> I am guessing that M, above, means Medium Format. If this is true you
> might be somewhat familiar with the name Hasselblad. It is a
> MF camera
> that is almost a standard that all other MF cameras are compared to.
Yeah, I accidently deleted the 'F'. I know about hasselblads of course - I
also know that they are massively expensive and way overpriced. I think the
Mamiya RB/RZ offers better value for money - which is why I bought an RZ.
6x7 is a better format (IMO) than 6x6 too. For the price of my RZ, 3 film
backs, pol. back, 180, 110, 50 lenses I could have bought a hasselblad with
1 film back and an 80mm. AND in the end, I probably wouldn't have seen any
difference on the lightbox. Also, when shooting for magazines (80% of my
photographic work), they have to crop a 6x6 more than a 6x7 for a full page
shot so you get less real-world image area on a blad.
Did you know that out of all hasselblads owned, less than 5% of the owners
are professional photographers? What does this tell you about hasselblad?
It tells me that because of it's reputation as the best of the best, people
have bought it because of it's reputation rather than any evidence they have
discovered for themselves about the quality of the camera & lenses.
granted, there are alot more amateur photographers than professionals and
some of the people buying blad bought it because they knew personally it was
good, rather than what the internet/sales guy/friend told them.
> Hasselblad has a web site, http://www.photodo.com. This site gives,
> among other things, ratings of lenses. They say the 28-80 Mk IV is
> crappy, they give it a 2.2 overall rating. The older Mk II
> is better at
> 3.1. The 28-105 got a 3.3 and the 28-135 IS got a 3.4. So I
> guess the
> 28-1x5 lenses are most likely better.
This is kinda my point. I know about photodo, but Im saying that because
photodo says a lens is good/crap/whatever, dosen't mean it's true. Also, I
wouldn't base my opinions on what photodo says - there are a whole range of
problems trying to base your decision on a lens test with a population
sample size of 1. Im also not saying you have to put your head in the sand
about it either, but take any sort of lens test with a grain of salt.
> I lost
> > a whole lot on the transaction (I bought all my EOS stuff new).
>
>
> You didn't expect this? Did you figure you'd get more than 75% of
> current new price for the used EOS stuff? That isn't the way
> it works.
Yeah, I know. When I bought the gear, I assumed I would keep it forever, so
I might as well buy new. I got less than 45% back for my 300/4IS. Most of
my stuff I buy second hand now, unless I can't buy it new (btw, anybody got
a linhof bag bellows for a monorail they want to part with?)
Im not trying to start a flamewar here, just asking people to think before
you buy..
A good webpage on this issue is http://cameraquest.com/lenstest.htm . It
does go a bit overboard, but lists valid points about the issue.
- Stuart
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
