Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Mitica100, May 30, 2006.
Here's a temptation for some of you film lovers:
Is that a good price?
Body only. But that does seem awfully low for a Hassy. What gives?
It's sold by Brooklyn Camera Exchange. They say the body is in good working condition. And yeah, for someone who would like to venture in owning a Hassy, it's a good and pretty cheap start. Of course, one would need a lens and a film back. That's another 5-600 hundred bucks...
Best bet, this body is a good 2nd body to have, if you have another one and lenses/accessories.
Makes me sick when I think what I paid for my 500c/m
The image quietly of DSLRs likes the 5D or 1D along will high-end glass is very good, fewer labs are doing film, work flow and speed market can be faster with digital, IMO film has already reached the point where it is mainly for hobbies or arts & craft market.
Jeff, I tend to disagree with your last statement. No present digital camera will be able to match the resolution of a MF camera, let alone a 4x5. Yeah, the DSLRs have come a long way and the 1D is a wonderful camera and all but there's still a long way to go. Just MHO.
I'll post here a letter from another fellow, collector and photographer, from a different forum (Collectors), I think it makes some good points:
"I'm a camera collector, but mostly of pocket-money equipment. I can't afford Leicas, early Nikons etc.
I also take a lot of photographs, mainly for record and publicity purposes. I am an amateur, and though I love looking at fine photographs I can't take them!
In response to your query, and not to waste too much of your time because by now you may have penned your piece, I use digital cameras, but only consumer ones because I can't afford the expensive ones. They're fun, and for some purposes quite handy, though they could do with being less complicated.
However I prefer film, and for a number of reasons, not all of them 'good' ones:
1) I don't have a lot of spare time, so am not wild about 'processing' my own shots on the computer and then printing them out. I'd rather someone else did this for me. (Agreed, however, I could still email my digital shots for printing.)
2) As someone interested in photographs as a RECORD, I can never trust a digital photograph, because it may have been manipulated. (You can manipulate film, but only within very narrow limits.)
3) The resolution of film, even in 35mm format, is higher than that of digital cameras, including the most expensive. This applies even when the film is used in a very, very cheap camera. And when used within the limits of their capabilities, these cameras can yield excellent results.
4) There is some uncertainty about the permanency of computer printed photographs. Some printer makers claim that their dyes/pigments are good for 100 years, but there is no certainty yet that they will 'age' as well as silver-based prints.
5) Film is archivally much more secure. Good prints can still be made off negatives made over 100 years ago. Digital images can only be stored on disk, CD, or flash memory. Present advice is that to be on the safe side they should be regularly copied onto new media every five years. How many photographers will remember to do this, and will their children and grandchildren remember, too? The recording media are unacceptably ephemeral.
6) Computers, programs and storage media evolve so rapidly that they are obsolescent the moment they are bought. Probably the only equipment capable of reading photographs committed to computer in 50 years' time will be in a few museums, where to save wear and tear on irreplaceable components use will need to be severely restricted."
He makes some great points here. And for now, I'm still addicted to film. Someday that might change and that day I might regret not switching over Digital sooner, but until then...
They have one listed on their website with a lens and back for $825.
I just bought a F4S yesterday or I'd think about getting it. Ahhhh.... if I only had someone elses money.
Dang.....that's a tempting price.
Luckily (?) I just spent good money on a pristine Mamiya 645 and 4 lenses, so I'm officially tapped out. :mrgreen:
Plus.....I don't get the allure of square format. Am I being short-sighted? Are the Hassy lenses so superior that one should overlook the knowledge that there will be additional cropping in the darkroom that could, more often than not, be avoided using 35, 645, 6x9, etc?
My point was missed. What I was trying to say is that DSLR are more efficient that MF, without a manger lost of image quality. And that because of this most working photographers are switching (or have already), and that is driving the cost of MF gear down
Personally a year ago I have a chose of three mom & pop tradition labs that did MF. Today they are all closed. And, Yes there are some very fine high-end pro labs in the area but they are Monday thru Friday 8/5 places. So if I were shooting weddings part time and working a full time job these places would not work for me. But Mpix or Costco would.
PS: I actual think that DSLRs are better in some ways, film has random imperfections that give it character, these imperfections cannot be easy duplicate in PS, you also have the same issue with all the different films and processes
Without trying to stir a pointless discussion as to which is better, film or digital, I look at the artists photographers and see that they still use the MF and 4x5 (if not even larger format) for their great shots. Yes, the pro photographers (i.e. weddings and such) use digital and rightfully so. Instant gratification, which is a must in that field, the flexibility of offering proofs right away is mind-blowing for example. Film cameras are way too slow in that respect. That being said though, I don't see the film being discontinued anytime soon, at least the MF and LF.
what is a digital camera? A camera you can use with your fingers??
Separate names with a comma.