 Mark Kononczuk |
digital hasselblad Has anyone got a digital Hasselblad? Is it good?Or in fact does anyone use medium-format digital equipment?How good is it in comparison to top of the range 35mm?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Greetings Mark. I've used one a few times using my Hasselblad lenses for catalog work, mostly although I shoot a lot of medium format anyway. The digital back is incredibly sharp when working at ISO 250 or so, but whaddya want for (last I heard) about $5,000 bucks? In terms of resolution, you may be comparing apples to oranges though, by comparing MF to 35mm since 120 format is about 4 times the size. I suppose in the end result, it depends on the finished size you want to go to, right? For a lot of info on the digital Blad system, go to http://www.hasselbladusa.com Take it light ;>)
|
|
|
|
||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
Isn't it closer to $25-30K?
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
$5,000 for a Hassie bod? Sounds like a steal. So I'll take that with a grain of salt for now.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I used the H2D-39 a few times on some fashion shoots in LA and it is VERY nice. My good friend bought the H2D and the 1DsMarkII...when we compared them both he ended up keeping the Canon and saving $25K... soooo that being said you better have a heavy pocketbook and only want to shoot High Fashion and portraits professionally.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
The funniest thing is people often focus on that body price, completely forgetting that you also need a couple lenses, a good light system, a backup cam, tripods and other accessories, and often a studio and an assistant, to be able to make good use of that (Hassie) body. By then the tab is more likely very near, or well over, 100,000 bucks . . . LOL!
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Oh, and that's forgetting you need a WHOPPER of a workstation PC (and the skills) to process those ginormous files!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Oh yeah....TIFF's are over 150mg....I think with 300DPI and layers they were like 180mg each...the lenses are very expensive....but they use it on America's Next Top Model so its gotta be a great camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
And those 150MB files tend to temporarily inflate to Terabyte size during rendering and processing. Try THAT on your average vanilla flavor PC! LOL!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Gee, I only have a Sigma SD10, and after processing my files can often fall in the 300-500MB range (unflattened, of course). Even with work I do for other pro photographers I've never gotten a submission off a medium format back. The 1DS almost all the time...and those files get quite large enough. I'd want to see a file before I went and bought a Hasselblad and not take anyone's word for it. As is rightly stated here, your investment starts with the body and back...so much more to think about, and if that applies to what you really use images for (business or personally).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
You do get a FREE 512mg card with every purchase....lol I just got the email from my buddy...he said his RAW files were just under 100mg because they're compressed straight outta the camera. You gotta get the firewire cable because it's the best way to with the harddrive on your belt. selling today for $29,995 (comes with the 80mm 2.8 lens)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
When I used just the back, a few years ago, it was about $5K. The body, 100 f 3.5, and shade were mine. That was before they offered the entire rig which I guess is now about $30 grand. Fashion, portraits? I don't know. I'd still rather stick with film but you know us old(er) guys. Nothing like an A-70 back for catalog work. M.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Kononczuk |
Isn't using any medium format film camera, not to mention a Hassselblad, just a different experience to digital? And the excitment of the images magically forming in the liquid in the darkroom....ahhhhh!!!!! I just don't have the damned time for this anymore, such a shame.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Medium Format...great but you gotta have the necessity to utilize it or its better to use a regular 35mm or DSLR. The new darkroom is called Photoshop so get used to it... Hasseblads digital is a Medium Format so you're not giving that up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
"And the excitment of the images magically forming in the liquid in the darkroom....ahhhhh!!!!!" And the excitment of the images magically forming on the screen in front of you. In normal light levels so you can actually SEE what's going on....ahhhhh!!!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
I need to wear my glasses more often. I got excited thinking this thread was on David Hasselhoff.....
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
"When I used just the back, a few years ago, it was about $5K. The body, 100 f 3.5, and shade were mine. That was before they offered the entire rig which I guess is now about $30 grand." Their digital camera(H2)is $30 plus, always has been as far as I know. A digital back with a Hasselblad body is still I think around $5k. Mamiya is offering their 645D for $10k. All digital, not a film body with a digital back. The reduction in price for mf digital is one of the next things people are hoping for.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Used the Mamiya as well...I think my comment was...to put it kindly...POS compared to the H2D-39...I thought the Canon's images were far more impressive....at my daughters Baptism there was a Dad with the the Mamiya and after I saw his images I was not impressed at all....I mean My Daughter is soooooo much cuter than his...oh yeah and his camera bites as well.lol If it was my choice I have NO doubt the Canon's images are superior over the Mamiya's.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Kononczuk |
David Hasselhoff??????????????????? Gets you excited? You pervert, that's the sickest thing I've heard all year.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Has anyone else ever wished for a digital back for old film SLR's, or is it just me?
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
From 1999 to 2005 there was a 'company' called E-Film with a website (2 webpages really) that released press announcements that they had developed a "digital back for 35mm film SLRs". It was "soon" going to be available to the general public. This press release was picked up and copied – without checking – by a range of ICT publications (magazines and websites). However, that digital back never made it to market. This scenario – a press release about "a new digital back for 35mm film SLRs" and subsequent, mindless, publishing by the mags and websites – was repeated every 6 months. Probably because of eager, ignorant, in-experienced editors, who stupidly fell for it with their hunger for more sensational news. As we all know, the "digital back for 35mm film SLRs" never materialized. So why did someone release that "news" time and again? And since that press release was repeated at least 10/12 times over the course of 5/6 years, and each time managed to generate publicity, one may conclude that this was a very succesful scam....
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
This sounds like a great incentive for some energized inventor to corner the market! I..for one, would LOVE to keep the simplicity and ruggedness of my present arsenal of bodies without worrying about the cost and future demise of film and processing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
If you draw my name for Christmas, I'd love to have a digital back for my 4X5.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||