David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Mark B" wrote:

The Blad is a great camera but look at the prices of the lenses before you
buy. I needed more of a focal length selection than I could afford to buy
with the Hasselblad. The shutter is in the lens so each lens costs lots
more. If you can get by with just an 80mm then it has some advantages. I
might could now but couldn't then. Now I use mostly digital anyway.

Hehe. I could have written that. Were I seriously rich, a Hassy kit
consisting of the SWC, 60/3.5, and 100/3.5 might be interesting. Maybe.

My current take on things, though, is that 6x6 and 645 really aren't enough
film to justify their use given the 5D (or even the D2x, although you'll be
stuck at ISO 100 there). Mamiya 7, Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 6x7, and the Fuji
GSW690III and GW690III are what I'd be looking at today.

Another problem is scanning. Without a Nikon 9000 (or a real darkroom) it's
probably not possible to make even 6x9 compete with the 5D. The Epson V750
might do it, but by the time you're done, you'd have been better off just
buying a 5D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

The more 5D photos I look at online the less impressed I am. The Nikon
9000 was compared to the V750 and the differences were subtle. And the
wetmount kit seemed to show greater improvements that never were
compared go the Nikon 9000. Asked which the reviewer would get, they
said the V700 because the differences between all three are so subtle
and the V700 is the least expensive. But at what sized print can these
"subtleties" be made more obvious. I really could not see much
difference between the 9000 and V750 in the enlargements done. Another
test with the 8000 and V700 showed there was very little difference
between those two as well. The 8000/9000 give straight out of the box
results. The V700/V750 require a LOT of time getting results close
enough to the 8000/9000 to be negligable...I think it's more up to user
patience to learn than it is having to buy one scanner over another.
Even Rockwell, who isn't the greatest source, says the 4990 is 99% of
the Minolta Multi Pro which he says about the Multi Pro is better than
drum scans, etc.

I like the look of the Fuji, but don't think it's as impressing as what
I have seen from the better results of the Fuji vs. the better results
of the Kiev. The Fuji is also limited to one fixed lens unless you buy
the inferior lens that is a very short ranged zoom. But the Fuji is
very appealing with color and size...