capocheny
-
Posts
1,232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by capocheny
-
-
Has anyone considered a factory-trained technician by the name of David Odess?
Here's his website:
Hasselblad camera repair, service, and sales by factory trained technician David Odess.
Cheers,
Capo
-
<p>Hi Q.G.,</p>
<p>Great... thank you kindly for your note.</p>
<p>The lens is a CF version and takes a 60 Bayonet mount. So, this one works! :)</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
Hi Q.G.,
Normally, I'm in the same boat as you and seldom, if ever, shoot without a hood. So, I'll have to play with the 150 hood on the 120 and see whether there are any issues. I'm sure that using the 100 Planar hood on the 120 wouldn't cause any issues because it has a wider angle of view than the 120.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether there might be a bit of vignetting on the end product.
Thank you... I did keep your advice in mind when I was looking at the lens. :)
Best regards.
Cheers.
-
Hi all,
Just a note as a quick follow-up on what I've decided... I went down to see the lens and couldn't refuse it. It looked like it just came out of a display case. So, naturally, like bees to honey, I couldn't refuse.
Now, I'm looking forward to taking it out and giving it a go!
Do you guys use a lens hood with it? I've got a spare 150 hood (somewhere) in my office... would it work or...
Thanks again guys! :)
Cheers.
-
Hi,
It use to be that when I went into the tab under Equipment... I would see a Classified section where equipment
could be purchased or sold.
However, when I go under the same tab these days, all I see is a list of equipment under the manufacturers name
and, perhaps, reviews of the gear.
Can you please tell me how I can "see" the Classifieds again?
Thanks
-
<p>Hi Jerry,<br />I hadn't thought about the bellows unit but since I'm going to be traveling with this kit, it will need to be as compact as possible. Thank you for the suggestion. :)<br /><br />Q.G., Edward,<br />Just the information I was looking for... thank you both very, very much. :)<br />Having the working distance makes a lot of sense to me. So, it sounds like the 100mm Planar would work best at low magnification. Adding a tube will reduce that working distance even more...<br />The longest lens I have is a 150... so, that would increase the working distance moreso than the 100 Planar.</p>
<p>Time for me to get out and do some experimenting!<br>
Thanks for sharing all this terrific advice... you guys are the best!!!<br /><br />Cheers.</p>
-
<p>Hi Q.G.,</p>
<p>Thank you for your comment... and, thank you for the link to the close-up calculator. Unfortunately, I'm not one of those people that do well with calculators. I'm more of a hands-on, go out, shoot, and see for myself kind of guys. :)</p>
<p>(This posting arose from the opportunity to purchase a 120 Planar at a reasonable price. And, the decision has to be made by tomorrow afternoon. Hence, the reason for this less-than-thoughtful posting. So, apologies for it. :>0)</p>
<p>Rather than rush into the purchase, I think I'll take your suggestion to go out and play with the Planar with the tubes and make my decision afterwards. :)</p>
<p>Thanks again. </p>
<p>Cheers.</p>
-
<p>Hi M.,</p>
<p>Thank you kindly for your response. Yes, you're quite right in that the 100 Planar isn't intended for macro work. </p>
<p>But, since I'm not looking at going 1:1... </p>
<p>I suppose I'll just have to get out there with the 100 and experiment to see what kind of magnification it'll give me and whether I like the results or not. If I don't, then I guess the 120 will be my next lens acquisition. :)</p>
<p>I realize it's a bit of an awkward question that I'm asking. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Greetings all,</p>
<p>With the advent of Spring just around the corner, the notion of photographing Spring flowers have popped into my thoughts.</p>
<p>At present, I have a 100mm Planar. However, I've come across a 120mm Macro for sale at a reasonable price (it's not the CFi version, which suits me fine].</p>
<p>Thus, the question is, "should I consider purchasing the Macro lens?" </p>
<p>[i know that this is suppose to be one gorgeous chunk of glass!]</p>
<p>(Having not shot a lot of macro images... I'm thinking at most 1:1 as the outside magnification and always with camera on tripod.)</p>
<p>Pros and cons? </p>
<p>Thanks for your informed replies.</p>
-
<p>After picking up a Blad with an 80mm, I decided to go with the 100 Planar since I'd owned one before and loved it. It just matched my way of "seeing" a bit more.</p>
<p>As a result... I went 50, 100, and 150. However, in retrospect... I wish I would have gone to the 180 instead of the 150. Again, with my way of "seeing" I prefer something just a tiny bit longer (even though it's probably only a mere few steps forward or backwards.)</p>
<p>My next acquisition will most likely be either a 120 (since I enjoy doing close-ups) or a 1.4x tele-extender (since I also prefer shooting a bit longer. :)</p>
<p>Good luck on your decision... decisions, decisions, decisions!</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>Hi Nathan,</p>
<p>Thanks for your comments... I always try to shoot the 553 on a pod so weight hasn't been an issue for me (other than backpacking the kit around for a few miles!)</p>
<p>That said, the Blad kit is still a LOT lighter than my LF gear! :)</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>Hi Q,G.,<br>
I quite agree with you in regards to hand-holding and weight. I use to prefer holding a Nikon F3 with the MD4 battery pack as opposed to holding just the body sans motor drive. I've always preferred a bit more heft to the camera when hand-holding.</p>
<p>[My walk-around kit is a 50, 100, 150 with the stove chimney magnifier and extra back.]</p>
<p>However, these days, the hands aren't as steady as they once were. Consequently, even the 500c/m gets mounted onto a tripod when I'm out shooting. Besides that, the genre I shoot (landscapes and still-life) allows me to take the time to tripod mount the camera just as I would when using 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10 large format cameras.</p>
<p>:) Imagine him telling his wife he'd like to go back to the scene to re-shoot it! :)</p>
<p>Thanks kindly for your comments... always appreciated!</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>Gary,<br>
Yes, I couldn't agree more with your comment concerning age... and weight!<br>
I'm fortunate because my 553 has the 5xAA battery arrangement. :)</p>
<p>QG,<br>
:) You're absolutely spot on! The c/m is a great camera and fun to use... without the weight. :)</p>
<p>So, in summary, it sounds like it's the weight and battery setup of the 553 that is causing the lower resale pricing in the marketplace?<br>
[At the end of the day... I'm not looking to sell the 553 but this enquiry is more of a curiosity than anything else.]</p>
<p>Russ,<br>
Ah, portraits and weddings... neither of which I do! :)<br>
Thanks for your comments...</p>
-
<p>Greetings,</p>
<p>Have noticed quite a few Blad 553 ELX bodies on the auction site these days... but they're not selling or selling at very, very low dollar amounts.</p>
<p>What's the story on this particular model such that the demand is so low (aside from the notions that MF usage is declining or that people are going digital)?</p>
<p>Is there a problem with the camera itself?</p>
<p>Is it just a glut?</p>
<p>Or???</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>PS: BTW, I have a mint, unused 55xelx on the shelf behind me! I've been having great fun using the 500c/m instead of the 553. :)</p>
-
<p>Angelo,</p>
<p>I assume that the Sinar "shutter(s)" you're referring to is the Auto-shutter that accepts the shutterless lenses mounted in the DB mounts?</p>
<p>Are you using a wide-angle bellows?</p>
<p>To answer your question directly, personally speaking, I wouldn't go back to the Sinar Auto-shutter since I had 2 new ones and they both packed it in. As a result, I would select a lens mounted in either a Copal/Compur shutter and, since I've had no experience with the Prontor shutter, I won't/can't speak to them.</p>
<p>One big advantage of the Sinar Auto-shutter is that your exposures would be consistent given that you're using the same shutter for all of your glass. The big disadvantage is that you're held ransom if your shutter happens to go down. Having separate shutter mounted lenses means that, should the shutter go down in one of your lenses, you're able to continue on on your shoot by either using a different shutter mounted lens or switch shutters (if they both take the same size shutter).</p>
<p>That said, there are lots of Auto-shutter users out there that have had no issues with their units.</p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>David,</p>
<p>:) I must say that's a fine piece of generalization about ebay being a dumping ground! :)</p>
<p>IMHO, you <em>do</em> get scoundrels flogging stuff there but there are also store-front scoundrels as well. And, returning purchases to some of these store-front scoundrels can be as challenging (if not moreso in some cases) than those on ebay.</p>
<p>Insist on Bank Drafts, USPS Money Orders, or use PayPal as opposed to personal cheques.</p>
<p>In plain English, just do your due diligence, use common sense, and you'll be fine!</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>Hi Josh,</p>
<p>I agree with James in regards to his comment about shipping worldwide as opposed to simply one region. You'll have a far greater audience to sell your equipment to.</p>
<p>I'm amused at the folks who limit their sales to the US. Of course, I understand where they're coming from but, in this day and age, you'll likely have as many issues selling in the US to unscrupulous buyers as you would anywhere else (with exceptions.)</p>
<p>I've sold a few things to people as far as Australia, Hong Kong, Holland, etc and have never had a problem.</p>
<p>Lastly, I'd also agree that it would make sense to sell it as a kit. You may make a few dollars more piecing it out but how much is YOUR time worth?</p>
<p>My 2 cents worth.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>Hi Kevin,</p>
<p>I chose a couple of Blads - the 500 c/m and 553 elx... that's my story and I'm sticking with it!</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with any of the other camera systems but it always boils down to personal likes and dislikes. I quite like the square format but it certainly does require a different way of "seeing." It simply works for me.</p>
<p>Btw, those Zeiss lenses are preeetty darn spectacular!</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>Agree with all those folks who suggested taking the Blad with a wide, "normal", and longish...I was recently on a trip where I took 4x5, 5x7 (reducing back for the 8x10), 8x10, and a 21/4 x 21/4. In the final analysis, the only camera I could shoot with was the 21/4 x 21/4 due to high, high winds. The large format gear just came along for the ride and would not have resulted in anything more substantive than a bunch of blurred negs!</p>
<p>It's always a dilemma as to what gear to take on a trip. Take the Blad and you'll have a need for 4x5; take the 4x5 and you find you can't use it due to poor weather conditions. I think all you can do is to take a good compromise and simply accept the decision for what it's worth.</p>
<p>On my next trip, I would definitely take 4x5 and the Blad... :)</p>
<p>One of my favorite Michael Levin images (from his Icelandic series) was taken with a Blad in high wind conditions not unlike that which I experienced during my trip. The enlarged image was absolutely stunning (sorry, can't recall the exact size but it was quite a good sized image.) It's entitled "Atlantic Ridge, 2007 and here's the image link:</p>
<p>http://www.michaellevin.ca/MichaelLevin.html</p>
<p>Anyway, have a fantastic trip regardless of the gear you decide on to accompany you. I'm sure you'll come back with some beautiful images.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>I concur with Phillip's suggestion on the Fuji 680II or III with the 180f3.2. The Fujinon lenses are first rate in terms of overall quality and are sharp and contrasty. Secondly, they are very well-built and will last a lifetime with care. The only drawback to the system is that they're not as readily available on the used market as the RB/RZ67s or Blads. However, they do come up every so often on the bay.<br></p><p><br></p><p>I took one out for a test-drive and ended up buying a Blad because of the weight difference between the two bodies. The Blad is quite a bit lighter. But, since you're using it in a studio setting only, weight isn't going to be a consideration.</p><p><br></p><p>Good luck on your decision.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
<p>Try these websites:</p>
<p>http://www.pinholeresource.com/shop/home<br>
http://www.pinholeday.org/<br>
or Google: http://www.pinholeday.org/</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
-
<p>Hi Paul,<br>
I'm looking forward to giving the 100 a go...<br>
With regards to your audio comparison... that's why I enjoy listening to vinyl recirds and shooting film! :)<br>
Yes, sometimes luck comes along when you're not looking for it. :)</p>
<p>Hi Q.G.,<br>
I may or may not be able to do a comparison as I'm probably going to dispose of the 80 right away (prior to receiving the 100.) However, I will do so if I have the opportunity. :)</p>
<p>Thanks again for all the input...<br>
Cheers</p>
-
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>Paul... that's high praise indeed.<br>
Dave... I understand where you're coming from.<br>
Thanks Brian...</p>
<p>All your comments are greatly appreciated... I'll pick up the 100 and experience it first hand.<br>
Cheers</p>
-
<p>Hi Edward,<br>
Great... thank you for your comments. I can certainly understand where the 100 would be far sharper at wider apertures. So, it's sharper than the 80 even at smaller apertures as well... I'll have to give this more thought before I decide.<br>
Cheers</p>
Hasselblad 2003 FCW jammed lens
in Medium Format
Posted
Hi Q.G.,
Please accept my apologies for missing that on the site.
Cheers,
Capo