Hasselblad - Holy Trinity or 60-100-180?

[Michael Mutmansky]

HI folks,

I have a Hasselblad system running and I do have the Holy Trinity lenses (50-80-150) plus a few others (180 and 250, plus a 38mm-SWC/M). I started out with the 50 and 80 and then expanded from there when I saw bargains...

Anyway, I got the 180 about 6 months ago far a few reasons and clearly there isn't a huge focal length difference between it and the 150, but it does cause me to think a bit more about what lenses I'd prefer and the spacing of the optics for good coverage.

When I got into the Hasselblad, I chose focal lengths that matched what I had used in the past, which was the Mamiya 6 system, so I chose the 50-80-(75 in the Mamiya)-150 because that is what I was familiar with. However, in the Hasselblad, there are many more lens options and I can't help think that it might have been premature to go that route. (And before you go there, I'm not trying to justify purchasing more gear; I already can't carry all this crap around with me in a single bag and I'd never want to have to deal with the weight of it!).

I see a few considerations... I have the SWC-M (38mm) so the spacing of that to the next lens up feels a bit close to me. That is possibly a push towards the 60mm, and that then means the 80mm is probably too close, which pushes towards the 100mm and then the 180mm.

However, some of those lenses are larger than the step down focal length (the 100 is larger than the 80, and the 180 is larger than the 150). Individually, that isn't a huge issue, but when combined, it is a factor in bulk and weight of about a pound and a bit of bulk (the 180 is a lot heavier than the 150).

One other factor is the lens performance... supposedly, the 100 and 180 are two of the best that Zeiss ever produced. The 60 is supposedly better than the 50 (and even, I think, the 50 FLE, which is what I have). I'm not an uber-sharpness person, but all things created equal, I'd go with a sharper lens for this system.

I'm basically trying to think through a 3-lens system (well, 4, I guess, including the SWC/M) for "lighter" overseas travel and just need some feedback on what may make the most sense.

Most immediately, I will be going to France (focus on Paris and Normandy probably) and I will be shooting lots of architectural subject matter with the film gear. A lot of the more tourist shots will be done with digital. Not having been in Paris before, I don't know what focal length is likely to be the most used, but it could easily be the 80 or 100. I tend to be more of a detail-focused photographs for architecture, but the tight quarters for shooting will likely push towards wider focal lengths and, of course, there is also the need to "capture it all" at times, so the wider lens and the SWC/M will be useful, maybe a lot.

I'm looking for opinions on lens choice for this kit... or maybe a hybrid of the two (50-80-180 maybe...) for a 3-lens kit focused mostly on architecture and travel subject matters (but not tourist topics).

 

[DanG]

HI folks,

I have a Hasselblad system running and I do have the Holy Trinity lenses (50-80-150) plus a few others (180 and 250, plus a 38mm-SWC/M). I started out with the 50 and 80 and then expanded from there when I saw bargains...

Anyway, I got the 180 about 6 months ago far a few reasons and clearly there isn't a huge focal length difference between it and the 150, but it does cause me to think a bit more about what lenses I'd prefer and the spacing of the optice for good coverage.

When I got into the Hasselblad, I chose focal lengths that matched what I had used in the past, which was the Mamiya 6 system, so I chose the 50-80-(75 in the Mamiya)-150 because that is what I was familiar with. However, in the Hasselblad, there are many more lens options and I can't help think that it might have been premature to go that route. (And before you go there, I'm not trying to justify purchasing more gear; I already can't carry all this crap around with me in a single bag and I'd never want to have to deal with the weight of it!).

I see a few considerations... I have the SWC-M (38mm) so the spacing of that to the next lens up feels a bit close to me. That is possibly a push towards the 60mm, and that then means the 80mm is probably too close, which pushes towards the 100mm and then the 180mm.

However, some of those lenses are larger than the step down focal length (the 100 is larger than the 80, and the 180 is larger than the 150). Individually, that isn't a huge issue, but when combined, it is a factor in bulk and weight of about a pound and a bit of bulk (the 180 is a lot heavier than the 150).

One other factor is the lens performance... supposedly, the 100 and 180 and two of the best that Zeiss ever produced. The 60 is supposedly better than the 50 (and even, I think, the 50 FLE, which is what I have). I'm not an uber-sharpness person, but all things created equal, I'd go with a sharper lens for this system.

I'm basically trying to think through a 3-lens system (well, 4, I guess, including the SWC/M) for "lighter" overseas travel and just need some feedback on what may make the most sense.

Most immediately, I will be going to France (focus on Paris and Normandy probably) and I will be shooting lots of architectural subject matter with the film gear. A lot of the more tourist shots will be done with digital. Not having been in Paris before, I don't know what focal length is likely to be the most used, but it could easily be the 80 or 100. I tend to be more of a detail-focused photographer for architecture, but the tight quarters for shooting will likely push towards wider focal lengths and, of course, there is also the need to "capture it all" at times, so the wider lens and the SWC/M will be useful, maybe a lot.

I'm looking for opinions on lens choice for this kit... or maybe a hybrid of the two (50-60-180 maybe...) for a 3-lens kit focused mostly on architecture and travel subject matters (but not tourist topics).

I would think about: 50 - 120 - 250 as a three lens set combined with the SWC, you would "have it covered"

dang
Calgary, AB

 

[Rayt]

I have shot with all of them. The 60mm of any generation is a superb lens something you can shoot wide open and expect a stellar image. If you do handheld photography like someone who would use a Rolleiflex then the 60mm is a good choice. If you shoot on a tripod stopped down to f8 then it doesn’t matter much. The 100mm has a similar reputation. Any generation will yield top results at max aperture. Decide between the 100 and the 120 base on your subject matter. One is a macro lens that is also good at infinity. The 150 vs 180 is a toss up both have pros and cons.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

The SWC is one of my favorite cameras and would happily use it as my only camera. Google Mimmo Jodice and take a look at his cityscapes for inspiration.

 

[eli griggs]

I have the same 50, 80, 150, 180, 250 lens choices and the size, weight, smaller package of the trinity are ideal for a fairly small bag, the 180, 250 requires more, and a lot is also based on how many backs and which accessories are wanted along, bellows lens hood, filters, meters, lights, light and camera cables, quick release head, tripod, folding reflectors, or foam cards, instant film, roll film, changing bag, cleaning cloths, lens bags or cases, film holders, batteries pin hole lens, a Hasselblad to Nikon adapter, with 35 mm body/film, etc., (in my case FG) make a total package, which is heavy, bulky and even with the lenses you're prepossessing as substitutes, you'll likely still need a hefty camera bag, possibly, two.

If you're carrying a SWC, in addition to the solutions/requirements above, that all requires secure storage, carrying and a second pair of eyes.

If Architecture photography is being pursued, a Flex-Body is no out of place, either, and do no forget, you can adapt large format lenses to the 500 series camera bodies.

Better get a trained guard dog or too to help keep up with the security.

This is my paranoid list for shooting out of a car and I suggest you go through it and mark out or number items you'd actually use, then think it over in terms of what you can comfortably carry on a walk.

Good Luck,
Eli

 

[Trask]

I had the good fortune to live five years in Paris; I usually carried a camera when I left our apartment. Generally I carried a 35mm like an LTM Leica or an old Nikon F (which the French noticed and appreciated), but sometimes I'd take a Rolleiflex, or a 500C or an SWC. My experience is that the SWC makes a great carry camera when in Paris, as many of the streets are relatively narrow; you can usually move in toward the subject with an SWC but it's often hard to back up far enough when using an 80mm lens. I had a camera 6X7 camera with a 55mm lens and that worked well too, so your Hassy with a 50mm or 60mm would also be a good choice. I've attached a couple of SWC photos.

 

[Steven Lee]

I think I have owned or borrowed all Hasselblad lenses at one point or another. Currently I own the CFI versions of 50, 60, 100, 150, 180 and 250. Out of these my 3-lens kit would be, sorted by popularity:

• The 60mm. Hands down the best lens in the lineup. This is my favorite FOV, it is compact and sharp at all apertures. The 60mm is my normal lens on a 6x6 camera, I find it more versatile than the 80mm.
• The 100mm. My second favorite. Most of the time I just take these two lenses in a small shoulder bag when I travel. Optically it's absolutely perfect. This is the lens for waist level portraits or landscapes without a strong foreground.
• The 150mm. The head & shoulders portraits and slightly compressed landscapes. I am repeating myself here, but I also find this lens to be optically perfect.

In terms of frequency of use, I just looked it up in my database, grouped by the last 3 years:

• 60mm: 258 images (39%)
• 100mm: 278 (42%)
• 150mm: 126 (19%)

Interesting... I am surprised that I have more keepers from the 100mm, but I am pretty sure I use the 60mm far more often. There must be an outlier photoshoot which boosted the 100mm stats...

Other lenses:

• The 50mm feels significantly wider than the 60mm. I have a complex relationship with wide angle. I have to get in the mood, be extremely intentional and focused. When I use this lens I tend to leave others at home and have a particular subject+location in mind, almost like shooting large format.
• The 180mm is slightly longer than the 150mm but far bigger. Never found a reason to carry around extra weight and bulk. People say it's sharper but I never noticed the difference.
• The 250mm exceeds my skill level. When I shoot with lenses this long, my subjects tend to be action/sports where autofocus is required, for which I have a Canon EOS system. I keep practicing anyway, trying to use this Zeiss for landscapes or occasional portraits and keep failing.
• The 80mm isn't as versatile as 60mm. Besides, when a single 80mm lens suffices, I have a Rolleiflex for that.
• The 120mm is awesome for an occasional closeup, but it happens so rarely that I opted for 100/150mm lenses with an extension tube.
• The 40mm, 38mm and 350mm FOVs are firmly above my skill level.

People always say the 100mm Planar and the 180mm Sonnar are the sharpest in the lineup. I primarily shoot ISO 400 films, I do not own a drum scanner, and frankly all Zeiss lenses look equally sharp to me. If I was forced to critique them, I would say that their coatings aren't up to modern standards (occasionally a hood will be helpful) and the 5-blade diaphragm occasionally will produce pentagon-shaped ghosts. Otherwise, they're perfect.

Anyway... 60-100-150 would be my advice.

 

[Oldwino]

I went with 40-60-100 when I had my Hasselblad kit.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Great points from everyone... thanks for the feedback.

I should mention that I will be only shooting B&W with the film camera, so that will allow me to cut back on the film backs to maybe just two; one for each camera. If I need to make a film change, I'll have to spend the remainder of a roll so I can get the film in at the right time. Not the best, but not a terrible solution. I can probably get a third in my travel bag as a backup but I won't carry that along on a daily basis.

Ideally, I'd probably skip one lens and go with two, like maybe the 60 and the 150 and then the 38. That will cut the 80/100 out but it would still allow a semi-wide and a short telephoto solution, plus the SWC.

I do take a tripod but won't be using it for city shooting. Maybe evening shots etc., but not the daytime shooting. None of my shooting will be anything near formal architectural shooting, but there is a strong use of architectural elements to create forms/shapes/masses (graphical elements) in a lot of my urban shooting... It's all run and gun, though, and then often fairly manipulated to abstract the subject.

I'm going to work up some FOV calculations for the lenses to help me think about this a bit and I can maybe make a decision. I do think the 60mm may be in the cards, though...

 

[pkupcik]

Looking at your gear, you have a lot options. If it was me I would like the following options:

SWC, 80mm and nothing else.
50, 80mm.
If you had a 100, then 50 and 100 plus maybe 2x mutar to get to 200mm

Your 80mm is such a small light lens that I would probably build a 2 lens kit around it for travel.

I personally ended up with 50/2.8 and 110/2 + 2x mutar. Also had a 250SA, but it does get heavy with three lenses. So these days i stick with the 50 and 110. In all honesty could easily travel with just one of them and have a blast.

 

[faberryman]

Take the SWC and three spaced lenses in the 50-180 range, it doesn't matter which ones. The whole "Holy Trinity" business is hooey. "Holy Trinity" is a German phrase which means "three Leica lenses" (holy=Leica, trinity=three lenses). It was coined by some Leica enthusiasts as a rationale for buying more lenses after the 50mm. The "Holy Trinity" originally consisted of the 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm, which in medium format terms is roughly 80mm, 100mm, and 180mm. Today, for digital users, the "Holy Trinity" consists of 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms. My personal "Holy Trinity" is Henri Cartier Bresson, Brett Weston, and Irving Penn. Of course, that varies depending on which photography exhibition I have most recently seen. It makes for a much more interesting discussion than lenses. One other thing to consider: Atget used one lens and got some pretty good shots of Paris.

 

[Arthurwg]

I carry the 60 and 120 with my Hasselblad. Seems that's all I need most of the time. I found the 180 an awkward lens to use, very heavy and weighted to the front.

 

[MarkS]

I used Hasselblads on the job for many years. All the lenses we had were superb. Certainly the newer multi-coated lenses (50 FLE, 135/5.6) had more contrast than the 1960s chrome lenses (80, 150). And guess what? It didn't make any difference. You can't go wrong with any of them. Choose by the focal length(s) that you see best with.

 

[eli griggs]

I think I have owned or borrowed all Hasselblad lenses at one point or another. Currently I own the CFI versions of 50, 60, 100, 150, 180 and 250. Out of these my 3-lens kit would be, sorted by popularity:

• The 60mm. Hands down the best lens in the lineup. This is my favorite FOV, it is compact and sharp at all apertures. The 60mm is my normal lens on a 6x6 camera, I find it more versatile than the 80mm.
• The 100mm. My second favorite. Most of the time I just take these two lenses in a small shoulder bag when I travel. Optically it's absolutely perfect. This is the lens for waist level portraits or landscapes without a strong foreground.
• The 150mm. The head & shoulders portraits and slightly compressed landscapes. I am repeating myself here, but I also find this lens to be optically perfect.

In terms of frequency of use, I just looked it up in my database, grouped by the last 3 years:

• 60mm: 258 images (39%)
• 100mm: 278 (42%)
• 150mm: 126 (19%)

Interesting... I am surprised that I have more keepers from the 100mm, but I am pretty sure I use the 60mm far more often. There must be an outlier photoshoot which boosted the 100mm stats...

Other lenses:

• The 50mm feels significantly wider than the 60mm. I have a complex relationship with wide angle. I have to get in the mood, be extremely intentional and focused. When I use this lens I tend to leave others at home and have a particular subject+location in mind, almost like shooting large format.
• The 180mm is slightly longer than the 150mm but far bigger. Never found a reason to carry around extra weight and bulk. People say it's sharper but I never noticed the difference.
• The 250mm exceeds my skill level. When I shoot with lenses this long, my subjects tend to be action/sports where autofocus is required, for which I have a Canon EOS system. I keep practicing anyway, trying to use this Zeiss for landscapes or occasional portraits and keep failing.
• The 80mm isn't as versatile as 60mm. Besides, when a single 80mm lens suffices, I have a Rolleiflex for that.
• The 120mm is awesome for an occasional closeup, but it happens so rarely that I opted for 100/150mm lenses with an extension tube.
• The 40mm, 38mm and 350mm FOVs are firmly above my skill level.

People always say the 100mm Planar and the 180mm Sonnar are the sharpest in the lineup. I primarily shoot ISO 400 films, I do not own a drum scanner, and frankly all Zeiss lenses look equally sharp to me. If I was forced to critique them, I would say that their coatings aren't up to modern standards (occasionally a hood will be helpful) and the 5-blade diaphragm occasionally will produce pentagon-shaped ghosts. Otherwise, they're perfect.

Anyway... 60-100-150 would be my advice.

It's good that you can break down your lens use data, showing your choices for 'working' lenses, that we can all see.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[MattKing]

Somehow, I think the "holy trinity" reference originated outside of the photographic world .
But even for those who use it in the context of medium format film photography, I think people are thinking that there is some magic in the particular focal lengths, and I don't believe that is really the case.
For Hasselblad, the 50, 80 and 150 lens trio was a practical setup for wedding and the local, small business professional photographers. The range of fields of view and working distances for common photographic tasks was well suited to weddings and many types of common photography. The suitability for those tasks meant that Hasselblad could make those lenses in quantity and sell lots of them at a good profit, to photographers who were watching the bottom line.
In some ways, to use a North American car analogy, they were the Chevy Novas of professional lens focal lengths - well priced, they did the job really well and they weren't particularly fancy.
If you need a really versatile set of lenses, they might very well do absolutely everything you want and need them to.
If you have other particular needs and preferences, it's worth investigating other options. For example, if you do a lot of closely cropped head and shoulder portraits, the close focus limits of some (all?) versions of the 150mm lens may be an issue.

 

[warden]

I think I have owned or borrowed all Hasselblad lenses at one point or another. Currently I own the CFI versions of 50, 60, 100, 150, 180 and 250. Out of these my 3-lens kit would be, sorted by popularity:

• The 60mm. Hands down the best lens in the lineup. This is my favorite FOV, it is compact and sharp at all apertures. The 60mm is my normal lens on a 6x6 camera, I find it more versatile than the 80mm.
• The 100mm. My second favorite. Most of the time I just take these two lenses in a small shoulder bag when I travel. Optically it's absolutely perfect. This is the lens for waist level portraits or landscapes without a strong foreground.
• The 150mm. The head & shoulders portraits and slightly compressed landscapes. I am repeating myself here, but I also find this lens to be optically perfect.

In terms of frequency of use, I just looked it up in my database, grouped by the last 3 years:

• 60mm: 258 images (39%)
• 100mm: 278 (42%)
• 150mm: 126 (19%)

Interesting... I am surprised that I have more keepers from the 100mm, but I am pretty sure I use the 60mm far more often. There must be an outlier photoshoot which boosted the 100mm stats...

Other lenses:

• The 50mm feels significantly wider than the 60mm. I have a complex relationship with wide angle. I have to get in the mood, be extremely intentional and focused. When I use this lens I tend to leave others at home and have a particular subject+location in mind, almost like shooting large format.
• The 180mm is slightly longer than the 150mm but far bigger. Never found a reason to carry around extra weight and bulk. People say it's sharper but I never noticed the difference.
• The 250mm exceeds my skill level. When I shoot with lenses this long, my subjects tend to be action/sports where autofocus is required, for which I have a Canon EOS system. I keep practicing anyway, trying to use this Zeiss for landscapes or occasional portraits and keep failing.
• The 80mm isn't as versatile as 60mm. Besides, when a single 80mm lens suffices, I have a Rolleiflex for that.
• The 120mm is awesome for an occasional closeup, but it happens so rarely that I opted for 100/150mm lenses with an extension tube.
• The 40mm, 38mm and 350mm FOVs are firmly above my skill level.

People always say the 100mm Planar and the 180mm Sonnar are the sharpest in the lineup. I primarily shoot ISO 400 films, I do not own a drum scanner, and frankly all Zeiss lenses look equally sharp to me. If I was forced to critique them, I would say that their coatings aren't up to modern standards (occasionally a hood will be helpful) and the 5-blade diaphragm occasionally will produce pentagon-shaped ghosts. Otherwise, they're perfect.

Anyway... 60-100-150 would be my advice.

That was a good read, thanks.

My Hasselblad came with an 80mm and after a year or so I added a 60mm and 150mm. If I took the kind of notes that you do I bet my usage would be 1% for the 80mm, 10% for the 150mm and the rest for the 60mm. That 60 is a wonderful lens.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd say for Paris, take the superwide, the 60 and the 100 and leave the 180 behind. I went there a few years ago with just a Rolleiflex 2.8E and shot some of the best photos of my life on that trip. There will be little call for anything longer than the 100. If you don't want to buy another lens, and you already have the 120 Makro-Planar, you could take the 60 and the 120.

 

[eli griggs]

"for example, if you do a lot of closely cropped head and shoulder portraits, the close focus limits of some (all?) versions of the 150mm lens may be an issue."

It might be a good thing to practice using a bellows or extension tubes for the 150, just to see what's possible.

IMO.

 

[MattKing]

It might be a good thing to practice using a bellows or extension tubes for the 150, just to see what's possible.

IMO.

It isn't an issue of possibility. If one is photographing in a fast moving environment - like a wedding - having to add accessories in order to accomplish something isn't a good option. Thus the observation: "If you have other particular needs and preferences, it's worth investigating other options."

 

[rulnacco]

I have the 50, 80, 120, 150, and 180.

The 180 is indeed a special lens. When used on a tripod, with studio lighting, and a digital back, it is subtly but clearly better than the 150--it has just a little extra of everything that I really love.

*But* when I go walking around, I use the 150. It's quite good itself, the differences on film aren't nearly as visible, and it's much more ergonomic for that use than the 180, as others have mentioned above. And it's considerably less expensive, if that's a factor. If you're not using the 180 in a setting that extracts the best out of what it can give, there's really no reason to choose it over the 150--and many good reasons to use the 150 instead.

So I use the 50-80-150 combo, the classic trinity (I won't call it "holy"). However, I'd *love* to have a 60--I think I'd use it pretty much all the time, and it would replace both the 50 and 80. If I did have the 60, I'd probably just go with a two-lens carry-around kit, with the other lens being either the 120 or the 150. If I *was* going to go with three lenses, and had the 60, I think that the 60-100-150 would be a good walk around combo (since you do have the SWC, that would give you good spacing between focal lengths, too). All three are fairly compact, the first two are reputed to be amongst the best Hasselblad lenses ever, and the 150, despite some people thinking it's a "meh" lens is very good in its own right, and highly usable in the field.

Personally, I'd probably omit the 100 and just go 60/120 or 150. I know the 100 has a great reputation--but it carries an inflated price as a result--and it seems a bit too tight for what I like to shoot, but not long enough for when I need a telephoto. For me, personally, I think I'd end up not using the 100 nearly as much as the other two, making its great cost a poor investment--with a 60 and 120 or 150, you could just "zoom with your feet" and get what you needed 90+% of the time. And with the 120, you'd get a bit of extra close-focusing ability, particularly if you carried around a short extension tube or an accessory diopter lens, while it can also work as a portrait lens. (By the way--closeup lenses: Hasselblad makes Proxars, of course, but what I use is a Nikon 5T with a 62mm-Bay 60 adapter. Unlike the Proxars, which are single element auxiliary lenses, the 5T is a two element achromat, which will produce slightly higher quality than the Proxars. I've found that carrying around that combination works better than an extension tube and gives you a quick and optically excellent way to get a closeup in the field whenever you need that ability.)

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Some really great feedback on this thread everyone... I really appreciate the thoughts about how you fill out your kits. We're all different, so one formula won't be great for everyone and it is helpful to read the thought process that others go through when selecting gear.

I am certain that I will be getting a 60mm lens... I just need to find one in good shape. They are much more uncommon than the 50mm lenses, so they tend to go for a bit of a premium.

I would prefer the CFi or CB version since they will be a bit newer and supposedly have a bit better shutter mechanism inside and they supposedly have better internal baffling (plus, they may have parts for another decade or longer once CF parts become sparse).

I'm probably going to pick one up and then do some shooting and try to determine if a 100mm is in the cards as well, but I somewhat suspect that I can do without that and move to the 150mm for more of an isolation/detail lens.

Per the discussion about the 180mm being a great lens, I got it because I was thinking that I might be able to benefit from that lens in combination with a TC for longer focal lengths, and that might be better than getting anything longer (I have a 250mm, but if I just replace the 150mm with the 180mm and get the 1.4 and 2 TCs I could get out to 360mm for the occasional image and I'd hope that the performance will be more obviously better than the 150mm in that use case). But that's not when travelling light...

 

[Arthurwg]

Unlike the other CB lenses, the 60mm is optically identical to the CF lens. Mine is superb.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Michael Mutmansky AFAIK the CFI shutter spring can be used in CF lenses, so from the parts availability + longevity perspective they are equal. In fact, getting a CF lens and having it serviced by Odess (he seems to replace shutter master springs as part of his standard CLA) probably will give you a better value than just getting a CFI lens for the same money.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Good to know on the spring... I wasn't aware that they are interchangable.

I found a good price on a CB version and hopefully it will meet my condition expectations.

 

[eli griggs]

It isn't an issue of possibility. If one is photographing in a fast moving environment - like a wedding - having to add accessories in order to accomplish something isn't a good option. Thus the observation: "If you have other particular needs and preferences, it's worth investigating other options."

I can see there are professional venues when minimum kit is the order of the day, however, my perspective is different, having packed up for a number" of shoots away from a studio, where I had to anticipate every detail of kit that might be needed on an extended, out of the way trip, where a filter, lens, armature for positioning a camera in a particular position would be needed at a critical point to capture a scene or detail, on a site States away from the studio, at 6:35 am and no substitute shot would do and no reshoot a possibility.

For an extended trip, having close to hand kit is often the difference from shooting a scene, to making that scene top quality, within your abilities.

How many times have we said, read, heard on the topic of a shot being shown, "It's an OK shot but I forgot my ********"* that would have given me what I really wanted!"

Doing your best with what you have on hand is the only thing we can do, but having easy access to the tools needed make it right, is a worthwhile goal, wherever you may be.

IMO.