Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 7/20/04 1:00:33 PM, Austin Franklin writes:


> Clunky, well,
> I think not...especially if you use what cameras you refer to below.
> 

Austin, thanks for your comments.   I appreciate your respect for the 
Hasselblad.   As I said at the outset of my original post, camera selection is such 
an idiosyncratic process, that it seems pointless to argue about it. 

My Hasselblad is a 500C/M, not a 205.   Even with the smaller 80mm lens 
attached, it is a good deal bigger and heavier than my Rolleiflex 3.5E.   I think 
of the Hasselblad as a "rock star" camera -- it is big, it has presence, it 
intimidates, it sucks the oxygen right out of a room.   I think that is one 
reason why the Hasselblad has been so popular in the pro community -- it makes the 
photographer look more like, well, a Photographer.   (The other reason, of 
course, is the interchangeable Zeiss lenses, which makes them much more flexible 
than a Rolleiflex TLR.)

Of course my feelings are just my feelings, and I appreciate that most would 
join you in disagreeing with them -- witness the prevalance of Hasselblads 
over Rolleiflex TLRs.   But I find the Rolleiflex to be smaller, lighter, 
quieter, more elegant in design and operation, and less obtrusive or conspicuous.   
They feel right in my hands, and in the end that is what matters to me. 

Sanders McNew.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]