hasselblad Thu, 24 Aug 2000 Volume 1 : Number 967 In this issue: Re: Serial numbers RE: Serial numbers Re: Serial numbers Re: Serial numbers Re: 500 ELM/ELX RE: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! RE: Mismatched inserts RE: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! Your posts take forever to show up on list? Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: vote for B&H, please [OT] Re: vote for B&H, please [OT] RE: vote for B&H, please [OT] Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers RE: 500 ELM/ELX RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:13:01 +0100 From: "Simon Lamb" To: Subject: Re: Serial numbers Message-ID: <008701c00cd9$f5195ad0$650a0a0a@slamb> Hi I agree totally with your comments. The point I was trying to make, although not very well, is that for the greater proportion of people taking photographs, specifically amateurs, the quality that they can achieve with 35mm technology is now so good that the reasons for moving to MF are diminishing. This of course does not apply to most pros and serious amateurs who want the best picture quality, where MF is indeed the only way to go. Simon wrote: > When you stop to consider that a medium format lens needs to perform over a > much larger image circle than a 35mm-format lens it is reasonable to expect > to pay a price premium for comparable performance. Add to that the fact that > with the CF lenses you're also buying a shutter with the lens. As a user of > Leica rangefinder cameras (more for their size than optics) I've often been > chided by Leica fanatics for preferring Nikons to Leica SLRs, and my answer > is always that once I give up the technological advantages of the Nikon and > pay a huge price premium solely on the basis of seeking the ultimate in > absolute image quality, it only makes sense to skip straight up to medium > format and Zeiss-lensed Hasselblads. > So to the second point, I would agree that slow, fine-grained 35mm film shot > with the best of lenses can come very close to Hasselblad images on faster > film at enlargements up to even 11x14. However no matter what the > enlargement size, if the same shot is taken on the same film with lenses of > comparable performance characteristics, medium format will always show more > detail. There is no way short of breaking the laws of physics that the > difference can ever diminish. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Lamb wrote: > > << Firstly, medium format is a relatively > expensive format to get into and stay in, when compared to 35mm at least. A > new 180mm CFi is 2,200 UK pounds (3,520 dollars) which is about twice the > price of a Leica 90mm APO ASPH, and albeit there will be those who now shoot > me down in flames, I do not believe there is much real world difference in > the quality of the glass - they are both tack sharp, too sharp perhaps for > portrait work. > > Secondly, albeit there is a difference in quality between a 35mm neg taken > with a Leica with a 90mm lens versus a 6x6 neg taken on a Hasselblad with a > 180mm lens, if one is looking at enlargements of 10x8 the improving 35mm > film technology coupled with lens design makes the difference in the final > print ever diminishing. Still there as I said, but definitely getting > closer. >> > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:03:14 +0200 From: "Blyth, Graham" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: Serial numbers Message-ID: <71B5FDF2DDD6D211892B00105AC31DF994F594@BVEXSA01> Please remove from your list > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Lamb [SMTP:simon@sclamb.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 10:13 AM > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: Re: Serial numbers > > Hi > > I agree totally with your comments. The point I was trying to make, > although not very well, is that for the greater proportion of people > taking > photographs, specifically amateurs, the quality that they can achieve with > 35mm technology is now so good that the reasons for moving to MF are > diminishing. This of course does not apply to most pros and serious > amateurs who want the best picture quality, where MF is indeed the only > way > to go. > > Simon > > wrote: > > > When you stop to consider that a medium format lens needs to perform > over > a > > much larger image circle than a 35mm-format lens it is reasonable to > expect > > to pay a price premium for comparable performance. Add to that the fact > that > > with the CF lenses you're also buying a shutter with the lens. As a > user > of > > Leica rangefinder cameras (more for their size than optics) I've often > been > > chided by Leica fanatics for preferring Nikons to Leica SLRs, and my > answer > > is always that once I give up the technological advantages of the Nikon > and > > pay a huge price premium solely on the basis of seeking the ultimate in > > absolute image quality, it only makes sense to skip straight up to > medium > > format and Zeiss-lensed Hasselblads. > > So to the second point, I would agree that slow, fine-grained 35mm film > shot > > with the best of lenses can come very close to Hasselblad images on > faster > > film at enlargements up to even 11x14. However no matter what the > > enlargement size, if the same shot is taken on the same film with lenses > of > > comparable performance characteristics, medium format will always show > more > > detail. There is no way short of breaking the laws of physics that the > > difference can ever diminish. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Simon Lamb wrote: > > > > > << Firstly, medium format is a relatively > > expensive format to get into and stay in, when compared to 35mm at > least. > A > > new 180mm CFi is 2,200 UK pounds (3,520 dollars) which is about twice > the > > price of a Leica 90mm APO ASPH, and albeit there will be those who now > shoot > > me down in flames, I do not believe there is much real world difference > in > > the quality of the glass - they are both tack sharp, too sharp perhaps > for > > portrait work. > > > > Secondly, albeit there is a difference in quality between a 35mm neg > taken > > with a Leica with a 90mm lens versus a 6x6 neg taken on a Hasselblad > with > a > > 180mm lens, if one is looking at enlargements of 10x8 the improving > 35mm > > film technology coupled with lens design makes the difference in the > final > > print ever diminishing. Still there as I said, but definitely getting > > closer. >> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > 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 > Searchable archives can be found at > http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:10:31 +0100 From: "Simon Lamb" To: Subject: Re: Serial numbers Message-ID: <00bf01c00cea$5f5fd350$650a0a0a@slamb> What do you mean by "Please remove from your list"? Simon Blyth, Graham wrote: > Please remove from your list > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Simon Lamb [SMTP:simon@sclamb.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 10:13 AM > > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > > Subject: Re: Serial numbers > > > > Hi > > > > I agree totally with your comments. The point I was trying to make, > > although not very well, is that for the greater proportion of people > > taking > > photographs, specifically amateurs, the quality that they can achieve with > > 35mm technology is now so good that the reasons for moving to MF are > > diminishing. This of course does not apply to most pros and serious > > amateurs who want the best picture quality, where MF is indeed the only > > way > > to go. > > > > Simon > > > > wrote: > > > > > When you stop to consider that a medium format lens needs to perform > > over > > a > > > much larger image circle than a 35mm-format lens it is reasonable to > > expect > > > to pay a price premium for comparable performance. Add to that the fact > > that > > > with the CF lenses you're also buying a shutter with the lens. As a > > user > > of > > > Leica rangefinder cameras (more for their size than optics) I've often > > been > > > chided by Leica fanatics for preferring Nikons to Leica SLRs, and my > > answer > > > is always that once I give up the technological advantages of the Nikon > > and > > > pay a huge price premium solely on the basis of seeking the ultimate in > > > absolute image quality, it only makes sense to skip straight up to > > medium > > > format and Zeiss-lensed Hasselblads. > > > So to the second point, I would agree that slow, fine-grained 35mm film > > shot > > > with the best of lenses can come very close to Hasselblad images on > > faster > > > film at enlargements up to even 11x14. However no matter what the > > > enlargement size, if the same shot is taken on the same film with lenses > > of > > > comparable performance characteristics, medium format will always show > > more > > > detail. There is no way short of breaking the laws of physics that the > > > difference can ever diminish. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Simon Lamb wrote: > > > > > > > > << Firstly, medium format is a relatively > > > expensive format to get into and stay in, when compared to 35mm at > > least. > > A > > > new 180mm CFi is 2,200 UK pounds (3,520 dollars) which is about twice > > the > > > price of a Leica 90mm APO ASPH, and albeit there will be those who now > > shoot > > > me down in flames, I do not believe there is much real world difference > > in > > > the quality of the glass - they are both tack sharp, too sharp perhaps > > for > > > portrait work. > > > > > > Secondly, albeit there is a difference in quality between a 35mm neg > > taken > > > with a Leica with a 90mm lens versus a 6x6 neg taken on a Hasselblad > > with > > a > > > 180mm lens, if one is looking at enlargements of 10x8 the improving > > 35mm > > > film technology coupled with lens design makes the difference in the > > final > > > print ever diminishing. Still there as I said, but definitely getting > > > closer. >> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > Searchable archives can be found at > > http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > 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 > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:33:18 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Serial numbers Message-ID: <39A3A86E.F70C8D8B@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Simon Lamb wrote: > > What do you mean by "Please remove from your list"? > > Simon > He's off MY list I'll tell you THAT much! Mark William Rabiner :) The NERVE!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:33:39 -0500 From: Gregg Laiben To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 500 ELM/ELX Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000821132819.00c25430@mail.kc.rmi.net> At 13:44 8/21/00 -0400, QWhoZeiss@aol.com wrote: >Ernst Wildi and Hasselblad , thinks Dick Werner 9V battery is a bomb waiting >to go off. How so? Last time I checked this out with an electrical engineer, he felt we were perfectly safe in using a slightly greater DC voltage (9v versus 7.5v) to drive the motor. I don't know all of the theory, but he felt that the motor's design specs should be able to tolerate a 20% excess voltage without untoward effects. Of course, if the issue is driving the gears faster than normal, then perhaps a potential problem could arise. I'd love to hear Hasselblad's or Wildi's discussion on the matter. ...gregg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:50:19 -0400 From: Stuart Phillips To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! Message-ID: <5309A83D07C5D211A2970000F80836D89A0177@ems.cc.umb.edu> yes, you are shouting loud and clear -----Original Message----- From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) [mailto:david.r.williams2@jsc.nasa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 9:48 AM To: stuart.phillips@umb.edu Subject: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! Importance: High I'M NOT SURE IF MY CONNECTION IS WORKING. CAN SOME ONE PLEASE REPLY SOMETHING BACK TO LET ME KNOW I'M GETTING THROUGH. I'VE SEN'T THIS QUESTION A FEW TIMES AND NO ONE HAS EVER REPLYED. THANKYOU-VERY-MUCH! :o) > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 6:15 AM > To: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Subject: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ > Importance: High > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:02 AM > To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' > Subject: ~FLEXBODY~ > Importance: High > > The FLEXBODY brochure shows a graph on what the limits of "shift" are on > most of the lenses. (1) Does this mean you have a full thirty degress of > "tilt" on all of the lenses? If I remember correctly, J.B. said that in > "most" situations you would only use about 5-10 degress of tilt. (2) Was > that on average for landscape or tabletop or both? (3) Can you use the > bellows extension and tilt at the same time or would it get racked out to > quickly to do both on macro work? (4) Is there any differance in the first > FLEXBODY and a brand new one that sells on the market today? (except for > that little round sticker that say's "open, close, expose", I don't think > the early generations had them) (5) If you owned both the 903SWC and a > FLEXBODY, when or how do you tell when you'll need the FLEXBODY over the > 903SWC for greater depth of field. Keeping in mind that (a) Hasselblad > states that the 38 Biogon has "staggering" depth of field (b) you can use > different focal lenths of lenses with the FLEXBODY. (6) If you turn the > Flexbody on it's side, does that mean you have a swing movement? Thankyou > for all of your input everyone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:38:02 -0400 From: "Paolo Pignatelli" To: Subject: RE: Mismatched inserts Message-ID: <000b01c00c68$1df0b420$0100a8c0@paolopent> I use John for all my repairs, etc. ... Paolo Paolo Pignatelli -----Original Message----- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:austin@darkroom.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 2:12 PM To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' Subject: RE: Mismatched inserts Touchy subject (for some). It can mean nothing, and it can mean something. It depends on how mis-matched they are. The biggest overall negative, if you are selling one, is these backs don't fetch the same price as matched ones do...but if you're buying one, it's in your favor...if it's a good back. I'd suggest you ask John Kovacs at Hilton Command Exposure. He sees hundreds (if not thousands) of these backs...and I'm sure he'll have an opinion. His number is (603) 888-3684. ---------- From: Paolo Pignatelli Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 11:55 AM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Mismatched inserts Oh cognoscenti, What's the story on mismatched backs for the A-12 backs. Is it an important,..., negligible point? Paolo Paolo Pignatelli ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:07:25 -0500 From: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB)" To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! Message-ID: <41D2696EE385D0118DE90020AFFC1E5C063FD626@jsc-ems-mbs09.jsc.nasa.gov> "D-O-U-G-H!" Sorry, I just find it a little strange that no one really had much information on the questions I had. I guess I'll save them for the next time I see our local Hasselblad rep. -----Original Message----- From: Stuart Phillips [mailto:Stuart.Phillips@umb.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:50 AM To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' Subject: RE: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! yes, you are shouting loud and clear -----Original Message----- From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) [mailto:david.r.williams2@jsc.nasa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 9:48 AM To: stuart.phillips@umb.edu Subject: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! Importance: High I'M NOT SURE IF MY CONNECTION IS WORKING. CAN SOME ONE PLEASE REPLY SOMETHING BACK TO LET ME KNOW I'M GETTING THROUGH. I'VE SEN'T THIS QUESTION A FEW TIMES AND NO ONE HAS EVER REPLYED. THANKYOU-VERY-MUCH! :o) > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 6:15 AM > To: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Subject: FW: ~FLEXBODY~ > Importance: High > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:02 AM > To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' > Subject: ~FLEXBODY~ > Importance: High > > The FLEXBODY brochure shows a graph on what the limits of "shift" are on > most of the lenses. (1) Does this mean you have a full thirty degress of > "tilt" on all of the lenses? If I remember correctly, J.B. said that in > "most" situations you would only use about 5-10 degress of tilt. (2) Was > that on average for landscape or tabletop or both? (3) Can you use the > bellows extension and tilt at the same time or would it get racked out to > quickly to do both on macro work? (4) Is there any differance in the first > FLEXBODY and a brand new one that sells on the market today? (except for > that little round sticker that say's "open, close, expose", I don't think > the early generations had them) (5) If you owned both the 903SWC and a > FLEXBODY, when or how do you tell when you'll need the FLEXBODY over the > 903SWC for greater depth of field. Keeping in mind that (a) Hasselblad > states that the 38 Biogon has "staggering" depth of field (b) you can use > different focal lenths of lenses with the FLEXBODY. (6) If you turn the > Flexbody on it's side, does that mean you have a swing movement? Thankyou > for all of your input everyone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:25:23 -0400 From: Dan Cardish To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Your posts take forever to show up on list? Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000823082523.009592d0@pop.microtec.net> If you notice that some of your posts never make it to the list, or take a long time to do so, the likely cause is that you are posting from a non-subscribed email address. Only subscribers are supposed to be able to post to the HUG. All other email gets routed to me for my approval (it's almost 90% spam). You should assume that if you post from a non-subscribed email address, that the post will never show up. For the time being it might, but when I get tired of dealing with all the spam, I will change that policy. Dan C. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:06:40 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <18.161a9ca.26d52660@aol.com> In a message dated 8/23/00 4:14:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, simon@sclamb.com writes: << The point I was trying to make, although not very well, is that for the greater proportion of people taking photographs, specifically amateurs, the quality that they can achieve with 35mm technology is now so good that the reasons for moving to MF are diminishing. This of course does not apply to most pros and serious amateurs who want the best picture quality, where MF is indeed the only way to go. >> The (arguably) sharpest, finest-grained 35mm film available today is not a new technology at all: Kodachrome 25 has been around in its current form since 1974. For the "greater proportion of people taking photographs" (I'll gladly reserve the title "photographers" for people who have at least some technical interest) the quality of 35mm or APS, Disc, 110, 126 Instamatic, etc., was always good enough. The price and requisite knowledge of photographic principles such as focus and exposure was always more than enough reason to keep them away from MF regardless of any other consideration. Serious amateurs and pros have benefitted from the advances in 35mm film technology, but because most of those same emulsions have become available in 120 as well, the proportional advantage of MF over 35mm hasn't changed. The choice of 35mm still must be based on equipment (size, weight, long and fast lenses, zooms, 36-exp rolls, fast motor drives, etc.) not image quality. Even MF represents a compromise in that case. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:17:34 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <01C00CE3.33B6A050@user-2ive1r5.dialup.mindspring.com> > fast lenses, Fast lenses are available in MF as well...110/2 is quite a fast lense...250/4 to name a few... > 36-exp rolls Use 220...32 exposures per roll for 645...24 for 6x6... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:05:03 -0400 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Subject: Re: vote for B&H, please [OT] Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000823105835.00b62180@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> At 03:10 AM 08/23/2000, "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: >You see, my dear acquaintance, it is in no way clear that you, Henry, the >person, were asking your personal friends a personal favour when you ask >them to "select B&H Photo [!] as "The Best Place to Find High-Tech Gadgets >Results.". Is it? Well, I guess you're right and I was wrong and you're the arbiter of taste, judgement and comportment for the whole damn list and from now on I will send all list posts to you first for your approval since your sensibilities seem to deserve it and I am not deserving of the privilege of posting unsupervised. >So, being honest, what did you expect me (or anyone else) to think? I expected a collegial dialogue. I guess you have a different and no doubt superior opinion of what I should be permitted to contribute to this group. > >As to those in the former, thanks for your friendship. No reply > > necessary. My opinion, not my employer's. > >So why not stop posting as employee? ;-) When I post as an employee, my sig plainly says so, to avoid any semblance of bias. When I voice a personal opinion, as, I thought was my right, I make the distinction plain. If this violates YOUR rules of engagement, I shall further seek to abase myself in humility. Thank you for correcting me. I no doubt deserved a for more serious approbation and am grateful for your kind forbearance. My opinion, not my employer's Henry Posner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:06:39 -0400 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Subject: Re: vote for B&H, please [OT] Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000823110547.00b63100@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> At 03:10 AM 08/23/2000, you wrote: > > So why not stop posting as employee? ;-) > >Employee? I thought the "H" in "B&H" was Henry...isn't he one of the owners? I am not an owner. I am Director of Sales & Training. B&H stands for "Blimi" and "Herman" who are the wife and the founder of the company. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:45:35 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: vote for B&H, please [OT] Message-ID: <01C00CF9.6AB43980@user-2ive19o.dialup.mindspring.com> At 03:10 AM 08/23/2000, you wrote: > > So why not stop posting as employee? ;-) > >Employee? I thought the "H" in "B&H" was Henry...isn't he one of the owners? > I am not an owner. I am Director of Sales & Training. > B&H stands for "Blimi" and "Herman" who are the wife and the founder of the > company. Thanks for the clarification, and a piece of photographic trivia unveiled ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:03:13 +0100 From: "Simon Lamb" To: Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <01c901c00d1b$a49dd8a0$650a0a0a@slamb> Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. Simon Austin Franklin wrote: > > fast lenses, > > Fast lenses are available in MF as well...110/2 is quite a fast lense...250/4 to name a few... > > > 36-exp rolls > > Use 220...32 exposures per roll for 645...24 for 6x6... > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > 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 > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:23:33 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <01C00CFD.2532A870@user-2ive19o.dialup.mindspring.com> Depends on the focal length (and format). ---------- From: Simon Lamb Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:03 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. Simon Austin Franklin wrote: > > fast lenses, > > Fast lenses are available in MF as well...110/2 is quite a fast lense...250/4 to name a few... > > > 36-exp rolls > > Use 220...32 exposures per roll for 645...24 for 6x6... > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > 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 > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:53:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Shane W Davis To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: Please explain its dependence on the format. I thought that f2.8 was as fast on a 6x6 camera as on a 35mm (i.e. keeping film speed and shutter time constant, shooting either wide open in the same situation would give the same exposure). I realize that there are different functions from focal length to field of view for the different formats. If that were right, then since the "speed" of a lens is always expressed as a ratio, you could say something absolute such as "'fast' means f2 or faster". Thanks, Shane On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Austin Franklin wrote: > Depends on the focal length (and format). > > ---------- > From: Simon Lamb > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:03 PM > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers > > Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do > you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. > > Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:58:29 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <01C00D01.DCDCCC40@user-2ive19o.dialup.mindspring.com> Fast as related to the particular format. MF lenses have to cover a LOT more negative area than 35mm lenses do. ---------- From: Shane W Davis Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:53 PM To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Please explain its dependence on the format. I thought that f2.8 was as fast on a 6x6 camera as on a 35mm (i.e. keeping film speed and shutter time constant, shooting either wide open in the same situation would give the same exposure). I realize that there are different functions from focal length to field of view for the different formats. If that were right, then since the "speed" of a lens is always expressed as a ratio, you could say something absolute such as "'fast' means f2 or faster". Thanks, Shane On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Austin Franklin wrote: > Depends on the focal length (and format). > > ---------- > From: Simon Lamb > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:03 PM > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers > > Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do > you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. > > Simon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:26:54 -0700 From: David Keith To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: F number is all that's required to specify the speed of the lens. Medium format lenses require more magnification to make the image of a given object at a given distance cover the larger film format. This means you need a longer focal length to achieve a full frame image. Now that you have that, a lens of the same speed will be as fast -- that is it will allow the same exposure. But F-number is focal length divided by diameter, so to achieve the same F-number with the longer focal length lens, you need a diameter proportionally larger. Larger lenses are more costly, so a long focal length lens as fast as a shorter focal length lens tends to cost more. There are of course other trade-offs. Very short focal length lences -- that is wide angle lenses -- have complicated designs needed to reduce abberations. These tend to be more expensive for that reason. > -----Original Message----- > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:austin@darkroom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:58 AM > To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' > Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers > > > Fast as related to the particular format. MF lenses have to > cover a LOT > more negative area than 35mm lenses do. > > ---------- > From: Shane W Davis > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:53 PM > To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' > Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers > > Please explain its dependence on the format. I thought that > f2.8 was as > fast on a 6x6 camera as on a 35mm (i.e. keeping film speed and shutter > time constant, shooting either wide open in the same > situation would give > the same exposure). I realize that there are different functions from > focal length to field of view for the different formats. > > If that were right, then since the "speed" of a lens is > always expressed > as a ratio, you could say something absolute such as "'fast' > means f2 or > faster". > > Thanks, > Shane > On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Austin Franklin wrote: > > > Depends on the focal length (and format). > > > > ---------- > > From: Simon Lamb > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:03 PM > > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > > Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers > > > > Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of > a fast lens? > Do > > you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. > > > > Simon > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > 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 > Searchable archives can be found at > http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > 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 > Searchable archives can be found at > http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:59:18 -0400 From: Dan Cardish To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000823135918.0093fa50@pop.microtec.net> A large format photographer probably considers f22 to be fast. ;-) Dan C. At 05:03 PM 23-08-00 +0100, Simon Lamb wrote: >Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do >you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:01:34 -0700 From: Jim Stewart To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <39A4117E.C6295BF3@jkmicro.com> Dan Cardish wrote: > > A large format photographer probably considers f22 to be fast. ;-) And a pinhole photographer certainly would :) Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:10:47 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB)" Subject: RE: ~FLEXBODY~ IS ANYBODY GETTING THIS QUESTION? NOBODY'S REPLYED ! Message-ID: <4.1.20000823080536.00c94460@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> [Note from administrator: this post originated from a non-subscribed email address] At 07:07 AM 8/23/00 -0500, WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) wrote: >"D-O-U-G-H!" Sorry, I just find it a little strange that no one really had >much information on the questions I had. I guess I'll save them for the next >time I see our local Hasselblad rep. > I'm sorry, I told you that I would answer your questions. My new (Agilent) Email was not functional until late yesterday and being bought by Agilent and having to move my office, over the past week, has been a lot of extra work. I will answer your Flex questions in due time, as soon as I get settled here and have some spare time. Jim Jim Brick, ASMP Senior Scientist Agilent Technologies Imaging Electronics Division jim_brick@agilent.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:12:08 -0400 From: "Paolo Pignatelli" To: Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <001e01c00d1c$e5e920c0$0100a8c0@paolopent> [Note from administrator: this post originated from a non-subscribed email address] Fast women are ones one can afford before one marries, are fast lenses the same? Paolo Paolo Pignatelli -----Original Message----- From: Simon Lamb [mailto:simon@sclamb.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:03 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. Simon Austin Franklin wrote: > > fast lenses, ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:09:27 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <5a.9d2635c.26d56d57@aol.com> In a message dated 8/23/00 12:25:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, austin@darkroom.com writes: << Depends on the focal length (and format). ---------- From: Simon Lamb Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:03 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. >> I agree with half that statement (re: focal length) but do I understand what you mean about format. A 110/2 would be a medium-fast lens even in 35mm format (about 70mm), but the 250/4 (about 160mm) is rather slow, as a 180/2 (Leica makes one) is the "fast" lens in that range, with f/2.8's made by most companies. Still, given film of equal ISO, 35mm format offers much greater speed at all focal lengths relative to MF. The mitigating factor is being able to use faster film in MF with results equal to 35mm using slower film. Up to a point. The ultra-high-speed film (1600-3200 and beyond with push processing) is not an option with MF to my knowledge. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:16:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Shane W Davis To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: This is interesting, because I am just trying my second roll of 3200 (Ilford) in my Hasselblad (the lab misprocessed the first). Why do you say it is not an option? I think Tmax 3200 comes in 120 also. Do you mean it isn't a good option? If so, why? http://www.umich.edu/~swdavis > Up to a point. The ultra-high-speed film (1600-3200 and beyond with push > processing) is not an option with MF to my knowledge. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:38:25 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: In a message dated 8/23/00 2:16:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, swdavis@umich.edu writes: << This is interesting, because I am just trying my second roll of 3200 (Ilford) in my Hasselblad (the lab misprocessed the first). Why do you say it is not an option? I think Tmax 3200 comes in 120 also. Do you mean it isn't a good option? If so, why? >> If Tmax 3200 is available in other than 35mm, it isn't listed in B&H's catalog, which is where I buy my film. The Ilford 3200 is listed, and I thank you for the tipoff. I will certainly try some at the next opportunity. BTW, Go Blue! (I'm a umich alum.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:43:53 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <39A42979.183E3807@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Austin Franklin wrote: > > Depends on the focal length (and format). > > ---------- > From: Simon Lamb > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:03 PM > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers > > Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do > you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider. > > Simon > > Austin Franklin wrote: > > A lens with a built in shutter that goes to 1/1000 of a second! Mark William Rabiner :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:45:42 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: In a message dated 8/23/00 3:45:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com writes: << A lens with a built in shutter that goes to 1/1000 of a second! Mark William Rabiner >> How about a lens with a built-in shutter that goes to 1/500, that *actually goes* to 1/500? I've yet to check one that really goes that fast. Most are 1/3-1/2 stop slow at best. Kodak used to have a lens shutter (I think it was either in one of their 620 folders or the Medalist) that claimed 1/800 but it too was way optimistic. I think Hasselblad gives us the best solution with very *workable* focal-plane/leaf shutter bodies/lenses. If you've ever used a Pentax 67 with one of the LS lenses (actually the 90 was discontinued long ago, only the 150 remains) you know what I mean. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:53:54 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <01C00D22.BC24EE80@user-2ive19o.dialup.mindspring.com> << A lens with a built in shutter that goes to 1/1000 of a second! Mark William Rabiner >> Yeah, and you probably want it to sync at that speed too, eh? > How about a lens with a built-in shutter that goes to 1/500, that *actually > goes* to 1/500? I've yet to check one that really goes that fast. Most are > 1/3-1/2 stop slow at best. Hum. I haven't had that problem...oh, sorry, I use a 200x...which solves both of these problems ;-) And if I want a fast sync, I just pop my CF lenses on... Ducking........NOW... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:07:53 GMT From: buchi@takeonetech.de (Michael Buchstaller) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <39a43cb0.1005566@mail.cybernet-ag.de> >say it is not an option? I think Tmax 3200 comes in 120 also. Do you AFAIK Tmax in 120 is limited to 100 and 400. I wish uuncle Eastman would give us the 3200 in MF, too. The only 3200 i have ever tested was the Ilford Delta 3200, and id did = not satisfy me: extremely grainy and low contrast. -Michael Buchstaller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:22:08 -0400 From: "Bruce Wilson" To: Subject: RE: 500 ELM/ELX Message-ID: Probably true, but the original battery was 6 volts, not 7.5. (Maybe 6.25 volts when fully charged) Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Laiben [mailto:gregg@laiben.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 2:34 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 500 ELM/ELX At 13:44 8/21/00 -0400, QWhoZeiss@aol.com wrote: >Ernst Wildi and Hasselblad , thinks Dick Werner 9V battery is a bomb waiting >to go off. How so? Last time I checked this out with an electrical engineer, he felt we were perfectly safe in using a slightly greater DC voltage (9v versus 7.5v) to drive the motor. I don't know all of the theory, but he felt that the motor's design specs should be able to tolerate a 20% excess voltage without untoward effects. Of course, if the issue is driving the gears faster than normal, then perhaps a potential problem could arise. I'd love to hear Hasselblad's or Wildi's discussion on the matter. ...gregg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:45:03 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers Message-ID: <01C00D2A.A5660CD0@user-2ive19o.dialup.mindspring.com> This information is available on the Kodak web site if you download the T-MAX data sheet... Page 26 says T-MAX P3200 (TMZ) is only available in 135-36 and 35mm x 100ft. There is also a "Kodak Professional Black-And-White Films" matrix you can download...that shows what's available in what formats...there is also another matrix available for color. If you were really desperate, you could tape two 35mm rolls together.... ---------- From: Michael Buchstaller Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 5:07 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers >say it is not an option? I think Tmax 3200 comes in 120 also. Do you AFAIK Tmax in 120 is limited to 100 and 400. I wish uuncle Eastman would give us the 3200 in MF, too. The only 3200 i have ever tested was the Ilford Delta 3200, and id did not satisfy me: extremely grainy and low contrast. ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #967 ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html