Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/08/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:25:13 -0500
References: <C6A9E9C7.52D0A%mark@rabinergroup.com> <p06230908c6aa3189a222@[10.0.1.199]> <0D984AC4-A065-4311-A904-AA8B335CDDB1@mac.com> <00c901ca1c64$0a373ce0$1ea5b6a0$@net> <p0623090dc6aa427198ab@[10.0.1.199]> <00cd01ca1c6b$4b1d72e0$e15858a0$@net>

The real question in my mind (and I believe Henning's as well)
Does that $6 to $11K 'blad C back buy me into a system that will  
truly, in the real world,
perform significantly better, for what I need or want to do, than
that same $6 to $11K purchasing a similar part for another existing  
(on my shelf) system?
i.e. M9, Nikon 3 whatever, etc.

I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to find a CMV to rent and truly  
find out.
Anyone know of one for rent?

The other "lust" factor for me is that I could put the little sucker  
on my Cambo Ultima
and look at that little 38 x 38 ground glass square - fun fun fun -  
maybe?

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist

On Aug 13, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Frank Filippone wrote:

> I think the major reason to "stick" a digi-back on my V system  
> ( 500 or 200)
> Camera, rather than to purchase a new Hasselblad H series outfit,  
> is the
> cost......
>
> I own the bodies  already
> I own the lenses already
> A back is the only cost to upgrade to digital MF.
>
> While not cheap, it is the only thing I must purchase.....
>
> Even if in the future, I decide to "toss" the 500 Series stuff and  
> buy into
> another MF system like the S2 or H1 or whatever, I am only out  the  
> cost of
> the back.  The lenses etc. have pretty much tanked in cost already,  
> and the
> downside is pretty shallow now.....
>
> That is pretty compelling to me....
>
> Frank Filippone
> red735i at earthlink.net
>
> But that system is likely (and I'm guessing here, based on the fact
> that some components aren't made anymore) to be a dead end. So for
> that kind of money I'd want to have either a clear advantage over
> anything else in that price bracket, or something that has a future.
> Neither of those things seem convincing to me about the
> Hasselblad-500-as-digital option.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)
Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9?M8)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9?M8)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)