Hasselblad claims to have sold a year's worth of new cameras in a week

On 12/17/2016 10:50 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 12/16/2016 09:24 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:34:11 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 12/16/2016 08:05 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 17:39:23 UTC, nospam wrote:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:


I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the
subject: Better
equipment will make any photographer better. How much better
depends on how
good you already are. The better you already are, the more
difference better
equipment makes.

better equipment only makes a difference if the existing equipment is
limiting in some way. otherwise it won't help at all.

That's not really true unless you know why or in what way it is
limiting.


for example, if someone shoots still life, then the high frame rate of
a nikon d4 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.

why is a camera with a higher frame rate counted as better equipment
then ?


Everyone knows that if you take a bunch of rapid-fire photos, you're
sure to get a good one. The higher the frame rate, the less talent
you need.

At family gatherings, where there are nine family members, I rarely
get a photo where all nine look right no matter how many exposures or
how rapid-fire I shoot. It's almost always closed eyes. However, I'm
proficient enough at Photoshop to find and use a head replacement.

The game in this family to figure out which person's head I've
switched.

You do mean switching the head in the photo, right? Otherwise, I would
think that if you physically switched someone's head, they would
probably know about it.



Wonder if Ted Williams thinks about that.

--
PeterN

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the subject:
Better
equipment will make any photographer better. How much better depends on
how
good you already are. The better you already are, the more difference
better
equipment makes.

better equipment only makes a difference if the existing equipment is
limiting in some way. otherwise it won't help at all.

That's not really true unless you know why or in what way it is limiting.


for example, if someone shoots still life, then the high frame rate of
a nikon d4 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.

why is a camera with a higher frame rate counted as better equipment then ?

Everyone knows that if you take a bunch of rapid-fire photos, you're
sure to get a good one. The higher the frame rate, the less talent you need.

that's actually false, and *completely* misses the point.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:21:52 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Ken Hart
: wrote:
:
: I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the subject:
: Better
: equipment will make any photographer better. How much better depends on
: how
: good you already are. The better you already are, the more difference
: better
: equipment makes.
:
: better equipment only makes a difference if the existing equipment is
: limiting in some way. otherwise it won't help at all.
:
: That's not really true unless you know why or in what way it is limiting.
:
:
: for example, if someone shoots still life, then the high frame rate of
: a nikon d4 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
:
: why is a camera with a higher frame rate counted as better equipment then ?
:
: Everyone knows that if you take a bunch of rapid-fire photos, you're
: sure to get a good one. The higher the frame rate, the less talent you need.
:
: that's actually false, and *completely* misses the point.

Nospam may be a humorless, nitpicking, confrontational old sourpuss, but he
can always be counted on to comically fail to recognize irony or sarcasm. Or
as he himself might put it, "Whooosh!" :^)

Bob

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:16:09 -0500, PeterN wrote:
: On 12/17/2016 10:50 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
: On 12/16/2016 09:24 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:34:11 -0500, Ken Hart
: wrote:
:
: On 12/16/2016 08:05 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
: On Thursday, 15 December 2016 17:39:23 UTC, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
:
: I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the
: subject: Better
: equipment will make any photographer better. How much better
: depends on how
: good you already are. The better you already are, the more
: difference better
: equipment makes.
:
: better equipment only makes a difference if the existing equipment is
: limiting in some way. otherwise it won't help at all.
:
: That's not really true unless you know why or in what way it is
: limiting.
:
:
: for example, if someone shoots still life, then the high frame rate of
: a nikon d4 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
:
: why is a camera with a higher frame rate counted as better equipment
: then ?
:
:
: Everyone knows that if you take a bunch of rapid-fire photos, you're
: sure to get a good one. The higher the frame rate, the less talent
: you need.
:
: At family gatherings, where there are nine family members, I rarely
: get a photo where all nine look right no matter how many exposures or
: how rapid-fire I shoot. It's almost always closed eyes. However, I'm
: proficient enough at Photoshop to find and use a head replacement.
:
: The game in this family to figure out which person's head I've
: switched.
:
: You do mean switching the head in the photo, right? Otherwise, I would
: think that if you physically switched someone's head, they would
: probably know about it.
:
:
:
: Wonder if Ted Williams thinks about that.

Most of him doesn't.

Bob

On 12/17/2016 12:26 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:21:52 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Ken Hart
: wrote:
:
: I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the subject:
: Better
: equipment will make any photographer better. How much better depends on
: how
: good you already are. The better you already are, the more difference
: better
: equipment makes.
:
: better equipment only makes a difference if the existing equipment is
: limiting in some way. otherwise it won't help at all.
:
: That's not really true unless you know why or in what way it is limiting.
:
:
: for example, if someone shoots still life, then the high frame rate of
: a nikon d4 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
:
: why is a camera with a higher frame rate counted as better equipment then ?
:
: Everyone knows that if you take a bunch of rapid-fire photos, you're
: sure to get a good one. The higher the frame rate, the less talent you need.
:
: that's actually false, and *completely* misses the point.

Nospam may be a humorless, nitpicking, confrontational old sourpuss, but he
can always be counted on to comically fail to recognize irony or sarcasm. Or
as he himself might put it, "Whooosh!" :^)

Bob


He traded his sarcasm meter for a raspberry pi

--
PeterN

On 12/17/2016 12:56 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 12/17/2016 12:26 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:21:52 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Ken Hart
: wrote:
:
: I can't pass up a chance to repeat my favorite comment on the
subject:
: Better
: equipment will make any photographer better. How much better
depends on
: how
: good you already are. The better you already are, the more
difference
: better
: equipment makes.
:
: better equipment only makes a difference if the existing
equipment is
: limiting in some way. otherwise it won't help at all.
:
: That's not really true unless you know why or in what way it is
limiting.
:
:
: for example, if someone shoots still life, then the high frame
rate of
: a nikon d4 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
:
: why is a camera with a higher frame rate counted as better
equipment then ?
:
: Everyone knows that if you take a bunch of rapid-fire photos, you're
: sure to get a good one. The higher the frame rate, the less talent
you need.
:
: that's actually false, and *completely* misses the point.

Nospam may be a humorless, nitpicking, confrontational old sourpuss,
but he
can always be counted on to comically fail to recognize irony or
sarcasm. Or
as he himself might put it, "Whooosh!" :^)

Bob


He traded his sarcasm meter for a raspberry pi


And then someone threw the raspberry pi(e) at his face.

--
Ken Hart

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 December 2016 16:24:06 UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:57:58 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

This camera:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/has...ing-experience

Looks nice, and I love the leaf shutter in the lens. But I wonder how
much better the IQ is than other cams, like the Sony a7r II?

Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger sensored cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad nauseam about the laws of physics that demand they are right. The problem is, once you show them a medium format camera, those laws go out the window and all of a sudden, larger medium format is no better than their FF's!!!

I know it will be better, but how much? Enough to pay three times as
much for bodies and lenses?

On 12/21/2016 1:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 December 2016 16:24:06 UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:57:58 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

This camera:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/has...ing-experience

Looks nice, and I love the leaf shutter in the lens. But I wonder how
much better the IQ is than other cams, like the Sony a7r II?

Well, we listen to FF users crow about how much better their larger sensored cameras are than APS or m4/3rds, and they explain ad nauseam about the laws of physics that demand they are right. The problem is, once you show them a medium format camera, those laws go out the window and all of a sudden, larger medium format is no better than their FF's!!!

I know it will be better, but how much? Enough to pay three times as
much for bodies and lenses?


If one thinks they have the need, and can afford it, the answer is a
clear yes. I am not in that category.
Indeed for me, a larger camera would be in hindrance.



--
PeterN