Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Bonobo on March 30, 2009, 08:08:44 pm
-
I'm a regular reader of these forums and would really appreciate some advice from you guys on what is going to be a major financial investment.
I have been an assistant for well over 10 years and currently trying to break my way in to the professional world.
I currently shoot portraits for a number of editorial/design/publishing clients all of whom demand digital photography. And at the moment do not own a digital system of my own. At the moment i currently hire or borrow cameras for jobs.
But i have a dilemma.... I currently own a Hasselblad V system, 503CW with 40mm, 80mm, 150mm, and many accessories. And am looking to upgrade this with adding a digital back.
Or... selling the whole lot, and investing in a 5D Mark 2 or possibly a Nikon D3X. Plus as stated, i have £5000 GBP to invest.
I really feel having the medium format system would give me a real edge, and love working with the format, but with the current technology changes, the current Canon/Nikon systems offer many advantages.
Any thought are appreciated.
-
Canon and Nikon have many strengths over the MF world in some applications, but when it comes to portraits I'd say MF is the clear winner. You have fast flash sync for shooting people outdoors, fine detail for skin texture and hair, lenses with pleasing bokeh and still sharp wide open, easier manual focus, etc
For £5000 you could add a back like the Sinar eMotion54LV (which is what I have) but there are probably other choices in this price range too. I can post a sample portrait using this back and a 180mm f2.8 PQ Rollei lens at f4 on a Rollei 6008 if you're interested (I happen to be working on one right now).
-
For the 503CW I would be looking for a refurbished or used CFV back. It is square (yes you do have quite a crop factor due to the 37x37sensor) and also integrates really well with your 500 series. It can also be found for that price and even less.
Downside, it is only 16/17MP but that is more than enough in most cases.
You also don't need things like a sync cord from your lens to the back. For many this is not a big thing but it does to the pleasantness of using the whole system.
Sure you could also get yourself a Nikon or Canon. I am pretty sure they will also do just fine. I am currently assuming you enjoy the 503 and wish to use that. Given that you can make any of these to work and all have great results, you should be looking at what makes you most comfortable using and what gives you most joy.
Other options might be a 36x48 rectangular 22MP back or even one of the 32x43 17/18MP backs. These are in a similar price range. Upside is the 3:4 format which is more useful for magazine work. Downside is you will be rotating the back and do have that little cord.
I would go for the comfortable shooting I think.
-
Other options might be a 36x48 rectangular 22MP back or even one of the 32x43 17/18MP backs. These are in a similar price range. Upside is the 3:4 format which is more useful for magazine work. Downside is you will be rotating the back and do have that little cord.
So, I have seen lots of experienced photographers make comments about the chord, but I don't yet get why it is such a problem to have a little chord running from the back to the sync plug. Does it get in the way, or is it unreliable, or what is the problem with it?
-
So, I have seen lots of experienced photographers make comments about the chord, but I don't yet get why it is such a problem to have a little chord running from the back to the sync plug. Does it get in the way, or is it unreliable, or what is the problem with it?
It is not so much as a problem but it does run through your fingers and sometimes gets in the way. It distracts me and this way it annoys me. On the older CF lenses it can loosen sometimes resulting in a misfire (not the case with the newer lenses that lock the cable). Sure you can tape away the little cable so it is not in your way but to me in the end it was there and annoyed me. When I am photographing people I want my gear to be not attracting attention or distracting me.
It is like the pimple in your face. It is there, which in itselfs bothers you even though you could leave it there but you just feel forced to pop it and get rid of it.
Besides that I always forgot the damn freaking cable. Imagine getting somewhere with all your stuff to find you can't make a single frame because of a 5USD cable. In the end I had 3 of them in every bag I had.
Yeah, I can live with it but If I can I would prefer not to have it. Have you worked with it? It is one of those things that eventually will get on your nerves and affect the fun you have in using the system. At least to me it was (personal preferences do vary ofcourse) !
BTW. I now work with the H & X-Act2 (and on occasion I startup the good ole Digiflex II). I did get myself another 503 a while ago but sold it again. I am still not sure whether I want to use one and in which way.
-
So, I have seen lots of experienced photographers make comments about the chord, but I don't yet get why it is such a problem to have a little chord running from the back to the sync plug. Does it get in the way, or is it unreliable, or what is the problem with it?
It's a little in the way, and I have had one cable fail as well, plus the cable I have doesn't sit very firmly in the flash sync socket and can fall out at times. It's the most annoying part of my whole setup. Would love to be rid of it!
-
I've borrowed/hired digital backs in the past and can understand peoples gripes about the trigger cable getting in the way, but I never found it to be that frustrating. I've also used backs on RZ67's and you have the same problem. I have an old 80mm (silver type) for the 503cw and the cable often drops out, but on the newer lenses, its a pretty sung fit and take a bit to pull the cable out, been thinking of replacing the old lens anyway.
Flash sync cables have been the bane of photographers lives for eons, why they never redesigned it still baffles me to this day, but its just something that you get used to.
In terms of a back, I was thinking of a referb/demo 22mp Leaf/Phase, or as Graham pointed out, a Sinar eMotion.
The square 16mp backs never appealed to me, mainly because of the crop factor and the fact that most publications are not in a square format as Dustbak pointed out.
It does feel like it would be a real shame to sell a kit which i have spent many years building up, especially considering the quality of the image it can produce, and can be so easily converted to digital.
Guess the next step would be to speak to some dealers and see what i can get for my money.....
-
Graham, I'd be interested in seeing what you are working on now, the 180 on the 6008 is of real interest to me, any chance of popping one up? Sorry to the OP!
Mat.
-
No worries mat, i would like to see what it looks like too Graham. Post up a photo when you get a chance.
-
I really feel having the medium format system would give me a real edge, and love working with the format, but with the current technology changes, the current Canon/Nikon systems offer many advantages.
Any thought are appreciated.
It's not about "having an edge". No camera will do that for you. Clients cannot tell the difference. No one hires a guy because of the kind of camera he shoots. So don't buy into that hype and fear. You see guys buy these things, and then after six months, you see them for sale -- they wonder, "why did my pictures not get better?"
My advice is buy the camera that makes you take pictures. Screw the back; all the backs are the same. Buy the CAMERA that you're comfortable with. The one that's an extension of how you see the world, and the camera that makes it easy and effortless to get that vision onto film. "The edge" is how you see the world, and how much you can stop thinking about the camera, and start thinking about what you want to photograph.
One opinion.
-
Euh... I think that was what most of us were implying as well I understood the 503 is the preferred camera ... if it isn't the advice would become different.
-
It's not about "having an edge". No camera will do that for you. Clients cannot tell the difference. No one hires a guy because of the kind of camera he shoots. So don't buy into that hype and fear. You see guys buy these things, and then after six months, you see them for sale -- they wonder, "why did my pictures not get better?"
My advice is buy the camera that makes you take pictures. Screw the back; all the backs are the same. Buy the CAMERA that you're comfortable with. The one that's an extension of how you see the world, and the camera that makes it easy and effortless to get that vision onto film. "The edge" is how you see the world, and how much you can stop thinking about the camera, and start thinking about what you want to photograph.
One opinion.
I couldn't agree with you more, but if that were the case i would be shooting all my job all on my G9. But that would be amateurish, and im pretty sure that my clients would be able to tell the difference.
Don't get me wrong, i know that at the end of the day it is just a tool, but it happens to be a very expensive tool! And for that reason im seeking advice.
I love using the Blad, and have done for many years, and it seem that the logical step is to buy a digital back. And for that reason, im pretty sure it will be permanently glued to my hand.
I have a feeling the G9 may feel neglected... :wink:
-
I love using the Blad, and have done for many years,
There's your answer, right there. Don't overlook that statement. Be careful forcing a square peg into a round hole, out of fear or hype or whatever. It's about throwing that thing over your shoulder, and having it be an EASY NATURAL extension of how you see.
-
There's your answer, right there. Don't overlook that statement. Be careful forcing a square peg into a round hole, out of fear or hype or whatever. It's about throwing that thing over your shoulder, and having it be an EASY NATURAL extension of how you see.
I agree.
You'll move your career a lot further by shooting more, experimenting, learning post production and investing in what is in front of the lens vs. what brand of camera is between the lens and you.
Be careful on public forums, especially this medium format section, because this is more about brand/format worship and camera sales than it is about actual photography.
If your hasselblad works, you like it, it suits your style then buy the least expensive used digital back you can find. 18mpx to 39mpx your clients won't see the difference and quite honestly if you learn post production well, you won't either, at least once the ink hits the paper, or you knock them down to 900px wide jpegs for web view (where 90% of our presentations come from).
The first downside to this is you'll have more moire (see the d3x-aptus comparison) and if you shoot in low light you'll spend more time either lighting and/or shooting from a tripod.
The second downside is once you start with digital you get hooked on the fear factor of bigger is better. It's not, at least to anyone viewing a photograph, but since a 30" monitor is how we now proof our images, it's hard not to get hooked.
Personally I think you'd be better off shooting film for yourself, some kind of used dslr for your clients which allows you more time behind the camera and less time fixating on the computer.
You only have so much time, so use it wisely.
-
Graham, I'd be interested in seeing what you are working on now, the 180 on the 6008 is of real interest to me, any chance of popping one up? Sorry to the OP!
Mat.
Here's one: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?tdhiq2n3uu2 (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?tdhiq2n3uu2)
-
Forget gear. Put it all towards marketing. Get your name out there (if it's not already), attract the clients, get the jobs, and then worry about gear.
-
I agree.
You'll move your career a lot further by shooting more, experimenting, learning post production and investing in what is in front of the lens vs. what brand of camera is between the lens and you.
Be careful on public forums, especially this medium format section, because this is more about brand/format worship and camera sales than it is about actual photography.
If your hasselblad works, you like it, it suits your style then buy the least expensive used digital back you can find. 18mpx to 39mpx your clients won't see the difference and quite honestly if you learn post production well, you won't either, at least once the ink hits the paper, or you knock them down to 900px wide jpegs for web view (where 90% of our presentations come from).
The first downside to this is you'll have more moire (see the d3x-aptus comparison) and if you shoot in low light you'll spend more time either lighting and/or shooting from a tripod.
The second downside is once you start with digital you get hooked on the fear factor of bigger is better. It's not, at least to anyone viewing a photograph, but since a 30" monitor is how we now proof our images, it's hard not to get hooked.
Personally I think you'd be better off shooting film for yourself, some kind of used dslr for your clients which allows you more time behind the camera and less time fixating on the computer.
You only have so much time, so use it wisely.
Hi James, I always really appreciate the advice you give on these forums, and agree with many of your statements above. The main reason for this investment is to increase the amount that i shoot, its a simple fact that having digital equipment enables one to shoot freely. Film/processing costs have gone up considerably, and i would much prefer to be investing the money that i would use on that, into buying some form of digital equipment. At the end of the day a camera is just a tool, but i will have to admit, i always prefer using the best possible tool.
My current portfolio has images from many different systems, and i really have no preference in what i use as long as it gets the job done, i just happens that early on i chose the Hasselbald V as my preferred choice. I would really have no problem in selling the system, but seems rather foolish considering that its so easy to turn digital.
I agree that there tends to be certain amounts of bias on these forums in terms of brand loyalty, and for me that doesn't really matter, i was just looking for some informed opinions in term's of my dilemma.
Your definitely right about one thing, we do only have so much time, better go and make some calls!
Forget gear. Put it all towards marketing. Get your name out there (if it's not already), attract the clients, get the jobs, and then worry about gear.
Getting the clients, getting the jobs..... thats why im asking about the gear...
-
Cheers Graham, very nice quality to the shot.
Thanks for posting it.
Mat.
-
http://www.dboyd.com/Photos_08/Hasselbladv...eercan/test.htm (http://www.dboyd.com/Photos_08/HasselbladvsSony/test@150mmvsBeercan/test.htm)
This isn't the best 25MP camera you can buy, either. But it does show how a lot of past-gen DBs are pretty well thrashed by the new crop of DSLRs. The quality is close to each other, but the price difference isn't. I'd personally wait until next fall when the new 25-30MP DSLRs come out and get one then. A 1DS MkIV or whatever they call it, for instance, will be a much cheaper option than a 25-30MP DB and all the kludgy and klunky gear.
Shoot, even the hideously overpriced Nikon is a steal compared to MF gear.
-
Shoot, even the hideously overpriced Nikon is a steal compared to MF gear.
The hideously overpriced Nikon (D3x) is about the same price as the equally hideously overpriced Canon (1Ds3), and in some places is even cheaper. I just felt compelled to point that out. The A900 may not be the best 25MP camera, but it is cheaper than both the above, by far, and doesn't have the reliability problems of the 5D2.
-
I keep going around and around about this one too. At least I have a couple of completely independent income streams, so it's not like I'm going to starve while I continue to agonize over it.
At the moment, I'm leaning toward continuing to use a 2nd tier DSLR for handheld work, sports, etc. But also get a CFV or something for the V cameras. I have more to consider than the absolute pixel-level image quality. For one thing, I like the square. For another, I like the flexibility of leaf shutters. And finally, my eyes are getting bad, and I like the V series finder options.
-
For about 4000 euros you can have a very nice Hasselblad 132c or 528c back. I use one on my Rollei 6008i and love it.
-
I own a couple of Hasselblad V bodies with the same lenses as you. I used a cheaper back for a while, but have now moved to the A900 with the Zeiss 24-70 and 85mm, which covers approximately the same range as the MF lenses, and Im very pleased. Also, it only takes a $50 adapter to mount my Hassie lenses to the A900. The A900 has near-medium format color, and it's spectral response is much better than the D3x, D3, and 5Dii.
-
and it's spectral response is much better than the D3x, D3, and 5Dii.
Really? (Serious question not sarcasm)
-
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=29067&st=0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29067&st=0)
Here's a past thread about this - and the link takes you to this(translation is a bit off, but readable)
The link is telling, really. The A900 comes very very close to the Hasselblad with a DB. I give the Hassy a slight edge. But it's almost a coin toss. And the general consensus is that the A900 isn't *quite* as good as the Canon or Nikon, though it's very close.
-
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=29067&st=0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29067&st=0)
Here's a past thread about this - and the link takes you to this(translation is a bit off, but readable)
The link is telling, really. The A900 comes very very close to the Hasselblad with a DB. I give the Hassy a slight edge. But it's almost a coin toss. And the general consensus is that the A900 isn't *quite* as good as the Canon or Nikon, though it's very close.
Whenever I read this kind of lame tests, I dont know if I should laugh or cry
If you know how to use your equipment and make the most out of each camera,
the Sony is not even close to the Hasselblad.
And if you read the following from that thread, you will see that the tester this time did not know the equipment he tested.
"Hi All smile.gif
I can only smile after reading this article. The most funny thing is that Mr Bonecki rent this equipment from us, and didn't want assistant from our side because it is too expensive. Why they don;t ask me about doing the test ??? I will do it for free and the test will be more reliable. I know this equipment inside and out. If a photographer does not read messages on the display and can not cope with the hardware. Let them do not write that it is equipment. ( They call to me during this session, because they connect the camera with newer firmware to computer with older software and start loading older ver. of firmware and they have problem with it ). In my opinion it is not professional.
I can;t believe that the files of the Mamiya ZD is so bad. It is probably lack of knowledge.
Why they converting files to DNG?? Why they don't ask Hasselblad and Mamiya guys to do the test ?? Who believe that A900 has a better dynamic range, better colors? Who believe that H3DII has bad display where colors are not correct ?? ( Everybody who has this camera in the hand know that is not a true) Who believe that Mamiya is so bad? At the end of this test: specialist of large format printer write that MFDB is dead. LOL
It is not professional. Clearly feel that it is advertorial. It is so Polish...
Anyway - Believe me, we have good specialists in Poland too :-)"
This kind of biased and flawed tests will always pop up from time to time.
Read them as you should - as funny, clumsy stories of incompetense .
-
You'll note that my point isn't that the A900 is *better* - it isn't. But that the current generation of DSLRs are almost a coin flip compared to the last generation of DBs.
A previous poster suggested that he might buy a 132c or 528c DB. The 132c is a good DB, but it''s only 22MP and maybe he could find one *used* for that price.. The DSLRs - you could get an entire setup with lenses, new, for the price of just the DB. The problem is that the smaller companies that used to have a niche product are finding that the big consumer firms are gaining ground fast and have a r&d budget that towers over theirs. I fully expect the DB market to implode in the next few years as a result. You know someday Sony or Nikon or Canon will make a DB for $2K and that's that - the party is over, much like how full service stock brokers were screwed when ETrade and the like started offering cheap online trading.
The only question is how many years from now will that happen. I'm just not convinced that in this economy it's worth spending tens of thousands of dollars for results that the client/boss/etc frankly is more likely to not even see or care about. Hence my recommendation to wait until next fall and see what the next Canon and new DSLRs do to improve the situation. We're awfully close to them being able to equal DBs, so it's worth waiting until that happens, IMO.
-
Hate to make this my first post,,but here goes. I shot MF Pentax film for years... switched to digital about 2 years ago. I always figured, eventually I would save up the clams for a MF digital, or wait for the vaporware digital Pentax 645. This site, http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor) has made me reconsider this thinking. The top rated sensors are all FF DSLRs.
-
i go with TimG - some for marketing, some for making images for your book...continue to hire or borrow for commercial jobs...thats the smart move in this economy...
-
Hate to make this my first post,,but here goes. I shot MF Pentax film for years... switched to digital about 2 years ago. I always figured, eventually I would save up the clams for a MF digital, or wait for the vaporware digital Pentax 645. This site, http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor) has made me reconsider this thinking. The top rated sensors are all FF DSLRs.
If you put your trust i numbers and not your eyes, you should reconsider
When I buy a camera i trust my eyes and when I buy a stereo i trust my ears.
Forget all about this tests and test it your self and use your eyes to evaluate.
-
I see no more than maybe 5% difference in real life between most of these anyways. What used to be a no-brainer 3-4 years ago about DBs being better has shrunk to a very expensive 5%(and most of that appears to only be because there's no AA filter on them). I suspect the Canon 1ds Mk4 will punch a hole in the DB market. There are all sorts of rumors about it, but if it hits 30-35MP, as some suggest it might, that's more than enough - AA filter or not - to make a lot of DBs suddenly outclassed by a large margin.
A good example of this (for fun since I have some time...) is how Audi suddenly turned up with a $125K R8 that started giving the Italian supercars a run for their money. It's a *VW* - and yet it's plowing a huge hole in this long-established niche market. Of course the snobs and people who are thinking with their egos or just stuck in their ways think the Ferrari is better. And maybe it is. But it's a lot of money for what is now a small difference and mostly bragging rights. Especially when your lap times aren't as fast.
-
I see no more than maybe 5% difference in real life between most of these anyways.
I think it's fair to say that some others see a lot more.
A good example of this (for fun since I have some time...) is how Audi suddenly turned up with a $125K R8 that started giving the Italian supercars a run for their money. It's a *VW* - and yet it's plowing a huge hole in this long-established niche market. Of course the snobs and people who are thinking with their egos or just stuck in their ways think the Ferrari is better. And maybe it is. But it's a lot of money for what is now a small difference and mostly bragging rights. Especially when your lap times aren't as fast.
Without meaning to derail a thread, but in what way is an Audi a VW?? The fact that VW is the parent company? If so, that makes a Ferrari a Fiat, so I think your point backfired (and if Porsche's takeover of VW goes ahead, then that would make the R8 a Porsche )
-
Heh - I did put it in asterisks. The point was that to hear the snobs talk about the R8, you'll hear them go on and on about how "it's really a VW"(or you also hear "That thing's a piece of junk VW"). Well, whatever it really is, sign me up.
Yet the funny thing is that DB makers seem oblivious to the looming behemoths that are just about to invade their little village. Porsche has stepped up the game at least - the 2009 Boxster and Cayman look to pull them out ahead of the competition for a while. But I can't remember when a DB maker really did something revolutionary. Sure, more Pixels and all, but besides that and charging a fortune for it? Canon is a slow mover historically, but then they do make a move, it's a full-blown Viking invasion. What exactly DOES happen if the MK4 has the same pixel density as their best models - but full frame(39MP, roughly)?
That's not going to be a punch in the face to the DB makers, it's going to be a flaming spiked 2x4 upside their heads.
-
Heh - I did put it in asterisks. The point was that to hear the snobs talk about the R8, you'll hear them go on and on about how "it's really a VW"(or you also hear "That thing's a piece of junk VW"). Well, whatever it really is, sign me up.
Yet the funny thing is that DB makers seem oblivious to the looming behemoths that are just about to invade their little village. Porsche has stepped up the game at least - the 2009 Boxster and Cayman look to pull them out ahead of the competition for a while. But I can't remember when a DB maker really did something revolutionary. Sure, more Pixels and all, but besides that and charging a fortune for it? Canon is a slow mover historically, but then they do make a move, it's a full-blown Viking invasion. What exactly DOES happen if the MK4 has the same pixel density as their best models - but full frame(39MP, roughly)?
That's not going to be a punch in the face to the DB makers, it's going to be a flaming spiked 2x4 upside their heads.
If you just see a 5% difference, then you see white when I see black and this discussion is a lost case
There is a lot I like more about my D3 than my H3DII-31 - LCD, speed, AF, high ISO etc.
But IQ is WAY better from the Hasselblad.
And I have yet to see any significant difference in IQ between D3 and D3X.
If/when Canon comes with a MK4 with 30+ MP, they need a set of new lenses to back it up.
-
A lamborgini is an Audi, which is a VW, which in actual fact...is a Porsche...this, I think, puts the car analogy more into perspective....
What bothers me, is that cameras, at least for pros, should be looked at as Volvo trucks Vs DAF trucks, meaning tools for work and not toys for carrying golf clubs on the weekend....
And anyway even the R8 has 2 wheels too many.....
-
And anyway even the R8 has 2 wheels too many.....
What do you ride, Yair?
-
What do you ride, Yair?
You're touching a sensitive nerve there Carsten
Been on bikes since I was 16 and unfortunately a 125cc scooter is all I have at the moment (which is great fun BTW) - hopefully this in only a temporary setback
-
You're touching a sensitive nerve there Carsten
Been on bikes since I was 16 and unfortunately a 125cc scooter is all I have at the moment (which is great fun BTW) - hopefully this in only a temporary setback
Well, that is not nearly as sensitive as my situation: I have no bike. I have never owned a car, but have owned 4 bikes through the years. My last was a hair-on-the-chest Suzuki TL1000S which would wheelie with no provocation. My next, if there is one, will probably be an older Ducati 900CR, which I have wanted since it came out. Or, if my girlfriend gets interested in being on the back, probably a BMW R1100S.
-
You're touching a sensitive nerve there Carsten
Been on bikes since I was 16 and unfortunately a 125cc scooter is all I have at the moment (which is great fun BTW) - hopefully this in only a temporary setback
Yair,
A scooter?
When you came to my studio carrying that big helmet, I though...this guy is into big bikes, 1000cc minimum.
Now it turns out you ride a piddly little scooter!
I think, Yair, you've gone down in my esteem, and next time I buy a Leaf back, I'm going to haggle like mad and give you a hard time!
-
Yair,
A scooter?
When you came to my studio carrying that big helmet, I though...this guy is into big bikes, 1000cc minimum.
Now it turns out you ride a piddly little scooter!
I think, Yair, you've gone down in my esteem, and next time I buy a Leaf back, I'm going to haggle like mad and give you a hard time!
Well at the time I had a Honda CB900...over the years I think I had more than 20 bikes...anything from a BSA M42 (with a sidecar) to a GSX1100R...when I grow up I want to have a Speed Triple...
-
A lamborgini is an Audi, which is a VW, which in actual fact...is a Porsche...this, I think, puts the car analogy more into perspective....
Heh. Yeah, I know... It's all a tangled mess who owns what anymore. But with the R8, there's just no reason to spend $250K on the least expensive Ferrari anymore. 25MP DBs are in a similar situation. While they were plodding along on their own little path, the big companies came roaring up behind them looking to run them over.
What bothers me, is that cameras, at least for pros, should be looked at as Volvo trucks Vs DAF trucks, meaning tools for work and not toys for carrying golf clubs on the weekend....
And anyway even the R8 has 2 wheels too many.....
For most of the industry, I suspect that this is exactly true. Whatever gets the job done the quickest and for the least money. But most of them also don't spend time online in forums like this, either.
On bikes?
Yeah - I love Moto Guzzi myself. Triumph is a close second. No bike currently, though, as it's insane to ride one in Southern California. My 4x4 barely keeps me alive down here...
-
On bikes?
Yeah - I love Moto Guzzi myself. Triumph is a close second. No bike currently, though, as it's insane to ride one in Southern California. My 4x4 barely keeps me alive down here...
Ah, Moto Guzzi! I love those bikes. An old 750S or V7 Sport, or the Le Mans Mark I or III, sigh. I love the fact that blipping the throttle causes a length-wise torque reaction. I would love tinkering with a bike like that. No electronics to speak of, just the bare minimum to make it (almost) civilized. A bit like a Leica M6, or even better: a Hasselblad V.
Now, old British bikes I have split opinions about. I don't mind quirkiness, but recalcitrance is pushing it too far, and lighting by the prince of darkness is not my cup of tea. And those weird tool sizes! I still have a set somewhere, having worked on a friend's old Triumph 500. Or do you mean Kawa-Triumphs?
-
Ah, Moto Guzzi! I love those bikes. An old 750S or V7 Sport, or the Le Mans Mark I or III, sigh. I love the fact that blipping the throttle causes a length-wise torque reaction. I would love tinkering with a bike like that. No electronics to speak of, just the bare minimum to make it (almost) civilized. A bit like a Leica M6, or even better: a Hasselblad V.
Now, old British bikes I have split opinions about. I don't mind quirkiness, but recalcitrance is pushing it too far, and lighting by the prince of darkness is not my cup of tea. And those weird tool sizes! I still have a set somewhere, having worked on a friend's old Triumph 500. Or do you mean Kawa-Triumphs?
This discussion brings back fond memories of my one-time 500cc single cylinder Norton beast. Noisy and unreliable, but great fun to live dangerously on. By contrast, my BMW R26, a bit later, was undoubtedly the most reliable, well-built motor vehicle I have ever owned. No Whitworth tools needed (back then you could buy American, Whitworth, and Metric socket sets at Sears.)
-
Now, old British bikes I have split opinions about. I don't mind quirkiness, but recalcitrance is pushing it too far, and lighting by the prince of darkness is not my cup of tea. And those weird tool sizes! I still have a set somewhere, having worked on a friend's old Triumph 500. Or do you mean Kawa-Triumphs?
The new ones, actually. Modern re-creations of the originals without the major ills. The Triumph America is a stunning cruiser, for instance - go figure. I'd rather have it than anything other than maybe a Sportster(bit of a toss-up, actually). But it just doesn't have to true classic counter-culture feel of a Guzzi.
Oh - my top pick if they would bring it over to the U.S. would be the new Guzzi V7 Classic. Shaft drive, fuel injection(!), good gauges, a nice V-twin, and great to look at.
http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/Motorcyc...V7-Classic.aspx (http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/Motorcycle-Reviews/September-October-2008/2008-Moto-Guzzi-V7-Classic.aspx)
It's the perfect daily ride that nobody's heard of - and dead-simple reliable as well. Others are getting into the retro look and feel, but this is the real deal. IF you ever wanted an old classic Honda or Triumph or similar 70s era bike but wanted modern electricals, parts that could be found, decent brakes, and not deadly suspension, here you go
One thing - black. definitely black.
Anyways - back to cameras.. heh.