nawknai: For me, the standouts are:
4: Glacier5: Arty b&w staircase6: Deer7: Backlit monk (borderline...)11: Orangutan (or "monkey")
10: Planes. I love it, but I'm simple-minded.
#9 is mirrored in photoshop, and so I feel should be considered "digital art" rather than photography.
You nailed it, #9 is indeed mirrored. The sky is artificially made to look like it isn't... it's just smeared. And I have seen those residential houses in real life. But that aside, it is visible that this picture is mirrored.
For me picture number 3, 7 and 11 are the best.
May I conclude that there is something going on with Hasselblad's sales? I see this as a bad way to nervously attract more customers.
webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.
""Slightly better optics"...!?
Either you're not a Canon user or you've not been paying attention to the last replacements or new designs in Canon "L" line."
I agree with you on the fact that the new Canon L lenses really shine and are among the best lenses available.
But I do know Canon... in fact I am working for them right now and as a technician I know the 100-400 from the inside out, and what it's capable of resolution-wise compared to the rest.I do fine adjustments on the optics and electronics of this lens too... officially authorized.The old 100-400 is optically already very good (alright there are copies that could use some adjusting) that's why Canon didn't saw the need to review it's design for such a long time... like is done with the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM.
The most awaited new lens?This lens is available since 1998, and is a lot cheaper than this second version. The original EF 100-400 already has good optics.The second one will have (perhaps slightly) better optics but it's bigger, heavier and more expensive and I bet that is not something everybody was hoping for.
Marty4650: Here's why schemes like this fail.
Even though a few wealthy people will always be willing to pay astronomical sums for exclusivity, Hassleblad just doesn't have that sort of brand cache. It isn't Rolex. It isn't Hermes. It isn't Ferarri. It isn't even Leica in that regard.
So in order to sell things for ridiculous high prices, a product must be something that is:
1. very fashionable and exclusive. And this was butt ugly.2. very useful for high end pros who need it. Not a Sony NEX7.3. beautiful, that can be used for 50 years. Like a piano.4. rare and collectible. Not possible when something is in production.
And these Hassleblad rebrands are none of the above.
There is just now way to market a nice midrange camera for more than a Nikon D4s and sell very many copies. It won't take long before you run out of very stupid customers. Then you are stuck!
So true.Never understood why Hasselblad did this, even when I red their explanation.
Timbukto: This camera is perfect for taking pictures of homeless children.
Looks like a golden brick...
Really good review, I like it. Can imagine this is true for professional photographers. It's not like the 7D mkII can replace the 1Dx or 5D mkIII and the slightly higher iso noise makes sense to me too hence the smaller sensor with so many pixels on it. So the 7D mkII would be a camera in it's own right regarding it's price tag.
fmian: Yeah this stuff just gives film a bad name.For all the years spent on making reliable repeatable consistent emulsions and bases, this stuff just throws it all out the window. And overcharges for it as well..
I second this!On the other hand 'lomography' means that more of the decent films are sold too. Like Ektars being put in Dianas... although I prefer Ektars in Mamiyas or Hasselblads for example but at least it means more Ektars are selling, or any other decent negative or slide film for that matter.
bmcdad: Its like saying AT&T will restart production of Rotary Phones... Art does not require a time machine. You can't reminisce evolution to a halt.
"Film cannot compete with a capable digital sensor in a darkroom. That is not my personal analogy it's simply science."
Hehe... now you're clearly not talking about the quality and look of a well exposed photograph.Not a video still, but a real photograph.
Nice... good news if you prefer film (like me).I hope their product quality can compare with Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Agfa and Foma. Or else their films could be great for lomography if the price is right.Would like to try a roll any time soon.
fmian: 'Dual lens system for optimised film (6400dpi)'
Highly inaccurate and misleading.I don't know why companies can't list the true resolution...
2300 dpi will suffice if it doesn't need unsharp masking afterwards... but often that's not the case due to not having the optimal distance between scanner and film. I red the V800's new filmholder should be better at this.The level of detail a film can hold depends on the type of film used but I know a few films which do not reveal more detail when scanning them at 3200 DPI.
Indeed, Epson's stated resolution isn't real... I found that out too.But comparing a dedicated film scanner like this to digitizing by DSLR with a macro lens will show that the scanner has a better dynamic range and will scan some harder to scan negatives better because of that.
Great news, I read here Epson has tried to tackle the occasional problem with film flatness, this can seriously improve detail.The shortened warming-up time isn't such a big deal... for instance the time after that you'll need to scan a 35mm film of 36 frames which will cost you about 2 hours of scanning time... which also includes calibrating for each frame and some dust removal.I use the V700 for 3,5 years now almost on a weekly base and I'm impressed with it's image quality but also familiar with the weaknesses. I hope the V800 or even V850 will surpass the V700 in image quality so I can upgrade to one of the successors.
A nice interview, with also some things we could expect from him as managing director at Canon... like Canon always has been serious about mirrorless.But the answer on the before last question bothers me a bit as a film photographer who shot digital for years -after- 2004.
Think I would go for the M-A if had to choose between those.
Beautiful this Leica, but way too expensive for meb.t.w. I always shoot without an LCD on the back of my camera.
Think I'll stick with my Canon FTb.
Nice, an example of a forgotten photographic tool.Funny... I get some kind of 'timeless' feeling when looking at those pictures. I associate them with times long gone, but they are recently made. This shifts my expectations.Oh... and it's not about taking many pictures of the same scene to be picked out later.
Great news.I hope film will continue to exist for a long time, may it be in even smaller quantities. Film becomes more and more neglected but it's qualities are fantastic.