mcmunchy
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Maryland
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
The question I'm asking is: has anybody noticed very much difference in quality (mainly sharpness, but also issues with color separation) between Zeiss and Zenzanon lenses? More specifically, on medium-format SLR bodies?
My boyfriend shoots with a Hasselblad 500cm; I shoot with a Bronica SQ-A. He prefers his because it has better looks and its name raises impressed eyebrows left and right. Personally, I feel that the quality the Bronica provides goes unnoticed, though; even with fairly large prints, the quality and sharpness hold about the same in both, at least to my eye. Plus, they're practically dirt-cheap for such high-quality setups, highly interchangeable (at least, the SQ-As are), and the interchangeable parts are seriously affordable themselves. My entire system, with 220 and 120 backs, 150 and 80mm lenses, a waist-level and metered prism viewfinder, cost barely $600. Including body. The Hasselblad system he has (3 backs, 1 lens, 1 viewfinder) cost roughly $1500.
So what's he paying for, outside of a rugged body and a name? Because the Bronica has survived a fall down a staircase - it is a ridiculously hardy camera, and reliable as all get-out. Has anybody noticed any differences in sharpness and image quality between the two? Because I can't!
I was just wondering. Thanks!
My boyfriend shoots with a Hasselblad 500cm; I shoot with a Bronica SQ-A. He prefers his because it has better looks and its name raises impressed eyebrows left and right. Personally, I feel that the quality the Bronica provides goes unnoticed, though; even with fairly large prints, the quality and sharpness hold about the same in both, at least to my eye. Plus, they're practically dirt-cheap for such high-quality setups, highly interchangeable (at least, the SQ-As are), and the interchangeable parts are seriously affordable themselves. My entire system, with 220 and 120 backs, 150 and 80mm lenses, a waist-level and metered prism viewfinder, cost barely $600. Including body. The Hasselblad system he has (3 backs, 1 lens, 1 viewfinder) cost roughly $1500.
So what's he paying for, outside of a rugged body and a name? Because the Bronica has survived a fall down a staircase - it is a ridiculously hardy camera, and reliable as all get-out. Has anybody noticed any differences in sharpness and image quality between the two? Because I can't!
I was just wondering. Thanks!