Asking advice

jjs wrote:
: In article , "David J. Littleboy"
: wrote:

: "Stefan Patric" wrote:
:
: If you want a medium format SLR, and can't justify the cost of the
: Hasselblad, the Mamiya 645 1000S is an excellent alternative.
:
: Or if you're a wimp like me, the Mamiya 645e.

: Oh David, that's not Real MF. It's half-frame. There! That should boost
: the life of the thread.

We all know that real photographers use 4x5 and larger. A 645 makes a good
point and shoot while 6x6 is for people that can't make up their minds.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote in message
i.nl...
BCampbell wrote:

Oh get serious. Hasselblads are mechanical instruments, they break just
like
all other mechanical instruments. I've seen at least as many, probably
more,
questions about repairing Hasselblads as any other camera. I don't mind
your playing Head Cheerleader for Hasselblad, we all have our unfounded
prejudices, but please don't insult us by claiming that a Hasselblad
system
is the cheapest system to buy.

You know, when a Kiev breaks, you toss it away. When a Hasselblad breaks
you
repair it.
In the long run, a Hasselblad indeed is the cheapest system to buy.


This is only a logically valid statement if one takes it as read that the
'blad repairs cost less than the replacement Kievs. This is probably not
the case.

In truth, a 'bald _may_ be the cheapest _body_ to buy, so long as
repairs are infrequent. It is certainly not the cheapest _system_ to buy.



Peter

Bob Monaghan wrote:

However, the above stats suggest that
most users don't add lots of lenses, and are happy with one or two lens
kits.


The again they may be "happy with one or two lens kits" because they have no
choice about it from a cost standpoint? From talking with other kiev
owners, most of them have half a dozen lenses if not more. Seems when you
can buy lenses for under $200 it makes it easier. :-)




Finally, I and others are hoping that we soon see a series of kiev lenses
with native hasselblad F mounts.

I'd rather see a F series blad body converted to P-6 mount.

--

Stacey

quoting BB:
b) or tighten the belt one notch more and save save save and buy
refurb Hassy 500CM or similar and couple lenses
endquote:

The key point here is the user expects to live with a "couple" of lenses:

The price of a "refurb" 500cm kit with 2 or 3 lenses is a lot less today
than 3 years ago; the older C 50/150 lenses are often around $400 US$, the
basic body/lens/back kit often under $800 with normal lens and back, and
older (and more useful) 12 backs only $125 and up. A couple of lenses kit
(80/150) with standard body could easily cost under $1,200. A few years
ago, the 150 C lens alone would have cost that!

A study of lenses for hassy sold http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenssold.html
suggests the typical hassy body has only 2 lenses sold for it; perhaps
2/3rds of all MF SLR owners only have the normal lens, and only a third of
MF SLR hassy owners have 3 lenses. The point here is that MOST hassy
owners, and most MF (and 35mm) SLR owners don't have many lenses either
;-) So expecting to live with only a few (2) lenses may be very realistic

If you want or need more than a few lenses, then Stacey's and other
poster's advice will becomes more compelling. An arax MLU starter kit
with normal lens in the P6 mount which has the CZJ/Schneider P6 lens mount
is $579 (see http://www.araxphoto.com/cameras/ ) new with warranty etc.
The 45mm wide angle (somewhat problematic reputation) is $175; the 150mm
f.2.8 (focal plane) lens is $229. So cost wise, a two lens Kiev-88/P6 kit
is around $750 US$ new with warranty. A three lens kit is still under
$1,000 US$. A used 3 lens hassy 500cm kit with 50/150 might be $1500+.

One major difference is the C lenses for hassy have flash synch at any
speed leaf shutters. If you need flash outdoors (weddings, portraits),
then you have a good reason to spend $500 or so more for the two lens
hassy kit. If you don't, then you may prefer the Kiev kit, esp. if you
intend to add more lenses over time. However, the above stats suggest that
most users don't add lots of lenses, and are happy with one or two lens
kits.

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/budgetblad.html Buying Blads on a Budget etc.

My personal advice is to buy the Kiev60, which is usually more reliable
than the kiev88 designs, lots cheaper ($150 ish with TTL meter prism and
lens!), and native P6 mount. Very few people with interchangeable backs
actually use them !! ;-) The stats suggest less than 2 interchangeable
backs sold per SLR body. Most of the problems with MF SLRs are in the
interchangeable backs, not the bodies. Eliminating the backs gets rid of
the major problem source.

you could easily do both, of course. Buy the basic hasselblad 2 or 3 lens
kit, then buy a P6 body (e.g., kiev 60 for $150-200 with arsat normal
lens and TTL metering prism). Add to the kiev 60 kit for shift lenses and
telephotos and other stuff that is pricey or slower lenses in C lens
series and hassy accessories. The arsat fisheye 30mm is so cheap that you
can afford to buy the kiev60 kit just to add this lens to your arsenal
(the hassy 30mm lens is over ten times the cost used).

So it isn't necessarily a bad idea to mix and match, using each line for
its strengths (e.g., flash synch at any speed with hassy C leaf shutter
lenses, low cost optics, macro, etc. with Kiev60/88 kits). More fun too!

Finally, I and others are hoping that we soon see a series of kiev lenses
with native hasselblad F mounts. Already Kiev metering TTL prisms and some
hassy style backs already work on either Kiev hassy style or hasselblad
f-series cameras. If the Kiev lenses were in native hassy F mounts,
with a body to match, then things could be very interesting. I would bet a
lot of hassy f body owners would buy these lenses, just as many Leica
types have bought the cosina and other optics at huge discounts too. ;-)
So we may buy more reliable hassy F series bodies, use low cost kiev TTL
metering prisms on them, with low cost older hassy or kiev backs, and low
cost kiev lenses except for those times when we need flash synch
(weddings..), when we break out and use the hassy C lenses ;-)

hth bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Stacey wrote:
Bob Monaghan wrote:

However, the above stats suggest that
most users don't add lots of lenses, and are happy with one or two lens
kits.


The again they may be "happy with one or two lens kits" because they have no
choice about it from a cost standpoint? From talking with other kiev
owners, most of them have half a dozen lenses if not more. Seems when you
can buy lenses for under $200 it makes it easier. :-)


Ya it seems pretty common for owners of other systems to spend long
periods of time worrying about which lens to get. The average Kiev user will
just buy them all and be out using them.

Nick

Recently, Nick Zentena posted:

Stacey wrote:
Bob Monaghan wrote:

However, the above stats suggest that
most users don't add lots of lenses, and are happy with one or two
lens kits.

The again they may be "happy with one or two lens kits" because they
have no choice about it from a cost standpoint? From talking with
other kiev owners, most of them have half a dozen lenses if not
more. Seems when you can buy lenses for under $200 it makes it
easier. :-)

Ya it seems pretty common for owners of other systems to spend long
periods of time worrying about which lens to get. The average Kiev
user will just buy them all and be out using them.

OK... I've watched this discussion go back and forth between "get quality"
and "get quantity" for a while. It borders on the "tastes great" vs. "less
filling" debate. 8-)

This discussion appears to be restricted to the SLR models, possibly
because the OP considered a Hassy in his question. Let's not overlook that
there are many kinds of MF shooters. Quite a substantial number enjoy
shooting with TLRs, and typically use one lens (not discounting the Mamiya
330 users or add-on adapters for other makes). Good quality TLRs can be
acquired for less than the cost of almost any lens for an SLR. Another
significant number use folders, for which quality lenses are both
prevalent and relatively cheap.

There is no reason to sacrifice image quality or take a gamble on getting
a good piece out of many mediocre pieces because of limited resources. If
it really comes down to quality vs. quantity, wouldn't it be reasonable to
consider one of these other MF options? Why aren't we suggesting this to
the OP?

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:


There is no reason to sacrifice image quality or take a gamble on getting
a good piece out of many mediocre pieces because of limited resources. If
it really comes down to quality vs. quantity, wouldn't it be reasonable to
consider one of these other MF options? Why aren't we suggesting this to
the OP?


I shot with a TLR for several years and then used a fuji 6X9 GSW. I started
noticing all my shots looked similar because of the same focal length used
everytime. This morning I was out shooting thinking a 150mm lens would be
interesting for the place I was going, I ended up shooting most of it with
a 30mm fisheye. Tried some with a 50mm but it just didn't work.

Which way is limiting? Personally I'd give up 10% of quality to be able to
actually get the shot I want. Sure a 30mm zeiss is probably better than an
arsat but since I'd never own one, does it really matter that it's better?

--

Stacey

Neil Gould wrote:

I shot with a TLR for several years and then used a fuji 6X9 GSW. I
started noticing all my shots looked similar because of the same
focal length used everytime. This morning I was out shooting thinking
a 150mm lens would be interesting for the place I was going, I ended
up shooting most of it with a 30mm fisheye. Tried some with a 50mm
but it just didn't work.

My point is that if one wants to stock a lot of lenses, but has limited
funds, quality is still available by going with, say a Speed Graphic. One
could easily have a number of lenses without gambling on their quality.

But also those aren't very easy to shoot with. IMHO if I'm going to bother
using something like a baby graphic, I might as well shoot 4X5. I had one
and sold it because of that.


Which way is limiting? Personally I'd give up 10% of quality to be
able to actually get the shot I want. Sure a 30mm zeiss is probably
better than an arsat but since I'd never own one, does it really
matter that it's better?

Well, that depends on whether you like the results you get. An artist will
be able to take advantage of both the strengths *and* the limitations of
their gear to create a good shot. But, there may come a time when, like
your example of the shots looking the same due to focal length, you tire
of those limitations and would appreciate the more visual options that
better quality offers. ;-)


Yep. :-)

--

Stacey

Bob Monaghan wrote:


So the response requires the user to decide what features they need, as I
noted. If you need flash synch at any speed, kiev is not what you need.
If you need interchangeable lenses, how many do you need? If you need
five, then Stacey is right that 'blad optics are going to run up your
costs.

Or if you want anything other than the "3 lens kit" choices. The 50 or 150
aren't too expencive but anything else is more than most people could
afford. I've found the 30mm arsat is one of my favorite lenses and the 55mm
shift another. Most 'blad users would never find out if either of these
could be their favorites!

--

Stacey

Recently, Stacey posted:

Neil Gould wrote:


There is no reason to sacrifice image quality or take a gamble on
getting a good piece out of many mediocre pieces because of limited
resources. If it really comes down to quality vs. quantity, wouldn't
it be reasonable to consider one of these other MF options? Why
aren't we suggesting this to the OP?


I shot with a TLR for several years and then used a fuji 6X9 GSW. I
started noticing all my shots looked similar because of the same
focal length used everytime. This morning I was out shooting thinking
a 150mm lens would be interesting for the place I was going, I ended
up shooting most of it with a 30mm fisheye. Tried some with a 50mm
but it just didn't work.

My point is that if one wants to stock a lot of lenses, but has limited
funds, quality is still available by going with, say a Speed Graphic. One
could easily have a number of lenses without gambling on their quality.

Which way is limiting? Personally I'd give up 10% of quality to be
able to actually get the shot I want. Sure a 30mm zeiss is probably
better than an arsat but since I'd never own one, does it really
matter that it's better?

Well, that depends on whether you like the results you get. An artist will
be able to take advantage of both the strengths *and* the limitations of
their gear to create a good shot. But, there may come a time when, like
your example of the shots looking the same due to focal length, you tire
of those limitations and would appreciate the more visual options that
better quality offers. ;-)

Neil