This raises an interesting point.
Hasselblad took a lot of heat over the years because their cameras
were tough to focus, particularly (and naturally) in low light.
Their response after many years of complaints? Acute-matte focusing
screens. Even when installed in older camera they improved VF
brightness and made focusing and composition easier.
What probably prompted them to act was the stark contrast between
their VFs and those of the Rollei 600x series which were very clear,
bright and easy to focus. IMO, even with an Acute-matte the Rolleis
were still superior to the 'blads.
BTW, Chuck, in your original post you said "it's hard to find a normal
6x6 lens (90mm) that's faster than f/4"; was that a typo? Did you
mean f/2.8? Hasselblad offered 80 and 100mm Planars with f/2.8 and
f3.5 max apertures and Rollei offered f/2.8 normal lenses for all of
their SLRs. Or did I misunderstand your point?
FWIW/ScottGee1
On 8/11/06, Bill Pearce <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > My point was that it's hard to find a normal 6x6 lens (90mm) that's
> > faster than f/4.
> the 80mm for the Hasselblad 500 series is f2.8, and there are several f2
> lenses for the 2000 series. The image in the VF is not brilliant, but is
> quite acceptable. There is a noticable difference between the 80 and the
> other common lenses that are f4. The only time there is any usability
> problems is in low light.
>
> The amazing thing to me is the usability of my 250, which is f5.6.
>
> The whole business of speed is regulated to a large degree by the shutter.
> That's why the lenses for the focal plane 'blads are generally a stop
> faster.
>
>
> Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|