Where do you guys get this business that hasselblads are failure prone. You
do understand that the OM's had that very same reputation, and yet it didn't
seem to bother you when shooting 35, did it? I have never found either to be
unreliable, or in fact any different from my nikon F's, which could be used
to hammer nails. You are all victims of urban legend.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sawyer, Edward
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:24 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Re MF VS 35
Nice, not bad, but expensive, failure-prone, and the RZ lenses are as god or
better in most cases. (I would like the Hassy 110/2 and 250 superachromat
though.)
On 5/24/12 6:16 AM, "olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ah, but how about a Hasselblad?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|