Hassy's don't justify the cost for me

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Why the heck would I want to waste my time and "bait" anyone??<br>

That's the way I feel, and I feel it strongly, I've owned the 500 c/m and the H1 for years and over time, along with the other systems I own, I find the Hasselblad's at the very bottom of my pile of RZ67 and Contax 645 with a zeiss Planar. Bait my butt, it's an over-rated, very well marketed Camera.<br>

And I do have a personal beef with Hasselblad, when I got my H1, they just came out to market with the V96c 16meg digital back. They were selling for 9K, I purchased one. Several months later they came out with the 96c (note the "v" missing) for the H1 and charged 14K.<br>

I'm an engineer, it was the SAME exact camera back with one small difference. There was small black electrical *type* tape over the screw holes holding in the adapter plate. I purchased a 132c adapter and used the V96c with my H1. $5,000 more for the SAME EXACT BACK!!!!! This is Hasselblad.<br>

And guess what? They've done this with SO MANY other products. But, we are indeed lambs.</p>

<p> </p>

[rustys pics]

<p><em>"And I do have a personal beef with Hasselblad, when I got my H1, they just came out to market with the V96c 16meg digital back."</em><br>

Hold on now...Hasselblad Purists don't consider the H1 to have anything to do with the classic "V" system. It was made by Fuji, and had that abominable (tongue in cheek here!) 645 format. I believe that camera even came out after Hasselblad was taken over by Imacon. To my mind they really should have changed the name to something like "Fujiblad" or "Hasselcon". I'll agree with you THAT company sucks! But please don't confuse it with the classic V system.</p>

[ivan_shukster1]

<p><strong>. </strong> <strong>Why are ZEISS lenses for Contax produced in Japan? Are ZEISS lenses "Made in Germany" better than ZEISS lenses "Made in Japan"?</strong> <br /> Our lenses in Japan and Germany are produced using the same materials, the same design and the same quality standards. Wherever the lenses are made, quality assurance is conducted by Carl Zeiss personnel working with Carl Zeiss measuring instruments. Carl Zeiss does everything possible to guarantee that the same quality standard is achieved.</p>

<p>So a Zeiss lens is superior to a Zeiss lens if the latter is on a Hasselblad? Learn something new everyday. There must of been a lot of stupid pros in the past....even Ansel Adams was duped into using a 'blad I guess. Imagine how much better his shots would have been with a RB67? LOL</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Well, you see, that's my point. The zeiss lenses are wonderful, no matter what body.<br /> So, there you have it, hasselblad has very little to do with it. And we agree 100 percent on this.<br /> But I really, keep it simple, very, very simple. I don't need to know about all the "measuring instruments" and<br /> "quality assurance" et. al., I've learned to let that go a long time ago, it's not those qualities that make the picture, it is I. And I've allowed myself to stop being caught up in the name game, etc.. and very simply, and with much Joy, just look at the picture and allow that vision, that view, to guide me to what equipment is "right" for me.<br /> This is my point indeed, we get so caught up in the name, such as Hasselblad, we really miss what's important, the picture we've made.<br /> Hasselblad is wonderful at marketing to us, leading us down this road. I am lamb no more.</p>

[thebarnman]

<p><!--StartFragment --><em>"There is no such thing as an overly sharp lens. A lens is either sharp and has high resolution or it has less resolution."<br /><br /></em>Russ, the last I checked, there are three qualities to look for when shopping for a lens. Resolution, sharpness and contrast. When there's one of too much quality of those three, at least one or the two remaining qualities are found lacking. <br /><br />As far as I know, Leica has tried to have an equal amount of those qualities in their lenses. Nothing wrong with a Hasselblad lens being more sharp than other brands, (as far as I have read) however, simply I'm looking to get lenses that have more the characteristics of the Leica. <br /><br />Nothing wrong with a really sharp lens. </p>

<p><em></em></p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p><em>Comparing film camera to film camera, why would anyone think that moving from Mamiya to Hasselblad is a move up?</em><br>

I very much do. I am not a follower nor a lamb, I can make my own mind up, with my own eyes. And to me, the RZ with my 110/ blows away my 500 C/M as so many levels....<br>

I really, can't continue, it's almost too funny, good night my lambs.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>"Mamiyas are cheap for a reason but there's no need to get into it here. "</p>

<p>Never thought of the Mamiyas as a cheaply made camera. Never will. Know better.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p><em>"...there are three qualities to look for when shopping for a lens. Resolution, sharpness and contrast. When there's one of too much quality of those three, at least one or the two remaining qualities are found lacking."</em><br>

I agree with the 3 qualities that make a great lens. All 3 must be present. However it's the subjective concept that a lens may have "too much of one of those 3." That's a personal preference, not a measurable thing. That's why some people prefer Leica lenses, and others Nikon, or Canon or Zeiss. Can't forget about the Pentax Takumars either. It's more about the blending of all 3 elements and more, such as color balance.<br>

I like my Nikon lenses as much as Zeiss. Just very a different blend of qualities.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I'll gladly stay a "lamb". CF 100mm or 180mm on my 503CW with TMAX 100 on a tripod is gonna' produce some fine wool. Do I here Bahhhhhhhhhhhhh?</p>

[jenny_jaques]

<p>This all started because Harry Joseph was<strong> </strong> an <strong>idiot </strong> with his money . Go back and read Kevin's post at the top.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I agree, Mamiya's are great cameras.</p>

<p>But that isn't the question posed by the OP ... which is more oriented toward value for dollar. </p>

<p>I have a like new Mamiya RZ Pro-II 6X7 with a slew of innovative and useful accessories like a T/S adapter and two short barrel lenses ... and sharp lenses from fisheye to 210 APO including innovative stuff like a Imagon type 180mm portrait lens with variable diffusion inserts. Not only is it able to use a digital back, you can rotate a 645 digital back on it for portrait oriented shots without turning the camera. This camera has performed flawlessly with film or digital for years now. I was very careful in shopping for this gear and paid the lowest prices I could find at the time to get the best value for my dollar.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I cannot give this system away now. Multiple attempts to sell it have yielded no joy. Fire sale type prices haven't worked. Nothing has worked. It is without a doubt the worst investment in photographic gear I have ever made. If this is supposed to be such great equipment ... why does no one want it?</p>

<p>I also put up for sale my Hasselblad 503CWs and a full range of accessories and V lenses from a 40/4 IF to 350/5.6. The entire selection sold in one day. In many cases, I actually broke even, or made money on some stuff. I guess there are a lot of "Hasselblad Sheep" out there ... thank God!</p>

<p>I would never again buy anything branded Mamiya no matter how good it may be ... unless it was free ... and even then I'd have to think about it because later on I probably couldn't give that away either.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Tim Ludwig-<br>

Which model Bronica did you have? The only model I can recall which did not take interchangeable backs was th ETR-C.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>The Zeiss glass has a slight edge in the "snap" (contrast) dept over the Mamiya glass. But I don't think of moving between the two systems as a vertical situation. One doesn't sacrifice quality ,either build or optical between these two systems.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>I'll pay for shipping. Send your Mamiya kit to me.<br>

Seriously.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>That may well have been it. I honestly don't remember which model it was. I had the Bronica very briefly about ten or twelve years ago when I had provisionally bought it used from a friend and returned it after a week or so of being really uncomfortable with having only inserts to plug in and having to shoot a full roll before changing from color to b&w or vice versa. Great camera and great images, but it just didn't fit my comfort level in how I often shoot.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>hassys and leicas are like ferraris. none of them justify the price!</p>

[janet cull]

<p>>>> had about $800 with me which 10 years ago was allot of money for me. The camera was located in this antique photography store that has long since gone out of business. I plopped my $800 on the counter and the guy behind it hands me the "Back" of the 500CM. I asked him where is the rest of the camera ? <<<</p>

<p>Made me laugh.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>I love Mamiya 645s, I have two. Hasselblads are overpriced in my opinion. I have a full set of Mamiya lenses that I could never have been able to afford with Hasselblad. The lenses are amazingly sharp.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Hey, if you want adventure, thrills, and grinding sounds on film advance for a bargain price try a Kiev knockoff of a Hasselblad (<a href="http://www.kievaholic.com/">link</a> ).</p>

<p>Stuck with focal-plane shutters, unlike those wimps in Sweden, thus adding an element of randomness to functionality.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>What a silly thread.<br>

Hasselblads were expensive. So were the big Mamiyas and Rolleis. I know.</p>

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>To show that, fortunately, you can indeed give your Mamiya system away, i'll repeat my very serious suggestion to take it off your hands. I'll, of course, pay for shipping. Even add some extra to pay for celebratory drinks.<br>

No kidding!</p>

<p>And i'll use the kit too, no worries! ;-)</p>

 

[ivan_shukster1]

<p>Some one should tell KEH that they are either overcharging on Mamiyas or undercharging on Hasselblads as the price difference on bodies (not the 645) is not that great although there is one on the lenses. In my case though the "savings" on buying a Mamiya would be less than the cost of having to buy one the lenses that I currently can borrow or the extra bulk and weight of the body. The idea that a RZ would be 10% the cost of the 500 C/M sure are not reflected on ebay or KEH. However the "fact" that the 110 lens from the Mamiya would blow the socks of the 100 Planar is interesting. Must be a great lens. My entire system when I am done will cost about $1750 for a body, three lenses and five backs does not seem outrageous to me. That is still less than the cost of a new F6. A 645 system would have been perhaps half the price and if i wanted to crop from a square image than that is what I would have bougth. Sure cannot be a lamb or sheep if you get the system that works for you as opposed to what someone else thinks is best. If I had not the opportunity to use one for over a year before buying my own perhaps I would not have thought of buying it but I did based on my own experiences and expectations. And if the digital back for a system other than I do own is overpriced it does not make my lenses work any the less.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>It's a figure of speech Q.G.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>I know, Marc. There will be a queue should you ever do want to give it away. So that's not it.<br>

You value your stuff higher than other people do. Your expectations are just too high. ;-)</p>

<p>I don't believe that it was your worst investment in photo gear. You must have gone through truckloads of digital stuff by now, costing each way in excess of what you paid for your entire Mamiya kit.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>". . . [that] the Hasselblad lenses are a little overly sharp and that the Mamiya lenses perform more like a Leica lens."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm. Well, I have yet to see a lens that is "overly sharp."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[james_bolger]

<p>I used 2 mamiya 330s in all my 18 years professional photography. They never, never let me down. I have a full complement of lenses and viewfinders, holders, flash brackets,porrofinders [all used]and never had any quality issues. I believe they were/are seriously underpriced. I found the quality of the lenses to be superb and INMO on a par with anything that Hassleblads turned out. On quite a few jobs they were also more versatile than a Blad/bronica due to bellows focusing. Colleagues using Blads did have some problems with the backs. The only fault I have recently come across with my 330s is the foam light trap detaching itself from the back due to the glue ageing. Soon remedied. </p>