Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 29, 2013, 04:20:27 pm
-
The end of an era:
http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2013/2013-04-29_vsystem-discontinued.aspx
-
I feel a strong desire to go out and have a wake! This has even greater impact on me personally than the end of Kodachrome.
The news makes me even happier that less than a month ago I bought yet another Hasselblad. I bought my first in 1969 and have worked from them ever since. There is an organic quality to the human interface with a V-series 'Blad that has always allowed me to work - man and camera - as a ingle unified entity. With not a battery in sight.
Ave atque vale.
Walter
-
I assume this is end too of the CFV line of backs. We never had the one model with the right features. I also assume that the other digital back makers will take a few steps away from making backs with "V" mounting.
For me it is sad. My only chance left for a "true" MF camera in the digital era is the long survival of the Afi system. For the time being, I'll keep on getting the finest glass I can afford for my EOS dslr's.
Eduardo
-
So they discontinue the excellent 503CX, and they introduce the risible Lunar......sigh. :(
Ray
-
So they discontinue the excellent 503CX, and they introduce the risible Lunar......sigh. :(
Ray
+1
and not to mention that they promote the nasty Lunar with imagery of the V-Camera and it's history.
-
April 29th, 2013 — a date which will live in infamy!
-
Levi Strauss & Co had ceased production of the 501 .... Have not you heard?
-
Sad, sad, very sad...
To Kill a nearly 70-year history >:( Stupid, really stupid ...
-
Sad, sad, very sad...
To Kill a nearly 70-year history >:( Stupid, really stupid ...
Is that like a fan of Model T's saying "Ford never made anything better!" ;)?
Companies have to keep moving forward. Products can become stale/stagnant, even if their storied past is alive and exuberant.
Personally, I get more of a 'tactile' REAL feel when using my 503CW vs my (prior) H2's. I can understand that as a digital platform, the H-series is more akin to that type of work, but the 503CW(or any V-system body) just feels more "genuine"...
Not requiring batteries to operate the camera system is a blessing, the H can never have that capability!
-Dan
-
So if you want a Hasselblad back for your tech camera, it's H and external power from now on?
-
Tbh I always prefered the RZ but somehow to me this almost feels like Leica not making rangefinders anymore.
If hassy want to try the luxury brand side of things which they indicated they did, this is a very daft move.
-
Not a limited edition Ferrari one to commemorate the passing?
I've had few 5xx series in the past. I must admit twenty years ago I thought it was dated but I did like them. I would have another now for fun, the 500 appeals more than the H does to me.
Anyone here bought a new 500 in the last ten years?
-
I assume this is end too of the CFV line of backs.
Maybe not. My guess is that large part of the market for those backs is people who already owned Hasselblad V series bodies from before the sales decline, and prefer to "digitize" those bodies rather than change systems. If so, the demand for backs usable on existing V bodies might not decline nearly as fast as the demand for new V bodies.
-
Across the world a ton of V bodies are still being purchased. They just aren't being purchased new from Hasselblad.
There have been essentially no improvements or innovations in V bodies for many years so it's hard for Hassy to convince someone to buy new rather than from the large base of well-cared-for 500 bodies on the used market where excellent condition bodies can go for a few hundred dollars.
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Medium-Format/system-Hasselblad/category-Camera-Bodies?s=1&bcode=HH&ccode=2&cc=80190&r=WG&f
It's most surely still a popular and beloved platform. We still sell a good number of Phase One and Leaf backs in Hassy V mounts. Especially since they can rotate to either vertical or horizontal (including the Leaf models that have internal rotation) and have their own battery power. But I cannot remember the last time one of those purchases was to someone who had recently purchased their body new.
-
I bought an unused 501cm about a year and a half ago, probably the most tactile and wonderfully designed camera I've ever used. It just oozes quality, right up there with Leica. Even if Hasselblad hardly sold any in the last couple of years I still think it's a mistake to retire it, if nothing else from a branding standpoint.
-
I thought they had already ceased production. There are so many V cameras and lenses floating around out there, and they are so well made and repairable, that H's decision to officially shut down production doesn't mean much. I've had three V Blads and numerous lenses, none of which were purchased new.
-
Ray,
I don't see your point. The Lunar is made with the finest snake oil...
Best regards
Erik
So they discontinue the excellent 503CX, and they introduce the risible Lunar......sigh. :(
Ray
-
I thought they had already ceased production.
That is what I have heard: manufacturing of at least some components (likely done in batches, not continuously) ended some time ago, with some of the staff involve in that manufacturing no longer with the company, and this announcement reflects something like the shipping of the last stock to distributers, or the final assembly of the last body from components in stock from earlier batch runs.
You keep seeing forum arguments about this, when a products starts appearing as discontinued in some countries but is still current in others, because "discontinued" often means the end of stock in a particular country, often a significant time after actual manufacturing was discontinued.
-
I agree with T-Mark.
There is so much second hand stock available and look what happened to the Contax 645 after it was discontinued?
It went up in price,for a while anyway.
-
I bought a new 501CM three years ago, a (used) Phase One P30 two years ago...couldn't be happier with the setup.
-
One thing I thought that Hasselblad did really well with the V system was that (almost) any piece from any V camera would fit (almost) any V camera. That changed a bit with the 200 series and F lenses, but if you look at cameras today, you can barely put a lens cap from one lens onto a different lens anymore! I still think about picking up an old V sometimes, a couple of 120 backs, just for the hell of it.
Mike.
-
One thing I thought that Hasselblad did really well with the V system was that (almost) any piece from any V camera would fit (almost) any V camera. That changed a bit with the 200 series and F lenses, but if you look at cameras today, you can barely put a lens cap from one lens onto a different lens anymore! I still think about picking up an old V sometimes, a couple of 120 backs, just for the hell of it.
Mike.
Yes, the temptation is huge, but for me it's tempered by the thought that the photographic wholesaler I used closed down its operation here, and it seems the head office in Barcelona (ARPI) doesn't want to know about former clients out in the islands. That means that film and related supplies/services such as E6 become expensive caprices. Ironically, I still have an unopened pack of 120 Velvia sitting in the freezer, but that was originally bought for the short-lived Pentax 67 11.
One day, if I manage to sell this place and get back to civilization...
;-)
Rob C
-
One thing I thought that Hasselblad did really well with the V system was that (almost) any piece from any V camera would fit (almost) any V camera. That changed a bit with the 200 series and F lenses, but if you look at cameras today, you can barely put a lens cap from one lens onto a different lens anymore! I still think about picking up an old V sometimes, a couple of 120 backs, just for the hell of it.
Mike.
In addition, it can be compared to an AK-47 rifle. Unbreakable, cheap to repair, reliable. Icon photographic equipment.
Where's successor? I hope that is not tuned Sony ...
-
In addition, it can be compared to an AK-47 rifle.
Let's not.
-
But I cannot remember the last time one of those purchases was to someone who had recently purchased their body new.
The pricing for a new one was pretty unrealistic as well in this day and age. I looked into it once a few years ago and the price for the standard kit was somewhere around $8-10K. The RZ67 at $3.5K is much more realistically priced. Respect for Mamiya/Phase One for not throwing away their heritage. Shame on Hasselblad for not doing what Leica did with the M, ie. building on the past to be successful in the present.
-
The pricing for a new one was pretty unrealistic as well in this day and age. I looked into it once a few years ago and the price for the standard kit was somewhere around $8-10K. The RZ67 at $3.5K is much more realistically priced. Respect for Mamiya/Phase One for not throwing away their heritage. Shame on Hasselblad for not doing what Leica did with the M, ie. building on the past to be successful in the present.
I share your sentiment, but that ignores the fact that to make sense they'd have to have a 52mm x 52mm (if I remember 6x6 correctly!) sensor, and that would be problematic... little point in keeping the 500 body and cropping the sensor area. Leica had other makers fight the FF sensor battle first.
Also, price would probably have crippled sales.
As an expensive film curiosity it may have struggled on, but I suppose sales figures didn't indicate that was the trend for them.
Rob C
-
Where's successor? I hope that is not tuned Sony ...
Hy6/AFi, Rollei TLR, Leica M/S, maybe that Fuji folder, maybe the RZ if its still being made. These cameras feel like real cameras, operate like real cameras. What they have in common is manual usability and killer viewfinders. I compared my D800e and F4 viewfinders, mainly to torture myself, and I was, again, shocked by how terrible the VF is.
I don't mean this as an afront to Nikon, Sony, Phase, Pentax, etc.
-
Hy6/AFi, Rollei TLR, Leica M/S, maybe that Fuji folder, maybe the RZ if its still being made. These cameras feel like real cameras, operate like real cameras. What they have in common is manual usability and killer viewfinders. I compared my D800e and F4 viewfinders, mainly to torture myself, and I was, again, shocked by how terrible the VF is.
I don't mean this as an afront to Nikon, Sony, Phase, Pentax, etc.
But it would be nice if it would listen, all the same.
;-)
Rob C
-
I guess I will forever remember unpacking my first Blad, a silver 500CM. It was in the 80s and since it was expensive, it took me months to decide (to do or not to do).
I believe I still have the box. I moved it xx times, but couldn't throw it away, even if I sold the camera ages ago.
Life can be beautiful.
I am not sure if my kids will have the same feeling with their xxth digital camera.
-
Hello,
My experience with the Hasselblad 500 was back in the ‘80 working on the Gold Coast of Australia and personally they where a dog. My boss had one of there pieces of crap which he made me use on assignments. The view finder was like looking into a cave and 6x6 format was a pain in the ass cause you had to mentally figure how the image was going to be cropped for magazine work at the same time tiring to focus it with its crap focusing screen. My first medium camera I bought in Australia was a Kowa Super 66 system which was 6x6 I know but I was young and just getting started. The Kowa was far more user friendly than any Hasselblad and a 1/3 of the price. Non of my clients in Australia could tell the difference.
When I move back to New Zealand I went for the RZ system and never looked back till May of last year when the Nikon D800E camera out and now the old girl is on EBay.
As I have away said the only usefully thing for a Hasselblad is a paper weight.
Ciao
Simon
-
Hello,
My experience with the Hasselblad 500 was back in the ‘80 working on the Gold Coast of Australia and personally they where a dog. My boss had one of there pieces of crap which he made me use on assignments. The view finder was like looking into a cave and 6x6 format was a pain in the ass cause you had to mentally figure how the image was going to be cropped for magazine work at the same time tiring to focus it with its crap focusing screen. My first medium camera I bought in Australia was a Kowa Super 66 system which was 6x6 I know but I was young and just getting started. The Kowa was far more user friendly than any Hasselblad and a 1/3 of the price. Non of my clients in Australia could tell the difference.
When I move back to New Zealand I went for the RZ system and never looked back till May of last year when the Nikon D800E camera out and now the old girl is on EBay.
As I have away said the only usefully thing for a Hasselblad is a paper weight.
Ciao
Simon
Obviously the format didn't suit you; I used two 'blads and several Nikons all the best years of my life and my mistake was selling off the 6x6 to go a variety of 6x7s...
Democracy of choice, thank goodness.
Rob C
-
a 56x56mm CFV back had been cool. I think it's a little boring that digital medium format came to be the smallest MF film format there was and crops of that. But it's probably the rational way to go.
-
a 56x56mm CFV back had been cool. I think it's a little boring that digital medium format came to be the smallest MF film format there was and crops of that. But it's probably the rational way to go.
There are so many of these bodies out there - wait a few years and there will be a digital back cottage industry around them like Polaroid and the impossible project.
Edmund
-
Hello,
My experience with the Hasselblad 500 was back in the ‘80 working on the Gold Coast of Australia and personally they where a dog. My boss had one of there pieces of crap which he made me use on assignments. The view finder was like looking into a cave and 6x6 format was a pain in the ass cause you had to mentally figure how the image was going to be cropped for magazine work at the same time tiring to focus it with its crap focusing screen. My first medium camera I bought in Australia was a Kowa Super 66 system which was 6x6 I know but I was young and just getting started. The Kowa was far more user friendly than any Hasselblad and a 1/3 of the price. Non of my clients in Australia could tell the difference.
When I move back to New Zealand I went for the RZ system and never looked back till May of last year when the Nikon D800E camera out and now the old girl is on EBay.
As I have away said the only usefully thing for a Hasselblad is a paper weight.
Ciao
Simon
This was similar to my first V experience. I went RZ, if for no other reason than for the 6x7 rotating back, and of course price. But then a friend, in 1998 or 1999, had a 503cx with Accu D screen, a PM45 finder and a A16V back (vertical 645) and carried it in her purse. It was a very different experience to the old 500 I was forced to learn and use, and so much smaller and lighter than the RZ. later I worked with and for her lighting sets and assisting on her first big beauty campaigns, and she used 503cw's with Sinar 54m backs. Really wonderful experience for shooting set piece beauty/cosmetics. Subjects are less intimidated by the little 500. They are very interested in the camera itself.
-
This was similar to my first V experience. I went RZ, if for no other reason than for the 6x7 rotating back, and of course price. But then a friend, in 1998 or 1999, had a 503cx with Accu D screen, a PM45 finder and a A16V back (vertical 645) and carried it in her purse. It was a very different experience to the old 500 I was forced to learn and use, and so much smaller and lighter than the RZ. later I worked with and for her lighting sets and assisting on her first big beauty campaigns, and she used 503cw's with Sinar 54m backs. Really wonderful experience for shooting set piece beauty/cosmetics. Subjects are less intimidated by the little 500. They are very interested in the camera itself.
If the V shot 6x7 and had a rotating back I don't think I'd ever look at another camera again.
-
If the V shot 6x7 and had a rotating back I don't think I'd ever look at another camera again.
Absolutely.
-
Hello,
My experience with the Hasselblad 500 was back in the ‘80 working on the Gold Coast of Australia and personally they where a dog. My boss had one of there pieces of crap which he made me use on assignments.
Between a mamiya RZ and a blad the RZ is clearly the dog. If the blad was such a piece of crap I doubt NASA would have taken it to the moon.
The view finder was like looking into a cave and 6x6 format was a pain in the ass cause you had to mentally figure how the image was going to be cropped for magazine work at the same time tiring to focus it with its crap focusing screen.
There's more to photography than just magazine work, and for some there is no better format than the square.
As I have away said the only usefully thing for a Hasselblad is a paper weight.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but more realistically in 1-2 years when your D800 is yesterdays news and not even worth using as a paperweight photographers around the world will still be taking pictures with their Hasselblads.
-
Between a mamiya RZ and a blad the RZ is clearly the dog. If the blad was such a piece of crap I doubt NASA would have taken it to the moon.
There's more to photography than just magazine work, and for some there is no better format than the square.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but more realistically in 1-2 years when your D800 is yesterdays news and not even worth using as a paperweight photographers around the world will still be taking pictures with their Hasselblads.
I think this is a bit unfair. I like the V, in fact I love the V, I have two, but the RZ is an incredible camera and not a dog at all. I made my career on that camera. The VF is second to none. The reliable electronics just work and work, the modularity is incredible as are the lenses. As to the square, I dig it but the V is/was a commercial tool above all else, and commercial work is mostly un-square. The A16V back handled this well, but the big RZ negative put it in a different league, closer to 4x5 quality. As to the D800, it will not be a paperweight in a few years unless you want it to be. There are so few things that need improvement with the D800 that there is no reason to not use it far into the future. My only complaint is with the finder.
-
I went from a Mamiya Press, to a couple of RB67s, and finally Hassy 500s of several varieties. I can't speak to commercial shooting, but the Hassy's were excellent for fine art work, and that's why they're all I have left of my MF equipment. Other than my two Rollei TLRs, that is.
Many of the finder issues were easily fixable by going to the later model screens, and/or adding a prism finder.
But, having said all that, what I really want is a square format digital TLR. Perhaps with a huge Foveon sensor. And a Schneider lens.
-
I was always amazed how long the V system lasted, as it was so antiquated compared to everything else. Even 10-15 years ago, I found the Pentax 645, the Rollei 6008i, and the Fuji 680 systems vastly superior, while Hasselblad appeared to be frozen in time. Hasselblad had excellent marketing skills, and they got more mileage out of the Zeiss aura than anybody else. In their time, the Superachromat and the UV Sonnar were some unique lenses, but otherwise I was never able to see the point.
-
I think this is a bit unfair. I like the V, in fact I love the V, I have two, but the RZ is an incredible camera and not a dog at all. I made my career on that camera. The VF is second to none. The reliable electronics just work and work, the modularity is incredible as are the lenses. As to the square, I dig it but the V is/was a commercial tool above all else, and commercial work is mostly un-square. The A16V back handled this well, but the big RZ negative put it in a different league, closer to 4x5 quality. As to the D800, it will not be a paperweight in a few years unless you want it to be. There are so few things that need improvement with the D800 that there is no reason to not use it far into the future. My only complaint is with the finder.
Agreed, the rz67 is anything but a dog. It might not have the sexiness of the V but it's all business where it counts, and the lenses are second to none.
-
Agreed on the RZ67.
-
I was always amazed how long the V system lasted, as it was so antiquated compared to everything else. Even 10-15 years ago, I found the Pentax 645, the Rollei 6008i, and the Fuji 680 systems vastly superior
GX680 - king dog, all 3 versions.
-
Agreed, the rz67 is anything but a dog. It might not have the sexiness of the V but it's all business where it counts, and the lenses are second to none.
The Mamiya RZ is a great system. I moved to Mamiya when my Hasselblads failed one time to many.
But keep in mind I bought mine in a period where Hasselblad was having bad quality control issues.
Light leaks and torn film with two new backs. Body problems.
Never had a problem with an old used one I had.
The RZ gave me a better crop and the lenses were great.
IT's a dog, but in the sense of mans best friend.
It did however make very strange noises with the motor winder....
Image quality of both the Hasselblad V and RZ is excellent.
RZ image quality:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8492/8407847602_0037618922_c.jpg)
Crop from above.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8351/8407847612_0c1a1851cd_b.jpg)
-
You guys are like the Westboro Baptist Church ;)
-
GX680 - king dog, all 3 versions.
It's all in the folds of the bellows... ;)
(http://www.dosaworld.com/bbs/data/gallery/korean_mastiff_dosa_dogs_puppies_breeders_kennels47.jpg)
But really the Hasselblad V system combined with the way it was marketed made history.
Countless times like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/nov/23/photography-twiggy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/nov/23/photography-twiggy)
-
Agreed, the rz67 is anything but a dog. It might not have the sexiness of the V but it's all business where it counts, and the lenses are second to none.
I'm responding to Harperphoto's comments about the V being a piece of crap. It's not, not by a long shot. Not one single crap lens: 38 Biogon, 30 Fisheye, 40 FLE, 40 IF FLE, 50 FLE, 100, 180 etc.
RZ, great camera, lenses second to zeiss, second to Mamiya 6/7... and a dog when it comes to portability - it's a beast (but nothing compared to the 680 - good luck using that brick outside the studio). Hasselblad didn't make it on marketing but on image quality.
Rollei 6008, great camera not enough wides.
-
It's all in the folds of the bellows... ;)
But really the Hasselblad V system combined with the way it was marketed made history.
Countless times like this:
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/nov/23/photography-twiggy[/url}
But mainly because of the lens quality.
Hasselblad SWC/M quality (handheld @ 1/30th):
(http://paulozzello.com/ExternalImages/Chelsea2FramedB.jpg)
Crop from 40 inch print above:
(http://paulozzello.com/ExternalImages/Chelseazoom1.jpg)
-
SWC/M
The master of wide angle.
What film did you use?
-
Hi,
I have seen a few of the original Hasselblad, before the arrival of the "Acute Matte" screens and was not impressed by the viewfinders. Also, as far as I recall, the viewfinder did not show the full image, because the mirror being to short.
It is my understanding that later models were much better, but I can certainly see Harperfoto's point if he compared early model Hasselblads with early Model Mamiya.
Regarding lenses, I have two C series lenses I bought for different reasons, and both are very sharp, at least in the center where I have tested.
A crucial point is that features and image quality nothwithstanding a camera that you cannot use efficiently would not achieve the quality the camera is capable of. What is efficient may depend on user, like eyesight. For instance I could never use a waist level finder without a loupe, and always preferred the chimney type ones.
Best regards
Erik
I'm responding to Harperphoto's comments about the V being a piece of crap. It's not, not by a long shot. Not one single crap lens: 38 Biogon, 30 Fisheye, 40 FLE, 40 IF FLE, 50 FLE, 100, 180 etc.
RZ, great camera, lenses second to zeiss, second to Mamiya 6/7... and a dog when it comes to portability - it's a beast (but nothing compared to the 680 - good luck using that brick outside the studio). Hasselblad didn't make it on marketing but on image quality.
Rollei 6008, great camera not enough wides.
-
@ Paul Ozzello
Amazing example of the SWC quality. Your post is to the point and says in a picture what many of us say in words regarding our love and appreciation of the V system.
-
Hi,
I have seen a few of the original Hasselblad, before the arrival of the "Acute Matte" screens and was not impressed by the viewfinders. Also, as far as I recall, the viewfinder did not show the full image, because the mirror being to short.It is my understanding that later models were much better, but I can certainly see Harperfoto's point if he compared early model Hasselblads with early Model Mamiya.
Regarding lenses, I have two C series lenses I bought for different reasons, and both are very sharp, at least in the center where I have tested.
A crucial point is that features and image quality nothwithstanding a camera that you cannot use efficiently would not achieve the quality the camera is capable of. What is efficient may depend on user, like eyesight. For instance I could never use a waist level finder without a loupe, and always preferred the chimney type ones.
Best regards
Erik
The funny thing is, both of mine were old-style (500C and 500 C/M); I never noticed there was a viewing problem: they just worked fine. I hated the standard w/level finder and when I bought myself the 45 degree one life took on a happier note. At first, it felt strangely as if I were looking up/down a hill, but soon got used to it.
Screen accuracy never let me down, either; unlike 35mm there was always room to spare for layout crops.
Rob C
-
SWC/M
The master of wide angle.
What film did you use?
TMAX 100
-
I'm responding to Harperphoto's comments about the V being a piece of crap. It's not, not by a long shot. Not one single crap lens: 38 Biogon, 30 Fisheye, 40 FLE, 40 IF FLE, 50 FLE, 100, 180 etc.
RZ, great camera, lenses second to zeiss, second to Mamiya 6/7... and a dog when it comes to portability - it's a beast (but nothing compared to the 680 - good luck using that brick outside the studio). Hasselblad didn't make it on marketing but on image quality.
Rollei 6008, great camera not enough wides.
I like the Zeiss lenses, but there was a time I really did not like them. At all. They have too much contrast, I thought at the time. I liked the RZ lenses better. I guess my tastes changed. I'm now smitten with the 150 sonnar, its the only lens I use for portraits now adays, on any camera system. Its brilliant on the D800 as well as on TMAX at 6x6.
The Mamiya 7 lenses are, by far, the best lenses I've ever used.
I've used the RZ outside of a studio. Lots and lots. Handheld. Annie L used it outside, for everything, for years.
One point in favor of the RZ compared to the V is that the mirror is so well damped that mirror slap is much reduced compared to the V. I think this is because of better mirror travel mechanism, the slight delay between mirror up and the leaf shutter opening, and the GREAT WEIGHT of the RZ. I'm not taking a piss on the V, its just my observation.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: The RZ's bellows allow for close focusing with ANY lens without resorting to tubes. This is handy.
-
I never really used Hasselblad. :( The Mamiya RZ's were popular back in the day. I personally like the Pentax 6x7's so thats what I used. I still have 2 bodies, one with a Polaroid back. I really liked the look of that format and system for people. Not the sharpest tool in the shed but for shooting people camera handling and overall particular look of the image is more important to me. I did use it also for cityscapes and architecture shots and they came out great. The weakness of the cameras was/is the film winding mechanism.
-
I never really used Hasselblad. :( The Mamiya RZ's were popular back in the day. I personally like the Pentax 6x7's so thats what I used. I still have 2 bodies, one with a Polaroid back. I really liked the look of that format and system for people. Not the sharpest tool in the shed but for shooting people camera handling and overall particular look of the image is more important to me. I did use it also for cityscapes and architecture shots and they came out great. The weakness of the cameras was/is the film winding mechanism.
In which way? I had a new one for about a year, and one of its problems for me was loading and unloading film. Winding on always functioned fine.
Rob C
-
The hype about the Zeiss lenses was more myth than reality. They were easily surpassed by their Mamiya 7 counterparts and were equal or slightly less equal to some of their competitors... In their time though, the Superachromats were special, but already the Biogon was surpased by the Mamiya copy. Sad, but true.
-
Hi,
According to the MTF curves I have seen that would be perfectly true. That said, I have two Hasselblad C-type lenses that are really good.
Best regards
Erik
The hype about the Zeiss lenses was more myth than reality. They were easily surpassed by their Mamiya 7 counterparts and were equal or slightly less equal to some of their competitors... In their time though, the Superachromats were special, but already the Biogon was surpased by the Mamiya copy. Sad, but true.
-
Did you focus here?
Best,
Johannes
;D
No, focused on the face, but there is some retouching on the face so not a realistic crop to show resolution.
-
TMAX 100
Excellent processing and a rock steady hand!
-
I like the Zeiss lenses, but there was a time I really did not like them. At all. They have too much contrast, I thought at the time. I liked the RZ lenses better. I guess my tastes changed.
I agree with T.
I never like the Zeiss Contax lenses with film, especially transparency film, way too contrasty and crisp.
With digital it's a different game, just sliding the luminance noise function on c1 and you have a sharp lens with a different character and the benefit of less noise, though I also am getting to where I kind of like the oversharp, contrasty look.
I guess everything changes.
______________________________
Not to go off topic, but handled a h5d40 yesterday, for a few minutes. Hasselblad has done wonders with this camera as it's now tight and solid. It has minimum mirror slap and the focus is quick, really amazed me how quick.
The only that that kind of disappointed me was I thought the silver finish would be bright but it's more of a matte pewter. Still pretty.
Nice camera.
IMO
BC
-
Not to go off topic, but handled a h5d40 yesterday, for a few minutes. Hasselblad has done wonders with this camera as it's now tight and solid. It has minimum mirror slap and the focus is quick, really amazed me how quick.
The only that that kind of disappointed me was I thought the silver finish would be bright but it's more of a matte pewter. Still pretty.
Nice camera.
IMO
BC
After few minutes you can tell that it is tight and solid... ;D
-
After few minutes you can tell that it is tight and solid... ;D
After few minutes you can tell that it is tight and solid... ;D
Yea, of course it was new, but there was a new H4 and H3 and I shot a few frames with all three and there is a noticeable difference.
None of us know how a camera will perform long term, though the H series have been around a long time.
That should mean something.
IMO
BC
-
I was at Samy's a few days ago and got to play with their demo H5D-40. The AF was noticeably faster than my H4D-40. The camera feels more solid and the LCD and menu system has been improved. It's nicer looking too though the stainless is prettier.
-
Hi,
In my view the task of the lens is to give a correct rendition of the subject on the imager (sensor or film). The lens cannot really enhance contrast or sharpness. So a lens should be sharp/crisp and have high contrast, and a well made lens will have those properties.
Lenses may add artificial detail, like coma and double contours, that is a bad thing.
Just my view...
Best regards
Erik
I agree with T.
I never like the Zeiss Contax lenses with film, especially transparency film, way too contrasty and crisp.
With digital it's a different game, just sliding the luminance noise function on c1 and you have a sharp lens with a different character and the benefit of less noise, though I also am getting to where I kind of like the oversharp, contrasty look.
I guess everything changes.
______________________________
Not to go off topic, but handled a h5d40 yesterday, for a few minutes. Hasselblad has done wonders with this camera as it's now tight and solid. It has minimum mirror slap and the focus is quick, really amazed me how quick.
The only that that kind of disappointed me was I thought the silver finish would be bright but it's more of a matte pewter. Still pretty.
Nice camera.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
In my view the task of the lens is to give a correct rendition of the subject on the imager (sensor or film). The lens cannot really enhance contrast or sharpness. So a lens should be sharp/crisp and have high contrast, and a well made lens will have those properties.
Lenses may add artificial detail, like coma and double contours, that is a bad thing.
Just my view...
Best regards
Erik
In as much as gear influences the creative process, it is the flaws and limitations that drive you forward. Perfection is the realm of CGI. In my view a photograph needs to create an emotional response. Perfection does not create an emotional response, but is merely a curiosity. This is why I don't like all these perfect lenses, at least not for digital where things get too sharp. For example, I am not a fan of Leica asph lenses. Aside from the size, the 28 Asph-m is too sharp, same with the Zeiss zm 28 biogon. I much prefer the version IV Mandler designed 28 with the 49mm filter. Same with the 35 asph. I loath the asph version. Too sharp, too perfect. I like the version III, also a Mandler design. I also like Paolo Roversi's 8x10 work more than most beauty work I see in magazines. I also like the M9 versus the M8, as the M8 was too sharp, certainly sharper than the M9. The Zeiss ZF 50 Planar I like better than the Macro Planar. The Canon 85 1.2 is in many ways a horrible lens, but one of my favorites. I could go on.
I'm not saying I want to see CA and odd fringing, but a lens has to offer something aside from corner to corner sharpness. Otherwise, a CGI will do just fine.
-
What is considered bad in this age of 14 stop dr and ultra sharp edge to edge lenses has added a commonality to photography that you can see 100 mies away.
Obviously Paolo Roversi's talent drives his work, but it's the look of his old lights, that semi soft 8x10, the processing none of which would clear the pixel peeping world is what adds to his work.
If there is one thing that keeps me from buying an H5d today is the fact that the lens line is all Hasselblad/Fuji. Very nice, very sharp lenses, but they lack variety of look.
With my contax or any focal plane shutter camera I use Hartblei, hasselblad, contax, pentax lenses and all have a different look . . . way different and though a lot can be mimicked in post, it's still post and not on the day of the shoot.
Getting a different look in digital becomes more difficult every day as it is becoming a one format one or two brand world.
IMO
BC
In as much as gear influences the creative process, it is the flaws and limitations that drive you forward. Perfection is the realm of CGI. In my view a photograph needs to create an emotional response. Perfection does not create an emotional response, but is merely a curiosity. This is why I don't like all these perfect lenses, at least not for digital where things get too sharp. For example, I am not a fan of Leica asph lenses. Aside from the size, the 28 Asph-m is too sharp, same with the Zeiss zm 28 biogon. I much prefer the version IV Mandler designed 28 with the 49mm filter. Same with the 35 asph. I loath the asph version. Too sharp, too perfect. I like the version III, also a Mandler design. I also like Paolo Roversi's 8x10 work more than most beauty work I see in magazines. I also like the M9 versus the M8, as the M8 was too sharp, certainly sharper than the M9. The Zeiss ZF 50 Planar I like better than the Macro Planar. The Canon 85 1.2 is in many ways a horrible lens, but one of my favorites. I could go on.
I'm not saying I want to see CA and odd fringing, but a lens has to offer something aside from corner to corner sharpness. Otherwise, a CGI will do just fine.
-
Hi,
My point is that a lens should reproduce what is in front of it, but as said, it just a view I happen to have.
Another point is that much of the effort goes into making lenses acceptable/good/perfect at large apertures. Most lenses are pretty good at medium apertures.
Best regards
Erik
In as much as gear influences the creative process, it is the flaws and limitations that drive you forward. Perfection is the realm of CGI. In my view a photograph needs to create an emotional response. Perfection does not create an emotional response, but is merely a curiosity. This is why I don't like all these perfect lenses, at least not for digital where things get too sharp. For example, I am not a fan of Leica asph lenses. Aside from the size, the 28 Asph-m is too sharp, same with the Zeiss zm 28 biogon. I much prefer the version IV Mandler designed 28 with the 49mm filter. Same with the 35 asph. I loath the asph version. Too sharp, too perfect. I like the version III, also a Mandler design. I also like Paolo Roversi's 8x10 work more than most beauty work I see in magazines. I also like the M9 versus the M8, as the M8 was too sharp, certainly sharper than the M9. The Zeiss ZF 50 Planar I like better than the Macro Planar. The Canon 85 1.2 is in many ways a horrible lens, but one of my favorites. I could go on.
I'm not saying I want to see CA and odd fringing, but a lens has to offer something aside from corner to corner sharpness. Otherwise, a CGI will do just fine.
-
Getting a different look in digital becomes more difficult every day as it is becoming a one format one or two brand world.
IMO
BC
?
There has never been such diversity in photography as there is today from both the creative point of view
and the equipment point of view.
There are more companies making cameras today then there were in the 80s.
There are all sorts of lenses available on more digital cameras then there were in the past.
You have everything from ultra high end Ziess all the way down to specialized bokeh dirven designs and toy lenses like
lens baby.
Film and large format are still available though there are some limitations.
Yes I miss 8x10 polaroid and panatomic-X but it's not the end of the world.
It's never been better.
What has really changed is that large investments are not required to satisfy the vast majority of the
publishing formats. This has lead to a democratization of the field with kids and carreer changers comming from no where and
taking increadible pictures.