Taking photos since over 3 decades now... probably never got any better :-)
But an OS is an OS....if you use Mac OS or Windows - android or Linux.... I mean...
And you are not discussing photographic features (mainly) - you tell us that theree are already 120000 apps and so on...
At the end of the day it is - like I said - an OS.....
zavart: Well, I think most people here are forgetting that potential customers for this product don't even know what dpreview is. They don't follow this debate nor do they read any camera reviews. If they decide to buy any camera ( and to them most cameras are pretty equal as far as they are concerned ) they will only choose something which will match their lifestyle. So I don't think Hassy is going to loose sleep over these comments.I also don't think that pro photographers are going to dump their HD-4 just because Hassy has decided to diversify !
zavart: Very true, what you said.It is like the 78 year old guy who has - finally - enough money to afford a Porsche, but is hardly able to get into that car.... not to talk about driving it.
Still, the Porsche has some superior technology and some more than just design.
What I really find very disturbing is the fact that you might be right....and that'S a waste of the Hassy name and legacy - because they used to be... just tools
zavart: Nobody and I repeat NOBODY has as yet seen even one picture taken by this camera! and yet you're ALL ready to hang this project before it has even started ! No evidence is needed "the Negroes" did it ! It's like KKK alll over again ! Prejudice is indeed , the deadly sin ! and YOU're calling yourselves professional photographers !!!! What a joke :(
Ah, go ahead with the Pentax, I am sure you will like it. You are right, it's nice for travelling. So this is it's application
But can you give me one - just one - example for an application that requires a Hassy Lunar? And that it does that well better than a NEX 7, let allone a Fuji X-PRO?
Yeah, maybe a visit to Monte Carlo Cassino.... but hardly for photography.....
I respectfully dissagree :-)
A camera is a tool in the first place.What it looks like is a matter of taste, as long as ergonomics are not between me and photography.
If ergonomics work or not is something I can not say about that Hassy - obviously. So this is no point of critism.
If I have the application for a medium format digital camera, be it Hassy, Leica oir whatever AND I get paid for that, then the tool has it'S price - but the value is there.
But if I take a (good enough) APS-C sensor, do some enhancements (maybe) ión it's IQ and sell it for some kind of stellar price - then there is something wrong.
An example: A Panasonic in Leica dress is still a Panasonic. Now I may be ready to pay a tiny bit more, maybe because I expect better service or I just WANT that red dot on the camera - but I would not pay 5 times the Panasonic price.
But the M might just do the job - Its not a Pana in a new dress. See the difference?
zavart,I think you again missed the point :-)I for one belive that IQ will be no issue, it will be as good as NEX7 (which is great) or even a tad better, due to changed image processing.
A tad.ot 5 times.
Despite the design (which is to a large extend matter of taste) the biggest flaw is not Sony, not NEX7, even nor eMount.It is the fact that these guys in Sweden try to sell me a product for 5000 that is worth... what? 1500? maybe 2000?
I for one don't take that and I think that this is completely de - tracked: Hasselblad was designed to last and to be kind-of-affordable in analog times. they moved to great, but kind of not affordable in digtal age and that is still ok. But now they move to average and you-must- be -freakin -kidding -me prices
zavart: If all You guys want Hassy to survive as a pure photographic tool company then put the money where your mouth is! i.e. Rush in droves to the nearest photo equipment outlet to buy their regular cameras ! It's all too easy to say what other company should do to survive but it's quite different thing when it comes to give them ready recipes ! Maybe the price for this company to survive as a tool company is also to make separate fashion cameras which most of You guys will have to learn to ignore !
zavat, you are missing the point!I want Hasselblad to survive as much as I wanted Rollei to survive - of Contax for that matter.
Nothing to do with that I want to buy all of these cameras, not one of them actually.
But these companies have been more than just iconic companies. They used to be at the forefront of the IMAGE.
Take Hasselblad. While never cheap, they were affordable in the analog age and certainly there was a lot value for money.
The point is: If you convert those companies to lucury brands then you basically kill them. The gold Rolleiflex did nit help Rollei at all.But a new digital concept camera - be it based on Sony or whatever - could be a chance. See Oly, see Fuji and to an extend also Sony: These maklers do something special, sometimes more expensive (Fuji), but it has a value as a tool...
Lunar may be a hit for Hassi...
But certainly not the way it is now. The huge and very emotional response from users all over the world tell a story: We, the people that actually use cameras (be it for profession or as an amateur) love the brand Hasselblad.
Gosh, I remember how desperate I was for a 500 C/M, what desire I had for the SWC - ....
I WANT Hasselblad to survive as a "tool company" - if I need to drill a hole, Makita or Hilti come to ming, if I need to take an ultimate quality photo (of a certain size) Hasselblad comes to mind.
I am sure that there is a good marketspace for special APS-C or FF cameras (see Leica), but
PLEASE DO NOT CONVERT THIS TOOLING COMPANY INTO A FASHION AND LUXURY BRAND - WITH MEANINGLESS PRODUCTS
If this is what the board of Hasselblad receives as a feedback, if they understand and come up with a NEX based creation that makes sense and gives us a better Tool - well, then this all was good.
TORN: To me standard (!) wedding photography is pretty much "worth" the same money as every similar complex service, like for example a car repair. The freelancer has to cover his cost and keep some more to live on it. Here in Germany you would pay for a car repair something like 40-80$ per hour. With an average of 60$ this would mean 50 hours for 3000$ budget. If I take 8h for the wedding + 8h for a secondary photographer + 24h image processing and then I add travel cost + consulting + extra equippment then I do have pretty much the same relation of budget and what service you get for it.
You get what you pay for and if you are satisfied by 10 unprocessed wedding pictures from an amateur photographer then you can well get off for 50-100$. But if you want to have a professional service than you need to pay for it.
I did 4 weddings for friends and for free. Afterwards I decided they either pay me for all the stress & hassle or I enjoy the wedding and have some drinks & fun instead.
This is a good point here.But I repeat: The reply from this specific photographer was far from "remrcably calm", she did not for one second take the customer's view into account.It hurts if you have to pay 20 houirs to get your car repaired - and of course it also hurts to pay 50 hours to any other service.This needs to be explained tio the customer, but expressing the understanding of his position - not baning him.
Andreas-AM: a remarkably calm response.... no way!
This is a response saying nothing else but "Hey you stupid, you have no clue about business. YOu are childish and I explain the world to you - although I am really upset about your complaints!"
For one part I understand that people are upset, if their pricing is questioned (in this way), on the other hand - this kind of funny listing (at the end saying Hey bride, I do it because it is my opassion - I am not making money with it) does not help at all.
In simpe words: More kindly. More from a customer's perspective. Such as:
While I understand that you are not happy with the cost involved in getting professional wedding photos, I would like to make the cost transparent, hoping that you understand.
And so on.
The post, as is is just redicolus and ignorimg the customer's point of view totally - in fact it is banging my customer.
a remarkably calm response.... no way!
This is way better. like I said under the original (thinking it was the second post.. oh well...)
Andreas-AM: Whatever mess you made - I like the original much, much better. Here the wall ends somewhere on the right side, in the originak it was where it belongs: Right in the corner....Just my 2 cent
Ah - so that is the mess :-)
Very nice - better than the original.I don't know which software you are using, but if you use PS CS4 or newer, there are the sliders for shadow/highlight - a bit increase in the shadows might help even more?
Way better! The concentration to the really "nice to see" part helps a lot
Well, as you said - there is a difference in sharpnes, but it is not worlds apart. Like in the original, I like the colors, they are better here (read: more natural).
Whatever mess you made - I like the original much, much better. Here the wall ends somewhere on the right side, in the originak it was where it belongs: Right in the corner....Just my 2 cent
(This pallace is older than the Korean alphabet. Koreans, like Japanese, used the Chinese symbols in ancient times)
The most amazing part: Nearly no people there... I have seen the Forbidden City only terribly crowded...
Its a good photo for the challenge
It certainly matches the theme of the challange.As a photo, I quite like it - and really I do not have that many ideas of improving it.Having said this, it is certainly not the style I would take this one - but that's a matter of personal style
Space, depth in a narrow room - why not!I like it, but I have to question the portrait orientation. First of all it looks like "caging" the frame and second there is nothing of interest in the upper 10 - 15% anyway...Why not try a square one?