File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What sort of unmentionable things would you do for one?
>> Anonymous
Rather have a film Hassy to be honest.
>> Anonymous
Frankly, I have no use for this monster, be it digital or film.
>> Anonymous
Doesn't it feature interchangeable backs?

Couldn't you stick a 120/220 film back on it?
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
>>Frankly, I have no use for this monster, be it digital or film.
Same here.
>> Anonymous
That takes pixturez, right?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
About as much as I would do for one of these.
<
>> Anonymous
i got to play with one over the summer. it was OK
>> Anonymous
For $34k? No thanks.
>> Anonymous
nothing, my shitty photos on a hasselblad will still be shitty.
>> Ren Kockwell !!y74dwT8WYfm
>>80666
>What sort of unmentionable things would you do for one?

Pay $30,000?
>> pskaught
I would kill all of your parents
>> Anonymous
i would kill pskaught.
>> Anonymous
I would kill Anonymous
>> deleted
i wish that was square format. its 6x4.5
>> Anonymous
im only a /p/ lurker... does this think use gold ribbon as film or something?
>> Anonymous
>>80809
It's a medium format digital SLR. It's got a sensor with about three times the surface area of even a full-frame 35mm digital SLR.
>> Anonymous
i would preform oral sex on all of your grandfathers - while being sadomized by a gang of angry pirates....

For one of these
>> Anonymous
>>80821

wow, so far i think you'd be the one going home with it
>> Anonymous
>>80811
Also it's huge and heavy like xbox and has miserable battery life and highest ISO compared to top-class 35mm DSLRs. So unless you have a real need for 30+ megapixel studio or landscape shots, this thing is useless, no matter how sexy it looks.
>> Anonymous
n00bh4x
>> Anonymous
big expensive pile of shit.
>> Anonymous
Truly the PS3 of the camera world.
>> Anonymous
>>80839
It's not a "pile of shit", it's specialized equipment a rare person needs. Get over it.
>> Anonymous
in all honesty, I am going to be much happier with my Nikon D300 when I finally get it one of these days.
for medium format I would get a film camera and a good scanner for maybe 1000$.
There is absolutely no reason to buy one of those digital Hassies. especially since you are going to loose 15K on it in the next couple of years.
>> Anonymous
theres some features in that thing you wont have on nikons for at least five more years.
>> Anonymous
>>80848
Many people will have a nice five years to get better at taking pics before they would need such features then =) and will get it at cheaper price
>> Anonymous
in five years they will have to replace their set of worthless small field 'digital' lenses
>> Anonymous
>>80848
Oh, like what?

Compared to upper-class Nikons, Hasselblads lack:
- high ISOs
- all AF points except the center one
- matrix metering
- fast shutter speeds
- continious shooting
- image stabilization
- live view
(Most of these aren't real drawbacks for the intended purposes of Hasselblads, but still, that's a quite big list)
>> Anonymous
>>80851

LOL no. Go suck cocks.
>> Anonymous
>>80853
which goes to show that saying a 35mm format camera is better than a medium format camera is kinda stupid since they're different tools intended for different jobs
>> Anonymous
>>80851
lol
I always wondered what makes a lens digital.
Do the photons get converted to FITS files when the hit the front element?
>> Anonymous
>>80964
digital lenses are made with smaller sensors in mind (i.e. digital). On full frame cameras they vignette like fuck
>> Anonymous
>>80978
Also, Canon EF-S digital-only lenses protrude further back into the lens chamber (shorter back focal distance -> cheaper to make the optics) and would mongle your mirror if you somehow got them to fit a 35mm or fullframe digital camera.