FilmFilmFIlm

JWitmer wrote in post #8321188
....Ebay seems to have them with a grip for around $250 or so....

Have you ever looked at KEH Camera. If your comfortable with Ebay, great. But, KEH has a great reputation, and like buying "new" you can return items if their not to your liking. I got my Mamiya 645E from them in EX condition and honestly it looked new, as if it was just made yesterday, I could not tell it had been used at all.

EOS-3 at KEH

bric-a-brac wrote in post #8324209
Think Geek.com has this film scanner for $100, which might be your only/best option for a scanner compatible with apple computers that doesn't break the bank. it actually doesn't have any software at all, it just scans images to internal memory or an SD card. only does JPEGs at about 5mp though.

No offense, but don't touch this scanner, not even with a ten-foot pole...pure crap.

Do you honestly think their are not nice film scanners that are compatible with Apple... seriously.

For $80 more than that garbage you can get a nice Epson scanner that will meet your needs, read below:

JWitmer wrote in post #8321188
I'm looking for a 35mm negative scanner that is compatible with Apple computers. Any suggestions?

I've spent considerable time reading about and researching scanners. You're pretty much left up to two choices when it comes to scanners...Nikon or Epson. Nikon's scanners are very expensive...and therefore out of your budget. Therefore your left with Epson.

But which Epson, you may ask? The V500...why? The extra cost of the V700 is a waste. The 2 scanners produce the same quality of images...ignore their claims look at actual results....their nearly identical and some reviews show the v500 as superior. Also, unless you shoot 4x5 and large formats, you don't need the v700, the v500 covers both 35mm and 120 film sizes.

So whay are nikons scanners more expensive...they're dedicated film scanners and therefor scan faster, hold the film flatter and more in focus therefore resulting in sharper photos, and they have a higher Dmax. The Dmax more or less reveals the ability of the scanner to capture the films dynamic range.

However, for your needs the v500 should be fine. The Dmax is high enough. And while the film holders are not impressive, they are good enough. Their are company's that make film holder replacements that hold the film flatter and are adjustable to obtain sharper scans. However, for general viewing of your photos on a monitor, on a digital frame, online, or personal printing you should be fine. As I see it, although the v500 will allow me to scan a piece of 120 film and be able to make a print of it at 47 x 35.25 inches @ 300dpi, I'm not going to make prints that large without seeking a professional printer that has their own high end dedicated film scanners that make Nikon's look like toys. So the v500 suits my needs.

Here are two links to some scans I took with my V500, no special film holder...just he v500 as it came out of the box: 120 film & 35mm film

Here's the the v500 at B&H for $180: Epson V500

If your wondering how I knew what size prints I could make with the v500 check out this scanning and printing resolution calculator, that way you will not have to sit in front of your scanner for hours on end scanning at higher resolution then you may need.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8341246
Actually in one of my classes in college we tested most medium format cameras/lenses and that not true. I also worked in a high end portrait studio and asked the owner why he wasn't using his hasselblads in the studio instead of the rb he had and he said the larger format was sharper. I did a series of tests to prove him that wasn't the case. Not only did I show him the test chart LPM I laid down two 8X10s of the same subject in the same lighting and he picked the blad image every time. The next day he put he RB away and we used blads for the studio from then on. Adams also shot with blads and wrote a bit about it in the book the camera. And he shot with 4X5 & 8X10 view cameras so it wasn't for the blads being smaller I've shot with both EXTENSIVELY. And shot with an RZ also. The RZ was always having problems with the gears in the film advance.
I'm not saying the RZ is a bad camera just the glass isn't on the same level as most Blad Zeiss is. Just like MOST Canon Ls are not on the same level as Leica M series.

Ever hear of clever hans? What you're describing is one of the reasons why drugs are tested in double-blind tests, with placebos. The test you performed was, while well-intentioned, useless. It seems that you were biased towards the blad, so it really isn't a surprise he kept picking the blad.

Sorry to say, but your test didn't prove anything. No control? No ABX? Statistically useless.

Zeiss and Mamiya lenses are amazing. The best medium format lenses are made by Mamiya for the Mamiya 7 camera, but the RZ67 glass comes close. 6x7 is also much better for enlarging to 4:5 ratio photos.

Really, what is more important than quality is how the camera feels in your hand (because their lenses are so close). For me, the RZ67 fits like a glove, and the 'blad feels awkward. For others, the RZ67 is huge and the blad is the perfect size.

The OP needs to rent both cameras, or buy both and return the one he doesn't like.

All I can say is that there is nothing like shooting an RZ67 with a 50mm ULD.

AutumnJazz wrote in post #8336821
The RZ67 has better lenses. Adorama's used department has a ProII w/ 100mm ƒ/2.8, back, and AE finder for next to nothing.

I guess it depends on who you are talking to, but 2 thousand bucks isn't next to nothing for anyone I know

What? It's $750. Are you searching the used department?

AutumnJazz wrote in post #8341947
Ever hear of clever hans? What you're describing is one of the reasons why drugs are tested in double-blind tests, with placebos. The test you performed was, while well-intentioned, useless. It seems that you were biased towards the blad, so it really isn't a surprise he kept picking the blad.

Sorry to say, but your test didn't prove anything. No control? No ABX? Statistically useless.

Zeiss and Mamiya lenses are amazing. The best medium format lenses are made by Mamiya for the Mamiya 7 camera, but the RZ67 glass comes close. 6x7 is also much better for enlarging to 4:5 ratio photos.

Really, what is more important than quality is how the camera feels in your hand (because their lenses are so close). For me, the RZ67 fits like a glove, and the 'blad feels awkward. For others, the RZ67 is huge and the blad is the perfect size.

The OP needs to rent both cameras, or buy both and return the one he doesn't like.

All I can say is that there is nothing like shooting an RZ67 with a 50mm ULD.

It prove it to me.

Something in my 'heart' telling me go with "blad" and something in my 'head' telling me go with "RZ67", should i follow my heart or my head?

A side question: What is the difference between Hasselblad 500cm and 503cw?

AutumnJazz wrote in post #8341947
Ever hear of clever hans? What you're describing is one of the reasons why drugs are tested in double-blind tests, with placebos. The test you performed was, while well-intentioned, useless. It seems that you were biased towards the blad, so it really isn't a surprise he kept picking the blad.

Sorry to say, but your test didn't prove anything. No control? No ABX? Statistically useless.

Zeiss and Mamiya lenses are amazing. The best medium format lenses are made by Mamiya for the Mamiya 7 camera, but the RZ67 glass comes close. 6x7 is also much better for enlarging to 4:5 ratio photos.

Really, what is more important than quality is how the camera feels in your hand (because their lenses are so close). For me, the RZ67 fits like a glove, and the 'blad feels awkward. For others, the RZ67 is huge and the blad is the perfect size.

The OP needs to rent both cameras, or buy both and return the one he doesn't like.

All I can say is that there is nothing like shooting an RZ67 with a 50mm ULD.

Also sharpness charts don't lie blind or not. LPM are LPM.

Tareq wrote in post #8344839
A side question: What is the difference between Hasselblad 500cm and 503cw?

I would highly recommend the 500 C/M. And let it be your head and heart because I've shot most of them; Mamiya, Bronica and yes even Rapid Omaga and theres nothing like a blad. US space program used them (theres one on the moon) I work a good deal in healthcare and most critical optics for imaging are either Zeiss or Leica. Ansel Adams medium format camera was Hasselblad. So let it be your head and heart.

There's a film thread in the POTN lounge, jump in there and ask a few too. Like airfrog, I also recommend the 500 C/M. It's hard to beat and just using one for the first time is pure sex.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8345244
I would highly recommend the 500 C/M. And let it be your head and heart because I've shot most of them; Mamiya, Bronica and yes even Rapid Omaga and theres nothing like a blad. US space program used them (theres one on the moon) I work a good deal in healthcare and most critical optics for imaging are either Zeiss or Leica. Ansel Adams medium format camera was Hasselblad. So let it be your head and heart.

So still i didn't get the answer about what is the difference, also i can't find anywhere 500cm "NEW" only new, i don;t like to buy used even demo or new-like, i want to get it "New" from the box, B&H has 503CW New.

Tareq wrote in post #8345438
So still i didn't get the answer about what is the difference, also i can't find anywhere 500cm "NEW" only new, i don;t like to buy used even demo or new-like, i want to get it "New" from the box, B&H has 503CW New.

Here ya go
503
http://www.nelsontan.c​om/reviews/503cw/503cw​.html

500C/M
http://www.camerapedia​.org/wiki/Hasselblad_5​00_C/M
http://www.cs.princeto​n.edu …tos/hasselblad_​review.htm

Hasselblad
http://www.camerapedia​.org/wiki/Hasselblad
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Hasselblad

Also a couple of things I've found about the 500c & 500C/M and something I love about them is they are all mechanical. Also the more you use them the better the get. When I would first a new 500C/M and a new Cf Lens they would be very stiff. In fact when I bought new blad bodies or lenses I would carry a small slotted screw driver with me because they were so stiff they would sometimes freeze up which would usually go away after a week or so of steady shooting. If this happened you would just remove the film back and open the back curtain and with the screw driver reset the lens. So don't fear a well used 500C/M. Theres not a lot that can go wrong. The shutters are in the lens and I would prefer one that has been used gently over one thats been on the shelf.

Honestly, I cannot see how you can recommend one camera. Try both a 500c/m or 503cw and an RB67 or RZ67. Whichever you like more, get.

AutumnJazz wrote in post #8346185
Honestly, I cannot see how you can recommend one camera. Try both a 500c/m or 503cw and an RB67 or RZ67. Whichever you like more, get.

Sure try'm all but I recommend the 500C/M because of the Zeiss glass and its a true work horse. I've used all the cameras mentioned here and I prefer the 500 C/M. Isn't that what a recommendation is. You try something and you prefer it so you recommend it? Try'm and I have and I prefer the 500C/M because of the choice of lenses and the reliability factor.