philip_kecher

October 4, 2006

I also get screwed on the no PO Boxes.

It is the only way I get mail. If you send it to my street adress, it gets return to sender.

I always put both my street adress and PO Box on the form. It worked for years until about 2004. Now I get nothing from most companies.

I did get the Canon rebate that way last December. I haven't bought anything since then.

The real purpose of rebates is to screw people out of money if they aren't 100% accurate on the submission.

Philip

October 4, 2006

I agree with the above replies.

"Most of my work is landscape photography, part of that is done with a 4x5", but in most cases I am too lazy to use it."

Here the 4x5 still has the edge. Not only in detail but in tilts and swings.

I have done some basic 4x5 with a Speed Graphic. It was worth the effort for the perspective corrections or for a large DOF. Still I didn't stick with in because, like you, I was too lazy to use it.

I am now about 99% digital. I sold my Hasselblad system and put aside my 35mm film bodies.

Digital is that good.

Philip

October 3, 2006

I have no experience with the Sigma 17-70 lens.

I do have experience with the 17-85mm IS. It is a GREAT lens for what it is. The only major

problem is distortion at the wide end. I would expect the Sigma to have similar problems

given its focal range.

The Canon lens is a good medium price lens with a good range of focal lengths. It works

well as a lighter walk around lens than the L.

The bad reviews are out of line. Yes, there is truth to them. However, they are comparing

the lens to the 16-35mm L or the 24-70mm L. No comparision. Those lenses are fast, big,

and expensive. They have a limited zoom range. All of this contributes to the L lenses

being better optically.

The nature of these reviews what be like me giving a bad review for the 30D because it

doesn't match a Hasselblad H3D in image detail.

I own the big three L lenses. When I travel I take the 16-35mm, one or two fast wide

primes, and the the 17-85mm IS. If I carry the camera bag I have the 16-35 on the

camera. If I leave the bag at the hotel or in the car, the IS lens is the one I use.

Philip

September 30, 2006

I have an XT and 70-200 IS f/2.8

Weight and balance is not an issue. Actually it is a plus. The XT weighs so little that I am able to support the weight by the lens as though it were on a tripod. My main hold is on the lens and not the body.

Still your friend is basically right about it not having enough reach for close-ups on sports. I took my lens with me to the spring game at Notre Dame. My friends were amazed at how close Brady Quinn was in the photos compared to their photos. Still the closest picture was a full body shoot. It looked good but not professional.

There is a reason pros are at the sidelines with the big guns.

Still for amatuer use, a 70-200mm will be far superior to you friends P&S.

Philip

September 30, 2006

Get the 35mm f1.4 for travel.

Leave the 70-200 at home.

Keep the 30D.

If you can't keep both sell the body after your vacation.

A quick history, in the film world I used Leicas and Canon EOS for my personal use. My wife used a Contax G1. My first DSLR was the Nikon D100 bought in July 2002 and sold in December 2003. In September 2003 I bought a Canon 1D. Then in September 2005 I added the Rebel XT.

I took a car trip from Ohio to Yellowstone in July 2005 with the 1D and the big three f/2.8 lenses. I almost never used the 24-70. I used the 70-200 for wildlife. I used the 16-35 80% of the time. I hated the weight.

In the fall of 2005 I went to Ireland and we only took my wife's Contax with a 35mm and 90mm lenses. WE LOVED IT! However, when we got home, I hated not having the digital files.

This past summer, I took the Rebel XT with two bookend zooms and 50mm f/1.4 lenses to northern CA by air. Except for pictures of Halfdoom and El Capitan, I never used the telephoto. I tried using the 50 but it is a mild telephoto on the Rebel. I mostly used the 16-35. I wanted the weight and speed of the 50 but in a wide angle.

Lesson leader from my past, with travel I used my M3 with 28 or 35mm most of the time. So I plan to get a wide angle for my Rebel. Also I plan to get the replacement for the 5D whenever it comes.

Bottom line, get the 35mm at all costs!

Philip

October 14, 2003

Check out this article.

Canon 300D Experience</a>

Hope this helps

September 20, 2003

I also use the Pocket Wizard.

While safety with the D100 is important, to me the biggest advantage of it is no sync cords to trip over. With 1500 school children, it sure would be nice not to worry about any of them knocking over your camera by tripping over the sync cord. Yes, you still have the power cords for the lights but for me they are easier to secure.

Cut the cord and be free!

Philip

August 29, 2003

Douglas

I wish you had been able to buy my system. I sold it for two reasons. First is the money. Second, the equipment is useful to someone like yourself.

Thanks and good luck.

Philip

August 29, 2003

<body>

Richard, your earlier post was

one of the ones with the greatest mistakes.

Switched from 35mm film to

MF film (still plays with an Olympus OM-2n and Olympus 35SP sometimes though).

Tried digital but just can't stand the feel of the

plasticky bodies and small viewfinders.

You must be an amateur as you

play with cameras. More importantly, what does plastic

bodies have to do with the quality of the image? I am not into style

but results.

I'm also VERY concerned

about long-term storage. One scratch over a CD could erase

hundeds of photos. A hard-drive crash could erase

thousands of photos. CD's put away for 10 years and then rediscovered might

never be able to be viewed as..there

may not be any CD-readers anymore.

Here is the biggest

misconception of digital. I have at least four copies of every image I take -

one on my dedicated 120 gig, one on my server backup drive, one burned on a

CD, and finally one on a backup CD kept off site. In addition, I burn two

copies of my final corrected and cropped print files. My negatives and

transparencies are in one room. A single fire, flood, or theft would destroy

it all.

Come 2023 I wonder if one

will be able to find ANY images taken in 2003 that were originally taken on

digital cameras - or if the images that can be retrieved 20 years from now

will all be film-based ones.

Nonsense.

All my B&W negatives and all my grandfather�s B&W negatives (over 50 years

old) are still printable. None of his color or transparencies

are usable. None of my

Ectachrome transparencies from the 70�s are usable.

Few of my color negatives from the 80�s are in perfect shape. ALL of my

digital images should be printable in 20 years. Do you really expect today�s

standards to be unreadable? MS Word will still read

Wordstar files from 1983!

Having

said all that...I see myself snapping a digital back onto a Hasselblad within

3-4 years from now - to supplement film shooting.

How? Unless you own a 555ELD

or equivalent most backs wouldn�t work. Very few of your lenses are CFE so

there is no data info to transfer to your back. Finally, even when using the

555ELD you must use a special cord connected to your sync terminal. This is

very clunky and only useful in the studio with inanimate objects. Why do you

think Hasselblad introduced the H1?

Good day.

Philip</div>

</body>

</html>

August 28, 2003

To the laymen, portrait photographers are an odd bunch. We use to buy the finest Zeiss optics just to cover them up with Softars. The reason, MF lenses are too sharp for portrait use.

Then why didn�t we switch to 35mm film?

Retouching!

The 35mm negative is too small to easily retouch using non-digital methods.

Enter digital capture and printing and we now have retouching techniques we only dream about in the past.

Philip

August 28, 2003

Thank you all for your responses. I expected most of the comments to state that I goofed. This is the medium format forum. What I didn't expect is the ignorance of many posters about digital. One person stated their ignorance well, "Isn't it amazing the image quality the average consumer has learned to expect after watching cartoons and VHS movies on TV their entire lives."

For this crowd, I would suggest opening your eyes and learn what digital can and can't do. Read the good trade magazines and see how real pros are using digital. (The magazines you can't by at Borders or Barnes and Noble.)

I also was obvious that most posters are not pros. If so, they would know the difference between commercial photography, portrait photography, and event photography. I AM NOT a commercial photographer. Most commercial photographers shoot transparencies and there is currently NO WAY a DSLR can match the quality of a 2/4 transparency. I am a professional portrait and event photographer. It this arena digital can do the job. Just ask Dennis Reggie, Helen Boursier, Seth Resnick, etc. They are the best in the business and have gone almost full digital.

Finally, to the few good posts I appreciated your comments. In reply, I may return to medium format but with a more modern system such as the Mamiya 645 AF, Contax 645 AF, or Hasselblad H1. These systems have AF to help my 46 year old eyes and they have the electronics to more easily accept a digital back than the V system.

Philip

August 26, 2003

Chris Henry

I am pleased that you are happy with your new purchase. It is for people like you that I sold my Hassy. No Hasselblad should ever be a dust collector. Besides an unused Hassy goes to seed quickly. The seals dry, the shutters can begin to slow, and the lenses can get fungus. Yet, when the same cameras are used, they need little in the way of repairs.

You made my day!

Philip

August 26, 2003

Ernie wrote

"Did you do this because the digital pictures were of higher quality or because the digital route offers more commercial advantages?"

Are my digital pictures superior to MF?

NO! There is no way that a D100 can equal a well exposed MF image enlarged to 24x30. (No flames please.) However, I almost never sell anything larger than 11x14. In these cases the images are equal. Also for the occasional 16x20 PORTRAIT the quality is still there. When you go that large, you don't want it to be oversharp to show every skin blemish.

Are there any technical advatage to using digital for portraits?

Color balance. By coincidence, my first commercial shoot with both film and digital was of a baby with Olive skin. The digital shots were perfect while the film enlargements were wrong. Of course this was a lab problem. They guess the proper color of the skin and they can be wrong. Olive skin is usually printed wrong. Then you need a reprint. What a hassle. So it is an advantage to me to be in control of color.

Are there commercial advantages?

Yes, my average sell per sitting has increased significantly. You can't minimize the advantage of taking the final order at the sitting by using a computer. There is more impulse buying.

Am I fully happy using the D100?

NO! While I am sold on digital, I do not like using the tiny viewfinder. I would love to have the Hasselblad H1 with a Kodak DCS Pro Back 645. However, that system would cost me $21,000 (Camera, three lenses, and back). I can't justify that price in my market. Maybe someday. The H1 made be decide not to keep the V system for the future as I realized that the V system has some real drawbacks using a digital back. (Hasselblad knows this and now I do.)

Finally, to the person who considers his 10D with 24mm lens a toy. Buy a few more lenses and learn to use the camera. There is a learning curve with digital. BTW, you would take lousy portraits with that 24mm lens.

Philip

August 26, 2003

I just got off the telephone with a large buyer of used equipment. I

just sold the last of my Hasselblad equipment including a 501CM and

three lenses. I am not an ebayer and was willing to sell at

wholesale.

I am comfortable with my decision. Starting last October, I

experimented with the D100 in the studio. My very first shoot with

both digital and MF, I didn�t sell a single image from film. I sold

double my average from my laptop! The next week I sold the 16x20

that I made for my own tests. The baby�s mother wouldn�t leave my

office without it!

I haven't shot a roll of film since the 26th of December. Two weeks

ago I decided to sell the Hassy to keep it from collecting dust and

mold. It needed to find a good home. Hasselblad equipment was made

to be used and not collected.

Like it or not, I am now full digital. I still have a Contax G1 for

limited B&W and some Nikon film cameras gathering dust. I wouldn't

sell them as I want to keep them for old time sake. The Hassy

equipment was worth too much money for sentiment.

How many of you have sold similar equipment or are thinking of it?

Philip

PLEASE NOTE

This was not posted as digital vs. film nonsense. I do believe

medium format film has its place. However, for my purpose as a

professional portrait and event photographer digital now meets my

needs. I posted this on a digital forum and of course it was

overwhelmingly "I did the same". I wish to balance this with a forum

that using more film. So I would like to know how many of you are

doing the same?

July 10, 2003

I have the NC2 style and it works well. It doesn't have the optical quality of a Hassy viewfinder but for $50 bucks you wouldn't expect that quality.

The only reason I write is to make the point that the viewfinder is the only modular piece in the Hasselblad world that doesn't have an impact on the final image. So if cost is an issue go for it. I did and I am happy. Still, I will buy the Hassy finder someday.

IMHO, forget the meter.

Philip

June 24, 2003

noddy B

Thank you for your response!

Digital is convenient and useful in many respects and I have no regrets buying my D100. It is a fantastic events camera where you need quick results. It also works well in the studio.

Still, I don't like spending the time in front of the computer and I like the simplicity of a well built mechanical camera. To me it isn't film or digital but both!

Good luck with your MP!

June 23, 2003

I have purchased from Delta many times and I would do so again!

I am very pleased with what I purchased.

As far as Leica's prices going up, it has to do with the devaluation of the Dollar vs. the Euro. There has been an 18% decline in the dollar since January. If Leica were to increase their prices to match, then they would have risen 21%! (The Euro has increased in value 21% over the dollar.)

June 23, 2003

noddy B:

Good image!

I don't want this to degrade into a digital vs. film debate, but I have to ask.

You mentioned owning a D60. Do you still use it? If so, are you using it less than when you purchased it?

I have all but given my D100 to my wife. I have returned to manual film cameras for most of my work. I just wondered if you have done the same.

Philip

PS

What country do you live? (It isn't USA as you mention weight in kg.)

March 19, 2003

One more HUGE plus for Phase One - Their new H 25 22 megapixel CCD!

It will be released in June and it has a HUGE imager! It measures 1.4" x 1.9" (36mm x 48mm). This is the first CCD that begins to approach the image size of MF film. Most other imagers are 24mm x 36mm or a square 36mm.

Imagine the quality plus being able to use your MF focal lengths at close to their design specs.

Philip

March 19, 2003

Phase One

Kodak and Phase One are near equals with image quality so you need to decide on other issues.

For me, I like that Phase One has better software. Capture One is the standard by which all others are judged.

Another plus is that they are not going after the DSLR market. Kodak is having major birthing problems with the DCS 14n. This camera has the potential to redefine that market (most likely) or finacially break Kodak. Who knows which way it will go. However, regardless of outcome, it does dominate Kodak's digital development. What is left for developing and improving digital backs?

Hardware wise, Phase One is only interested in digital backs. To me it is a safer bet.

Philip

March 13, 2003

.6 times is the standard answer. As stated above this is comparing the relationship between diagonals.

For me I print a lot of 8x10, 5x7, and 11x14. Using 35mm film requires cropping while the 645 does not. A 35mm frame is 24mm x 36mm. To get an 8x10 proportion the frame is cut to 24mm x 30mm.

Thus the MF focal length equivalent to a 35mm printed 8x10 is .5 ie, a 80mm MF will have an angle of view of a 40mm 35mm when printed as an 8x10.

Clear as mud?

Philip

February 5, 2003

I don't know how they named 120 film. However, I do know where 35mm came from.

An image from most 35mm still cameras is 24mm x 36mm. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the name 35mm.

As stated above, 35mm film originally was motion picture stock. The film INCLUDING sprockets measures 35mm in width. (The actual image size width for motion pictures is much less and about 24mm.) Thus using it as still film the 35mm width side gives us our 24mm height. The sprockets and edges consume the other 11mm.

Philip

January 28, 2003

I have a 40 year old pair that was my grandfather's (8x60). They used the E. Leitz name at that time. Mechanically, they are perfect. Cosmetically, about 25% of the leather is gone.

Leica/Leitz binoculars are great. They spoil you to want only the best such as Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leupold. Did I miss anyone?

BTW

Does anyone know were to get leather replaced?

January 14, 2003

It appears that the CB 160 has returned to the Hasselblad catalogue.

Go to http://www.hasselbladusa.com/. Then select "Location: Products > V System > Lenses > CB-lenses > CB 160"

It is my favorite portrait lens.

Philip

January 13, 2003

"In the end, I could always save up and buy digital when it meets my needs, I could resell my hassy anytime and still get SOMETHING for it (yea right, i aint ever selling it)"

Nicely put. With your reasoning, the Hassy may be the right decision for you. As I said, only you can make this decision. Still as a general statement, I would caution others in making a similar purchase. Also, be forewarned that this is just the beginning for you. You will want more lenses, and backs. I spent three times the purchase price of my first kit within one year for these additional items. The quality of Hasselblad is addicting. Also, as you have stated, once you have used a Hassy or similar MF camera, anything else seems small and cheap.

I make money with my cameras and need digital. I have no real choice. Still they will pry my Hasselblad from by cold dead fingers.

Good luck.

Philip

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by philip_kecher