saxo Posted February 7, 2014 Share #81 Posted February 7, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) No one still service a 2000 series body in the world that I know of. Avoid getting one. the 2000 is the best value for money Hasselblad you can go for. In Europe you get it repaired, not at Hasselblad service points, but lots of other camera services. Even the shutter can be replaced. I can recommend the 2000, very solid, but would avoid the first version (2000FC), as you might easily touch the shutter. Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Hi saxo, Take a look here Hasselblad C/M or Leica M-240 for landscape. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wolfloid Posted November 5, 2015 Share #82 Posted November 5, 2015 I will start with some oversimplification. Some landscape photographers are perfectionists and some are opportunists. Perfectionist scouts the location, plans ahead. He travels to Grand Teton NP to shoot Oxbow Bend on September 23, because this is when the cottonwoods are at their peak color. He arrives at the vantage point before dawn and waits for the best light and best cloud position. Opportunist walks a trail, watches the nature and when some extraordinary emotional constellation happens, tries to capture and convey that decisive moment. If I should put myself to one of the two categories above, it would be the Opportunist. I noticed that the moments I like to capture in landscape photography come suddenly, are dictated by a combination of cloud and sun positions and weather and sometimes last less than a minute. Ideal camera for my type of landscape is a small and light one with good image quality and live view for accurate focusing and (occasional) filter effect preview. Another view: When shooting landscape with film, one of the technical challenges in B&W were to create good tonal separation via filters. In color, the challenge was, well, the color. I very much liked Velvia, for example, but I could not get that vibrance present in the slide to the print. And with most if not all films that I used, the colors were perhaps pleasant, but not accurate. Digital allows me to play with the sliders later and dial in green, yellow, orange or red filter as necessary in non-destructive manner. With color, I started to appreciate the post processing options and the fact that the color is no longer signature of the manufacturer, but the photographer. Summary: I prefer small digital camera over large film camera for landscape. This is a great post. I am also in the opportunist camp, if I could even be described as a landscape photographer at all (more people). To be honest, those long-considered perfectionist photos of perfect, oft-photographed views usually bore me to tears. Give me the fleeting moment anytime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted November 6, 2015 Share #83 Posted November 6, 2015 Chris, I think there are many, many extensive scientific and not so scientific pieces around the web, elaborating on the technical terms to compare 6x6 film output vs 35mm digital output (to put it short: 35mm digital doesn't stand a chance). It is this small or big difference (really depends where you priorities are) that needs weighting vs the much, much bigger effort needed by using MF film gear vs the quick and easy use of a digital M. - 6x6 negatives will out-resolve any current 35mm digital (but you cannot measure this by resolution alone) - 6x6 negatives will provide better tones and more dynamic range - even if you scan it and print digitally - using a different camera system (different method of composing, setting exposure, different workflow, …) can either be very inspiring and helping towards the images you have in mind or can completely hinder you from getting the images you want - the effort in labor, equipment, logistics, cost, convenience, … to work on a high quality level with medium format film vs a digital M is enormous - are you willing to commit? - the gear is larger and heavier - will you carry it far and high above to produce the photographs you are doing now already with your M ? Personally I am a person who believes that having as many different systems, a variety of gear and a variety of different photographic interests will help to inspire and produce diverse photographs one would probably not do when sticking to just one camera and one way of producing a photograph. I believe having that Hasselblad around and committing to use it for certain work rather than doing everything with a digital M will do good, so selling a redundant piece of Leica M gear and getting a nice 500CM + 80 Planar (which are ridiculously cheap nowadays) cannot be a bad idea. This thread reminds me to dust of the Hasselblad again … https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=52593619%40N02&view_all=1&text=hasselblad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.