WTB: hasselbald 180mm cf lens
Ed Margiewicz
David Meiland
>WTB: hasselblad 180mm cf lens in mint/mint- condition
>
>
Great lens--I want one too!
---
David Meiland
Friday Harbor, WA
http://davidmeiland.com/
**Check the reply address before sending mail
Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee
I think we should be told.
Ed Margiewicz
"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" <gl...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:c26l5t$58u$1...@kermit.esat.net...
Nicholas O. Lindan
A sudden urge to cover a Hassy in fur has come over me.
http://www.nelepets.com/art/pictures/Surrealism/0ppenheim.htm
Maybe I can get Marcy Merril to help ...
http://www.merrillphoto.com/galaf3.htm
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Gary G
Meiland) wrote:
>"Ed Margiewicz" <edm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>WTB: hasselblad 180mm cf lens in mint/mint- condition
>>
>>
>
>Great lens--I want one too!
>---
>David Meiland
Yes. Good lens. Obsolete system.
Gary Gaugler, Ph.D.
Microtechnics, Inc.
Granite Bay, CA 95746
916.791.8191
gary@microtechnics dot com
David Meiland
Whatever you say, dude.
Douglas Tourtelot
Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
Seattle, WA
tour...@speakeasy.net
"David Meiland" <remove...@meiland.com> wrote in message
news:404aa07...@news.rockisland.com...
Nicholas O. Lindan
> remove...@meiland.com (David Meiland) wrote:
> >"Ed Margiewicz" <edm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >WTB: hasselblad 180mm cf lens in mint/mint- condition
> >Great lens--I want one too!
Their is no obsolescence in photography equipment : if it
works, use it.
Photography will be obsolete when we no longer have eyes.
* * *
The concept of product obsolescence was thought up by Brook Stevens:
He was the originator and promoter of the concept of
"planned obsolescence," often making minute changes in yearly
models aimed at those who wanted the latest looking consumer
goods, even if they were not genuinely improved.
Rick Romano - GM Today
Results of buying into this philosophy in the 1950's were
Edsels, tail fins on Cadillacs, chrome strips on everything,
orange juicers shaped like rocket ships (German V2 rockets,
no less), ... and a terrific waste of money by both consumers
and manufacturers.
Ralph Nader (shudder) and other uninformed took the phrase to
mean that products were designed to fall apart so you had
to buy a new one. Not so - it refers to changing the outside
appearance of something and calling it "The ALL NEW Dyno-Flite
for '58...".
The philosophy of planned obsolescence has been discredited
since the early 60's.
Remnants of p.o. linger at some neanderthal firms, in consumer
scams, and as a "Gotta Have The Latest" urge in consumers (the ones
who are old enough to know better).
In summary: A product is only obsolete when its design can no longer
perform any useful function.
Ed Margiewicz
"Ed Margiewicz" <edm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eeOdnXvNZZP...@comcast.com...
Gary G
<noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Gary G" <see.signature@bottom> wrote
>> remove...@meiland.com (David Meiland) wrote:
>> >"Ed Margiewicz" <edm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > >WTB: hasselblad 180mm cf lens in mint/mint- condition
>> >Great lens--I want one too!
>> Yes. Good lens. Obsolete system.
>> gary@microtechnics dot com
>
>Their is no obsolescence in photography equipment : if it
>works, use it.
>
>Photography will be obsolete when we no longer have eyes.
>
>* * *
>
>The concept of product obsolescence was thought up by Brook Stevens:
>
It is not obsolescence constrained to photography. It is valid for
all products. The issues are either that the item is no longer made
and supported or, it is no longer for sale. Now, I did not say that
it was not useable. Of course it is. What happens is that the old
gives way to the new. However, the new creeps up on us.
I had a complete (very complete) dual 503CW with seven lenses (yep,
180CW) and six mags. Old. Nikon D1x and other digital cameras
relegate the Hassy to history books. This is not to say that my Hassy
prints (big ones) are bad. Nope. It is just that the whole market
for commercial pix has changed such that MF is really not necessary
for a vast majority of the sales. But of course, YMMV.
Oh, and I still have some Pentax 67 lenses and accessories to dispose
of.
Douglas Tourtelot
can be afforded by your average studio pro? Don't you think that the 180CF
will produce stunning images that will print much larger than the equivalent
35mm "digi pad's" images? Then MF may well be sought after for the same
reason it was using silver products, a greatly improved image.
Regards,
--
Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
Seattle, WA
tour...@speakeasy.net
"Gary G" <see.signature@bottom> wrote in message
news:85hq409jetn8lkn0s...@4ax.com...
Gary G
<tour...@nospamspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>What about the day when MF digital capture backs are priced at a point that
>can be afforded by your average studio pro? Don't you think that the 180CF
>will produce stunning images that will print much larger than the equivalent
>35mm "digi pad's" images? Then MF may well be sought after for the same
>reason it was using silver products, a greatly improved image.
>
>Regards,
I think that the market requirements (what customers want) will
continue to drive the commercial facets of all photography. What I
perceive to be happening is that what the customer wants can be
satisfied to a greater extent now via digital 35mm instead of MF film.
The 6x6cm format was always handy to trim to rectangular. A 6x4.5cm
which is properly framed is cheaper and does the job with less hassle.
Nevertheless, I have lots of square color prints nicely framed. The
square vs. rectangular format argument is not one in my view. The
issue is the cost of the final product and the cost of getting it.
A key issue is what customer expectations and requirements actually
are. A Nikon D1x in RAW mode will produce about a 30MB RGB TIFF.
This will easily print at 16x20. But 90% of the use is full page or
less. MF is overkill. I've seen 35mm C-41 printed to 16x20 and the
results are good--not as good at 6x4.5--but good. Likely, good
enough. Billboard images are produced from 35mm frames. No need for
MF. This is based on the viewing distance between image and the eye.
Studio work is divided into single shot images and still life. The
Sinar backs that do progressive scanning will do nicely for ads, etc.
But they don't handle flash. There are single shot systems that do.
But indeed, the prices are high and the systems are not all that
portable.
I see and realize that customer requirements and expectations are
changing. In the past, a Fuji GX-680 was necessary. Not at all any
more to justify having one--so that system is gone too. The Hassy is
over priced (OK, pricey) when a Pentax 67 or 645 will work just fine
when MF is dictated. Other than that, current generation 35mm digital
SLRs work quite well. However, for quality results with them, one
must use good lenses. The variable aperture lenses are not
appropriate.
The Zeiss 180CF lens is probably the best Hassy lens ever made. But
the 180 is really "only" useful for specific work. Its shorter DOF
and depth compression makes it a challenge for studio work. But it is
fine for landscapes. One needs to mate the shooting situation to the
mix of lenses. Zeiss has also made a fine line of lenses for the
Contax 645. I also had a pair of Contax RTS-III bodies with Zeiss
lenses. Good indeed. But I found that the Pentax 645n and Pentax
lenses do the job when MF is needed. The bulk of work is done with
digital 35mm SLR (D1x). If a D2x comes out, I may or may not get one.
The RAW mode works too well, or at least, sufficiently well for most
all work. If an agency wants a larger file, GF it and throw in the
random pixels to make a 50MB file. No one will be the wiser.