There must be more to it than one just being more expensive.
And there is.
And frankly, I think this whole discussion is getting pretty pointless. In the end, the photographs one is supposed to make are much more important than the equipment used to make them.
Dropping a camera 1.5m on to the ground is normal use?
I never said that a Bronica was cheaper because it is worse quality....I think that is what you said in your last sentence......:rolleyes:
I would love to know if you ever even held a Bronica in your hands, or used one. If so, please explain which part appears cheap?
Let's turn that around: the only thing the Hasselblad appears to have going for it is that it is more expensive, especially all the lenses and accessories outside of the basic kit.It says what is says: the only thing the Bronica appears to have going for it (comparatively) is that it is cheaper.
Also, forgot to add, if you're going to be shooting hand held quite a bit, the SQ-A with speed grip handles so wonderfully, adding a shutter release for your forefinger and winder for thumb on a right handed grip. Hasselblad does not offer anything similar, their grip is left handed which I just find strange. Just something to think about.
Let's turn that around: the only thing the Hasselblad appears to have going for it is that it is more expensive, especially all the lenses and accessories outside of the basic kit.
Lets's put all this talk of "expensive" in persepective. I just priced out a 500cm kit with 2 backs, WLF, and 3 *T lenses (50mm, 80mm, and 150mm). Total price = $1,143 (photo attached). That is the price of an entry-level DSLR with a crappy lens. It is also the approximate market price of a Rolleiflex 2.8f, which has only one lens (also an 80mm planar, same as the Hasselblad).
The fact is that used Hasselblad systems are a complete bargain these days. See the attached photo for proof.
Thus dies another myth that Hasselblad must be expensive.
Thanks,
Steve
Yep, time to change your tagline Steve.
Let's turn that around: the only thing the Hasselblad appears to have going for it is that it is more expensive, especially all the lenses and accessories outside of the basic kit.
I can't really say if a Bronica is less dependable than a Hassie - I suspect it is just as good in this regard.
However, the lenses on the Hasselblad are superior to the Bronica. For me, that is what matters more. You can pick up a good 500C or CM kit with 80mm Planar, back etc for around $500. If you need more accessories, get them over time. In the meantime, the 80mm Planar is one heck of a lens if you have to be stuck with just one. I suspect if you like Hasselblad, and are only considering the Bronica because it is cheaper, you will always feel like you "settled", and will likely end up getting a Hasselblad anyway. Save yourself the trouble and get it in the first place.
The KEH prices on Hassy over the past few months have made my jaw drop.
You're bing influenced by the placebo effect.
The 'blad is more expensive, so it must be better!
BTW - Hasselblad is still in business; Bronica went out of business in 2004. Even with their less expensive cameras, they still couldn't compete.
The 'blad is more expensive, so it must be better!
Bronica were taken over by Tamron, it was Tamron who pulled the plug it had nothing to do with not been able to compete with Hasselblad.
While I have no doubt that Hasselblads are superior, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to assume that the continued existence of a product or company proves its superiority?
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?