[HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: "Frank Filippone" <red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:17:47 -0700
First assumption... I am not a Pro. Most of the posters here are not pros.
We are amateurs working on a family budget. Cost matters.
My 2007 Toyota Sienna ( A minivan) cost about $30K. It is not a hot rod.
It is not a Rolls. It is a "Soccer Mom" car. It will last me about 10
years.
If I were to get an H-whatever and a few lenses, I would be far and away
above $30K, and within a few years, not be repairable. If it breaks, I can
throw it away.
The MF Digital is a very low volume esoteric market for working pros and
very well heeled amateurs. No other market exists for a $30K+++++
(starter) camera system.
Now back to the real problem.....
If 24x36 sensors performed as well ( but less total pixel count) as the
sensor in the H-whatever, there would be no market for the H-whatever nor
the S2. If you want quality, there is more than one way to get there.....
More pixels = larger prints at the same pixel or print dot size element.
Few, ( Bob and Jim are exceptions) will ever make 30x40 or bigger prints,
and bigger when you consider the mount and frame sizes. There just is not
enough wall space in my or most houses to support prints of this size. A
more modest size image ( say matted, a size of 20x24 or even 16x20 is more
acceptable, decorative wise. This would imply a print of size
Maybe 11x14 or at most 16x20. You do not need a gazillion pixels to do
this. You need a quality image. And quality means optical, sensor noise,
and the SW that goes right behind the sensor must be optimized.
Now the argument is flawed when you say the words.. cropping... where more
pixels is actually better. This is a special case.
Given a choice, and I am a wide angle lens shooter, I would opt for a
digital camera that is basically 24x36 sensor size, with low noise and less
pixel count and use my existant Nikon MF or Leica M series lenses. If I
wait another few years, it will get there.....and not for $45K or more.....
Frank Filippone
red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bernard wrote:
> The cost of a medium format digital system is comparable with what other
> professionals pay for their tools.
>
> As an old pro friend used to say, nobody's amazed when a taxi driver
> shows-up in a $30,000 car, but everyone's surprised when you tell them how
> much a Hasselblad costs.
Indeed!
That's my favourite riposte, by the way: "how much does that car you drive
cost?"
On the other hand, not all of the tools you could use are as expensive. So
the question perhaps is why some tools - that do more or less the same job -
cost so much more than others.
But still: not really much, compared to what people pay for the cars they
drive in.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
