david_smith35

<p><em>It depends whether in 35mm terms you are a 35mm or 28mm man (60 vs 50).</em><br /> <em><br /></em>The 60 is closer to a 40mm lens, and the 50 is close to a 35mm lens (on 35mm format)</p>

<p>What's the matter Russ, cat got your tongue?......bye</p>

<p><em>Well I wish all the other "experts" would have answered the question first</em><br>

Not sure what you mean by this Russ - care to explain?</p>

<p><em>The Hasselblad bodies were machined from a solid block of metal.</em><br>

They are actually a casting which is machined - not a solid block.</p>

<p>The only angle of view that matters is the horizontal one. It's what you can get in the frame from left to right which is most important for the majority of pictures.</p>

<p>Robert, at around £20 I think I would take a chance and try one. After all it's a fraction of the cost of a Hasselblad screen and worth taking a chance.</p>

<p><em>Using them would be a mistake.</em><br>

Why? If you're going to post a comment, at least give an explanation.</p>

<p>Agree with the above - they are plastic as are most screens, and very easy to damage. I personally never touch the surface of the screen even with a blower brush. I just use a puffer to try and remove any debris.<br>

Static is a major problem with plastic screens, and sometimes you just have to ignore the odd speck however annoying. As the above poster states, OCD cleaning will ruin them.</p>

<p><em>Q. J. is not the sort of person who would let a single issue motivate him to abandon PN.</em><br>

Not too sure about that Donald. His cantankerous and contradictory nature has fuelled many arguments on here, especially in the medium format section. May he has grown weary of this and is now lying low.</p>

<p><em>I also don't see any springs in the battery holder, just four metal contacts</em><br /> Alexander, the metal contacts are sprung to hold the batteries, and are the springs I referred to. It's essential to make sure they are a tight fit against the batteries.<br /> In spite of what others are saying the design of the holder was hardly a major downfall, and I've never had a problem with the battery holder in the SQAi. However, I would agree that the original battery holder in the SQA was a better design.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alexander, it might be worth just tensioning the springs on the battery holder with a small screwdriver to ensure the batteries are a really snug fit. It's also worth cleaning the batteries with a clean cloth and not handling them with bare fingers when inserting then into the battery holder.</p>

<p>Ray, I'm no expert at scanning, but scans from a flatbed require quite a bit more sharpening than those from a deicated film scanner such as the Nikon Coolscan. I use a V700, but not the crappy film holders supplied with the scanner. As I'm using slide film, I scan with the slide mounted in the GePe mount (I still project slides!) which holds the film pretty flat.<br>

I've had a couple of trannys scanned on a Coolscan and I've scanned the same trannys on my V700, and with careful sharpening I've managed to produce a print which is all but indistinguishable from a print scanned on the Cool Scan. Even examining the prints with a loupe it's difficult to see any difference.</p>

<p><em>An </em>Hasselblad?</p>

<p>Saw his name pop up the other day under "Who's online" so he is obviously still lurking on these forums, although not contributing.</p>

<p><em>Yes. And, I expect them when I buy used.</em></p>

<p>What on earth for? The only thing that's important is the condition of the item - I would rather buy a second hand item in mint condition without a box than a boxed item which is in used condition.</p>

<p><em>"The 65 roughly corresponds to a 35mm lens on 35mm"</em><br>

Not really. The 50mm lens is a closer match to the 35mm lens on 35mm format, if one compares the horizontal angles of view.</p>

<p><em>He did seem to be someone who did not compromise. </em><br /> <br /> You are dead right judging by some of his postings on the medium format section. He quite often argues vehemently with anyone who expresses an opinion different from his own.</p>

<p>Mike, I wasn't aware that his name still popped up on "Who's Online" from time to time. Strange he has gone from posting on a practically daily basis (sometimes several time a day) to zero postings. He must be having withdrawal symptoms!</p>

<p>Regarding the apparent disappearance of Quinten de Bakker, I noticed that he no longer supports the Photo.net financially, so I can only assume he has ceased to be a member.</p>

<p><em>I don't give arguments.</em> No, but you certainly start quite a few, don't you? And your comments are based mostly on your opinions.</p>

<p><em>"Most slide films, but perhaps Velvia in particular exaggerate and change colours, often well away from what the photographer saw,"</em><br>

True to a certain extent, but a projected slide cannot be manipulated anything like as much as a digital image, which is the point the OP was trying to make.</p>

<p>(...but if it were me, I wouldn't be choosing between two <em>square-format</em> cameras!)<br>

What's wrong with square format?</p>

<p>Thanks for the link Laurie. Some striking images.</p>

<p><em> </em><br /> <em>"The UK based TV stations are legally required to be unbiased"</em><br /> If only that was true.....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sanjay, if you are using the glass mounts the metal mask holds the glass in the mount. Strictly speaking, the mask is unecessary but the design of the mount makes them a necessary evil.</p>