New old camera

[Manfred M]

I'm started down a slightly different path (albeit very slowly) in my photography, so picked up one of these as well as the f/4 150mm Zeiss Sonnar. Both lenses have Synchro-Compur shutters, so flash synch speed is up to 1/500th sec. This also means that the flash synch cable attaches to the camera lens, not the body. Built from 1970 - 1994; this one seems to have been built in 1972. It was recently cleaned and serviced and has less than 50 shots taken on it post-service.

[xpatUSA]

Congratulations, Manfred!

Retro is cool ...

[pschlute]

Like it.

[Manfred M]

Congratulations, Manfred!

Retro is cool ...

Some of the people who are doing well in local galleries are the ones that have gone retro, especially when dealing with traditional B&W processes. I suspect I will be keeping my eyes open for a digital back and might flip back and forth with film. Time to dig out the old Patterson developing tanks and reels from the archives.

The main reason is I find that images done with medium format or large format have a "presence" that cannot be duplicated in a full-frame or smaller sensor. What I really want is the FujiFilm GTX 100, but can't justify the $USD 10000 for the body.

[rpcrowe]

I was fortunate enough to shoot with this beautiful combination for a couple of years and it was wonderful. I particularly liked the Hasselblad Chimney Finder https://www.ebay.com/i/173579313340?...g8aAqtxEALw_wc which was great for general shooting but, absolutely super when shooting in bright conditions.

I always did well shooting with cameras that had waist level viewfinders since I am about 6'1" tall and I have to stoop a bit when shooting people - especially females since they are usually much shorter in height than I am...

Back in the "Dark Ages" of film, Brooks Institute of Photography was a well respected photography school located in Santa Barbara, California. A friend of mine attended the school and wanted to take a certain course, He was told that he needed a Hasselblad with that 150mm f/4 lens as a prerequisite. Remarking that this was a pretty hefty investment, the instructor stated (rather smugly), "Michelangelo did not produce the Cistern Ceiling with a paint by numbers set"...

[pschlute]

"Michelangelo did not produce the Cistern Ceiling with a paint by numbers set"...

I think Michaelangelo painted more than the Vatican toilets

(Sorry Richard, I couldnt resist)

[Manfred M]

"Michelangelo did not produce the Cistern Ceiling with a paint by numbers set"...

I suspect that you mean the Sistine Chapel ceiling. I visited it shortly after it was restored and while Michelangelo might not have use a paint by numbers approach, critics of the restorer's work seemed to think that they had. The pre-restoration ceiling was covered in soot and grime and the colours really popped after the restoration was completed and a lot of people did not like it.

[rpcrowe]

Yep - my error! Sistine....

[Acorn]

I have Zenza Bronica with three lenses that's just like new, like the day that I bought it. The lenses are crisp and the whole outfit very similar to the Hasselblad. Few people want them these day except at give-away prices.

[Acorn]

I still have my Zenza Bronica 6x4.5 outfit (the poor man's Hasselblad) along with three crisp Zenzanon lenses. It's not been used for years since I covered the Channel Tunnel project. And yet, in pristine condition, like the day I bought it and like Manfred's Hasselblad, it's become a museum piece.

[lunaticitizen]

Nice. Sometimes I see people carrying one of those, often together with their digital camera.
The majority are females. Don't ask me why.

[cbeasley]

I suspect that you mean the Sistine Chapel ceiling. I visited it shortly after it was restored and while Michelangelo might not have use a paint by numbers approach, critics of the restorer's work seemed to think that they had. The pre-restoration ceiling was covered in soot and grime and the colours really popped after the restoration was completed and a lot of people did not like it.

The restoration was remarkable. I first saw it in 1985 when the only visible restored part of the ceiling were some of the lunettes. Much of the ceiling was obscured by scaffolding for the main restoration. As you say, there was a lot of controversy at the time (and maybe there still is?) because there was such a body of opinion built up over the centuries concerning the wonderful dark and brooding character of the work, etc., and that the restoration was destroying this. However it was clear to me that the restoration was right, not just from the incredible beauty revealed, but also because of the well-documented paranoia of Michelangelo concerning Rafael stealing his ideas and his color palette. And then you look at the Rafael frescoes from the time (not subjected to the kind of damage done to the Sistine Chapel) and it all makes sense. We went back after the ceiling was done and then again after the whole thing was complete. Given what a hassle it is to see the Sistine Chapel, you have to love it!