Thanks for looking Bob.

The red camera in the lower left corner is a very scarce Minolta 16, scarce because of the markings on it. There were several models made in a number of colors. As 16mm still cameras go, the Minolta line was extremely successful.

What you've identified as a Rollie 35 is actually a Golden Steky. The Steky (16mm) was an early Ricoh product when Ricoh was Riken. It was intended to be a police and surveillance camera. All the models before this one were constructed to be used vertically. There is another Steky in the picture. The gold 16mm version was the forerunner of the Golden Ricoh 16. Just a few of the Steky were made in 1957 before it became the Golden Ricoh. Scarce and desirable but not rare.


The leather stereopticon you see is actually a very fine grain beautifully made wooden (maple I think) Brewster style stereo card viewer c1870. Collector friends who specialize in viewers tell me this is probably homemade by a skilled craftsman and not a commercial product. I agree as there are no markings on it.

I have been interested in a 'walking around" lens for my 70D, so I can avoid changing lens and bringing so much equipment with me as I travel. I have been considering a Canon 24-105L lens but just read Ken Rockwell's review, in which he says it would be foolish to purchase a lens designed for a full frame sensor on a crop sensor. Is he correct? I also read a review by someone else stating that the lens is not as sharp as other L lens. Would I be better served to purchase a different lens designed for my crop sensor? I am afraid to purchase a lens in the approximate range of 18-300 mm because of my concern that the lens are not terribly sharp. Any thoughts from any of you Hoggers?

Most of my compositions have gone unedited/unenhanced. I recently used an iPad version of Photoshop to enhance a photo and was pleasantly surprised. I have the resources to invest in software to use, but would welcome comments and suggestions as I focus my search.

I use a Nikon D90 and shoot mostly sports and landscape. The one necessity is that my sensor has developed a hot pixel in the upper right quadrant that I need to edit for larger prints. I'm not ready to upgrade the body and the problem isn't severe enough to send for repair (yet...).

Well my friend, you are asking one of those "Eternal" questions that probably will never be answered to your satisfaction.
I bought my first Hasselblad Camera set up some 40 years ago; Back when digital was still very much in just the idea stage. It was at that time the finest medium sized format camera for taking pictures on this planet. It was the standard by which all other cameras of this sized format were measured. It used a collection of lenses made by Carl Zeiss, and to my knowledge there were no other lenses made generically that would fit the Hasselblad body. So, you are talking about a very exclusive club when referring to Hasselblad owners.

There is also a kicker which needs to be mentioned. Hasselblad cameras and Carl Zeiss lenses were the only combination to make up imaging capturing devices for the U.S. space program. Back then, when those choices were made, they looked for simple design and proven durability, reliability, with optimum results. That was Hasselblad in spades.

Back then, my Hasselblad Camera setup was the "C" body, Zeiss lens and the film back which held the film for the camera. I had a few filters, an extension tube, a flash set up and a sturdy tripod... along with a set of studio strobe lights. That whole bundle cost nearly $5000.00 back then. It was a much simpler camera than even the simplest digital cameras available now... it was completely manual from focusing to metering to film advance.

Now, jumping ahead 4 decades, you are talking about a camera that is much more complicated, with a flawless reputation, that commands a premium price. It still belongs to only the upper echelons of serious professional photographers.

I guess the best way to finish my response to your inquiry would be to give you an analogy. It is exactly the same thing as wondering why there is so much difference in price between a high end Mercedes with all its bells and whistles, and a basic Ford Fusion. Both will perform the task of getting the driver from point A to point B. It is HOW that task is accomplished, what comfort the user derives during the trip, along with the projected image of owning the Mercedes rather than the Fusion.

Hasselblad has the reputation and the clout to command that price for their product line. They don't cut corners and they don't want to run with the pack... They want to be a clear front runner and do what it takes to remain there.

Of course this all comes with an admitted caveat; All things written above is only the expressed opinions of a single Hasselblad owner, who can no longer afford to run with the elite owners of today's Hasselblad equipment.

I hope this helps you wrap your mind around one way of looking at your eternal question. :)

The attached picture was taken with a Nikon D7000 using a Nikon 18-200 VR lens. I beleive the focus is too soft.

Autofocus was set to AF-C (continuous)

Backbutton focus was used

I believe a single focal point was selected (middle of array)

f/8 should have been sufficient for no depth of field concerns

Zoom value on lens was 200 mm

1/640 shutter speed should have been sufficiently fast for hand holding (1/300 sec is recommended with a crop sensor)

VR was on.

Shutter prohibited from firing if focus is not obtained.

Circular polarizer in place.

Can anyone tell me what I did wrong? This only seems to happen sometimes. Polarization setting?