david_simonds

Friends, I am considering the purchase of a Hasselblad, as I

indicated in my earlier post. I presently shoot with a Contax G2 with

the Zeiss primes. I scan with a Canon FS 4000 and print with an Epson

2200. I like the idea of a considerably larger negative, but wonder

whether the quality of the final product vs my Contax, alone, would

merit jumping into a new system. I understand that the Epson 2450 or

more recent model will scan transparencies (I usually shoot Provia

F). How would the quality of a Blad image scanned on a flat bed

compare with a 35mm Zeiss image out of my FS4000, and printed to the

same dimensions. I would hope to be able to print better quality

larger images with the 6x6 format than the 35mm. This is my primary

interest in going to MF. Assuming the image is well done, what is the

practical size limit for printing a MF slide. Would it be that much

bigger than a 35mm Zeiss image? Gads, should I go to 4x5? So many

choises. So little restraint. Many thanks.

Kevin,

I did not think tht the 503cx has the gliding mirror. Wasn't that on the 503 cw and 501 models? Can any elaborate on any advantage to the 503 cx vs 500c/m other than it being a "newer" model. Again, my thanks to all.

David

Friends, I am in the market for my first MF camera. I have read

virtually all the posts addressing the various Hasselblad models and

have been following Ebay results. You can get a decent kit with 80mm

and 120 back for approximately $800. My question is whether there is

a certain vintage or build year that is more desirable. Is the later

the better? I seem to recall references to better a better matte

focusing screen and waist viewer design, but do not know when those

or other improvements were made. Perhaps someone could just tell me

what from what year I should start looking. Finally, I have read a

great deal about the 503 cx and understand it has some refinements.

They go for about $400 more than a comparable 500cm kit. Is it worth

it just to get a newer camera? I have seen some who have suggested

that the the 500cm is the best specimen in the 500 line. Many thanks

to all.

Tim,

I was struggling with color consistency between my Dell UltraSharp monitor and Epson 2200 until last week when I got an Eye-One calibration rig. Using this with a soft proofing process hs given me excellent results with Epson papers and profiles(See Computer-darkroom.com). I suggest reading the reviews of the Eye-One system and do a search on this site of recent replies to my questions about it. I have also gotten excellent on-line and telephone support from these people. Good luck.

Friends, I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has replaced the

FilmGet scanner program with Vuescan. Any advantages with regard to

speed or clarity? Thanks

Friends, is anybody out there printing Fuji Crystal Archive on an

Epson 2200? I have seen beautiful results with this paper from a pro

shop and am wondering if similar results can be had with the 2200. Up

to this point, I have used only Epson papers with the stock profiles.

How would I go about getting profiles for this paper. Many thanks.

Friends, I am using a Dell processor with Canon FS4000 scanner and

Epson 220 printer. The guy at Best Buy sold me a Belkin USB2 cable to

connect the printer and computer. He told me that this rather pricey

cable would be faster than a paralell cable and would, more

importantly, improve the ultimate quality of the image. As it turns

out, my computer did not like the cable. I was not able to send

printing jobs to the printer through it. I then slapped on an old

paralell cable and it worked fine. Do cables affect image quality?

Should I get a fancier paralell cable, firewire or USB, or is this

all hype? Suggestions for printer and scanner cables? I am not

concerned with speed, just quality. Thanks

What are people's favorite paper choises for photos printed on the

Epson 2200, for what subject matter, and why.Thanks.

Thanks to all for your kind replies and advise. A new lab with instructions for a one stop push are in my immediate future.

David

Friends, I recently shot some Provia F at 200 with the intention of

push processing at one stop. My film processor questioned this,

saying that 320 is a true one stop move, but 200 is not. So do I

process for 100, for 320, or for something in between? Many thanks.

David

Friends,

I want to thank you all for your kind and thoughful replies, and particularly to Kristian for the images. The last one with the extraordinary depth of field really shows off the lens'(and photographer's) eye. I am taking a trip to DC next week and will shoot with the 28mm, keeping in mind what I would or would not have captured with the 21mm. I suspect there will be the shot of a lifetime presenting itself just beyond the perspective of my 28mm, and I will go running to the nearest shop for the 21mm.

Since I posted the question, I have mulled over the issue of whether we buy new equipment such as this for utilitarian reasons, specifically to fill a perceived artistic need. Or whether we look at a new lens as a holy grail that will itself provide the inspiration and then the opportunity. So many toys. So little restraint. Thanks again and best regards. David

Friends, I have a Biogon 28mm as my widest prime for a G2. I also

have a Canon A1 that I use for tele work since there are no real long

Biogons. I want a wider lens for land and sea scapes, and street

work. Contax has a 21mm 2.8 that can be had new for about $580. A

used 20mm FD manual Canon goes for about half of that on Ebay. And a

24mm 2.8 Canon goes for about half of that. I'd first like to get a

sense of how people are using these ultra wide lens. I have never

shot with anything wider than my 28mm and would like to get a sense

of whether there will be a difference worth the price of admission.

I'd appreciate any opinions from those who have shot both the 21mm

and 24mm, especially from Biogon owners. Are there any sites or links

that would feature work with 21mm or 24mm? To see images would be

most helpful as well. I know that the FD is the cheaper option, but I

am real partial to the size and AF convenience of the G2, especially

after shlepping the A1 up the Matterhorn a few years back. As always,

many thanks to you all.

David

Thanks to all. Since there doesn't seem to be much difference, I'll probably just see what I've got kicking around the house.

David

Friends,

Which is a better choise for computer connection; USB or firewire.

And if firewire, is it a six point connection?

Many thanks,

David

I want to thank all of you for your kind replies and in advance to those who may. John Crow votes for the 20mm since, as he correctly points out, I have the Contax 28mm. And the difference between the two he observes is not dramatic. Is that the general concensus as well? If so, I would tend to favor the 20mm. And then Lance describes his positive experiences with the Vivitar, which can be had new for $147, considerably less than the FD 20mm used. What do you think, guys? The prime 20 or the upstart 19-35. Again, I shoot slides and plan to scan and print on an Epson 2200 no larger than 11x14, or so. Or should I just get one of each? So many choises, so little restraint.

David

Friends,

I have recently rediscovered my A1. I bought it, with the 35-105

around twenty years ago. For reasons still not entirely clear to me,

I put it away a while back. I think I just lost interest. When the

muses began to call again, I bought a Contax G2 kit because of the

light weight and glass quality. While it does produce stunning

images, I began to want more flexibility than the 28, 35 and 90

primes could offer. Unfortunately, Contax makes nothing larger than

the 90, and the 20mm has a price as grand as the field of view. So I

pulled out the old A1, and was thrilled to see how many glass

alternatives there are. I eventually bought a 100-300 on Ebay for

around $150. A very stout lens. I went shooting today, a wintery one

here in Maine, and a perfect backdrop for the snowy egrets that are

bobbing out in front of my house. After shooting my Contax for a

couple years, I had forgotten how seductive a zoom lens can be. But

now I need (want) something wider than my FD 35-105. Seems that the

20mm goes for $200-250 on Ebay, with the 24 at about half that. The

24-35 runs in the mid $300. Which would you choose?

I generally shoot Provia F or Kodak VS, and plan to digitize images

and print with an Epson 2200. I shoot a mixture of landscapes,

buildings and people. Thanks for your advise.

David