From: monson@ece.orst.edu (Ty Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: RE: Blad vs Mamiya (Lenses, Weight, Other)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:36:07 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu


 (This has gotten long...)

  Marc Clarke (mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM)  wrote:

>I bet this is a F.A.Q.   :-<
                         ^^^ correct symbol - FAQ won't help you.
(delete intro. paragraph)

>I plan to use my camera to take B&W photographs of my the excellent
>scenery available in my home state of Colorado: landscapes; foliage;
>rocks and rock formations; streams; and sunsets.  I plan to use my
>camera to take color negatives in my basement studio by photographing
>flowers and glassware (non-commercially) under Tungsten lighting.

>1) The Hasselblad rep says that the Zeiss lenses are so much better
>   than the Mamiya lenses that Hassleblad's 6cm by 6cm negatives
   (stuff deleted)

>2) Do people really shoot their Hasselblads handheld?  I think that if
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	     Sure, but usually with  flash - as at a wedding.
	     And, obviously, you can do it for some landscape
	     scenes by using a high shutter speed.
	     Consider, also, that massive cameras are less
	     prone to jiggling in your hands (a plus for Mamiya?)

	     But camera movement does tend to defeat the high
	     resolution you expect to get from those expensive 
	     lenses.

  (stuff about used Hasselblad system bargain deleted)

 Camera reps. (salesmen) will always tell you that their stuff is
 terrific. I haven't seen any objective comparisons of Zeiss and 
 Mamiya lenses, but I am confident that new Mamiya lenses are very
 good. ( By the way, you didn't say how old that Hasselblad system was.
 Early Hassy lenses shouldn't be expected to be as good as the latest
 products, either. )

 Since you specify work that will (probably) require close-up photography
 and large depth of field, here are some relevant factors to consider:

 The Mamiya cameras have a built-in bellows that allows relatively
 close focusing. Hasselblad requires you to buy auxillary equipment.
 Extension tubes are about $300 each, and I think a Hasselblad bellows
 is about $1200. Factor that into the system cost for the work you
 may want to do.

 Large depth of field requires stopping down lenses to small apertures,
 where resolution becomes limited by diffraction.  It makes no sense to
 pay an arm and a leg for superb medium format lenses if they will
 typically be used at f/22, f/32 to get depth of field. (Or perhaps I
 should say that you are not likely to discern any differences between
 Zeiss and Mamiya lenses at those apertures.)

 For your purposes (subject matter, weight and cost considered)
 I think it is reasonable to ask whether or not you have looked at
 the Pentax 6x7, and have you considered getting a 4x5 field camera?
 The Pentax is rather cheap, and I've known a number of people who
 have used the Pentax 6x7 for packing around on remote trails.
 People speak highly of it.
 A 4x5 would allow you to use lens tilts to improve depth of field
 for those landscape scenes you mentioned. The 4x5 system would probably
 be less expensive than a Hasselblad or Mamiya system, and you
 would have the option of shooting roll film with a roll film adapter.
 Oh, yes. A 4x5 field camera will probably travel lighter than a Mamiya.
 You *will* need a tripod, though.

 I do not make the above comments to talk you out of getting a Hasselblad
 or a Mamiya. I'm just trying to help you make an informed decision by
 pointing out some things you may not have thought about.
  Good luck.