sfcole

Wait...there's still a Luminous Landscape?

Plus-X, and other black and white films in 220. So much nicer to have 24 vs 12 shots in medium format.

Hasselblads are so cheap now that you might as well get a new one in nice condition.

Don't rush out and buy a new prism. Yes, the image is reversed, but it's not difficult to get used to. Otherwise, it's more money and more big pieces of stuff to carry around. And don't necessarily get a CLA yet. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Remember that the back is its own thing: it may need work if the framing is very uneven. A Hasselblad back in good adjustment should have pretty consistent frame spacing.

I read the Atlantic article and found it a little odd. For one thing, why would editors at this magazine care about such an esoteric and obsolete topic? The article neglects to mention the economics of the 50mm lens. They can be made cheaply, and are fast and reasonably sharp. In the 70s, when 35mm photography became a mass-market hobby, the salesmen at the camera stores always tried to sell you a 50, or they bundled it for a deal. However, whatever the merits of the 50, I still find it the most boring of all lens choices. Too short for portraiture, too long for scenery. And I find the "normal" field of view of the medium format 75 or 80mm lenses to be the same: B-O-R-I-N-G.

If you haven't noticed, film is still a "thing." As a professional musician, I've seen many more photographers recently who, in addition to their digicams, are also sporting medium format film cameras. I don't know if this is demand-driven, or photographer's hipster schtick. But it's there.

Many are asking why one should scan film in the first place. If you just make a digital file, why not shoot a digital camera, right? The answer is, in my experience, even a scan of film retains certain qualities of film that are very difficult to duplicate with digital. The particular granularity and contrast are just not the same. There's nothing like a fiber-based darkroom print, even if Epson or Canon will try to convince you otherwise. If you just don't want any grain, don't use film. To me, grain, especially the very tight but sill visible grain of MF, is what is beautiful about film. Anyone who jumps into MF expecting large-format results is barking up the wrong tree. If all that matter is zero grain and eye-bleeding sharpness just get a digital camera. MF was eclipsed by even the cheapest ones two decades ago. The Nikon 8000, which I use (I don't currently have the space for an enlarger), can be had for under $1000. Just look at completed listings. Mine has chugged along for years. Not perfect, but I know its limitations, and it produces a sharper corner-to-corner image than a darkroom print (even with expensive enlarging lenses). Trying to use Nikon scanning software is a waste of time--just get Vuescan. I have a new iMac and the adapter works perfectly. This whole argument is similar to those arguing over whether you should play an acoustic piano or an electronic keyboard. The former has LOTS of disadvantages: it needs tuning and maintenance by someone like me (I'm an RPT). It's more expensive and takes up room in your house. Bu tin the end, as many people discover, an electronic keyboard is not an acoustical instrument. Either you want an acoustic instrument with its imperfections or you don't.

Either the M3 or 500CM. You can call them iconic, beautiful, or both. Or neither, I guess.

Hi, I'm not sure my case is 100% relevant in terms of connection, but I have a Nikon 8000 ED with a 1384 Firewire card. When I upgraded my computer to a new iMac (2017, 10.13.4 High Sierra), I wasn't sure the scanner would work. However, with a small adapter, the firewire plugs into the computer's thunderbolt port and works perfectly. I use Vuescan, by the way.

Jim and Gus, Thanks for the explanation. While I've enjoyed having the F-1, I've found it has some confounding weaknesses for what it was supposed to be (Canon's top professional camera at the time, to compete with Nikon and others). For example, the battery compartment is inaccessible with the winder on. The winder has a cheap and easily-damaged plastic door. And the worst design sin: lack of an exposure lock in AE mode.

Thanks, Sounds like it could be the spring. I'll send it off...

Sorry, I'll clarify: no, I'm not pulling up on the rewind knob. Yes, I know to push the rewind button in and then turn the knob on the left side. It just doesn't engage. I've had and used the camera since the early 90s. I'm wondering if this is a known weakness.

No one prints or normally views 100% crops, so since the posted image is sharp, the image as a whole is certainly fine. In fact, it is likely sharper and more detailed than any 35 mm or even medium format crop of that magnification. Besides, the most common factors in lack of sharpness or detail is usually not the quality of modern lenses but rather camera shake, incorrect F-stop for desired depth of field, or a simple focusing error. I'll bet if you matched even a cheap 18-55 lens at F5.6 against a very expensive prime you'd be hard pressed to see the difference at normal viewing or print sizes.

Echo the warning about using CA inside of either glass or plastic: you'll have a white mess inside.

About 10 years ago, I had my F-1 serviced because the rewind mechanism failed to engage. I really haven't used the camera much after getting into medium format, but when I pulled it out to show to my son, I tried to get the film out and the rewind knob will again not engage when pulled out and turned. Yes, the "R" rewind lever near the shutter release has been activated.I suppose it's possible that KEH didn't really fix the original problem. Has anyone had this issue?