It is not true that the main focus of Hasselblad was indoor wedding.
Victor Hasselblads aim with the first camera was to produce a versatile
camera for outdoor photography as this was his main interest. The camera
turned out to be very versatile for other purposes as well. I've
personnaly used Blad in the field. The 2000 series with lenses without
shutters. It has worked very well for me under some rather difficult
conditions. The good thing has been its reliability under various
conditions from really cold weather to warm humid conditions.
Cheers,
Ronald
Pål Jensen wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not much substance provided to that opinion?
I know a professional nature photographer using H1 for his work. You
can have a
look at his work on the Samfoto website; his name is Svein Grønvold.
Since he's
dependent on his tool for his income, he'd be out of business if it was
"strictly a studio item".
Most of the film-based MedFs had a problem with sealing around the
detachable
magazines. The Pentax 645 insert solution was much better in this
respect, and
also providing more rigor to the body itself compared to the
competition. I was
curious to hear if the H1 was somewhat better in this respect than
was the old
6x6 'Blad systems, but apparently it's neither worse nor better.
Probably every camera conceived is used by somebody outdoors. However,
it is obvious that the Hasselblad was designed for studio and indoor
shooters like wedding photographers etc (BTW like most MF equipment).
Another camera that comes to mind is the Contax 645. Perhaps the only
MF equipment that is meant for and marketed towards outdoor use is the
Pentax MF cameras....
Pål
