Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fredjeang on April 10, 2010, 09:17:23 am
-
we get what we paid for
Is this adage saying true with high-end gear?
Some examples:
The discontinued Contax 645 seems to be a real bargain for what it gives in return,
on the other side, the recent Leica S2 seems to be frankly overpriced.
The recent Pentax 645D shows that MFD is now possible for less than 10.000 euros.
Do you remember gear that where cheap but very good value?
And the opposite, do you remember clear abuses.
So, what are your thoughts about "we get what we paid for"?
Regards,
Fred.
Ps: I'm not talking here about the fact that we should be good with the gear we have, or that the camera is only a camera and it's up to the photographer to...etc...That is another topic IMO. I'm talking strictly about the market value of the equipment, and it's real value on the field.
-
we get what we paid for
Is this adage saying true with high-end gear?
Some examples:
The discontinued Contax 645 seems to be a real bargain for what it gives in return,
on the other side, the recent Leica S2 seems to be frankly overpriced.
What are your thoughts about "we get what we paid for"?
Regards,
Fred.
You take your choice, and you pay the money.
Ebay is usually a very good guide to what anything is actually worth.
I do not imagine that many are queuing up to pay £30K for the H4D-60 and a zoom, (or whatever for the P65+) but there are upgrade deals.
...but you can get an old Hassy and an an old digiback for a few grand now, can you not?
-
my philosophy: "If it don't make you more money, or doesn't propel your work further, don't buy it." At least with gear. beer's another story
no seriously, I've come to realize that if owning a piece of equipment that doesn't serve YOU any purpose other than being a paperweight, or in some cases; a $50k paperweight, why own it? Own the equipment you use daily, and rent the stuff you don't use on a job-by-job basis. This way, you can be ready to go, without having to reserve rental gear. Especially if you aren't local to a good rental house.
I used to collect cameras, then I realized that the camera is JUST a tool, nothing more. New tools come and go, with new models, etc... But the equipment doesn't make the photographer, the photographer makes the equipment. Lots of jobs were shot on Pentax $250 cameras back in the day. Its all about what YOU, as the photographer, are able to do with what you have.
but if spending endless amounts of money is your thing, go ahead, this economy needs another stimulus
just my $.02
-Dan
-
Its all about what YOU, as the photographer, are able to do with what you have.
Of course Daniel.
But that's not the point involved in my OP. I'll do a post editing.
The point was more about the market value.
For example, The recent Pentax 645D shows that MFD is possible for less than 10000euros.
So what is your valoration about the cost of the gear. Does it follow the expression used in the OP?
See, it's more in that sense.
There are some lenses that where not specially expensive but very good indeed, I'm thinking of some Pentaxes and Oly.
etc...
By the way Dan, talking about responsable buyings... was it not you how tried to break my lovely relation with my banker with a GILDE camera?
I see...I see
#3
-
I think the Arca M2 at around $4500 is a good deal and I use it almost every day. Especially when you price out my system compared to an Alpa and 6 lenses. On lenses the Rodentock HR 70 and 90 are just superb at around $1500 ea.
And sure, my P65+ was 40k but in the 9 months since I bought it I've collected 24k in capture fees.
Lastly, the most bang for the buck in photo gear has GOT to be the 5d2... and I don't even own one.
: )
-CB
-
duplicate error. ignore.
-
I think the Arca M2 at around $4500 is a good deal and I use it almost every day. Especially when you price out my system compared to an Alpa and 6 lenses. On lenses the Rodentock HR 70 and 90 are just superb at around $1500 ea.
And sure, my P65+ was 40k but in the 9 months since I bought it I've collected 24k in capture fees.
Lastly, the most bang for the buck in photo gear has GOT to be the 5d2... and I don't even own one.
: )
-CB
I just picked up a new Toyo VX23D body for $1250. Although, I probably will upgrade in a year or so. There are plenty of deals out there. Obviously some equipment has a higher price tag based on the brand. I think in many cases you are paying for the prestige of owning a leica or sinar. The M Line 2 seems to be the best value for a view camera out there, and will probably be my next camera.
-
Back in the early 1960s I bought my first view camera, a Calumet 4x5" monorail, brand new, for $89. That was an incredible buy and it served me well for many years.
Kodak had just decided to quit the view camera business and sold the manufacturing dies to Calumet, who could manufacture and sell the camera with no design costs whatever.
Eric
-
And sure, my P65+ was 40k but in the 9 months since I bought it I've collected 24k in capture fees.
-CB
It is nice to know that someone is making some money... but some would ask ¿How much of that money could you have made with your old system, or e.g. a 40 MPx system?
Many say: "why upgrade when my existing customers are happy with what I produce?"
I am going to acquire an H4D-60... and then try to justify it, but I will not be paying £30k for it.
Some would say " if you do not use it every day, then hire it" but
the hire places do not have
60mpx digibacks and a
set of apo-digitars on P3 boards with electronic shutters,
and there isn't one within two hour's drive, and
I like to be able to take landscapes when the weather is right.
-
as I said, "if you're not local to a rental house, but use something regularly, buy it."
otherwise, most top rental houses(even those that rent digitars, maybe not in electronic shutters<don't the hi-end backs have like 1million stops of latitude anyhow, so what's the big deal if your 1s on your copal 0 shutter is actually 1.1s? just stop down a tad more to compensate, or use your software to compensate for the overexposure.>) are willing to ship orders out Fedex or UPS.
all I was saying was that I am NOT arguing that spending $40k, even $2.5k(5dII) on a camera that you will use, if it pays you back over time, even 2-3 years, or longer, is a bad thing. Just something to think about, seriously I hope.
what I am saying is that I find it hard(for me at least personally) to spend $40k, even 2.5k(5DII) if I'm not going to use it day in and day out. My RZ is with me WHEREVER I shoot, even if I know I won't use it. But its the camera that I use the most, and was happy to spend $1800 for my kit(3 lenses, and a Pro II body, and 5 backs) 2 years ago. Its paid for itself in the first 6 months I owned it easily, and I'm a student.
CBarrett(Chris) is the example I'm trying to use here(sorry Chris, you're a working pro, who's getting jobs easily). He purchased a P65+. This along with his digital LF lenses and Arca M2 give HIM(and his clients) the best image possible. Period. We all know that. His system is paying for itself. Easy peasy. He can justify spending that kind of serious cash, because its a tool he uses for his business.
Somehow though, I think that most of us can agree that most equipment these days IS overpriced, especially given the turnover rate.
but there will ALWAYS be the people that buy something just for the name, and the prestige. we all know that, I'd venture to guess that many here might not have ever bought a P1 or Sinar, or Leaf, or P1/Mamiya camera had they not gotten the taste of the 'forbidden fruit' on this forum
-Dan
-
Seems like an interesting argument and I am tempted to agree with Dick, if it does not make you money and costumers are happy with the quality you produce, why upgrade? But you could ask the same question about lets say Apple. They make great computers and I am very happy with mine, so why should they spend money on R&D to make their product better? I mean we are talking about fractions of a second faster here, who would notice?
On prices, I think the 5D2 is a great camera and greatly priced. The canon new t/s lenses I think are a little over priced and annoying to use if you have done any work on a view camera.
The M Line 2 is nicely priced, very stable and well made, and I like the fact I do not have to pay $2000 per lens to have them mounted for it. The new high end backs, too much, especially now that CCD sensors are approaching the quality of CMOS sensors. The P45+ maybe, really like the refurb price if you can get it.
But the most over priced piece of photo gear I think (aside from lens broads, really a flat piece of metal with a hole drilled in it ) is the Rod HR 23 mm. Unless you are shooting very small interiors all the time, how are you to regain your investment with its limited use?
-
Well first things first if you did not think you got what you paid for than you where stupid enough not to do your homework first and figure out what is the best solution for what you do. That comes before anything else. You could pretty much end the argument right there.
But also you have to see what you are doing first if it is a professional investment or a hobby investment things swing different ways as well . Hobbyist go by more of what they want than what they need or let's say that percentage maybe higher than a professional need which we have to look at it as a ROI more.
My case I am more than happy to spend the cash. I don't like 35mm anymore don't want to shoot it and hate the files period except for maybe a M9 but I actually like shooting MF and I like delivering the files to clients. End of day that is all I care about and now buying a 7900 printer it makes me even more happy I made the investment. At this point in my life I want to shoot the best gear I can afford for myself. End of day you need to satisfy yourself as a artist with your tools you use and be happy to deliver that to clients even if they can care less. Some of my clients actually do care that I am now shooting a bigger file. So for me it is need and yes I will admit it it is also what I want to shoot. Don't need to justify it at all after that. And more importantly don't feel one way or the other about the money spent it's done and don't think about it
-
Maybe a tangent, but how about the used MF back market? Okay I know the latest backs are great but if you are shooting in studio or at base ISO the difference in IQ between a $4k used back and a $40k new one just is not that big while the price diff is like 10X. The opposite is true with DSLR's - new 5D2 $2.5k or used 5D for $1k - not much price difference but a huge change in quality and features.
-
One would think so Eric but the 2nd hand market for MFDB seems totally dead. I know a lot of people that simply seem not to be able to sell their 2nd hand backs not even for rock bottom prices.
Frankly I totally agree with Guy. I have made many purchases that did not live up to my expectation but in the end were a good lesson to determine what I need, want and can use. Expensive lessons...
-
talking about bargains,
it has been mentionned the 5D II, maybe also the sony A 900 and 850 also seem to be regarded as very good values for money.
In MFD, I see the Pentax 645D will force the current backs to price-down, don't you think?
I'm waiting for a reasonnable 50MP Sinar.
-
But the most over priced piece of photo gear I think (aside from lens broads, really a flat piece of metal with a hole drilled in it ) is the Rod HR 23 mm. Unless you are shooting very small interiors all the time, how are you to regain your investment with its limited use?
I hate Ultra-Wide Angle, and the images they produce, but customers seem to be UWA mad, and if you do not have one it would, I think, be difficult to get any street cred as an Arch. photog. I have a Schneider Super-Angulon 47XL, which would do the job with stitching...
...edit slight difference between "have and "hate - only one letter different!
-
I have Ultra-Wide Angle, and the images they produce, but customers seem to be UWA mad, and if you do not have one it would, I think, be difficult to get any street cred as an Arch. photog. I have a Schneider Super-Angulon 47XL, which would do the job with stitching...
I dont really see any use for anything wider than 35 on a 37x49 sensor. If the shot isnt there at 35 its going to look like a fun house any wider. I think I might be in the minority on this, but I just hate the look of wider lenses. I come from the school of "less is more"
-
I dont really see any use for anything wider than 35 on a 37x49 sensor. If the shot isnt there at 35 its going to look like a fun house any wider. I think I might be in the minority on this, but I just hate the look of wider lenses. I come from the school of "less is more"
While I pretty much agree with this on interiors, if you need to shoot a tall building in an urban environment, a 23 or 24 can become fairly essential.
Or... check this out... shot with the P1 645 and 28mm D on a P65+... now that's wide. But if you know how to use it....
(http://christopherbarrett.net/architecture/gallery/album/large/Architecture_003.jpg)
-
I have Ultra-Wide Angle, and the images they produce, but customers seem to be UWA mad, and if you do not have one it would, I think, be difficult to get any street cred as an Arch. photog. I have a Schneider Super-Angulon 47XL, which would do the job with stitching...
For my 5D I have a sigma 12 to 24 mm zoom and it gets unbelievably wide; I have used it twice for professional shots. Both times I thought, I have to use that lens , lets hope the client doesn't mind the fun house look.
I have to agree with Jon here, if you can not get it with the 35, its going to look odd, unless you are shooting at a 1 point perspective or really small interiors like in boats or RV's. And there is always shift and stitch, and you get a better image. The only thing that could make it worth the money would be if they added 15mm more onto the image circle like (maybe) Scneider's new super 28 that was supposed to have been released by now.
Have to agree with Chris on the tall buildings in a city, as long as you are not to far off of a 1 point (in my opinion).
-
Yeah, I am so jonesin' for that 28. While the bulk of my early work favored long lens 1 points. I'm starting to get a little more playful and having more fun doing it. Mostly the super-wides are God awful but when it works they're pretty damn dramatic. I want that 28 and the new 43 for the Rm3d (heretofore known as R2D2). We were supposed to see the 43 this month while the 28 is more likely to hit around September.... I believe.
-CB
-
Hey Chris care to snap a quick photo of the little brackets you have had machined? I'm curious to see exactly what they look like.
-
Hey Chris care to snap a quick photo of the little brackets you have had machined? I'm curious to see exactly what they look like.
Sorry Klane, I'd have to unload the car to do that... LoL. I'll grab a snap, though, when we get to Charlotte on Monday.
-CB
-
Sorry Klane, I'd have to unload the car to do that... LoL. I'll grab a snap, though, when we get to Charlotte on Monday.
-CB
Chris, stop the grip mobile on the shoulder and unload asap. I kid
Whenever you get the chance man, I'm just curious.
The thin style U hooks work awesome attached to the superclamps on c stand for what we are talking about on a smaller scale to hold large flat pieces as a background if you are cutting the top and bottom of the material used out of frame (so they are unseen of course)
-
And sure, my P65+ was 40k but in the 9 months since I bought it I've collected 24k in capture fees.
Capture fee is the shoot fee ? or additional fees that you get to charge beyond the shoot fee ?
-
Capture fee is the shoot fee ? or additional fees that you get to charge beyond the shoot fee ?
Yeah I wonder too how you charge,
I charge about 20% of my fee as capture for run of the mill projects.
All my photos are charged by the piece, fully retouched with min orders depending on contract.
for larger project the capture fee goes down to about 10% but usually the orders for larger projects is quite big.
but coming back to the original post
I got what I paid for sometimes more sometimes less
here's my rapport card
H3D39 B+
35 mm A+
50 - 110 B
nikon D3 A+
70-200 A
50mm A
Nikon D2x C+
Nikon D100 B
Pentax 67 A+
-
talking about bargains,
it has been mentionned the 5D II, maybe also the sony A 900 and 850 also seem to be regarded as very good values for money.
In MFD, I see the Pentax 645D will force the current backs to price-down, don't you think?
I'm waiting for a reasonnable 50MP Sinar.
My Sony a850 is a great camera. It does everything I need it to do. I researched for months and went back and forth between the Sony and the Canon and finally chose the Sony because I have a tremor and need stabilization for all my lenses.
I had a Calumet view camera with a Schneider lens back in the early seventies. It and the 4"x5" Speed Graphic gave me the best images I've ever made. I wish I could get the same quality of black and white out of the Sony. The Pentax is tempting but I think the Sony is about as large a camera as I can handle these days.
-
One would think so Eric but the 2nd hand market for MFDB seems totally dead. I know a lot of people that simply seem not to be able to sell their 2nd hand backs not even for rock bottom prices.
But that's what I mean, if you are doing the buying, then the older MFDB's are a bargain.
-
While I pretty much agree with this on interiors, if you need to shoot a tall building in an urban environment, a 23 or 24 can become fairly essential.
Or... check this out... shot with the P1 645 and 28mm D on a P65+... now that's wide. But if you know how to use it....
That is nice, Chris.
I think there is a bit of barrel distortion, but not as much as one might expect from an ultra-wide.
Did you do any correction for barrel distortion, or was that how it came out of the camera?
Did you point the camera horiz and cut off the foreground to get the verticals parallel? ...but it looks as eye level is half way up the picture anyway?
So many Estate Agent window pictures are obviously taken with cheap fish-eye lenses,making it obvious that there is another building right in front of the building they are trying to sell.
-
Maybe a tangent, but how about the used MF back market? Okay I know the latest backs are great but if you are shooting in studio or at base ISO the difference in IQ between a $4k used back and a $40k new one just is not that big while the price diff is like 10X. The opposite is true with DSLR's - new 5D2 $2.5k or used 5D for $1k - not much price difference but a huge change in quality and features.
I think it's actually a great time for photographic equipment purchases and options. Every product has its compromises, but there is now, compared to just a few years ago, such a range of solutions available that all produce excellent results at a very wide range of prices. Even Eric's example of the large change in features between 5D and 5DMKII is a great example how for $1,000, you can get a camera that produces wonderful results and has been used by many professionals.
It will be interesting to follow Pentax and the effects on the medium format market, although if you look at that market, it has largely turned into 2 segments, low end and high end, and I see that continuing. Cutting-edge products like the P65+ at the very top of the pricing spectrum (and out of range for most photographers, though not all) but very viable choices like P25+/P30+ etc, second hand below $10,000. And Pentax will perhaps help inspire Phase, Hasselblad, Leaf to populate that further with new options.
As we go along, the pricing options have expanded, and the compromises continue to be reduced.
Steve Hendrix
-
-snip
it has largely turned into 2 segments, low end and high end,
-snip-
From a user standpoint, what I see is a leveling off of the higher pixel still cameras.
Other than pixels, a little better iso and higher pixel count there is really no difference between my 1ds1 and my 1ds3's . Same with the p series backs.
With the Canons I could even mount a strong argument that the 1ds1's produced an overall prettier image.
Maybe Hasselblad has made the greatest strides in their product line by offering a bigger lcd and getting their software together.
The Pentax is kind of another matter because it's the only camera I've seen that attacks both the high end dslrs in usability (lcd, jpegs in camera, multiple color settings, price) and the high end european medium format backs (1/2 price).
All of this is conjecture because I haven't seen one in person . . . yet . . . but if the Pentax does what is says it does it probably will be hugely successful. If it tethered reliably I might fly to Tokyo and buy one.
But as far as the quote of the p65+ being out of the range of most photographers, that covers a lot of territory, but historically, some the world's best photographers, never rushed over to buy the latest camera, film or digital. They used what they used, found the workarounds and spent their efforts on the photograph not the camera. Actually most of the icons of our industry were married more to a film and a lab than they were a certain camera. Walk around the corner in NY and if you see Bruce Weber shooting, you'll see him and 4 assistants holding Pentax 6x7's.
If Mr. Weber loved shooting a 1ds1 rather than a 1ds3, those 4 assistants would be holding those, or if he thought a p21+ was just peachy, that would be the camera, regardless of final intended print size.
There is also other factors that come into play today with video and motion convergence. You may be a photographer that never "wants" to shoot video but some client will eventually ask/require some video capture which changes the lighting dynamic, from flash to continuous or a combination.
Start pricing HMI kits and they make buying any digital camera look like a bargain. If you want to be serious, starting thinking about putting $50,000 towards a grip truck. Your name on a 24' black gmc truck will wake up the neighborhood.
But as a professional, it's not what you can afford, it's what where you put your money to move forward. For some 10 to 20 more mpx may be the answer, for others the money is probably better spent in front of the lens than the box behind it, IMO.
I just had a conference call Friday on a portfolio we sent out. It's a large book, printing around 13" x 19" and it's full of images from the multiple cameras I've owned through the years, Canon, Phase, Leaf, Leica, Nikon and of course some film. Through the conversation the images that were mentioned had nothing to do with camera or format, the discussion was all based on the esthetics of the image, not the actual device, or reproductive size.
Obviously, that's important, but it's assumed at a certain level you know what camera produces what you need to deliver and I've never met a client that knew what a p anything was, including a pentax.
Now the interesting thing about this was the reason we are considered for this project is we previously shot the celebrity that will be the centered around the campaign. On the previous shoot we got her in and out with no drama, no issues and made her look good. That's the real goal. Had there been one hiccup, either in equipment, personalities, or final delivery of the "look", the portfolio would have stayed in the closet rather than on a conference room table.
What I'd love to see at this point is just better software processing to make all of these cameras look less digital and more film like, without moving twelve sliders in the raw processor and 10 layers in photoshop. The format is the least important thing to me, it's the overall look of the image and that "film like look". Film still has that magic.
Go look at Ellen Von Unwerth's beautiful $700 book, http://tinyurl.com/ylpcl4m (http://tinyurl.com/ylpcl4m) shot on film and then look at her latest work shot on digital.
http://home.frognet.net/~mcfadden/evu/Elle...h_Lady_Bird.htm (http://home.frognet.net/~mcfadden/evu/Ellen_von_Unwerth_Lady_Bird.htm)
There is a difference and my point is it really is the final look of the image that moves your forward. The digital camera that is the most "film like" IMO will be the one that wins.
I can make digital almost look like any film, but it ain't easy and it ain't fun.
But, talking high end , vs. the low end, it's not the costs of the camera. It's the price of the photographer that makes the real difference.
Of course I'm biased on that last thought. (insert one of those silly smiley faces here)
BC
P.S. Sorry to ramble, but last night went out went friends in Hollywood for dinner, dancing (everyone else dances, I don't dance) and everything that comes with that. Took that little panasonic G whatever that shoots stills and video. Had a blast and shot some very cool imagery. It truly is the most complicated and complex menu system ever devised, (think Mars meets France) and even with that it's just amazing how cool that camera works. Low light, no light, video that's bluring, flash that blends, it's kind of magic and if I understood the menu better might be something I'd consider for a project. A real project. The beauty of this camera is it does look different. To some that's good, to others well, it's all personal.
At least when you get tired of it, tossing a grand in the bottom drawer doesn't hurt that much.
-
...
What I'd love to see at this point is just better software processing to make all of these cameras look less digital and more film like, without moving twelve sliders in the raw processor and 10 layers in photoshop. The format is the least important thing to me, it's the overall look of the image and that "film like look". Film still has that magic.
...
if i want the "film look" ... i'll shoot film ... which is still relatively painless to do.
what i really want is s/w that gives me the wet plate and/or tintype look ...
w/o moving all them sliders and layers and stuff.
... now, that'd be something
-
if i want the "film look" ... i'll shoot film .
Some photographers print on canvas, varnish it and try to make their photographs look like oil paintings - I can see some logic in that (especially if the canvas disguises the over-enlarged look) ..
...but I want my pictures to look like looking through an open window at what (I would like the observer to think) was in front of the camera!
-
Some photographers print on canvas, varnish it and try to make their photographs look like oil paintings ...
yup ... and some painters give a photo-realistic look to their paintings.
seems like some/most always want something else, other than what's already there.
-
we get what we paid for
Is this adage saying true with high-end gear?
Some examples:
The discontinued Contax 645 seems to be a real bargain for what it gives in return,
on the other side, the recent Leica S2 seems to be frankly overpriced.
The recent Pentax 645D shows that MFD is now possible for less than 10.000 euros.
Do you remember gear that where cheap but very good value?
And the opposite, do you remember clear abuses.
So, what are your thoughts about "we get what we paid for"?
Regards,
Fred.
Ps: I'm not talking here about the fact that we should be good with the gear we have, or that the camera is only a camera and it's up to the photographer to...etc...That is another topic IMO. I'm talking strictly about the market value of the equipment, and it's real value on the field.
Not sure how you judge the worth. I needed fast lenses so I bought f1.4 primes to use at f1.4. You pay a lot more for f1.4, to me it was the difference between being able to do the jobs or not. Most photographers would be happy with f2.8 and still stop down a notch or two, so the extra would be poor value for money. I'm sure if Phaseone could make a healthy profit selling the P65+ for £50. they would do it. The value for money or punch for your pound is only for you, your bank manager and accountant to decide. One mans overkill is anothers necessity. It's not what it costs, more what will it earn.
Feel free to add your own pithy cliche.
Kevin.
-
What I'd love to see at this point is just better software processing to make all of these cameras look less digital and more film like, without moving twelve sliders in the raw processor and 10 layers in photoshop. The format is the least important thing to me, it's the overall look of the image and that "film like look". Film still has that magic.
There is a difference and my point is it really is the final look of the image that moves your forward. The digital camera that is the most "film like" IMO will be the one that wins.
I can make digital almost look like any film, but it ain't easy and it ain't fun.
While I absolutely agree that spending money on making the photographs (rather than just on the box behind the camera) is a very good maxim, I do wonder why so many people are hung up on getting "that film look". It is even more endemic amongst indie film makers and videographers than it is among stills photographers.
Videographers have the excuse that shooting your short on big format film is *extremely* expensive, not an option for a lot of people outside of big studios. At least shooting film is still viable in some areas of stills photography. (Landscape photography = yes, high volume fashion or reporting = no).
I think there will be a gradual shift away from slavishly trying to imitate what film did well (roll-off in the highlights, 24 frames per second, 180 degree shutter angle, heavy cameras on trucks) towards trying to get the best out of the new digital medium, making much more of the things that digital does well: low light video with available light, 60 frames per second, "forbidden" shutter speed/frame rate combos, extremely deep focus from small sensors- Citizen Kane style...
Personally, the look I was always striving to get from film was the look that even my first digital SLR (Canon D30) gave me clean out of the camera. I preferred the results to those I was getting on fine-grained slide films, certainly after I'd had those slide films scanned. I'm lucky- the velvety smooth, crisp, grain free, fairly contrasty look with crushed blacks was just what I was trying to achieve. It was easier and much more controllable with a dSLR than with Velvia (especially as Velvia didn't really give skin tones much love).
In terms of the original post, I think the results obtainable from more or less any modern dSLR are jaw-dropping, when you consider what was available just ten years ago. The 5DMkII is the sweet spot for stills right now, the 7D is the sweet spot for film making (I'll take the 60 fps for slowmo over the additional sensor size- you can still get fantastically shallow depth of field with an fast prime, especially compared with my 1/3" HVX200's). For medium format the H3DII-31 was the sweet spot for me, and for smaller format the Panasonic GF1.
What's a rip off? This is:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hassel...cord-h/p1003266 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hasselblad-release-cord-h/p1003266)
(that's almost $75 USA). For a friggin' button and a cable which can't possibly cost more than a dollar to make.
Which illustrates another feature of this revolution- taking the costs from the headline price and adding a horrendous markup to the ancilliaries. (Ink jet printer ink, anyone...?)
Cheers, Hywel.
P.S. bcooter, have you looked at Magic Bullet Looks?
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/a...et-photo-looks/ (http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-photo-looks/)
I don't know how well the photoshop version works, but this is the gold standard software for replicating film looks from video footage, developed by Stu Maschwitz
I've been using it very successfully for video footage for a couple of years, and they just released the stills version. Would be even nicer as a Lightroom/Aperture plugin...
-
What's a rip off? This is:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hassel...cord-h/p1003266 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hasselblad-release-cord-h/p1003266)
(that's almost $75 USA). For a friggin' button and a cable which can't possibly cost more than a dollar to make.
I have one of these Hasselblad H wire releases, and would not want to be without it for MLU. This is progress... when we used to use air releases or cable releases.
If you buy a £750 camera it might come with a wireless remote, and if you buy a £30,000, a proper wireless shutter release is ¿a hundred pounds?
-
I just made a post on DPR that said my nikon D3 was my best camera investment (second only to my 17-55mm lens in use for payment). 223K pictures and 2.5 years later and the camera is still working like a champ.
-
...and particularly when they go tits up within months.
Buy cheap Chinese alternatives from eBay and always have back-ups.
This is a hasselblad release cord. Why would one want to buy a cheap alternative?
I bought my hasselblad h release cord new on ebay from a dealer for $35.
-
I'm well aware this was a Hasselblad release cord, and so were mine.
If the Hasselblad cords are going to go tits up within months then one might as well buy the cheap Chinese alternative.
So you are saying they have a defect? What are you saying? Do you know of anyone else who has had a problem with them?