Never thought this should happen.........

I traded in all my Hasselblad equipment and got this instead:

70-200/2.8 VR
12-24/4 DX
TC-17EII
Flash set for macro photography

I did not want to wait longer for a resonable prised used MF digiback.
The cheapest 16MP back was about EUR 13.000 (new).
After I did some 12MP dSLR prints on my R2400 in A3+ size I found out that
this quality is OK for me.

Also I would never get the shots with the MF-back as I do with the dSLR.
dSLR is a lot more flexible?

Max

"Max Perl" wrote in message
. ..
I traded in all my Hasselblad equipment and got this instead:

70-200/2.8 VR
12-24/4 DX
TC-17EII
Flash set for macro photography

Might want to add a camera body...


I did not want to wait longer for a resonable prised used MF digiback.
The cheapest 16MP back was about EUR 13.000 (new).
After I did some 12MP dSLR prints on my R2400 in A3+ size I found out that
this quality is OK for me.

Also I would never get the shots with the MF-back as I do with the dSLR.
dSLR is a lot more flexible?

Max

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote
"Max Perl" wrote
I traded in all my Hasselblad equipment and got this instead:
70-200/2.8 VR; 12-24/4 DX; TC-17EII; Flash set for macro photography
Might want to add a camera body...

It is the ultimate in Digital: Virtual Photography. Take pictures
on the HoloDeck, who needs a camera? Do it in photoshop, ditto.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Kinon O'Cann wrote:

"Max Perl" wrote in message
. ..

I traded in all my Hasselblad equipment and got this instead:

70-200/2.8 VR
12-24/4 DX
TC-17EII
Flash set for macro photography


Might want to add a camera body...

Sounds like he already has a D2X (12MP mentioned)

I did not want to wait longer for a resonable prised used MF digiback.
The cheapest 16MP back was about EUR 13.000 (new).
After I did some 12MP dSLR prints on my R2400 in A3+ size I found out that
this quality is OK for me.

Also I would never get the shots with the MF-back as I do with the dSLR.
dSLR is a lot more flexible?

Max






--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

"Nicholas O. Lindan" skrev i en meddelelse
ink.net...
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote
"Max Perl" wrote
I traded in all my Hasselblad equipment and got this instead:
70-200/2.8 VR; 12-24/4 DX; TC-17EII; Flash set for macro photography
Might want to add a camera body...

It is the ultimate in Digital: Virtual Photography. Take pictures
on the HoloDeck, who needs a camera? Do it in photoshop, ditto.


I have a D2x and a lot of older film bodies.
Think it was a good choice to get the 70-200 + TC instead of the 80-400.
70-200 has a more solid feel and the bokeh is much better.

The 12-24 has a plactic feel compared to my 17-35.
To put a metal filter on the 12-24 does not feel nice. Hopefully it is good
plastic.
Optical performance is OK (has to be stopped down a bit). Seems difficult to
build a "near perfect" super wide 99,99% free from CA.

The 70-200 has 1.4m as the near limit. With 1.7x TC and a 77mm close up lens
it
could be good macro solution for travel if you don't want to carry a lot of
lenses.
Then the 12-24 (or 17-35) and a 50/1.8 (always bring a 50/1.8 with you :-) )
and I will
be fine......I think.


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Max Perl wrote:

The 70-200 has 1.4m as the near limit. With 1.7x TC and a 77mm close up lens
it could be good macro solution for travel if you don't want to carry a lot
of lenses.

That has worked will for me with a 1.4x for long bird shots & the 2x for
butterflies & bees. The 2x does give a lot of flare & ghosting but just
be careful with harsh highlights. The 70-200 is sort of narrow & compact
relatively speaking.

Max Perl wrote:

Also I would never get the shots with the MF-back as I do with the dSLR.
dSLR is a lot more flexible?

Is that a statement or a question?

;-)

"Richard Polhill" skrev i en meddelelse
.. .
Max Perl wrote:

Also I would never get the shots with the MF-back as I do with the dSLR.
dSLR is a lot more flexible?

Is that a statement or a question?

;-)


It is most a statement. But other may have an other opinon :-)
Then new Hasselblad H3 has AF etc. but is not as handy as an "35mm" dSLR.

"Paul Furman" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Max Perl wrote:

The 70-200 has 1.4m as the near limit. With 1.7x TC and a 77mm close up
lens it could be good macro solution for travel if you don't want to
carry a lot
of lenses.

That has worked will for me with a 1.4x for long bird shots & the 2x for
butterflies & bees. The 2x does give a lot of flare & ghosting but just be
careful with harsh highlights. The 70-200 is sort of narrow & compact
relatively speaking.

The Canon 500D 77mm closeup lens is probably the best you can get in 77mm.
Do you use this lens?

Max Perl wrote:
"Richard Polhill" skrev i en meddelelse
.. .
Max Perl wrote:

Also I would never get the shots with the MF-back as I do with the dSLR.
dSLR is a lot more flexible?
Is that a statement or a question?

;-)


It is most a statement. But other may have an other opinon :-)
Then new Hasselblad H3 has AF etc. but is not as handy as an "35mm" dSLR.


Lovely but bulky. I agree; a 35mm-like device is just so much handier and
plenty capable these days. Especially the D2X.