david_waugh3

<p>I have a 630 that works perfectly... not trendy, but at $20 I'd say one of the best buys at the moment. </p>

<p>Despite their legendary reputation I haven't been THAT happy with the FM and FE2's for durability (although it might be that the models I've owned have been through a lot in past lives!) At least they are easy to repair. To me, the K1000 comes out pretty close to top and so does the grandaddy: Nikon F.</p>

<p>F100's are much newer obviously, but incredibly well built for the dollars. Agree with Dave Lee - excellent value. I also have quite a few friends still using EOS 5's, and they seem to keep going solid despite the electronics and plastic body.</p>

<p>I don't really have enough experience to make calls on this stuff (I guess not many do), but I do believe as far as lenses go, nothing beats AIS. Nikon really put a lot into their lens builds.</p>

<p>Agree with Michael's post above. It's definitely not just 'what you're used to'. Certain brains have a preference for a tactile response and I know a lot of people shooting film - not because they necessarily prefer film (or dislike digital), but rather they prefer manually/mechanically-controlled cameras. Many of these people are still in their early 20's. Most of them would buy an M9 in a heartbeat if the price were halved, and more would probably buy a digital FM3A but that's another story ;-) </p>

<p>Film has a very different aesthetic to digital. Obvious perhaps, but we tend to forget it sometimes - it's definitely not a film v digital argument. Noone is claiming one medium over the other makes you a better photographer. I think the OP was just making the point that film (and his lens in particular) has a different 'look'. IMO - I love it too!</p>

<p>Surely a Hasselblad would fit the fit bill nicely ;-) As long as people are about a mile away, they can't hear a thing! </p>

<p>Sorry - I haven't read all the comments but in case it wasn't covered... leaving WB on auto is NOT ideal. When you make a change of WB in a raw converter, you are still playing with DR to some extent. It's why most professionals use a colour meter. Admittedly, it's not a major issue, but does affect image quality slightly. RAW is not some magical format that allows you to be sloppy with exposure, WB or anything else!</p>

<p>FE2 with 50mm E series and 24mm AIS in a Domke F6 went around with me today. Shot a roll of expired HP5 :-)</p>

<p>I think the general consensus is that the only real tangible advantage of the CX is TTL flash. If you don't need/want that, then put the money saved into a CLA and you'd be better off. Many CM's come with acute matte's, and you can't assume a CX has one either unless stated so that's not normally an issue. If you can save a hundred bucks and don't need TTL, then I think the CM is the way to go. </p>

<p>It's always easy to spend 'other people's' money ;-) but you know, as good as the Epson's are for the money, I just don't think anyone shooting MF can ever be REALLY happy with then. If you can possibly afford it, just bite the bullet, buy a Nikon 9000, and just think of it as a long-term investment. You'll be much happier in the long run whether you shoot slide or neg. I hope to do just that very soon! </p>

<p>Thanks Charles. That eliminates one barrier to the 646 - I think that's obviously the way to go.</p>

<p>I've been doing a fair bit of research recently on both models, and although there's been a bit said on the topic, I'd really appreciate a few more opinions on both scanners (a massive investment for me!) I need to make a decision in the next 48 hours. Here in Australia, 9000 prices are quite high (A$5K) and availability limited (like in the US at the moment). There's one on hold for a couple of days for me...</p>

<p>I have an opportunity to buy a used 646 at the same price as a new 9000 with Silverfast Ai. 646 has done about 2000 scans - had one service a year ago, but just come up with a 'warning' asking for another. Has all film holders and is said to be in good condition. Warranty is tempting on the 9000 of course, but the 646 seller I am sure is honest and reputable.</p>

<p>I have used the 8000 and the 343 years ago and to be honest, I think for my purposes I'd be happy with either. From memory, the film holders on the Imacon seemed sturdier and easier to use (which is appealing after using the V700 for a while). I will be scanning a mixture of 35mm, 645 and 6x6. </p>

<p>I am reasonably familiar with differences between hardware and software but there are a few questions I have for users of either:</p>

<p>- Does the 120 film holder for the 646 fit three 6x6 negs?<br>

- How expensive, difficult and important is the yearly servicing for the Imacon (I know I will have to find out locally - just interested generally)<br>

- Is one scanner considerably faster?<br>

- Dust issues? I prefer not to use ICE but wondered if one scanner might be better at avoiding sucking in the dust?<br>

- Any major differences in quality? A1 enlargements from medium format (usually A2), and A3 from 35mm would be the biggest I print.</p>

<p>Many thanks - sorry for the heap of questions! :-)</p>

 

<p>Simon... I feel your pain :-) I've been agonising over the same thing for ages but did end up buying a V700. Really I am just biding my time (and improving my photography) until I can afford/justify the 9000. I really do think the V700/750 is fantastic value for money, but if it were me personally I'd use the lab until you raise the bucks for the 9000. It does run on Snow Leopard BTW. </p>

<p>Anyway - the HR500 is actually a wonderful scanner. So are a lot of the Frontier scanners. The issue (as always) is the operator, the lab's calibration and workflow. At that price of course, you can't expect custom scanning, but you can generally work a bit with the lab and tweak until you are happy. Despite the 8-bit sRGB, it will (probably) give you better DR and sharper scans for way less hassle than the Epson. I am not dissing the Epson - it's a fantastic scanner, but it's a $700 scanner.</p>

<p>Much depends on the amount you plan to shoot v Epson cost. You may still find it best to go with a V750 - at least for the meantime. But for what it's worth, the HR500 is an awesome mid-level scanner (from memory they went for something like 40K but I may be way off!) I had a look at your website and you are obviously an extremely accomplished photographer (fantastic pics mate) - you really need to wait for the 9000. The difference from the Epsons is large. The difference again to say an Imacon is not THAT much. Then you'll want a Topaz... </p>

<p>I am always intrigued by how the 100mm gets so much more kudos than the poor old 80mm - can't wait to try one! I know it's dangerous making quality claims without proper, controlled testing, but I must say I love my 80. It performs better IMO than both the 150 and 50 and for what I shoot, it's the perfect focal length for 6x6. <br>

I wouldn't be swayed by 'quality' in making your decision - I'd be more interested in focal length. They are different enough. The 80 is great - although of course I haven't tried the 100 and acknowledge areas it would be superior. For landscape, portrait, still life... I don't think you would notice a difference. You could probably afford an 80 and 150 for the price of the 100!<br>

My vote would be the 80 for now :-)</p>

<p>You guys are great - thanks for all that! I've been spying some prices and even the 1V might be affordable! Who'd of thought... gee I just love digital ;-) I might even end up with a 1v and a 5! Will take the advice on the 50 1.8 for starters and if I do go for a second body will also look for the 35 f2 or perhaps the 'kit' lens zoom for the 5. Thanks everyone for the great advice. Puppy Face: enjoyed your A2 review - thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info - much appreciated. I think I'd prefer a straight 50 prime just for weight and speed, but will look into the 28-105 mention (that was what I used originally and did like it - I remember thinking it was pretty solid for a 'non-L' lens). I see the EOS3 prices are pretty good too, but I have heard reports about how noisy they are and obviously weight a bit more than the 5... still, would that be the way to go perhaps? </p>

<p>I've been looking for a 35mm 'system' to complement a bit of old MF.  It's been a VERY long while since I have used Canon but I remember some very happy times with an EOS 5 about 10 years ago.  From what I remember, they were really nice to handle, fairly light, with a pretty good viewfinder... also mine actually survived a very long fall into a rocky ravine... long story, but sometimes plastic can be pretty tough huh! :-)</p>

 

<p>Anyway, any thoughts on the EOS5 would be appreciated as it's been a while.  I am also going to initially get a 50mm and have no idea on what are the 'best buys' for a standard on a film body.  Any recommendations appreciated.  For what it's worth, I'll be using TMAX 400 and Portra 400 almost exclusively.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for any advice.<br>

 </p>

<p>Thanks for the advice - seems like a good ball head will do what I need, and cover more bases than the 322. Will look into them today. Much appreciated everyone.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info everyone. Appreciate the very kind offer Jeff, but I think I am going to try the 322 despite those Arca heads look extremely nice. Your point about not necessarily needing to lock the ball is a good one though, and I'll try that first using my existing ball head (which is a bit too light). If that works well, then I would be better off with a high quality head like the Arca. It would certainly make fine tuning easier for landscapes etc. over the 322.</p>

<p>Thanks QG - appreciate it. I am thinking of the trigger purely because I try and control the 'space' but not the pose - so they move around a bit ;-) I should also say I am just a beginner, so I probably have no idea as well! But that's the theory behind it for me anyway.</p>

<p>Sorry to post a "what should I buy" question, but I really value the advice here.  I have been almost exclusively hand holding my 500cm to date, but am really beginning to see the benefits of using a tripod.  I would like to do some more 'semi candid' portrait stuff and have been thiking about a better tripod 'system'.</p>

 

<p>I have an older Manfrotto 055 and am thinking of getting the 322rc pistol grip and a nice shutter release.  I figure it will allow me to be fairly quick to react but still get benefit of a more stable platform.  Basically I'd like to be able to shoot the 150mm @ 125th but the main reason is that I want to take advantage more of the WLF and communicate more with people.  I just think it will be easier with the tripod.  Anyway I am blabbing... any thoughts on the 322 head?  I only use the 80mm and 150mm.</p>

 

<p>And whilst I am here (really sorry for the multiple questions) can someone please tell me if the 503c with it's palpas coasting is worth it... not fussed on TTL flash metering (at least not for now) but have heard the coating can make for a slightly quieter camera... also have read that it can cause more problems than what it's worth as it wears quickly... any thoughts?  Would like a second body one day soon, and there are a couple of cx's that go for about 20% more than the 500cm.</p>

 

<p>Thanks very much.<br>

 <br>

 </p>

<p>Leigh - I certainly wont argue the merits of a UV filter, but the 80mm is one lens I don't bother using one. The glass is well recessed and with a hood I feel really 'safe'. Just a thought. The lens cap is a must of course, and (unlike the hoods) cheap copies seems OK if you can't find an original. But as has been advised to me, original is always better!</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff. I just read all this thread, and the Mamiya 'shit lens' had me in stitches! Rashed - I just had a look at your folio and your work is fantastic! You are going to love the Hasselblad - stick with it. I must admit I have had 'growing pains' getting comfortable with the system, but after a year it's all coming together and I couldn't be happier. You've obviously had some great advice in this thread, and I think you can be certain that the issues haven't been Hasselblad-specific! Enjoy your 503CW - surely on the finest cameras ever! Look forward to seeing your pics. I have a 500cm but one day will get that 503! ;-)</p>

<p>Sorry if this is off topic, but further to Rashed's questions... I assume the condensation is particularly a problem long-term for fungus in lenses? Bodies would be relatively OK?? I must say I have often wondered how 'bad' it is shooting long-term in very humid environments. Surely regular CLA's would negate any major issues? I guess that's one of the big advantages of the Hasselblad V system - they are relatively easy to have CLA'd. Is this a fair comment?</p>

<p>For what's worth, I've just been shooting a roll of Ektar in my 500cm this morning . It's 44 degrees here at the moment (Celsius that is) and the humidity is probably 95%... I reckon my kit will be treated to a good CLA when we eventually move somewhere a little more 'normal' :-) Must say I have had no issues with the kit despite the heat, dust, humidity yet....</p>

<p>Thanks Greg - great information. Much appreciated.</p>