Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Hasselblads newest.... Really not OT.....
From: s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov)
Date: Sat Feb 24 10:29:24 2007
References: <C2052DA8.46327%mark@rabinergroup.com> <9D4EFE2C-E2BF-499D-8017-513CD53DE389@btinternet.com> <03c001c7583b$8cd7b4d0$a6871e70$@net>

For me the square is an important tool for previsualization and  
execution. The framing provided by a 4x5 media is also an important  
element of the composition. While yes it is a rectangle, it is still  
not a 35mm format, or a 645.
Once they get a decent 22meg+ camera, I'll have the sensor, and  
screen masked off to make a square. All the relevant innovations have  
been directed at the 35mm style SLR end. Getting a hybrid digital 120  
is not a realistic option anymore. Furthermore, If I wanted to shot  
with a Fuji I would of done it a long time ago. I did, and their EBC  
lenses are total crap. Even tried their EBC darkroom lenses. A  
Componar does better.

s.d.
http://sdimitrovphoto.com/



On Feb 24, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Frank Filippone wrote:

> A sorry event..... but you have to go back to why we ( me and a  
> bunch of others) still shoot 6x6.....
>
> I shoot 6x6 for the bigger negative.  Dust is less prominent,  
> requires less blowing up to reach a certain size, and basically it is
> a studio camera best suited for a tripod mount.  None of this is  
> true for 35mm SLR or RF.  Yes, it all can be done, but not best
> suited.  It is just easier in the darkroom.
>
> Now comes in these digital pixels thingies......   With the  
> realization that MOST images are never blown up past 8x10, the need to
> larger image capture than ( whatever this turns out to be in  
> capture pixels )  XYZ MP, is gone.  Once you have enough pixels, more
> is not required.  Yes, for us traditionalists shooting film, the  
> 6x6 or 6x7 or  6x9 format is more "ideal" than 35mm.  But if the
> pixel count is enough to do what you want, then you do not need a  
> bigger sensor.  The fact that film has needs of ABC and digital
> has needs of XYZ.  They are different.
>
> The other side of the coin... IC products yield goes down by the  
> square of the chip size.... a 1/2 x 1/2 inch sensor has 4 times the
> yield and 4 times the number of chips as a 1x1 sensor... 16 times  
> the number of good chips per wafer.  Cost is less.
>
> Also, lens design is less stringent and easier to fabricate for a  
> smaller sensor...... smaller sensor = smaller elements = smaller
> cost.
>
> Lastly, what Mark said.... Imacon is Hasselblad.  They could care  
> less about us film folk.  Obviously from a business standpoint,
> maybe they are right... but it does not mean that us film guys  
> deserve the royal Danish bum's rush.  They are not interested in
> making a large format digital back for us 6x6 guys.. cost, fit for  
> purpose, market acceptance are all against us.  Heaven forbid,
> they should make a 6x6 back for us 500 Family members.  Even though  
> the potential market is absolutely huge.
>
> However, if you are willing to use film, the Hasselblad deals are  
> absolutely great.....The last lens or 2 to keep its value high is
> the 40mm Distagon and the 30mm Distagon.  They have yet to fall.   
> The rest are in the tank ( lucky us film folks....)
>
> Anyone got a 30mm Distagon Fisheye they want to sell cheap?
>
> Frank Filippone
> red735i@earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Hasselblads newest.... Really not OT.....)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Hasselblads newest.... Really not OT.....)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Hasselblads newest.... Really not OT.....)