hasselblad Sat, 29 Dec 2001 Volume 1 : Number 1453 In this issue: Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Too good kit? Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Re: hasselblad V1 #1452 120 vs. 100 Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 RE: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Questions about 150/4C Re: [HUG] Questions about 150/4C ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:56:39 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?ULF_SJ=D6GREN?= To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Message-ID: <001501c18f7d$90a98fc0$8a7197d4@oemcomputer> Even if your name invites me to answar in Swedish maybe it is better = not. I think that the decline in prices depends on the bulkiness of the = EL series. It was meant for the pro (=3D studio) market. The C and F = series are rather handy cameras even compared with modern 35 mm cameras = and in the terrain box you will not carry more than what is necessary . = Have you tried a Nikon F5? It is easy to bring a "ordinary" Hasselblad = out in the nature, and there you seldom have the real need for a winder. = And the second hand market is mostly built up on amateurs. Even if they = are very interested and good photographers they/we don't need the = winder and the job it is carrying that equipment around and taking care = if the rather expensive batteries. But in case we want a winder camera = of course we appreciate the EL series low price...;-) Ulf ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Mark Kronquist" To: Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:42 PM Subject: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? > Here's a question for the world. Why have Hasselblad EL EL/M cameras = crashed > through the floor value wise while 500c cameras are holding their = value much > better? >=20 > The switch to digital shouldn't matter much because EL series cameras = use > digital backs as well... >=20 > Batteries should not be an issue because of the 9V and NiMH = alternatives... >=20 > BTW If anyone wants one I have an EX/EX+ EL/M w WI NiMH and Charger = TTE10594 > FS $275 plus postage Thanks Mark mak@teleport.com >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute = Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing = list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's = subsidiaries, or affiliates. >=20 > Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. = Use text mode only. >=20 > To change your subscription status, go to: = http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at = http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:55:47 +0100 From: Toti Cal=?ISO-8859-1?B?8g==?= To: Subject: Too good kit? Message-ID: Hello there, I'm new to the list and not particularly smart with English, so here are my apologies in advance. I'm an Italian editorial pro-photographer and writer, who has the chance to buy an absolutely mint Hassy 500 ELM black (with Planar 80 and 6x6 back) at a reasonable price; yet I'm concerned about the batteries, and though I guess this has already been discussed here, I'd be grateful to know what is your experience with a kit which is for sale on th= e internet and makes it possible to use common 9V alkaline batteries instead of the ni-cad rechargeable ones. It doesn't require to modify the body anyhow, it is cheap and, well, it really looks a good solution... too good, maybe, and so: where are the drawbacks? Thanks for sharing your experience with me and happy new year everybody. --=20 Toti Cal=F2 mailto: tical@libero.it Editorial photography web site: http://web.tiscalinet.it/ephoto ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:21:56 +0100 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Message-ID: <007a01c18f91$dd699a80$e4e3f1c3@qnu350> Mark Kronquist wrote: > Here's a question for the world. Why have Hasselblad EL EL/M cameras crashed > through the floor value wise while 500c cameras are holding their value much > better? You don't need an EL to have a 500 series camera and motorized transport anymore. A 503 CXi or CW will do. So an EL, in comparison, will be too heavy, too bulky (unless it is fixed to the studio tripod permanently) but offers nothing extra in return. > The switch to digital shouldn't matter much because EL series cameras use > digital backs as well... Indeed. In fact the sole raison d'etre of the continued EL line is that the ELD has some contacts to connect to digital backs which other Hasselblad bodies lack. But you can put digital backs on the other bodies as well, so... > Batteries should not be an issue because of the 9V and NiMH alternatives... I think batteries indeed are an issue too (except for owners of an 553 ELX or 555 ELD). Yes, there are alternatives, but they are not readily available (the 9V adapters, for instance, only seem to be available from eBay?). Just like the old accus weren't readily available, which too was seen to be a disadvantage. Hence the change to AA batteries in later models. So add battery worries to the disadvantages of having a fixed motor, and you know why ELs aren't that popular anymore. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:54:39 EST From: DaveHodge@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: hasselblad V1 #1452 Message-ID: <94.1efd23d3.295dd39f@aol.com> In a message dated 12/28/01 3:44:49 AM, hasselblad@kelvin.net writes: << Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:42:34 -0500 From: "Marc Gravel" To: Subject: Black and White Infrared Photography with a Blad Message-ID: <001201c18f0e$a1b21040$a574cb18@videotron.ca> Hi everyone, I am particularly interested in black and white infrared photography. All of my photography is done using Kodak High Speed Infrared film. This is a fantastic film with only one major drawback. It is not available in 120 format. Only 35mm. In the 120 format there is the Ilford SFX.....which sorry to say, I don't like. Not enough magic for me there. Are there any other alternatives? I have heard that black and white infrared is available in 70mm and with a 70mm back it is possible to use in on a Blad. I would be interested to hear if anyone has experience in doing this and what would be your recommendations........ Thank-you.........and Merry X-mas and a Happy New Year to Everyone. Marc Gravel Montreal, Canada >> Kodak High Speed Infrared Film is available in 35mm rolls and 4x5 sheets. It is the same emulsion coated on both bases, so the 4x5 will give much better sharpness and much less grain than the 35mm. I shoot both of them at an index of 200 and develop in Microdol-X. Incidentally, the grain of the 35mm film has to be used as part of the composition since it is unavoidable. Konica Infrared Film is available in 35mm and 120. The main drawback of the Konica film is that the nominal exposure index in bright sunlight is 8. I use a tripod, of course, and usually use an exposure of 1/4 sec at f/22 in bright sunlight. At that slow shutter speed, any subject movement has to be tolerated (such as foilage moving in a breeze) and I have found that such movement can be made part of the composition. By trial and error I found that a 6x6 negative did not give me the results I wanted, so I purchased a Rapid Omega 100 camera (6x7 cm format) and use that for shooting the Konica IR. I got both the normal (90) and wide angle (58) lenses for it, as those are the two focal lengths that do what I need to do in landscape photography. I have not tried the SFX film. What is its nominal exposure index? Hope this helps. Email me with specific questions about IR film. I typically make 14x18 prints from the 6x7 negs and sepia tone them. They don't exactly sell "like hotcakes," but they do sell occasionally. Best regards, David Hodge ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:02:38 -0800 From: george day To: Subject: 120 vs. 100 Message-ID: Folks, Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on the 120 macro vs. the 100 for close-in portraits and secondary general use for portraits? I've used the 120 (although I don't own it) plenty of times, but haven't spent quality time with the 100. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:53:44 -0800 From: Mark Kronquist To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Message-ID: On 12/28/01 12:56 AM, "ULF SJ=D6GREN" wrote: > Even if your name invites me to answar in Swedish maybe it is better not.= I > think that the decline in prices depends on the bulkiness of the EL serie= s. It > was meant for the pro (=3D studio) market. The C and F series are rather ha= ndy > cameras even compared with modern 35 mm cameras and in the terrain box yo= u > will not carry more than what is necessary . Have you tried a Nikon F5? I= t is > easy to bring a "ordinary" Hasselblad out in the nature, and there you se= ldom > have the real need for a winder. And the second hand market is mostly bui= lt up > on amateurs. Even if they are very interested and good photographers they= /we > don't need the winder and the job it is carrying that equipment around a= nd > taking care if the rather expensive batteries. But in case we want a wind= er > camera of course we appreciate the EL series low price...;-) > Ulf > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Kronquist" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:42 PM > Subject: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? >=20 >=20 >> Here's a question for the world. Why have Hasselblad EL EL/M cameras cra= shed >> through the floor value wise while 500c cameras are holding their value = much >> better? >>=20 >> The switch to digital shouldn't matter much because EL series cameras us= e >> digital backs as well... >>=20 >> Batteries should not be an issue because of the 9V and NiMH alternatives= ... >>=20 >> BTW If anyone wants one I have an EX/EX+ EL/M w WI NiMH and Charger TTE1= 0594 >> FS $275 plus postage Thanks Mark mak@teleport.com >>=20 >>=20 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Inte= rnet, >> Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in= no >> way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliat= es. >>=20 >> Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. Use = text >> mode only. >>=20 >> To change your subscription status, go to: >> http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad >> Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Inter= net, > Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in = no > way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliate= s. >=20 > Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. Use t= ext > mode only. >=20 > To change your subscription status, go to: > http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm Alas I wish I spoke Swedish. My Grandparents came to the US before the war. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:03:36 -0800 From: Mark Kronquist To: Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Message-ID: The 100 is the best lens in the line. Buy it. The only time mine leaves my camera is when my wife (uh borrows) it for her camera but she's cute and fun so that's okay...Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:53:51 -0800 From: george day To: Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Message-ID: That's my inclination, frankly. I'm not really an super up-close shooter, anyway. I *do* have the 110/2, so the near duplication is something to consider! On 12/28/01 9:03 AM, "Mark Kronquist" wrote: > The 100 is the best lens in the line. Buy it. The only time mine leaves my > camera is when my wife (uh borrows) it for her camera but she's cute and fun > so that's okay...Mark > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, > Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no > way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. Use text > mode only. > > To change your subscription status, go to: > http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:07:43 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Monaghan To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Message-ID: yes, I picked up an EL/M with charger for under $275 over a year ago now so prices have been low for awhile. The person selling the EL/M cited his desire to replace it with a lighter model for location shooting. I wanted a model I could use with a prinz radio control unit I had to do critter shots with homebrew infrared beam alarms and birds in the nest shots. It would be cheaper by far to put a relatively fast mid-tele (the cheapy 250mm) on an EL/M and shoot closer up with a radio link than try to rig up a 1000mm combo using a 500mm and 2X (equiv to a 600mm on 35mm SLR approx). so in my case, buying the EL/M was in place of buying a much higher $$ lens. since many EL/Ms were used in studios, you might also assume that they have had more film thru them than some of the similar aged 500 c/m models which could well have been in amateur hands (~80%?). But the EL/M is a pound or so heavier, not much really, but the handholding dynamics are a lot different, and they take a substantial tripod and head for best results. however, the dropping prices aren't limited to EL/Ms. I have started to see hassy 500c kits with 80mm and 12 backs selling for well under $700 from individuals. When you price out the back and lens, its a buy ;-) I've been tempted to buy a 500c kit with 50mm C lens at $1k too, but Xmas was upon us ;-) Similarly, I have noted that the older C lenses often failed to meet EBAY reserves set by dealers esp. (over $750), but often ended up with high bids under reserves of around $650 to $700+ (with dozens of bidders). Again, I attribute this to the switch to digital, less demand for medium format (down 10% worldwide, 25% in Japan (soon USA too as it goes digital equally?), and pros dumping backup C lenses which can no longer be maintained or repaired. but some great bargains for someone getting into the system are out there! * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 16:21:31 -0800 From: Patrick Bartek To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Message-ID: <01122816213106.00629@localhost.localdomain> On Friday 28 December 2001 08:02, george day wrote: > Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on the 120 macro vs. the 100 > for close-in portraits and secondary general use for portraits? I've > used the 120 (although I don't own it) plenty of times, but haven't > spent quality time with the 100. How "close-in" are we talking about? Loose head shot? Tight head shot? Count nose hairs head shot? I find the 120 (or the 135 w/bellows or 3rd party focusing mount) more suited to really tight, bordering on macro head shots, mainly because it's optimized for close-ups. The 100 was originally designed for aerial photography and is best at infinity; plus, without accessories, it won't focus as close as the 120. Also, the 120, because of the longer focal length, gives you better working distances than the 100 at the same repro ratios. -- Patrick Bartek NoLife Polymath Group bartek@intermind.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 16:48:57 -0800 From: george day To: Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Message-ID: Loose. For very tight, I go with a longer focal length and extension tubes -- but that's me. Your point is well taken and correct, though. Wouldn't it be nice to have all of these...?! On 12/28/01 4:21 PM, "Patrick Bartek" wrote: > On Friday 28 December 2001 08:02, george day wrote: > >> Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on the 120 macro vs. the 100 >> for close-in portraits and secondary general use for portraits? I've >> used the 120 (although I don't own it) plenty of times, but haven't >> spent quality time with the 100. > > How "close-in" are we talking about? Loose head shot? Tight head > shot? Count nose hairs head shot? > > I find the 120 (or the 135 w/bellows or 3rd party focusing mount) more > suited to really tight, bordering on macro head shots, mainly because > it's optimized for close-ups. The 100 was originally designed for > aerial photography and is best at infinity; plus, without accessories, > it won't focus as close as the 120. Also, the 120, because of the > longer focal length, gives you better working distances than the 100 at > the same repro ratios. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 09:12:43 +0800 From: "Stein" To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW? Message-ID: <007f01c19006$080c1e60$29b237cb@oemcomputer> Dear Friends, If you are approached by a man in the street with a large canvas bag filled with Hasselblad ELM and ELX cameras and he tries to sell them to you for a remarkably low price, you should: 1. Carefully examine them. 2. Cycle them through their paces. 3. Ask to see proof that he owns them. 4. Buy them. The worries that list members have expressed about batteries are fairly easy to allay - I found a local battery maker that made up replacement batteries for my ELX at about US $ 32 each brand new - I bought 4 of them. When the shop opens up again after summer holidays I will enquire when the next batch of batteries will be produced and will notify the list. My new batteries are cycling like a beauty - and the camera is all that a studio shooter needs. In my case I am doing dance and glamour photos so it can sit atop a studio stand and the magic electric release button and instant recycling means that I am getting better rythym when shooting. Remember also that if you are in a studio situation you can supply the camera from a mains-to-DC power pack and shoot all day. Keep the 500 C/M for field work. Final note for stereo photographers - two EL bodies sit side-by-side on a spacing bar at just about the right interpupil distance. You can trigger both with one electrical impulse and if the studio lighting is strobe, a shutter speed of 1/60 will allow the exposure to be done by the flash while the cameras are open - if there is a slight discrepancy in the timing. 56mm x 56mm square colour contact prints on glossy paper mounted in a Holmes card viewer is wonderful. Viewers available new from a firm in the USA. Throw away your Sputnik! Uncle Dick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 20:20:27 -0500 From: Jesse Hellman To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Message-ID: <3C2D1A5B.F6833F08@home.com> I'm puzzled a bit about the use of the 120 for tight head shots. I used to have a 150 and now a 180, and for tight head shots used a 16 extension tube. The problem was distortion. Eventually I got the 1.4 tele-extender and the combination allows tight shots from about five feet - sometimes both the subject and I did not realize the extent of the distortion until we did a second set of pictures with the tele-extender. So the issue is not so much the sharpness of the lens as much as how a face looks from three feet away, or closer. The tele-extender allows the lens to focus at the same close-focus distance as without it. Any thoughts on this? Jesse Patrick Bartek wrote: > > On Friday 28 December 2001 08:02, george day wrote: > > > Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on the 120 macro vs. the 100 > > for close-in portraits and secondary general use for portraits? I've > > used the 120 (although I don't own it) plenty of times, but haven't > > spent quality time with the 100. > > How "close-in" are we talking about? Loose head shot? Tight head > shot? Count nose hairs head shot? > > I find the 120 (or the 135 w/bellows or 3rd party focusing mount) more > suited to really tight, bordering on macro head shots, mainly because > it's optimized for close-ups. The 100 was originally designed for > aerial photography and is best at infinity; plus, without accessories, > it won't focus as close as the 120. Also, the 120, because of the > longer focal length, gives you better working distances than the 100 at > the same repro ratios. > > -- > Patrick Bartek > NoLife Polymath Group > bartek@intermind.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:40:58 -0800 From: "Frank Filippone" To: "Jesse Hellman" , Subject: RE: [HUG] 120 vs. 100 Message-ID: relatiive position or camera to subject affects perspective. The closer you get, the "weirder" the portrait will get for the same image area...... Your 1.4 extender allowed you to move back for the same image area, therefore changing the perspective till it was more comfortable to you, the viewer.... Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 21:39:44 -0800 From: "Tourtelot" To: Subject: Questions about 150/4C Message-ID: <000801c1902b$387a09c0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> I just got (what I think is) a nice 150/4 C. In the"old days" did some Zeiss lenses show up "flawed." This lens seem to have a cluster of bubbles trapped in one of the elements. It doesn't look like classic fungus (not spiderwebby) and it seems to be a little globe shape so I don't think it's separation. Seems to shoot fine and at my budget, I plan on using it for a long time. I will send it in in about six month to have it CLA'd, but shutter speeds are good. Just curious. D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 23:51:04 -0600 From: "Christopher Williams" To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Questions about 150/4C Message-ID: <000701c1902c$ced4d520$fdf0490c@computer> Some glass did come with little air bubbles inside of the lens. Never hurt image quality though. Chris Williams New Orleans ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tourtelot" To: Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:39 PM Subject: [HUG] Questions about 150/4C > I just got (what I think is) a nice 150/4 C. In the"old days" did some > Zeiss lenses show up "flawed." This lens seem to have a cluster of bubbles > trapped in one of the elements. It doesn't look like classic fungus (not > spiderwebby) and it seems to be a little globe shape so I don't think it's > separation. Seems to shoot fine and at my budget, I plan on using it for a > long time. I will send it in in about six month to have it CLA'd, but > shutter speeds are good. Just curious. > > D. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. Use text mode only. > > To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1453 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. Use text mode only. To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm