Hassy's don't justify the cost for me

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Professional wedding photographers here used to use Hasselblad or Bronica SQ A models at the time I fooled around with some wedding stuff. Both were reliable. Bronica may not have been as solidly built as Hasselblad but the price was attractive and the lenses were high quality. I never learned to easily catch the little forks on the backs to the body without a little pain in the butt when I had a prism finder mounted-only gripe. I like the Bronica and it was a complete system. (I wonder if they can still be repaired or cleaned and who does it?). I never had the desire to sell off my SQA system for chump change,ought to give it to a relative maybe. But then, I tend to keep my old stuff,the collector in me. Some guy on a military base who used Hassy for work, said he found Bronica to more reliable in the field, eg. the electronic shutter didn't need calibration often.</p>

<p>I realize there must be an implicit question, so I used my powers of mind reading.....Up with Hassy and Bronica and Mamiya. Down with Soviet wannabee stuff...</p>

[bweble]

<p>It depends on weather you want a monti carlo or a corvett...</p>

[mechanic]

<p>Harry Joseph,<br>

"I 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 ? He says that's it, that's all you can get with that type of money !<br>

He then pointed me to a Mamiya 645 that came with a grip an 80mm f 2.8 lens, a 45mm lens, a strap and I still had money to left over to purchase a Gossen light meter and some film."<br>

Did you even know the price of a Hasselblad system at tat period of time. I do know that I never have paid $800.00 for an A12 back in all the time I have owned Hasselblad and I still use them Did the ??? Antique store simply want to get rid of the Mamiyya 645 (You don't state the model) so did you actually get a REMOVABLE back that you can simply swith between color or black and white backs Only a few leaf shutter lenses to gain higher shutter speeds is another draw back and there is no Mamiya match for one of my favourite cameras --the Hassselblad Super Wide Series-yes I've owned Mamiya including their super series--you get what you pay for if lucky. Try phoographing Polar Bears at Churchill Manitoba where you can go in close and leave a camera on a triod for hours and fire remote as you see something you want a picture of-the Hasselblad does it with ease for up to 70 shots if you have the 70 mil back and any of their motorized cameras as far back as the EL model--Can Mamiya do it--saw lots try it but never did get the shots they were after plus they were limited to thirty shots <a href="http://www.churchill.ca/">http://www.churchill.ca/</a> a trip that can easily cost over $ 5,000.oo that I would never consider leaving for without Hasselblad--others have taken them to the moon. If all you require is Mamiya--that is your choice but for me your choice is not even an option I would consider. Man is limited by their choice of equipment and traing plus experiance. I don't want to experiance an angry Polar Bear or hope a picture will turn out but if that happens, I can not blame my equipment.<br>

Garry</p>

[rashed]

<p>I agree with my friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=759285">Scott Murphy</a>, it is not the camera but you, the mamiya is a wonderful camera, use it a lot and it will bay back for its price.</p>

 

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>My photography is 80% photo enthusiest and I own a Mamiya TLR, 645, and 7. And love Mamiya's equipment. I too tend to agree that Hassy's are overpriced, and Leica's for that matter. Although i do agree with the commenter above that the law of diminishing returns is definitely in play with Hassy and Mamiya. The question is, is that extra couple of per cent worth it? For 95% of photography I don't think it is. If I started doing wall sized prints, I might consider a Hassy, but for now, when I want gut wrenching sharpness, the Mamiya 7 is really hard to beat. As for the versatility of Hassy, heck, I don't use the versatility of my Canon System to it's fullest....nor my Mamiya 645 Pro TL. So, I doubt if I'd use Hassy's.</p>

<p>Ya know, there really should be a paragraph in every OP 'sand commenter's statements/comments on this site, stating his/her level/niche in photography. A pro wedding photogrrapher, artist photographer, photo enthusiest, architectural photographer, portrait photographer, and many other levels.........don't use, nor need, the same type of equipment. And for the beginners here on this site, which there seem to more than ever, all talk of "the last 2% of quality" does is have people spending money on stuff they will never use after the first time. If the "pros" deliniated the type of photography that could ONLY be done with a Hassy, I think viewers of this site would be better served. But, I guess that's asking people to think about things too much.......eh!?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>What a very silly idea.<br>

I doubt there is, say, a pen that can do things that no other pen can do. Does that mean that there is no better or best pen?<br>

If someone would come here to find what pen is better than another one, how would she or he be served by being told there is no pen that can do something no other pen can do, and that because of it any pen, whether crappy or not, should do?</p>

<p>I think you have thought about that either too much or not enough. ;-)</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>So, it's a silly idea to know the background of the person saying something. Hmmmm.....that sure explains a lot of the world's major problems. ;-) I for one, will ALWAYS question the information and source of that information to decide what is best for me.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>No. It's silly to suggest that anything will do because there is no single thing that can do everything.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I agree with your last statement....however, I in no way even came close to suggesting that one thing could do everything. I was simply saying that something that could do more than something else, that, that something "more" may never be used by someone not in that area of photography. And without knowing what a particular commenter was saying without regard to the area of photography involved with that statement, tells the beginner nothing about what they might need.</p>

<p>For instance....a tilt and shift lens is a great thing....IF you are doing architectural photography, or table top photography....but it has little if no application with regard to portrait photography. Wide angle lenses do nothing for the bird photographer. Medium format cams do nothing for the person who will never enlarge anything past 5x7 inch prints. Large Format cameras are excellent for huge enlargements, but are useless for sports photography. And so on. Without the knowledge of what the commenter shoots, their recomendations are next to useless.</p>

[mechanic]

<p>In requards to my previous message about Mamiya.. At Churchill, the batteries are a major issue as is the reliable functioning of the winder. At -50F lots of digital cameras failed after an hour or even less but was not an issue with Hasselblads even after four hours.</p>

<p>The Super Wide series s very close to distortion free picture--great for interiors or exteriors or groups in limited space and is also excellent for landscapes. specs> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Section01MediumFormat.pdf">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Section01MediumFormat.pdf</a></p>

[john_kwok]

<p>I'm new to Hasselblad myself, but I decided to get one because of the excellent reputations of both the cameras, and especially the Zeiss lenses (Am well versed with Zeiss since I use Zeiss lenses for virtually all of my 35mm photography now, with SLRs and rangefinders.). Just wanted to jump in to note that it is really silly for people to denigrate Carl Zeiss lenses made in Japan by Kyocera (Yashica) and Cosina (Voigtlander) because I own both German and Japanese made Zeiss lenses and honestly can't tell the difference between those made in Germany versus those from Japan. Zeiss does have people overseeing the production of its lenses in Japan, first at Kyocera (Yashica), and now, most recently, at Cosina (Voigtlander) and, I believe, as well, Sony, so these lenses, as long as they bear the Zeiss lens designations, are indeed Zeiss lenses.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>John,</p>

<p>You are quite right!</p>

[kparratt]

<p>On John Kwok's point again, Leica used to have the same problem with lenses being made, even designed 'off shore'. They selected a number of optical designs by Minolta. Minolta supplied the elements, which Leica coated and mounted in their own metal. Not only that, but in order to keep up with Nikon, the Leicaflex line, which engineered very much as an M3 with an integral reflex mirror and prism, was discontinued and replaced with the R3, a re-badged Minolta. A relatively recent 35-70 for Leica R, was a great performer but a slow seller, because? ... it was a Sigma lens in all but the lens barrel. Neither did Leica buyers want to see "Made in Canada". Production in Portugal and Canada closed. I expect there may have been other factors at play, but that "Made in Germany" on anything optical carries a lot of weight.</p>

[edward_lukacs1]

<p>Many years ago, asll but the very best lenses were rather poor performers by today's standards. Try a 1936 Zeiss Contax 5xm f/1.5 Sonnar compared to anybody's fast f/1.4 today to see a huge improvement in image quality with today's so-so lens. Yet that Sonnar was a couple of MONTHS' pay for a working man who couldn't afford the camera anyway.<br>

In the case of high quality, low production cameras, the unit costs are ridiculous. Leica could not compete because it could not, nop, change that, would not make an affordable body and lenses. Hasselblad in many ways went the same route, but their gear was in greater demand by pros for many years longer than obsolescent rangefinder 35's regardless of quality.<br>

I lusted for both, but fate and my Government employers were no0t kind to me. So I made up my mind that I would rather live in a house and drive a car than have an entire Hassy or Leica system. Eventually I went to a Kiev-88 system, a Zenit system to replace my Minolta SRT stuff, and a FED system. The lenses are all more than acceptable and in some cases almost astonishing! The Kiev88 bodies require precise but not particularly delicate handling. After two quick failures, one of which was repaired and one rep;laced, I have not had a failure of any sort or required service since 2001. I may be slumming, but I've got a goodly number of press and other photo credits taken with this stuff, a 1953 Ikoflex and a few Braun Paxettes as well, and even with a folding Kodak Tourist!. Other than ego-wise, I've never regretted my choices, and I've enjoyed a vacation or two I could never have afforded if I had bought "The High Priced Spread". Think about it. Why buy a Leica R series for $1,000 more than the Minolta XD-11 that lurks under its fancy dress skin?<br>

Ed Lukacs</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p> </p>

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

<p >Perhaps Q.G., perhaps. I attribute that to low standards on the part of other people rather than high standards on my part ... LOL!</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>"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."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do. Every piece of MF digital gear was paid for by charging clients a digital capture fee ... the Mamiya RZ system came out of my pocket. Big difference IMO. </p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>You summarized this thread beautifully "[brand X] don't justify the cost for me - That is to be attributed to your low standards".<br>

For Harry, Brand X was Hasselblad. For you Marc, it was Mamiya.<br>

;-)</p>

<p>Oh. For me, it is Kiev (though i'm not quite sure my - or anyone's - standards can really be low enough...)<br>

I just can't see how to justify the cost of getting into Kievs to me. Any ideas that might help, anyone?</p>

<p>You see what you did wrong there, Marc? You should have let your customers pay for the Mamiya as well. ;-)<br>

But seriously, though you got every cent you paid for the digital gear returned to you by your paying customers, there has been more money spend than would have been necessary, with the only return for it being time.<br>

I know this is a hasty world, full of people who would like to have things done not tomorrow, not even today, but yesterday.<br>

But they are only fooling themselves, lulling (in a haste, if that can be done) themselves into a false sense of (self)importance. "Time is money" is an old adage, that only has been with us as longs as it has because people knew it was nonsense, and behaved accordingly. Everything still got done (mostly better than things are done today) and the world was a better place because of it.</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>Edward,<br>

People were willing to pay more for the Leica marque, which represented to them both the finest in optical and mechanical quality (Though it does say much about Leica's technological skills at designing 35mm SLRs that, from the Leica R3 through the R5, and to a lesser extent, both the R6 and R7, its SLR cameras had an all too obvious Minolta heritage.). For years I have heard that the 24mm Elmarit - R lens was actually a Minolta Rokkor built at Minolta's factory under Leica specifications. But, unlike Zeiss, Leica did not have both the extensive quality control and personnel on site to ensure that its products were being produced in Japan under its rigorous supervision (That is the difference to a large multinational corporation like Zeiss and the much smaller firm that is Leica Camera Gmbh.).<br>

Cheers,<br>

John</p>

<p> </p>

[clark_yerrington]

<blockquote>

<p>kevin b.: "Classic cameras found in antique stores are invariably overpriced. As to the value or worthiness of such an item, it was simply your mistake to take an antique dealer's word for it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>my experience has been quite the opposite. i bought an immaculate '51 rolleicord and two immaculate/mint yashica TLRs from a local antique consignment shop [at different times over the years, one was stolen later and one given away]. they were each perfect in every way, and sold at rock bottom... i probably got all three for less than a photo dealer would have asked for one of them. whereas the medium format cameras i got from photography shops all had problems to a degree. i asked myself whether the guy who really knew cameras would tend to get everything he could out of them -- whereas the people who spend most of the time with dishes, tablecloths, clothes and furniture would let it go at some price that seemed reasonable, not really looking into function and condition that much?</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Q.G., the unfortunate aspect of commercial work is that most everything went digital very quickly... especially printing. Nothing in the advertising or promotion world has ever been on a slow track ... film photography was tolerated only because the technology was what it was.</p>

<p>The minute digital was good enough, it all changed ... virtually no one was willing to pay additional for high res scans that took even more time. For clients responding to minute changes in the competitive marketplace, time is indeed money.</p>

<p>The Mamiya RZ system is somewhat less suited to digital work because the sensors are 645 based and the lenses are 6X7 based. Mamiya never released the promised 43mm, so there is no wide angle lens under 50mm for use with a 645 sensor. So using it, buying a digital back for it, and charging the client for digital capture is and was problematic compared to a 645 based MF camera system.</p>

<p>On the other hand, for others it would be a killer system for both film and digital capture on a personal photography basis. </p>

[dave l]

<p>I would love to own a Hasselblad 503 or Mamiya RB67 outfit. The sad fact is that I can't afford either. I use a Kowa Super 66 with a 55mm and a 110mm Macro with a meter prism. Is this as good as a Hasselblad or Mamiya outfit? Probably not. But they are what I can afford and I am happy with the results. <br>

I really don't think that Hasselblad equipment is inferior at all, but I do question the prices. Some Hasselblad lenses cost more than my Ford Ranger. Where does the point of diminishing returns begin?</p>

<p> </p>

[travels]

<p>what do you think of Leica S2 jumping into the Medium Format market? Is it really Medium Format? Do you think that its small size is going to move any of you over? Will Canon or Nikon come up with a competitive sensor? Would like to hear the experts on this topic.</p>