henrik_rundgren1

RUMOUR MILL:

(from Canon rep in Kuala Lumpur)

Eos 10D replacement; 8MP sensor, same as 1D MkII (makes sense since it is

already into production - why make a new one?), slower burst rate than 1D

MkII, E-TTL2. I.e. a scaled down version of 1DMkII. Street price around

2000US give or take a few. Put a lid on it and sit on it a bit.

Release in Photokina, Cologne in September.

If true, sounds good, guess I'll be holding my breath - and my cheque book.

Half a year ago a Canon rep told ME (in person) that Canon foresees that in

2-3 years time ALL their Canon digiSLR bodies will be full frame. Given the

fast rate of development 2 years sounds likely and that was half a year ago.

Even if they stick with the 1.3X / 8MP sensor of today and lower the price

considerably that would be good enough, at least for me.

Cool runnings...

Oh, and yes; E-TTL 2 of course.

;-)

Just heard today, from a guy who spoke to a Canon rep in Kuala Lumpur just the other

week that Canon will release a 10D replacement with same sensor as in 1D MkII. Price

around 2000 to 2500 US, give or take a few dollars. It will be a scaled down version of MkII

with the 8MP sensor. (slower burst rate?) Probable release around Photokina in Cologne in

september. JUST A RUMOUR and sort of mentioned by the rep by nodding at leading

questions rather than giving it away, but there is certainly a market for it and I for one

would probably go for it if it's true.

Hi David, I have had both (and at the same time).

Both are excellent lenses though I prefer the 50 for various reasons; it's just

about right for what I do and I used to have a 25mm for Contax so I am sort of

used to it. Also, the 43mm vignettes some, the 50 doesn't noticeably, and

optically the 50 is as close to perfect as I have seen. Today I don't own a

Mamiya 7II anymore but should a kit consisting of 80/50 show up I might be

tempted...

/ regards, Henrik, Stockholm, Sweden

Grüß Michael

I operate a 7600 as well Michael and have experienced the very same results

with a sort of relief look to the black areas.

However it is nothing to do with your software, sorry. The main problem with

the printer is that it is pigment based and therefore has shallower blacks than

dyebased. Also the pigment ink looks different on most glossy films than the

dyebased ones. When printed on glossy paper/rollfilm the blacks look very

unsatisfying if not looked at straight on; at any angle it will start to look

posterized. There are two solutions to this; 1) Find a paper that works better

with your printer/ink combo. The semimatte ones usually look a lot better (I

believe we've been running some Ilford 240g on the 7600 with very good

results) as do most of the Fine Art papers (we use Hahnemühle Torchon a lot)

but the glossy ones are trickier. I am not sure which one is the best but I can

find it out for you. 2) Laminate your glossy prints; if you have a professional

laminator nearby; strike a deal with him on laminating in the thinnest possible

(cold) laminate. This makes the prints more manageable when they are big

(and no nicks when rolling them up) AND the posterized effect is minimized.

For an exhibition we made some 50x70's and had them laminated. Looked

very very good as it actually "enhanced" the blacks. Laminating runs a

possible risk of damaging the print thought so don't just hand them all over to

some sketchy fella; run a few tests first on smaller prints...

You can software as much as you want and calibrate; but you can't get past

the inherent pigment ink problems on certain glossy paper, profiling or not.

Some of the semimatte options actually look pretty good and they don't glare

as much as the high glossy ones.

Feel free to email me Michael, or even call if you cannot sort it out; my email

has been changed recently (spam spam) but you can email my

hotmailaddress and I'll give you my "proper" one;

henkerundgren@hotmail.com

Henrik, Stockholm, Sweden

Hi Simon,

I have no experience with the Canon vintage lenses but I have recently got

me a CLE 40/2 Rokkor. It is pocketable and very sharp but I find the out of

focus rendering (bokeh for some) pretty harsh at mid distances and close up.

Shots I have tried have been at f2-f4. This is very evident when shooting a

subject with a sign behind it or branches; the letters on a sign don't look nicely

blurred at all. I am comparing this with the 45/2 Planar for Contax G which has

beautiful smooth OOF rendering. In other aspects I would hold them both as

equal which is a very good appreciation of the old 40/2 design. But if the 45/2

Planar comes out in manual focus I am getting it even if its stuck on a

cardboard box camera ;-).

Kind regards, Henrik

Second the opinion on keeping the work environment clean...

They are pretty intricate machinery, we've had our three years now with

regular service and it does squeek and display odd behaviour at times...

I also print my Hasselblad SWC shots on the Frontier, 10"x10" is the largest I

can make in square format and they look absolutely beautiful; sharp, smooth

and creamy with lots of punch. They hang proudly on my walls. Even friends

who aren't in to photography marvel at the detail on some shots.

The Frontier prints better with MF negs, unfortunately it doesn't print wider

than 10". Dust busting is a drag though :-(.

From a Frontier operators point of view;

B/W doesn't print all that well, there are tweaks and we have made them as

best we can. There are a few contrast balancing settings which can be used,

though most of them produce a flat result with B/W. The other aspect is that

the monitors that come with the Frontier (Sony in our case) aren't set up to

work well with B/W screen preview. The corrections don't correlate to the

screen. A neg that needs to be printed lighter will look all washed out on the

screen though it will come out right in the end. Many operators probably don't

know this and don't adjust more thinking the pictures will come out all washed

out. Also the contrast settings for B/W should be modified to ensure more

"punch".

Printing "CN" films or printing colour film as B/W using a custom setting (4)

gets much better tonality and contrast. These setting cannot be used with

ordinary B/W film as the scanner will not recognize the negative and spit it

out.

Colour is a different matter. With the correct setup (grain/noise control) the

colour prints from the Frontier are superb. I print from my own Leica negs (sort

of: CLE with Rokkor 40/2) as well as other Leica user's not to mention my

stock pile of Contax G negs. The Frontier can cram all detail from the negs if

the operator does it all right; there is no one setting that does it all; on a roll of

film I sometimes have to switch between Contrast settings to control noise in

shadows and hold back highlights; the operator might not do this for you as it

takes more time but it can be done.

I had to scrap all my old enlargements from the old analog printer we used

after seeing the Frontier output on 8"x10"s and redo them all; the Frontier

prints were sooo much better.

The Frontier is not a perfect machine, not by a long shot, but currently one of,

if not, the best. Don't blame the harsh / noisy prints, blame the operator. Most

Leica negs are sharp and contrasty whereas average consumer shots are

lacking in one or both departments ;-) and I think the printer was built to boost

poorer negs; therefore the Leica negs can look "hard". One customer of ours

has her Leica prints at a setting called "Sharpness Low1" which reduces

overall contrast and sharpness by a notch on small prints giving them a more

pleasing look. This applies to "sunny day shots", whereas cloudy day / low

contrast shots look brilliant on standard setting.

Noritsu digital printers have dust control built in but from what I've seen (have

friends in those places too) those prints don't look to good; they have a semi-

digital look to them. They print bigger though. The older Noritsu (2100?)

analog printer with preview screen print beautifully up to 12"x18" (30x45cm)

though.

Regards, Henrik

Hi David,

you can't really take my word for it as I am selling one of the mentioned kits

but I have these threads dug up for you;

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001twv

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0014Po

Also snipped this from a larger thread;

"I recently purchased a barely used (counter on "4") Fuji G617 and have run

about a half dozen rolls of 120 velvia through it. I've shot at the aperatures

ranging from f16-f45 (but not larger, yet). Despite what people say about

Fujinon lenses (this is a 105/f8), this one still doesn't match my schneider's for

my Rollei 6008i in sharpness. Contrast and color look very good using a

schneider 6x6 loupe, and distortion is very low. They're slightly softer than my

tele-xenar lenses in sharpness, but can't touch the 90/4 APO symmar (neither

can any lens I've used/seen, including the zeiss 80/2.8 planar).

-- Jim Chow , April 09, 1998; 09:40 P.M. Eastern"

I forsook the one stop lost for pure sharpness galore. The Planar is a good

lens but inferior at all distances compared to the Symmar.

Having said that I regard the 80 Planar as a great lens still.

I have the Hi-D screen which works well for me (I have glasses). Some say

Maxwell / Brightscreens / Intenscreens are better, some say they aren't. I think

the prism finder has made it a lot easier for me, focusing outside the split field

is easy in most lighting conditions.

Kind regards, Henrik

I am with John on this one; you can crop the %* out of the Mamiya 7 negs

and still get a great, juicy, detailed print. I also second his opinion on optical

quality size for size as I have similar experiences from the very same outfit

(Contax G2/Mamiya7) though I exchanged my 43mm for a 50mm in the

Mamiya lens setup. I found less use for the 150 than I thought and would I

ever trip out on a Mamiya again I'd stick with the 50/80 and be very pleased

with that.

I did try the Pentax 6x7cm but it wasn't for me and I never got near the results

of the Mamiya 7, though admittedly I primarily handhold my cameras which is

where the Mamiya 7 excels and the Pentax doesn't.

Kind regards,

Henrik Rundgren

Anthony; there IS more than one improvement.

The IR improvement is one, the extension of Bulb to 540s is another one,

much appreciated by some. (Not by me; I can't hold her steady for so long ;-D)

Another "major" improvement IMO is that you now (yeay) get shutterspeed

info in the viewfinder; why they didn't do this in the first place I dunno, it is

however regarded by some (i.e. me and some other posters here on

photo.net) as a benefit enough to upgrade.

Please don't post remarks like "there is one improvement" as this is bound to

confuse people who are after hard facts.

I had the Xpan w 45/90 lenses and I really liked the camera, my main gripe

was not seeing the shutter info in the viewfinder.

Now I do feel like getting one if I can find one at a decent price. At the time I

had it I couldn't get good printing where I am at but now I have access to an

Imacon scanner and can deliver the goods. As a low bulk travelling kit it is a

beauty.

I also had the Mamiya 7II w 50/80/150 lenses and can in some way

understand the comparisons made however I think they are totally different

beasts (or beautys if you'd like). The Mummy is in some ways superior to the

Xpan, I had them both on a trip to NZ and Mamiya negs cropped down and

enlarged to panoramas were, sharper more detailed and smoother in tonality

than the Xpan equivalents (Reala 100 in both cases).

Still I would love to take the Hassy as my one and only for a long trip if I had

the opportunity. In a way I think the Mamiya is more versatile but IMHO a tad

to bulky for MY kind of travelling.

my 0.002 cents worth

Kind regards, Henrik

Hi Stefano,

I might have a twin-lens cover lying around.

Email me with your lens diameter and I'll send it to you free of

charge - if I can find it.

;-) Ciao,

Henrik Rundgren

1) Digital, affordable, full frame 6x6 camera back for my Rollei

and my Hassy with built in Hard drive to store some... ...say 500

pics at respectable MB's

2) That people like Godfrey would contribute more to the

discussion by adding a useful comment instead of contributing a

one-liner to score a cheap point. Not that I took it personally - I

just find it odd that people actually take the time to post on

photo.net without having a real message to convey. I respect

people who have a different opinion than me who wants to argue

for his/her sake but please refrain from one-liners if it doesn't

CONTRIBUTE to the discussion.

Cheers again, Henrik

Godfrey, of course I am trying to justify my keeping of my current

gear... ...and at the moment I can see no reason for me ditching

what I have, for sheer qualitys sake. What I want is an

IMPROVEMENT in quality and, of course, work flow. As long as I

am not getting it - why bother? For my kind of photography -

mostly travel and hiking - digital isn't a perfect solution; battery

dependant and possibly not as enduring in harsh conditions. I

for one wouldn't want to haul a laptop around to complement a

digital kit. If I were shooting a long time on location I can see

some major advantages in going digital but I am not. So I

wouldn't mind if film prices went up 50 or even 100% but I would

mind if film manufacturers started taking my favourite emulsions

off production. That's my worry.

As I work with selling cameras I frequently get customers who

are anxious that film will be obsolete any day now and their

cameras too. My response is that they will be - as soon as

people feel that what the digital camera makers produce is good

enough and affordable enough to replace film cameras. But

many people are still hesitant to shell out $500+ for a digital

camera that isn't better than an average Canon EOS 300V so

film will still hold it's place in our game. There are still a few

dozen million cameras out there and as I see it film

manufacturers must still be making a few bucks from that

market even if they stopped doing further R&D. Some people

who bought 1.3-3MP cameras thinking they could get by with

digital alone have gone back to film or still do both. But the

cameras evolve... But that's as far as the small format market

goes. As for the MF market we are in another ($-wise) league,

don't you think?

Meryls point is a good one as a scanned negative actually is a

second generation "original" and much of the end result lies in

the scanner and scanner operators abilities to cream it out. As

for myself I operate a Fuji Frontier (digital printer) and put out

10"x10" prints from my 6x6 negs. We have an Imacon scanner

which I use for touching up negs if necessary but it is very hard to

match the tonality and quality of the straight (Frontier) print. For

bigger I have to go via the Imacon and I output on a Epson 7600

printer.

As for the storing of files I have to agree with Jeff Spirer, digital

prints are easier to spread and protect; hard drives and CD

storage for example. Should my apartment go up in flames I

would be in a very bad spot as I have piled up my negs and

slides (and most prints) in the same locker which can only resist

fire for so long. But I still play happy-go-lucky and should this

happen - c'est la vie. I have been warned...

One good thing with some people switching to digital is that

some really really nice second hand cameras can be had at

affordable prices now. We have sold a few nice outfits to

dedicated amateurs who before couldn't afford entering the MF

sphere.

To each his/her own outfit, my final say is as long as digital

doesn't improve significantly to my eyes I won't get bogged down

in details and I´ll keep using my "obsolete" gear.

Cheers for the input all, and forgive me if you spot any false

grammar as english is my 2nd language.

Henrik

After reading a number of topics focusing (...) on the digital

aspect of things stating that digital is on the verge of

overthrowing the need for film and that digital SLR cameras of

today equal or better their MF counterparts I still can't help but

wondering if we aren't missing something here.

Optics.

Optics and all their inherent characteristics should play a more

defining role in the debate than just the pixel versus film

discussion. Or? Many of the postings so far are debating

whether DSLR brand X can yield better images than MF brand X

when a more fair comparison would be a DSLR versus an SLR

with the same optics and/or MF digital versus MF film instead of

just concentrating on File Size. Forgive me if I jump to

conclusions but isn't still the optics that generate the image in

the first place and the filmback / CMOS sensor "just" the recipient

and recording device? To me it's like comparing a professional

DAT recorder to an old Rolltape recorder not considering what

microphone is being used. Does it make sense?

Of course File Size IS important, but a gregarious xx MP sensor

generating a file size of xx MB with a so so lens - will it still be

knocking the socks off a MF negative taken with a stellar lens?

How about optics resolution and all that image wizardry like

bokeh and other optics design qualities - shouldn't they be taken

into account as well?

A more favourable comparison would be to compare the final

output (or the generated original) from a MF camera, say 645,

compared to the output from a full frame digital back (i.e. when

they come out with one) for the same camera, using the same

optics. Does this theory hold water?

I can spot a few leaks myself as, of course, comparisons can

and are being made from imagery generated by a digital SLR

with a 24x36mm sensor to both 135 film and medium format.

Comparing a DSLR image/file with a MF negative taken at

different times / different locations and different light doesn't

seem to be a fair comparison regardless of which would come

out on top.

Michael Reichmann at www.luminous-landscape.com have

made comparisons between DSLR, 645 and 6X7 taken on the

same spot and time which would make for a much more

reasonable comparison. However judging his resolution

conclusions based on scans from the slides and posting them

on the web at screen resolution instead of presenting them as

final print outputs doesn't give me a clue.

The most awesome imagery - quality wise - I have ever seen

has been at Tom Till's gallery in Moab, Utah, and he uses a 4x5"

camera (Pentax 6x7 occasionally) and output most on inkjet

printers.

I myself started with Nikon SLR's, moved on to Contax SLR's and

Contax G2 then on to Mamiya7II, Hasselblads and Rollei 6X6.

Not only the format I ended up with (6x6) pleases me - but also

the image rendering capabilities of the optics. Having had Nikon

SLR's I would never ever switch to a high resolution digital SLR

from them and forsake the optics I am now using - even if they

generated a larger Image File Size. It's the optics that have

captured (...) me.

I know today what I am getting out of my gear and the digital

technology has helped push the envelope by allowing me to

scan the negs on an Imacon scanner, enabling me to do some

image enhancing when needed, or I can still output great

analog images. Does this start to sound like a thread in which I

am trying to justify the gear I currently use? ;-) maybe. Draw your

own conclusions.

Quality wise I do not miss 135 film. For convenience it is hard to

beat though and I wouldn't say no (or even maybe) to a Eos1Ds

with some long teles if I was a wild life photog.

Also I have yet to be amazed by all digital though I am eagerly

awaiting a full frame 6x6 back at an affordable price (probably

just after I retire - can I make my order post mortem? ;-D) to go

with my existing optics.

Work flow wise I am not burdened enough (as I am not a full

time photog) to justify the shelling out of $$$$ for soon to be

rendered obsolete digital equipment. Some of the best photogs

I've seen are mixing film and digital and that might be the sign of

the times for some time still. Some of the worst I have seen are

shooting film. Where I work we do a lot of pre press scanning of

MF and 135 film as well as all digital files and boost them up if

necessary. Our main dilemma is still that many photographers

often do not provide the goods - be it digital or analog.

Sorry for the sheer bulk of this posting.

Opinions on the importance of optics anyone?

And yes Gary,

I do agree with you that it will be an interesting year! The digital

train is still boarding at the station...

I also happen to know the daughter of Lars Pappila - the chief

designer of the Hassy H1 - so I did have some almost first hand

info some time before the launch. To me the idea of producing a

film based and digital-ready MF 645 camera with excellent optics

seems like a splendid idea. As far as tonality goes I think a

bigger sensor should still be able to produce a smoother / better

result than a smaller one. Will be interesting to see the results

when a 645 Digi back (or in my case preferrably a 6x6 back) is

being launched. In the mean time I'll get by, somehow, on what

I've got.

Gary, I know of newly-weds who have switched from

photographers who only shoot digital because of the crappy

results. And newly weds to be who have asked for NO digital

after seeing some other couples miserable prints. It turned out

he (the photographer) in the last case was using a Canon D60,

and had switched from 135 film. (I know this photog from work

too bad for him) What I am trying to say here is that regardless

what medium you use, film or digital or scanned MF negs or

whatever - you still have to be on top of your game. What good is

it having a high end digital camera and try to make money from it

if you don't have control over the digital workflow? And I mean

control by being able to do all from scanning,

retouching/enhancing and outputting or delivering a decent

industry standard digital file for final print. Colour matching is

something most digitalees struggle with and those who have

gotten it sorted out produce excellent top drawer stuff. Those

who haven't put their DeeCams to shame. They might not have

gotten it right with film either but what they do is make quality

concerned people aware of the digital shortcomings - instead of

convincing them.

And something that bothers me slightly is that so many people

are pixlified and talk all sensors like the optics didn't matter

anymore? What good is a XX MP sensor (or a MF Fuji Reala) if

you stick a crap lens in front of it? I for one cannot afford going all

digital at the mo, and I am not sure I would benefit quality wise

either. I use a Rollei 6008i w APO 90 Schneider and it is a

fabulous lens yielding superb results IMHO. If needed, I have

access to an Imacon Flextight scanner at work for retouching

and digitizing the negs. So far I have seen nothing digital that

overthrows my end results though I have seen very very good all

digital work.

In a recent swedish photo magazine there was this article of a

studio in Great Britain going all digital and they haven't regretted

it a bit as they have a huge workflow and cut times considerably

and they think it is the Bomb. Still the pictures they submitted to

the magazine (MF digital) displayed harsh, overly contrasty

results with a slight and ugly magenta cast to the skin tones.

What happened to QC? This might have been a result of the

magazine handling the digital files poorly but still - as a reader I

don't feel compelled to drop my stuff just yet. I am however

eagerly awaiting a 6x6 digital back for my Rollei when they

become an affordable reality. For now and for travelling I stick

with my Hasselblad SWC/M w/o batteries, laptops and other

bulky not-so-travel-friendly stuff.

My full dimes worth, email if you feel ripped off and want your

change back.

;-) Henrik

Hi Joshua,

I have the 6008i and it seems to be a very reliable camera with

excellent ergonomics. I only use it with the APO 90 lens, a

marvellous combo. I had the 6008pro before which did have a

slight, mechanical, problem. Before buying into the Rollei

system I spoke to the agent here in Sweden (I work part time at a

pro camera shop) who told me there was an overrepresentation

of electronic failures in the 6006/6006II models but circuitry has

been fixed for the later models and his stats shows a very low

percentage in recent cameras with any defects. Before Rollei I

have used Mamiyas and Hasselblads and I've been pleased

with them but none offered as superb handling as the Rollei

6008i. However pleased I have been with the camera I don't use

it as much as I should be and I am selling my 6008i to finance

upcoming travel, I don't travel with the Rollei. Should you be

interested in a 6008i w 45 prism finder and an APO 90 in

excellent condition with charger and two (1 new) batteries email

me privately and we might settle on a good price. ;-)

If money is no object you might look into the new 6008AF which

handles as well and has some minor improvements, none

which made me get it instead of the "i" but it might still appeal to

you.

Best Regards, Henrik

Hi Laurie Anne,

(and Hi Ike, haven't decided yet ;-)... )

I use the 6008i and had the choice of upgrading to the AF. For

the same reasons you mentioned I didn't. The price and

availability of new lenses is also putting me off as I no longer

work professionally on a daily basis. Depending on your

workloead this might put you off too. The Rollei users usually

pamper their gear so 2nd hand lenses is the way to go I believe.

As some are moving on to 6008AF you might have a bunch of

6008i's to choose from at decent prices.

The 6008i is an excellent, ergonomic and well thought out

camera. The 6008 AF offers some new possibilities but you have

to decide whether it's worth it. I only use the APO 90 lens but

have tried the Zeiss 60 and the Schneider 300 as well, all are

excellent and for weddings the 60 might be very very handy, as

would the 90 for portraits of the pair as you get a comfortable

working distance, reasonable depth of field and great bokeh.

Most of us Rollei users are happy with the gear, I have

discussed the PCB wiring with the service rep. over here and (he

wouldn't dare lie to me) he reassured me that they were reliable.

He has had to fix ONE in all lenses he serviced.

Good luck,

Henrik

The other side I forgot to mention (how that can be possible

considering the spread of my posting...) is that for the working

market there is a lot of confusion. The client knows not always

what he wants. As Moses points out there is a lot of customers

asking to have their pictures delivered in digital. Though the

client is (sometimes) always right it is important to establish a

report with the client and discuss the use of the pictures.

Are they solely for the companys website? Good, good, then will

do it all digital. Are the pictures for that glossy high quality annual

report or catalogue? Hmm more time and probably a mix of both.

I have done people shots for a Head Hunter's and they asked for

digital. So I shot negative film and scanned the negs on CD's not

handing them any prints. Then it turned out they were going to

post them the old fashioned way on a wall and asked for regular

prints... They were so confused about what they needed the

pictures for and I am glad I had the negs (and could charge

some more...).

Clue less people are everywhere, make sure you are not one of

them and take the time to, respectfully, educate your client if

necessary. Make sure they want exactly what you can provide...

Saves you time and migraine.

You are dead right Chris.

The thing everyone should be really concerned about is the end

product.

However, today we have a very "dynamic" marketing of new stuff.

This marketing sometimes creates a "demand" and this created

demand has more than one side to it. Some people might be

perfectly happy with their equipment and what they produce at

the moment. This is not what the "market" wants. It wants you to

jump the bandwagon and buy new equipment and support their

profits. Those of us who are slightly sceptic hang on to our gear

and wait until it is actually proven that the new equipment is

worth trading in our own for because it is significantly better

and/or saves time and money.

Some people are afraid to be "left behind" and even afraid that

we will run out of film supply in a few years to come. And if

everybody switched right here and right now we just might be.

These people that are afraid to end up with obsolete equipment,

jump the bandwagon and become the guinea pigs of the digital

evolution. I'd rather not be one of them.

The digital sales people that come to our store don't like me.

Because I am sceptic. The show up with a 4MP point and shoot

and say "now you can tell your customers to ditch their cameras

and buy these for x-mas". Then we shoot a few pictures with it

and process it and print 8X10"s and compare to some decent

point & shoots and low price SLR's. So far none of these digitals

have come out on top. And I say "I can't charge people $600+ for

something that's not an improvement over a $250 P&S"

(Not talking digital SLR here which is another price range and

does deliver.) True you can do marvellous things with the digital

cameras like 1cm macro and handhold and white balance and

all that. But if the print doesn't equal or better my existing

equipment what's the point for me to switch?

Photographers are now in the same dilemma that computer

owners have been stuck in for more than a decade and a half.

Constant upgrading. Instead of taking the time and effort to

produce an excellent/perfect digital camera or digital SLR the

market expects us to accept the same sort of "bought today -

obsolete tomorrow" and keep upgrading. Still, they won't support

their digital cameras from last year or supply software upgrades

either...

And they keep coming up with new types of batteries and digital

cards (Smart Media is on the way out already...) like SD, and now

XD instead of standardizing the format and start making better

CAMERAS.

I am looking forward to eventually switching to digital in the next

few years when they come up with a digital solution to suit my

demands, until then I'm gonna sit this one out and stay with my

obsolete equipment, backed up by the fabulous Imacon

scanner. I urge other photographers, amateurs and

professionals alike to be more demanding of the market. Don't

pay that $20K for a digital back that isn't perfect and don't pay top

$$$ for something you might not want next year. Wait until they

produce what you want, sooner or later they will have to.

The competition IS fierce, and so should it be.

I wish more of the digital engineers could think more as a

photographer when designing new gadgets.

Latest story from the store: Old man shows up today (70+),

wanting to know about digital cameras. Someone showed one

to him when he was out having dinner and he was very excited to

see the pictures in an instant. But he wasn't sure of whether it

was for him or not so he was wanting to know. "Can you take

regular pictures with them?" I explained the point of digital for

him and in the middle of this I asked him if he had a computer.

He didn't have one and he had never had one. Hmm, what do

you tell an old guy who lives on a small pension? I kindly told

him he might be better off sticking with his "regular camera" as

he would doubtfully benefit from digital. He was very happy

anyway. The rest of that afternoon I sold four digital cameras to

the average consumer, and they are hopefully perfectly happy

with them.

One good thing about digital p&s is that they are successfully

killing off APS...

One day I might catch up with the rest of the world but right now

I am obsolete, and loving every second of it. ;-)

Henrik

I just thought of another good thing in favour of the SWC.

In sketchy places (and in safe places too) I could just walk

around the place with the finder in hand and scout for images

without needing to pull out the camera for composing.

I used to have a Mamiya7II with the 43 and the 50 and did the

same thing with those finders.

VERY convenient.

Next thread you start Paul, I'll try to stay away.

Promise.

Last one Paul.

I tried the older 40 some time ago as we had one in for

commission sale and I wasn't too impressed. It isn't really fair

though because I never tried the newest one. Dunno what to say

really. Maybe the simple fact that most of us who have a SWC/38

never really wish we had a 40 instead.

I saw this homepage of a very good Swiss (?) photographer

(architecture and documentary) who uses/used both the 38 and

the newer 40 with a great deal of good pictures from both on

display. Can't recall the name, sorry. As for the interior shots I

didn't notice any disturbing distortion on the ones taken with the

40.

I think the new 40 produces superb imaging tripod mounted and

the SWC has the upper hand in the field or hand held. Since you

are shooting negs you don't really need the extra framing

accuracy you get with the 40 either.

As for reliability, consider this; You are on a trip. You have a

single Hassy with three lenses. The Hassy packs in. You haven't

a spare body because a) you couldn't afford it or b) your wife

wouldn't let you afford it or c) you didn't want to haul that much

gear. You are a smoked turkey.

Now consider this: You travel back in time, no wait - you go on

another trip. Now you bring a Hassy with two lenses (60/120).

You also bring a SWC with the 38. The SWC packs in. You are

still left with one working Hassy and two lenses.

Your choice bud.

Or consider this: Same setup as above, Hassy of your choice,

same two lenses and a SWC. The Hassy body packs in. Sad.

BUT you are still left with a hell of a camera which will still have

you getting superb images some of which will look like a very

wide standard (views) or some dramatic angles.

Hi Paul, I'm all over your threads like a plague...

Yes, Henrik here again.

I have a Hasselblad SWC/M which sees a lot of use. Regardless

of use, close up or infinity, regardless of light (flat, harsh) it

produces superb results, at all apertures. No sweat. It is light,

therefore highly portable and suitable for a lot of things including

architecture,documentary, street shots and landscape. It is not

fair to compare this to any other lens just by means of

size/weight/price.

Consider this; the Biogon is sharper overall than the 40 and

hasn't a weak aperture. It has great depth of field and it is

distortion free if aligned as to the spirit level. You have it all in a

neat package. It is so small that fitting it with other gear is not a

Hassle. And should you decide to do a hike or something else

you can take just the Hassy SWC and an A12 and a light meter

and have an incredibly versatile yet small package. I have

brought my minimalistic setup through Asia and the big bonus

has been the very generous depth of field and tremendous

sharpness, handheld.

Most people who have seen the pictures can't tell I've been using

a single lens as most of the shots look like they've been taken

with a standard lens and some views/interiors give away that the

lens is very wide.

The newer 40 is no slouch but isn't very small, quite expensive

and optically a notch behind, the old 40 is a beast and not in the

same league. I'd take the 38 over the 40 anytime even if the price

was in favour of the 40. I hardly use it with flash so it was not

useful to me to have coupled OTF flash and using studio strobes

it wouldn't matter.

One nitpick is the finder, yes, you see the lens as well but it took

me one day to get used to quickly dip the camera and check

foreground and then recompose and check spirit level and

shoot. Most of the time when you are shooting you already know

what's in front of you so it becomes less and less bothersome

and now I don't think of it. The lack of mirror slap is also a great

benefit when shooting handheld.

Email me and I'll send you a10"X10" from the Asian tour free of

charge.

You can pick up a SWC/M or even an older SWC for a

reasonable amount of $$$ and certainly get your moneys worth.

It is a very simple design and I haven't had a single problem with

mine after a great many rolls. My other SWC (1961) was a non

coated pre T* which was very hard to distinguish from the T*

quality wise. It had been in a box in a cellar for some fifteen years

before I guy found it and sold it to me dead cheap. I had the

Hassy service rep have a look at it and he checked the

mechanics and the shutter speeds and was very surprised as it

was perfect - he refused to do a CLA because you don't fix what

isn't broken. "get back to me if it starts to give you any trouble".

I used it for two trips and some fourty rolls and not a single

hickup.

In Asia some people looked at me carrying my old SWC with the

crank and looked like they were thinking "can't he afford a REAL

camera". In Yangoon, Myanmar there were a lot of domestic

photographers working the Shwedagon Pagoda and smiled at

me for the very same reason, some touting Nikons and some

brands I've never heard of. One of them froze as we passed each

other and said "very nice camera" and I smiled back and said

"yes, I know".

Imagine the SWC with you on the coach through France...

...loaded with 400UC...

mmm... ;-)

Do it Paul!

"Coach" Henrik