I don't believe that (entirely). And yes, they DO care about profit only because of the biting monkey on their back with the voracious appetite, called income tax. And it's NEVER enough. Like whipping a horse to try to get a nose. But take away all that for another look, and I believe in most companies, you'll find good people. Their sense of excellence is driven by profit motive, yes. But somewhere in there is wanting to do the right thing. Were it not true, the "big greedy company" that some love to hate would have been gone long before.
I took down my post as an off-topic rant. But I will let stand my belief that companies are operating under duress. A simple real estate contract made in that condition is voidable. Strip away everything and you'll see that a 3% profit margin is nominal in the corporate world. If 3% is greedy, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
That was settled long ago. A Hasselblad. They do what a MF camera needs to do, and there's not enough parts in them for something to go wrong. Somebody invented "ingenious simplicity", and put it in a chrome shell with pretty leather, and a fancy list price, and there you have it. But the dirty little secret is there's just not much to go wrong, because there's really not that much inside one.
In fact I like my 8x10 even better.
That was something else I had mildly entertained as I think I could be quite content doing 8x10 contacts. However, that would be hard to pull off within my budget and I certainly wouldn't be able to pick up an enlarger for it any time soon, at least not with the prices I have been seeing.
Thanks again everyone for the great input! You have all definitely given me some great food for thought. I still have another month or so until I get my profit sharing from work, so still plenty of time to mull things over.
I would like to put my two cents in for a Hasselblad. You said you will use a tripod and you already have a nice MF enlarger. My experience has been that if you can't make a 16 x 20 from a square negative (either vertical or horozontal) from a Hasselblad with that outfit, you would not not be half trying....Regards
I prefer 4x5 for landscape over medium format because of camera movements. If you buy a 4x5 you can use a 6x7 roll film back on it if you wish.
I forgot to mention that there is also the Fujifilm GX680. It's a monster medium format camera that does provide some movements. The Fuji lenses are said to be tack sharp.
I used to have a 6x7 back for my 4x5 camera. I found it a lot easier to see what I was doing with movements shooting 4x5. In fact I like my 8x10 even better. I admit my eyes are far from what they used to be but people who shoot medium format digital on view cameras tether to a lap top to see better what they are doing. It's just something else to think about.
I use both for landscape. The OP wants to use MF for landscape; he did not state that he wants to use a 4''x5" camera.
Sirius, if you reread the OP's first post he says that he hasn't ruled out large format.
When these threads go on like this it's hard to remember everything said.
I have two 4"x5" cameras. The 1928 Graflex Model D is a hand held portrait camera. The Pacemaker Speed Graphic is mostly used hand held and on a tripod with the 90mm and 210mm lenses with and without movements.
I disagree. I have done it many times.
Are you limited by equipment, technique or knowledge?
I must say that I AM confused. What do you disagree with and what have you done many times? By other's standards I may be limited by equipment but I have all I want and I am damn sure not limited by technique nor knowledge. I have been doing darkroom work as an advanced amateur and sometime professional for over sixty years......
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?