Why has no one improved on the Blad?
ArtKramr
designs. The original Blad has inspired dozens of designs all based on that 6x6
SLR that was fully modular. But when we look, at them all; the Bronica, the
Rollei 6x6 SLR's and a dozen others, none have been able to outpace the Blad
in quality or performance and very few are the blads equal, even those that
also use Carl Zeiss lenses. Is the world waiting for a new brilliant designer
to move the ball foward, or are we at the end of the line in MF SLR's?
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Clyde
> Just as no one has improved on the M Leica, no one has improved on the Blad
> designs.
No point, anyone can make a Blad just by cutting two notches in the edge
of a 6x6 camera's mask. On the light table nobody can pick them out so
wasting money on a Hassle is silly...ain't even good jewelry which is
all an M is.
John Stafford
artk...@aol.com wrote on 7/4/02 1:59 PM:
> Just as no one has improved on the M Leica, [...]
Whoops, now we move into religious territory!
> no one has improved on the Blad designs.
Here we go. Who's going to ferret out the design that Victor took as a point
of departure for the 1000F?
ArtKramr
>From: John Stafford jo...@stafford.net
>Date: 7/4/02 12:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <B94A0976.145A%jo...@stafford.net>
John,
Now there is a really interesting observation. Let's see what the NG guys turn
up as possible candidates? I have one idea, but I need to do a bit of research
first.
(:->)
fotocord
> Just as no one has improved on the M Leica, no one has improved on the
> Blad designs.
The Rollei 6000 is way above a blad in performance. Faster shutter, better
lenses, much better automation etc etc. Next!
We realize you must make your equipment choice the best,
but try to find another venue to beat on your chest..
--
Stacey
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/4/02 12:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <os99iugug3npv2rtp...@4ax.com>
>Definitely not
>better lenses. I find the Rollei licensed Zeiss lenses to be sorely
>lacking. A few of t
Lacking indeed. Some samples I have seen suffer from mild decentering.
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/4/02 1:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <smak-3DEA04.2...@allnews.casema.net>
>
>Literally
>*everything* is better. Even an old SLX (25 years by now...) is more
>advanced than the very latest Hasselblad, in many ways.
My SLX was a disaster. It went back for repair time after time. And even Rollei
couldn't fix it. It was a piece of garbage. I'd say even the KIEV was better.
And that is really saying something.
>??? Have you ever seen a Rollei 6008? Did you try to compare it to any
>of the hasselblads? *every* as
Lenses don't quite cut it.
John Stafford
artk...@aol.com wrote on 7/4/02 2:33 PM:
>> Here we go. Who's going to ferret out the design that Victor took as a point
>> of departure for the 1000F?
> Now there is a really interesting observation. Let's see what the NG guys turn
> up as possible candidates? I have one idea, but I need to do a bit of research
> first.
> (:->)
You and I have been down that road before Usenet. I'll bet a dollar to a
donut that nobody finds it.
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/4/02 1:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <B94A1D79.1471%jo...@stafford.net>
ROFL ! I'll take that bet two donuts worth.
Robert Monaghan
Seriously. Medium format sales are off 50% in major markets, they have
collapsed 35%+ in Japan, and small companies like Hasselblad and
Rolleiflex don't have the deep pockets to make it thru a long recession.
It has never been this bad before, and digital makes it doubtful it is
going to get better or recover, with fewer newbies coming into med fmt
Even Leica is down circa 25% in sales (largely due to the lack of digital
relabeled cameras to sell, their big money makers trading on their name..)
(projected 44% for the quarter per some posters/analysts) in 3rd q. and
the Vivendi collapse impacts Hermes subsidiary which impacts Leica as a
major shareholder etc. Good thing we have Cosina to keep the M line going!
A lot of the people who thought they were well off based on their stock
portfolios have seen those collapse, esp. NASDAQ and $7 trillion in tech
stocks - the wealth effect in reverse.
I'm not sure that we will have enough sales of the high end autofocus
rolleiflex and contax and hasselblad systems (next photokina?) to justify
the major costs of new plant (such as hasselblad's) and AF designs with
modest sales in the recession, and many existing owners switching to
digital cameras with full features and integration...
thoughts?
bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 So. Methodist Univ., Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/index.html *
ArtKramr
>From: rmon...@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
>Date: 7/4/02 3:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ag2haq$ch4$1...@post.cis.smu.edu>
What you say is true, and past experience tells us that this means a big
squeeze out, with many companies going down the tubes and just a very few left
to share the remaining market. The big question is, who is going to stay and
who is going down the drain? Any ideas?
John
> I'm not sure that we will have enough sales of the high end autofocus
> rolleiflex and contax and hasselblad systems (next photokina?) to justify
> the major costs of new plant (such as hasselblad's) and AF designs with
> modest sales in the recession, and many existing owners switching to
> digital cameras with full features and integration...
>
> thoughts?
I suppose given enough time, names like Hasselblad, Rolei and even Leica
will be sold off just like Argus and Bell & Howell. Then the new owners
will apply the names to a whole line of cheap stuff, finally using the names
on time-share giveaways like Oleg Cassini luggage.
John
ArtKramr
>From: Bob Bidniski Bidi...@nospam.net
>Date: 7/4/02 4:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <0im9iuc8c05ctqdjm...@4ax.com>
>
>On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:26:34 GMT, "John" <sp...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I suppose given enough time, names like Hasselblad, Rolei and even Leica
>>will be sold off just like Argus and Bell & Howell.
>
>
>forget you can easily go digital with a back for most major medium
>format cameras. The top digital backs still blow away the 35mm based
>digital SLRs in quality.
>
.Very true. But I'll bet on Hasselblad to survive over many others. Too many
pros depend on the Blads to make a living. Especially the fashion guys.
Marv Soloff
There was an unfounded and unattributed rumor about six months ago that
Kyocera was taking a good look at Victor Hasselblad AB - but I have no
further news.
Regards,
Marv
ArtKramr
>From: Marv Soloff mso...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 7/4/02 8:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D2512...@worldnet.att.net>
>There was an unfounded and unattributed rumor about six months ago that
>Kyocera was taking a good look at Victor Hasselblad AB - but I have no
>further news.
>
>Regards,
>
>Marv
>
>
>
>
>
>
Keep in touch. (grin)
Godfrey DiGiorgi
extremely good designs that have stood the test of time in their
respective genres. Even as introduced they are fully actualized, quality
performers which have spawned a thousand similar designs because they are
so good. Certainly not perfect ... nothing is ever perfect ... witness the
many detail improvements along the near 50 year history of either of them
... but also witness that the types dominate in their fields and so much
superb photography has been done with them.
The question is really "What is there to improve upon?" with these
cameras. Many things, most likely, and many others have tried with
variable success. Hasselblad's efforts to improve the breed have been
noteworthy, and most of the improvements add features and convenience to
the fray rather than improve the quality of the photos they produce.
Rollei's SLRs in the SL66 vein took one tack to improve, the SLX and its
descendants move in a different tack, the RB/RZ system from Mamiya, SQ
system from Bronica, etc etc all move along in the direction of
improvements with more features, a different mix of things to put at the
photographer's disposal. The basic idiom really is just extremely good and
very adaptable, even to digital capture, so the notion of improvement
really is one of detail improvement, feature support and continued
adoption of modern technologies in manufacture rather than the revolution
that the original design encompassed.
Godfrey
Steve Wolverton
cameras, then go ahead and use 'em. I buy and sell cameras all the time,
but one outfit that will go to my funeral will be my 500C.
-C'mon, it's excellent quality.
-It's retro looks (really in fashion now).
-Interchangeable with most current lenses, backs and accessories.
-Performs like it did 50 years ago (I suppose, I wasn't born yet, but it
operates like new)
-Built like a tank.
-They are great deals. Sure the newer models are pricey.
-There is a certain "confidence" when I take photos with this camera. Maybe
its me, but I don't get in the "zone" when using my wife's $20.00 Wal-Mart
P&S.
-You get respect from other photogs when on location because they recognize
a REAL camera. They actually get out of your way!! Cracks me up!
Some people seem to think that Hassey is just "a name game". What they
don't realize is that they become household names because of the quality,
innovation and longevity of the products. Every manufacturer has a chance
to become a legend. Some do and some don't. What makes the difference is
the things I have listed above.
Bash if you want, but you can't deny a product's pedigree just because you
can't afford/justify/understand the cost/performance ratio.
I love Rollei, Bronica and Leica et al. If something doesn't work like I
want it to, then I find something that does.
Steve
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020704202555...@mb-mj.aol.com...
fotocord
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:49:50 -0400, fotocord <foto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> better >lenses, much better automation etc etc. Next!
>
>
> Faster shutter and better automation, I fully concur. Definitely not
> better lenses. I find the Rollei licensed Zeiss lenses to be sorely
> lacking. A few of the Schneider lenses are excellent though.
And this is different from what I said how?
Most of the 'blad lenses are decades old designs while the rollei's
schneiders are newer, faster and many say the coatings are better.
Add to that the better shutters and improved automation, I'd have to say
they HAVE improved on the 'blad.
--
Stacey
Jeff
from...Fuji! At one point, I owned 4 Hasselblads and a number of lenses,
but now I simply carry a Fuji MF camera with zoom lens-it's a fraction of
the size and weight of the Hasselblad, and it records exposure data on the
edge of the film, so I don't have to jot notes down, and it lets me use
either 120 or 220 film without purchasing any additional hardware. If I use
Fuji film, it scans a barcode printed on the paper backing and correctly
identifies the film type. It even keeps track of how many shots I've taken
with it, so I know when to send it in for maintenance! All this in a camera
which collapses into a compact, flat package when it's powered down. I also
like the look I get from current EBC-Fujinon optics, and evidently,
Hasselblad regards them highly enough to claim them as their own, in the
case of the XPan/Fuji TX-1 ;-)
Speaking of the Xpan, that's likely to be my next "Hasselblad", and this
Leica M owner is really eager to see what Fuji's take on the 35mm RF camera
can do.
Jeff
fotocord
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:47:07 -0400, fotocord <foto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> And this is different from what I said how?
>
> Because not all Rollei lenses are better. In fact, few are, and those
> are Schneider. And Schneider lenses are in the minority in the lineup.
>
I see there is a 40 f3.5, a 50 f2.8, a 55 shift, an 80 f2 normal, a 90 f4
macro, a 120 f4 macro, a 180 f2.8, a 300 f4 all by schneider and they
mostly are faster and newer designs than any of the leaf shutter blad
lenses. This range covers anything most people would ever need.
Maybe the cheaper rollei lenses aren't better but if one has the money,
these seem to be an improvement over the old school zeiss lenses 'blad
offers.
--
Stacey
Joe Schimpanzi
Did someone pick a fight in this newsgroup? Art, while your information
is reflective on a few samples of Rollei lenses, I gotta tell you, you're
speaking in generalities. Not all Rollei made lenses suffer from
decentering problems. I'd bet three donuts it's a damn small percentage,
and you just got lucky (after all, living in Lost Wages is a gamble
everyday).
I've seem examples of slides (not sure of the emulsion) taken with the
Schneider 2/80 on a Rollei 6008i. I've seen them on the same light table as
those taken with an 80mm Hassleblad CFE lens by the same person and the same
emulsion. There is no comparison. The Schneider lens is sharper, better
contrast, it has almost a three dimensional quality to it. However, your
question was has anyone improved upon the design of a Hassleblad? You
answered your own question. Yes, Rollei did. So did Mamyia, Bronica and
Contax. And Yes, the Rollei outpaced them as well.
If you were to do a side by side comparison between a Rollei 6008i and
the Hassleblad 203 FE (a fair comparison) feature for feature, the Rollei
would come out ahead. Why? Because I spent $2,000 less even with the
Schenider 2/80mm lens! My images would be sharper, with better contrast. I
can change a roll of film in about 3 seconds with a preloaded insert. I can
train anyone to load those inserts for me as they are intuitive and straight
forward.. I do not over-stress the film by making it roll back and forth
like a pretzel. I can use an extremely sharp and fast 2.8/180mm lens that
blows the socks off anything offered by Zeiss and Hassleblad. I can drop a
1.4 teleconverter on it and have an 4/250mm lens. If I need something
wider, then I can go to an incredible 2.8/50mm as well. I'll still have
1/1000 of a second, and I really have to ask why I need an additional stop
of shutter speed? I'm not using my Rollei to photograph neutrino
explosions.
So, in order to stop the stupid arguing, a camera, like a spouse is a
personal choice. I have chosen a spouse that is compatible with my needs
and I hope I am able to fulfill hers, same for a camera. I may either envy
or laugh at someone else's choice of spouse, just like their camera. We all
have opinions and a**holes, and opinions like a**holes, all stink. No need
to fight about it.
BTW, all the above was my stinky opinion.
Jim P.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Mxsmanic
20020704145931...@mb-fq.aol.com...
> Is the world waiting for a new brilliant designer
> to move the ball foward, or are we at the end of
> the line in MF SLR's?
Neither. Current camera bodies do their job well; there is no particular
reason or motivation for significant change.
There is an assumption among many--especially those who have had any
dealings with high-tech gadgets--that "improvement" is both desirable and
mandatory for everything. But not everything is "improved" every six
months. Ordinary pencils have been the same for many years. Staplers
haven't changed much, either. Washing machines have undergone only minor
improvements. The same is true for bicycles. Why should cameras be
exceptions to the rule?
Hasselblads, Leicas, and other classic cameras do their simple job well.
They aren't broken, so they don't need fixing.
One thing that surprises me is that many photographers, including seasoned
photographers who should know better, seem to worry more about
"improvements" to camera bodies than lenses. But in reality, if any part of
current camera systems can really justify continuing improvement, it is the
lenses. Lenses are not perfect, and designing and building them is a
continuing attempt to approach perfection. Today's lenses _are_
significantly better than lenses of decades ago, and the improvements
continue, little by little. Making a shutter more accurate isn't going to
have much of an influence on image quality, since exposure is always an
approximation, anyway, but optically improving a lens can make a big
difference. When every lens is a 8-1400 mm zoom diffraction-limited
instrument at every aperture from 0.7 to 32 and weighing no more than 50
grams, then maybe no more improvements will be justifiable, but we still
have a long way to go.
Note that I'm talking about optical and other direct improvements in lenses.
I don't care much about gadgets such as autofocus motors or image
stabilization, nor do I consider them necessary or even desirable in many
cases.
Mxsmanic
smak-3DEA04.2...@allnews.casema.net...
> ... *every* aspect of this camera is better thought-out ...
Then why does it require batteries?
> even small things like the symetrical film-insert,
> the flash-sync contact, and the darkslide. And then
> there's the shutter system, the measuring system,
> the viewfinder, the motordrive, the lens-bayonet, the
> aperture setting, the battery system, and I can go
> on and on.
You could, but since none of these things affects the final image quality,
why bother?
> Literally *everything* is better.
You seem to have forgotten the lenses. You know ... the part that actually
makes the photograph.
> It's not the fifties anymore... why cope with
> the small viewfinder, crappy film-loading,
> incredibly slow motordrives, no-return mirrors,
> aperture setting in 1/2 stops, having to
> hold the shutter button at long speeds, no
> long shutter speeds, etc etc etc.?
Because many photographers are more interested in taking pictures than they
are in their equipment?
My cameras have nice lenses and take great pictures. Beyond that, I really
don't care how "advanced" they are, as long as they are reliable. I suppose
the things you mention are somehow disadvantages in some way, but,
strangely, I've never given them much thought. I'm too busy taking pictures
with the camera, I guess.
Mxsmanic
ag2haq$ch4$1...@post.cis.smu.edu...
> thoughts?
Why don't you just jump off a cliff and end your misery before your
end-of-the-world predictions come true?
Mxsmanic
3D2512...@worldnet.att.net...
> There was an unfounded and unattributed rumor
> about six months ago that Kyocera was taking a
> good look at Victor Hasselblad AB - but I have no
> further news.
If it was unfounded and unattributed, and you have no further news, why
mention it at all?
There was an unfounded and unattributed rumor that Mattel was taking a good
look at Kodak, but I have no further news.
FOR7
>The Rollei 6000 is way above a blad in performance. Faster shutter, better
>lenses,
And I'd challenge you to spot a difference in lens quality. I'll throw my Fuji
GA645 in there just to make it interesting. Crop the 6x6 to 645 and you'll
never be able to tell which is which. My point is that at that level of lenses
it isn't even worth comparing.
> much better automation etc etc. Next!
>
>We realize you must make your equipment choice the best,
>but try to find another venue to beat on your chest..
>
>--
>
> Stacey
>
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Mxsmanic
ag3boq$i8utp$2...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
> Most of the 'blad lenses are decades old
> designs while the rollei's schneiders are
> newer, faster and many say the coatings
> are better.
An old design isn't necessarily a bad design.
> Add to that the better shutters and improved
> automation, I'd have to say they HAVE
> improved on the 'blad.
Then you should be able to consistently distinguish between images taken
with a Rollei and images taken with a Hasselblad in a double-blind test.
Ever tried it?
Mxsmanic
> Maybe the cheaper rollei lenses aren't better
> but if one has the money, these seem to be an
> improvement over the old school zeiss lenses
> 'blad offers.
They _seem_ to be improvements? So you don't really know? What makes you
say so, then?
Mxsmanic
de news: 3d254...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> I've seem examples of slides (not sure of the emulsion)
> taken with the Schneider 2/80 on a Rollei 6008i. I've
> seen them on the same light table as those taken with
> an 80mm Hassleblad CFE lens by the same person and the
> same emulsion. There is no comparison.
Try a double-blind test instead.
> The Schneider lens is sharper, better contrast, it has
> almost a three dimensional quality to it.
Indeed? I thought the "Leica glow" was patented.
> If you were to do a side by side comparison between
> a Rollei 6008i and the Hassleblad 203 FE (a fair
> comparison) feature for feature, the Rollei
> would come out ahead. Why? Because I spent $2,000
> less even with the Schenider 2/80mm lens!
Ah ... so I suppose it would be impolite to suggest a comparison between
either of these cameras and a Kiev at this point? I wonder who would win
then, after adjusting for price as you suggest?
I don't see why a 6008i and a 203FE is a "fair" comparison. For someone who
has no need of automation, it's a pretty biased comparison, in fact. The
501CM kit I got was _less_ expensive than the nearest Rollei equivalent for
my purposes.
> My images would be sharper, with better contrast.
Nobody would be able to see this in a double-blind test.
> I can change a roll of film in about 3 seconds
> with a preloaded insert.
A tremendous advantage when you are working on a tripod at night and
spending 20 minutes just spot metering to determine the ideal exposure, for
one or two shots.
> I'll still have 1/1000 of a second, and I really
> have to ask why I need an additional stop
> of shutter speed?
I really have to ask why I need any of this automation and gadgetry.
> So, in order to stop the stupid arguing, a camera,
> like a spouse is a personal choice.
I agree. And while the characteristics you cite seem to reinforce your
opinion that Rollei is the better choice, at the same time they reassure me
that my choice of Hasselblad was more appropriate for me.
mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com
> "Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> ... *every* aspect of this camera is better thought-out ...
> Then why does it require batteries?
Probably because they thought that the additional features made possible
by the electronics would appeal to more buyers than battery-independence
(which is, after all, something that many people do fine without.) And
the added complexity (and price!) for having both would be too high.
They just reached a different conclusion than you. Clearly you aren't in
their intended market segment. ;-) (as it happens, I do find value in
battery-independence too, but I can still see the other side of that.)
>> even small things like the symetrical film-insert,
.............................
>> aperture setting, the battery system, and I can go
>> on and on.
> You could, but since none of these things affects the final image quality,
> why bother?
As long as they affect the user's ability to cope with the situation at
hand, they are of non-zero importance. Sure, may not be that important
either but ... somewhere there may be the critical difference of getting
the shot or not.
And then there's the convenience factor.
> My cameras have nice lenses and take great pictures. Beyond that, I really
> don't care how "advanced" they are, as long as they are reliable. I suppose
> the things you mention are somehow disadvantages in some way, but,
> strangely, I've never given them much thought. I'm too busy taking pictures
> with the camera, I guess.
Some people do consider a manual transmission in a car to be a
disadvantage, too, as opposed to automatic. I do just fine with the
manual - but my aunt certainly doesn't.
--
Mikko Nahkola <mikko....@nokia.com>
My ideas, not my employer's. No warranty. YMMV.
#include <disclaimer.h>
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/5/02 12:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3d254...@news1.uncensored-news.com>
> Did someone pick a fight in this newsgroup? Art, while your
I didn't pick a fight. I just asked a question and made a few coments. What
are you getting so excited about? (:->).
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/5/02 2:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MZdV8.549820$Gs.36...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com
>ne thing that surprises me is that many photographers, including seasoned
>photographers who should know better, seem to worry more about
>"improvements" to camera bodies than lenses. But in reality, if any
It is called simple wish fullfillment.
Joe Schimpanzi
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ufeV8.40553$vq.18...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
thing....
Joe Schimpanzi
>
> > The Schneider lens is sharper, better contrast, it has
> > almost a three dimensional quality to it.
>
> Indeed? I thought the "Leica glow" was patented.
Nope.
>
> > If you were to do a side by side comparison between
> > a Rollei 6008i and the Hassleblad 203 FE (a fair
> > comparison) feature for feature, the Rollei
> > would come out ahead. Why? Because I spent $2,000
> > less even with the Schenider 2/80mm lens!
>
> Ah ... so I suppose it would be impolite to suggest a comparison between
> either of these cameras and a Kiev at this point? I wonder who would win
> then, after adjusting for price as you suggest?
>
> I don't see why a 6008i and a 203FE is a "fair" comparison. For someone
who
> has no need of automation, it's a pretty biased comparison, in fact. The
> 501CM kit I got was _less_ expensive than the nearest Rollei equivalent
for
> my purposes.
On levels of automation and features. Try running a reality check. Your
asking me to compare a completely mechanical camera with a fully electronic
one. Kinda like comparing an Eimac computer with the computer yout wrote
your E-Mail on. They are both computers, but that's where the similarity
ends.
>
> > My images would be sharper, with better contrast.
>
> Nobody would be able to see this in a double-blind test.
Wrong. Oh so wrong. Just because you have not performed the test
yourself??? I have seem images and not knowing what camea it was picked the
slide from the Rollei and Schneider 2/80mm thinking it was a Hassleblad.
So, I to was wrong, but never again.
>
> > I can change a roll of film in about 3 seconds
> > with a preloaded insert.
>
> A tremendous advantage when you are working on a tripod at night and
> spending 20 minutes just spot metering to determine the ideal exposure,
for
> one or two shots.
You must be showing your skills in this one. Just how many spots are you
taking for that exposure. Besides, I'm talking about changing the film, not
spot metering in the middle of the dark..... Stay on the theme.......
>
> > I'll still have 1/1000 of a second, and I really
> > have to ask why I need an additional stop
> > of shutter speed?
>
> I really have to ask why I need any of this automation and gadgetry.
Like I said, it's all personal preference. Why would someone want to own a
Mercedes when a Ford Pinto gets you around just as easily. Almost said
"...as well" instead of "...as easily" but that would be wrong wouldn't it?
>
> > So, in order to stop the stupid arguing, a camera,
> > like a spouse is a personal choice.
>
> I agree. And while the characteristics you cite seem to reinforce your
> opinion that Rollei is the better choice, at the same time they reassure
me
> that my choice of Hasselblad was more appropriate for me.
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Joe Schimpanzi
>
> I don't see why a 6008i and a 203FE is a "fair" comparison. For someone
who
> has no need of automation, it's a pretty biased comparison, in fact. The
> 501CM kit I got was _less_ expensive than the nearest Rollei equivalent
for
> my purposes.
>
Just to give you an update. The price for a Hasselblad 503 CW as quoted to
me from B&H via E-Mail 5 minutes ago is:
Thank you for shopping at B&H Photo Video
Our current selling price for the:
Hasselblad - 501CM Medium Format SLR Camera Kit (Black) with Folding
Waist Level Viewfinder, Split-Image Focusing Screen, A12 (120) Film
Back and 80mm f/2.8 CFE Lens
is $3,085.00
The price on the B&H web page for a Rollei 6008I with the 80 mm 2.8 EL
(1/500) lens, 120 back, W/L finder, Battery, Charger, Split Screen Finder is
only $2,999.99.
Major savings with the Rollei? No, but your facts are way off the mark.
Need good aim to shoot anything.... This is a comparison of the top of the
line Rollei with the bottom of the line Hasselblad. That's why I didn't
make this comparison from the onset.
I'm in the habit of comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I
suggested the comparison between the 6008I and the 203FE based upon
features. Not your needs of features. Not my needs of features.
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/5/02 7:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <t8cbiu0ojvdavqgl3...@4ax.com>
>
>On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 02:53:23 -0400, fotocord <foto...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I see there is a 40 f3.5, a 50 f2.8, a 55 shift, an 80 f2 normal, a 90 f4
>>macro, a 120 f4 macro, a 180 f2.8, a 300 f4 all by schneider and they
>>mostly are faster and newer designs than any of the leaf shutter blad
>>lenses. This range covers anything most people would ever need.
>
>
>is the only Schneider that is better than the Zeiss, and its marginal.
How many samples of Zeiss vs Schneider does that conclusion represent?
Andrew Koenig
Robert> know? ;-0) Seriously. Medium format sales are off 50% in major
Robert> markets, they have collapsed 35%+ in Japan, and small
Robert> companies like Hasselblad and Rolleiflex don't have the deep
Robert> pockets to make it thru a long recession.
Small companies like Rolleiflex? I thought Rollei was a subsidiary
of Samsung. Or did they sell it?
--
Andrew Koenig, a...@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Joe Schimpanzi
A Camera is a tool. It does not take great pictures, the person
controlling the camera does. Or are you saying I could give your camera to
an ape and it would still take great pictures? Your nice lenses are shared
by both the Rollei and the 'Blad. I have to tell you, the Rollei has a
distinct advantage because it also offer Schneider lenses. A significant
level of choice here. BTW, just a question, what lens do you use on your
enlarger (if you own one)?
As a camera will only make the exposure, recording the image you have
chosen on the film loaded into it, the camera must lend itself to intuitive,
efficient and precise handling. It must be transparent to the photographer.
It must be capable of doing what the photographer wishes. If it cannot do
just that, then it is a hindrance upon the skills of the craftsman using it.
I am not saying the Hasselblad camera is not a wonderful tool. I am not
saying the lenses used by the Hasselblad are not equally as good as the body
itself. I only ask that you do not fall victim to the hyperbole of your
passion and disregard everyone else's opinion because it does not agree with
yours. I further ask you to stay honest and precise. We cannot further our
understanding of the vagarities and differences with the multitude of
products offered with wild, half accurate statements like you have filled
this discussion with. Please see the other post I've made to yours.
You don't have another handle on the newsgroups, do you? Something like
Cornholio?
Joe Schimpanzi
Now for the Schneider lenses, that's a different story...... Can't get a
Schneider 2.8/50mm in a mount for a 'Blad can you?
Joe Schimpanzi
> "ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 20020704145931...@mb-fq.aol.com...
>
> > Is the world waiting for a new brilliant designer
> > to move the ball foward, or are we at the end of
> > the line in MF SLR's?
>
> Neither. Current camera bodies do their job well; there is no particular
> reason or motivation for significant change.
>
> There is an assumption among many--especially those who have had any
> dealings with high-tech gadgets--that "improvement" is both desirable and
> mandatory for everything. But not everything is "improved" every six
> months. Ordinary pencils have been the same for many years. Staplers
> haven't changed much, either. Washing machines have undergone only minor
> improvements. The same is true for bicycles. Why should cameras be
> exceptions to the rule?
>
I guess you've never seem a mechanical, refillable pencil, have you. Wait,
I seem to remember a new type of bicycle called a mountain bike. Ever
heard of it? Something you didn't mention was Ski's. But then again, no
need for improvement there. Or wait yet again, what's those things called
Carving Skis?
> Hasselblads, Leicas, and other classic cameras do their simple job well.
> They aren't broken, so they don't need fixing.
Don't tell that to Lecia with their new M7 (electronic and dependent upon a
battery). They've placed alot of thought and pride into it.
>
> One thing that surprises me is that many photographers, including seasoned
> photographers who should know better, seem to worry more about
> "improvements" to camera bodies than lenses. But in reality, if any part
of
> current camera systems can really justify continuing improvement, it is
the
> lenses. Lenses are not perfect, and designing and building them is a
> continuing attempt to approach perfection. Today's lenses _are_
> significantly better than lenses of decades ago, and the improvements
> continue, little by little. Making a shutter more accurate isn't going to
> have much of an influence on image quality, since exposure is always an
> approximation, anyway, but optically improving a lens can make a big
> difference. When every lens is a 8-1400 mm zoom diffraction-limited
> instrument at every aperture from 0.7 to 32 and weighing no more than 50
> grams, then maybe no more improvements will be justifiable, but we still
> have a long way to go.
What, and accurate shutter isn't going to improve the image quality? Just
what are you smoking? If I use a handheld meter and read a certain
speed/stop combination for my scene, I would certainly like to know my
shutter is going to give me the exposure I want. And a 50 gram 175X Zoom
lens, you gotta be smoking something....
>
> Note that I'm talking about optical and other direct improvements in
lenses.
> I don't care much about gadgets such as autofocus motors or image
> stabilization, nor do I consider them necessary or even desirable in many
> cases.
>
>
Your opinion. I kinda like technology. It has brought us such improvements
as the Air Bag, the Laser, Computers and the means where we share ideas on
the Internet. However, I long ago accepted that technology takes small
steps and not the quantum leap you're suggestions or wishing for. Get real.
I guess you also think digital photography is for the birds....
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <28dbiugvp2cj69l3k...@4ax.com>
>
>On 5 Jul 2002 15:07:32 +0100, "Joe Schimpanzi"
><JoeSch...@Monkeybusiness.com> wrote:
>
>>. Kinda like comparing an Eimac computer with the computer yout wrote
>>your E-Mail on. They are both computers, but that's where the similarity
>>ends.
>
>
>the image you capture. In the end, the only thing that makes a
>difference in this regard is the lens, not the body.
Well, not exactly. Let's take a body that fuils to hold the film flat, has the
mirror and the groundglass out of position and an inaccurate shutter. In a case
like this the lens becomes irrelavant and it is the body that is determining
the quality or lack thereof, not the lens. But in the end, both body and lens
are equally important.
Bob
a...@research.att.com wrote on 7/5/02 10:48 AM:
> I thought Rollei was a subsidiary
> of Samsung. Or did they sell it?
Quite a while ago = time flies
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <quebiucid2j9qdv6l...@4ax.com>
>There are
>probably as many people who see automation as a hindrance to
>dependability as there are who like it. Schneider lenses are very
>good, but so are Zeiss. You won't get 100 percent agreement that
>Schneider lenses are superior, so thats also a subjective statement.
>
Yes, Schneider lenses are excellant. But after having tested hundred of
lenses over many years under both lab conditions and shooting I have reached
the conclusion that Zeiss applies slightly stricter quality controls than
Shneider. Not by a lot. But the difference is there. While bad samples of
either are rere, the QC edge goes to Zeiss. And having said that I must admit
that I have more Schneider lenses than Zeiss lenses.
ArtKramr
>From: Bob bobsa...@mindspring.com
>Date: 7/5/02 8:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <B94B2E21.191A3%bobsa...@mindspring.com>
>Quite a while ago = time flies
>HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
>CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
>Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
>Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
>protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
I see you got Rodenstock back into the line up. Good thinking (grin) BTW, what
is Bert Keppler doing these day? I see he has left POP and turned the mag over
to Jason. Good man Jason. Any news re: Bert would be appreciated.
Bob
artk...@aol.com wrote on 7/5/02 11:50 AM:
Thought he was still with Pop. I have to talk to Sint on Monday so I'll ask.
Ed Myers called last week and I didn;t think to ask him.
Stan Randle
> what is Bert Keppler doing these day? I see he has left POP and turned the
> mag over to Jason.
You never seem to tire of being wrong, do you? First you claim that the
current editor of PP never worked at MP (when he was there for over 7
years, wrote articles for the mag and was on the masthead), and now you
seemingly cannot even read a simple table Of Contents to see that
Keppler is still at PP.
Go take a nap, Arse.
ArtKramr
>From: Bob bobsa...@mindspring.com
>Message-id: <B94B3BE2.191D6%bobsa...@mindspring.com>
Thanks Bob. Give my regards to Sint and Ed Meyers. Seems like that old Modern
crowd goes on forever. Lemme know about Bert.( :->)
Stan Randle
> >> what is Bert Keppler doing these day? I see he has left POP
> >>
> >Thought he was still with Pop.
>
> Thanks Bob. Seems like that old Modern crowd goes on forever.
Translation: you had your head up your ass again.
fotocord
> On 5 Jul 2002 16:14:29 +0100, "Joe Schimpanzi"
> <JoeSch...@Monkeybusiness.com> wrote:
>
>>Now for the Schneider lenses, that's a different story...... Can't get a
>>Schneider 2.8/50mm in a mount for a 'Blad can you?
>
>
> No, but you can get a Zeiss. Whats your point?
Not in a leaf shutter and also no 180 f2.8
All I was comenting on was Rollei seems to be advancing further than 'blad
has as far as new modern optics and mechanicals while 'blad seems to be
moving forward at a slower pace. Isn't that what the topic of this thread
is about? I don't care for automation/electronics but I do like using fast
optics like a 180 f2.8 and is one reason I'm not interested in a 500 series
blad or a 6000 series rollei.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> "fotocord" <foto...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> ag3boq$i8utp$2...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
>
>> Most of the 'blad lenses are decades old
>> designs while the rollei's schneiders are
>> newer, faster and many say the coatings
>> are better.
>
> An old design isn't necessarily a bad design.
No doubt but the topic of the thread is asking this question.
>
>> Add to that the better shutters and improved
>> automation, I'd have to say they HAVE
>> improved on the 'blad.
>
> Then you should be able to consistently distinguish between images taken
> with a Rollei and images taken with a Hasselblad in a double-blind test.
> Ever tried it?
Not between a Rollei 6000 and a 'blad but since I (and three of my
photographer friends) can see no difference in between the east german CZJ
lenses on my kiev and a 'blad I borrowed (other than the V thing) I'd be
amazed if anyone else could see a difference either. Well they did notice
the 1800 f2.8 sonnar makes a better portrait than the 150mm f4 blad lens
does 8-)
The main difference is the user interface and the faster more accurate
electronic leaf shutters that is better. This is an improvement anyone can
see over the older 'blad designs. Whether you like these "improvements" or
not is a personal issue and I wouldn't find them to be that useful myself
but that doesn't make it any less of an advance in technology.
--
Stacey
fotocord
>>
>>The Rollei 6000 is way above a blad in performance. Faster shutter,
>>better lenses,
>
> And I'd challenge you to spot a difference in lens quality. I'll throw my
> Fuji GA645 in there just to make it interesting. Crop the 6x6 to 645 and
> you'll never be able to tell which is which. My point is that at that
> level of lenses it isn't even worth comparing.
>
Well now the "blad lovers" are claiming the rollei lenses are junk. Are you
going to chalenge them as well? I agree and I'll toss my commie lenses into
the mix and bet you'd never be able to pick out consistantly which is
which, especially the CZJ samples.
By "better" I meant, in their leaf shutter line, they have faster optics
like a 180mm f2.8. This is a higher performance lens.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> On 5 Jul 2002 15:07:32 +0100, "Joe Schimpanzi"
> <JoeSch...@Monkeybusiness.com> wrote:
>
>>. Kinda like comparing an Eimac computer with the computer yout wrote
>>your E-Mail on. They are both computers, but that's where the similarity
>>ends.
>
>
> Thats an absurd analogy. In the end, the only thing that matters is
> the image you capture. In the end, the only thing that makes a
> difference in this regard is the lens, not the body.
Please. If this is all that mattered, why do people here TOTALLY trash
anyone who uses a Kiev? My camera will produce really fine images that most
people couldn't distiguish from one done on a $5000 rollei.
What seems to matter to some people here is bragging about the expencive
gear they have purchased.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> On 5 Jul 2002 15:27:36 +0100, "Joe Schimpanzi"
> <JoeSch...@Monkeybusiness.com> wrote:
>
>>ajor savings with the Rollei? No, but your facts are way off the mark.
>>Need good aim to shoot anything.... This is a comparison of the top of
>>the
>>line Rollei with the bottom of the line Hasselblad. That's why I didn't
>>make this comparison from the onset.
>
>
> But again its all about the body, not the lens. You're comparing a
> cheapo Rollei built *licensed* lens to a top of the line Zeiss made
> CFE lens. Try comparing the price of a 6008 with a Rollei 80 PQ (which
> still isn't made by Zeiss), and you'll be closer, but still not apples
> to apples.
A minute ago people are talking about doing these "blind test" and that no
one could see the difference between a optically better schneider lens and
a 'blad zeiss yet now all of a sudden we would all be able to see the
difference in this one?
BS
--
Stacey
fotocord
>>Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
>>From: "Joe Schimpanzi" JoeSch...@Monkeybusiness.com
>>Date: 7/5/02 12:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3d254...@news1.uncensored-news.com>
>
>> Did someone pick a fight in this newsgroup? Art, while your
>
>
> I didn't pick a fight. I just asked a question and made a few coments.
> What are you getting so excited about? (:->).
>
No you save the fight picking for your post today.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> Making a shutter more accurate isn't going to
> have much of an influence on image quality,
LOL
--
Stacey
Stan Randle
> >Translation: you had your head up your ass again.
>
>
> He has to have it somewhere
Yes, but it's a shame he has to continually demonstrate his ignorance
over and over again. It's rather sad that he makes grand proclamations
only to have them shown to be wrong, yet he childishly cannot admit to
ever actually being wrong. He can't even read a simple table of
contents, instead choosing to smear PP when it merely highlights his
cluelessness and self-described "bitterness" with the mag.
Stan Randle
> >Yes, but it's a shame he has to continually demonstrate his ignorance
> >over and over again.
>
>
> Ok, so you've established that you feel that way. Why not let it go
I'll be happy to reflect on any lies or demonstration of cluelessness or
arrogance when it occurs. If you don't like it, tough -- learn to use a
filter yourself.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Well, I have used both systems extensively, and in my experience the
> sharpness is the same, but the HFT coating is actually a bit better than
> T*, resulting in better contrast-rendering, and less flare.
Hey! You're very good!
May i quote Zeiss' dr. Kornelius J. Fleischer?
"HFT is a multi-layer-anti-reflex-coating system co-developed by Zeiss and
Rollei during a time, when T* coating could be applied only at the Zeiss
plants to small lens production batches, but Rollei wanted to produce lenses
in their Singapore plant in large batches to gain economies of scale. This
was decades ago. Today the situation is this: HFT is a Rollei trademark for
their multi-layer coating. The performance of this Zeiss/Rollei development
is so close to the performance of T* that I cannot detect a difference in
practical testing at the Zeiss application department.
As you might know already, four lenses of Rollei's medium format SLR range
are manufactured by Rollei under Zeiss license. They don't bear the name
"Zeiss" anywhere on the product. They are treated with Rollei HFT by Rollei.
The Zeiss lenses of the Rollei 6000 system, manufactured at the Zeiss
Oberkochen plant, are coated by Zeiss with - guess what - T* coating! Just
the designation says "HFT" to keep them in line with all the other optics in
the Rollei 6000 system."
Even the people producing the stuff can't see a difference.
And sometimes the only difference at all is in the name they put on the
lens.
But still: i'm impressed by your skills of perception.
Very much so! ;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> Neither. Current camera bodies do their job well; there is no particular
> reason or motivation for significant change.
>
> There is an assumption among many--especially those who have had any
> dealings with high-tech gadgets--that "improvement" is both desirable and
> mandatory for everything. But not everything is "improved" every six
> months. Ordinary pencils have been the same for many years. Staplers
> haven't changed much, either. Washing machines have undergone only minor
> improvements. The same is true for bicycles. Why should cameras be
> exceptions to the rule?
>
> Hasselblads, Leicas, and other classic cameras do their simple job well.
> They aren't broken, so they don't need fixing.
Well said!
Q.G. de Bakker
> I guess you've never seem a mechanical, refillable pencil, have you.
Do they write better? Is filling them easier than sharpening an 'old
fashioned' pencil? Etc.
> [...]
> What, and accurate shutter isn't going to improve the image quality? Just
> what are you smoking? If I use a handheld meter and read a certain
> speed/stop combination for my scene, I would certainly like to know my
> shutter is going to give me the exposure I want. And a 50 gram 175X Zoom
> lens, you gotta be smoking something....
You know, accurate shutters have been with us for, what, half a century?
Even longer?
You're not saying you're still waiting for these to make their first
appearance, are you? ;-)
> Your opinion. I kinda like technology. It has brought us such
improvements
> as the Air Bag, the Laser, Computers and the means where we share ideas on
> the Internet.
None of these are features that would improve photography, are they?
Some technology has reached the end of the line. It does all it needs to do
and do it well. Asking for further improvements only resulted in the
gadgetmania we are in since the late seventies, early eighties.
I would like a digital clock somewhere on my cameras, though, so i know when
it's time to stop work... And it would be nice if it could tell the
temperature too. Good for developing Polaroids. Hmm... And if that clock
could be linked to a data imprinting system, all the better!
But wait, why not make it a GPS too! Wow, would love that! Never get lost
again... And while we're at it, a GSM would be a quite handy thing too...
Give it internet access too... Now we're getting somewhere... Would need a
display and some sort of input device too... Why not? ... And how about the
kitchen sink? What? Best place for that is in the kitchen? Why's that?
> However, I long ago accepted that technology takes small
> steps and not the quantum leap you're suggestions or wishing for. Get
real.
> I guess you also think digital photography is for the birds....
Pssst! Just between you and me. A quantum leap is the smallest (!!!)
possible transition between two states. ;-)
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/5/02 11:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <smak-7A5DD6.2...@allnews.casema.net>
>well, the original message was one about camera design moving forward,
>and I was mentioning some things that Rollei has improved on compared
>with Hasselblad, and in short, that's basically everything.
When I originally started this thread I had something else in mind. The point I
made was that the Blad was a totally new concept that brought together modular
advantages on lenses, backs, finders, and that had never existed before, My
question was would there be, down the road, another startling new design
concept that lept forward from all others just as the Blad had? But we miust
admit that just about all the 6x6 SLR MF cameras are direct descendants of
the Blads, and that includes the Rolleis. Rollei makes good stuff with many
advanced features, but it hasn't moved into a whole new design concept as the
Blad had originally .Unfortunately this thread has been concerned with small
changes and improvements in detail, not new concepts as I hoped it would. But I
am glad you like the Rollei. It is a fine camera.
ArtKramr
>From: Lourens Smak sm...@wanadoo.nl
>Date: 7/5/02 12:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <smak-76B0D1.2...@allnews.casema.net>
>
>In article <20020704202555...@mb-mj.aol.com>,
> artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> .Very true. But I'll bet on Hasselblad to survive over many others. Too
>many
>> pros depend on the Blads to make a living. Especially the fashion guys.
>
>Hate to correct you, but the fashion guys practically all use Pentax
>67... (talk about a system with good optics...) This is true for the
>last decade or so I guess. Check it out when you're in Miami again.
>
>;-)
>Lourens
>
My frame of reference is more New York than Miami. Are there fashion
photgraphers in MIami? (:->)
ArtKramr
>From: "Q.G. de Bakker" q...@worldonline.nl
>Date: 7/5/02 11:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ag4qae$1e7$2...@reader1.tiscali.nl>
>but Rollei wanted to produce lenses
>in their Singapore plant in large batches to gain economies of scale. This
Producing precision lenses in large batches to gain economy of scale is a
dicey game when you are out to produce the best lenses without compromise.
Large batches is in itself compromise.
Stan Randle
> >I'll be happy to reflect on any lies or demonstration of cluelessness or
> >arrogance when it occurs. If you don't like it, tough -- learn to use a
> >filter yourself.
>
>
>
> Stan, let me put it simple terms. No cares but you.
Funny how you claim not to care but reply to every single post of mine.
If you really didn't care you'd pass my posts by, as you do most other
posts here. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that you are
either lying to me ... or to yourself.
Q.G. de Bakker
> I'll be happy to reflect on any lies or demonstration of cluelessness or
> arrogance when it occurs.
Hmm.... Feeling reflective?
Q.G. de Bakker
> is that really such a big problem? And, at least you can charge the
> Rollei batteries out of the camera, instead of having to use your ELM as
> the charger too. That is something that really sucks...and then the
> charging itself takes several hours...that sucks even more. No wonder
> they changed to AA batteries.
Where have you been hiding? ;-)
A compartment to charge the EL's battery was available since 1967, was
dropped in 1977 and reappeared in another shape in 1981, and was available
until they changed the battery configuration to AA batteries.
From 1965 to 1975 you could also buy a battery case that allowed you to
recharge the camera battery using regular 'D' type batteries. No need to
find a power outlet, or plug and voltage adapter when travelling. ;-)
Charging the EL's battery does take a few hours. True.
FOR7
>Well now the "blad lovers" are claiming the rollei lenses are junk. Are you
>going to chalenge them as well? I agree and I'll toss my commie lenses into
>the mix and bet you'd never be able to pick out consistantly which is
>which, especially the CZJ samples.
>
>By "better" I meant, in their leaf shutter line, they have faster optics
>like a 180mm f2.8. This is a higher performance lens.
>--
>
> Stacey
Well then now you are better understood. Just saying something is better
doesn't amount to much.
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Stan Randle
Lately yes, in the light of Art's lies, arrogance, ignorance and
cluelessness.
FOR7
>Please. If this is all that mattered, why do people here TOTALLY trash
>anyone who uses a Kiev? My camera will produce really fine images that most
>people couldn't distiguish from one done on a $5000 rollei.
>
>What seems to matter to some people here is bragging about the expencive
>gear they have purchased.
>
>--
>
> Stacey
>
So let them brag. As long as you are happy with your pictures why worry about
defending inexpensive cameras so much.
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Bob
q...@worldonline.nl wrote on 7/5/02 2:27 PM:
> but Rollei wanted to produce lenses
> in their Singapore plant in large batches to gain economies of scale.
Singapore never made MF products. They made 35mm, 110, flash and slide
projectors. 2 1/4 production remained in Braunschweig.
You or who ever you quoted had best try to find a non German produced Rollei
branded Zeiss or Schneider badged 6000 or SL66 lens.
Japanese yes, those were for the 6002.
Stan Randle
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:25:05 GMT, stanm...@hotmail.com (Stan
> Randle) wrote:
>
>
> >Funny how you claim not to care but reply to every single post of mine.
> >If you really didn't care you'd pass my posts by, as you do most other
> >posts here.
>
>
> No one cares about your "issues" with Art or otherwise.
But you do, despite claiming repeatedly not to, despite urging me to
ignore him when you refuse to follow your own advice wrt me. That just
shows you to be a hypocrite.
> > Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that you are
> >either lying to me ... or to yourself.
>
>
> It can only be concluded that you are a moron.
funny how I point out the inconsistency in your not following your own
advice, and your only reply is the one I quote above. Seems like you're
the only with less than average intelligence if you cannot see your own
illogic even when it is pointed out to you. now, why don't you follow
your OWN advice and learn to use a filter -- could it be that you're too
immature to do so, or that you actually agree with my own refusal to
agree to your suggestion? Either way it makes you look more and more
like a boob.
Gordon Moat
This is indeed an interesting new development, though using many old principles.
The other developments recently have been the Bronica RF645, and the Mamiya 6 and
7 series rangefinders. It would be interesting to hear your opinions about these
as well, sine they are new iterations of old concepts.
It seems that the safer choice for camera manufacturers is an evolution of design.
Unusual glass shapes, and computer aided design have refined some cameras, but it
would be risky for a company to try a revolutionary design, except perhaps on a
small scale.
There do seem to have been great improvements in lighting gear. The durability and
portability of some newer lighting systems greatly improve on older gear.
Enhancement in portable lighting have created some newer shooting opportunities
for some. All nice developments.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Stan Randle
> >I'll be happy to reflect on any lies or demonstration of cluelessness or
> >arrogance when it occurs
>
>
> Are you kidding?
You're not smart enough to know by now? Poor little guy.
Stan Randle
> > Seems like you're the only with less than average
> > intelligence if you cannot see your own illogic even
> > when it is pointed out to you. now, why don't you
> > follow your OWN advice and learn to use a filter --
> > could it be that you're too immature to do so, or
> > that you actually agree with my own refusal to agree
> > to your suggestion? Either way it makes you look
> > more and more like a boob.
>
> what a dipshit.
You surely appear to be that.
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/5/02 12:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D25F770...@attglobal.net>
Designers are constantly probing for niches in the market.Changes are always
taking place to a greater or lesser degree. But these are in most cases just
changes, not dramatic departures. The Blad has been around for so long that it
has become part of the landscape and people forget what a revolution it was
when it first appeared. I see nothing like that down the pike right now. But I
think that one way we will know when a great new camera system appears, KIEV
will copy it. (:->)
Stan Randle
> Welcome to my killfile.
I suspect you plan to initiate the return of one of your other aliases
pop up to continue your idiotic charade... "Justin." But for using
abusive language, I have already forwarded three of your posts to
abuse@giganews and have already gotten a reply from someone there that
they will put you (and your alias accounts) on watch.
Let's see if you really do stop posting to me. Your past history suggest
not, but we'll see.
Mail Delivery Subsystem
stanm...@hotmail.com says...
>Bob Bidniski <Bidi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>I suspect you plan to initiate the return of one of your other aliases
>pop up to continue your idiotic charade... "Justin." But for using
>abusive language, I have already forwarded three of your posts to
>abuse@giganews and have already gotten a reply from someone there that
>they will put you (and your alias accounts) on watch.
ha ha! This is rich. You expect a for pay news service to put one of their
customers on watch because some whiny troll complains? You are a piece of
work.
>Let's see if you really do stop posting to me. Your past history suggest
>not, but we'll see.
Lets see if you can get a life. This is the internet pal. If you don't like
the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Mail Delivery Subsystem
stanm...@hotmail.com says...
>
>Bob Bidniski <Bidi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>abusive language, I have already forwarded three of your posts to
>abuse@giganews and have already gotten a reply from someone there that
>they will put you (and your alias accounts) on watch.
By the way, prove it. Post their response including headers. We all know it
won't happen. You will have some excuse for it.
Mail Delivery Subsystem
says...
>hmm..as I said before, If you can't think of anything that could be
>improved, you're not using your camera enough.
Ok,lets apply that logic. What can be improved on your Rollei?
fotocord
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:04:12 -0400, fotocord <foto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>By "better" I meant, in their leaf shutter line, they have faster optics
>>like a 180mm f2.8. This is a higher performance lens.
>
>
> Again subjective. Faster than the Zeiss, yes. Better is relative and
> subjective. Photodo gives the Schneider an MTF score of 3.3, and 3.7
> to the Hasselblad/Zeiss.
Who said "sharpness" pr MTF scores is the ranking of a good lens? Having
the narrow DOF that a f2.8 has is much more important.
I thought only the 35mm autofocus guys believed all that Photodo stuff?
--
Stacey
fotocord
Actually I don't defend them too much, I want to keep the prices low 8-)
--
Stacey
fotocord
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:50:52 GMT, Lourens Smak <sm...@wanadoo.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
>>is that really such a big problem?
>
>
> Yes, it is. Nothing worse than trying to get through a shoot and your
> battery fails, and you're shit out of luck.
Funny how the same people here praising 'blads for having no batteries use
electronic 35mm cameras. Of did manic forget he uses an F5?
--
Stacey
fotocord
> "Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
> smak-3DEA04.2...@allnews.casema.net...
>
>> ... *every* aspect of this camera is better thought-out ...
>
> Then why does it require batteries?
>
For the same reasons that the Nikon F5 you rant and rave about requires
them.
Remember explaining to me how important all those fancy metering modes are?
And how not having them could cause you to miss important shots and why you
couldn't use Medformat for those types of shots? Ever consider maybe if you
had done some research instead of using the reason that "Most pro's use a
'blad" as you reasoning, you'd have found that a rollei 6000 would have
worked better for your needs?
--
Stacey
fotocord
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:14:48 -0400, fotocord <foto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A minute ago people are talking about doing these "blind test" and that no
>>one could see the difference between a optically better schneider lens and
>>a 'blad zeiss yet now all of a sudden we would all be able to see the
>>difference in this one?
>
>
> Did I say anything about image quality? Did I say anything about blind
> tests? Nope, not me. But if you're going to compare price, compare
> apples to apples.
Then compare the rollei to a 203.
--
Stacey
Mxsmanic
de news: 3d25a...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> On levels of automation and features.
If one doesn't need the automation and features, then the best buy is the
501CM, not the Rollei. You are taking for granted that everyone wants all
the gadgets, but that isn't the case.
> Your asking me to compare a completely
> mechanical camera with a fully electronic
> one.
You're asking me to include automation and gadgets in a comparison even
though I don't need or use them. That's like saying that the 250
Superachromat is a better buy because it doesn't need focusing adjustment in
the infrared.
> Wrong. Oh so wrong. Just because you have
> not performed the test yourself???
Just because I haven't seen the results of any such test that _did_ show a
discernable difference.
> I have seem images and not knowing what camea
> it was picked the slide from the Rollei and
> Schneider 2/80mm thinking it was a Hassleblad.
Hardly what I'd call a scientific test.
> You must be showing your skills in this one.
> Just how many spots are you taking for that
> exposure.
Probably 40-50.
> Besides, I'm talking about changing the film,
> not spot metering in the middle of the dark...
> Stay on the theme.......
The theme seems to be which camera is better. You are talking about speed
of film changes, automation, and fancy features, all of which are irrelevant
to me.
Mxsmanic
ag4nbr$ik6ts$3...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
> ... why do people here TOTALLY trash
> anyone who uses a Kiev?
They don't.
Mxsmanic
de news: 3d25acd8$1...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> This is a comparison of the top of the
> line Rollei with the bottom of the line
> Hasselblad.
The bottom of the line Hasselblad does everything I need.
> I suggested the comparison between the 6008I
> and the 203FE based upon features. Not your
> needs of features. Not my needs of features.
I don't need the features, so your comparison based on those features is of
no utility or meaning to me.
Mxsmanic
> Or are you saying I could give your camera to
> an ape and it would still take great pictures?
I'm saying that you'll get far better pictures from a talented photographer
with a Kiev than from an untalented photographer with a Rollei.
> Your nice lenses are shared by both the
> Rollei and the 'Blad.
Then I'll take the Hasselblad (as a matter of fact, I did).
> I have to tell you, the Rollei has a
> distinct advantage because it also offer
> Schneider lenses.
All Rollei and Hasselblad lenses are likely to be more than good enough for
my purposes. I don't shoot test charts from a bench, after all.
> BTW, just a question, what lens do you use on your
> enlarger (if you own one)?
Enlarger? People still use enlargers?
I scan directly from film.
> As a camera will only make the exposure, recording
> the image you have chosen on the film loaded into
> it, the camera must lend itself to intuitive,
> efficient and precise handling. It must be
> transparent to the photographer.
I essentially agree. That's why I like the simple Hasselblad. Shutter
speed, aperture, focus ... then shoot the picture and turn the crank. Works
great.
> I only ask that you do not fall victim to the
> hyperbole of your passion ...
Passion? What passion?
> ... and disregard everyone else's opinion because
> it does not agree with yours.
Everyone else has not expressed his opinion here, although you have. I
disagree with your opinion, but I do not disregard it.
> I further ask you to stay honest and precise.
Where have I been dishonest and imprecise?
> We cannot further our understanding of the
> vagarities and differences with the multitude
> of products offered with wild, half accurate
> statements like you have filled this discussion
> with.
Feel free to backquote and correct any inaccuracies.
> You don't have another handle on the newsgroups,
> do you? Something like Cornholio?
No.
Mxsmanic
> I guess you've never seem a mechanical, refillable
> pencil, have you.
Sure, but I use non-mechanical, non-refillable pencils much more often.
> Wait, I seem to remember a new type of bicycle
> called a mountain bike. Ever heard of it?
Yes.
> Don't tell that to Lecia with their new M7
> (electronic and dependent upon a battery).
> They've placed alot of thought and pride into it.
I'm sure they'll find lots of buyers for it. As long as they continue to
sell the M6, I don't care.
> What, and accurate shutter isn't going to improve
> the image quality?
No, it isn't, at least not beyond 80% accuracy or so (1/4 stop).
Eighty-percent accuracy is not difficult to achieve.
> Just what are you smoking?
I don't smoke.
> If I use a handheld meter and read a certain
> speed/stop combination for my scene, I would
> certainly like to know my shutter is going to
> give me the exposure I want.
Yes, but you don't need perfect accuracy (and you can't get it, anyway).
> And a 50 gram 175X Zoom lens, you gotta be
> smoking something....
I don't smoke.
> Your opinion. I kinda like technology.
So I've surmised.
I kinda like photography.
> I guess you also think digital photography is for
> the birds....
It has its place, although I tried it and ended up going back to film.
Mxsmanic
smak-5C4372.0...@allnews.casema.net...
> hmm..as I said before, If you can't think of
> anything that could be improved, you're not
> using your camera enough.
If you have lots of time to spend thinking of how to improve your camera,
you're not taking enough pictures.
Mxsmanic
> is that really such a big problem?
No, but if I can take good pictures without batteries, why would I choose to
buy a camera that requires them?
> If you would care about how advanced your camera
> is, you wouldn't have bought a Hasselblad, that's
> pretty clear.
I agree. But you see, I care mainly about my pictures, and not about the
state of evolution of my camera.
> In my experience (you know, you get that from
> actually using both systems for many years...)
> Rollei is more reliable than Hasselblad.
And thorium has a longer half-life than uranium.
> That's hitting the nail on the head... you
> have to be busy with your camera, instead
> of with your pictures.
I don't understand. All I have to do is press a button on my camera to take
a picture.
Mxsmanic
> Yeah, I bet your watch stops every now and
> then; that really sucks.
I've lost important shots because of battery failures.
> I just carry a spare battery, and/or have
> the charger in the car when I am on location.
This doesn't help when you only have a few seconds to get the shots.
> I hope you will never run out of film. It's
> the exact same problem, only also with a
> mechanical camera...
Yes. However, film is still my preferred capture medium, for other reasons
that outweigh this inconvenience.
Mxsmanic
ag56k2$i490k$3...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
> Funny how the same people here praising
> 'blads for having no batteries use
> electronic 35mm cameras. Of did manic
> forget he uses an F5?
I remember losing shots on the F5 because of battery failure. I remember
getting shots on the M6 because it requires no batteries.
Mxsmanic
smak-63DD67.2...@allnews.casema.net...
> It's very simple: if you can't find anything that
> could be improved with your camera, you're not
> using it enough.
If I'm finding things that need to be improved in my camera, I'm not
concentrating sufficiently on taking pictures.
Mxsmanic
ag56tm$g2ojk$1...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
> For the same reasons that the Nikon F5 you
> rant and rave about requires them.
I don't recall ranting or raving about anything.
My F5 requires batteries (eight of them), but my M6 does not (at least not
for taking pictures).
> Remember explaining to me how important all
> those fancy metering modes are?
No.
> And how not having them could cause you to miss
> important shots and why you couldn't use
> Medformat for those types of shots?
I've probably said something along those lines, since it is true. That's
why I have an F5.
> Ever consider maybe if you had done some
> research instead of using the reason that
> "Most pro's use a 'blad" as you reasoning,
> you'd have found that a rollei 6000 would have
> worked better for your needs?
The research I did pointed to a Hasselblad. The 501CM was less expensive
than any Rollei configuration I saw, and it had far fewer gadgets that might
fail. Additionally, Hasselblad seems to be more widely used than Rollei,
and I didn't want to take any chances.
ArtKramr
>about what Irving Penn or Diane Arbus did with their Rollei TLR's, or
>the many vietnam-war shots taken
As I remember it Diane used mostly a Mamayaflex 330 with flash on camera.
Willem-Jan Markerink
artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>Just as no one has improved on the M Leica, no one has improved on the Blad
>designs. The original Blad has inspired dozens of designs all based on that 6x6
>SLR that was fully modular. But when we look, at them all; the Bronica, the
>Rollei 6x6 SLR's and a dozen others, none have been able to outpace the Blad
>in quality or performance and very few are the blads equal, even those that
>also use Carl Zeiss lenses. Is the world waiting for a new brilliant designer
>to move the ball foward, or are we at the end of the line in MF SLR's?
The most brilliant design died in the 70's, with the automatic darkslide-design
of the Kowa 66. Not even the manual rollo-design of the Rollei 6008 can rival.
And I won't even mention the 19mm and 35mm lenses for it....non-rivalled within
the league of 6x6 as well....;))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
Robert Monaghan
yep, but all you have to do is carefully trim the edges of the film so you
have just image, not back marks in black margins. Besides hasselblad's
vees, there is a distinctive corner mark on my bronica backs and
koni-omega backs have markers for ID which back was used etc. All of these
are good ideas but they have to be cut out if you want a true lens test
based on the image quality, and not the visible back IDs like those hassy
"vees" (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html etc.)
on the other hand, a pragmatist might take the necessity of putting those
Vees into hassy backs, for use in ensuring that photo contests were taken
with hassy gear as required, is a tacit acknowledgement that even
Hasselblad's experts can't reliably tell whether a photo was taken with a
hasselblad or some other lens, without those "tell -tale vees" ;-)
grins bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 So. Methodist Univ., Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/index.html *
Robert Monaghan
Art, be careful what you wish for, you may get it ;-) with 386 pages of
instruction manual, and a copy of photoshop lite ;-)
I think we will shortly see a sub-$1,000 digital camera with 16 Megapixels
or larger capacity but smaller fast lens (zoom) which will provide enough
quality to rival medium format for many applications (just as 6 MP
digicams already are in use by photojournalists and other 35mm apps)...
Foveon's 22x22mm 16 Megapixel chip will cost only a few dollars in a few
years time, viz.: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp
plans are to tie such chips into cell phones for instant uploads to the
net etc.;
since the chips are flat, you don't have to worry about film flatness ;-)
shoot and send, no processing delays or costs;
the old problem of limited medium format depth of field is overcome (small chip
size);
lenses can be less kilo-$$ than med fmt optics, much smaller and
lighter, but still deliver over 90 lpmm since only covering 22x22mm square
the camera can work in near total darkness, even in infrared at night,
and the viewscreen will be brightly lighted LCD screen (no RF, no
beattie screens ;-)
Since the chips are CMOS, they can be run by battery or the solar cell on
the camera's back ;-)
Since the chips have a much larger dynamic range than film (14-16 stops
(bits/AD), you don't have to worry much about exposure - you can compress
or expand the range digitally for the desired print later on...
the digital images can be manipulated to cancel out distortion of the
lenses using a software imaging map (specific to each lens off the line)
producing zero distortion output (take that, Biogons! ;-).
Images can be taken at multiple focus points, then merged digitally, to
produce an apparent continuous DOF from closeup to infinity, unlike real
lenses.
in short, I think we do have a revolution coming, and it is already
killing off medium format gear sales (down 50% in USA lately) and taking
over applications like catalog photos using digital backs of similar or
lesser capacity.
Understand, I'm pro-film and lenses guy, and aware of lots of issues with
digital cameras. But I'm also a realist, and understand that folks will
go with tiny cameras that produce decent "photo quality" prints at lower
cost. The hasselblads and 120 rollfilm beasties may produce higher quality
images, but the future 16 Megapixel and larger digicams will probably be
seen as more than enough for most users.
If the sensor is under an inch square, I don't see any likelihood that the
camera will be medium format size, yes? So we are probably seeing the end
of the line, as far as medium format camera designs are concerned?
My guess is that the under $1k 16 MP cameras will kill off any interest in
buying 16 MP digital backs for hassy which deliver no more pixels, but
cost far more and are bulkier and less integrated electronic systems (and
don't have a cell phone built-in either ;-)
Robert Monaghan
'cuz where there is smoke, there may be fire. ;-) and rumors are FUN!! ;-)
It would make lots of sense for Hasselblad to link up with Kyocera; they
have huge deep pockets as an electronics and ceramics corp - their whole
Yashica/Contax 35mm/PS/Med-Fmt line is only circa 10% of corp sales; they
have a new medium format autofocus camera (contax 645AF) using zeiss
designed lenses which Kyocera produces and their own software/AF
techology, which Hasselblad needs for products responding to Rollei's new
6008 AF. The fact that kyocera could easily make zeiss designed AF lenses
for hasselblad, just as it does for its own contax 645, is another plus.
Hasselblad has seriously mis-timed the market by building a new factory in
the midst of the biggest industry downturn ever, adding capacity and debt
at a time when its sales are off 30%+. They have a short window of
opportunity, driven by their dominance of the digital back - medium format
camera of choice position, to respond to Rollei's AF designs.
But their pricing structure puts them at a disadvantage; they have to pay
not just royalty fees to Zeiss for lens designs, but for the entire lens
production and q/c at zeiss since they don't make their own optics.
Kyocera is the newest maker of medium format and AF lenses, the latest
technology aided by Zeiss technology transfers, so a good match?
Given the Japanese popularity of zeiss and hasselblad brands, it would be
a coup for Kyocera to pick up a name brand like hasselblad (Cf. Contax
brand) to upgrade its image and provide links to European zone markets.
Hasselblad is the only major camera maker/brand that doesn't make its own
lenses - what better choice for a lens maker to buy? ;-) And in Kyocera's
terms, Hasselblad is a small corporation they could buy without a stretch