Other than the fact that everytime I want something
else for the camera, it will cost me a zillion dollars, what are the
other costs involved,film,film processing, etc. I know this is a good
deal on the camera and it's not the kind of thing where I would buy it
and sell it for a profit, just for the fact that the guy is a friend of
mine. Seems like a lot of you have medium format gear and it may be
something I would enjoy, but is Hasselblad the route to go?
TIA...I think
mike m.
A GOOD DEAL? IT'S A FANG! Even if you tried it out, and changed your mind,
you could probably make enough money selling it to cover your film and
processing expenses as well. As a satisfied 'blad owner and user (most of my
commercial work is b&w on the 'blad), I'll give you my thoughts:
1. The square. I enjoy shooting the square format. The reason so many
commercial shooters like it is the flexibility, since their work will be
used in some proportion other than 8x10 anyway, and that is one advantage. I
generally crop for best composition, not to fit a specific paper size, so
4.5x6 or 6x7 don't help me that much anyway, but I also like composing for
the full square.
2. Costs. Film and processing will be less per roll. Yes, there are fewer
shots per roll, but you will find yourself shooting fewer shots, anyway.
Yes, you can impose this kind of discipline on your 35, too, but who can
resist the extra shots? Of course, there are not many discount labs for 120,
but locally, my lab is competitive.
3. Labs. You will be forced to use pro labs in most communities. That's not
necessarily bad. I've found that for process and contact, or for E6, costs
no greater. Machine prints are more, although not that much, but
enlargements (hand prints) are the same. I've never worked with 120 on a
frontier (the local lab that uses a Frontier is limited by their operators),
but many on photo.net are really sold. Remember, though, that there are
Frontiers, and then there are Frontiers. The ones that are being installed
at Sam's Club and wal-mart don't handle 120, evidently.
4.Expense. yes, new lenses are VERY expensive. The beauty of the 'blad is
the fact that the very first lens made will still work on a current camera.
Older lenses are more that OM, but not that much, considering the inclusion
of a shutter. Older C lenses, still very good, are becoming very affordable.
5. I wouldn't bother with the meter. You can get a good Kiev prism (buy it
where you can actually try it out, as the QC is uneven) and a high quality
handheld meter for the same $500, and be a lot better off.
6. There is one little thing. Projectors. I've never seen a MF slide show,
but I sure would like to. I will, when I can find a projector that costs
less than a camera. Even used, they tend to be over $1000, unless you can
find a really old one somewhere.
Get it. Now. You can go a long time with just an 80. Later, you can add a
150 or 50. It won't replace your OM's, but it will please you greatly.
Bill Pearce
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|