sunil mehta
Curzonian
Let me at the outset state I am not a professional photgrapher or even a very accomplished amateur, but I love photography, even though I often make a hash of it. I do very well with the mechanics of obtaining a good photo but I am terrible at the artistic end of the spectrum. I'm an engineer by training.
Having said this, I am in the fortunate position right now of either buying an M8 (I have the lenses I need) or a Phase 1 16MP back for a Hasselblad 203FE (again, I have the lenses I need). I am struggling with the pros and cons and having a hard time deciding on what to do. The prices are not that different as it turns out. I was wondering if any of you readers struggled with the same type of decision and what conclusions you arrived at and why. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Having said this, I am in the fortunate position right now of either buying an M8 (I have the lenses I need) or a Phase 1 16MP back for a Hasselblad 203FE (again, I have the lenses I need). I am struggling with the pros and cons and having a hard time deciding on what to do. The prices are not that different as it turns out. I was wondering if any of you readers struggled with the same type of decision and what conclusions you arrived at and why. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Which system do you use more now, M? or your 203?
sunil mehta
Curzonian
I use the Leica when I travel and the Hasselblad for portraits mostly. I have ten times more Leica photos stored but only Hasselblad photos displayed on my walls.
Well Sir, you have a very enviable problem to resolve.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Should I buy a Porsche or a Hummer? Questions like this never fail to elicit a chuckle from yours truly ...
I like ManGo's suggestion.
I like ManGo's suggestion.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
A photo on the wall is worth ten in a box...sunil mehta said:
Just buy both. The math is even.
dspeltz
Portsmouth, NH USA
I have both... although the Hasselblad 22M and 39M and the M8. If the choice is a 16M back versus a M8, the M8 wins I beleive. You will use it more and be very happy. However, if the choice is a 22 or 39M, it is tough. The 22 and 39 make incredible photos. But tripods are really required.
If M8 vs 16 back, M8 hands down.
If M8 vs 16 back, M8 hands down.
Dougg
Seasoned Member
I too like ManGo's suggestion, though I might make it even simpler and dump the FED2 and invest more in pre-paid film processing. Or buy a pro-level scanner.
Ronald M
Veteran
Since you use the Leica more, get the digi back for it. You will save more processing money, but you will never recoop the $4800 it costs.
Buy a scanner if you want digital.
The attached bald eagle came from the demo M8 when I put my card into it for a few test shots. LOOK at the DETAIL in the feathers and the hairs around the nostrils. I just hope it attaches ok as it is original size.
File 6.5 mb is too big. Take my word, it is incredable. I`ll try a crop.
Buy a scanner if you want digital.
The attached bald eagle came from the demo M8 when I put my card into it for a few test shots. LOOK at the DETAIL in the feathers and the hairs around the nostrils. I just hope it attaches ok as it is original size.
File 6.5 mb is too big. Take my word, it is incredable. I`ll try a crop.
Last edited:
John Camp
Well-known
A guy on the Leica forum posted some M8 portraits -- pretty good stuff, IMHO. Of course, they were outdoors, and while not exactly spontaneous, they were a lot less stiff than posed portraits. I can't imagine that they would have been better with a Hassy; the camera wouldn't have been as maneuverable...I now think of Hassys as being primarily for *really* big prints; if 13x22 is big enough for you, a Leica will work fine. Of course, a D200 would be excellent, too, with a Nikon 105, and it would be way, way cheaper than either of the other two...And a 5D would also work well, especially with the slight smearing you get with Canon lenses and that thick IR filter glued to the sensor...(I'm sorry, I struggled with it, but I couldn't help myself.)
JC
JC
bab
Newbie
Is a matter of convience
Is a matter of convience
I just sold my entire Rollei system but even when i had the Rollei and the Cannon with me on trips I would always try to limit the weight before taking off on a trail and found the only times i ever used the rollei was low light on a tripod. the blow ups today and i mean 30 x 40 are not that much diffrent depending on the viewing light!
Are you willing to carry 50 lbs of equiptment? do you shoot indoors on tripods studio set up. or do you want a walk around camera for me this is the ultimate question to ask yourself
barry
Is a matter of convience
I just sold my entire Rollei system but even when i had the Rollei and the Cannon with me on trips I would always try to limit the weight before taking off on a trail and found the only times i ever used the rollei was low light on a tripod. the blow ups today and i mean 30 x 40 are not that much diffrent depending on the viewing light!
Are you willing to carry 50 lbs of equiptment? do you shoot indoors on tripods studio set up. or do you want a walk around camera for me this is the ultimate question to ask yourself
barry
edlaurpic
Established
You've posed a difficult question.
The easy answer, but one that is difficult to implement is "get both" (but I would susbstiute the 22meg Hass/Imacon over the Phase One).
I recently got an M8 and I love it, but great as it is (and I think it beats the pants off of any existing DSLR that is not MF), it can't deliver the dybamic files that the Hasselblad/Imacon (16, 22 or 39) can deliver, so I am most definitely keeping my latest Hass digital back, the CFV (16 megs).
Here is what I did. I waited to get a digital back for my 205 TCC until I could find a demo of the Imacon 132 C at a good price, which I did. It produces huge, stunning files, has a dedicated hard drive you can carry on your belt or across you shoulder/chest that holds 850 shots, or you can upgrade to the 22 CF and shoot to compact flash cards. Then I got a great deal on a CFV and started using that mmorethan the 132C, which I never upgraded. I figured that I would try both backs for a while and then sell the one that I used less.
As a matter of factr, I am going to sell sell my upgradeable 132C, which can be used with the 203FE as well as the V system (SWC, ArcBody, CM, 503, etc) and it also has a back that takes the H system from Hasselblad. The reason I decided to keep the CFV instead of the 132C is that 16 megs is big enough for me (and it's a very, very diffeent 16 megs than the Canon 1dsMii, no matter what someone else might tell you). That said, I agonized about whether to sell the 132C because upgrading to the 22CF is such a good deal and it enables you to get the full wide angle coverage (left/right) of the SWC as well as 40 IF CFE lenses, which the CFV and the smaller Phase backs is unable to accomodate.
I probably told you more here than you wanted to know and perhaps gave you information you can't use. Bottom line is M8's aren't going to be sold for much less for a while, but the Hass Imacon backs which produce better files, albeit with more fuss, have come down in price. AGAIN, I would not sell my M8 to get a Hass Imacon or a Phase One because I love the M8 and the Hass Imacon, although portable, is not as quiet and unobtrusive. By the way, if you want to get the Hass Imacon 132/22CF and can't find a used one, email me and I might consider acceleratin selling my back. As I said, I like the smaller files of the CFV so that's the back I am keeping. By the way I disagree that a tripod is necessary with any of the Hass backs, and I only use a tripod about 1/3 of the time when I am in the studio.
Sorry to be long-winded here. Hope this has been helpful.
The easy answer, but one that is difficult to implement is "get both" (but I would susbstiute the 22meg Hass/Imacon over the Phase One).
I recently got an M8 and I love it, but great as it is (and I think it beats the pants off of any existing DSLR that is not MF), it can't deliver the dybamic files that the Hasselblad/Imacon (16, 22 or 39) can deliver, so I am most definitely keeping my latest Hass digital back, the CFV (16 megs).
Here is what I did. I waited to get a digital back for my 205 TCC until I could find a demo of the Imacon 132 C at a good price, which I did. It produces huge, stunning files, has a dedicated hard drive you can carry on your belt or across you shoulder/chest that holds 850 shots, or you can upgrade to the 22 CF and shoot to compact flash cards. Then I got a great deal on a CFV and started using that mmorethan the 132C, which I never upgraded. I figured that I would try both backs for a while and then sell the one that I used less.
As a matter of factr, I am going to sell sell my upgradeable 132C, which can be used with the 203FE as well as the V system (SWC, ArcBody, CM, 503, etc) and it also has a back that takes the H system from Hasselblad. The reason I decided to keep the CFV instead of the 132C is that 16 megs is big enough for me (and it's a very, very diffeent 16 megs than the Canon 1dsMii, no matter what someone else might tell you). That said, I agonized about whether to sell the 132C because upgrading to the 22CF is such a good deal and it enables you to get the full wide angle coverage (left/right) of the SWC as well as 40 IF CFE lenses, which the CFV and the smaller Phase backs is unable to accomodate.
I probably told you more here than you wanted to know and perhaps gave you information you can't use. Bottom line is M8's aren't going to be sold for much less for a while, but the Hass Imacon backs which produce better files, albeit with more fuss, have come down in price. AGAIN, I would not sell my M8 to get a Hass Imacon or a Phase One because I love the M8 and the Hass Imacon, although portable, is not as quiet and unobtrusive. By the way, if you want to get the Hass Imacon 132/22CF and can't find a used one, email me and I might consider acceleratin selling my back. As I said, I like the smaller files of the CFV so that's the back I am keeping. By the way I disagree that a tripod is necessary with any of the Hass backs, and I only use a tripod about 1/3 of the time when I am in the studio.
Sorry to be long-winded here. Hope this has been helpful.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
edlaurpic said:
edlaurpic,
I am inclined to agree with this statement however if you don't mind why may I ask do you believe this to be true? You're obviously someone who dose not mind sharing their thoughts so perhaps you can elaborate?
Merry Christmas,
Ted
neelin
Established
sunil mehta said:
Sunil,
You're an engineer. You KNOW you're going to eventually get both for redundancy, it's in your nature. Don't fight it. Start with either a coin toss or something equally scientific & then act.
robert
MikeL
Go Fish
neelin said:
I like this robert, a coin toss being 'scientific', but you know engineers prefer things deterministic!
edlaurpic
Established
Sailor Ted said:
Why do I think the M8 beats the pants off of any DSLR other than a MF DSLR?
I can answer that two ways:
The first is my own experience with the 1DSMII, 5D, KodakSLRN (no Nikons, however), and I am just saying that the dynamic range and detail that I can observe in a file shot by the M8 just seems to be greater. If one adds in the whole RF experience, size, compactness, low (audible) noise, it's no contest. The only camera of this group that approached the M8 and that was only in ample light and ideal subjects, was the Kodak, which is the only other non MF camera that left off the AA filter.
The second is my experience with Hasselblad/Imacon backs prior to getting the M8 but while I was using Canons. During that period, the Hasselbad/Imacon combination just delivered much, much more information per pixel and had details in shadows you wouldn't dream of seeing in a Canon shot.
That said, although I have sold my 1DSMII and got rid of the Kodak too, I have kept he 5D for telephoto beyond 90mm and what I would call grab-macro (for careful macro I use an ArcBody with tilt/shift and the Imacon back).
As Marc Williams is fond of saying . . . horses for courses.
It was always the case that I was so fortunate to have different cameras/horses, so clearly if you can't do that, you may need to make some difficult choices, but I think in that case I would reduce my lens set for both cameras but still keep a Hass/Imacon for studio and the M8 for everything else and, if necessary, strip down to one or two lenses for the 5D.
ghost
Well-known
aren't there any badass photo books you'd rather get?
Sailor Ted
Well-known
edlaurpic said:
I've had quite a bit to drink this evening so please do not take this the wrong way but, God I love you please do post more often. Your explanation is exactly what I have suspected and been predicting for some time now. Soon I too will join you and then I can compare a body of work shot on an R-D1s to that of my new M8. I'll then post these shots here and on flickr for all the M8er haters to see. I can't wait. If a picture is worth a thousand words then I'll finally be able to drown those Tards out, and trust me I can type up a blue streak but this will be the Silkworm in their mid-ships.
edlaurpic
Established
Sailor Ted said:
Ted -
I trust you are not being facetious, so I will thank you for your comment.
I am carefully checking out what the M8 can do with my various Leica and CV lenses, so far at ISOs mostly of 160 to 640, as my favorite lenses are the fast ones, so in the lighting that I have been shooting them on the M8, I don't need higher ISOs. In the few shots that I have taken at 1250 on the M8 I believe commparable shots with the R-D1S would produce less noisy results. In fact, if the R-D1s had an accurate rangefinder (I am now on my third R-d1s which I hope to send to Indianapolis for adjustment or replacement of the rangefinder next week), I might not have jumped for the M8. Now that I have it, the R-D1s is getting zero use. So I am hoping that after it returns from service I will either sell it or keep it for an M-digital backup or as a low light M-digital. That said, I don't think the R-d1s—no matter how nice the files are at 1600—will ever be able to focus the 75 f/1.4 summilux or Noctilux, particularly for close work. I was playing around last night with these lenses on the M8 at 160-640, wide open, and I am blown away at what it can do. Again, I have a lot more learning to do with the M8 at higher ISOs, but if I try it in much lower light situations at 1250 and it delivers close to the R-d1s at 1600, I doubt that I will end up keeping the R-d1s, but that's just me.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, too.
edlaurpic
Established
Sailor Ted said:
Ted -
I trust you are not being facetious, so I will thank you for your comment.
I am carefully checking out what the M8 can do with my various Leica and CV lenses, so far at ISOs mostly of 160 to 640, as my favorite lenses are the fast ones, so in the lighting that I have been shooting them on the M8, I don't need higher ISOs. In the few shots that I have taken at 1250 on the M8 I believe commparable shots with the R-D1S would produce less noisy results. In fact, if the R-D1s had an accurate rangefinder (I am now on my third R-d1s which I hope to send to Indianapolis for adjustment or replacement of the rangefinder next week), I might not have jumped for the M8. Now that I have it, the R-D1s is getting zero use. So I am hoping that after it returns from service I will either sell it or keep it for an M-digital backup or as a low light M-digital. That said, I don't think the R-d1s—no matter how nice the files are at 1600—will ever be able to focus the 75 f/1.4 summilux or Noctilux, particularly for close work. I was playing around last night with these lenses on the M8 at 160-640, wide open, and I am blown away at what it can do. Again, I have a lot more learning to do with the M8 at higher ISOs, but if I try it in much lower light situations at 1250 and it delivers close to the R-d1s at 1600, I doubt that I will end up keeping the R-d1s, but that's just me.
Merry Christmas to you, too, Ted