Both cameras are professional, top quality systems.
I am not surprised that they produce similar results.
I would be doubtful that any manufacturer would be able to make a system that would signifigantly outperform these.
This is a very good reason mamiya would not want to make a 'hasselblad copy' vs something unique with its own character.
Sure that's what I mean. We don't make pictures for the technical merit, we make them for artistic merit.
Moving to a camera that will show both hairs on the ant's butt "generally" doesn't improve our pictures an iota, its learning how to use the camera to meet our goal as an artist.
We've all seen people just from brand to brand trying to improve their work, heck I did it myself years ago. I was convinced if I shot Nikon rather than Canon my pictures would improve.....
Anyway, the technical quality of all my equipment still outpaces my ability to make great photographs even though I've gotten better over the years.
The dimensions of the photos were change not to trick but to keep it from being too obvious. So do not judge by that. I have looked at these on my light table but unless you want to come over the only way you can see the results are this way. It may not be the best way like a wet print would be but the results you see are equal in their short comings. These photos were taken to capture things that have texture, shading and detail not win and Ansel Adams contest. I think it is more "Real world" than taking shots of a brick wall or a test pattern on a table.
After a few more people choose I will tell which is which. Tomorrow I will post two more photos.
I couldn't rate one over the other.
At what aperture were these shots taken? If they were shot wide open, it would be a clue. Different largest apertures and different neg sizes should affect DOF which I think I can see? Different neg sizes also produces different dof at same aperture. Is it just me or is there some difference in sharpness between the two in the trees in the upper left? Hard to judged from a lo-res scan though.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
But - and that's the point - aren't you forgetting that these pictures were taken, not for the artistic merit, but for the technical merit?
Originally Posted by mikebarger
I can't tell which one is made with what camera.
If i must, i'd say the first one is the Hasselblad.
Guess, what I mean is...to me.... it doesn't make any difference which took which. They both are capable of outstanding work.
I rather see posts about how someone used the camera to get what they wanted, rather than my dog is meaner than your dog comparisons. That's just me.
But, whatever makes your boat float is fine by me, I must have some curiosity or I wouldn't read about them dogs .
Diversity is one of the great things about APUG, many different views, but civility in those discussions. Many sites lack the civility part.
One was shot at f/8 & 1/250. The other was f/11 at 1/400.
I am not try to play a game just overcome any bias people may have for one camera over the other. IMO there is no wrong opinion when comparing these two systems. Both of these cameras have very positive attributes they are both F1 racecars, so to speak.
I discovered that there are many things that I actually like working with the RB over the Hassey. The RB has a better viewfinder, for me...The Rb has a place to put the dark slide while shooting. I also like the focus wheels on the RB better than the focus being on the lens like a 35mm. Also the double exposure method on the RB is much more convient
Going the other way the Hassey is much more comfortable around the neck. No surprise there. In fact most of the things I like about the Hassey have to do with weight. Let me qualify thses statements by saying that I have only taken the Hasselblad out on one shoot where I have much shooting time with the RB so it is no surprise that the RB feels more friendly. I weighed my Nikon D300 with an 16-85 VR lens and then weighed the Hasselblad with the 80mm f2.8 and there was only 1oz. difference. The RB was almost two pounds heavier!
I was really hoping that the Hassey would be clearly better for reason I don't really understand, but my first impressions are that they are more equal from a performance standpoint than I had expected.
Mike, I would disagree that we only make photos for the "artistic merit" Some people really enjoy the technical side of photography and that is what keeps them interested and pressing forward. There are others that really don't care about the technical stuff they just want to create art. I say it is your hobby, vocation, passion and what ever area is interesting to you is good. so enjoy that aspect and be happy.
For me personally I am still learning and have MUCH to learn. Testing and playing with this stuff is how I learn and at some point the testing and struggling with the technical stuff will help me be more comfortable with the equipment and hopefully make better photographs.
In that case, #1 is the Mamiya.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
That's exactly it. The Hasselblad is the more compact package, without compromising quality by being that.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
The quite a bit bigger RB/RZ cameras are excellent, but are less 'user friendly', while not producing more image quality.
Technical quality of equipment does make a difference. Even if we aren't Master Photographers creating timeless beauty.
Play on a crappy violin, and you can't blame the poor sound that results solely on your lack of playing skills. No matter how bad you are.
Last edited by Q.G.; 10-26-2009 at 06:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.