BernardMiller

Really, it depends on where you're located. eBay isn't a bad way to go--I had to sell off a bunch of photographic gear when I moved from the UK to the US, and everything worked pretty smoothly selling it that way. They of course do charge a commission. I'm not sure what the best US equivalent is--maybe Craigslist--but I also sold some gear on gumtree.com over there, and that went nicely as well. If you *are* in the UK, there are a number of second-hand Leica dealers around the country who would give you a decent--if not spectacular--price, and they sell to Leica aficionados. My personal favourite was High Street Radio (yeah, you read that right, lol) in Croydon: www.croydonphotocentre.co.uk, followed by Aperture and Red Dot. In the US, I'm not sure who would be the best, and again it depends on where you are--Roberts Camera in Indianapolis has a large second-hand department, and they sell a lot of Leica stuff. I'm sure B&H would, too. I'm currently in Daytona Beach, and unfortunately the owner of Clem's Classic Cameras--a legendary little shop here--passed away not too long back, or he'd have definitely been interested in them.

Folks, it's not from photo.net. It's a scam--I've reported it to abuse@photo.net, and if you ever get anything suspicious like this again, you should do the same.

Not mine, of course, but probably the most famous example of that sort of thing: Matisse by HCB

Well, I wasn't asking for reversion, actually. If the new site is supposed to be an "improvement," I think I could expect it to work at least as well as it did before. If it doesn't, and in fact works and looks *worse* than it did previously, then what the heck was the point of changing? Seems a bit stupid to me, really. Sure, if you need to improve things under the hood, that's fine--but it might be worth actually thinking about which bits of the old site actually worked well *as-is*. Is there something wrong with wanting the site to be genuinely conveniently *navigable and readable*, and to look like it actually had some thought about the experience of using it put into it? Aren't those things actually considered kind of important in competent Web design, *particularly* a website devoted to visual representation and art?

I hate to be one of those folks saying the good ol' days were better. But it *was* easier to read threads, and navigate the site, under the old setup--let alone the issues with the galleries and other things that I didn't use quite so often, but which have affected other users badly. This format seems so *sterile*, too. The previous one just felt a bit more warm and analogue--and more important, user friendly: from the default font, to the display of actual human user names, to the way that replies only took up as much space on the page as required. Reading PN now is really more of a chore than a pleasure, all in all. It's certainly not very fun.

Hi. I don't know if this has been answered elsewhere--sorry I didn't manage to find it if it was--but are the subforums going to come back at some point? What I mean is, at one time within the Medium Format forum, there was actually a subforum on Hasselblad. When I first bought a camera of that make, I could simply search photo.net for Hasselblad, and I would be directed to that subforum, meaning I could easily scan through the long list of posts that related *only* to Hasselblad. That feature was hugely valuable, as I could work my way through page-by-page and, while not really looking to have a specific question answered, I could find discussions that might prove interesting or valuable to me at some point. The main value was I could just *learn* about the Hasselblad system by reading through the posts. And I learned a *lot*! In fact, just before the switchover, I'd gone back again to that subforum and had a tab open in my browser in which I was scanning through ancient posts, to see if there was anything there of interest--and I was constantly finding nuggets, even in posts over a decade old. That has disappeared now, sadly. At that time, there were something like 135 pages of posts in the Hasselblad subforum, and I'd managed to make my way through the first 65 or so. Now, if you search photo.net for Hasselblad, you get a total of a mere *nine* pages of results presented. And the quality of many of those results is quite poor: many of those are actually not about Hasselblad at all, but are from a variety of other forums but pop up only because they include a tangential mention of the brand. It seems a shame to me, considering how much I personally learned by having all the Hasselblad posts together in one place, to have lost that ability--particularly if it is permanently gone. And for some reason, much of the accumulated, and hugely valuable, knowledge in that subforum now seems to be not so easily accessible. (I would assume this was because many posts in that subforum didn't even *mention* Hasselblad, as posters assumed if you were in that subforum, you *knew* which camera they were talking about.) Can we *please* have the Hasselblad subforum back, with all the original posts? And I'm sure there were several other subfora that were equally valuable to their particular users, who are now mourning their apparent loss. Thanks!

Hey, Leslie. You still having that problem? I had the same issue with Safari. I found that going into Preferences-->Privacy-->Manage Website Data and then searching for cookies from photo.net--and deleting them--solved the problem for me. If you're still having the problem, you might try that.

Well, that's certainly a nicer outcome than something I witnessed from the dugout while working for a minor league team (the Jackson Mets, AA) back in 1988. In the bottom of the first inning, our right fielder--who batted left-handed--was at the plate, and fans were still making their way in and finding their seats. Our hitter drilled a liner into the seats along the third-base side. One dad and his son, who appeared to be about age 10, were standing up as they'd apparently just found a spot where they were preparing to sit, and the ball appeared to be heading right for pop's groin area. Instead of shielding his son, he grabbed him by the shoulders and yanked him over into the path of the ball--the poor kid took the hit right in the chest. The players were just dumbfounded that the dad had put his kid right into the line of fire like that. The club's front office staff hustled up to make sure he was going to be okay, and I think they gave 'em some free tickets to later games to ease the pain; the players and I would have preferred to give the father a "Worst Dad of the Year" certificate instead!

<p>I don't know if you're on Facebook, but as my profile is public, you can probably see a gallery of basketball images shot under daylight LEDs <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bernard.miller.980/media_set?set=a.10154043065437441.1073741909.720107440&type=3">here</a>, and for comparison a set shot under some kind of particularly hideous vapor lighting last weekend <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bernard.miller.980/media_set?set=a.10154075668602441.1073741910.720107440&type=3">here</a>.</p> <p>I didn't have time/couldn't be bothered to fix the problems with all the latter, and to me they're all just about on the very edge of usability, more or less. I was squeezing out 1/800 of a second (with good athletes, you can still get a bit of irritating blur at that shutter speed) and about F4.5 to F5.0 at 6400 ISO to get enough exposure to be able to do some post-processing, which still won't manage to save all those. Next time I shoot in that gym, I'm gonna try to rig up some strobes on radio triggers to see if I can get something that I can be at least partly satisfied with.</p>

<p>One thing that you're very likely going to run into in school gyms is the horrors of shooting at high shutter speeds in fluorescent lighting or under some kind of vapor lamps. Those things can cycle in color and brightness about 100 times per second (50 Hz) and while our eyes can't detect it, a camera certainly can.</p> <p>Because at high shutter speeds the sensor isn't all exposed at the same instant in time, you're going to come out with variations in brightness from one frame to another and frequently across a single frame. And even worse, you're going to have a lot of frames where one half of it has a greenish cast, and the other a red/magenta cast. As DSLRs, to my knowledge, all have vertical travel shutters, this means that if you're holding the camera in landscape (normal position) the variation will be from top to bottom of your frame--side to side if you're holding in portrait orientation.</p> <p>You can, to a degree, fix this with color/brightness gradients in Photoshop/Lightroom, but it's damned tedious work, and almost never entirely satisfactory. So you may be tempted to convert a lot of shots to black and white.</p> <p>If you can use flash, that will solve some problems--just be sure you don't create others by being distracting to the players/officials with it. You can also pray that the gym has daylight-balanced LEDs--you'll still have to shoot at high ISOs to freeze action while maintaining some depth of field, but at least your white balance and brightness will be largely consistent.</p>

<p>The F5 does look and feel like a great camera--and I'm sure it's more capable than the F4 in many ways. However, I like the bare, austere simplicity of the F4's user interface, and I actually regard it as more of a manual focus camera than autofocus usually (because of the arrangement of the focus and exposure lock buttons, I've always found it easier to focus and recompose with the F4 than with more modern Nikons when I do use it in AF mode). Plus, unlike the F5, you can actually take off the grip and use the MB-20, making the camera a bit more "compact," if you can ever really call any configuration of the F4 compact.</p> <p>However, because the F4 will autofocus current lenses and can be used in Program mode (or, of course, shutter priority), I think it would be fun to stick the G-version 28/1.8 or 35/1.4 on it and walk around with it like it's the beastliest point-and-shoot in the history of mankind!</p>

<p>I still keep--and occasionally use--an F4 I've owned for nearly 20 years, because as far as I'm concerned, they're still the best camera Nikon ever made.</p> <p>Stupendous viewfinder--it's like looking at a movie screen after using even high-end full-frame DSLRs--superb for macro work with the interchangeable finders and extension tubes, easy-to-use controls, excellent TTL flash system, fantastic manual focus ability, and, by god, it just *feels* like a badass camera!</p> <p>I find it amazing that it actually was so forward compatible to be able to autofocus AFS lenses when, so far as I know, none were available during its retail lifetime. And of course it can use, and meter quite capably with, every lens Nikon ever made (practically) up to its time. That it can communicate, and accurately give an aperture reading, with even G lenses is really pretty gobsmacking.</p> <p>Sorry to be just a little off-topic; I just had to wax rhapsodic about the sexy and oh-so-capable F4, and I'm glad you're finding it quite useful still, too.</p>

<p>If you're looking at around $600 to fix an eight year old iMac, I'd say no. It can't, so far as I know, run Sierra if you choose to (without a hack) and is likely pretty slow compared to newer machines. I just recently paid $990 for a high-spec 2013 27-inch model in superb condition on eBay from a reputable seller which, to me, would seem worth the extra few hundred bucks over refurbishing such an old model. Especially as it will almost certainly have a faster processor, better graphics card, better monitor, larger hard drive, etc.</p> <p>I mean, if you just wanted it for non-taxing use, you could probably buy a fairly mint one of the same vintage as the one you've got on the 'Bay for about what you're looking to pay to repair yours (or less), and you could almost surely sell yours for parts to one of the companies that supplies bits for older Macs. You'd not make a ton on it, certainly, but it would take the edge off what replacing it would cost you.</p> <p>My two cents. Good luck whichever way you go!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Errrr, Joe, if you <em>don't</em> think that a piece of film that had double the area of a 35mm frame wasn't going (assuming good technique and quality lenses for the format) to produce a much better image than the same scene photographed on a smaller piece of film, you really don't know much about film photography. I don't think I really need to bother to offer any arguments on that front.</p> <p>The reason that a sensor with double the area *might* produce a better image than a smaller sensor is two-fold: firstly, even if the megapixel count between a medium format back and a DSLR sensor are equal, the photosites on the larger sensor will probably consequently be themselves larger, and theoretically have greater light-gathering capacity--leading to less noise in the final product. And as time has gone on, you can simply cram a lot more megapixels into a larger sensor, it's just that basic.</p> <p>I can assure you that my decade-old 22 megapixel Sinarback, quite elderly in digital terms, can produce images that I frequently find not just as good as, but even superior to those produced by my D810, good as it is. I do have to work a bit harder to get out the quality that is there: unlike with my DSLR, the back isn't doing a lot of in-camera software tampering--or cooperating with the RAW developer--to make me <em>believe</em> it's capturing a better image. </p> <p>Take any current digital medium format back, put it up against a D810 or a 5D Mk3, and once you start enlarging the images enough, or start examining subtle gradations of color carefully enough, you'll find the larger medium format sensor wins handily at equivalent ISOs, just as medium format film blitzed 35mm. Under the conditions amateurs (and even most pros) use their images, no, you don't need the larger sensor. But there is a difference, and if you <em>need</em> that difference (and can afford the cost of a modern digital back), you'll appreciate it.</p>

<p>Well, I'll chime in just so you have another anecdotal data point to make your decision.</p> <p>I have a Nikon D810. Great camera. And I've got very good lenses to go on it. When I'm doing a shoot that involves a fast pace, action, the need for freedom of movement, and unpredictable/difficult conditions, I shoot with it. And it does a very good job indeed.</p> <p>However, sometimes I like to slow down--to get everything just right, to take my time, to not have a camera stuck in front of my face and to be able to talk with, look directly at, and interact more fully with the person I'm shooting. (I know you shoot mostly landscape; I'm more into portraiture.) For those times, I love using my Hasselblads (I have a 500CM and a 553ELX.) I really love the viewfinder, focusing on the ground glass, and the satisfying tactility I get when I fire the shutter with those cameras. (Hey, I'm not the only one--I once read an interview with Araki where he said "When I work with a model, I like to use five or six different cameras. I like one with a good clicking sound.")</p> <p>Whenever I'm shooting someone interesting, I generally run a couple of rolls of black and white film through the camera along with the digital stuff.</p> <p>To get to your particular point, when I want to use my Blad, and I want to shoot digital, I use an ancient Sinarback 54M on it. It's over a decade old, and a dinosaur: it has no card slot, no screen and no battery. So you have to shoot tethered with it. And it's only 22 megapixels--but it's 22 glorious megapixels. Physically, the sensor is approximately 48mm x 36 mm, so roughly double the area of a full-frame DSLR. I can change it from landscape to portrait orientation almost instantly. And I got it for the bargain basement price of $795 on eBay. (They are out there, and occasionally available, if you are patient and search hard enough.) If you'd like to see what a portrait made with the 553ELX, 150CF lens and the Sinarback looks like, here is one I made just last night: <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/drelarge.jpg">Portrait of Dre</a>. </p> <p>Could I have done that with my D810? Sure. But it would have had a different *feel* to it, both in terms of when I was composing, lighting and shooting it, and in the final image. It may or may not be better, but I enjoyed making it the way that I did, and I think it was different from what I'd have done with my Nikon. And considering the camera cost me about $350 (another eBay special), the lens another $375, and the back just under $800, it's actually rather cheaper than a D810 with 70-200 lens would have been.</p> <p>Another option, although far more expensive than my Sinarback, is something along the lines of the PhaseOne P30. You can probably pick up one of those for between $3500 and $5000 (so not exactly what *I'd* call entry-level, but still fairly reasonable) and it's a lot easier to use in the field. The quality, with legacy Hasselblad V gear, is stunning. I'd recommend you check out the work of a good friend of mine, <a href="http://www.robinbharaj.com">Robin Bharaj</a>.</p> <p>Many of the images on his website were made with the same camera I have (the 553ELX), and the PhaseOne P30. I played human light stand for him at several fashion shows and music festivals, and he was able to shoot in pretty chaotic and fast-moving conditions and get great stuff indeed. (He's used to that; when I met him for the very first time several years back, he was shooting a rave in a venue that was basically a cave under some London railway arches, holding a flash in his hand, and shooting Provia 100F in his old 500CM.)</p> <p>So I don't think, by any means, that your desire to use Hasselblad V gear with a digital back, and to take it outside and do landscape work with it, is as masochistic or as quixotic as some posters here seem to have implied. There *is* still a place for this classic old gear, if you enjoy making images that way--as many of us do--and the quality, feel and impact of those images will not surrender anything to the latest and greatest from Nikon, Canon or Sony.</p>

<p>As pointed out above, there were different types of Polaroid. If you wanted a really technically briliant, intimate (and unique!) print, then you used large format and Type 52 film. You absolutely could make art with that--and many people did.</p> <p>I actually really like the Polaroid print you linked above better than the other two--but it's a different beast altogether. It's akin to the results you'd get from an SX-70. Those weren't meant to produce total technical fidelity to reality, and the flaws, vague focus and muted colors added an interesting character--and maybe even a hint of mystery--that are lacking from the technically perfect digital image of the same scene/person. And the immediacy of the printed image had its own attractions!</p> <p>I once used someone else's studio, and they had a wall covered with SX-70 prints of several years' worth of clients and friends, many of which the subjects had written on. I actually found them fascinating, and spent quite a bit of time poring over them. And if you can find a copy of a book (one of my favorites) by Ben Watts called <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Big-Up-Ben-Watts/dp/1568984529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481596827&sr=8-1&keywords=ben+watts+big+up"><em>Big Up</em></a>, you'll see how instant film could create an immediate connection between the photographer and the people he was shooting that encouraged them to reveal more of their personality, and to be generally more open to being photographed. </p>

<p>Well, one minor (depending on your definition of minor) advantage is the same that some folks played up when using full-frame lenses on crop sensors with DSLRs--you were using the central portion of the lens's field of coverage, so you were theoretically getting the best resolution, even out to the corners, that the lens could produce. </p> <p>I know that mounting even an ancient Sinarback 54M digital back (22 megapixels, approximately 36x48mm in physical size) on an RZ67 delivered pretty stunning quality--and it you could take advantage of the rotating back. (I currently use the same back on a Hasselblad 553ELX--it's easy to switch the back from landscape to portrait orientation, which may not be possible on a 6x4.5 camera.)</p> <p>If you want to see what you can get out of this combination (the lens was the Mamiya Sekor Z 180mm W-N), you could check out <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg">this portrait</a>. </p>

<p>I agree with several of the other posters above.</p> <p>I use a Nikon D810. And it's a great camera! But the main reason I'm using a Nikon at this point is because my <em>first</em> good camera was a Nikon film camera, and over the years I built up such a good collection of lenses, I've never felt the need to go through the expense of switching brands and having to buy all new lenses, with the associated expense, and get used to how a different brand operated.</p> <p>As you already have a nice selection of Canon lenses, I'd hang on to those and buy a body that they will go on. I can't believe you'd find the 5D Mk3 in any way less capable overall than the D810 (and in some areas, it is better), nor discover that the images from the camera are in any discernible manner inferior to those produced by the D810. The D810 is a great camera, sure--but is it better than the 5D Mk3? I can't say that it is.</p> <p>That's because many of my friends use the Canon 5D Mk3--as do loads and loads of top-line pros all over the world--and they produce great work with it. It's a fantastic camera--and for video, if you do that, it really does top the D810. If you're already comfortable with the way Canons operate, and you've been mostly pleased with the images your 70D has produced for you, you'll be very happy indeed with what the 5D Mk3 gives you. And you can keep and use the lenses you already have.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz">Freestyle Photographic</a> will also ship chemistry.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell (please don't stone me) seems to think so, particularly at high ISOs.</p> <p>Check out <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2013-10-leica-fuji-nikon/">Leica M typ 240 vs. Leica M9 vs. Fuji X100s vs. Nikon D600</a> from three years back; he discusses his findings if you scroll down to the section titled "Are They Really ISO 3200?"</p>

<p>Well, the Softlighter isn't as versatile as the Paul C. Buff, to answer your second question first.</p> <p>I never had any problems with the build quality of either the medium or large Softlighter II, both of which I've owned. I mean, they probably wouldn't withstand a fall with a heavy light head without damage to the ribs, but then no umbrella I've seen would. But they are built to an entirely suitable standard, and if you're using them indoors, you shouldn't have any problems with them barring accident.</p>

<p>If you want to have some real fun--and do it on a very low budget--get you an RZ67 Pro II kit and see if you can find a Sinarback 54M. I just bought one for $800 to replace the one I had to sell when I moved back from London to the US. It has some disadvantages: no battery, card slot or screen, so it has to be shot tethered (not a problem if you keep it in the studio). And it's *only* 22 megapixels. But it's 22 *fantastic* megapixels. The images, if you give the back enough light, kill the 36 megapixel images from my Nikon D810. (The sensor is almost exactly double the area of a DSLR). So even though the back is over a decade old, it's still really, really good. And you can find them stupid cheap.</p> <p>Just to give you an idea of what they can do, here are two portraits shot with the back and the extremely sharp (and also very cheap) 180mm W-N lens. Make sure you view them full size.</p> <p><a href="http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg">Ade</a><br /> <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/elijah.jpg">Elijah</a></p> <p>The reason I say you have to give the back a lot of light is that it has a nominal speed of 25 ISO. I usually shot it at 50-100 (to get any kind of depth of field with my flash gear) and the images looked fine. If you start going much above that, though, you'll begin to get a bit of shadow noise.</p> <p>More modern backs will give you a bit more speed. Thing is, to get this kind of quality on a comparable newer, non-tethered back, you're looking at paying 2-3 times what a Sinarback 54M would cost you. It's probably the dirt-cheapest way to get into proper medium format digital, and it can still hold its own against newer backs, as long as you don't stress it *too* much and can deal with its limitations.</p>

<p>Old thread, but I'd like to add my two pence here.</p> <p>I found a very good deal on eBay for a 553ELX about a year and a half ago. So I snagged it (even though I had a 500CM kit, I couldn't resist) and I really do love that camera. It is big and bulky, true--but still eminently hand holdable (more on that in a moment). And in the studio on a tripod, it's brilliant. I actually find it more fun to shoot with than my 500CM (fun when shooting is a high priority with me), and the clunk and whirr when you fire it is, in its own way, very sexy indeed. </p> <p>A friend of mine, who first introduced me to the Hasselblad bug (I made his acquaintance while he was photographing a rave in London, handholding a 500CM in one hand and a flash in the other, and shooting bloody Provia), had moved over to Canon digital when he went from film to pixels, but then found himself somewhat unsatisfied with the aesthetic results. So he ended up buying himself a 553ELX and attaching a Phase One P30 back to it--I played human light stand for him on several occasions at subsequent raves, music festivals, and fashion shows. He got amazing results with it, and he reported despite the size and weight that it was more satisfactory to actually shoot than the DSLR.</p> <p>If you're interested in seeing some of his work with it, he's <a href="http://www.robinbharaj.com">Robin Bharaj</a>. (The photos aren't labelled by which camera he shot them with, but you can probably find out from the EXIF information.) I can assure you that <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/38gm7FIMcT/?taken-by=robinbharaj">this one</a> and the several before and after it in <a href="https://www.instagram.com/robinbharaj/">Robin's Instagram feed</a> (it's brilliant, I promise you, and I beg you to check it out) were taken using the 553ELX/P30 combination, hand held--while I was handholding a radio-triggered Godox flash with beauty dish attached.</p> <p>In short, the 553ELX occupies a very sweet spot indeed in the Hasselblad V lineup. It's by far one of the most generally affordable--and best--bodies, it's much cheaper than the later 555ELD, and it uses AA batteries instead of a proprietary (and at this stage potentially unreliable) battery system. And with digital backs coming gradually within reach of many of us, they are still very relevant and usable with Hasselblad's classic lens system.</p> <p>If you can, like Robin and I did, find a sweet deal on a 553ELX, I'd recommend that you don't hesitate to buy it. I can't swear that you'll love it--but I'd be very surprised if you were disappointed by it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The 24-120 f4 is a great all around lens (lens snobs may not agree with that) and takes good portraits too.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd think it does! About three years ago, I went to a lecture by Steve McCurry in London. At the end of it, during the Q&A portion, someone inevitably asked about which gear he used, surely expecting a cabinet full of exotic and super fast lenses. There were audible gasps from some in the audience as he said that, generally, he just carried around the 24-120/F4. He looked a bit puzzled at the reaction and said, basically, "Errr, well, it's fast enough, it's really sharp, and it has all my favourite focal lengths and means I only have to lug around one lens, so why not?"</p>

<p>If that's the case, I don't know that you'll be happy with the quality from Snappy Snaps--or Boots--as their scans are generally about equivalent to 6 megapixels (or less). You *might* be able to persuade the folks at Snappy Snaps--particularly if you become a regular and get to know the staff--to scan for you at high resolution. They may be willing to do it right away if you pay extra.</p> <p>Otherwise, I'd get online and explore Peak Imaging's options--they offer several resolutions to choose from--or drop in at EyeCulture and have a chat with them about what they're willing to do. Both will likely be a lot cheaper than Bayeux.</p>