10D as good as a Hassey?

Recently I worked with a photographer who uses both a Hasselblad camera and
a Canon 10D. When I asked him, he told me that the pictures he gets with
his 10D are at least as good as the pictures he gets from his Hassey; he
just uses the Hassey out of habit.



I shoot a 10D, so of course I was very glad to hear his opinion, but I
wonder how true it is. Do any of you who have experience with both the
Hassey and the 10D and agree with him?

From: "James Poynter"

Recently I worked with a photographer who uses both a Hasselblad camera and
a Canon 10D. When I asked him, he told me that the pictures he gets with
his 10D are at least as good as the pictures he gets from his Hassey; he
just uses the Hassey out of habit.

I shoot a 10D, so of course I was very glad to hear his opinion, but I
wonder how true it is. Do any of you who have experience with both the
Hassey and the 10D and agree with him?

You should post this query on rec.photo.technique.medium-format where you'll no
doubt get many informative answers.

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "James Poynter"

Recently I worked with a photographer who uses both a Hasselblad camera
and
a Canon 10D. When I asked him, he told me that the pictures he gets with
his 10D are at least as good as the pictures he gets from his Hassey; he
just uses the Hassey out of habit.

I shoot a 10D, so of course I was very glad to hear his opinion, but I
wonder how true it is. Do any of you who have experience with both the
Hassey and the 10D and agree with him?

You should post this query on rec.photo.technique.medium-format where
you'll no
doubt get many informative answers.

He'll also get flamed: people over there are getting tired of us
digiheadsg.

FWIW, I find that just about any MF camera plus a decent scanner provides a
lot more detail than 6MP dSLR captures, but 6MP dSLR images are a lot
cleaner and a lot easier to deal with on the computer than MF scans.

MF's a royal pain, except that the detail's fantastic and addictive. So I'm
passing on dSLR digital until Canon comes up with a liftable and affordable
version of the 1Ds.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

You should post this query on rec.photo.technique.medium-format

From: "David J. Littleboy"

He'll also get flamed: people over there are getting tired of us
digiheadsg.

Yeah I know ... but it's such a juicy bone for the Luddites to gnaw on over
there

FWIW, I find that just about any MF camera plus a decent scanner provides a
lot more detail than 6MP dSLR captures, but 6MP dSLR images are a lot
cleaner and a lot easier to deal with on the computer than MF scans.

I would pretty much agree with this, 6 Mpix (we have a 10D) prints at 12x18"
aren't quite as good as scanned 35 mm film, 8 Mpix (just got a Canon 1D Mark II
two weeks ago) prints at 12x18" look pretty much equal or maybe slightly better
to me than scanned 35 mm printed the same size (though I've only done a couple
so far), and 11 Mpix (Canon 1Ds) definitely makes better prints than I can get
from scanned 35 mm and is closing in on 645 medium format.

Which means to me that the 6 Mpix 10D is NOT as good as a Hassy for ultimate
image quality, but I know several wedding photographers who've switched from
Blads to the 10D because it's certainly *good enough* for THEIR needs.

But I still hope he posts on r.p.e.medium-format, just to let the boys over
there vent their outrage

Bill

In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:

MF's a royal pain, except that the detail's fantastic and addictive. So I'm
passing on dSLR digital until Canon comes up with a liftable and affordable
version of the 1Ds.

Ah, you're another member of the "Wouldn't an EOS 3D be nice?" club then?
Canon are sick of telling people that there's no demand for such a product.

I know someone who has just got his hands on a Kodak 14n (the old one)
and he's now in the process of dumping his 645 gear. Having seen some
of the results, I think he's right.

Graham


"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
I would pretty much agree with this, 6 Mpix (we have a 10D) prints at
12x18"
aren't quite as good as scanned 35 mm film, 8 Mpix (just got a Canon 1D
Mark II
two weeks ago) prints at 12x18" look pretty much equal or maybe slightly
better
to me than scanned 35 mm printed the same size (though I've only done a
couple
so far), and 11 Mpix (Canon 1Ds) definitely makes better prints than I can
get
from scanned 35 mm and is closing in on 645 medium format.

Which means to me that the 6 Mpix 10D is NOT as good as a Hassy for
ultimate
image quality, but I know several wedding photographers who've switched
from
Blads to the 10D because it's certainly *good enough* for THEIR needs.

But I still hope he posts on r.p.e.medium-format, just to let the boys
over
there vent their outrage

Bill

"Chris Brown" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

MF's a royal pain, except that the detail's fantastic and addictive. So
I'm
passing on dSLR digital until Canon comes up with a liftable and
affordable
version of the 1Ds.

Ah, you're another member of the "Wouldn't an EOS 3D be nice?" club then?

Yep. You got that right. Grumble. Spot meter and interchangeable focussing
screens are standard on real SLRs. Grumble. If one is going to pay money for
a broken camera, I'd
rather an honest broken camera like the 300D.

Canon are sick of telling people that there's no demand for such a
product.

They'd sell a lot fewer 10Ds if people knew a full-frame 3D were in the
worksg.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
news
In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:

MF's a royal pain, except that the detail's fantastic and addictive. So
I'm
passing on dSLR digital until Canon comes up with a liftable and
affordable
version of the 1Ds.

Ah, you're another member of the "Wouldn't an EOS 3D be nice?" club then?
Canon are sick of telling people that there's no demand for such a
product.

That reminds me of a cartoon I saw in a liquor store one time. The
shopkeeper behind the counter is telling his customer, "No one buys that
stuff anymore, and you're the tenth person I've told that to, today!"

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

If he is getting as good pictures from his Canon 10D as his Hasselblad, then is obviously not using the right equiptment with his Hasselblad. He must need a "PHASE ONE H 10" (http://www.phaseone.com/upload/h10_datasheet_us.pdf) for his Hasselblad.

I use one at work.... it's a real cool piece of hardware, but costs an arm and a leg.....




On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 07:26:35 -0400
"James Poynter" wrote:

Recently I worked with a photographer who uses both a Hasselblad camera and
a Canon 10D. When I asked him, he told me that the pictures he gets with
his 10D are at least as good as the pictures he gets from his Hassey; he
just uses the Hassey out of habit.



I shoot a 10D, so of course I was very glad to hear his opinion, but I
wonder how true it is. Do any of you who have experience with both the
Hassey and the 10D and agree with him?

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:


But I still hope he posts on r.p.e.medium-format, just to let the boys over
there vent their outrage

Every frigging photo group is talking digital about something -- in the
medium format group, it's the latest generation of scanning backs.

--
Rebecca Ore
Olympus D-510 Zoom and Minolta Autocord