hasselblad Thu, 21 Sep 2000 Volume 1 : Number 995 In this issue: Re: treasure Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Re: treasure Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Re: treasure Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Re: treasure Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? 67mm Filter Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Vivitar 285 Re: 67mm Filter Hasselblad - Digital RE: 67mm Filter Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Re: Hasselblad - Digital RE: Hasselblad - Digital Hasselblad Foveon DFinity RE: Hasselblad - Digital Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Re: Hasselblad Foveon DFinity DCS Pro Back Re: Hasselblad Foveon DFinity Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285--yes, the Vivitar Re: 67mm Filter diff between FLE and non FLE RE: Hasselblad - Digital Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: My Flexibody Story Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: Place to buy and sell lenses? Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Hasselblad 70mm back help Re: Hasselblad 70mm back help Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: Hasselblad - Digital RE: Re: Hasselblad - Digital RE: Re: Hasselblad - Digital just how much hassy gear carrys over to digital world? Re: Hasselblad - Digital RE: Re: Hasselblad - Digital 100 mm Symmar on a Flexbody ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:31:00 -0300 From: "Eduardo Aigner" To: Subject: Re: treasure Message-ID: <008b01c02517$ff8a40a0$b9abb6c8@EduardoAigner> > Was the basement on the moon? A 5.6/60 Biogon lens is not very common. > If I remember it right they have been used on lunar and photogrammetric > cameras. They protrude so far into the camera body that no mirror can be > used, don't they? Quite a treasure. Not sure, on eBay there are a few of them sometimes. AIGNER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:01:17 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Message-ID: <8.a76a756.26fa0f1d@aol.com> In a message dated 9/20/00 1:04:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, leicaman@email.msn.com writes: << I have been toying with changing the lineup of my optics. I have a 50FLECF, an 80CF, a 100CF and a 150CF. I know of a new 120 Macro-Planar CF that is sitting on a dealer shelf and was thinking of selling one or 2 of my lens to get it. >> I've used the 120 but I wasn't overly impressed with its performance at infinity which is where I do 99% of my shooting. I have almost the same lineup as you, minus the 100 but plus a 60CF, 2x Mutar and a spare 80. Since I can crop 50% and still have an image larger than a 35mm neg I can get up to an effective 600mm (150 + Mutar + 50% crop/enlarge) if anything I'd want to add on the wide end. I've been toying with the idea of something wider, tried an SWC and hated it, don't like the filtration situation with the 40CFE. In your case you might sell the 100 and look for a Mutar. Used with the 50 you would get the 100mm length back, a "spare" 150 from the 80, and a 300 from the 150. The image quality is fine, it's just the light loss that can be a problem if you shoot indoors a lot. I don't so the Mutar is my favorite "lens". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:03:33 EDT From: Stymulus@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: treasure Message-ID: <7e.a7bbfdb.26fa0fa5@aol.com> ARe these for sale or are you just rubbing it in? In a message dated 9/19/00 4:34:50 PM, aigner.ez@terra.com.br writes: << > >1 corpo Hasselblad 500EL c/ lente Zeiss Biogon f 5.6 - 60mm > >1 corpo Hasselblad 203FE > >1 lente Hasselblad 100mm f3.5 > >1 lente Hasselblad 40mm f4 A friend "found" these itens on his daddy basement! What a lucky guy! AIGNER >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:06:09 EDT From: Stymulus@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Message-ID: <11.95ad75b.26fa1041@aol.com> You said something about resetting the ISO also 2-3 stops. Should we leave it alone and just adjust flash? Brian In a message dated 9/19/00 7:44:56 AM, simon@sclamb.com writes: << I set the camera to the correct setting for the available light and set the flash 2-3 stops faster so that the flash duration is less. Simon --- >> ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:12:56 -0300 From: "Eduardo Aigner" To: Subject: Re: treasure Message-ID: <00ea01c0251c$f1187dc0$b9abb6c8@EduardoAigner> > ARe these for sale or are you just rubbing it in? I don't think that they are for sale, but you will be the first to know. AIGNER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:29:30 +0100 From: "Simon Lamb" To: Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Message-ID: <00d101c02306$cebaf9f0$650a0a0a@slamb> I use a 503 and Metz 45, so I can use the 45 in TTL mode and change the ISO dial on the side of the camera to indicate a faster film speed. On a manual camera and flash, I presume the Sunpak in manual or auto mode has the facility to dial in the film speed. Just set the 501 to the correct aperture and shutter speed for the film speed that you are using and set the flash to a film speed two or three stops faster. That should give you a flash of much less intensity for fill-in. I do not have a 501 but I don't think there is an ISO dial on it as it doesn't have TTL, so the adjustment has to be done on the flash, and manupulating the ISO is the easiest way. You could of course set the flash to a two or three stop wider aperture and achieve the same result (wider aperture = less flash illumination needed) Simon ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:06 PM Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 > You said something about resetting the ISO also 2-3 stops. Should we leave > it alone and just adjust flash? > > Brian > > > > In a message dated 9/19/00 7:44:56 AM, simon@sclamb.com writes: > > << I set the camera to the correct setting for the available light and set the > > flash 2-3 stops faster so that the flash duration is less. > > > Simon > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:38:08 +0200 From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: treasure Message-ID: <39C8BDC0.920E29FD@int.fhg.de> Eduardo Aigner schrieb: > > > Was the basement on the moon? A 5.6/60 Biogon lens is not very common. > > If I remember it right they have been used on lunar and photogrammetric > > cameras. They protrude so far into the camera body that no mirror can be > > used, don't they? Quite a treasure. > > Not sure, on eBay there are a few of them sometimes. > AIGNER You will find the Distagon-type lenses 5,6/60, 4,0/60 and 3,5/60, but the Biogon 60 mm lens is a very special item (no retrofocus design). Ulrik ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:43:09 -0700 From: "Peter Klosky" To: , Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Message-ID: Brian, I think Simon's instructions are good, and I'll try to present them again, = with a little more detail. What he is talking about is first setting the camera for the available = light, by taking a normal meter reading. You can use a reflected light = reading from camera position or an incident reading at the camera = position, using the normal rated speed of the film. In shade full, late = in the afternoon, this might yield 1/30th at f8, for example. Set the = camera to this setting. For the flash, you could add exposure by setting its asa to the film asa = and an output of f8. This would yield a very strong fill, rendering the = background as dark. As it would be more exposure than the ambient alone, = it would also be over-exposure. In some cases, such as a bride with a = veil, this unnaturally dark background can be an interesting effect, and = provide a strong contrast between her veil and the background. Kind of a = "People Magazine" heavy flash look. What Simon proposes is that you reduce the flash output. The simple way = to achieve this that Simon suggests is to adjust the asa setting on the = flash to a faster film, which will cause it to produce less power. This = can produce a very natural looking light, in which the flash contribution = is subtle, and may only even be noticed by those who are students of = light. You get better color with a little fill, and catchlights in the = eyes. This is the technique I use most often for outdoor shooting. I = have the camera on one tripod, and my Sunpak 544 on another, with a cord = between them. This arrangement make for a nice light load on the camera = tripod, and gives me the freedom to move the flash to the same position = I'd move it to if it were the key light in a studio. An alternative = arrangement I use for impatient clients is to have the flash on a bracket = above the camera, which adds to camera shake and gives less freedom to = move the light for creative reasons. It's still better than no fill. If = you want to be certain about your flash output, you can measure it with a = flash meter. Normally you'd set the flash meter shutter to, say, 1/250 to = read the flash output. This 1/250th should be a long enough to capture = the full output duration of the flash. Peter >>> Stymulus@aol.com 09/20/00 09:06AM >>> You said something about resetting the ISO also 2-3 stops. Should we = leave=20 it alone and just adjust flash? Brian In a message dated 9/19/00 7:44:56 AM, simon@sclamb.com writes: << I set the camera to the correct setting for the available light and set = the flash 2-3 stops faster so that the flash duration is less. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:49:51 -0700 From: "Peter Klosky" To: , Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Message-ID: I have a question about this combination. Is there a Sunpak 285, or are = you talking about a Vivitar 285? Just wondering, as the Vivitar 285 and = 283 are popular, as are the Sunpak 522, 544, 555, 3xx, 5xx, 6xx. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:57:49 -0700 From: "Peter Klosky" To: , Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Message-ID: Rich, While it would depend on my needs, I'd stay with the 100/150. The 150 is a classic portrait length. The 120 is used by some who have = small studios. My finding is that the 150 at f4 is a little easier to = focus than the 120 at f4, though this is hard to describe with theory. = I've used both. The 100mm lens, while pretty close to the 80mm you have, is, none the = less, a nice length for a full length shot outdoors. The working distance = is comfortable, and the 100mm lens has a reputation for being quite sharp. About the only reasons I'd consider using a 120 would be to lighten my rig = and make close-ups a little more convenient. If I had your rig, I'd = probably go for a 60, 250 or 40 before I'd get the 120. But again, it = depends on what kind of work you do.=20 my $0.02, Peter >>> leicaman@email.msn.com 09/20/00 12:57AM >>> I have been toying with changing the lineup of my optics. I have a = 50FLECF, an 80CF, a 100CF and a 150CF. I know of a new 120 Macro-Planar CF that is sitting on a dealer shelf and was thinking of selling one or 2 of my lens = to get it. Both my 150 and 100 are superb optics... How good is the 120 in comparison and do any of you have an opinion on = what I should do? Stand pat... or deal? (Sorry... was just in Vegas!) Rich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:03:41 -0400 From: "Stuart Phillips" To: Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Message-ID: <002101c0218a$03bb1690$3674799e@umb.edu> My error: Vivitar 285 ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Klosky To: ; Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 I have a question about this combination. Is there a Sunpak 285, or are you talking about a Vivitar 285? Just wondering, as the Vivitar 285 and 283 are popular, as are the Sunpak 522, 544, 555, 3xx, 5xx, 6xx. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:47:17 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Message-ID: <4.1.20000920090747.023b66d0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 09:57 PM 9/19/00 -0700, RICH wrote: >I have been toying with changing the lineup of my optics. I have a 50FLECF, >an 80CF, a 100CF and a 150CF. I know of a new 120 Macro-Planar CF that is >sitting on a dealer shelf and was thinking of selling one or 2 of my lens to >get it. > >Both my 150 and 100 are superb optics... > >How good is the 120 in comparison and do any of you have an opinion on what >I should do? Stand pat... or deal? > >(Sorry... was just in Vegas!) > >Rich Through various offers, rebates, package deals, etc., my daughter and I have ended up with the following lenses: 40CFE, 50CFi, 60CF, (2) 80CFE, 100CFi, 120CFI, 150CFI, 180CFi, and a Zeiss 2X Mutar. The lenses I use the most (on a 203FE) are the 40, 80, 100, and 180. My daughter uses the 50, 80, and 120 lenses (on a 503CW) as her most used kit. We trade 180/120 depending upon whose going where and what we are doing. The 150CFi has never been used and we have decided to sell it. The 60CF doesn't get used either so we have decided to sell it as well. The 100CFi and 180CFi are awesomely sharp lenses. The 120 is a superbly sharp close-up lens even with a .5 Proxar. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:21:54 -0400 From: "Paolo Pignatelli" To: Subject: 67mm Filter Message-ID: <000701c02327$462524f0$0100a8c0@paolopent> Has anyone had experience using a 67mm filters on a Biogon 38mm? Does it vignette (do I need to get the extra-wide B&W filters? Thanks, Paolo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:45:14 -0400 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000920134410.00bbc9f0@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> At 03:56 AM 09/20/2000, you wrote: >so you set the camera AND flash 2 to 3 stops faster for good fill? No. Here's an example. Ambient light calls for f/8 @ 1/250th sec set camera as above set non-TTL auto flash to produce f/5.6 Shoot. BTW, do you mean a Vivitar 285? -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:42:50 -0700 From: "Peter Klosky" To: , Subject: Vivitar 285 Message-ID: The 285 is often called "an industry workhorse," as it does not have every = latest feature, buts works fine. If you can find a copy, the book = "Electronic Flash" in the Kodak Workshop Series features this flash, and = is very good. Many concepts are developed here, and well illustrated with = both the results of using the flash and the flash itself. This book is = good for beginner to advanced, and shows how to get the full capability = from a 285 type of flash. Go to amazon.com and type "electronic flash" >>> stuart.phillips@umb.edu 09/18/00 12:03PM >>> It's a Vivitar 285 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:23:33 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: paolop@snet.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 67mm Filter Message-ID: <3e.11f4155.26fa5aa5@aol.com> In a message dated 9/20/00 1:22:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paolop@snet.net writes: << Has anyone had experience using a 67mm filters on a Biogon 38mm? Does it vignette (do I need to get the extra-wide B&W filters? Thanks, Paolo >> I used B60 filters with no vignetting. The added thickness of an adaptor + 67mm filter, I'm not sure of. The 38-60 hood doesn't vignette, and it's certainly farther in front of the lens than a filter. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:59:31 -0400 From: "Owen P. Evans" To: "Hasselblad" Subject: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <003801c02334$e9bdb750$7515d986@beckman.com> Here's some news which should interest all the HUGGERS. http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/969464185.txt Owen P. Evans Osgoode, Ontario. Canada. (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:02:34 -0400 From: "Paolo Pignatelli" To: Subject: RE: 67mm Filter Message-ID: <000801c02335$564adec0$0100a8c0@paolopent> I have the old C Biogon with the screw-in shade that can also act as a retaining ring. Paolo Paolo Pignatelli -----Original Message----- From: InfinityDT@aol.com [mailto:InfinityDT@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:24 PM To: paolop@snet.net; hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 67mm Filter In a message dated 9/20/00 1:22:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paolop@snet.net writes: << Has anyone had experience using a 67mm filters on a Biogon 38mm? Does it vignette (do I need to get the extra-wide B&W filters? Thanks, Paolo >> I used B60 filters with no vignetting. The added thickness of an adaptor + 67mm filter, I'm not sure of. The 38-60 hood doesn't vignette, and it's certainly farther in front of the lens than a filter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:06:09 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Message-ID: <003e01c02335$d7045c80$57f1f1c3@qnu99> Peter Klosky wrote: > While it would depend on my needs, I'd stay with the 100/150. > > The 150 is a classic portrait length. The 120 is used by some who have small studios. My finding is that the 150 at f4 is a little easier to focus than the 120 at f4, though this is hard to describe with theory. I've used both. You should not see the 120 mm as a, rather short, long lens. It just isn't! The 120 mm is a very good macro-photo lens, hence the name Makro-Planar, and one that can be used as a short telephoto c.q. portrait lens as well, but as such it should not be put up against the likes of a 180 mm, or even 150 mm. Why, it even outperforms itself, i.e. performance is noticably worse when used at long range than when used in close-up. > The 100mm lens, while pretty close to the 80mm you have, is, none the less, a nice length for a full length shot outdoors. The working distance is comfortable, and the 100mm lens has a reputation for being quite sharp. And deservedly so. > About the only reasons I'd consider using a 120 would be to lighten my rig and make close-ups a little more convenient. If I had your rig, I'd probably go for a 60, 250 or 40 before I'd get the 120. But again, it depends on what kind of work you do. The only reason i picked the 120 mm lens was for use as a macro-lens. I never regretted this, even though it is close to my 150 mm, and it did add more weight to my kit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:12:56 -0700 From: Jim Stewart To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <39C90C38.9AFA7830@jkmicro.com> "Owen P. Evans" wrote: > > Here's some news which should interest all the HUGGERS. > http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/969464185.txt I just skimmed the press release, but this really caught my eye: "Foveon - Backgrounder Founded in 1997 by computer pioneer Dr. Carver Mead" Carver Mead is a legend in the silicon chip design world. Expect some great things from this project. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:16:49 -0700 From: austin@darkroom.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: Subject: RE: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <200900264.44207@198.51.251.201> A quote from the article: "There's no doubt that the Foveon imaging engine, which consists, in part, of three 2Kx2K sensors mounted on a prism, results in superior images." Superior to what? A point and shoot digital camera perhaps. 2k x 2k is not very good at all. A 35mm negative barely resolves grain at 4k x 6k for 160 speed film. --- Original Message --- "Owen P. Evans" Wrote on Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:59:31 -0400 ------------------ Here's some news which should interest all the HUGGERS. http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/969464185.txt Owen P. Evans Osgoode, Ontario. Canada. (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:19:23 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Hasselblad Foveon DFinity Message-ID: <007901c02337$b03f8460$57f1f1c3@qnu99> Have you all heard about Hasselblad newest venture into digital imaging? http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/969464185.txt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:34:51 -0400 From: "Paolo Pignatelli" To: Subject: RE: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <000901c02339$d8d4d9f0$0100a8c0@paolopent> Yes, agree totally. Where it might help is in contrast control, or other such electronic processing. With a chip like that, one could shoot a scene with a visual contrast range equal to, or exceeding that of the human eye. (For example, (if I were to do it), I would program that chip to examine the scene in pass 1, then determine the range, then (pass 2)lower or higher the sensitivity of the pixels receiving the signal as needed to fit the medium...). I could then photograph a black cat in a shady dark cave, all in a background of snow, and get detail for all... . Paolo Paolo Pignatelli -----Original Message----- From: austin@darkroom.com [mailto:austin@darkroom.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 3:17 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: Hasselblad - Digital A quote from the article: "There's no doubt that the Foveon imaging engine, which consists, in part, of three 2Kx2K sensors mounted on a prism, results in superior images." Superior to what? A point and shoot digital camera perhaps. 2k x 2k is not very good at all. A 35mm negative barely resolves grain at 4k x 6k for 160 speed film. --- Original Message --- "Owen P. Evans" Wrote on Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:59:31 -0400 ------------------ Here's some news which should interest all the HUGGERS. http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/969464185.txt Owen P. Evans Osgoode, Ontario. Canada. (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:34:28 +0100 From: dancke@online.no To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Message-ID: <200009201942.VAA23618@mail47.fg.online.no> Wich lens is best, the 100 mm Planar, The 120 Planar or the 150 Sonnar. Even though I have only used th 120 mm Planar I miss some basic information in this discussion. The 120mm Planar is a lens corrected for close ups and needs at least stopping down 2 stops for shots at infinity or medium distances. Its a faboulous lens for close up and copywork, no distortion and corner to sharpnes, good contrast. At large appertures and long distances the most noticeable flaw is that it looses contrast. That was from experience. >From books I have the following: The 100 mm Planar is corrected primarily for Shooting at infinity. It also provides images with practically no distortion, as youy would require in arial mapping work etc. The 150 mm sonnar is very good all round lens. John Dancke P.O.Box 98 N-4379 Egersund - Norway ----------------------------------------------------------- Email: dancke@online.no ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:47:34 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: "Q.G. de Bakker" , Subject: Re: Hasselblad Foveon DFinity Message-ID: <012a01c0233b$a0b60560$57f1f1c3@qnu99> Q.G. de Bakker wrote: > Have you all heard about Hasselblad newest venture into digital imaging? > > http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/969464185.txt I see now you already have. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:49:02 +0100 From: Ian Goodrick To: Subject: DCS Pro Back Message-ID: Look at www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS.HTM Could be interesting. -- Ian Goodrick goodrick@appleonline.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:00:38 -0500 From: Lynda B To: Subject: Re: Hasselblad Foveon DFinity Message-ID: The Foveon is a very interesting digital camera. I saw it at a photo show in February, and spent some time going over the details. When I saw it, it was a camera built into to a pc-compatible dedicated computer. It's pretty wierd looking. It's actually a part of the computer. Maybe the one they are talking about is different, I don't know. I see now that they have worked something out so that you can use a macintosh (the editing software), which is whole lot better in my estimation. See: http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews_sep2000.html#foveon Apparently, Hasselblad is going to supply the lens for this camera they are talking about. The camera uses CMOS technology, not CCD. there is a big controvery about which is better; the general consensus is that it's CCD, but CMOS could develop into something. They can use a single CMOS chip for each color. CMOS chips are fairly cheap compared to CCD's. I saw sample shots and was extremely impressed. There is no moire problem with this camera. The price was a little high, around $27,000, compared to other backs like MegaVision and Phase One (I've used MegaVision and I really like their camera back). Dean Collins uses the Foveon; he was at the conference and was raving about it; but then, he probably got one for free. Dean is a big Hasselblad guy. -Lynda > Q.G. de Bakker wrote: > >> Have you all heard about Hasselblad newest venture into digital imaging? >> >> http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/969464185.txt > > I see now you already have. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:05:34 -0400 From: "Stuart Phillips" To: Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285--yes, the Vivitar Message-ID: <001b01c021b4$2fa70a00$3674799e@umb.edu> Yes, I do mean the Vivitar, and thank you all for your very helpful answers. stuart phillips ----- Original Message ----- From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:45 PM Subject: Re: Fill flash with 501C and Sunpak 285 > At 03:56 AM 09/20/2000, you wrote: > >so you set the camera AND flash 2 to 3 stops faster for good fill? > > No. Here's an example. > Ambient light calls for f/8 @ 1/250th sec > set camera as above > set non-TTL auto flash to produce f/5.6 > Shoot. > > BTW, do you mean a Vivitar 285? > > -- > regards, > Henry Posner > Director of Sales and Training > B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. > http://www.bhphotovideo.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:20:28 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: paolop@snet.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 67mm Filter Message-ID: <25.aff99e1.26fa841c@aol.com> In a message dated 9/20/00 3:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paolop@snet.net writes: << I have the old C Biogon with the screw-in shade that can also act as a retaining ring. Paolo Paolo Pignatelli >> I had the old 50 Distagon with the same arrangement and I used a 67mm filter plus the screw-in shade (I had to cut some of the unthreaded flange off the shade so the threads would engage in the filter which is shallower than the lens' recess) with no vignetting. The 67 filter alone should work fine on the Biogon; whether you'll be able to use the shade, too, you'll have to determine with a ground-glass or by trial . ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Maquiling To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: diff between FLE and non FLE Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Does anyone have a link describing (and hopefully images) the differences of the 50mm CF and the 50mm CF FLE lenses. - -- _emaq_ No electrons were hurt in the making of this email. DSS/DH Public Key 0x9399D2E4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.2 iQA/AwUBOcksNpFEE0OTmdLkEQK2ZQCfVggQd67WX4oI/dAJpqfBPzSfWSYAn2wW y0NDma0+1PLcSHJmXTtM7BEY =hS+3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:37:45 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <4.1.20000920132934.02476ea0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 12:16 PM 9/20/00 -0700, Austin Franklin wrote: > >A quote from the article: > >"There's no doubt that the Foveon imaging engine, which consists, >in part, of three 2Kx2K sensors mounted on a prism, results in >superior images." > >Superior to what? A point and shoot digital camera perhaps. > 2k x 2k is not very good at all. A 35mm negative barely resolves >grain at 4k x 6k for 160 speed film. > Hasselblad folks, The Foveon configuration results in 4 megapixels of Red, 4 megapixels of Green, and 4 megapixels of Blue. A 12 MP RAW RGB pixel file. All of today's regular digital cameras use a single sensor with a Bayer pattern, that is, it takes "four" pixels for each color pixel. For instance, the 6 megapixel Philips sensor used in various high end cameras, actually has 1.5 megapixels of Red, 3 megapixels of Green, and 1.5 megapixels of Blue. The green pixels are averaged so you end up with a 4.5 megapixel raw RGB file. This is basically 1/3rd the resolution of the Foveon imaging engine. Foveon's 4 megapixels of each R, G, & B is a significant improvement over what we have available today in a non-scanning camera. But it still cannot compete with Fuji Velvia, Provia, or the like for information content and raw image data. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:48:43 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Message-ID: In a message dated 9/20/00 5:39:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, em@nospin.org writes: << Does anyone have a link describing (and hopefully images) the differences of the 50mm CF and the 50mm CF FLE lenses. >> Do you mean physical differences or performance? Physically the FLE has a third ring which selects one of three focus distance ranges and manually "floats" the lens elements to optimize for whichever range is selected. (This is still a compromise over a true FLE lens where the adjustment is theoretically stepless along the entire focusing range). In terms of performance, I don't see much difference regardless of where the FLE ring is set. If I had it to do over again and could save some $$ I'd buy the non-FLE in a heartbeat. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:51:47 -0700 (PDT) From: _emaq_ To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Today, The Esteemed InfinityDT@aol.com gathered electrons and wrote: > FLE ring is set. If I had it to do over again and could save some $$ I'd buy > the non-FLE in a heartbeat. This sounds like good advice. I'll start looking around for a non-FLE Thanks! - -- _emaq_ No electrons were hurt in the making of this email. DSS/DH Public Key 0x9399D2E4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.2 iQA/AwUBOckxdZFEE0OTmdLkEQL4KgCfYQxqINEk/MpYviJBoBx4cDo0He8AoJmF oy60T2lcWc+1yHzNoHln+tDe =e1Q9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:56:43 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <23.11eeff2.26fa8c9b@aol.com> The article also says Hasselblad is developing new lenses for the new camera, and "some" Canon EOS lenses will fit via an adaptor. It doesn't sound like this new project has much to do with the current Hasselblad system. If it's Hasselblad's plan to make us all buy a complete new system and/or trash our current gear, then I'm still hoping some 3rd party out there will come up with a fast high-rest back that'll fit my 503CX and use my CF lenses. Meantime it's negs and scanning for me as long as both are still manufactured. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:28:54 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <4.1.20000920151842.023b59f0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 05:56 PM 9/20/00 -0400, InfinityDT@aol.com wrote: >The article also says Hasselblad is developing new lenses for the new camera, >and "some" Canon EOS lenses will fit via an adaptor. It doesn't sound like >this new project has much to do with the current Hasselblad system. If it's >Hasselblad's plan to make us all buy a complete new system and/or trash our >current gear, then I'm still hoping some 3rd party out there will come up >with a fast high-rest back that'll fit my 503CX and use my CF lenses. >Meantime it's negs and scanning for me as long as both are still manufactured. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Foveon/Hasselblad system is NOT aimed at replacing portable film cameras. It's in the other world. $25,000 - $100,000 cameras, PC required, etc. Like a moon camera. Not exactly for the "normal" photographer. This product, over time, and with a "true" technological breakthrough in digital sensors and imaging, could eventually mold into a user level product. Many years from now. Don't plan on selling your real Hasselblads yet. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:30:12 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Message-ID: <007501c02352$58b63340$cec3f1c3@qnu99> InfinityDT@aol.com wrote: > Do you mean physical differences or performance? Physically the FLE has a > third ring which selects one of three focus distance ranges and manually > "floats" the lens elements to optimize for whichever range is selected. > (This is still a compromise over a true FLE lens where the adjustment is > theoretically stepless along the entire focusing range). And of course, physically, it is a different design altogether... You can select four ranges, not three (But hey, who's counting! ;-)). It's a compromise compared to a "true" FLE lens, perhaps, but an improvement over a non-FLE lens anyway. > In terms of performance, I don't see much difference regardless of where the > FLE ring is set. If I had it to do over again and could save some $$ I'd buy > the non-FLE in a heartbeat. I only know the non-FLE myself, but according to Zeiss' performance sheets, the FLE-version definitely should be, noticeably, better. Which made me consider trading my non-FLE for the FLE-version. Not true? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:34:56 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <007a01c02353$0179ef80$cec3f1c3@qnu99> InfinityDT@aol.com wrote: > The article also says Hasselblad is developing new lenses for the new camera, > and "some" Canon EOS lenses will fit via an adaptor. It doesn't sound like > this new project has much to do with the current Hasselblad system. If it's > Hasselblad's plan to make us all buy a complete new system and/or trash our > current gear, then I'm still hoping some 3rd party out there will come up > with a fast high-rest back that'll fit my 503CX and use my CF lenses. > Meantime it's negs and scanning for me as long as both are still manufactured. It sounds like Hasselblad AB is thinking about investment, rather than expanding their own established product range. In fact, i can't think of any way this "thing" can be integrated into the existing program at all (unlike, say, the new Kodak DCS Pro back, which perhaps is more exciting digital-Hasselblad news (or perhaps not!)). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:54:44 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: Subject: Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Message-ID: <4.1.20000920155316.024714d0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 12:30 AM 9/21/00 +0200, Q.G. de Bakker wrote: > >And of course, physically, it is a different design altogether... >You can select four ranges, not three (But hey, who's counting! ;-)). It's a >compromise compared to a "true" FLE lens, perhaps, but an improvement over a >non-FLE lens anyway. > My 40CFE FLE has "three" ranges, not four. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:58:39 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: qnu@worldonline.nl, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Message-ID: In a message dated 9/20/00 6:32:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, qnu@worldonline.nl writes: << You can select four ranges, not three (But hey, who's counting! ;-)). Right you are. I just took a close look at mine. It must be the 40CF that has 3 ranges? Frankly when I bought mine I fooled around with the FLE ring a lot but after a while I just left it on the infinity setting, which is where the lens is focused 99% of the time when I use it (landscape). <> I never did a microscopic analysis, so don't take my word. I use the 50 99% for landscapes, focused mostly at infinity or a bet less, stopped down at least to f/11 if not farther. I can't tell a C T*, CF or CF-FLE apart. If your use is different, as the ads say "your results may vary". I'd do my own test if I were you. It's a lot of money involved. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:02:39 EDT From: InfinityDT@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: diff between FLE and non FLE Message-ID: In a message dated 9/20/00 6:53:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jim_brick@agilent.com writes: << My 40CFE FLE has "three" ranges, not four. Jim >> I screwed up...the original post was about the 50 not the 40. The 50CF-FLE does have four ranges. The 50/2.8 FE is FLE but FLEES all by itself. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:45:11 -0500 From: Lynda B To: Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: I'm putting on my flame suit: The reason Hasselblad is getting into digital is that they see the handwriting on the wall. In a few years (sooner than you think) everyone will be using digital cameras. If you've never used a high-end digital camera (one that costs over $20,000) then you probably don't realize how nice it is. I love digital. There is nothing like seeing the results instantly. You can shoot an entire session in a matter of minutes, and discard all the bad shots. And touch-ups are a breeze. It's not for every situation however. And it's very expensive right now (the REAL GOOD STUFF). However, I really like film also. It has a certain look that you can't quite capture yet with digital. Digital will be better than any film on the market sooner or later. That doesn't mean that you can't keep using your camera. But it will happen. Flame suit off. -Lynda >> A quote from the article: >> >> "There's no doubt that the Foveon imaging engine, which consists, >> in part, of three 2Kx2K sensors mounted on a prism, results in >> superior images." >> >> Superior to what? A point and shoot digital camera perhaps. >> 2k x 2k is not very good at all. A 35mm negative barely resolves >> grain at 4k x 6k for 160 speed film. >> > > Hasselblad folks, > > The Foveon configuration results in 4 megapixels of Red, 4 megapixels of > Green, and 4 megapixels of Blue. A 12 MP RAW RGB pixel file. All of today's > regular digital cameras use a single sensor with a Bayer pattern, that is, > it takes "four" pixels for each color pixel. For instance, the 6 megapixel > Philips sensor used in various high end cameras, actually has 1.5 > megapixels of Red, 3 megapixels of Green, and 1.5 megapixels of Blue. The > green pixels are averaged so you end up with a 4.5 megapixel raw RGB file. > This is basically 1/3rd the resolution of the Foveon imaging engine. > Foveon's 4 megapixels of each R, G, & B is a significant improvement over > what we have available today in a non-scanning camera. > > But it still cannot compete with Fuji Velvia, Provia, or the like for > information content and raw image data. > > Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:20:54 EDT From: BobR38@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: Hasselblad should have prompted this company they are venturing with to develop a nice digital back for the folks that've invested good money on their traditional system. I think that approach would be best, and then get into this totally new system like they did with the XPAN, etc. Bob R. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:26:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <20000921002608.16889.qmail@web3102.mail.yahoo.com> --0-424238335-969495968=:16832 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii How long have digital cameras been around so far? Sure, there are nice aspects about digital. But, just like film/chemical, digital has it's own drawbacks: high price/technological limitations (how many pixels they can squeeze on a chip). High price is the biggest drawback. I remember seeing Sinar view camera setup in a brocheure that included a PC directly connected to it, oh, back about 12 years ago or so, that was priced (don't laugh!) somewhere in the $250,000 range. Bet they didn't sell too many of those babies! Digital is enabling people who are new entrants into the photography arena, and increases in sales digitally are higher the lower the price of the camera. Digicams count towards that total, and are something new that film wouldn't be applicable towards (live internet video). That doesn't take much away from the film side of photography, as film wasn't being used for some of those kinds of applications. Sales of film cameras has slowed somewhat but is still in the billions of dollars range. No manufacturer is going to walk away from that. Many manufacturers are still introducing new models every year, and hedging their bets with digital as well. Lynda B wrote: I'm putting on my flame suit: The reason Hasselblad is getting into digital is that they see the handwriting on the wall. In a few years (sooner than you think) everyone will be using digital cameras. If you've never used a high-end digital camera (one that costs over $20,000) then you probably don't realize how nice it is. I love digital. There is nothing like seeing the results instantly. You can shoot an entire session in a matter of minutes, and discard all the bad shots. And touch-ups are a breeze. It's not for every situation however. And it's very expensive right now (the REAL GOOD STUFF). However, I really like film also. It has a certain look that you can't quite capture yet with digital. Digital will be better than any film on the market sooner or later. That doesn't mean that you can't keep using your camera. But it will happen. Flame suit off. -Lynda >> A quote from the article: >> >> "There's no doubt that the Foveon imaging engine, which consists, >> in part, of three 2Kx2K sensors mounted on a prism, results in >> superior images." >> >> Superior to what? A point and shoot digital camera perhaps. >> 2k x 2k is not very good at all. A 35mm negative barely resolves >> grain at 4k x 6k for 160 speed film. >> > > Hasselblad folks, > > The Foveon configuration results in 4 megapixels of Red, 4 megapixels of > Green, and 4 megapixels of Blue. A 12 MP RAW RGB pixel file. All of today's > regular digital cameras use a single sensor with a Bayer pattern, that is, > it takes "four" pixels for each color pixel. For instance, the 6 megapixel > Philips sensor used in various high end cameras, actually has 1.5 > megapixels of Red, 3 megapixels of Green, and 1.5 megapixels of Blue. The > green pixels are averaged so you end up with a 4.5 megapixel raw RGB file. > This is basically 1/3rd the resolution of the Foveon imaging engine. > Foveon's 4 megapixels of each R, G, & B is a significant improvement over > what we have available today in a non-scanning camera. > > But it still cannot compete with Fuji Velvia, Provia, or the like for > information content and raw image data. > > Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:48:09 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: My Flexibody Story Message-ID: <4.1.20000920173706.023ab590@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 10:05 PM 9/17/00 -0700, you wrote: > >The shift function of the Flexibody is pretty limited by the rather limited >coverage of the standard Hassy lenses. I mounted a 100 mm view camera lenses >with a shutter in a Hassy lens mount adapter and have been able to use the full >shift. Several of the exterior building photos at Bodie were taken with this >setup. > >Let me know if you have any other questions - I'll be glad to help. Phil, Thanks for the info. Besides 4x5, I too use a Hasselblad and a FlexBody. I also use Calypso Imaging. I started using Calypso when they opened around 10-12 years ago. I saw you exhibition while it was hanging at Calypso. Very very impressive. I have been making LightJet prints but letting them do the scan and clean-up. I am interested in your scanning and PhotoShop methods but if you are amenable to those kinds of questions, but I would like to defer that to a later time. What I would like to ask at this time is about the 100 lens you have mounted in a "Hassy lens mount." Is the lens mount a Hasselblad part? How did you mount it? And how do you focus? FlexBody macro rail? Many thanks Phil, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:19:35 -0400 From: Colin Monteith To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <39C96227.2A1CBF69@sympatico.ca> Lynda, you are correct in saying that everyone will be digital sooner than most people think. The beauty about digital is the ability to do almost any darkroom technique on the computer screen without the dangerous chemicals. Flashing, toning, local bleaching etc., etc. can be achieved with relative ease and much more accurately. And if a step doesn't work out you just go back in the history panel and repeat the step and not start from scratch again. Can it match film? No not at this moment but I fully intend to be proficient with Photoshop etc. when it does and its almost there. Digital is cheap enough when you consider the cost of film, paper and chemicals. Its just a cash flow thing with most of the money being spent up front and savings coming down the road. Lynda B wrote: > I'm putting on my flame suit: > > The reason Hasselblad is getting into digital is that they see the > handwriting on the wall. > > In a few years (sooner than you think) everyone will be using digital > cameras. If you've never used a high-end digital camera (one that costs over > $20,000) then you probably don't realize how nice it is. > > I love digital. There is nothing like seeing the results instantly. You can > shoot an entire session in a matter of minutes, and discard all the bad > shots. And touch-ups are a breeze. It's not for every situation however. And > it's very expensive right now (the REAL GOOD STUFF). However, I really like > film also. It has a certain look that you can't quite capture yet with > digital. > > Digital will be better than any film on the market sooner or later. That > doesn't mean that you can't keep using your camera. > > But it will happen. > > Flame suit off. > > -Lynda > > >> A quote from the article: > >> > >> "There's no doubt that the Foveon imaging engine, which consists, > >> in part, of three 2Kx2K sensors mounted on a prism, results in > >> superior images." > >> > >> Superior to what? A point and shoot digital camera perhaps. > >> 2k x 2k is not very good at all. A 35mm negative barely resolves > >> grain at 4k x 6k for 160 speed film. > >> > > > > Hasselblad folks, > > > > The Foveon configuration results in 4 megapixels of Red, 4 megapixels of > > Green, and 4 megapixels of Blue. A 12 MP RAW RGB pixel file. All of today's > > regular digital cameras use a single sensor with a Bayer pattern, that is, > > it takes "four" pixels for each color pixel. For instance, the 6 megapixel > > Philips sensor used in various high end cameras, actually has 1.5 > > megapixels of Red, 3 megapixels of Green, and 1.5 megapixels of Blue. The > > green pixels are averaged so you end up with a 4.5 megapixel raw RGB file. > > This is basically 1/3rd the resolution of the Foveon imaging engine. > > Foveon's 4 megapixels of each R, G, & B is a significant improvement over > > what we have available today in a non-scanning camera. > > > > But it still cannot compete with Fuji Velvia, Provia, or the like for > > information content and raw image data. > > > > Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:35:47 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <4.1.20000920182918.0247fbe0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 09:19 PM 9/20/00 -0400, Colin Monteith wrote: >Lynda, you are correct in saying that everyone will be digital sooner than >most people think. The beauty about digital is the ability to do almost any >darkroom technique on the computer screen without the dangerous chemicals. >Flashing, toning, local bleaching etc., etc. can be achieved with relative >ease and much more accurately. And if a step doesn't work out you just go >back in the history panel and repeat the step and not start from scratch again. >Can it match film? No not at this moment but I fully intend to be proficient >with Photoshop etc. when it does and its almost there. >Digital is cheap enough when you consider the cost of film, paper and >chemicals. Its just a cash flow thing with most of the money being spent up >front and savings coming down the road. > If you are not interested in making prints larger than 11x14, digital will work for you now. But the techniological boundry for making pixels smaller, that is, making sensors more dense, and getting more data to a file, has been hit. The Foveon method of splitting the three colors to three separate sensors is a interim solution, but expensive, and doesn't solve the problem of getting the pixels closer together on a sensor. A different technology will have to be developed (it's being worked on) and it will still be many many years before you can take a photograph with a $2000 digital camera and make a stunning, crisp, sharp 30x40, or as I have been making from my Hasselblad and film, 50x50 prints. Jim Brick, ASMP Senior Scientist Agilent Technologies Imaging Electronics Division jim_brick@agilent.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:47:11 -0400 From: "Bill Rektorik-Contractor" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Place to buy and sell lenses? Message-ID: what size lenses? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:49:32 -0400 From: "Bill Rektorik-Contractor" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF? Message-ID: Jim, How much do you want for the 150CF? Bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:23:47 -0800 From: deardorff1@earthlink.net To: Subject: Hasselblad 70mm back help Message-ID: Hello, I purchased a brand new boxed hasselblad 70mm back made in 1981 at a camera show. When I tried to load the film, everything went alright until I tried to wind it to frame number 1, I turned the key clockwise, as per instructions that were included, but film doesn't move at all, nor does the teeth gear visible from the side that attaches to the camera. Am I doing something wrong? Could it be that the magazine was jammed or something else, since it really looks unused? Thank you for your help Milos ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:01:38 -0700 From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad 70mm back help Message-ID: <39C97A12.5BB0A951@worldnet.att.net> deardorff1@earthlink.net wrote: > > Hello, > I purchased a brand new boxed hasselblad 70mm back made in 1981 at a camera > show. When I tried to load the film, everything went alright until I tried > to wind it to frame number 1, I turned the key clockwise, as per > instructions that were included, but film doesn't move at all, nor does the > teeth gear visible from the side that attaches to the camera. Am I doing > something wrong? > Could it be that the magazine was jammed or something else, since it really > looks unused? > > Thank you for your help > > Milos You are probably going to take it apart. I would say that at least 2 out of 3 70 mags have problems. Most of it is not major, just not using the mag. The other major problem with them is there is a leaf spring inside that is rivited in place. The spring will break and you have to take the mag apart and replace this spring. I would say that more than likely, if you spray it real well with a cleaner that does not effect plastic, as I mentioned before, all will work out OK. To get the side plate off, you are going to have to remove the metal foil decal at the inside bottom of the housing. This is fairly easy, starting at one side and getting something underneith it, and popping it off. Then you have the screws on the inside of the magazine that you have to remove to get the sideplate off. I think you can take it from there. Hope this helps, -- _______________________________ Dick Werner 112 South Brighton St. Burbank, Ca., 91506 (818) 845-4667 helenadick@worldnet.att.net _______________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:59:50 -0400 From: Colin Monteith To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <39C979A6.1AFB5278@sympatico.ca> Genuine Fractals software which I am sure you know about has made digital print size a non issue. Besides 50x50 prints are very much the exception, even for Hassy folks. Jim Brick wrote: > At 09:19 PM 9/20/00 -0400, Colin Monteith wrote: > >Lynda, you are correct in saying that everyone will be digital sooner than > >most people think. The beauty about digital is the ability to do almost any > >darkroom technique on the computer screen without the dangerous chemicals. > >Flashing, toning, local bleaching etc., etc. can be achieved with relative > >ease and much more accurately. And if a step doesn't work out you just go > >back in the history panel and repeat the step and not start from scratch > again. > >Can it match film? No not at this moment but I fully intend to be proficient > >with Photoshop etc. when it does and its almost there. > >Digital is cheap enough when you consider the cost of film, paper and > >chemicals. Its just a cash flow thing with most of the money being spent up > >front and savings coming down the road. > > > > If you are not interested in making prints larger than 11x14, digital will > work for you now. But the techniological boundry for making pixels smaller, > that is, making sensors more dense, and getting more data to a file, has > been hit. The Foveon method of splitting the three colors to three separate > sensors is a interim solution, but expensive, and doesn't solve the problem > of getting the pixels closer together on a sensor. A different technology > will have to be developed (it's being worked on) and it will still be many > many years before you can take a photograph with a $2000 digital camera and > make a stunning, crisp, sharp 30x40, or as I have been making from my > Hasselblad and film, 50x50 prints. > > Jim Brick, ASMP > Senior Scientist > Agilent Technologies > Imaging Electronics Division > jim_brick@agilent.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:17:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Chris J. DiBona" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: "Digital print size a non issue" ?? Okay, so now we're going to have to get into information theory. I welcome Genuine Fractals to explode any picture from a 2k x 2k (or higher) image and not have us clearly recognize the artifacts at any signifigant size. That said, I don't think that weather the end image is film or digital is not nearly as important as the quality of your optics or the photographers picture taking skill. Chris -- > Genuine Fractals software which I am sure you know about has made digital > print size a non issue. Besides 50x50 prints are very much the > exception, even for Hassy folks. > > Jim Brick wrote: > > > At 09:19 PM 9/20/00 -0400, Colin Monteith wrote: > > >Lynda, you are correct in saying that everyone will be digital sooner than > > >most people think. The beauty about digital is the ability to do almost any > > >darkroom technique on the computer screen without the dangerous chemicals. > > >Flashing, toning, local bleaching etc., etc. can be achieved with relative > > >ease and much more accurately. And if a step doesn't work out you just go > > >back in the history panel and repeat the step and not start from scratch > > again. > > >Can it match film? No not at this moment but I fully intend to be proficient > > >with Photoshop etc. when it does and its almost there. > > >Digital is cheap enough when you consider the cost of film, paper and > > >chemicals. Its just a cash flow thing with most of the money being spent up > > >front and savings coming down the road. > > > > > > > If you are not interested in making prints larger than 11x14, digital will > > work for you now. But the techniological boundry for making pixels smaller, > > that is, making sensors more dense, and getting more data to a file, has > > been hit. The Foveon method of splitting the three colors to three separate > > sensors is a interim solution, but expensive, and doesn't solve the problem > > of getting the pixels closer together on a sensor. A different technology > > will have to be developed (it's being worked on) and it will still be many > > many years before you can take a photograph with a $2000 digital camera and > > make a stunning, crisp, sharp 30x40, or as I have been making from my > > Hasselblad and film, 50x50 prints. > > > > Jim Brick, ASMP > > Senior Scientist > > Agilent Technologies > > Imaging Electronics Division > > jim_brick@agilent.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:28:46 -0700 From: austin@darkroom.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: Subject: RE: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <200900264.73718@165.247.1.160> > ...If you've never used a high-end digital camera > (one that costs over $20,000) then you probably don't > realize how nice it is. Are you talking about scanning backs? If so, they are completely different than this technology, and you can not compare the two. Scanning backs ARE very very nice, but their applications are very limited. > Digital will be better than any film on the market > sooner or later. That has a good chance of being true, and I certainly do not dispute it. ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:30:53 -0700 From: austin@darkroom.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: Subject: RE: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <200900264.73853@165.247.1.160> > If you are not interested in making prints larger > than 11x14, digital will work for you now. That completely depends on what you mean by digital, and what you believe an acceptible 11x14 print is. What digital camera (not a scanning back) can make an 11x14 that is equal to an 11x14 print I can make with my Hasselblad? ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:31:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Monaghan To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: just how much hassy gear carrys over to digital world? Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: Hi Jim! Just how much hasselblad gear can possibly carry over the digital divide? Do you need Zeiss quality optics for current feature size sensors (6.5 uM?) Most of the figures I see suggest a 60 lpmm resolution lens is fine for current chip feature sizes, and focus is on more pixels, not smaller ones? Given "affordable" (new) sensors are typically 1.2cm x 1.2cm or at best 35mm film area sized, isn't the medium format body at a grave disadvantage? Isn't all that lens coverage wasted? Aren't our wide angle lenses converted to telephotos when imaged on such tiny sensor chips? Short of pricey fused fiber optic plates, or redesigned new bodies (555 ELD?) is there any way to use older bodies while positioning the digital sensor chips at the proper focusing point for imaging (e.g., 500 c/m or 20x/200x?) Can we really expect older hassies, even databus designs, to work as well with digital backs as cameras designed for digital from the ground up? Personally, I expect that the mass produced 16.7 Megapixel chip cameras now claimed to be a few years away will use lightweight optics designed to a low (non-Zeiss ;-) price point with coverage just adequate to cover chips. Isn't it easier to design higher resolution for smaller coverages? Assuming prices similar to today ($1k-2k, maybe less with CMOS?) for digital camera with zoom optics, where is the incentive to use hasselblad bodies and optics? Doesn't this create more problems? I'm not doubting that many of us will be using digital cameras, I just don't think they will be digital backs on our current model hasselblads. Am I missing something here? Why spend major $$ on a limited market custom digital back that underperforms what a purpose built smaller fully digital camera with lighter optics can do much more cheaply? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:34:49 -0700 From: austin@darkroom.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: Subject: RE: Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: <200900264.74087@165.247.1.160> > The beauty about digital is the ability to do almost > any darkroom technique on the computer screen without > the dangerous chemicals. > Flashing, toning, local bleaching etc., etc. can be > achieved with relative ease and much more accurately. But you can do that without a digital camera NOW, and have been able to do that for 10+ years! You can scan the film. You get higher resolution, and a far better image than you do with any (non-scanning) digital camera. ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:52:29 -0700 From: Phil Lindsay To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: 100 mm Symmar on a Flexbody Message-ID: <39C9940C.E695B0D4@pacbell.net> Hi Jim: I'll be happy to share my "Photoshop" experiences with you any time. Do it yourself in Photoshop, apply Calypso's LightJet profile and take advantage of the $25 special pricing on 16x20 (or 16 x 16 for Hassy) prints. The 100 mm setup is a Symmar with Compur shutter mounted in a Hassy #40037 Lens Mount Adapter. The adapter has been out of production for a while but you can still find them. I recently picked up another from New York for $95. The adapter is a chunk of aluminum with the Hassy mounting flange with a 1/2 inch or so hole in the middle. You'll need to do some simple machining to open the hole to around 2 inches. Also need to cut the length down by a 1/2 inch or so to permit focusing at infinity. The Hassy mount allows attachment to the body at four positions, 90 degrees apart. I offset mounted the Symmar by about 1/2 inch. This setup gives me 1/2 inch shift without camera controls. By positioning the lens in the correct 90 degree oriented, you can add the camera shift and get a full inch of shift (or rise depending on the orientation of the camera). Glad you saw my exhibit at Calypso - too bad they lost their wonderful lobby space - I guess it's all due to the high cost of Silicon Valley rents!!!. Let me know how you are doing. Phil ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #995 ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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