[knoxploration]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Believe as you wish. The number and frequency of your camera buying aspirations is a strong suggestor that you've not thought things through sufficiently, and are making impulsive buying decisions. It's my experience that those generally lead to disappointment.

I shall leave you to your devices now, though. You've made it fairly clear you're not looking for feedback unless it's in agreement with your own notions.

---

Last edited by knoxploration; 11-28-2009 at 05:11 AM. Reason: missed a word

[redrockcoulee]

The 500 E series are less expensive then the 500 C or C/M cameras. There are some battery and electronic problems with the Es, nothing that can not be overcome but that is one of the reasons they are so inexpensive. You can easily get a Hasselblad and three lenses for the price of a K7. I do not follow how you can inexpensively get into digital with the 'blad or are you going with film? Metered prisms may be the downfall in your budget. The 120 Macro lens is not cheap but used extension tubes are.

But the strenghts of the Hasselblad are totally different from those of a digital SLR.

[monochrome]

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?

Actually, given the way an S or K body Pentax feels in the hands, and an LX (and K-7) prism housing looks (and how an F1n and a few others feel and look), that statement was the only thing that has made any sense in this entire thread.

Yes, most of this should be about the image; but for a hobbyist at least SOME of it is the sensuality of the actual experience.

[Shingoshi]

The 500 E series are less expensive then the 500 C or C/M cameras. There are some battery and electronic problems with the Es, nothing that can not be overcome but that is one of the reasons they are so inexpensive. You can easily get a Hasselblad and three lenses for the price of a K7. I do not follow how you can inexpensively get into digital with the 'blad or are you going with film? Metered prisms may be the downfall in your budget. The 120 Macro lens is not cheap but used extension tubes are.
But the strengths of the Hasselblad are totally different from those of a digital SLR.

I have read about some of the issues that you've mentioned here. The biggest problem is the fact the rechargeable Hasselblad batteries are no longer made. The other being something to do with the fuses. However, the cameras are still usable, since there is the ability to run the camera from an external power source. So the simple solution is to create a AA battery pack and use the powercord provided by Hasselblad. I intend to do that by purchasing on already made and available on the Net. In fact, they're sold on eBay. The issue with the fuses regarding the motor and it's operation would be immediately apparent to the seller, and would be reflected in the item's description. If they say the camera works and is in Excellent or Mint condition, you can depend on it performing just as stated! See my comments below about the seller's reputation.

eBay is also the solution for acquiring digital backs for the Hasselblad. People aren't selling them because they're bad, but because they've upgraded to backs of higher resolution. So they sell them to people like you and me who can't afford to buy the latest and greatest backs currently sold new. I think it's fair to say that for about the price of a Panasonic GF1, you can purchase a back made for Hasselblad. And ironically, one of the backs commonly being sold is the one previously made by Kodak. So if anyone were to take the time and look for themselves, they would easily verify the prices I've mentioned and justify for themselves whether or not it's something they would want to do. For me, I can't find a better solution, and am more than willing to take the chance on the cameras I've looked at. The main thing is to always check the reputation of the seller. Because if people were buying things they ultimately were displeased with, it would be reflected in the seller's ratings. So the seller's ratings stand to show how well the products perform as listed.

As for the prices of metered prisms, they too can be found rather cheaply. You just have to buy the older models. And I'll spend less than $600 on Hasselblad Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. If anyone here was paying attention, they would remember how much importance I've put upon the lenses I ultimately chose. Now please, go ahead foolishly find fault with the quality of Zeiss lenses. Even the Schneider lenses are held in high regard. The one I lust for is that obnoxious 140-280mm f/5.6 Variogon. And used, even it's less than anything you'll find of such high quality for small format DSLR.

With all that said, at least I say thank you for having some idea of what I'm talking about. I was out today shooting, and can't wait to start shooting with the Hasselblad. It's going to look very good sitting on top of my tripod! An all black Hasselblad 500 EL/X sitting perched and pretty on a just as pretty all black carbon-fiber Manfrotto 190MF. You simply can't ask for a better looking couple. The lady has one nice set of legs.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

---

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-28-2009 at 09:38 PM.

[Shingoshi]

But since I've already chosen my camera and unlike many of you, don't feel constrained to remain in the FAITH, I am passing this along to anyone who might want it. The camera is in excellent condition, and won't break your vows of marriage to a dead woman.
And yes, It's a Pentax!
So enjoy, if you have the initiative for it.
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
EDIT: I can't wait to get my Hasselblad!
[IMG=http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4923/theanticsofanseldsc0296.th.jpg] [IMG=http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7865/theanticsofanseldsc0297.th.jpg] [IMG=http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/2549/thetreeoflifeanddeathdsg.th.jpg] [IMG=http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5330/thetreeoflifeanddeathds.th.jpg]
EDIT: Zeiss 120mm f/4 == Bidding with no reserve. See the price!

[redrockcoulee]

I have read about some of the issues that you've mentioned here. The biggest problem is the fact the rechargeable Hasselblad batteries are no longer made. The other being something to do with the fuses. However, the cameras are still usable, since there is the ability to run the camera from an external power source. So the simple solution is to create a AA battery pack and use the powercord provided by Hasselblad. I intend to do that by purchasing on already made and available on the Net. In fact, they're sold on eBay. The issue with the fuses regarding the motor and it's operation would be immediately apparent to the seller, and would be reflected in the item's description. If they say the camera works and is in Excellent or Mint condition, you can depend on it performing just as stated! See my comments below about the seller's reputation.
eBay is also the solution for acquiring digital backs for the Hasselblad. People aren't selling them because they're bad, but because they've upgraded to backs of higher resolution. So they sell them to people like you and me who can't afford to buy the latest and greatest backs currently sold new. I think it's fair to say that for about the price of a Panasonic GF1, you can purchase a back made for Hasselblad. And ironically, one of the backs commonly being sold is the one previously made by Kodak. So if anyone were to take the time and look for themselves, they would easily verify the prices I've mentioned and justify for themselves whether or not it's something they would want to do. For me, I can't find a better solution, and am more than willing to take the chance on the cameras I've looked at. The main thing is to always check the reputation of the seller. Because if people were buying things they ultimately were displeased with, it would be reflected in the seller's ratings. So the seller's ratings stand to show how well the products perform as listed.
As for the prices of metered prisms, they too can be found rather cheaply. You just have to buy the older models. And I'll spend less than $600 on Hasselblad Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. If anyone here was paying attention, they would remember how much importance I've put upon the lenses I ultimately chose. Now please, go ahead foolishly find fault with the quality of Zeiss lenses. Even the Schneider lenses are held in high regard. The one I lust for is that obnoxious 140-280mm f/5.6 Variogon. And used, even it's less than anything you'll find of such high quality for small format DSLR.
With all that said, at least I say thank you for having some idea of what I'm talking about. I was out today shooting, and can't wait to start shooting with the Hasselblad. It's going to look very good sitting on top of my tripod! An all black Hasselblad 500 EL/X sitting perched and pretty on a just as pretty all black carbon-fiber Manfrotto 190MF. You simply can't ask for a better looking couple. The lady has one nice set of legs.
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

I was only commenting on the general reason why the E series of the Hasselblad 500s are as low as they are. For me the C/M makes more sense so did not really investiage as will never want an E camera. I do not know or really care about who you are purchasing from as it is the general market place that more or less sets prices that individual sellers follow. If you can find a 120 macro for under 600 that you found yourself a bargain. We went through the whole thing about having a battery pack rebuilt for a Fuji GX680. Forty dollars to get probably the best ever studio medium format camera up and running and it did the job for the one project we needed it for and now it is going back to its owner. Look them up if you do not know that model. As far as the Kodak camera goes I worked with people who had them new and were so glad to replace them with Nikon D1X and the D1X was no great camera either in a dirty environment. I would take any recent Pentax DSLR over it. However the Kodak backs for MF are a different thing and I personally will wait unti the CFV are within my reach for several reasons but you should go for what works for you. From what I understand the only real disadvantages of the Kodak back compared to the Hasselblad one is in lack of ease of operation but the market prices compensate for that.

Anyone with the funds can easily get a Zeiss lens for their Pentax. Why do you think people are going to put them down here? There is only the one Schenider lens for the Hasselblad as far as I know and it is only 1880 grams. The 100 Planar is supposedly the very best lens of the whole line and it is the one always on my camera (also the only one that fits on the camera in the bag but that is another story).

[builttospill]

A Pentax FF would be neat!

[Angevinn]

Where are the moderators? This forum is for the rumored 2010 release of the Pentax FF DSLR. Not shooting with dead camera systems (Kodak). Or ego tripping about building homemade cameras or electronics.

[24X36NOW]

Well, I have my K10D permanently set to SEL mode and think moving the focus point around is a piece of cake. Despite all the complaints about K10D AF, it's simply a better performer than I used to be with my LX. You have to help it find something to focus on, but so what? With my LX, I'm forced to do "focus and recompose" since instead of a lot of focus points, I have to use the split screen and microprism in the center. And to use the split prism, I need something with contrast, just like the AF does... And frankly, the AF usually works in light so dim that I it's almost impossible to focus manually, even with the much better viewfinder of the LX.

That's a fine example of why I never liked a split image focusing "aid." I never found it to be helpful, since it didn't seem to "aid" my focusing much. I prefer a simple groundglass, with either nothing else (which is what my LX's currently have - plain Beattie Intensecreens) or a SMALL microprism dot (which is unobtrusive enough so that I can simply use the groundglass) ala the original K1000 (IMO one of the best focusing screens - nice and simple). I find that the more "aids" that are added, the harder it is to focus. Just give me a nice bright groundglass finder and I'm a happy photographer.

[arbib]

Wow, that was a lot of words. All that is true, but I still say the only reason we don't have $1500 full frame DSLR's is due to marketing decisions. Let's take Nikon for example. The D300 can be had for $2600 USD (and cheaper on eBay). The D300 is basically the same camera with an APS-C sensor, it sells for $1700. So that is a $900 difference. Nikon could easily build a full frame D90 if they wanted to. The D90 sells for $800. Add $900 to that and you get a $1700 full frame D90. A full frame D90 vs an APS-C D300 is a no brainier for me; give me the D90 FX.

Now, lets take Pentax, the K7 sells for $1100, $600 cheaper than the D300s, if pentax wanted to sale a full frame K7 (or K20D to make it even cheaper) then I really don't see why they couldn't do it for around $1500.

My theory is marketing departments just want to sell everyone APS-C lenses now so when they do release a $1000 Canon full frame Rebel (and you know they will) those people will have to buy all new lenses because the Best Buy clerk says so.

LOL

I have only ff lenses, I'm ready...IF I buy a DA lens or APS-C lens, it will only be a kit lens zoom range. like starting at 16mm, That's about as wide I would find a use for right now

Now a K20FX....for $1300.00.... I'll get a used one 2 years later for $900.00

[Shingoshi]

For all of us who have been looking for full-frame digital cameras, I'm wondering what actually made us think that digital would produce better results for serious photographers, than shooting film? I'm asking the question because I've been researching film scanners and found that the scanners have a resolution of 6400dpi. That means for 35mm film, the interlaced resolution acquired is close to 12800x19200. I haven't seen any camera on the market that will produce that kind of resolution. And if you're shooting a Pentax 6x7 with it's 2.25x2.75 frame, that resolution jumps up to 28800x35200! Are you kidding!

No digital camera on earth can touch that. So why are we shooting digital? Because we think it's convenient to shoot in the field. Why hasn't it occurred to anyone to use digital imaging in the same manner as some of us used to use Polaroids. And in a comparison between Polaroids and digital, digital wins hand down. No Polaroid camera that I was aware of could manually adjust exposures to the extent needed by photographers. Only if you were shooting with medium or large-format would you have had the means to shoot the film directly through the same camera's identical viewpoint intended to shoot your film. But here's the hitch. With Polaroids, you had to change the exposure to match the ISO of the Polaroid. With digital cameras, you can manually set the ISO to match the exposure as it would occur in the camera.

So then you have the ability to preview your work and determine based on you digital images, which one's you most want to shoot and print. We all know that the resolution of any sensor is a function of it's size. So why are we depending on sensors of such a small size as those found in digital cameras?

Based on what I've been reading, the BEST Full-Frame digital camera is the one we were using all along. That being 35mm or 120 roll film. So why should anyone be waiting for something that will never be better than what we can get from film?

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Rondec]

There are plus and minuses to every format. Film versus digital is a debate that has raged on for a long time as well. I wouldn't say that film is better than digital, although it is in some respects, it is just different. If you look on the forum, you will find a section devoted to film -- there are plenty of folks who still use it and in some situations, it just knocks the socks off of digital. At the same time, there is a convenience factor with digital as well as the instant review capability. There is nothing more annoying than getting home to realize that something got adjusted on the camera while you were taking photos and they are completely blown out. That's much less likely to happen with digital because you adjust as you go.

[Shingoshi]

There are plus and minuses to every format. Film versus digital is a debate that has raged on for a long time as well. I wouldn't say that film is better than digital, although it is in some respects, it is just different. If you look on the forum, you will find a section devoted to film -- there are plenty of folks who still use it and in some situations, it just knocks the socks off of digital. At the same time, there is a convenience factor with digital as well as the instant review capability. There is nothing more annoying than getting home to realize that something got adjusted on the camera while you were taking photos and they are completely blown out. That's much less likely to happen with digital because you adjust as you go.

I'm not talking about an either or situation here. Rather, I'm suggesting that we use digital as a proofing medium. That way, the comment you make at the end of you response is no longer a problem. I really think digital should be used in conjunction with film as a pre-selection tool. It would require a bit more effort on the part of each photographer. But for those who specifically work as artists, we're going to be inclined to take our time in production anyway. Using a digital camera would be no different that using a handheld meter. The benefit here is that the "meter" here in question would actually also be giving us images to verify what we're doing. I'm simply suggesting that for those who want the highest quality from their work, do so on film after having done the proof work in digital.

I think we've been sold a bill of goods, which aren't. We're being told/sold that a problem exists that needs a solution. But I'm questioning the very basis of that assumption. Film isn't the problem. It's just that digital is convenient for snapshots and professionals who need a rapid turn around. But since most of us aren't on schedules which require immediate access to our images, is the rush really worth it? Don't get me wrong here. I really enjoy the immediate pleasure and gratification of seeing my work in the field. You would need a hammerdrill to get the smile off my face for some of the photos I take. But I'd really rather have the lasting quality of film in continuance of that pleasure, after I have my digital proof. Here's a good point where even a cheap digital back on a medium-format camera would be indispensable. Because if the digital image is only for proof work, images of lower resolution from older used backs isn't going to matter. What will matter, is the film.

It's just another way of looking at things.
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[giorgio]

Shingoshi

what type of photography are you after? would you post some pictures you've made?

[stormcloud]

i'd say the reason for shooting digital is obvious cost and instant feedback on results - since i went digital i have taken more photos in a couple of months than i did in years shooting film - sure msot of them are crap but thats the beauty of digital - who cares if the shot is crap take it anyway and hope for the best you might get lucky - where as shooting film you tended to want to make sure the shots you took were going to be good fine for portraits etc but not so handy for moving targets

also for aquward lighting situations the digitals ability to let you see and adjust based on what you are getting comes into its own - sure really good photographers might be able to get it right first time but not everyone is that good