hasselblad Thu, 17 Jan 2002 Volume 1 : Number 1472 In this issue: Icky Stuff on Lens Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Re: [HUG] Jobo advice Re: [HUG] Icky Stuff on Lens Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Re: [HUG] Jobo advice Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Extension tube DOF Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Re: [HUG] Extension tube DOF Re: [HUG] Extension tube DOF Re: [HUG] 500EL Deal? Starter Studio Lighting Re: [HUG] 500EL Deal? RE: [HUG] Starter Studio Lighting Re: [HUG] Starter Studio Lighting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:20:20 +0700 From: Peter Walker To: Subject: Icky Stuff on Lens Message-ID: We could start a whole new thread about the "ickiest thing you have had to clean off your lens". My story comes from the wild world of Thai boxing. A couple of years ago I visited the main Thai boxing stadium in Bangkok. I was looking for some "local color" stock shots. After shooting for a while from the "first class" seating, I paid a little bit of money and got down to ringside for some close-up action. I'd only been there for a couple of minutes when I found myself in the fallout zone from a fierce kick to one of the boxer's jaw. A spray of blood and sweat smacked across my lens and my face. I cleaned my face with the boxer's water bottle. I was able to remove the UV filter and kept shooting, albeit from a safer distance... Next day, I bought a new UV filter. Regards Peter Email: peter@peterwalker.com URL: http://www.peterwalker.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:02:12 -0500 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Subject: Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020115105416.051a8770@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> At 03:45 AM 01/15/2002, you wrote: >The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit. I am sorry, but I have to take umbrage at this calumny. Everyone here who's anti-UV filter seems to be operating from the perspective of shooting portraits or models or weddings or commercial stuff in controlled situations where a UV filter may well not be necessary for lens protection/insurance. Heck, my studio-only stuff doesn't have UV filters either. B U T ... some of us are shooting in less amenable environments. I posted obliquely yesterday about getting caught in a frat food fight. It was no joke and it really happened. Getting whipped cream and chocolate pudding off my lens would have been impossible. Unscrewing the filter after wiping down the lens barrel & hood let me finish my day's assignments. The silk tie I was wearing and the UV filter went into the trash. I've also shot rodeos from the floor, and there's plenty of stuff it's not so simply to scrape off the front of a lens, hood or not. I shot plenty of basketball & wrestling too (the real college-Olympics kind, not the WWF stuff) and flying drops of perspiration are a consideration. No joke. My point is that while a UV filter is NOT necessary all the time, whether for UV filtration or protection/insurance, it IS advisable some of the time. Those who've said, "No UV filter, EVER," as as wrong as those who've said, "UV filters on every lens every second." Remember what Groucho said about cigars? Applies to filters too. Finally, suggesting that every store salesman who suggests a UV filter is, every time, trying to line his (or the store owner's) pocket at the unsuspecting customer's expense is just as wrong and just as blatant a generalization as the filter conversation has been. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:33:45 +0700 From: Peter Walker To: Subject: Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: Henry, As far as I can find on the WWW, the only thing that Groucho said about cigars was: "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke." I don't get the connection to UV filters... Please clarify. Regards Peter Email: peter@peterwalker.com URL: http://www.peterwalker.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:02:12 -0500 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Subject: Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020115105416.051a8770@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> At 03:45 AM 01/15/2002, you wrote: >The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit. I am sorry, but I have to take umbrage at this calumny. Everyone here who's anti-UV filter seems to be operating from the perspective of shooting portraits or models or weddings or commercial stuff in controlled situations where a UV filter may well not be necessary for lens protection/insurance. Heck, my studio-only stuff doesn't have UV filters either. B U T ... some of us are shooting in less amenable environments. I posted obliquely yesterday about getting caught in a frat food fight. It was no joke and it really happened. Getting whipped cream and chocolate pudding off my lens would have been impossible. Unscrewing the filter after wiping down the lens barrel & hood let me finish my day's assignments. The silk tie I was wearing and the UV filter went into the trash. I've also shot rodeos from the floor, and there's plenty of stuff it's not so simply to scrape off the front of a lens, hood or not. I shot plenty of basketball & wrestling too (the real college-Olympics kind, not the WWF stuff) and flying drops of perspiration are a consideration. No joke. My point is that while a UV filter is NOT necessary all the time, whether for UV filtration or protection/insurance, it IS advisable some of the time. Those who've said, "No UV filter, EVER," as as wrong as those who've said, "UV filters on every lens every second." Remember what Groucho said about cigars? Applies to filters too. Finally, suggesting that every store salesman who suggests a UV filter is, every time, trying to line his (or the store owner's) pocket at the unsuspecting customer's expense is just as wrong and just as blatant a generalization as the filter conversation has been. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:48:25 +0700 From: Peter Walker To: Subject: Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: Henry, I kept searching and, at this URL,: http://thor.prohosting.com/~davidtan/13grouch.htm full of Groucho quotes, found this one: Groucho quote from YBYL, when he had a housewife on who said she had seven children. Groucho said, Seven? That many? She blushed, and said, Well, I love my husband. Groucho came back with, I love my cigar, too, but I take it out once in a while. Does this have something to do with UV filters???? Regards Peter On 16/1/02 5:33 PM, "Peter Walker" wrote: > Henry, > > As far as I can find on the WWW, the only thing that Groucho said about cigars > was: > > "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke." > > I don't get the connection to UV filters... > > Please clarify. > > Regards > Peter > > Email: peter@peterwalker.com > URL: http://www.peterwalker.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:02:12 -0500 > From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video > To: > Subject: Re: Lewis and his scratched lens > Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020115105416.051a8770@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> > > At 03:45 AM 01/15/2002, you wrote: >> The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit. > > I am sorry, but I have to take umbrage at this calumny. Everyone here who's > anti-UV filter seems to be operating from the perspective of shooting > portraits or models or weddings or commercial stuff in controlled > situations where a UV filter may well not be necessary for lens > protection/insurance. Heck, my studio-only stuff doesn't have UV filters > either. > > B U T ... > > some of us are shooting in less amenable environments. I posted obliquely > yesterday about getting caught in a frat food fight. It was no joke and it > really happened. Getting whipped cream and chocolate pudding off my lens > would have been impossible. Unscrewing the filter after wiping down the > lens barrel & hood let me finish my day's assignments. The silk tie I was > wearing and the UV filter went into the trash. I've also shot rodeos from > the floor, and there's plenty of stuff it's not so simply to scrape off the > front of a lens, hood or not. I shot plenty of basketball & wrestling too > (the real college-Olympics kind, not the WWF stuff) and flying drops of > perspiration are a consideration. No joke. > > My point is that while a UV filter is NOT necessary all the time, whether > for UV filtration or protection/insurance, it IS advisable some of the > time. Those who've said, "No UV filter, EVER," as as wrong as those who've > said, "UV filters on every lens every second." > > Remember what Groucho said about cigars? Applies to filters too. Finally, > suggesting that every store salesman who suggests a UV filter is, every > time, trying to line his (or the store owner's) pocket at the unsuspecting > customer's expense is just as wrong and just as blatant a generalization as > the filter conversation has been. > > -- > regards, > Henry Posner > Director of Sales and Training > B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. > http://www.bhphotovideo.com > > > Regards Peter Telephone: +66-1-374-7034 Email: peter@peterwalker.com URL: http://www.peterwalker.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:08:42 -0500 (EST) From: Rei Shinozuka To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Jobo advice Message-ID: <200201161208.HAA02238@tigercat.nyfir.pwj.com> for what purpose, film, paper, c41, e6, B&W? in general, jobos are well made and well supported and if one word could describe the jobo system, it's "versatile." i have the little one, the CPE, with the lift. i used to use it a lot for XP-1 processing, and the occasional E6, C41 and color neg and cibachrome prints. -rei > From: george day > > Changing topics ENTIRELY...I'm thinking about breaking down and buying a > Jobo system, primarily for my MF work. Never had one, never used one. > Advice, comments? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:16:09 -0800 From: george day To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Icky Stuff on Lens Message-ID: I was going to mention the toddler who smeared jam across a Zeiss macro when I got too close...but, ladies and gentlemen, look no further: we have a winner! On 1/16/02 2:20 AM, "Peter Walker" wrote: > We could start a whole new thread about the "ickiest thing you have had to > clean off your lens". > > My story comes from the wild world of Thai boxing. A couple of years ago I > visited the main Thai boxing stadium in Bangkok. I was looking for some > "local color" stock shots. After shooting for a while from the "first > class" seating, I paid a little bit of money and got down to ringside for > some close-up action. I'd only been there for a couple of minutes when I > found myself in the fallout zone from a fierce kick to one of the boxer's > jaw. A spray of blood and sweat smacked across my lens and my face. I > cleaned my face with the boxer's water bottle. I was able to remove the UV > filter and kept shooting, albeit from a safer distance... > > Next day, I bought a new UV filter. > > Regards > Peter > > Email: peter@peterwalker.com > URL: http://www.peterwalker.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:02:12 -0500 > From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video > To: > Subject: Re: Lewis and his scratched lens > Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020115105416.051a8770@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> > > At 03:45 AM 01/15/2002, you wrote: >> The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit. > > I am sorry, but I have to take umbrage at this calumny. Everyone here who's > anti-UV filter seems to be operating from the perspective of shooting > portraits or models or weddings or commercial stuff in controlled > situations where a UV filter may well not be necessary for lens > protection/insurance. Heck, my studio-only stuff doesn't have UV filters > either. > > B U T ... > > some of us are shooting in less amenable environments. I posted obliquely > yesterday about getting caught in a frat food fight. It was no joke and it > really happened. Getting whipped cream and chocolate pudding off my lens > would have been impossible. Unscrewing the filter after wiping down the > lens barrel & hood let me finish my day's assignments. The silk tie I was > wearing and the UV filter went into the trash. I've also shot rodeos from > the floor, and there's plenty of stuff it's not so simply to scrape off the > front of a lens, hood or not. I shot plenty of basketball & wrestling too > (the real college-Olympics kind, not the WWF stuff) and flying drops of > perspiration are a consideration. No joke. > > My point is that while a UV filter is NOT necessary all the time, whether > for UV filtration or protection/insurance, it IS advisable some of the > time. Those who've said, "No UV filter, EVER," as as wrong as those who've > said, "UV filters on every lens every second." > > Remember what Groucho said about cigars? Applies to filters too. Finally, > suggesting that every store salesman who suggests a UV filter is, every > time, trying to line his (or the store owner's) pocket at the unsuspecting > customer's expense is just as wrong and just as blatant a generalization as > the filter conversation has been. > > -- > regards, > Henry Posner > Director of Sales and Training > B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. > http://www.bhphotovideo.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:17:24 -0800 From: george day To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: Is anyone even remotely this funny today?! On 1/16/02 2:48 AM, "Peter Walker" wrote: > Henry, > > I kept searching and, at this URL,: > > http://thor.prohosting.com/~davidtan/13grouch.htm > > full of Groucho quotes, found this one: > > Groucho quote from YBYL, when he had a housewife on who said she had seven > children. Groucho said, Seven? That many? She blushed, and said, Well, I > love my husband. Groucho came back with, I love my cigar, too, but I take it > out once in a while. > > Does this have something to do with UV filters???? > > Regards > Peter > > On 16/1/02 5:33 PM, "Peter Walker" wrote: > >> Henry, >> >> As far as I can find on the WWW, the only thing that Groucho said about >> cigars >> was: >> >> "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke." >> >> I don't get the connection to UV filters... >> >> Please clarify. >> >> Regards >> Peter >> >> Email: peter@peterwalker.com >> URL: http://www.peterwalker.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:02:12 -0500 >> From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video >> To: >> Subject: Re: Lewis and his scratched lens >> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020115105416.051a8770@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> >> >> At 03:45 AM 01/15/2002, you wrote: >>> The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit. >> >> I am sorry, but I have to take umbrage at this calumny. Everyone here who's >> anti-UV filter seems to be operating from the perspective of shooting >> portraits or models or weddings or commercial stuff in controlled >> situations where a UV filter may well not be necessary for lens >> protection/insurance. Heck, my studio-only stuff doesn't have UV filters >> either. >> >> B U T ... >> >> some of us are shooting in less amenable environments. I posted obliquely >> yesterday about getting caught in a frat food fight. It was no joke and it >> really happened. Getting whipped cream and chocolate pudding off my lens >> would have been impossible. Unscrewing the filter after wiping down the >> lens barrel & hood let me finish my day's assignments. The silk tie I was >> wearing and the UV filter went into the trash. I've also shot rodeos from >> the floor, and there's plenty of stuff it's not so simply to scrape off the >> front of a lens, hood or not. I shot plenty of basketball & wrestling too >> (the real college-Olympics kind, not the WWF stuff) and flying drops of >> perspiration are a consideration. No joke. >> >> My point is that while a UV filter is NOT necessary all the time, whether >> for UV filtration or protection/insurance, it IS advisable some of the >> time. Those who've said, "No UV filter, EVER," as as wrong as those who've >> said, "UV filters on every lens every second." >> >> Remember what Groucho said about cigars? Applies to filters too. Finally, >> suggesting that every store salesman who suggests a UV filter is, every >> time, trying to line his (or the store owner's) pocket at the unsuspecting >> customer's expense is just as wrong and just as blatant a generalization as >> the filter conversation has been. >> >> -- >> regards, >> Henry Posner >> Director of Sales and Training >> B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. >> http://www.bhphotovideo.com >> >> >> > > > Regards > Peter > > Telephone: +66-1-374-7034 > Email: peter@peterwalker.com > URL: http://www.peterwalker.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:19:28 -0800 From: george day To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Jobo advice Message-ID: Jim, Much obliged! To be honest, I have done my own processing in a very long time, but the lack of local resources ... And my sudden, inexplicable desire to start experimenting with some of the techniques on this and other lists ... Has changed all that! On 1/15/02 7:18 PM, "Jim Brick" wrote: > At 01:47 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, george day wrote: >> Changing topics ENTIRELY...I'm thinking about breaking down and buying a >> Jobo system, primarily for my MF work. Never had one, never used one. >> Advice, comments? > > > George, > > I have a large JOBO system with all of the bells and whistles. You need to > stop by my house and checkout my darkroom. > > Jim > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:46:52 -0500 From: Bernard Ferster To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020116104603.009edec0@ipostoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 04:36 PM 1/15/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Actually, that is from Kipling. Well, Groucho SHOULD have said it! .........................B.F.................... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:50:02 -0500 From: Bernard Ferster To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020116104940.00a0bac0@ipostoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 07:18 PM 1/15/2002 -0500, you wrote: >I have never Kipled. Is that anything like tippled? .........................B.F.................... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:54:03 -0500 From: Bernard Ferster To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020116105304.00a02780@ipostoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 05:48 PM 1/16/2002 +0700, you wrote: >She blushed, and said, Well, I >love my husband. Groucho came back with, I love my cigar, too, but I take it >out once in a while. > >Does this have something to do with UV filters???? BINGO! And who said that we have no sense of humor? .........................B.F.................... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:25:15 -0800 From: "Tourtelot" To: Subject: Extension tube DOF Message-ID: <000a01c19eaa$618acd80$6401a8c0@attbi.com> What does putting a, say #21, extension tube on do to a lens' DOF? I know that there must be some formula. Also, do you studio portrait photographers out there shoot at a very fat stop, let's say f11 or higher, to preserve DOF in your tight (head and shoulders at the widest) portraits? I have a whole roll of "near eye sharp, far eye soft" 3/4 headshots. That's probably why they make 3200w/s monos and the Sonnar 250 stops down to f45. Thanks. D. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Ferster" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens > At 05:48 PM 1/16/2002 +0700, you wrote: > >She blushed, and said, Well, I > >love my husband. Groucho came back with, I love my cigar, too, but I take it > >out once in a while. > > > >Does this have something to do with UV filters???? > > > BINGO! > > And who said that we have no sense of humor? > > > .........................B.F.................... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:06:15 -0800 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens Message-ID: <3C45B303.EBACB535@markrabiner.com> Many famous Groucho lines are written by S.J. Perelman. He wrote Horse Feathers and Monkey Business and was uncredited on others. Right now in the pocket of my black trench coat is a copy of "Crazy Like a fox" by him. Although Groucho had no problem coming up with his own one liners he was thought of as being Grouchos writer at one point. By Groucho himself. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.markrabiner.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:27:56 -0500 From: "Charlie Goodwin" To: "hasselblad@kelvin.net" Subject: Re: [HUG] Extension tube DOF Message-ID: <200201161652.g0GGq7W21733@smtp.mcttelecom.com> Hello, Formulas aside, the more you extend any lens, i.e. the closer you focus, wh= ether by tubes or bellows or whatever...the shallower the DOF gets. At in= finity, any lens has miles of DOF, literally. Even a Mount Palomar astron= omical instrument focussed at infinity or whatever hyperfocal distance they= might use to get by minute error in construction etc, has zillions of ligh= t years in usable focus. Take any lens we might be tempted to use; put it= within a couple of focal lengths of the subject, and voila, the near eye i= s in focus, and the far eye is out...or vise versa. Get a bit closer yet, and only a part of one eye will be sharp... Keep ge= tting closer and the zone of sharp focus becomes paper thin. Along with closer focus comes loss of exposure relative to what a hand held= meter would indicate. In camera metering will "see" the real illuminatio= n and take care of the compensation without you having to do any adjustment= s for lens extension. Studio portraits? Depends what you want...and how you shoot. Large open= ing =3D shallow focus, and the chance to throw the background out of focus,= Small aperture =3D more DOF, and the need for more lighting power.... = What dedicated portrait studios tend to use for Watt/Seconds someone else o= n this forum probably can answer. Commercial and advertising studios need= ing great illumination over large sets often have vast gobs of power, tens = of thousands of w/s. Charlie " What does putting a, say #21, extension tube on do to a lens' DOF? I know that there must be some formula. Also, do you studio portrait photographers out there shoot at a very fat stop, let's say f11 or higher, to preserve DOF in your tight (head and shoulders at the widest) portraits? I have a whole roll of "near eye shar= p, far eye soft" 3/4 headshots. That's probably why they make 3200w/s monos a= nd the Sonnar 250 stops down to f45" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:09:51 +0100 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: [HUG] Extension tube DOF Message-ID: <000a01c19eb9$0b21fe00$72d8f1c3@qnu350> Charlie Goodwin wrote: > At infinity, any lens has miles of DOF, literally. Though it is absolutely impossible to put a number to it. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:49:23 -0500 From: Frank Lew To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Message-ID: <6BFD195867B8D2119B8E00A0C989734610C05C@SERVER1> Hi Hassy users, I have the opportunity to purchase a Hassy 500EL body for $225.00. It is in good working order. My question is this body still repairable by Hassy service centers and will there still be parts for this body? I know that the older body parts will no longer be manufacturered. Is it worth buying? Thanks Regards Frank L. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:58:23 -0700 From: Peter Rosenthal To: Subject: Re: [HUG] 500EL Deal? Message-ID: > Hi Hassy users, > > I have the opportunity to purchase a Hassy 500EL body for $225.00. It is in > good working order. My question is this body still repairable by Hassy > service centers and will there still be parts for this body? I know that > the older body parts will no longer be manufacturered. Is it worth buying? > Thanks Frank- This is a great deal! There are some things you should ask about tho. The motor bushings on this camera can tend to wear out over the decades. As they get worn they can make a tremendous amount of noise. It's kind of a rattling/whirring noise. If it's relatively quiet then you are probably out of the woods. Make sure all the modes work properly. If it's in relatively good shape and hasn't a lot of film through it, it should last for a VERY long time. While they can malfunction occasionally, none of the parts in this camera have a history of breaking so I don't believe that parts availability should concern you. Especially for the price! I've yet to come across one that wasn't repairable. Find two new battery packs, install them and go! Peter -- Peter Rosenthal PR Camera Repair 111 E. Aspen #1 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 928 779-5263 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:23:07 EST From: Digiratidoc@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Starter Studio Lighting Message-ID: <18.18a9a681.29778f8b@aol.com> I need some advice on a good starter kit for studio lighting. I find myself taking a lot of portraits of dogs, cats and kids and even my Metz potato masher 45CT seems to lack the power and panache for good depth of field and light control. So I've been considering one of those 250 to 400 watt studio lighting kits for use with my 503CW or Pentax 67II. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:02:40 -0800 From: "Gary Todoroff" To: Subject: Re: [HUG] 500EL Deal? Message-ID: <003701c19f0b$cfb84060$742d0dce@g4s5g1> My spare ELM sounds like a meat grinder, so I only use it occasionally for out-the-window shots from the airplane when doing aerial shots with the main camera (another ELM) in the vertical mount. The airplane is too noisy to hear the worn ELM grinding away, so I can pretend that it works just fine. A couple years ago, repair cost was estimated at about $600 (new motor, side plate, etc), more than the value of a used ELM. But it just keeps on working. It is definitely not the camera for quiet wildlife shots, Peter's "rattling/whirring noise" being a bit of an understatement! Regards, Gary Todoroff > This is a great deal! There are some things you should ask about tho. The > motor bushings on this camera can tend to wear out over the decades. As > they get worn they can make a tremendous amount of noise. It's kind of a > rattling/whirring noise > Peter Rosenthal > PR Camera Repair ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:33:41 -0500 From: "Austin Franklin" To: Subject: RE: [HUG] Starter Studio Lighting Message-ID: My favorite is Elinchrom. Elinchrom does make great monolights (I use power packs, not monolights though) that are very good. I've seen a number of them on eBay, and their prices seem pretty good. Make sure you get 120V if you are in the US...studio lighting typically is tailored for 120 or 220, and not switchable. Austin > I need some advice on a good starter kit for studio lighting. I > find myself > taking a lot of portraits of dogs, cats and kids and even my Metz potato > masher 45CT seems to lack the power and panache for good depth of > field and > light control. So I've been considering one of those 250 to 400 > watt studio > lighting kits for use with my 503CW or Pentax 67II. Thanks in > advance for any > suggestions. > > Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:12:53 -0800 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Starter Studio Lighting Message-ID: <3C467975.4EAC4667@markrabiner.com> If it were me I'd get the ProFoto. What a deal from Stockholm! http://www.profoto.com/ low amperages Acute which fire pretty fast. Faster than my Balcars. And will never blow a fuse. Great design. I've had Balcars for 20 years but to buy a new PowerPack I'd need to get a loan and tell the bank I'm getting a Chevy Nova. For that much cash i can get a whole ProFoto lighting setup. I see them at CameraWorld and at a pro shop here in portland. Makes my mouth water. Lots of options. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.markrabiner.com ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1472 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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