 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / October 2003Kiev Carl Zeiss/Arsat vs hassy C lenses? (I'm serious!)
I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering if anyone has used BOTH the hasselblad or kiev and if you think there was a difference in color cast/contrast characteristics between the lenses of the two. I expect that zeiss for the hassy is alot better then older carl zeiss/arsat but I am still on the fence about if there would be that much a difference. Say for instance two pictures are taken of the same scene with each camera, would it be possible to tell which one is hassy or kiev? I'm also worried about the quality of the kiev body, although I would be buying an upgraded one from araxphoto. However I am also concerned about buying older C lenses for the hasselblad (which are the only ones I could afford). Seems the kiev would give me more of a lens selection but I'm just concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses compared to the blad.. if there is any?? > I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm > fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering > if anyone has used BOTH the hasselblad or kiev and if you think there > was a difference in color cast/contrast characteristics between the > lenses of the two. [...] Just my opinion, but the Hasselblad is particularly rugged, the 'old' lenses for the C and later are just fine, and you might be well served to shop around a lot and wait for a good deal before commiting to the Kiev. Perhaps I was just very lucky, but I got a great deal. >> I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm >> fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >around a lot and wait for a good deal before commiting to the Kiev. Perhaps >I was just very lucky, but I got a great deal. I had a terrible time with the Hassies in the Air Force. Always in the shop while the Bronica SLR and Mamiya TLR just kept on trucken. THOM > I had a terrible time with the Hassies in the Air Force. Always in > the shop while the Bronica SLR and Mamiya TLR just kept on trucken. My experience was exactly the opposite. Maybe it has something to do with which hemisphere you live in. :) > > I had a terrible time with the Hassies in the Air Force. Always in > > the shop while the Bronica SLR and Mamiya TLR just kept on trucken. > > My experience was exactly the opposite. Maybe it has something to do with > which hemisphere you live in. :) LOL! Coriolis effect, I suppose.... Peter > I had a terrible time with the Hassies in the Air Force. Always in > the shop while the Bronica SLR and Mamiya TLR just kept on trucken. Your experiences are not the norm. That Ruski crap is just that...cheap junk. Feels like they're made from stamped out beer cans. > That Ruski crap is just that...cheap junk. Feels like they're made > from stamped out beer cans. Consider the source of the comment above. I take it be a recommendation. > Consider the source of the comment above. I take it be a recommendation. Ever hold one in your hands? Feels like they use sawdust for lubricant on the focusing mechanism. > > Consider the source of the comment above. I take it be a recommendation. > > Ever hold one in your hands? Feels like they use sawdust for > lubricant on the focusing mechanism. Yes, but you were and are exaggerating a bit. I'd not buy one, ever, ever, ever because there are superior inexpensive alternatives. Oh, and to exaggerate - it seems the (former) Soviets think that gloss paint is an adequate light dampner. :() It's your money. If you want a cheap piece of crap, go for it. You've obviously never held one in your hand. Might want to pick up a Zenit B to go with it too. > That Ruski crap is just that...cheap junk. Feels like they're made >from stamped out beer cans. Thats Ukranian crap if you please. THOM > I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm > fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering > if anyone has used BOTH the hasselblad or kiev and if you think there > was a difference in color cast/contrast characteristics between the > lenses of the two. > I'm also worried about the quality of the kiev body, although I would > be buying an upgraded one from araxphoto. However I am also concerned [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses > compared to the blad.. if there is any?? How many lenses do you want? I've put together a Kiev system because I can afford all the lenses I want. OTOH I figure that sooner or later I'll get a Hasselblad with a normal lens. Use that for the majority of things that the normal can do. No use buying a camera you can't afford lenses for. At least that's my feeling. Nick  Signature"It is a mistake, however, to assume that the Zone System therefore 'does not work' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical expression of sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid, even though its use is somewhat different." Adams _The_Negative_ from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-2-03 The current model Kiev 88CM camera works very well and is reasonably well made. The same can be said for various upgraded Kiev 88 cameras. I have a group of the above and they are hardly the junk described in the previous posts. Add to these cameras some of the Carl Zeiss Jena, Schneider, Hartblei and recent Arsat lenses and one can have quite an excellent outfit at low prices. The equipment is Ukrainian, not Russian. To read more about this go to the Delphi Forum - Kiev Report or www.kievaholic.com, which has lots of information and a link to Delphi. Many people throughout the world are using this equipment successfully today for excellent results. I met a photographer who did a side by side comparison test of subjects taken with Hasselblad and Kiev 88. The owner of the Hasselblad could not tell the difference in the final results. The Carl Zeiss Jena and other optics can produce results comparable to Hasselblad and other top brands, at very low cost. Of course, Hasselblad owners will call this heresy and scream and yell that this is impossible, but the facts speak for themselves. Hasselblad makes great equipment at very high prices for commercial, government and industrial work, capable of superb results. For the pro or amateur who cannot afford such equipment, the Kiev and related equipment offer high quality medium format results at bargain prices. - Sam Sherman Sam, I'm in agreement with everything you say below, but I think it's important that new Kiev buyers be aware that the best results will be had with aftermarket "upgraded" product e.g. Hartblei, Arax, kievusa, etc. What comes straight out of the factory ain't that great. At the very least it's prone to internal reflections. > from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-2-03 > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Sam Sherman > I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm > fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > zeiss/arsat but I am still on the fence about if there would be that > much a difference. Why, the 'blad lenses you are saying you can afford aren't any newer.. > Say for instance two pictures are taken of the same > scene with each camera, would it be possible to tell which one is > hassy or kiev? Doubtful you'd see much. In fact a few of the CZJ lenses are superiour, the 50mm f4 flektogon and the 180mm f2.8 sonar in particular. The normal 80mm arsat is VERY sharp from f5.6 and smaller while the biometar is fine everywhere. There are a few iffy lenses in the lineup, the worst as far as quality control seems to be the 45mm mir. The 30mm arsat is fantastic. The built of the soviet lenses isn't as nice as a 'blad but they are all around $100-$200, what do you expect. The CZJ are as smooth as anything I've used. > I'm also worried about the quality of the kiev body, although I would > be buying an upgraded one from araxphoto. Get an Arax K-60 and you have a very good chance of getting a useable body. The K-88 is a risky camera at best IMHO. Also the Pentacon-6's sold by cupog on ebay are OK but are an old design that need a lot of work upgrading the viewing system. Any of the bodies are risky compared to a 'blad/rollei etc and are NOT up to professional use, again IMHO. That said, I've bought 4 K-60s and the only ones I've had any problems with are the newest 2001+ models I got from kievcamera. > Seems the kiev would give me more of a lens selection That you can also afford. If you have the money to buy all the blad lenses you want, don't fool with the kievs. Probably not good for people who can't handle simple tasks like calibrating focus screens etc themselves as most need some tweaking before use. > but I'm just > concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses > compared to the blad.. if there is any?? Use a lens hood and you'd be hard pressed to see any difference. http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/ http://www.geocities.com/kievgurls/ SignatureStacey >> but I'm just >> concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/ Stacey, I'd hope you can get better color than the image at that URL.. Or at the very least, get a better scan of your print. The sky is quite cyan and there's brown schmutz all over the clouds. The blacks aren't black and the whites aren't white. But the red channel, all by itself, looks pretty nice as a BW shot. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >>> but I'm just >>> concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Stacey, I'd hope you can get better color than the image at that > URL.. Or at the very least, get a better scan of your print. Wonder why I don't post a bunch of images online? I have a shitty scanner and don't have any interest right now in buying/learning to use a better one, paying for scans or learning photoshop etc just to post them on the net. This is an interesting slide shot with a fisheye when printed on cibachrome. Thanx for the critique of my shitty scan though. :-) SignatureStacey >>>> but I'm just >>>> concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Thanx for the critique of my shitty scan though. :-) Send me some negative/chrome and I'll scan and print it for you -- gratis. I can't guarantee its safety etc in the mail but I haven't lost one yet while scanning. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >> I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm >> fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >everywhere. There are a few iffy lenses in the lineup, the worst as far as >quality control seems to be the 45mm mir. Glad you brought that up. Is the 45mm shift lens just as bad?? THOM >The 30mm arsat is fantastic. The >built of the soviet lenses isn't as nice as a 'blad but they are all around [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >http://www.geocities.com/kievgurls/ >> There are a few iffy lenses in the lineup, the worst as far as >>quality control seems to be the 45mm mir. > > Glad you brought that up. Is the 45mm shift lens just as bad?? > THOM When these mirs are good, they work well. The problem stems from poor quality control of a complex lens design. Hartblei, who does the shift 45mm lenses, hand picks lens elements for their lenses and their multicoated version of the 45mm mir works very well. As far as the shift version, I personally think they should have limited it to 10mm of shift as the image past there gets pretty soft/dim in the corners. http://www.rickdenney.com/hartblei.htm Now the 55mm shift arsat is a different animal and probably the best of the soviet wide lenses. It is sharp and distortion free as it was designed from the beginning as a shift lens. Mechanically is also one of the nicest of the soviet lenses but is also one of the most expencive. Still is dirt cheap for a MF shift lens. SignatureStacey > >> There are a few iffy lenses in the lineup, the worst as far as > >>quality control seems to be the 45mm mir. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the soviet lenses but is also one of the most expencive. Still is dirt > cheap for a MF shift lens. Stacey is absolutely right on both points - I have one of each and they are both good. The 45 is well put together by Hartblei, and careful selection, decent multi-coating, and very nice engineering (important, as I suspect poor centring is one of the major problems in the Mir) make an enormous difference. 8.5mm shift gives little detectable fall off, you can _sometimes_ get away with 10 or maybe 11 if you are prepared to 'sort it out' in the darkroom. The 55 is really nice. It isn't (Duh) as good a 'straight' lens as the 50mm Flektogon, but it isn't shockingly far behind. Being a shift lens the diaphragm isn't coupled, but there is a cable release socket in the lens to shut it down to the pre-set aperture - add a double cable release and you're all set. A nice feature that I think ought to be on every shift lens, but isn't. Peter > I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm > fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering > if anyone has used BOTH the hasselblad or kiev and if you think there > was a difference in color cast/contrast characteristics between the > lenses of the two. There is no cure for cheapness, is there? It's an incurable disease that afflicts photographers most of all. I used to work in photo retailing. In all my days, I have never experienced such utterly despicable cheapness as there is when it comes to SOME people parting with their money for camera equipment. I've seen adults who own their own businesses and can afford anything they want, who take trips all over the world, spend tons of money on clothes, fine dining and wine, drive a Mercedes, wear a Rolex, live in dream houses, and yet buy an off-brand lens for their camera, or believe idiotic stuff like 'you are just paying for the name'. I could usually tell right off once you get to know the type. There's no arguing with them. I kept the test photos in the drawer, because they obviosly would somehow dismiss the results. On the other hand, for the open-minded, I would pull out the test photos comparing the Nikon lens and the Leicaflex lens (which of course clearly showed the superiority of the latter) and make the Leica sale. Often, these people became fanatically loyal customers to me and to Leica (or Hasselblad or Nikon), because I refused to insult their intelligence. Others obviously had done so in the past. BUY THE DAMNED HASSELBLAD! > I expect that zeiss for the hassy is alot better then older carl > zeiss/arsat but I am still on the fence about if there would be that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses > compared to the blad.. if there is any?? >There is no cure for cheapness, is there? Is there a cure for what you've got? Of course, you'd have to start by recognizing that you're afflicted. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >There is no cure for cheapness, is there? > > Is there a cure for what you've got? You mean having to deal with moronic cheapskates who think you can get something for nothing? I've had it up to here with them! (pointing to moon) Why don't you buy a used Petriflex, brother? It's cheap! > Of course, you'd have to start by recognizing > that you're afflicted. > > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Why don't you buy a used Petriflex, brother? It's cheap! I always liked the Zenits. You'd focus the lens and it felt like they used sawdust for lubricant. But the Petris were pretty crappy too. Guys used to buy them overseas and then they'd break after they got back here. >> Why don't you buy a used Petriflex, brother? It's cheap! > > I always liked the Zenits. You'd focus the lens and it felt like > they used sawdust for lubricant. Funny some people use cameras because of the pictures they produce. How does a lens whose focus doesn't feel smooth effect them image that lens produces? If you buy camera to "feel" them, then yes by all means buy the 'blad. SignatureStacey > Funny some people use cameras because of the pictures they produce. How does > a lens whose focus doesn't feel smooth effect them image that lens > produces? If you buy camera to "feel" them, then yes by all means buy the > 'blad. Ach! No! The 'Blad is a lazy, over-the-jill, lying-on-her-back, gum-chewing calloused hoar. Ergonomic are all wrong for a person who's heads-up. And the lenses have nothing to hold onto but a gnarly little thing that feels like a giant cheap beer bottle top, and changing speeds and f-stops, especially on the earlier coupled models, is a device to pare the would-be users to those who are so deliberate they have to make an appointment to cross the street. The 'Blad is a joke. (How'd I do? 5 of 10?) >Ach! No! The 'Blad is a lazy, over-the-jill, lying-on-her-back, >gum-chewing calloused hoar. "Hoar"? I do not believe that "white or grayish white" is one of the available color options. ;-) Steve >> Funny some people use cameras because of the pictures they produce. How does >> a lens whose focus doesn't feel smooth effect them image that lens [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the would-be users to those who are so deliberate they have to make an >appointment to cross the street. The 'Blad is a joke. I feel the same way about the 66SE I juct picked up. Everything in the wrong place, but put it on a tripod and your've got something. My RB-66 has everything in the right place but I need more than a 1/400th sec. THOM >(How'd I do? 5 of 10?) > > I always liked the Zenits. You'd focus the lens and it felt like > > they used sawdust for lubricant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > produces? If you buy camera to "feel" them, then yes by all means buy the > 'blad. It's an indication that the thing is made cheap. >> > I always liked the Zenits. You'd focus the lens and it felt like >> > they used sawdust for lubricant. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's an indication that the thing is made cheap. So? Just because something isn't expencive or that it "feels cheap" doesn't mean it can't produce superb results. Sure if you shoot hundreds of rolls a film a month or are a pro you want the best. I'm a pro mechanic and have no problem paying the STUPID expencive prices snap-on gets for their tools. But for a hobbiest many times these types of high end tools aren't needed to get good results. SignatureStacey > So? Just because something isn't expencive or that it "feels cheap" doesn't > mean it can't produce superb results. Sure if you shoot hundreds of rolls a > film a month or are a pro you want the best. I'm a pro mechanic and have no > problem paying the STUPID expencive prices snap-on gets for their tools. > But for a hobbiest many times these types of high end tools aren't needed > to get good results. Have a nice day at the Dollar Store. >> So? Just because something isn't expencive or that it "feels cheap" >> doesn't mean it can't produce superb results. Sure if you shoot hundreds [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Have a nice day at the Dollar Store. I will. Actually do more shopping at thrift stores... BTW have a nice year at the job you hate but work at so you can make enough money to spend it on things you THINK you need. :-) SignatureStacey >> >There is no cure for cheapness, is there? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > something for nothing? I've had it up to here with them! (pointing to > moon) I know what you mean. Look at all those goofballs buying 35mm cameras. How cheap can a person be?? Nick Signature"It is a mistake, however, to assume that the Zone System therefore 'does not work' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical expression of sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid, even though its use is somewhat different." Adams _The_Negative_ > >> >There is no cure for cheapness, is there? > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I know what you mean. Look at all those goofballs buying 35mm cameras. How > cheap can a person be?? I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. > Nick > I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. I think their rangefinders were better than their SLRs...but still far beyond the Petris & Zenits. > I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. The only reason to buy toy cameras is you're too cheap to buy grownup film. Nick Signature"It is a mistake, however, to assume that the Zone System therefore 'does not work' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical expression of sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid, even though its use is somewhat different." Adams _The_Negative_ > > I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. > > The only reason to buy toy cameras is you're too cheap to buy grownup film. > > Nick ha ha ha. The issue is not about 35mm vs roll film, it's about how cheap some poor sap is who's contemplating buying some Russian crap. >> > I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The issue is not about 35mm vs roll film, it's about how cheap some >poor sap is who's contemplating buying some Russian crap. but it may be fun. Its why some people use old view cameras (my 8x10 is 1951). 2 years ago I borrowed an old 6x9 folding camera with a small wood tripod and had a great time. The lens was excellent and on the tripod the results were great. Great fun to dig out the old Sekonic light meter too. The Kiev is like that and some people enjoy using those weird things. THOM > > I know what you mean. Look at all those goofballs buying 35mm cameras. How > > cheap can a person be?? > > I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. Wow. You've found the only thing dumber than buying cheap 35mm! The same crappy quality at 10 times the price... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. > > Wow. You've found the only thing dumber than buying cheap 35mm! The same > crappy quality at 10 times the price... Indeed. I think Leitz should double their prices yearly until Leica owner's start self-igniting in enthusiasm. >> > I know what you mean. Look at all those goofballs buying 35mm >> > cameras. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > My thoughts exactly. SignatureStacey >> > I know what you mean. Look at all those goofballs buying 35mm cameras. >How [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >David J. Littleboy >Tokyo, Japan glad you dropped in and if I can get off topic, you can help me with a bit of an argument I'm having. Whats the cost of a loaf of bread, letre of milk and a tram or train ticket there these days? Also are things (cameras) any cheaper in Japan these days that the States or Singapore? Thom Melbourne > glad you dropped in and if I can get off topic, you can help me with a > bit of an argument I'm having. Whats the cost of a loaf of bread, > letre of milk and a tram or train ticket there these days? Consumer prices have been rock solid steady for 10 or 15 years: a litre of milk sets you back 180 to 230 Yen (depending on the store) and a (small) loaf of bread 130 to 230 Yen (depending on the bread). Trains start at 130 yen, the subway at 160 Yen. The exchange rate has been all over the place over that period, though, and right now the Yen, at 110 to the dollar is at the high end of the range (it hit 80 to the dollar very briefly at one point), but had been steady at 120 until the last couple of weeks. > Also are things (cameras) any cheaper in Japan these days that the > States or Singapore? Mamiya is reasonably priced here<G>: new here is about the same as used at KEH and there's a lot of Mamiya stuff in the used shops. Other than that, camera prices tend to be a tad higher than in the states, since there isn't as much cutthroat discounting. There's a lot of used stuff at fair prices in the used shops. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> >> >There is no cure for cheapness, is there? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I own Leicaflex equipment, the best 35mm equipment made. >> Nick ever used a Swiss Alpha? THOM > ever used a Swiss Alpha? > > THOM In Switzerland they have these beautiful mountains called the Alps, so those cameras are called Alpa. ;-) > > ever used a Swiss Alpha? > > > > THOM > > In Switzerland they have these beautiful mountains called the Alps, so those > cameras are called Alpa. Is there a Pyrenees variant? > > In Switzerland they have these beautiful mountains called the Alps, so > those > > cameras are called Alpa. > > Is there a Pyrenees variant? Called "Pyra"? Apropos Alpa in a thread about Ukranian Kiev cameras... The Swiss watch-maker supplying firm only turned to making cameras when they happened upon the Ukranian (!) Jacques Bolsky a.k.a Boolsky, a.k.a. Bolsey, who's real name was Bogopolsky, the man famously unknown as the producer of the famous Bolex moviecameras. >> > In Switzerland they have these beautiful mountains called the Alps, so >> those [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bolsey, who's real name was Bogopolsky, the man famously unknown as the > producer of the famous Bolex moviecameras. And the funky little bolsey 35mm camera as well... SignatureStacey > There is no cure for cheapness, is there? It's an incurable disease > that afflicts photographers most of all. I used to work in photo [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > BUY THE DAMNED HASSELBLAD! Funny, that's pretty much what I said. Those Russian things are a piece of sh.t. > > There is no cure for cheapness, is there? It's an incurable disease > > that afflicts photographers most of all. I used to work in photo [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Funny, that's pretty much what I said. Those Russian things are a > piece of sh.t. I'll never forget one customer, many years ago when I worked in photo retailing, who said, after I showed him a mid-price camera (Minolta or Pentax or something) that I should always start with the best when offering to show equipment. He said he understood I was young and didn't know any better, but he felt slighted that I did not bring out the best FIRST: as if I thought he could not afford it. He told me the customer will always tell you if he cannot afford it, so don't presume. It's an insult, he told me, to presume he could not afford anything he wanted in the store. He also said it was flattering to the cuistomer to be shown the best. I took his advice, and from then on I sold lots of expensive gear. One of the managers at the store also told me about the same time never to judge a cutomer by his appearance, and he was right. Some wealthy people wear grubby clothes either because of their occupation or to throw off people. I once saw a man who looked like a bum reach in his pocket and pull out a large wad of cash big enough to choke a horse, with thousand-dollar bills, and buy a Leica or Alpa camera (I forget which) and several lenses. BUY THE DAMNED HASSELBLAD! On another occasion, a middle-aged lady came in to look at Leica binoculars, which her optomotrist had recommended to her because of her weak eyes or something. At that time, the 8x40 model Trinovid sold for about $400. She looked at them and loved them, and then asked the price. When I told her, she just about choked. But I did not offer to show her 'something cheaper'. She left, but came back a few weeks later with the money for the Trinovids. What would I have gained by appealing to price? I would make her doctor look stupid for suggesting the Leica product, and humiliate her as well. She got the money and got her Leica binoculars. She positively adored them, and her eyes were well treated in the bargain. > He said he understood I was young and > didn't know any better, but he felt slighted that I did not bring out > the best FIRST: as if I thought he could not afford it. Considering the OP is talking about buting old chrome 'blad lenses, I think he already knows what his budget is and doesn't need you to assume he can afford "anything in the store". SignatureStacey >I'll never forget one customer, many years ago when I worked in photo >retailing, who said, after I showed him a mid-price camera (Minolta or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >wad of cash big enough to choke a horse, with thousand-dollar bills, >and buy a Leica or Alpa camera (I forget which) and several lenses. Ah, in other words, if you're going to offend the sensibilities of your customers, better to offend those with less money than those with lots of it. Yes, now I understand. Corollary: those with money expect to be treated with deference, those without it expect the opposite, so just go with the flow. >On another occasion, a middle-aged lady came in to look at Leica >binoculars, which her optomotrist had recommended to her because of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >got her Leica binoculars. She positively adored them, and her eyes >were well treated in the bargain. Truly a touching story. I think you could sell this one to Nicholas Sparks. Excuse me while I dry my eyes. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Ah, in other words, if you're going to offend the sensibilities of > your customers, better to offend those with less money than > those with lots of it. Yes, now I understand. > > Corollary: those with money expect to be treated with deference, > those without it expect the opposite, so just go with the flow. No, the point is that when working retail you treat everyone the same regardless of outward appearance. > > Ah, in other words, if you're going to offend the sensibilities of > > your customers, better to offend those with less money than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, the point is that when working retail you treat everyone the same > regardless of outward appearance. Ah, Randall, you understood the moral. Thank you. > Ah, Randall, you understood the moral. Thank you. I've worked in retail too many years and have seen things like this happen many times. >> > Ah, in other words, if you're going to offend the sensibilities of >> > your customers, better to offend those with less money than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ah, Randall, you understood the moral. Thank you. In 1980, when I bought my first Nikon, I had $350 in my pocket with which to make the purchase. Had Mr. Scarpitti been the clerk, and tried to show me something at 2x or 3x that price, and then refused to show me something cheaper -- he'd have lost the sale, plain and simple. This equipment-snobbery leaves me cold. You confuse gear-lust and conspicuous consumption with photography. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > In 1980, when I bought my first Nikon, I had $350 in > my pocket with which to make the purchase. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > rafe b. I don't recall Michael saying he wouldn't show you something in a lower price range. You need a few years on the other side of the counter in mid town Manhattan. I have always maintained high school kids need two things before college, a year in a underdeveloped country and a year working retail. One teaches humility the other teaches you how to meet and treat a wide range of people. > I don't recall Michael saying he wouldn't show you something in a lower > price range. Yep, he stated a lady came in looking for binoculars and he ONLY showed he the leicas. SignatureStacey >> In 1980, when I bought my first Nikon, I had $350 in >> my pocket with which to make the purchase. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I don't recall Michael saying he wouldn't show you something in a lower >price range. Actually, he did, to wit: "But I did not offer to show her 'something cheaper'." >You need a few years on the other side of the counter in mid town Manhattan. >I have always maintained high school kids need two things before college, a >year in a underdeveloped country and a year working retail. One teaches >humility the other teaches you how to meet and treat a wide range of people. I worked in retail from age 16 or so to age 22 or thereabouts -- my last couple years of high school and most of college. It beat some of the alternatives, but that's about all I'll say for it. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-5-03 The Best photographic equipment is truly the Best and there is no doubt about it. At a recent PhotoPlus Expo in New York I had the opportunity to examine a new Hasselblad 200 series camera with a longish tele lens on a type of tripod mount. This was just a sensational piece of equipment of high quality and fine smooth style to use. I would love to have one, but I think the price for the setup I was looking at was about $10,000, which I cannot budget for occasional use. So, I am very content in using Kiev 88CM with Hartblei 500MM f8 MC MIrror Lens at a cost of probably 5% of the Hassy outfit. If I were doing something for commercial use and had a proper budget, I would go with Hasselblad equipment all the way - it is the best. I have the Hasselblad lens catalogue and just drool over all of those great lenses (not actually wanting to get them wet)- as I would like to have every one of them, regardless of cost. If my lottery ticket comes in - I will buy the whole catalogue's worth. Until that time I am doing very well with Kiev 88CM, Hartblei, Arsat and Carl Zeiss Jena lenses. Instead of thinking how bad all of this stuff might be - actually be amazed at how good it actually is - far better than it has a right to be. Re- buying expensive equipment. The Leica R3 - still not sold at giveaway prices, is actually the same camera as the Minolta XE-7 - for 20% of its cost today and the Minolta does a great job for all conditions. - Sam Sherman > I worked in retail from age 16 or so to age 22 or > thereabouts -- my last couple years of high school [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com On that we can agree.... > >> In 1980, when I bought my first Nikon, I had $350 in > >> my pocket with which to make the purchase. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Actually, he did, to wit: "But I did not offer to show her 'something > cheaper'." I did not 'offer', but I did not refuse either. She left right away after hearing the price and did not ask to see anything else. This was a delicate situation, because her eye doctor had recommended the Leica product. If I had insisted on showing her something else, I would humiliate her and make her doctor look bad. I handled it perfectly. She came back and bought the Leicas. > >You need a few years on the other side of the counter in mid town Manhattan. > >I have always maintained high school kids need two things before college, a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com > This equipment-snobbery leaves me cold. You > confuse gear-lust and conspicuous consumption > with photography. Yep typical american consumerism. http://www.msnbc.com/news/974827.asp I love the last line: "Survey after survey has shown that the desire for material goods, which has increased hand in hand with average income, is a happiness suppressant," the magazine added. SignatureStacey > Yep typical american consumerism. Let me guess...you're from France? >> Yep typical american consumerism. > > Let me guess...you're from France? USA, just never bought into consumerism. SignatureStacey > >> > Ah, in other words, if you're going to offend the sensibilities of > >> > your customers, better to offend those with less money than [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com I never 'refused' to show anybody anything. It's easy to move down in price to suit anyone's budget. It's hard to go the other way. Often, I would sense that somebody really wanted the Alpa or Leica or 'blad, and just needed a little 'help' to get over the hump. Almost anyone buying something has a little reluctance. It's normal. Otherwise, we'd be broke all the time. We need self-control. If I knew, though, that the customer could indeed afford anything he wanted (the black Mercedes he drove up in and the Rolex on his wrist are hints), I would use 'double reverse psychology'. He expects you to come on strong, to try to sell him hard. I didn't do that. He may also be wary of reverse psychology, where I don't try to sell it to him, just set it there and act passive. But not many got by my 'double reverse psychology', which is where I grab the camera out of his hands and start putting it on the shelf while muttering: 'Well, you can't afford it....'. Now he HAS to buy it to prove he can. His ego is at stake. Out comes the money! Of course, a few weeks later, when he's gotten a few rolls back and the pics are gorgeous, he's forgotten the travails of the purchase. It was all HIS idea, all along, to buy it....no doubts crossed his mind... Ahem.... Of course, such a customer becomes fanatically loyal. > Of course, a few weeks later, when he's gotten a few rolls back and > the pics are gorgeous, he's forgotten the travails of the purchase. It > was all HIS idea, all along, to buy it....no doubts crossed his > mind... So you are saying that the guy who bought the Leica or the Blad had georgeous pictures and those who bought cheap cameras did not. I call you deluded. > > Of course, a few weeks later, when he's gotten a few rolls back and > > the pics are gorgeous, he's forgotten the travails of the purchase. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > georgeous pictures and those who bought cheap cameras did not. I call you > deluded. The choice was reinforced by the quality of the results, as it should be. Yes, indeed, the quality of the lens does matter. > > > Of course, a few weeks later, when he's gotten a few rolls back and > > > the pics are gorgeous, he's forgotten the travails of the purchase. It [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The choice was reinforced by the quality of the results, as it should > be. Yes, indeed, the quality of the lens does matter. No it doesn't. They had their pictures printed behind the film counter, on a printer that diminishes quality/resolution/accutance to a common denominator. Your customers are living in a delusion. You use a "leica" and it means squat. You might as well use a Minolta. Oh, never mind, you probably are. The plain fact of the matter is that VERY few people can tell the difference between camera/lens brand output, ESPECIALLY when it's munged to death by commercial printing. You need to get your head out of your a.s. If using a Leica makes you feel good, then try wearing black wool trousers so you can wet your pants and get a similar feel: it feels good to you and nobody notices. Killfile. > The plain fact of the matter is that VERY few people can tell the > difference between camera/lens brand output, ESPECIALLY when it's munged > to death by commercial printing. Ah...the difference between a pro and an amateur... I don't care if you or anybody else can't tell the difference. I am the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to determining what someone else sees. And although it may not matter to you, it matters to me. >> The plain fact of the matter is that VERY few people can tell the >> difference between camera/lens brand output, ESPECIALLY when it's munged [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >someone else sees. And although it may not matter to you, it matters >to me. Randall, you might find it interesting that my # 1 best selling image was taken with with a Ricoh KR5 Super -- while my Nikon FE was in the shop for repair. Here's the image. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/coffin_sunset1a.html By the way, I'll not argue that the Ricoh isn't a POS. But MTF curves don't make great photos all by themselves; the subject matters as well. At least it does for my clients. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >> The plain fact of the matter is that VERY few people can tell the >> difference between camera/lens brand output, ESPECIALLY when it's munged >> to death by commercial printing. > > Ah...the difference between a pro and an amateur... And he was selling these cameras to?? > I don't care if you or anybody else can't tell the difference. I am > the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to determining what > someone else sees. And although it may not matter to you, it matters > to me. The point is to say some doctor is going to take gorgeous pictures with a 'blad and would have taken crappy ones with say a mamiya is absurd. I've used a 'blad sonar 150 and a CZJ sonar 180 and of the two the 180 looked slightly better so maybe you should reaccess what you are delivering? :-) SignatureStacey > > The plain fact of the matter is that VERY few people can tell the > > difference between camera/lens brand output, ESPECIALLY when it's munged [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > someone else sees. And although it may not matter to you, it matters > to me. Yes, indeed, Randall! The usual 'Visigoth point of view' poster. > Yes, indeed, Randall! The usual 'Visigoth point of view' poster. Keyboard flexing is undignified. > > NoSpamPlease@nowhere.com (SharpsView) wrote in message > news:<NoSpamPlease-0410032259280001@m-0-132.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a printer that diminishes quality/resolution/accutance to a common > denominator. Uh...Kodachrome II? >Your customers are living in a delusion. You use a "leica" > and it means squat. You might as well use a Minolta. Oh, never mind, you > probably are. I use Leica myself. > The plain fact of the matter is that VERY few people can tell the > difference between camera/lens brand output, ESPECIALLY when it's munged [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Killfile. > I use Leica myself. You may as well have a Minolta. Wait! You do! >> I use Leica myself. > You may as well have a Minolta. Wait! You do! Whoa! Does that mean my c. 1960 Leica M3 is also made by Minolta? ;-) Well, at least my trusty Ruski Kiev 4am is made on the same Zeiss tooling that made the Contax II's used by my photo heroes Robert Capa, W. Eugene Smith, and even "St. Ansel". I like both my Leica and Kiev. While the Kiev 4am only cost $60 on eBay, it's quite capable of good photos, and when photographing back-alleys or the Urban Wilderness of the local railroad right-of-way, I prefer the Kiev. > > You may as well have a Minolta. Wait! You do! > > Whoa! Does that mean my c. 1960 Leica M3 is also made by Minolta? ;-) If you do, then it's a hugely collectible item. > >> I use Leica myself. > > You may as well have a Minolta. Wait! You do! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the Urban Wilderness of the local railroad right-of-way, I prefer the > Kiev. I used one in Iraq for about seven months during what we used to call the first gulf war, before news people found they couldn't count up to three and had to re-name the second one as the first. It stood up to the rough and to the dust very well. Nice simple reliable machine that you can put some really nice lenses on. Peter > >I'll never forget one customer, many years ago when I worked in photo > >retailing, who said, after I showed him a mid-price camera (Minolta or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > your customers, better to offend those with less money than > those with lots of it. Yes, now I understand. How am I offending your sensibilities by showing you the best? Aren't you worth it? If it's too much, you'll tell me, right? that was the point about the lady with the Leica binoculars. She was perhaps put off at first by the price, but she returned later and made the purchase: she was not offended. > Corollary: those with money expect to be treated with deference, > those without it expect the opposite, so just go with the flow. No, you treat all customers with respect, but don't presume that because YOU might not be able to afford it, the customer cannot either. You'd be dead wrong, and often. > >On another occasion, a middle-aged lady came in to look at Leica > >binoculars, which her optomotrist had recommended to her because of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Truly a touching story. I think you could sell this one to > Nicholas Sparks. Excuse me while I dry my eyes. You obviously know nothing about how to treat people or how to sell. > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com > How am I offending your sensibilities by showing you the best? Aren't > you worth it? If it's too much, you'll tell me, right? that was the > point about the lady with the Leica binoculars. She was perhaps put > off at first by the price, but she returned later and made the > purchase: she was not offended. It's much easier to sell down than up. >> How am I offending your sensibilities by showing you the best? Aren't >> you worth it? If it's too much, you'll tell me, right? that was the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's much easier to sell down than up. And these salesmans techniques and rampant consuerism has what to do with the OP's question? No doubt many people who buy 'blads do it out of "gear lust" and I'd venture to guess every poster who has bashed the soviet gear has never shot a frame with one. I've used both and the difference in print is just not there. SignatureStacey > >> How am I offending your sensibilities by showing you the best? Aren't > >> you worth it? If it's too much, you'll tell me, right? that was the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > has never shot a frame with one. I've used both and the difference in print > is just not there. I have had a look inside some of that "soviet gear", IMHO and to be a nice guy, it could be a LOT better. >> And these salesmans techniques and rampant consuerism has what to do with >> the OP's question? No doubt many people who buy 'blads do it out of "gear [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have had a look inside some of that "soviet gear", IMHO and to be a > nice guy, it could be a LOT better. Sure it could (hence why I sugest only upgraded cameras) but again if it produces good results, what's the big deal? If you read my post I said "Any of the bodies are risky compared to a 'blad/rollei etc and are NOT up to professional use, again IMHO." The OP obviously to me has a budget in mind and a new blad with the latest blad optics aren't in it.. And what does all this salemans talk have to do with the OP's question? Sure selling some guy in a benz an alpa is good for the saleman but.... oh never mind! SignatureStacey > >> And these salesmans techniques and rampant consuerism has what to do with > >> the OP's question? No doubt many people who buy 'blads do it out of "gear [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > selling some guy in a benz an alpa is good for the saleman but.... oh never > mind! I am talking about UPgraded Russian camera equipment, which are risky compared to almost any other MF camera. > You obviously know nothing about how to treat people or how to sell. This seems to be the key, how to =SELL=. Sell them the most expencive item you can talk them into, and now you yourself believe this is the only option for good results.. SignatureStacey I'm in an upper income bracket... I can basically afford anything I *really* want in this world... I can be shooting Hassy or Rollei, or Arca Swiss, but I'm not... Up to this point in time I have been very happy with my long time Mamiya system.. The pictures it is capable of making vastly exceeds my talent/skills as a photographer... More expensive glass is unlikely to be visible in my prints... When I deal with a salesman when shopping for anything, I express my wants and then I usually say something to the effect of, "What's the best you have to show me, and also what's the most bang for the buck here?"... I find that most sales folks are of modest income and instantly understand the question both in the physical context as well as the philosophical... This has served me well in my life, not that I *always* purchase the most bang for the buck... Sometimes I get a little carried away and wind up with an F5 system, for instance... Everyone has his own style... Denny > >I'll never forget one customer, many years ago when I worked in photo > >retailing, who said, after I showed him a mid-price camera (Minolta or [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote in message . One of the managers at the store also > told me about the same time never to judge a cutomer by his > appearance, and he was right. My son got a job as a car salesman... About the third week, an hour before closing time, a farmer rolled up into the lot in a smoking, rusty pickup and entered the sales floor... He had on barnyard boots that stunk to high heaven of pig manure and filthy bib overalls... The salesman, who's turn it was to take the farmer, whispered to Dennis to "get that stinking bum out of my showroom", and stalked away to get some fresh coffee and a magazine... Dennis was still a trainee and wasn't supposed to handle customers alone, but he walked up to the farmer and started a conversation, and within 90 seconds had deftly steered him outside... Turns out the old boy had just sold four semitrailer loads of USDA prime hogs to the packing house not an hour before, and he wanted a new pickup... <actually, he didn't want one he 'needed' one because the old pickup spun a main bearing and started smoking and knocking two blocks before passing the dealership> Well, new pickups Dennis had, and lots of em... An hour later of schmoozing, and slamming doors, and kicking tires, and discussing crops <the old boy was farming a mere 4,500 acres> and the weather, and dickering over prices, the old boy points and says, "I'll take that one. Put a license plate on it I'm late for supper.", unbuttons one corner of his bib and pulls out a brick of crisp, spanking new from the bank, sequentially numbered, still in the wrappers, $100 bills, and proceeds to count out to Dennis the full price of the truck, with sales tax and delivery charges... When Dennis walked into the managers office and dropped the paperwork and the stack of money, the salesman who had dumped the guy on Dennis then came running and demanded that was HIS commission... If you know my son, you will understand that guy was instantly told where he could shove his commission, in no uncertain words <mostly four letter>... The sales manager grinned like a wolf as he opined that Dennis had just passed his trainee exam when he sold a truck for a hundred bucks more than the bottom price, and he was now a full fledged salesman... Dennis drove out to the farm the next day to install the farmer's new license plate and retrieve the dealer plate the guy had driven off with... Dennis says there were five - count em, five - 9520 John Deere, 450 horsepower turbocharged, diesel tractors sitting in the yard that he later priced out on the internet at a quarter million dollars a pop! Denny Anyone who has worked in retail for very long can tell similar stories...about somebody coming into the store looking like a derelict and pulling out a wad of cash. >> I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm >> fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is no cure for cheapness, is there? It's an incurable disease > that afflicts photographers most of all. You assume the OP or other photographers all have plenty of money.. I'm the first to admit I'm cheap and try to spend as little as I can on everything I do. Let's me enjoy working at a job I love instead of spending 50% of my life doing something I hate so I can "afford" to spend money the other 25% of the time (given 25% is spent sleeping).. SignatureStacey > > There is no cure for cheapness, is there? It's an incurable disease > > that afflicts photographers most of all. > > You assume the OP or other photographers all have plenty of money.. I'm the > first to admit I'm cheap and try to spend as little as I can on everything > I do. [...] Yes you are, and damn you, you have fun and I'll bet you produce pictures that nobody ouside of God hiz-sef can tell from a Blad's, or a Leica. Evil, that's what ya are! Damn you woman! Yer death to the wannabes! Pity them, for they have more dollars than sense. >> I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm >> fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >BUY THE DAMNED HASSELBLAD! Look for a used Bronica or Rollie SL66/66SE to. I just picked up a 66SE dirt cheap with an 80mm and its quite good. I wish I could get the Rollie lenes as cheap as the Kievs'. Hassy and Kiev aren't the only 120 SLR's int he world. THOM >> I expect that zeiss for the hassy is alot better then older carl >> zeiss/arsat but I am still on the fence about if there would be that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses >> compared to the blad.. if there is any?? Perhaps you have a more discerning eye than the rest of us? How about volunteering as a blind lens test subject for medium format lenses (incuding my hasselblad and rolleiflex zeiss lenses, some bronica nikkors, and other "trash" lenses) and see if you _really_ can discern the zeiss from the others? see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html for details on participating... Personally, I can't reliably tell them apart at typical shooting apertures; and the highest rated lenses so far has not been the 'blad zeiss lenses but an older kowa optic. bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* Another interesting test would be a box of prints with a voting sheet, and mail it around the group for voting... That way the really fine tonalities could be seen... I suspect we would need someone who prints frequently to volunteer to print all the negs for the voting prints to remove the variable of, 'maybe my printing skills aren't up to the lens I'm using, etc...' Denny > Perhaps you have a more discerning eye than the rest of us? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > bobm > Another interesting test would be a box of prints with a voting sheet, and > mail it around the group for voting... That way the really fine tonalities > could be seen... I suspect we would need someone who prints frequently to > volunteer to print all the negs for the voting prints to remove the variable > of, 'maybe my printing skills aren't up to the lens I'm using, etc...' Printing would indeed add factors (some variable, some not) that could hide differences between lenses. Variation in focussing the enlarger, and the quality of the enlarger lens used, for instance, can both affect the final result. Having negatives printed by one and the same person too does not remove variability. Slides are better suited for tests like this. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message