| Photo Resources Photo Gallery | ||
From: Q.G. de Bakker (qnu_at_email.domain.hidden)
Date: Fri Aug 20 2004 - 14:20:26 EDT
- Next message: Hemi4268: "Re: Camera shake and lp/mm"
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: neat alcohol on shutter blades?"
- In reply to: David J. Littleboy: "Re: 203FE- black?"
- Next in thread: David J. Littleboy: "Re: 203FE- black?"
- Reply: David J. Littleboy: "Re: 203FE- black?"
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> But a chrome hassy with a black lens looks really grody. Yuck.
I would not go so far as say "yuck", but i agree that "bare metal" lenses
look better.
The best looking Hasselblad in my opinion is a 1600 F or 1000 F with Kodak
Ektar lens and a waist level finder with the struts.
A very bad looking Hasselblad is the same camera with the black ;-) Distagon
60 mm lens.
The "chrome" C lenses look good too (good thing it isn't really chrome. I
find the looks of the chromed Tessar 80 mm a bit too much.), the black
C-lenses are, well, o.k.
CF too. But the CFE/CFi? I don't know.
Another ugly looking thing is the F version of the 80 mm Planar.
Etc.
They produced some rather odd looking things. It's almost as if the camera
was designed to be used with waist level finder and standard lens only.
But then, does it matter?
;-)
- Next message: Hemi4268: "Re: Camera shake and lp/mm"
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: neat alcohol on shutter blades?"
- In reply to: David J. Littleboy: "Re: 203FE- black?"
- Next in thread: David J. Littleboy: "Re: 203FE- black?"
- Reply: David J. Littleboy: "Re: 203FE- black?"
| Feedback,
Contact Us,
Legal Information,
Your Privacy Copyright ©1998-2004 metro.isp Inc. All rights reserved. |