What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

V System Future Redux

When the goin' gets tough, the tough go shopping.

Colin, the only time I ever bought V gear new, was when I could get it for used prices.

It's folks like Eduardo that cut off their nose to spite their face ... and funds the collection of excellent used Hassey gear out there.

"I'm mad as Hell, and I won't take it anymore ... and so just to show you ... I'm putting my Hasselblad gear on e-Bay so I can buy a Canon miniscule format and some second rate lenses."

(Just jerking your chain Eduardo : -)
 
Thanks Colin. I enjoyed the links a lot.

I don't think we are clackers at all to like our Clacks. It is great still to be able to use a 50+ year old camera which has never had or needed maintenance. I reckon that simplicity is often best.

What a superb ex&le Jürgen complete with plush lined and velvet covered case. It looks like it would have cost as much as the camera.
talker.gif
 
G'Day:

@ Marc. I'll let you have my shopping list soon ... :^)

@ John. ""It looks like it would have cost as much as the camera."" Funny !

@ Jurgen. Don't keep your Holga in the same place as the Clack. You could end up with Holacks or Clacgas.
z04_kaputtlachen.gif


@ Eduardo. All in fun. We never let the opportunity pass if we can 'take a shot' at someone. You'll be showing pictures of your HB on this forum in 50 years time, like me with my Clack now. Too good to let go.

We need to 'let off steam' sometimes, except QG and Austin. They're cool all the time.

Cheers,

Colin
 
Hi Marc,

> And when Canon produces optics to rival > Zeiss is the day ice cream won't melt in Hell.

Well, if you're comparing 35mm glass, then I guess ice cream hasn't melted in Hell since the 70's. Canon makes some best in class 35mm glass, that equals or surpasses the Zeiss equivelent. I have both.

If you're talking medium format glass, well, since Canon doesn't make any MF glass that I am aware of, Zeiss wins by just showing up ;-)

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Paul,

> The days of the V sytem are over when nobody is using these cameras.

Absolutely right. The Contax 645 (and all Contax for that matter) aren't being produced any more, and parts and repair are scarce...but...there is a HUGE market for them, apparently people are using them quite extensively. The dinky little 645 waist level finder, which sold for $300 new, is now selling for $600-$1000 used!

As far as I'm concerned, the mechanical Hasselblads will be around long after I die, and still be working just fine, and there are so many, I'm sure people will gladly still repair them. I have a first production run Rolleiflex TLR that still works just fine, and it's from 1928 or 1929...Victor was barely out of diapers at that time.

Regards,

Austin
 
Canon equals or surpasses Zeiss Austin? Perhaps at the Helen Keller institute of photography :)

If you truly believe Canon makes anything to rival these optics in end result for 35mm, with those superb characteristics also apparent in MF, well you have every right to your opinion.

I for one am of the opposite opinion, also based on owning and using both. I'm not a fan of painfully obvious barrel distortion that Canon wide angle lenses are notorious for, L designation or not. The excellent Canon 135/2 is indeed surpassed by the Zeiss version, if subjectively only in superb color rendition. The Zeiss 21/2.8 is unsurpassed by anything ever made ... for just a few ex&les.
 
Hi Mark,

> Canon equals or surpasses Zeiss Austin? Perhaps at the Helen Keller > institute of photography :) > > If you truly believe Canon makes anything to rival these optics in end > result for 35mm, with those superb characteristics also apparent in > MF, well you have every right to your opinion.

Sure, there are some Zeiss lenses that surpass the Canon equivelents, and the ones you mention I agree with because I have them. But there are also some Canon lenses that equal or surpass the Zeiss equivelents as well.

For ex&le, the Canon 55/1.2 ASPH. It's every bit the equal of the Contax/Zeiss 55mm f1.2, if not even better. Another ex&le is the Canon 24/1.4...Zeiss has no even remote equivelent. Zeiss zooms are decent, but no match for the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L series, nor the Canon 80-200 f2.8 L series. The Canon 85mm f1.2, like the 55, equals or betters the Contax/Zeiss 85/1.2.

The point is, there quite a few Canon lenses (I never said ALL) that equal or surpass their Zeiss/Contax equivelents. To give a blanket dismissal is sticking your head in the sand IMO and IME.

Regards,

Austin
 
Well I have to say I'm wondering if I'm clackers for hanging on to my 201F. I'd like 22mpix in a CFV type back.....

cheers, Nik
 
Nik

If you want to use your 201F , you can only use lenses with central shutter .
These are all C , CF , CFE and also CB lenses .
The CFV has 16MPand a square sensor . You will need a sync cord to attach to the digital back .
For 22MP you could choose a HASSELBLAD CF 22 but also a LEAF APTUS 22 (and others)
Their sensors are 36x48mm . And they are much more expensive than the CFV back .
This is regarding new gear .

Jürgen
 
Nik,

The 201F is a great reliable camera.
Although it does not have the impressive 1/2000 shutter speed it has a strong shutter and fine electronics.
It is half way from 2000 series to the 203FE and the 205TCC/FCC.
 
Still disagree Austin. The Canon 24-70/2.8L !!! That is a horrible lens, simply horrible... the 24 end is like a fun house mirror. I've tried that lens 3 times now and sent each one back for a replacement ... and all 6 were ... horrible. In contrast the Zeiss N 24-85 is the best zoom in that range I've ever used ... color, distortion, sharpness across the range and out to the corners, pick the criteria, it wins. I'm searching for one that has the new AF Canon mount that some guy invented.

The 24/1.4 L is okay, and I own it because you are right ... nothing out there at that speed ... but it's visably softer than the 35/1.4L and like all Canon lenses below 50mm, distortion is it's trademark signature.

I've gone through three Canon 50/1.2s to get one acceptably sharp at f/1.2 ... barely. Best 50ish lens I've ever used was the Zeiss/Contax 55/1.2 which beats the Canon version by a mile. If only it came in an AF version and a Canon mount ...

Canon 85/1.2L? Excellent lens. Better deal than the 85/1.2 Zeiss ... but not a better lens ... however, considering the type work I do, the practicality of AF for such a shallow DOF lens wins here again IMO.
 
Gentlemen:

I am happy to have what I have, my 1930's I guess, pinhole Brownie and a 1955 Brownie Kit.

I still don't understand the compulsion for a digital back if you don't need one for business, especially now. There are a lot of great films available today. So, before you jump, buy some film!

On another front, I wonder if I should sell all of my Kodak, Zeiss Ikon, Leica, OM, Rollei, Contax, V equipment, and telescopes and such, and invest in Holga!!!!!!!!!

Marc:

I know you are busy most of the time, perhaps you should open a shopping service. I am sure Colin and I would be happy clients. I'd sure like a new 203FE for $1,500, heck $1,600 would be fine!

Regards:

Gilbert
 
Hi Marc,

> Still disagree Austin.

Me too ;-)

> The Canon 24-70/2.8L !!! That is a horrible > lens, simply horrible... the 24 end is like a fun house mirror. I've > tried that lens 3 times now and sent each one back for a replacement > .. and all 6 were ... horrible.

Hum. I have no problems with mine, and the images are simply superb. Yes, at 24, it's not as good as a dedicated 24, but it's not bad.

> In contrast the Zeiss N 24-85 is the > best zoom in that range I've ever used ...

Except it, and all the Zeiss zooms are SLOW SLOW SLOW!!! If they made faster zooms, I'd be interested.

> color, distortion, > sharpness across the range and out to the corners, pick the criteria, > it wins.

Hum. I've used both, and I sold the Contax/Zeiss one I bought! I'd say the color is the same, the distortion at 24 is better on the Zeiss, but the Canon is also near a full stop better. Sharpness, is as good on both from my experience.

But again, one of my main criteria is speed, and all the Zeiss zooms fall short.

> I've gone through three Canon 50/1.2s to get one acceptably sharp at > f/1.2 ... barely. Best 50ish lens I've ever used was the Zeiss/Contax > 55/1.2 which beats the Canon version by a mile. If only it came in an > AF version and a Canon mount ...

Hum. Mine is just fine ;-) It has significantly better bokeh IMO than the Zeiss, though I admit the Zeiss is a tad sharper in the low end, but at f4 and above, they are both the same.

> Canon 85/1.2L? Excellent lens. Better deal than the 85/1.2 Zeiss ... > but not a better lens...

Same as the 55...Canon lense has better bokeh IMO, and the Zeiss is sharper at the wider apertures. But, I have not tried the 85/1.2 II.

You didn't touch the 80-200/2.8L...is there any reason?

Regards,

Austin
 
While it wasn't the topic, image quality was, good point about the speed issue. Speed is the reason I went with Canon in the first place. Higher ISO performance and the fastest set of lenses across the broadest spread of focal lengths. Still, when it comes to zooms, personally, I'd rather be using the Zeiss Zoom even at f/3.5 verses the 24-70/2.8 Canon.

I didn't mention the 70-200/2.8L because I don't use one. I did once, but thought it to heavy for wedding work. I favor the 135/2L, and use my partners 300/2.8IS when needed which is rare.

I sold all my Zeiss 35mm lenses both AF and Manual, including the collector's glass, out of practical shoting considerations for my work. Contax is history for now, if I want image quality and that Zeiss look it's from some M mount glass and the MF stuff.

But now I watch with a keen eye what Zeiss is making for Sony.
 
Hi Marc,

> I didn't mention the 70-200/2.8L because I don't use one. I did once, > but thought it to heavy for wedding work. I favor the 135/2L, and use > my partners 300/2.8IS when needed which is rare.

I use it mostly for taking pictures of sports, like my kids soccer. The Canon EOS-1V autofocus is superb, and with that lense, the pictures are outstanding. I found the Contax + Zeiss zoom to be just too slow (autofocus speed wise) for my purposes. Another area where Canon really does better than the others IMO.

But...for MF glass, certainly, the Zeiss glass is second to none for me. I am though curious how it stacks up against the FujiBlad glass. I wasn't impressed with the first pictures I saw from the first H series review I saw on photo.net. It looked like typical Fuji glass bokeh...like it was vibrating. I have a few Fuji glassed medium format cameras, and I just don't like their lenses. They ARE sharp, but sharpness does not mean better image fidelity. Cartoons are sharp, but have little image fidelity.

Regards,

Austin
 
Yep, I remember the first time I picked up a Canon EOS 1V ... the thing snapped in so fast that the image seemed to liguify into focus. Scary fast. Contax/Zeiss stuff was like a turtle compared to it.

Point I think you are making is that there are other considerations besides just image quality ... like getting the image in the first place : -)
 
Very entertaining showdown guys! Keep it going while we wait for dbacks prices to go down.

Marc: Good humor too. I'll get even someday
z04_nic_0075.gif


Regards
Eduardo
 
Hi Jurgen, Paul

thanks for the comments. Yes I agree the 201F is a very fine camera and has worked superbly for me. Its top speed is also fine and I like the instant return mirror and alot else about it. Do either of you know whether I have to use a cable to connect a CFV to it, I was hoping it would work without just as the 503 does. I have a 100CF for it so can use a central shutter. I find the 150/2.8F an amazing lens though.

cheers, Nik
 
Nik

As already mentioned , when you want to use your 201F with a CFV BACK (for ex&le) , you can only use C , CF , CFE and CB lenses . You need to connect the sync contact of the lens to the digital back by using a sync cord .
Please have a look here : http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/107193/cfv_v2_us.pdf

Go to page 4 of this pdf and you will find , how the back can be attached to the various camera bodies .

Jürgen
 
It's hard to understand that the CFV do not works directly with the 201 as it was a 500 type when you use the center shutter.

It was writen (before the time of CFV) that the 201 works exactly like a 500 when you use C mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top