Asking advice

MikeWhy wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Stacey wrote:

The again they may be "happy with one or two lens kits" because they
have
no
choice about it from a cost standpoint?

You know, it all boils down to personal choice. Getting a "full" kit of
Hasselblad lenses is not that costly at all, compared to other things
people choose to spend money on.

Like what a house? :-)

Like sports cars.

My 77 280Z wasn't that much.

Motorcycles.

RD-350 wasn't that much either.

Five star resorts.

Never been and wouldn't waste my money on that either.

Woodworking tools.

?? They don't seem that expencive for basic tools.

Rock cocaine.

LOL

Amateur radio.

That's not too expencive unless you like to throw away money.

R/C models.

Under $1000 for a nice one.


Pool table.

Under $1000 for a pretty good one.

Gardening.

I know about that one, it's pretty cheap unless you're paying someone else
to do it for you.


Have you actually priced a "full blad kit" with all their lenses?
--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Stacey wrote:

The again they may be "happy with one or two lens kits" because they
have
no
choice about it from a cost standpoint?

You know, it all boils down to personal choice. Getting a "full" kit of
Hasselblad lenses is not that costly at all, compared to other things
people choose to spend money on.

Like what a house? :-)

Like sports cars. Motorcycles. Five star resorts. Woodworking tools. Rock
cocaine. Amateur radio. R/C models. Stereos. Home entertainment systems.
Pool table. Gardening. Videography. Computers. Antiques. Coin collections.
Ebaying.

Most everything with glossy page magazines, and the ads that support them,
cost $2k annually to support moderate involvement. Some less; some much,
much more.

MikeWhy wrote:


Have you actually priced a "full blad kit" with all their lenses?

It's why I shoot Mamiya. I'm not discriminating enough to appreciate a
'blad's value.

Exactly and is also why I don't stay at 5 star resorts..
--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
Like what a house? :-)

Like sports cars.

My 77 280Z wasn't that much.

Nice. But it's only real selling point was the price. (No fair staying on
topic.)

Motorcycles.

RD-350 wasn't that much either.

Still ride it? or entertaining offers? I had one as a senior in HS.

To put it in perspective, a 'blad kit is about the same as a well kitted
modern sport tourer. Both are serious capital expenditures. You need to plan
and budget for them.

Five star resorts.

Never been and wouldn't waste my money on that either.

Priorities was the topic. Is it worth trading the price of a good lens? (The
answer is yes.)

Woodworking tools.

?? They don't seem that expencive for basic tools.

Some hand tools can be cheap. Norm, through the power of television, changed
the world forever for Delta and Porter Cable. (But if you want to talk
slippery slopes and gear collecting...)

Amateur radio.

That's not too expencive unless you like to throw away money.

True. You can get on the air for under a thousand. But we're not talking
about brownies and polaroids, are we? (N9XI)

R/C models.

Under $1000 for a nice one.

Nice what? I have an engine that cost twice that.

Pool table.

Under $1000 for a pretty good one.

The last quote to put Simonyi and new bumpers on the nine footer was about
$1000.

Gardening.

I know about that one, it's pretty cheap unless you're paying someone else
to do it for you.

The neighbors give me free access when I want to test a lens, or just burn
some film. It's amazing the goodwill a simple 8x10 will buy. I need my own,
though.

Have you actually priced a "full blad kit" with all their lenses?

It's why I shoot Mamiya. I'm not discriminating enough to appreciate a
'blad's value.

Stacey wrote:

Woodworking tools.

?? They don't seem that expencive for basic tools.


Check out Norris planes or any other of the tools from the golden era.
Power tools like Norm uses are cheap but real hand tools. The rarer items
might cost more then a Hassleblad fisheye-)))

Nick

Most of the historically "great" images shot on 4x5 are of a lower
resolution than can be had today with a 6x6 Hassy and modern
films-because they were shot with lenses that weren't that great on
film that was **** poor. They are great for their content-not
technically. Since so few modern images, proportionally, are shot on
large format, most modern large format work comparatively is of little
notice. "Milton's Marilyn" is great because it's Milton, and his
vision, of Marilyn. There won't be another of either. Milton's Sally
Kirkland no one gives a flying filbert about.

I shoot medium format because I like the cameras, I like the negative
size, and the quality and portability and discretion-especially of a
classic TLR-are just right. Large Formatters use view cameras because
they like them (and their swings and tilts), because they like the big
negative, because they are shooting on alternative/art processes, or
because they are doing billboard size work product for a client that
really wants that resolution. 35mm users usually use them because
they're trendy and available. Sure, some need the smallness of a Leica
or the capabilities of a system camera-about half of one percent.

Once, I had a discussion with the famous curmudgeon, Ed Romney, about
this. I expected him to be a religious nut and a jerk. He turned out
to be surprisingly intelligent and although religious, not
particularly pious or fundamentalist.(I can carry on intelligently
with Orthodox rabbis and Catholic archbishops, but not with a person
that thinks there were brachiosaurs on the Ark.) He pointed out that
for a 4x5 image to be better than a 35mm image, the quality of the
lens had to be equal and the mechanicals-flatness of film plane, focus
precision in relation to depth of field, cleanliness,et al-of equal
precision, and therefore when Nikon F's replaced Speed Graphics in
news work, quality on average went up. It had to. Most of the old
Graphics were filthy and in poor shape and darkroom precision a joke
in the 'f/8 and be there' days.

It boils down to use what you can get and are happy with. But use it,
because, as Milton Green knew, truly great subjects are rare, and can
disappear at any moment.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Stacey wrote:

The again they may be "happy with one or two lens kits" because they
have
no
choice about it from a cost standpoint?

You know, it all boils down to personal choice. Getting a "full" kit
of
Hasselblad lenses is not that costly at all, compared to other things
people choose to spend money on.

Like what a house? :-)

Like sports cars.

My 77 280Z wasn't that much.


that's not a sports car! 240 was, 260 got a little soft.... 280's were
marshmellows!

but you can add motor racing to your list of expensive hobbies.

Cheers, Nige

Recently, Nige posted:

"Stacey" wrote in message
Like sports cars.

My 77 280Z wasn't that much.


that's not a sports car! 240 was, 260 got a little soft.... 280's
were marshmellows!

Someone I can agree with! It's hard to explain a sports car to those who
have only experienced the miniature luxury cars of today. Does anyone make
a sports car these days?

Neil

Nige wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message


Like sports cars.

My 77 280Z wasn't that much.


that's not a sports car! 240 was, 260 got a little soft.... 280's were
marshmellows!


Change the springs and they aren't. :-)

Now the 280ZX's are another story....
--

Stacey

Neil Gould wrote:


Someone I can agree with! It's hard to explain a sports car to those who
have only experienced the miniature luxury cars of today. Does anyone make
a sports car these days?

Neil


Don't they still make Morgans?