Zeiss 85 1.4, ONLY $4500: Hasselblad, only 35,000....

Now look, I'm the last person who should be talking about paying big bucks for things. That's my credo. I buy what I want when I want it and thankfully have always earned a good living and been able to do so.

But, my brothers and sisters, things are getting ridiculous.

Yes, I'm sure the new Zeiss 85 1.4, like the 55mm, is a thing of beauty. But at current rates for a used 85L 1.2, I can buy three of them.

I just received a newletter from B&H touting the above lens, along with new Hasselblad medium format cameras, ranging from $35,000 to $45,000.

Yes, FORTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Can you or anyone or Hasselblad tell me that has as many parts, as much technology as a Mercedes E320? Are they serious? And I don't care that it sells in far less quantity. At that price I'm surprised it sells at all with the advent of 36 megapixel cmos sensors in Nikon cameras, and hopefully a high mp camera from Canon?

I mean, it's just getting absurd. I don't care if you earn your living from photography. You're getting ripped off at that money.

I think the lenses were hand polished twice by everyone single person in <insert small third world country here> or something like that right?

On a more serious note... I always wondered how much markup there is in all photography gear. I remember when David Hobby's strobist thing became popular; all the used nikon/canon speedlights that used to go for $40 or so jumped to $100+.

I guess the sad truth is that there will still be people out there that buy these items.

MDJAK wrote in post #17158592
Can you or anyone or Hasselblad tell me that has as many parts, as much technology as a Mercedes E320? Are they serious? And I don't care that it sells in far less quantity. At that price I'm surprised it sells at all with the advent of 36 megapixel cmos sensors in Nikon cameras, and hopefully a high mp camera from Canon?

just to play devil's avocate... you can think of it this way too: a pagani zonda probably is less complicated and has less technology than a mercedes e320 but costs 20x more. why? if i wanted to beat someone at the track, which one would i buy, cost no object? parts counts and "technology" are not always proportionally represented as price.

but of course, i somewhat agree with you, and closer to home, i think you can see some effects--not just comparing hasselblad or phase with a nikon 800, but even leica vs the sony a7r. people are realizing the same thing as you, and i am sure plenty are jumping ship from more expensive stuff to other systems that get you 95% there. also, i heard hasselblad is not doing well financially, so, that's more evidence for you.

i've been reading some more articles on pros and stuff, and it does appear to me many use the nikon 800 now when they need ultra-high res.

OK, I'll bite.

I shoot MF digital. I bought a refurb Phase One kit, so my buy-in was a bit less than $35-45k.

Do I make more money because I shoot MF? No. Does the camera help me produce images that have the look I want? Yes.

I share a coop studio with 3 other photogs who shoot 5D3's and D800's. We have a wall of prints that showcase our work. The prints from the Phase are very easily picked out.

I'd take a 20mp CCD full-frame MF sensor over a 50mp 35mm CMOS any day.

Chris, no question MF is better. I have a feeling though to the untrained eye in a blind test one may not always be able to tell. That said, the cost of new MF is just not sustainable IMO. I mean, I can buy 2 brand new Honda Accords for the price of a MF. Now I realize it's a specialized tool, but it's not made with diamonds or gold (which are also overpriced).

Had to look up a zonda. Very interesting.

MDJAK wrote in post #17160648
Chris, no question MF is better. I have a feeling though to the untrained eye in a blind test one may not always be able to tell. That said, the cost of new MF is just not sustainable IMO. I mean, I can buy 2 brand new Honda Accords for the price of a MF. Now I realize it's a specialized tool, but it's not made with diamonds or gold (which are also overpriced).

Well, my Phase kit was priced more like a used 2007 Accord. The payment does eat into profits, but my family is housed and fed.

I drive a 2006 MY vehicle that is paid for. I don't have a car payment, I have a camera payment. I know my priories are different than most, but the situation is sustainable for me.

Well, I'm switching to guns.

(haha. j/k After I read your last post I looked in your avatar space and that's the first thing my eye caught.)

^Top Gun reference.

chris_holtmeier wrote in post #17160639
OK, I'll bite.

I shoot MF digital. I bought a refurb Phase One kit, so my buy-in was a bit less than $35-45k.

Do I make more money because I shoot MF? No. Does the camera help me produce images that have the look I want? Yes.

I share a coop studio with 3 other photogs who shoot 5D3's and D800's. We have a wall of prints that showcase our work. The prints from the Phase are very easily picked out.

I'd take a 20mp CCD full-frame MF sensor over a 50mp 35mm CMOS any day.

Chris,
That is some good info. By chance have you played with the Pentax MF gear? I am thinking hard about that one as the D4x is nowhere to be found.
Thanks,
Gary

I've handled the 645z in the store, but have not used it on a job.

The CMOS, to me, doesn't have the look of a good CCD. It's also a 1.3 crop.

chris_holtmeier wrote in post #17160639
I share a coop studio with 3 other photogs who shoot 5D3's and D800's. We have a wall of prints that showcase our work. The prints from the Phase are very easily picked out.

I'd take a 20mp CCD full-frame MF sensor over a 50mp 35mm CMOS any day.

You know, the answer to all this, truly, is in the pudding, isn't it? I wish I could see for myself!

MDJAK wrote in post #17160648
Chris, no question MF is better. I have a feeling though to the untrained eye in a blind test one may not always be able to tell. That said, the cost of new MF is just not sustainable IMO. I mean, I can buy 2 brand new Honda Accords for the price of a MF. Now I realize it's a specialized tool, but it's not made with diamonds or gold (which are also overpriced).

Was at local honda dealer about a month ago for an oil change and honda acccord was like 34k or more, if I remember right. Cheaper MF system there is Pentax option.

I knew a guy who bought $40k hassy when we were just buying $2000 10d. He wanted nice camera which allowed him to print really really big. I think this was his first digital camera.

With film a one-time investment for high $$$ made sense... the medium wasn't changing. For digital, it's a different story. You might mortgage the house and have yesterday's salad before you even get to that interest tax deduction...

dog rocket wrote in post #17165542
With film a one-time investment for high $$$ made sense... the medium wasn't changing. For digital, it's a different story. You might mortgage the house and have yesterday's salad before you even get to that interest tax deduction...

Yup. Slrs might even be dinosaurs in 10yrs. Bet you ef mount will be discontinued in a decade.