[HUG ] Re: nixed the arcbody route - can I used CFV back with view camera
- From: "Eric Korenman" <faneuil@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:30:13 -0500
sorry - I thought you had said 4x5 lenses are more expensive.
cheaper.. that makes sense.
Eric
On Feb 10, 2008 5:52 PM, Frank Filippone <red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 4x5 lenses are a bit cheaper because they are smaller in physical size,
> and therefore sold for less when new.
>
>
>
> 30mm lenses? Wider? Hold on there……..It ain't that easy……
>
>
>
> Here is a compendium of NEW available 6x9 lenses…….
> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF6x9cm.html
>
> 6x7 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF6x7cm.html
>
>
>
> For used….although this list is primarily for 4x5 and bigger formats……
>
>
>
> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html
>
>
>
> What you are going to find ids that you do NOT have a big choice, at the
> FL you wish….. It is not like 35mm where these lenses were made in enormous
> quantities because the market demand was so big. It is basically a very
> niche market.
>
>
>
> Are you SURE you want to go LF? Maybe a nice SWC is more of what you
> desire?
>
>
>
> Frank Filippone
>
> red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> *From:* hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Eric Korenman
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:09 AM
>
> *To:* hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [HUG ] Re: nixed the arcbody route - can I used CFV back with
> view camera
>
>
>
> inspiring good news. will look into horseman and back plate adapter.
>
> question: why are the 4x5 lenses more expensive than 6x9?
>
>
>
> I'd prob be looking for a lens in 30-40mm range given 4x4 coverage and
> goal of doing architectural type work.
>
> Perhaps even wider.
>
> Eric
>
> On Feb 10, 2008 11:47 AM, Frank Filippone <red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, true. However the reason most just add a FlexBody is that they
> already own the lenses ( Hassy 500 or other) and backs…. . For Digital use,
> you may be very right.
>
>
>
> A Flex will cost you $1000-2000. It will use all your existing lenses.
>
>
>
> A View Camera body ( 4x5) can set you back only a few hundred. A few
> hundred more PER LENS will end up costing you a total of $1000 or so.
>
>
>
> A 6x9 view camera will be more difficult to find, and probably the same
> price. Lenses are for your format, and should be capable of doing a 6x9 not
> a 4x5 negative… lower cost than the 4x5 lenses.
>
>
>
> If this is for the studio, your choices are more broad, if for the field,
> there are few(er) choices.
>
>
>
> The mounting plate is still the issue… if the lead on a Horseman plate is
> true, that would be good news. But I think there were only 4x5 Horseman
> cameras made…. Not sure…..
>
>
>
> An ARC Body will require you to get ARC Lenses….. VERY $$$$$$ This is a
> $5K type investment. It is a lot more flexible, but it does have its cost.
>
>
>
> I think Sinar just announced a new SLR body and a view camera body that
> use Hassey backs
>
> Ditto Rollei…..
>
>
>
> Won't be cheap.
>
>
>
> Frank Filippone
>
> red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> *From:* hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Eric Korenman
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 10, 2008 7:26 AM
> *To:* hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [HUG ] Re: nixed the arcbody route - can I used CFV back with
> view camera
>
>
>
> a view camera is more up your alley more than a FlexBody? Cost?
> Functionality? Available lenses?
>
> In a word - yes!
>
> Every post I find on the Arc/Flexbody seem to boil down to same thing:
>
> Hasselblad shooters who prob need a view camera.
>
> Then there is the cost. Seems a used view camera and lens would possibly
> do the job better and cheaper than the arc/flex body route.
>
>
>
> I am not commited to this decision - just exploring options.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
Other related posts:
