david_smith35

And now that this question has been answered, time, perhaps, to point out the difference between mirror lock up and mirror prerelease.

Very few cameras offer mirror lock up, i.e. allow to put the mirror up until you decide to have it come down again.

Many offer mirror prerelease, with the mirror coming down again after every single exposure.

 

Lock up is used when attaching lenses that protrude into the camera, or when the viewfinder isn't used.

It doesn't matter what you call it - the end result is the same of preventing camera shake when you release the shutter.

Leaf shutter Bronicas aren't THAT bad-they're a bit louder than a Hasselblad, but not terrible by any means.

 

Focal plane shutter ones are a different story...

I agree with Ben.

I have a Hasselblad-brand Bullseye level on the side of my 500C. It snaps smartly onto the accessory mount on the side of the camera, and I tend to trust its accuracy both handheld and on a tripod.

 

With that said, with most any camera I still find myself preferring sighting a grid line against the horizon or a building to using a level. The for me with grid lines is I can make sure that the things I want to APPEAR level(or at least along a line).

I agree with Ben - I just use the grid screen as a guide until I'm satisfied that everything looks level to me.

Ok, so I understand you get a steadier hand held shot with a leaf shutter camera than with a rear one... looks like your cameras "recoil" too much...

I see. We have to trust all your statements, even if they are against rationality. Otherwise, we are wrong.

My statements are perfectly rational Jose. I stress that these are my experiences - yours may be rather different. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

David, can you give some reasons to support your affirmation? Have you tested it? Proofs? Experiences?

Internet is plenty of one and the opposite kind of empty answers. Evidences are really useful these days.

My own experiences are enough to make me say my statement is correct - I certainly don't need to try and prove it to win an argument. "Internet is plenty of one and the opposite kind of empty answers" I have no idea what that statement means - it's sounds like gibberish to me

<i>"The 'rule' goes 1/focal length. For what it's worth. This general advice applies to SLR's. With cameras like rangefinders, slower speeds are possible."</i><br><br>No, Ty.<br>The rule is the same for any and all cameras.<br>It is based upon an estimate of acceptable blur, reduced to/measured in angular movement. The amount of blur per unit of movement grows with magnification, i.e. with focal length. Thus to keep it low you must further restrict the movement (i.e. use faster speeds) when focal lengths grow.<br>There is absolutely nothing about types of cameras assumed or hidden inside the 'rule'.<br><br>And rightly so.<br>As mentioned before, i think ;-), the idea that cameras with mirrors would be less easy to handhold is completely unfounded and ill-conceived.<br>Not to put too fine a point on it: it's completely bonkers. ;-)<br>(It really is.)

Not true. A camera without a mirror and rear shutter is generally easier to hand hold at slower shutter speeds.

Mirror induced vibrations are not a worry when handholding. It will be orders of magnitude smaller than hand induced shake.<br><br>And yes, even with short focal length lenses and fast shutter speeds, the difference a tripod makes is ENORMOUS.

<p>There is not an ENORMOUS difference between handholding at 1/500th and a tripod with an 80mm/60/40mm lens - some difference perhaps but not a lot. But below 1/250th there is a noticeable difference.</p>

I agree with your sensible comment.

Mirror lock-up only showed a noticeable benefit at the fastest speeds.

Mirror lock up will show the greatest benefits at the slowest speeds.

<i>"And I also find that a tripod is very important, and quite easily adaptable to my workflow <b>with these types of cameras</b>."</i><br><br>Again, it's not the camera that is the problem, but we are.<br>We are crap at holding still. We shake like mad.<br>A tripod will do wonders, <b>no matter what camera</b>, tiny or huge.<br><br>But if considering camera, lightweight thingies are just as bad as ones that weigh half a ton. Add the right amount of mass, i.e. inertia, but not enough to put your muscles into a tremour, and you have the ideal handholdable camera. That right amount of inertia is not provided by 35 mm cameras. Things like a Mamiya 645, Bronica, Rollei SLR, Hasselblad are just about right. A Mamiya RB/RZ is already a bit too much.<br><br>But still: it's not the camera. It's the photographer you have to worry about.<br><br>And yes: you often can't use a tripod. And we have to (!) do without. But if you could, the results would be so much better.

Don't confuse two things: noone said that it's always possible to use a tripod.<br>And yes, some people don't like to lug a tripod around, and others find it good fun not to use a tripod even if they could.<br><br>But that doesn't change the answer to the original question: the difference is ENORMOUS.<br>;-)

Certain cameras are much easier to hand hold than others - I know from experience that a twin lens reflex is easier to hand hold at slower shutter speeds than a 6X6 SLR. A tripod will give more consistent results especially with longer lenses, but only if used with mirror lock up and a cable release.

One of the oldest photographic adage is to keep the sun behind you for the best shots...Still applies.

That depends on your idea of what makes a good image. Rarely does having the sun 'over your shoulder' make for the best landscape image. Quite often, back or side lighting produces the most pleasing effect, but both can cause flare even with a lens hood.

Hello forum.

 

I've heard that 250mm Lens for Hasselblad V-series is mediocre: never achieves impressive image.

 

I wonder if anyone tested below and if there any 'lesser of all evils' ?

 

Shooting landscapes with it - mid-range and infinity focus is of interest...

 

Which one gives best image quality in terms of sharpness / contrast / and with nice bokeh if viewed with 100% enlargement?

 

Sonnar C 250mm f/5.6 (non-T*)

Sonnar CF 250mm f/5.6 (non-T*)

Sonnar CF 250mm f/4 T*

 

Thanks!

I've used both the SA 250mm Sonnar and the standard 250mm T* version, and I honestly couldn't see any difference in sharpness between the two lenses. However, the SA version did flare easily when used against the light due to its uncoated optics.

Who makes a 26 mm lens? In terms of effect, the 40 is closer to 24 mm than 28 mm, in part due to the nature of a square format. "Equivalent" focal lengths are hard to compare between formats. A square format has more area for a given length of diagonal than a 2:3 format, hence seems wider. Perhaps it is sufficient that 80 mm is considered "normal" on an Hasselblad, and 40 mm is half of that, unless you wish to quibble over 24 v 25 ;)

Who makes a 26mm lens? Well, no one as far as I know - I was merely making an accurate comparison using the only sensible method - that of horizontal angles of view. Very few people compose a picture diagonally.

The CF40/4 FLE is a very good lens. If lenses sold by the pound, you would understand why they cost so much more than the CF50 FLE (think 95 mm filter ring). The distortion is very low, and the sharpness is superb. I bought one mainly to bring a semi-wide angle effect to a cropping digital back.

 

One version of the 40, the CFI IF I think, is optimized for digital. The center resolution is enhances, but falls off toward the corners, which doesn't affect a cropping sensor. It is the right choice for use with a Mutar. With film, the 40 is roughly equivalent to a 24 mm lens on a 35 mm camera. It isn't much, but it's the best Hasselblad has to offer for a V body.

The 40mm lens is actually closer to a 26mm lens on a 35mm camera.

<p><em>That's why you get all on the page linked to.</em><br>

Well, there's a sentence that makes no sense.</p>

<p><em>That's why you get all on the page linked to.</em><br>

Well, there's a sentence that makes no sense.</p>

<p><em>Think, before you write.</em><br>

I agree Quinten, you should. Maybe if you did you would not refer to something as a "thingy" whatever that is. Nor would you use unnecessary punctuation in the middle of a sentence such as exclamation marks. You could also try capitalizing "I" when forming a sentence.</p>