Hasselblad? Looking For a Prosumer Grade Review from Users

I am relatively new to the 'best' of cameras to be had in this world.
Seems to be a wide range of answers to debate between what a Hasselblad is
built to replicate vs. what another pro-sumer camera, like Nikon or Canon,
can offer in the same market for a reasonable price.

The joke on me?

Seems a Hasselblad was built to go beyond what a "hobbyist" camera does and
gets down to the real art of capturing a technically superior image to a
sensor capable of recording the same field in stunningly accurate detail.
If I'm reading the price-ranges quoted for each camera body type rightly
(Hasselblad) they all seem to be far above the class of cameras expected to
do only so much (depending upon the constraints given to the 'lesser'
capable cameras).

So my question is...

Does the madness of buying a camera (only because of a name-brand stuck on
it) actually co-orelates to the quality expected out of such camera?

If so, my $40,000 mortgage may have yet to be attached to something of
permanent stature (usually a house). Cameras aren't so attached, so it
seems that taking a loan out to get one is *really* taken as the serious
matter it deserves.

Am I off-base here? $400 vs $30,000 should bring a huge leap of
possibilities, and needs justification for being so expensive that it takes
a small mortgage attached to a house to justify buying it.


Canon's Rebel XS, as a starter is fine for tinkering, and learning about
basic relationships, but the Hasselblad seems to have all the other factors
of photographing down to a science not yet attainable by any but the
highest end and most serious camera buffs - rightly professionals who make
money off their picures.

Anybody selling these neat professional grade instruments.
My Canon looks like a cheap toy, by comparison. Photoshop only goes so
far.


--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

On 2011-06-02 03:18 , SneakyP wrote:

Does the madness of buying a camera (only because of a name-brand stuck on
it) actually co-orelates to the quality expected out of such camera?

Was it J.P. Morgan who said, "If you have to ask the price, you can't
afford it."?

A Hassy digital camera is, mainly, a tool for advertising and editorial
photographers and a narrower field of photographers documenting art of
various kind in exceptional detail. Then an even narrower field of
photographers producing art for their own sake.

Almost all of them pay off the camera based on sales and contracts
related to photography within 2 years. While making a profit and a
living. The exception being museums and such which depreciate the
camera over a period of 5 years or so (depending on local accounting
practices).

If you have to talk about buying a camera in personal terms related to a
mortgage then do the following:

- go to the Hassy page on B&H.
- fill out the online order without committing
- once that's done look at it.
- take a deep breath and hold it for 20 seconds while reading all that

Then get on with your real life.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

SneakyP wrote:

I am relatively new to the 'best' of cameras to be had in this world.

The best camera is the one you have with you.

Am I off-base here? $400 vs $30,000 should bring a huge leap of
possibilities,

You could buy 75 $400 cameras, for example.
But unless you have positively outgrown $400 cameras and $4,000
cameras (and another $6,000 in lenses) --- and you know exactly
what is missing that you need --- you don't even want a $30,000
camera.

As to the huge leap: Look at computers. Look at the high end
how a few percent increase in power cost you 100% more money.

The hugest leap is from all-auto to manual. The next leap is
from a P&S to a larger format where you have more than 2
aperture settings and interchangeable lenses. The next leap
(already quite expensive) would be extreme lenses (very long,
very short and very fast) or a larger sensor.
From then on you're paying more and more for less and less extra.

Canon's Rebel XS, as a starter is fine for tinkering, and learning about
basic relationships, but the Hasselblad seems to have all the other factors
of photographing down to a science not yet attainable by any but the
highest end and most serious camera buffs - rightly professionals who make
money off their picures.

Going from a Rebel (any Rebel) to a Hasselblad is like going
straight from a smaller city-car with (just) enough space for
the weekly shopping to a formula one race car: much faster, much
more specialized, no cargo space at all, needs a large team to
keep it running, needs specialized training, needs special roads,
needs lots of wheel changes, etc. etc.

Unless --- see above --- you use your city-car for races, you
won't win much from switching to a formula one car, and I'd start
with the much cheaper, though slower, go-cart.

Anybody selling these neat professional grade instruments.
My Canon looks like a cheap toy, by comparison.

In which way do you hope to improve your results with a
better camera? Where is the XS lacking *for you*?
What lenses do you have? Where do you feel them lacking?

Photoshop only goes so far.

Try producing mostly finished shots, not ones you need to
process much in Photoshop.

-Wolfgang

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
On 2011-06-02 03:18 , SneakyP wrote:

Does the madness of buying a camera (only because of a name-brand stuck
on
it) actually co-orelates to the quality expected out of such camera?

Was it J.P. Morgan who said, "If you have to ask the price, you can't
afford it."?

A Hassy digital camera is, mainly, a tool for advertising and editorial
photographers and a narrower field of photographers documenting art of
various kind in exceptional detail. Then an even narrower field of
photographers producing art for their own sake.

Almost all of them pay off the camera based on sales and contracts related
to photography within 2 years. While making a profit and a living. The
exception being museums and such which depreciate the camera over a period
of 5 years or so (depending on local accounting practices).

If you have to talk about buying a camera in personal terms related to a
mortgage then do the following:

- go to the Hassy page on B&H.
- fill out the online order without committing
- once that's done look at it.
- take a deep breath and hold it for 20 seconds while reading all that

Then get on with your real life.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Back in the early 70's (film era) I was doing a lot of 35mm photography.
First with a Praktika and then, when I got serious, with a Minolta SRT-101.
That camera, outfitted with the kit 58mm f/1.4 and a 28mm and a 135mm took
great pictures and taught me a lot about photography, including framing,
color balancing, film choice, etc.

Then I decided that I needed a larger format. First I bought a Yashica MAT
124G and shot a fair amount of 120 and 220 film. I got so taken by the
large format that I wanted more. So I bought a Mamiya M645 for $850 (one
hell of a lot of money in the early 70s). Then I hit the wall. The 645 was
just too big to carry for the kind of photography I did (so, by the way, was
the 124G), so it languished.

I went back to 35mm. In fact, I nearly abandonded the SRT-101, too. Most
of my shooting was done with a Minolta ALF. And I really learned a lot with
it. Since the only thing it did for me was be reliable and provide an
accurate meter reading; I had to do all the rest of the work.

An that's the way things stood for nearly thirty years. When the ALF
finally gave out, I moved to digital, but was careful not to get too carried
a way with features I didn't need. I currently use a Sony A550 and put,
maybe, 1000 frames a month through it. But, because I learned to do most of
the work with my SRT101 and ALF, the only adjustments I usually have to do
now is straighten the horizon (I must walk and stand leaning left) -- unless
I want to get really wacko or avant garde.

Bottom line -- don't get carried away with featuritis. List what you really
need (not what you think you need) and make sure that you prioritize those
features -- list the deal breakers. For example, I don't hesitate to take
my A550 just about everywhere I go. If I lose it, it can be replaced for
about $1000. I'd never carry a $40,000 large format camera around like
that. First, it's far too heavy, and, second, if I lost it both I and my
insurance company would be royally ****ed. Hell, I'd hesitate to carry a
$4000 full frame camera around like that, although I probably would.
Remember, if you're worrying about carrying a heavy camera around, or you're
concerned with damage or loss, you're not paying enough attention to your
subject.

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:11:38 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:
: On Jun 2, 2:18am, SneakyP
: wrote:
: Am I off-base here? $400 vs $30,000 should bring a huge leap of
: possibilities, and needs justification for being so expensive that
: it takes a small mortgage attached to a house to justify buying it.
:
: As you enter the upper reaches of any range of products, you get less
: and less extra for each increment of extra money. And when we're
: talking about serious tools like cameras, you need a lot of skills
: yourself to actually achieve what the cameras are capable of. They're
: often considerably harder to get even ordinary results from; they're
: not user-friendly. They're optimized for use by experts.
:
: I think what I'm saying here is that if it isn't entirely obvious to
: you, in photographic terms, why you might buy a $30,000 camera, then
: you nearly certainly would be making a mistake buying a $30,000
: camera. You can almost never spend your way to significantly better
: pictures -- unless you're really reaching the limits of your current
: equipment, and are prepared to exploit the additional capabilities of
: better equipment.

I agree.

Better equipment will make almost anyone a better photographer. But the better
photographer you already are, the more difference better equipment makes. If
you're a newbie with limited photographic skills, very expensive equipment is
a waste of money.

And you have to know what "better equipment" means in a given context. A
camera that constitutes a major improvement for a journalist or event
photographer may be nearly useless to a portrait photographer, and vice-versa.

I think most photographers upgrade along an incremental path, generally
staying with what they know and understand. In my case, for example, it was G5
to XTi to 50D to 7D. Each upgrade was a significant step, but each camera
built on the strengths of its predecessor, and none presented a sudden steep
learning curve.

Suppose you were learning to play the violin and realized that you had
outgrown your $400 starter instrument. Would you go straight to a $30,000
violin? Probably not, unless you were a certified prodigy; the upgrade would
simply not be worth the money at that stage. It's the same with cameras. Get a
better camera if you need one, but skip the big bucks purchases until you're a
working professional and understand the specific requirements of your trade.

Bob