On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:06:29 +0000, JOHN B. CORNS wrote: >Warren--Yes, sometimes I shoot train photos on something other than 35mm >slides. In my professional life I have shot in all film sizes up to 8x10, >but never used 8x10 for train photos (always wanted to, but it was too >inconvenient).
>The Blad had THE sharpest and >most expensive lenses that I have ever seen, but it was not really >convenient to use for numerous reasons. (Lenses not as wide or as long >as with 35mm cameras, slower maximum lens apertures, too damn delicate >for rough location work, etc.) All of its square images had to be >cropped for use on annual report covers, etc. Why go through all of that >hassle with the Hasselblad and then have to crop the 6x6 image down to a >6x4.5 image to get a vertical or a horizontal image? To which Warren replies... John answered his question in the first sentence of the paragraph above. My Hasselblad images are much sharper than any 4x5 shots I've taken, but the 4x5 has the advantage of perspective control, which is sometimes very important. I'll bet that a cropped Hasselbad image turns out better than any 6x7 image from another manufacturer (at least that's what Hasselblad says). >Tremendously impressive-looking images when spread out on a light table >for the client to look at. (See below.) >Warren, the old adage states that all things being equal (lens sharpness, >film used, etc.), the bigger the negative the better the photo. It has been my experience that the Hasselblad lenses (they start with Carl Zeiss glass and reject 75 percent of the production run) are without peer. That's why I've had such good results with my Hasselblads. Also, two of my three bodies have focal plane shutters and were purchased specifically for RR photography. The fp bodies are quite expensive but well worth it for action shots. And you can still use the leaf shutters in the lens to do weddings (if you don't mind the tremendous noise from the fp shutter). OTOH, last year I had the option of buying a 250mm Hasselblad lens or a Nikon F5 with an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF zoom lens (same price). I chose choice "b." >Are you asking me if camera store employees are attempting to persuade >customers into purchasing medium format cameras instead of 35mm cameras >based on how the 120 transparencies look on the light table when compared >with 35mm? No. Sorry about the ambiguity. What I meant was the larger transparencies make a greater impact when the photographer displays them for the art director or client. >I'll bet that you guys are getting tired of hearing from me so often. I >know that I am! John B. Corns NO WAY! (Excuse the shout :-) ) I find your experience invaluable. Later, Warren --> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1518
