Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-27-2009, 12:40 PM   #496
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
It came down to a matter of priority...

QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
Wait..."based on the same body" is not the same as "swappable sensors."

Funny how I've never seen a Kodak SLR in person...in a store...offered for sale new since, what, 2003?

If Kodak SLRs are the "be all, end all" why did you pass on one?

Edit: Your little comment at the end clearly shows your maturity level. Just an FYI: It should be "capacity for comprehension" since I do not have a definable capacity for something, eg a glass or bucket. Somewhat like fewer/less.
I came across the price of a Hasselblad and thought something had to be wrong. But upon checking into it, I found that they are in fact now quite affordable. For the prices that any of you here are willing to pay for any FF digital camera, you could buy a used Hasselblad with the opportunity to get digital backs which only have to be replaced, instead of the camera. I have wanted a Hasselblad far longer than I can remember. So postponing the Kodak was a no-brainer. After having just now negotiated to postpone another obligation, I have now secured the chance to get the ELX I've wanted. The Hasselblad will provide me with an immediate and deeper satisfaction. Besides, I will be able to use it quicker with better results than I would the Kodak. Yes, I will pay more for lenses. But I will only be getting one lens. And let me remind you of the quality of those lenses. I don't need justification there. I am now considering getting a Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. That lens will position me to do more with it than the 250mm Sonnar.

And as for your arrogance as to think that because you haven't seen something, that's it not something to be considered worthy. Just be aware of this. Kodak only marketed those cameras to PROFESSIONALS. So by definition, there was a small market for them to begin with. Kind of like you never seeing an Aston Martin on a used car lot. Meaning you wouldn't be likely to ever see one in the local camera shop for amateurs like you. And I'm pretty certain you would have never qualified or had the needs to purchase one. Or even a Hasselblad for that matter.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

11-27-2009, 01:21 PM   #497
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
$18,000 TO $35,000 for a Hassy

Are you looking at spending $18,000 TO $35,000 for a Digital Hassy & kit lens?

SLR Digital Cameras

and heres five digital camera backs, same store:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Digital-Backs/ci/2788/N/4294541375

Do digital backs work on any hassy film body or just certain cameras?

Last edited by Samsungian; 11-27-2009 at 01:35 PM.
11-27-2009, 01:47 PM   #498
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
And again, from the ignorant...

QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
Are you looking at spending $18,000 TO $35,000 for a Digital Hassy & kit lens?

SLR Digital Cameras

and heres five digital camera backs, same store:

Digital Backs

Do digital backs work on any hassy film body or just certain cameras?
I clearly posted that I was specifically speaking about USED equipment. I'm presently ready to pay less than $285 for either an ELM with backs, or an ELX. And if you really had any sense, you would have checked out eBay, not B&H! For medium-format, even many of the older cameras have resolutions above some of your expectations. Some of you would be content to settle on a 14MP FF camera from Pentax, just for the sake of having a Pentax. And yet 11MP in a Hasselblad would be considered old, and cost less than what you would complacently accept. Now go back to the argument about ergonomics, for a camera that would almost always be used on a tripod. Hey, it's the weekend and I need something else good to laugh about. So please continue to amuse me.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
11-27-2009, 02:31 PM   #499
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Oh Dude, I don't buy used digital cameras

Oh Dude, I don't buy used digital cameras.

Can you put a digital back on any old hassy film camera?

Enlighten me

None of my full frame dslrs are 14mp or higher, just 12-13mp:

Consumer full frames.

I've got no complaints, well except I wish 5D Mark II was $500 to $700 less, then I'd own it too. I got this problem with paying full price for any new dslr.

As far as Pentax making a full frame in 2010, I don't think so. Not till 645D launches and then proves profitable will full frame K happen. I really wanted full frame k mount till March 2008 hit then I added another brand, and in Jan 2009 I added a third brand. I still have pentax in my kit, a spiffy K20D, a ZX-L film body and pentax lenses I bought since 2002.

You actually don't own any pentax gear, do you?


QuoteOriginally posted by Shingoshi Quote
I clearly posted that I was specifically speaking about USED equipment. I'm presently ready to pay less than $285 for either an ELM with backs, or an ELX. And if you really had any sense, you would have checked out eBay, not B&H! For medium-format, even many of the older cameras have resolutions above some of your expectations. Some of you would be content to settle on a 14MP FF camera from Pentax, just for the sake of having a Pentax. And yet 11MP in a Hasselblad would be considered old, and cost less than what you would complacently accept. Now go back to the argument about ergonomics, for a camera that would almost always be used on a tripod. Hey, it's the weekend and I need something else good to laugh about. So please continue to amuse me.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao



Last edited by Samsungian; 11-27-2009 at 02:42 PM.
11-27-2009, 03:31 PM   #500
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
Ok, maybe I shouldn't have been so harsh...

First of all, I used to own the Pentax 67. I've also owned an ME. The ME is nothing all that grand, but I loved it. I came here hoping too that Pentax would offer a FF. Needless to say, I'm not encouraged that will happen anytime soon, or that I'd want to pay whatever price they would demand for a FF digital camera.

Now about the Hasselblad. That's one company unlike any other committed to maintaining their customer base. So yes, the digital backs work on old cameras. I think with the exception of the initial 1600F(?), everything you have owned, could own or want to own will always have compatibility with the existing product line. Just take a look at the design of the Hasselblad. It has had no substantial change in it's appearance since the release of the first 500C. And there are many people still using them.

Now consider this. Hasselblad is not going to leave you high and dry, wondering whether you will be able to buy a new product from them for your old camera. The digital backs are interchangeable just like the previous film backs were. It's called continuity. Now, if you shoot with a tripod where you are contemplative about your work, you have no reason not to consider using any medium-format. Even Mamiya would be an excellent choice. And again, I'm speaking of used cameras.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many medium-format companies left. Digital has in some ways become the least common denominator. If you prefer to create large prints like the ones professionals have been accustomed to, film is your best choice. However, medium-format in digital will still outperform any 35mm FF digital camera. Period.

There's something methodical about the way a medium-format photographer approaches their work. It's part and parcel of the format. Yet it's still flexible enough for daily use. I carry my Sony with me everywhere I go. I keep my tripod strapped to the bottom of my fanny pack. Granted, it's a large Fenwick pack intended to be used as a fishing tackle bag. But it's still a fanny pack and comfortable to use. So, I'll either keep the Hasselblad in another bag, or have it around my neck at all times in a softcase. The Sony will be my scouting camera. I will prune which images I want most to have on film, and shoot them with the Hasselblad. Then it's simply a matter of developing and scanning the film onto DVD. And there's my digital output.

So in a roundabout way, I'll still be shooting digital. Even if it is a step removed. But the fact is I can still view my images immediately with the Sony, so as not to guess about what the outcome will be on film.

I hope that helps.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

EDIT: Actually, I've thought about getting a Manfrotto tripod case (the largest one they make, 39" long), and keeping my camera permanently attached to the tripod. Then it's just a matter of slinging it over my shoulder and pulling my camera out for immediate usage. And the case I want to get is large enough to carry both the Sony and the Hasselblad, each on their own tripods. But to begin with, I only need another quick-release plate for my existing tripod, and postpone buying another until later.

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-27-2009 at 03:42 PM.
11-27-2009, 04:33 PM   #501
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by Shingoshi Quote
And that can be readily accomplished by simply removing the Bayer filter (if in fact that's a simple venture).
As already stated, the filter is not removable, it is an integral part of the sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by Shingoshi Quote
Kodak already did that repeatedly with their DCS series. They had no less than four different cameras based on the same identical Nikon F5 body. And their upgrades consisted of the simple exchange of sensors from one level to another.
Wrong. There were other changes between those cameras. To name just a couple of examples comparing two Kodak cameras based on the Nikon F5 (the DCS 660 and 760): one had an external white balance sensor, and the other measured white balance solely based on the image sensor. One had vastly more buffer memory than the other. They had different IR / AA filters, different LCD display panels, and plenty of other differences besides.
11-27-2009, 05:36 PM   #502
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
The long road home...

QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
As already stated, the filter is not removable, it is an integral part of the sensor.

Wrong. There were other changes between those cameras. To name just a couple of examples comparing two Kodak cameras based on the Nikon F5 (the DCS 660 and 760): one had an external white balance sensor, and the other measured white balance solely based on the image sensor. One had vastly more buffer memory than the other. They had different IR / AA filters, different LCD display panels, and plenty of other differences besides.
I really appreciate your answer. However this is no longer of any significance to me. It's just no longer a necessity for me to attempt this. But with all that you've said, it's really unfortunate that this can't be done. I think you have to admit, it would be nice if things like this were possible. That's why I've made my choice for the Hasselblad. This will never be problem for me. I'll always have th option to simply upgrade the backs, and keep the same familiar feel of the camera I will have fallen in love with.

Because all of my comments about the Kodak, were based on the fact that I really wanted the heft of that thing in my hands. I always admired and lusted after the Nikon 14fps!! High Speed Motor Drive camera they made many years ago. And that thing was HUGE!!! I'm simply not accustomed to using puny cameras. I started out with a YashicaMat 24. After that, I wound up with a Speed Graphic. That camera was simply HEAVEN. Having a 4x5 that I could carry around in my hands was divine. So having come from using a Pentax 6x7, the Canon T90 actually felt small. The Hasselblad will be like coming home again.

So now I leave you to the pleasure of dreaming of and praying for Pentax to produce something other than vaporware. Have a nice weekend guys!

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
11-27-2009, 06:13 PM   #503
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
Someone has a fetish...

11-27-2009, 06:30 PM   #504
Senior Member
stormcloud's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 235
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I didn't say Singoshi was "making" processors. Stormcloud was the one that confused assembling a computer with making one, and implied the computer analogy wasn't valid because people can assemble there on computer system at home. I merely pointed out that we "assemble" our camera systems based on bodies, lenses, flashes and other camera accessory. I was referring to stormcloud's comment on assembling computer systems and reminding him that there is a difference in putting together motherboards and video cards than actually making them. For the record, before going back to college, I used to wave solder computer boards for a company that made custom p.c. boards. Your discussion about processors forgets that laptops etc. have typically had processors soldered to the board. You also forget that "making" the processor itself is more complicated as is cooling it. I guess you haven't studied how the internals of a hard drive works either. Those things are absolutely amazing feats of science and engineering. Furthermore, when we get a lens from the camera maker or a third party, that lens spacing as been worked out for the bodies. Something for flashes. Then there are people who adapt other mounts to different bodies.

I'd say the computer analogy was pretty good. Some computer parts are compatible with multiple platforms with varying functionality just like camera parts are. For example, FA lenses vs. some DA lenses. Like most analogies, they are never going to be perfect because they compare totally different things.

i did not confuse anything it was shingoshi who started talking about swapping sensors and processors like they were parts of a computer i simply pointed out that that would not be enough as putting a modern sensor into an old body would require a custom motherboard and fireware which dont exist so shingoshi better have been damn talented at making intergrated circuit boards and writing software

where lens and flashes come into the question i have no idea - they have nothing to do with what was being dicussed they are not internal components of a camera system and have no impact on replacing a sensor in a camera

yes lens can be swapped in cameras and comparing computer parts to lens and flashes would be a good enough anology but not for swapping sensors an image processors and circiut boards within a camera
11-27-2009, 07:10 PM   #505
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
Guys, leave the fool alone. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. First he mentions his budget is tight so he looks at the commercial flop of a camera from Kodak... yeah the one with the notorious hot pixels popping up. And he believes he can mix and hobble together components like something a computer geek can assemble a computer. Ultimate joke of the day. Well even if it was even remotely possible, how one will overcome the image processing and programming required is beyond me. Now he wants a to convert an old Hasselblad for film (V-series) and attempt to latch on a self made digital back... "I'm presently ready to pay less than $285 for either an ELM with backs, or an ELX." Another ultimate joke of the day.
11-27-2009, 09:09 PM   #506
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by Shingoshi Quote
I came across the price of a Hasselblad and thought something had to be wrong. But upon checking into it, I found that they are in fact now quite affordable. For the prices that any of you here are willing to pay for any FF digital camera, you could buy a used Hasselblad with the opportunity to get digital backs which only have to be replaced, instead of the camera. I have wanted a Hasselblad far longer than I can remember. So postponing the Kodak was a no-brainer. After having just now negotiated to postpone another obligation, I have now secured the chance to get the ELX I've wanted. The Hasselblad will provide me with an immediate and deeper satisfaction. Besides, I will be able to use it quicker with better results than I would the Kodak. Yes, I will pay more for lenses. But I will only be getting one lens. And let me remind you of the quality of those lenses. I don't need justification there. I am now considering getting a Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. That lens will position me to do more with it than the 250mm Sonnar.

And as for your arrogance as to think that because you haven't seen something, that's it not something to be considered worthy. Just be aware of this. Kodak only marketed those cameras to PROFESSIONALS. So by definition, there was a small market for them to begin with. Kind of like you never seeing an Aston Martin on a used car lot. Meaning you wouldn't be likely to ever see one in the local camera shop for amateurs like you. And I'm pretty certain you would have never qualified or had the needs to purchase one. Or even a Hasselblad for that matter.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
Simply hilarious...

The Kodaks were made for pros...a few years ago. Pro cameras are cheap these days, once they've been around for a while. If you had actual use of human logic, you would realize that the the H-blad is the same deal. Add to that the Kodaks were around super early into the digital era...they didn't go far. I, among others, don't see them because...they're not that good. Same about the Contax N1.

I've seen used Aston Martins before. And how do you know I'm not a professional? I'm as qualified to own any piece of gear as you are. Wouldn't it piss you off if I got a Hasselblad, just like yours?
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Guys, leave the fool alone. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. First he mentions his budget is tight so he looks at the commercial flop of a camera from Kodak... yeah the one with the notorious hot pixels popping up. And he believes he can mix and hobble together components like something a computer geek can assemble a computer. Ultimate joke of the day. Well even if it was even remotely possible, how one will overcome the image processing and programming required is beyond me. Now he wants a to convert an old Hasselblad for film (V-series) and attempt to latch on a self made digital back... "I'm presently ready to pay less than $285 for either an ELM with backs, or an ELX." Another ultimate joke of the day.
Yeah, it's funny how $600 for a failure of a camera turns into digital MF sensors for less than $300

Even on the internet, I don't believe I've encountered someone so arrogant yet absolutely ignorant to normal thought processes.

Thinking about it...I don't even remember why he registered here...
11-28-2009, 01:04 AM   #507
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
Hey the dude MADE this thread.

Seriously, this thread went from yet another "FF when" thread, to an epic thread on rebuilding a Kodak. The lines about the camera as a woman's body, did anyone see that comming?

In a matter of days we have gone from old Kodak to older Kodak, to older Kodak with "upgrades" to a Hasselblad with digi back, to well, medium format film. Who can say the trip was not a blast?

Shingoshi,

Good luck with the new Hasselblad. Stay strong, and drop by the next time you have a great idea.
11-28-2009, 02:12 AM   #508
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
Look guys, I was simly frustrated...

And I wasn't lying about my budget either. I was looking to spend less than $250 on an old digital camera. I wanted one that would go beyond the common features most have now. I really wanted a better larger viewfinder. That's why I mentioned the Kodak/Nikon F5 variants. I was looking initially at the SLR/n because I thought that if I took the time to save, I could buy one. I know my jumping around all over the place would be perceived as very amusing. But let me summarize how I got from place to another. The place where I am now.

1.) Kodak SLR/n: Seemed like a good choice for a decent digital FF camera. I liked the bulk of having everything combined in a unitized body. Nothing to forget at home or lose when out.
2.) Kodak 760: I've always wanted an F5. This was another one of those cameras I thought I would never be able to afford. When I found out the 760 was built on the F5, there was nothing to think about there. I just wanted to get it.
3.) Hasselblad: 53 years old now, and wanted one since I was 17. Couldn't do it then, can do it now. It was by accident that I was looking over the expired auctions of items I was following, that I came across the price of a Hasselblad and made me think the price had to be wrong. So I started examining the prices of Hasselblads, and found that the older models where costing less than what I expected to spend on something smaller. Realizing that, there was no question of which route I should follow. And here's why:
1.) The Hasselblad EL series all have integral motor drives. So I am satisfying a major desire with the ELX. I won't be interrupted in the process of my shooting. Which I have always found to be very annoying.
2.) You simply can't get a larger viewfinder than one in medium-format. I wanted the Nikon for it's well-known large viewfinder. So again, I'm not really off-course here either. And the ELX has the perfect viewfinder with NO vignetting in the frame as with earlier models.
3.) It has user changeable focusing screens. I mentioned before that was important in considering the Kodak 760. It takes both, interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens. I wanted to get a calibrated cross-hair for the Kodak. That would have been the Nikon Type-M screen. Virtually all medium-format cameras have grid screens available. And a calibrated cross-hair is also available. I do all of my shooting with my Sony H50 with the grid focusing screen, simply for the benefit of composition. So I'm still not off-course.
4.) The ELX has OTF TTL Flash metering. That's another essential and indispensable feature with me shooting so much macro work now. I can now also easily perform flash fill in daylight or any other situation, and know I will always have precise exposures. I can use my 500ELX immediately with my existing Metz 60CT4. I just need a new adapter for the Hasselblad.

So basically, I've taken all of my previous goals, and summed them up in the Hasselblad. I'm sorry for highjacking this thread. I never really wanted to. It's just that some felt the need to point out my errors in such a way they were never willing to leave alone. I didn't come here looking for technical advice on buying something other than a Pentax. After all, that's not what this forum is supposed to be for. I simply took offense to how much energy Knox and others felt the need to expend insulting my decisions. And based on what I've seen happen here, I'm sure he has a history of doing that. I simply refuse to be bullied.

So while I was apparently jumping all over the place, I was really looking for ways to meet my needs within the bounds of my budget. I've done that, with nothing left out in the process. So while none of you may appreciate my decision, as though it is some denial of the faith, so be it. I won't have lost a large sum of money in what I'm doing now. I don't have to wait and see if something is going to work, only to find out that it won't. I've exchanged the dream of other possibilities, for the reality of something that is guaranteed to work, the moment I get it.

There really can't be anything else to say about this. I wanted a camera that works now. And now, I have it. And frankly, if it turns out that its too expensive to repair my camera, I'll simply buy another. That's how cheap they are. In fact, I will likely buy another body just in case, setting amounts of money aside for that inevitability. But that likely won't happen for a long time. So I'm not really expecting to be disappointed.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-28-2009 at 02:19 AM.
11-28-2009, 03:14 AM   #509
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
My goal was never to insult you Shingoshi - merely to inject some reality and correct some fundamental flaws in your reasoning. I apologize if you've taken it that way, because it's never been how it was intended.

You do seem to have somewhat of an equipment obsession here, and might perhaps be forgetting that far and away the most important thing in any photo (after the subject itself, of course) is the photographer. Pros have been taking truly staggering photos for many, many decades now - and a very large number of those were taken with equipment that would produce mediocre to middling results in the hands of a less experienced photographer.

You'd serve yourself well to drop the personal attacks (I don't make a habit of attacking others - in fact if you look at my posts here you'll see I often go out of my way to try and help answer others' queries). Stop worrying about your equipment, and get out and shoot. If you can't currently budget more than $250 for a camera purchase, even second hand you're unlikely to get anything very special. Those cameras are dirt-cheap for a reason - and it's because they're not aging well.

Save up for a while, and in the meantime keep working at mastering the camera(s) you currently have. We're none of us perfect photographers - there's always more we can learn about our art, and very often in these days of immediate access to reams and reams of technical data, it's far to easy to forget that and get lost in a morass of hardware specifications, forgetting what's really important in our photos.
11-28-2009, 04:27 AM   #510
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
I'm sorry for all of this...

QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
My goal was never to insult you Shingoshi - merely to inject some reality and correct some fundamental flaws in your reasoning. I apologize if you've taken it that way, because it's never been how it was intended.

You do seem to have somewhat of an equipment obsession here, and might perhaps be forgetting that far and away the most important thing in any photo (after the subject itself, of course) is the photographer. Pros have been taking truly staggering photos for many, many decades now - and a very large number of those were taken with equipment that would produce mediocre to middling results in the hands of a less experienced photographer.

You'd serve yourself well to drop the personal attacks (I don't make a habit of attacking others - in fact if you look at my posts here you'll see I often go out of my way to try and help answer others' queries). Stop worrying about your equipment, and get out and shoot. If you can't currently budget more than $250 for a camera purchase, even second hand you're unlikely to get anything very special. Those cameras are dirt-cheap for a reason - and it's because they're not aging well.

Save up for a while, and in the meantime keep working at mastering the camera(s) you currently have. We're none of us perfect photographers - there's always more we can learn about our art, and very often in these days of immediate access to reams and reams of technical data, it's far to easy to forget that and get lost in a morass of hardware specifications, forgetting what's really important in our photos.
But even here, it seems like you still have to follow up on the same course. I've settled on getting a Hasselblad 500EL/X. That's not going to change. Whether I have a fetish or not is irrelevant. I like certain things for specific reasons. Those are personal and an expression of my personal values. When you attack someone's value system, you are in fact attacking them. Regardless of how trite you may think they are. You have no idea how or why any person comes to like the things they do. And it is presumptive to disqualify their preferences without knowing why they have them.

You can't even honestly bring yourself to say "I hope it works out. Instead, you still have to be critical of the idea that someone would buy a camera for whatever price it may, simply because you think your way of thinking is better than theirs. It really comes off as manipulative. It's manipulative, because I never asked for your advice. And when you keep demanding that anyone accepts what they haven't even asked for, the constant flow of criticism amounts to nothing other than brow beating. As though you're scolding a child. Telling the person their not smart enough for whatever reason you deem. If you were really only intent on being helpful, you would or should have asked first, and not assume I or anyone else is obligated to your "advice". It would have been more appropriate to contact and pursue this by PM. But that would have left you without the opportunity to publicly prove to everyone else just how smart you are.

Yes, I made a lot of erroneous assumptions about what could be done. And when I dropped the idea, no one else seems to be willing to drop it. If you want to live in a world where Pentax is your faith, keep it. I enjoy having things that give me what I want. I don't care if you don't want the same things, and would never attempt to say you're not entitled to your preferences. I had to develop a set of preferences based on my economics. But even that's not good enough for you. You have to come back and criticize me for living within my means. You said quite a few posts back, that you were going to leave this alone. And you haven't.

And as far as my shooting goes, I do far more than you know. As I said, I don't go out of my house without my camera. I just don't like having to be forced with what I'm currently using to go through levels of menus to shoot something that I could have done in seconds with a manual camera. The very act of shooting was becoming a constant source of frustration. So now I've selected a camera that will give me immediate access to the process without hindrance. I'm sitting here shaking my head, wondering why I'm even continuing to discuss this. Everything that you have said or will say about anything that I was planning to do before is now irrelevant. And as much as it apparently drives you nuts, I'm not changing my mind about the Hasselblad. It's what I need, because it's what I can afford. That's a deal set in stone. A stone you won't be leaving any marks on.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-28-2009 at 04:35 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Its 2010 now. Reportage General Talk 4 11-02-2010 10:18 AM
Picture of the Week 103: February 21, 2010 to March 7, 2010 Tamia Weekly Photo Challenges 55 03-07-2010 05:50 AM
Picture of the Week 102: February 14, 2010 to February 28, 2010 photolady95 Weekly Photo Challenges 57 02-27-2010 08:28 PM
Picture of the Week 101: February 7, 2010 to February 21, 2010 netuser Weekly Photo Challenges 63 02-24-2010 08:15 AM
Picture of the Week 100: January 31, 2010 to February 14, 2010 Peter Zack Weekly Photo Challenges 93 02-14-2010 12:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top