinema and magazine layout all the time. I crop to square as a matter of course anyway, for many many kinds of shots. And I have no problem seeing the screen in daylight.

G

 

[SrMphoto]

What Godfrey said: good photographers shoot portraits in horizontal mode as well.
Example: https://www.markmannphoto.com/actors

 

[tcdeveau]

I briefly had a 907x and still use the X1D but only use the medium format stuff for landscapes. I use the Nikon Z and Leica M10M for all my people photography instead just based on personal preference.

Like others, I don't post my people photos because it's all pictures of my family and I'd rather keep them private.

Nothing inherently wrong with the 907x for people photography except not as portrait-mode friendly as some other comparable cams (X1D, GFX, etc) and lacks helpful tools like eye/face-detect AF.

 

[EdintheClouds]

I'm sorry, but you can do many types of people photographs with a horizontal frame ... they do it in cinema and magazine layout all the time. I crop to square as a matter of course anyway, for many many kinds of shots. And I have no problem seeing the screen in daylight.

G

But not when the Art Director wants portrait format.

 

[Godfrey]

But not when the Art Director wants portrait format.

I am my Art Director. When I want portrait format, I do it: it's not a concern. The 907x with XCD21 or 45P, optical viewfinder, and hand grip works fine as an eye level camera, and I can fit a Leica or Voigtländer 50mm viewfinder and use the 65mm lens as well with very good results In portrait format. I just don't need portrait format capture all that much most of the time.

Of course, if you're doing studio portraiture, it's no problem at all ... just roll the camera 90° on the tripod and snap away using the LCD for framing. That's what they make L-brackets for. I don't know any Art Director who'd object to that.

G

 

[PSS]

I have both 907 and X1DII, I prefer to shoot people in studio with 907 IF POSSIBLE, which means, camera locked down, tethered, focus set, lights set, which usually means 45P or 65 at f8-f11 full length or 4/3 I usually shoot MQ and don't even look at the camera, usually have somebody checking focus on incoming frames. this set up is usually vertical. I also like to shoot people with 907 outside with 30 or 45, maybe AF, maybe focus set and keeping distance (obviously this requires experienced talent) horizontal only.
anytime I try to shoot 907 handheld vertical it really needs to be static objects and even then I am not sure I like it. I am not a big fan of holding a camera out infront of my face, but others like it, I see people do it all the time, maybe its the iPhone thing that they are used to. trying to hold anything longer then a 65 vertical in front of the face is madness.
I love looking down at the folded out screen in horizontal position (maybe its because that is what I am used to) and I really wish the screen would fold out for vertical as well but I understand that it would probably add size and weight. I would definitely prefer that extra weight and size, everybody shows it is doable and in a way I want it more on the 907 then on the X1DII.
shooting moving people handheld with longer lenses isn't that easy with X system because for the most part AF is a challenge (GFX isn't better). I prefer to use manual focus at that point and that is what the X1DII is for.
I don't really use the 907 for headshots or tighter (head and shoulder) portraits, it can be done but it requires a "pose, AF lock, shoot" workflow which is often not what I am looking for.