| Author |
Message |
dnfstyle
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 71
Location: Rekem lanaken Belgium
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:35 am
|  |
wish I could afford one ;-) |
|
devy
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 692
Location: Here Now
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:48 am
| |
MINDBLOWING Yuri...!
Thanks for sharing...
And of course I am a tiny tiny little bit envious...:)
greetz
devy |
|
skynesher
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 370
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:03 am
| |
Congrats Yuri!
it must be good feeling to get such toy to play with :)
quality is for sure one or two steps above what 1dsmk2 can give you.
but from other side , did you make calculations on how much time will it take to process all those huge files , you will need more RAM i guess..
also more time to send all this , and pricing for 16mp and 39mp seems to be same on all sites that i know.
i am sure you do the right thing just i wouldn't sell so fast all canon staff.
there are also things like fps, higher iso, compact size,..
wish you even more success and enjoy the new big toy! |
|
divemonkey
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 291
Location: Kiwi in the UK www.antclausen.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:52 am
| |
Lets see a 100% crop of your biceps after lugging that around! Unreal! Definitely a worthy reward for the endless hours you've put in... |
|
daemys
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 2092
Location: Where the president cosplays a white crane
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:39 am
| |
| Logos wrote: |
The downside is that handling files at 39mp is impossible in windows XP because of the maximum memory allocating in Photoshop under XP is less then what is required for opening just one 39mp Tiff file without having to write to hard drive cache. |
Have you considered buying extra memory for your computer? 39 megapixels @ 16 bit require just 39 000 000 x 16 x 3 / 8 = 234 megabytes of memory when Photoshop takes up to 1.5GB. |
|
vclements
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 2441
Location: http://www.vdavidclements.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:42 am
| |
So I said to my wife "But dear it's only $80,000. A small price to pay for my true happiness. You do want me to be happy don't you?"
She replied..."no".
Hey...I tried. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39282
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:07 am
| |
| Logos wrote: | I am not sure about how much I can say about my sponsorship agreement so I will clear that out with the Hasselblad management and get back to you. However, I do know that my sponsorship is directly with Hasselblad as it says on my contract.
To Rinder.. Thank you for your kind words! You really must be in touch with the right people in the US having had your hands on the new Hassy already. I know they just started shipping them to the US a couple of days ago and that the one I had for test shooting over the last couple of weeks was borrowed directly from the factory because they where not available jet. Some high-profiles photographers in the US may have had the same kind of arrangement.
About marketing. At a tradeshow, a Hasselblad representative did a speech saying that they had a zero budget for marketing. Hasselblad, being the only camera that has ever been to the moon, the markets highest resolution, etc. they don’t need to advertise. Their magazine “victor” is one of the only things they do in marketing. |
yes, very lucky to live 3 miles from the most famous camera store in Western US. The American Hassy rep is an old friend. Also The Nikon rep so I get to play with all the new stuff when they bring there samples in to sell them and take orders. truth is most hard core pro's Lease cameras like this, Not to many buy them because things change so fast. Imagine Plopping down $50K or so and In a year it's outdated? I can't even Imagine that. bad enough I spend 5K every few years on the new nikons. I can look back just a few years when I got into Digital with the Nikon D1. 2.1 MP Very small screen and cost me $6100.00. For every 39MP sensor made they throw away 1000 of them as inferior. Hence the price. I can get the camera, lense's on a rental for $400 a weekend.And write it off. But as much as I love hassy and owned quite a few, If I were to spend that kind of money I would go with 4 X 5 and a Dig Back.Of course you cant do fashion and fast shooting But image quality is quite astounding. About $25,000 |
|
redbaron
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:11 am
| |
Contrats Yuri, and thank you for shareing all those information! Hasselblad is absolutely above my financial capacity (for now) but your great success and work give inspiration to work harder and look further. Thank you for that! |
|
imacon
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:35 am
| |
| Logos wrote: | Taking a break from shooting now to write this.
The price for the full line-up (five lenses, all the extras and the camera) is about 80000 USD. I don't pay that because of my sponsorship agreement with Hasselblad, but that's what It would cost.
The learning curve is not high at all, and managing white balance and getting the skin tones right is actually much easier. The camera is much more intuitive to handle and way more thought through. |
$80,000? This is insane... |
|
savone
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:21 pm
| |
| imacon wrote: |
$80,000? This is insane... |
Not when you make over $25,000 a month on stock photography alone! :)
Yuri, What did you shoot with prior? |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39282
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:51 pm
| |
| imacon wrote: | | Logos wrote: | Taking a break from shooting now to write this.
The price for the full line-up (five lenses, all the extras and the camera) is about 80000 USD. I don't pay that because of my sponsorship agreement with Hasselblad, but that's what It would cost.
The learning curve is not high at all, and managing white balance and getting the skin tones right is actually much easier. The camera is much more intuitive to handle and way more thought through. |
$80,000? This is insane... |
It's all relative. |
|
Logos
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 447
Location: Århus, Denmark
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:57 pm
| |
| daemys wrote: | | Logos wrote: |
The downside is that handling files at 39mp is impossible in windows XP because of the maximum memory allocating in Photoshop under XP is less then what is required for opening just one 39mp Tiff file without having to write to hard drive cache. |
Have you considered buying extra memory for your computer? 39 megapixels @ 16 bit require just 39 000 000 x 16 x 3 / 8 = 234 megabytes of memory when Photoshop takes up to 1.5GB. |
I thought so too, but no. The "working memory" photoshop needs to process such files is much more. I have all my Macs maxed out with 16gb except one with 6gb. |
|
Logos
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 447
Location: Århus, Denmark
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:59 pm
| |
| savone wrote: | | imacon wrote: |
$80,000? This is insane... |
Not when you make over $25,000 a month on stock photography alone! :)
Yuri, What did you shoot with prior? |
I used a mark II, with about 5 of the sharpest L glass lenses. |
|
stamik
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 84
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:39 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | imacon wrote: | | Logos wrote: | Taking a break from shooting now to write this.
The price for the full line-up (five lenses, all the extras and the camera) is about 80000 USD. I don't pay that because of my sponsorship agreement with Hasselblad, but that's what It would cost.
The learning curve is not high at all, and managing white balance and getting the skin tones right is actually much easier. The camera is much more intuitive to handle and way more thought through. |
$80,000? This is insane... |
It's all relative. |
Yes, it's just about 266'666 downloads :)) Would not imagine more stupid acquisition for microstock shooting :)) |
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 6290
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:58 pm
| |
Just talked to one of my clients... they just built a PC that had 128GB of ram. It runs on XP64 and uses the new Xeon.
A normal configuration for that system is 32GB of Ram.
| Logos wrote: | | daemys wrote: | | Logos wrote: |
The downside is that handling files at 39mp is impossible in windows XP because of the maximum memory allocating in Photoshop under XP is less then what is required for opening just one 39mp Tiff file without having to write to hard drive cache. |
Have you considered buying extra memory for your computer? 39 megapixels @ 16 bit require just 39 000 000 x 16 x 3 / 8 = 234 megabytes of memory when Photoshop takes up to 1.5GB. |
I thought so too, but no. The "working memory" photoshop needs to process such files is much more. I have all my Macs maxed out with 16gb except one with 6gb. |
|
|
| |
|
Log in
