I'm wondering if the 501CM is worth the premium. Seems like the only real differences are the gliding mirror (which is only useful for long lenses that I may never use) and the Acute Matte screen that I can add later.
I'm wondering if the 501CM is worth the premium. Seems like the only real differences are the gliding mirror (which is only useful for long lenses that I may never use) and the Acute Matte screen that I can add later.Mine is a 500 C/M.
I realize I'm kind of rambling a bit here but thought that perhaps others familiar with these cameras could weigh in on the pros/cons and help steer me in the right direction.
but heavy as an anchorMamiya C-330... outstanding system/lenses... relatively cheap.
Logan, think this through. A 501CM may be ready to use as is. An older 500 C/M, assume $300 for cleaning and overhaul, let alone your time and aggravation. Acute matte screen, they are $300 now. You are already up to $600. If you are ready for a Hasselblad, go high end and don't try to cheap out ( unless you can find one from a source you absolutely trust).I'm wondering if the 501CM is worth the premium. Seems like the only real differences are the gliding mirror (which is only useful for long lenses that I may never use) and the Acute Matte screen that I can add later.
Good points, I'm not typically the type to cheap out, just ask my wifeLogan, think this through. A 501CM may be ready to use as is. An older 500 C/M, assume $300 for cleaning and overhaul, let alone your time and aggravation. Acute matte screen, they are $300 now. You are already up to $600. If you are ready for a Hasselblad, go high end and don't try to cheap out ( unless you can find one from a source you absolutely trust).
Practically the same as a Hasselblad 500 series. Both with 80mm lens and no prism...but heavy as an anchor
Logan, think this through. A 501CM may be ready to use as is. An older 500 C/M, assume $300 for cleaning and overhaul, let alone your time and aggravation. Acute matte screen, they are $300 now. You are already up to $600. If you are ready for a Hasselblad, go high end and don't try to cheap out ( unless you can find one from a source you absolutely trust).
That is an excellent point. Millions (hundreds of millions) of 35mm cameras were made in the 20th century. Millions are still floating around in cabinets and homes. But medium format cameras had a more limited market, and none are being produced today (with the exception of a couple of super high price specialty items). And many may have been worn out by professionals. So there is a restricted stock left. Buy one, try it, and sell it you do not like it.Someone already said it (maybe on this thread, but I couldn't find it): The great thing about medium format film cameras right now is that, for the most part, you can buy any camera to try. And if you don't like it after awhile, you can sell it, for the same price or more, and get all your money back.
Just go with your gut.
If you want horizontal landscapes which may or may not require cropping consider 6x9 folders. Many are equipped with excellent lenses albeit possibly un coated however you get that look and glow that many modern lenses cannot achieve,think ANSEL ADAMS who used many formats not just 4x5 and 8x10. and who produced beautiful images with all formats.
I'm wondering if the 501CM is worth the premium. Seems like the only real differences are the gliding mirror (which is only useful for long lenses that I may never use) and the Acute Matte screen that I can add later.
I'd prefer something more compact than a 4x5. I'm used to walking around with a fairly small 35mm camera.
Do you typically shoot landscapes handheld with the Fuji or do you always use a tripod?I'm used to Fuji GW690 and GSW690. You will love it if you decide to get one of them or both. I'm a landscape guy and I love them. For the II and III version, I don't like the hood system who mask speed and aperture but the negative/positive are amazing.
Glad to hear it. I don't relish dragging a tripod around, but forum opinion seems to be that a tripod is a necessity for shooting landscapes with a MF camera.I shoot landscapes with my Hasselblad handheld. Most of the time I don't need no stinkin' tripod.
Glad to hear it. I don't relish dragging a tripod around, but forum opinion seems to be that a tripod is a necessity for shooting landscapes with a MF camera.
Understood. I typically don't use a shutter speed much less than 250ms. California, lots of sunlightShooting with a tripod will greatly increase the sharpness of your photos unless you're at a high shutter speed. That expensive lens is going to waste otherwise.
I don't understand. Could you clarify your post?I'm used to Fuji GW690 and GSW690. You will love it if you decide to get one of them or both. I'm a landscape guy and I love them. For the II and III version, I don't like the hood system who mask speed and aperture but the negative/positive are amazing.
I cannot tell where some of the other response are going with this topic. Clearly your use of tripod depends on shutter speed. Medium or high speed film in bright light, and you can probably hand-hold. If you are photographing in poor light (such as dusk), you may need a tripod even with a 400 film like Tri-X. Consider that you lose 1 or more stops with filters. With medium speed film (ISO 100) or slower, you may need a tripod in all conditions. With my Fuji GW690II, I sometimes hand-hold with Tri-X, but I often use a tripod so that I can stop the lens down to f/16 or f/22. With Panatomic-X (EI=20), I always use a tripod.Do you typically shoot landscapes handheld with the Fuji or do you always use a tripod?
Yes, I meant 1/250s. Brain cramp.250ms is 1/4 of a second, or "4" on the shutter speed dial. If you meant "250" (1/250), that's just 4 msec.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?