[Leica] Leica SL: Worst Camera of the Year?

[billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce)]

Ah, this is depressing. For the first time Dr. Ted has disappointed me. I 
found the square format to be at the least interesting and at best superb. 
For the first year or so of 'blad ownership, I shot only for horizontal or 
vertical crops, and since most of what I shot was not for standard 
dimensions, it worked really well. Better to crop a nearly square part or a 
long narrow part out of 2 1/4 than 35. But after time, as I used it more and 
more for shooting for myself, I got to respect and understand the square, 
and some of my best stuff was printed full frame. And, in Dr. Teds's case, 
you can teach an old dog new tricks.

AS for the rebadged Sony's, just silly. Although I could be interested in a 
fine hardwood grip for the 500CM or 500ELX.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Richard Man
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:38 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica SL: Worst Camera of the Year?

Indeed, those joke cameras were rebadged Sony digital cameras, sold for
7x-10x the prices, with the added wood grip and other non-sense features.
At least it appears that the current Hasselblad corporate owner is no
longer pursuing that brain-dead strategy.


On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ted Grant <tedgrant at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Hi Crew,
> There wasn't, nor is there anything wrong with a Hasselblad if you are
> using
> the 2 1/4 120 film cameras. During part of my Leica life I also used 3
> Hasselblad cameras when shooting for some clients and magazines. As the
> Photo editor or the art directors called the shot on acceptable film size!
> ERGO? If you wanted to do assignments for  their magazine you worked with
> their size.
> Now maybe what you lads are talking about is some "Mickey Mouse?" China
> made
> 35mm size badged Hasselblad that could well be a piece of copy-cat junk?
>
> But there isn't anything wrong, nor was there anything with a 2 1/4 120
> film
> size Hassie as they were a wonderful machine to work with. Only the odd
> time
> the 2 1/4  Sq.format was a bit of a pain in the ass!
> cheers,
> Dr. ted
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+tedgrant=shaw.ca at leica-users.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of
> Ken Carney
> Sent: January-12-16 4:59 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica SL: Worst Camera of the Year?
>
> I thought Hasselblad's were good cameras? Used by the astronauts and all
> that?
>
> On 1/12/2016 11:03 AM, Robert Baron wrote:
> >
> http://photorumors.com/2016/01/11/2015-worst-camera-of-the-year-vote-now/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
// http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto
// https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information