enw

<p>Moko,</p>

<p>The next thing you really need to buy is Ernst Wildi's <em>The Hasselblad Manual</em> . I've been using Hasselblads for almost 40 years and I still turn to his book frequently. You can usually find a copy on that auction site or at bookstores. I would search out the 5th edition; later editions have a lot of material on the digital H series cameras and that will be of no benefit to you. Welcome to the wonderful world of Hasselblad!</p>

<p>- Eric</p>

<p>Garrett,</p>

<p>Why all the fuss about moving to digital capture? You have some excellent cameras and are apparently well versed in their use. For the price of a D700, the camera that would seem to make the most sense, you can pay for an awful lot of film scans!</p>

<p>I don't see any reason to rush out and buy a digital capture camera, unless you're involved in photojournalism where "instant" images are a requirement. Keep what you've got, continue to shoot film and simply get your negatives or chromes scanned to digital files at the time of processing. Lot's of labs do it for a very small fee when you order it at the time of processing. Then, you can experiment with digital, see if you like the image quality as opposed to your traditional silver prints - without spending money on a digital body. If you decide you actually enjoy the digital workflow, then you can get a digital capture camera later.</p>

<p>I shoot with 2 Nikon F3HP's, a F5 and 2 Leica M7's, as well as Hasselblads. I simply have my color film scanned at the time of processing (I do the B&W myself) and either print from the silver negative or work with the digital scan. Digital scans of a negative can be far superior to digital capture images.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I also have a D700; but I've found I prefer the digital scans from my negatives in many respects. The only time I use the D700 is when I need an immediate print or image to email to a client.</p>

<p>- Eric</p>

<p>Hasselblad 501CM w/50mm CFi FLE</p>

<p>Here's the announcement:</p><div></div>

<p>This issue has been resolved.<br /> Hasselblad announced that the issues relates only to the H3DII-50. If you have this camera, there's a firmware update available on the Hasselblad web site that fixes the problem.</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="700">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td>

<td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="3" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td>

<td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>When the digital "thing" happened, I tried it. Since I had a rather extensive Nikon system, I naturally stayed with Nikon. I started with a D70S, then a D200 and now I have a D700 full frame. The problem is, I don't enjoy digital.<br /> <br /> I wasn't attracted to photography because I enjoyed sitting in front of my computer. And I think there is a real difference between a photographer creating a photograph and a photographic technician creating a graphic image in Photo Shop. I know that will offend some people, but I don't mean it to. I've seen some striking images since the onset of the digital photography age and they are outstanding pieces of art. But to me, that's not photography. They may have started with a photographic image, but somewhere the photograph was lost and a computer generated graphic image was the end product. That's certainly not true for all digital images, but it is a path that many follow.<br /> <br /> So I decided to go back to what attracted me to photography in the first place. The simple joy of a relatively simple camera and <em>the image that is created is the result of that individual's skill at the moment of image creation</em> . A negative and a wet darkroom, an appreciation for tradition; no "fixing" it in Photo Shop. I like that.<br>

So I’ve gone in two different directions. I invested in a Leica and a couple of lenses just for fun, to stir the spirit, to recapture the real feeling of photography. I also now shoot extensively with my Hasselblads. I love the large 6x6 negative. I am a better photographer now that I've returned to film and, just as importantly, I enjoy it more.<br /> <br /> I disagree with those that say a camera is a camera; that tools don't matter. I understand what they are saying, but I find that I <em>do</em> have an appreciation for the tools and, for me, they <em>do</em> matter. To me, the process of image creation is very enjoyable. I enjoy working with my Leica and Hasselblads because they are wonderfully designed and constructed. Working with such fine equipment is an enjoyable part of the process. It's not the end image that solely matters, but the journey as well.</p>

<p>I'm the OP... wow, 112 responses! I thought I'd get 6 or 7. Many thanks to everyone that commented. I've scratched the itch and I now have a 35mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH and a 75mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH sitting on my desk. My M7 will hopefully be delivered in a day or so and I can't wait! - Eric</p>

<p>Reflecting upon what everyone has said, I think the reason I got the Leica itch is a bit complex. As I mentioned in my original post, I've been shooting large and medium format for a while and, prior to that, did a considerable amount of shooting with my Nikons. When the digital "thing" happened, I tried that, too. Starting with a D70S, then a D200 and now I have a D700 full frame. The problem is, I don't enjoy digital. </p>

<p>I wasn't attracted to photography because I enjoyed sitting in front of my computer. And I think there is a real difference between a <em>photographer</em> creating a <em>photograph</em> and a photographic technician creating a graphic image in Photo Shop. I know that will offend some people, but I don't mean it to. I've seen some striking images since the onset of the digital photography age and they are outstanding pieces of art. But to me, that's not photography. They may have started with a photographic image, but somewhere the photograph was lost and a computer generated graphic image was the end product. That's certainly not true for all digital images, but it is certainly a path that many follow.</p>

<p>So for me, my desire to enter the Leica world is, I think, a desire to return to simplicity. A guy with a relatively simple camera and the image that is created is a result of that individual's skill at the moment of image creation. A negative and a wet darkroom, an appreciation for tradition; no "fixing" it in Photo Shop. I like that.</p>

<p>The second reason that caused me to decide last night to invest in a Lecia system was admiration for the engineering. To some extent, I disagree with some of the commenters that said a camera is a camera; that tools don't matter. I understand what you are saying, but I find that I do have an appreciation for the tools and, for me, they do matter. To me, the process of image creation is very enjoyable. I enjoy working with my Hasselblads because they are wonderfully designed and constructed. Working with such fine equipment is an enjoyable part of the process. It's not the end image that solely matters, but the journey as well. </p>

<p>So this will be fun. A simple, discrete camera I can carry most everywhere (it's hard to be discrete with a view camera or even a Hasselblad!). The Leica is not a camera for all reasons, but I think it's the right camera for me right now.</p>

<p>Many thanks for all that took the time to comment. We may not agree on everything, but what a pleasure it is to have the dialog. </p>

<p>- Eric</p>

<p>I'm starting to scratch the itch... just bought a 35mm f/2.0 ASPH a few moments ago on that auction site -- now I guess I have a good excuse to buy a body! I'm blaming all you guys for this, although I don't think my wife is buying it. - Eric</p>

<p>Wow! Thanks for all the great insights! I'm a wet darkroom sort of guy, at least for B&W, which makes the Leica that much more attractive -- I'd be able to take full advantage of the negative. I think I'm going to take the plunge, probably via an M7 with a 35mm ASPH. As at least one of you said, if I don't fall in love with it, I can always resell it and lose very little. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts. - Eric</p>

<p>I'm a large format (Horseman 4x5) and medium format (Hasselblad) shooter. I also have a large Nikon system with both film and digital cameras. The problem is, I've had this Leica itch for a few years and I think I'd like to scratch it. Am I really missing something by not experiencing Leica photography? I don't intend to sell any of my other equipment. I'm wondering if any of you have dabbled in the Leica waters even though you had a quite capable system of the same format. If so, why did you do it and are you happy you did? I'm leaning towards a M7 with a couple of lenses, any thoughts?</p>

<p>I don't know why the Horseman USA web site is down, but this one may help you:</p>

<p>http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/index.html</p>

I sure hope Jeff meant the 17-35mm, if not, he'll be sorely disappointed! B&H is reasonable on returns, though.

I would echo Frank's comments -- continuous lights may not be the best choice for your intended purpose. While they're more expensive, I've found that quality strobes with a modeling light function are better suited for portrait and fashion work. They provide for a much cooler working environment and the "strobe" function is very useful in fashion photography when you are directing the model to move and react to your ongoing comments. Finally, I've found that spending more money up front on quality gear is generally more economical -- you then only have to buy it once.

 

Everyone has their favorites, I've found that Norman studio strobes have served me well over the years, but there are a number of manufacturers that offer high quality units. Here's a link to the Norman "starter" outfits:

 

http://normanlights.com/ml400_ml600_kits.asp

 

Good luck!

Bill,

 

Many thanks! From information on the site you provided, it looks like Promark Int'l bought Norman from Photo-Control in October 2006. Whew -- I have quite an investment in Norman studio strobes and I was afraid they'd been orphaned!

 

- Eric

Does anyone know what happened to the Photo-Control Corporation and Norman studio strobes? Their web site is gone.

Well, Jeff, you'll get quite a variety of responses to this one. Some members will extol the virtues of an eye-level camera as opposed to waist-level when it comes to photographing a fast moving subject -- and they're not wrong. However, I wouldn't let that define your search criteria. To me, the breadth of the system is important. And that means Hasselblad. There are many fine MF cameras out there, but none have the system depth that Hasselblad offers. I've been using Hasselblads since the early 70's for everything from portraits, commercial work, weddings and sports -- and it's handled all those assignments very well. While most think of it as a waist-level camera, there are prism finders available that turn it into an eye-level camera when needed, and some even have meters for through the lens metering. For sports photography, I most often use the sports finder which clips on the side and you "aim" it in the similar fashion to the iron sights on a gun. This would seem to be a great approach for tracking fast moving aircraft that are moving laterally across your field of view. The point is, the Hasselblad can be so many things and can do them so well. The other camera systems are fine, they're just not as flexible either in terms of accessories nor the array of available lenses. You didn't mention a budget in your post, so I can't recommend a specific model or lenses, but with used prices so low, it's a great time to buy -- no matter what your budget. Best of luck!

Hasselblad, hands down. The system is extensive, they're built to last, digital backs are available for the V system cameras manufactured since 1957 (talk about product support!) and the optics are excellent. Hasselblad may not be around forever, but they'll be the last one standing.

I would agree with the opinion of most of the contributors that the 150 would be the better first choice. It can generally be found at lower prices than the 120. I would not disregard the 180, however. It is a fine portrait lens in its own right and it may better suit your style of shooting.

David Odess is a great choice because he's an honest guy and you'll know exactly what you're getting, but his inventory is fluid and he might not always have what you seek. I've purchased a dozen or so Hasselblads off of eBay and I have yet to be disappointed. The rules I follow are: make sure the seller has at least 25 transactions, feedback is positive, seller has sold similar items in the past, description indicates the seller knows the equipment being sold and lots of detailed photographs.

Q,

 

That was perfect!

I'm not sure there's a perceptible difference in sharpness between modern Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon and Fujinon lenses, particularly if you are not mixing APO and non-APO lenses. Even with that, I have a Schneider 210mm APO Symmar and I'm often hard pressed to see the difference between images shot with it versus my non-APO 210mm Nikkor. The lenses today are simply great. All the other variables in the photographic process impact the sharpness of my images to a greater extent than the brand of lens I may be using.

I knew this was going to be an interesting series of posts as soon as I saw the title... In any event, Michael, the Rollei and the Hasselblad are both fine cameras and either would serve you well. Handled properly, the Hasselblad is not subject to jamming. I've owned Hasselblads since the late 60's and never had a jam, not one. I do carry a simple unjamming tool that is widely available, but I've never had to use it. But more to the point, you need to decide if you want system flexibility. Do you see yourself wishing to employ a variety of lenses at some point; if not now, but at some point? Could you use the interchangeable back feature to your advantage? Pre-loaded backs allow you to switch film quickly and also permit you to switch back and forth between color and black & white, negative and chrome, etc. What about viewfinders? Would you like the advantages of a variety of viewfinders, prism, chimney, metered and sports? If the answers to any of these questions are yes, then the Hasselblad is the obvious choice between the two. If no, then the Rollei may be just as well suited. Although they shoot the same format, they are really very different cameras. My suggestion is to consider the points above regarding flexibility (the Hasselblad is a system camera, the Rollei is not) and also to try both and see which one you prefer. Happy shooting!

Have you searched photo.net and/or performed a Google? There's lots of information out there. Here's one place that's worth a look: http://polymer.bu.edu/paul/photo/Hasselblad.txt

One very important factor in favor of the PME45 is that it can be used with the Polaroid back, whereas the PME90 cannot. This was a deciding factor for me and I am very happy with my PME45, for all the reasons stated by the other contributors.