Advice on Hasselblad H3DII-31/39 System appreciated

[metstudios]

Hi all,

I am considering taking the plunge and investing into medium-format. I have been a Canon user for quite a few years, and even with the relatively high-resolution of the 1Ds3, I am disappointed with the results.

Having never handled or used a medium format system, and with the associated price tags with them, I'm obviously intent on doing some thorough research before committing! I have no dealer within 100 miles of me, so am relying on professional and impartial (one can wish) reviews and advice.

My usual lenses at 35mm are 50 1.2L, 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS for my work, which is in the majority portraiture and catalogue work. I am looking to expand my portfolio with more commercial work, such as product photography. I have been advised by an agency that I need to invest into a MFS before even considering looking to work at the higher end of the fashion/advertising/product market in the UK.

I'd be grateful for feedback on which H3D body that Hasselblad users are using for both location & studio work for fashion/portraiture. If it's of any relevance, I use Bowens QuadX lighting system.

Also, I would love to hear what lenses people use. I've heard quite a few contrasting reviews. Some people tell me the 120 macro is a perfect portrait lens, but others say it's heavy and best suited only for tripod work. I do like to vary my shooting styles, and shoot hand held a fair bit. Others have said that the 100 2.2 is ideal for portraiture.

I was considering purchasing a HC 3.5/50, 2.2/100 and the 4/120 for product/macro photography, and tripod studio work, and the 1.7x for the occasional longer focal length requirements. The UK kit currently comes with a 2.8/80 - am curious as to how much use this lens receives from H3D users?

Please excuse me if my questions seem amateurish and obvious, and if they've been asked time after time. I did glance through the first 3 pages, and couldn't find a relevant title before posting.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to post any advice/information etc.

Kind regards,

Josh.

 

[Nick-T]

Hi all,

I am considering taking the plunge and investing into medium-format. I have been a Canon user for quite a few years, and even with the relatively high-resolution of the 1Ds3, I am disappointed with the results.

You will see a leap in quality for sure. Be advised that you will have to adjust your style of working from the Canon.

I'd be grateful for feedback on which H3D body that Hasselblad users are using for both location & studio work for fashion/portraiture. If it's of any relevance, I use Bowens QuadX lighting system.

File size apart, the 31 chip is slightly smaller than the 39 so you lose a small amount of wide angle coverage. Unless you are architecture/landscape I'd say it's a non issue. The 31 is a stop faster than the 39 (microlenses) which is handy (I have a 31). they both shoot at about the same speed.

Also, I would love to hear what lenses people use. I've heard quite a few contrasting reviews. Some people tell me the 120 macro is a perfect portrait lens, but others say it's heavy and best suited only for tripod work. I do like to vary my shooting styles, and shoot hand held a fair bit. Others have said that the 100 2.2 is ideal for portraiture.

I was considering purchasing a HC 3.5/50, 2.2/100 and the 4/120 for product/macro photography, and tripod studio work, and the 1.7x for the occasional longer focal length requirements. The UK kit currently comes with a 2.8/80 - am curious as to how much use this lens receives from H3D users?

The 80 is VERY sharp and you could save yourself some money and use it with extension tubes rather than get the 120mm. The 120mm is a great lens but quite big and heavy, I much prefer the 100 for portraits and it's easy to focus being a 2.2. I'm trying to decide wether to get a 1.7X 9apparently very sharp) or a 210mm. BTW the new zoom is fantastic (35-90) but very pricey!
Hope that ramble helps
Nick-T

 

[Graham Mitchell]

MFDBs require a lot more user input than a Canon but in return you have much more control and the extra quality is undoubtedly there.

I'd also take a good look at the Hy6/AFi and of course try them all (including lenses) before buying.

 

[jerome]

Hi all,

I am considering taking the plunge and investing into medium-format.

Also, I would love to hear what lenses people use. I've heard quite a few contrasting reviews. Some people tell me the 120 macro is a perfect portrait lens, but others say it's heavy and best suited only for tripod work. I do like to vary my shooting styles, and shoot hand held a fair bit. Others have said that the 100 2.2 is ideal for portraiture.

I was considering purchasing a HC 3.5/50, 2.2/100 and the 4/120 for product/macro photography, and tripod studio work, and the 1.7x for the occasional longer focal length requirements. The UK kit currently comes with a 2.8/80 - am curious as to how much use this lens receives from H3D users?



Josh.

Hello,

I've bought the H3DII 31 few weeks ago, and I'm very impressed by the quality, even if I've a lot to learn to master the beast

31 is good for me because I shoot often handheld on location, and files at 400 iso are very usable and at 800 iso you can do something still acceptable.

I have the 28 mm (excellent !), the 80 mm (very good) the 50-110 zoom : heavy but I think it's worth the weight because the quality is excellent. I've bought the 120 and for macro, nothing better. I've tested 50-110 + extension tube, but it is useful for a while : as soon I've received the 120, you don't want to come back to the tubes

The 120 is very heavy ... my next "lenses" will be the 1.7 converter and H/S lens (for the fun).

I must say that MFD is a wonderful pleasure and happyness : don't hesitate to go there

 

[mark1958]

I have the H3DII-31. Iso 400 great and iso 800 also usable. I have a 1DsmkIII as well and I love the tonality of he H3D relative to the 1DsmkIII. I have tried every one of the HC lenses. The ones I have kept are the 28, 50-110, 80, 100, 120, 210 and 300. I may not keep the 300... so if anyone out there is interested let me know. Anyway, I think the 120 is very hard to handhold and once you move away from about 5 or 6 ft, the 100mm is optically just as good. It is so much smaller and it is faster at f2.2. Some people have suggested the 150mm for portraits. I found the 100 +1.7x to be as good as the 150mm and equal speed. The find the zoom is as good as the primes in the same focal range but it is big and heavy. there is a new 35-90 that will come out soon but it is very pricey. I also use the zoom and 100 with extension tubes when i travel and leave the macro at home. It is not quite as good as the macro but in a pinch will do. If you use the extension tubes with the macro you can get to more than 1:1.

The 210 is also great and with the 1.7x no loss in image quality. The 210mm is much smaller than the 300mm. I was going to sell my 80mm but now that i hear it is compatible with the tilt shift adapter, I will keep it. I think the 50mm is the weakest lens in the lineup. I found the zoom was a bit better with image quality if you use a tripod.

 

[andershald]

Hi Josh.

I think buying a system without trying it out first is a mistake. There is a huge difference between reading about the systems and using them. There is not really such a thing as an unbiased opinion, as we all look at the systems relative to personal preferences and relevance for our own uses. So I would suggest that you try to make the arrangements to test the different systems, even if it means travel, time and inconvenience. The outcome of your choice is not just a case of the investment it is also the impact on your shooting style. Each MFDB system has it's own quirks, and there are some real differences.

I did quite a lot of research recently in comparing some of the sytems and wrote about them in the thread "Considering the H3D3-31" and got lots of good input from the other users in this forum, you might have a look at that thread.

On the other hand, if I was buying a system 'blind' without testing, I would say the Hasselblad is a fairly safe choice. By that I mean that the user interface is very similar to that of a DSLR. The AF is quite fast and the camera design IS good, it is my impressin that it is the system that has the fewest 'quirks'. In terms of image quality from the backs, there is very little difference, once you work through the files, that is at least my impression. Far greater impact on the images comes from what is in front of the back, the lenses, the shutter and the body. But you also need to consider what happens to your workflow.

With Hasselblad you are tied to using Phocus for your processing. Perhaps you are fine with that, but if you really like to use Adobe Camera Raw for your raw processing, the Hasselblad might not be the best choice for you. (Or if you are a pc user...Phocus for PC hasn't appeared yet, I think).

As it is a proffesional tool, and you will be using it to make your living, I really think it would be a good idea to see if you can get to test the systems out. I think all the different manufacturers are represented here in this forum. Write to them and give them your location details and have them suggest how you can test the camera systems before buying. I am sure they will be helpful.

Good luck in your decision making process.

Best regards
Anders (who ended up loving a Contax 645 and a P30+)

 

[jerome]

Hi Josh.

With Hasselblad you are tied to using Phocus for your processing. Perhaps you are fine with that, but if you really like to use Adobe Camera Raw for your raw processing, the Hasselblad might not be the best choice for you. (Or if you are a pc user...Phocus for PC hasn't appeared yet, I think).

As it is a proffesional tool, and you will be using it to make your living, I really think it would be a good idea to see if you can get to test the systems out. I think all the different manufacturers are represented here in this forum. Write to them and give them your location details and have them suggest how you can test the camera systems before buying. I am sure they will be helpful.

Good luck in your decision making process.

Best regards
Anders (who ended up loving a Contax 645 and a P30+)

I have a beta test Phocus version for Windows and I can tell that's much better than the Camera Raw. I don't think that for professional use Camera raw is a good choice, it is better to use the software dedicated to your camera.

If I had chosen the Phase One, I would have used Camera one, certainely not Camera raw (but it's my personal view )

 

[fotografz]

Hi Josh,

I'm a former Canon 1DsMKIII user and had pretty much the same L lenses you have.

No comparison in image quality. MFD wins hands down.

Over the past few years, I've worked with a fairly broad range of MF Digital systems including Contax 645 with a Kodak ProBack back, and a Mamiya 645AFD-II with a Leaf Aptus 75s back ... plus have experienced the Leaf Hy6 Camera and numerious cameras with Phase One backs. They all deliver the goods and kill the Canon.

I went with the Hasselblad H3D system and currently use the H3D-II/31 and H3D-II/39 with the auto focus HC/28, 35, 50, 80, 100, 120 Macro, 150, 300 and 1.7X,

I also have the Hasselblad CF Adapter which is fully automatic apertute stop down ... and use a full range of Zeiss manual focus CFi and CFE lenses: 30CFE fisheye, 40IF, 50CFi, 60CFi, 80CFE, 100CFi, 120CFi Makro, 150CFi, 180CFi, and 300CF, plus all the lens accessories made for the Zeiss optics. You can use any Central Leaf Shutter type Lens ever made in Hasselblad mount on the H cameras. Many of these Zeiss optics can be had for very reasonable prices.

My personal favorites are: the AF HC/28 which I use for industrial applications; the Zeiss 40IF, which Is one of the sharpest MF wide angle lenses made; the Zeiss 60CFi, which I like better than any 50 or 80mm for environmental type portrait applications; the AF HC 100/2.2, which is my favorite "people lens" (beautiful Bokeh); The AF/HC 120 Macro for table top applications; the Zeiss 180/4CFi which is legendary for its crisp delivery, and the AF HC300 with and without the 1.7X.

Reason for choice: I needed high flash sync speed leaf shutter lenses for the commercial work I do, 90% of which is with strobes in studio or using on camera fill flash ... which eliminated the Contax 645 and Mamiya 645 focal plane systems that sync @ 1/125 top shutter speed.

I also liked the user interface and control ergonomics of the H camera which is very fast ... in fact, I found them just as fast as the Canon ... and in the case of on-camera flash, faster and more accurate than the Canon.

It is misinformation that Hasslblad files cannot be processed in Adobe Camera RAW. The files can be converted through Flexcolor or Phocus into DNGs and worked as RAW files in ACR or Lightroom. The DNG conversion speed is supersonic : -) Hasselblad RAW files are also directly recognized by Aperture.

Depending on end use and the subject matter, the ISO 800 of the H3D-II/31 is better than just "useable". You just have to pay attention to your metering more closely. I found the same thing with Leaf Aptus 75s ... very good ISO 800 files.

 

[kipling]

There are big differences in the back end (software) and big differences on the front end (lenses) and the middle part (camera). So get ready for a big big big adjustment and some difficult decision making.

You really need to look at the workflow of the camera and software you'll be using. A lot of Canon users work with Lightroom and making the adjustment to Phocus comes with compromises. Some don't like it, others love it.
Phocus needs lots of RAM and the newest graphics cards to run fast.
If you want to stick with Lightroom, you have to process DNG's through Phocus, which is an added step in the workflow and can cost you some extra time. Like I said, for some no problem, for others, every "unnecessary" second behind a computer is one too many.

On the front end, the lenses, you also have big differences.
Hasselbad lenses are sharp. Period. If you love SHARP, great. If you like the look of say a Zeiss Sonnar 140mm 2,8 wide open with beautiful soft fall off and the way Zeiss renders color, tones, etc. well, you probably won't "love" the HC lenses. Same goes for those who use Mamiya lenses and love the look of the glass.
I always loved the way the 110mm on the RZ looked on film, sharp as hell without looking sharp. I don't know what it is, edge sharpness, contrast, but whatever it is, it's just different. Soft beautiful sharpness

Anyway, lenses are like women, some like em soft and large some don't. :bugeyes:

In the middle you've got so many differences between the Hassy and Mamiya and the AFi/Hy6 it's not even worth writing about. You have to handle them. And looks deceive; the Hassy is a heavy camera, the Hy6/AFi is very light. The Phamiya feels completely different - just not as sturdy or "well made" although it's a proven professional camera.

The H3D II 31 is a fantastic camera, but not for everyone. :thumbup:

 

[s.agar]

I have the H3DII-31, and the 80mm and 35mm from the HC range. 80 is an excellent lens but with limited use on H3DII-31, while (at least for me) 35 mm HC is not my best lens. I did'nt buy the 28mm because it's a special lens for special use. If you like WA tricks, then you may consider it.

It seems from your post that you may prefer the AF lenses, but still for information, the CF adaptor lets use of the previous CF Zeiss lenses.

60/4 is my standard lens (considering the multiplier for -31 back), and 180 is my tele. I also have many others (50, 150 and250mm Zeiss lenses) that work very nicely with this camera.

These sell for around 500 USD each on ebay, and you may end up having a lot of quality lenses very cheaply, at the cost of Manual focus and recocking the lens after each shot.

For people coming from the film age MF cameras this is no problem. These lenses are fun to use and extremely good results. I still prefer the output to the new HC series, despite reading Hasselblad's Victor magazine (I think the one and only February issue)

I still don't have the Phocus for Windows, so I use Flexcolor to change to FFF or sometimes to DNG and continue with Photoshop for the rest. Flexcolor can also export to TIFF and JPG with very high quality, if needed. Then you may again continue with PS.

One thing that I hate about Hasselblad is that they are SLOOOWW in developing things. I appreciate that they want the things to work out perfectly when finished, but by that time, the equipment is getting (almost) obsolete.

We are still waiting the 1600 ISO coming with the next (and first for windows) Phocus, Phocus for Windows, Firmware upgrade needed to correct a few small problems, etc.

Coming to image quality: I have never seen anything better than these "present" MF cameras, including the film age MF's. Hasselblad, and most of the cameras on the market today are all excellent. Simply put, the results are also much better than the best DSLR's. The disadvantage is the heavy weight and bulkier apparance.

Best regards,

Seyhun





Seyhun

Hi all,

I am considering taking the plunge and investing into medium-format. I have been a Canon user for quite a few years, and even with the relatively high-resolution of the 1Ds3, I am disappointed with the results.

Having never handled or used a medium format system, and with the associated price tags with them, I'm obviously intent on doing some thorough research before committing! I have no dealer within 100 miles of me, so am relying on professional and impartial (one can wish) reviews and advice.

My usual lenses at 35mm are 50 1.2L, 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS for my work, which is in the majority portraiture and catalogue work. I am looking to expand my portfolio with more commercial work, such as product photography. I have been advised by an agency that I need to invest into a MFS before even considering looking to work at the higher end of the fashion/advertising/product market in the UK.

I'd be grateful for feedback on which H3D body that Hasselblad users are using for both location & studio work for fashion/portraiture. If it's of any relevance, I use Bowens QuadX lighting system.

Also, I would love to hear what lenses people use. I've heard quite a few contrasting reviews. Some people tell me the 120 macro is a perfect portrait lens, but others say it's heavy and best suited only for tripod work. I do like to vary my shooting styles, and shoot hand held a fair bit. Others have said that the 100 2.2 is ideal for portraiture.

I was considering purchasing a HC 3.5/50, 2.2/100 and the 4/120 for product/macro photography, and tripod studio work, and the 1.7x for the occasional longer focal length requirements. The UK kit currently comes with a 2.8/80 - am curious as to how much use this lens receives from H3D users?

Please excuse me if my questions seem amateurish and obvious, and if they've been asked time after time. I did glance through the first 3 pages, and couldn't find a relevant title before posting.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to post any advice/information etc.

Kind regards,

Josh.

 

[andershald]

Jerome - I agree with your statement about ACR, but it is not until this latest version of Capture One that it's a viable option for a pc user. The preivous PRO verison for pc was awful. But then again I have only just bought a P30+ so that is all timed very well. I am really enjoying Capture One now.

Fotografz - No misinformation intended, it is ofcourse possible to convert files to DNG and process the DNGs in third party software, but the files will need to go through Phocus of Flexcolor one way or the other. My point was not to critize Hasselblad but to make Josh aware that he also needs to consider workflow as part of the deal.

I think the H3DII is an awesome camera, it was just not the right camera for me, but it I actually do think that it is the best system to buy without trying as it was the system for me that gave the least 'surprices'. It was the system, out of the ones I tried, that worked with the least amount of fuss (well, except for me Flexcolour was the only software available, which was no joy).

Best regards,
Anders

 

[metstudios]

Many thanks to everyone who has posted - what a great forum! The information and advice provided has been incredibly helpful.

And although many will probably either roll their eyes, or groan at this comment... But the reason I am choosing to go with a Hasselblad, is for two reasons. 1. Because I have always wanted one, ever since I picked up a photography book around 10 years ago when I started. 2. I have also worked with several fashion pros who use the H3D system, and admire their work and results considerably. I know the camera doesn't make the photographer etc. etc., but I am confident I have out grown my 35mm system, and am really looking forward to the new challenges and creative potential of a MFD system. Also really looking forward to working with high flash sync speeds of 1/800... a huge plus point for the Hasselblad in the line of work I do.

I have been contacted by someone from Hasselblad in the UK, and they have kindly offered me to attend their London facility and shoot with the full range of lenses, with different backs in a studio environment. To say I'm looking forward to it, is a bit of an understatement!

Currently I am using Adobe Lightroom for managing my photos, and much thanks to fotografz for the information about DNG conversion. I am also quite happy behind a computer being a designer, so am also open to trying Phocus. I am Apple based, and would even migrate to Aperture if it has advantages over Phocus. I will be interested to see how it performs on my new MacBookPro tethered, with their new graphic cards and 4Gb of RAM. I have a feeling with the file sizes generated, it may be wiser to use the Mac Pro for tethered shooting, but I'm getting ahead of myself - haven't picked up a MFD system yet!

I quite like bulky and heavy cameras s.agar. Small and light cameras feel strange to me, especially as an enthusiast sports photographer - a 1D with a 400 2.8 is far from light to move around or work with! I also have large hands, and with prosumer SLR bodies such as Canon 50D - it gets lost in my hands, and is uncomfortable to use.

Now to open another can of worms completely...

What studio lights are favoured by Hasselblad users? I have checked with my current manufacturer, Bowens, and my current lights the QuadX range, should be well in the 1/800 area at full power. I'm just curious to what other peoples choice are.

Thanks again to everyones advice and comments!

Josh.

 

[kipling]

What studio lights are favoured by Hasselblad users?
Josh.

I use profoto equipment. great light, great battery packs for location work, and i can rent everything i need anywhere in europe.

 

[mark1958]

I know a lot use profoto or broncolor as these are the industry standard. I am in the same boat and recently looking into some monolights. After all the reading, I am likely going with Hensel. Good bang for the buck. The issue in the USA is less suppliers and dealers. I looked at elinchrom and bowens. I have gotten mixed reviews on elinchrom...nothing negative on bowens. All good reviews on Hensel.

IN regards to DNG--- you loose the ability to do the lens corrections with the conversion. I have mixed feelings about Phocus. I do think it does a great job but not super fast and i am not 100% pleased with the interface.

I use profoto equipment. great light, great battery packs for location work, and i can rent everything i need anywhere in europe.

Many thanks to everyone who has posted - what a great forum! The information and advice provided has been incredibly helpful.

And although many will probably either roll their eyes, or groan at this comment... But the reason I am choosing to go with a Hasselblad, is for two reasons. 1. Because I have always wanted one, ever since I picked up a photography book around 10 years ago when I started. 2. I have also worked with several fashion pros who use the H3D system, and admire their work and results considerably. I know the camera doesn't make the photographer etc. etc., but I am confident I have out grown my 35mm system, and am really looking forward to the new challenges and creative potential of a MFD system. Also really looking forward to working with high flash sync speeds of 1/800... a huge plus point for the Hasselblad in the line of work I do.

I have been contacted by someone from Hasselblad in the UK, and they have kindly offered me to attend their London facility and shoot with the full range of lenses, with different backs in a studio environment. To say I'm looking forward to it, is a bit of an understatement!

Currently I am using Adobe Lightroom for managing my photos, and much thanks to fotografz for the information about DNG conversion. I am also quite happy behind a computer being a designer, so am also open to trying Phocus. I am Apple based, and would even migrate to Aperture if it has advantages over Phocus. I will be interested to see how it performs on my new MacBookPro tethered, with their new graphic cards and 4Gb of RAM. I have a feeling with the file sizes generated, it may be wiser to use the Mac Pro for tethered shooting, but I'm getting ahead of myself - haven't picked up a MFD system yet!

I quite like bulky and heavy cameras s.agar. Small and light cameras feel strange to me, especially as an enthusiast sports photographer - a 1D with a 400 2.8 is far from light to move around or work with! I also have large hands, and with prosumer SLR bodies such as Canon 50D - it gets lost in my hands, and is uncomfortable to use.

Now to open another can of worms completely...

What studio lights are favoured by Hasselblad users? I have checked with my current manufacturer, Bowens, and my current lights the QuadX range, should be well in the 1/800 area at full power. I'm just curious to what other peoples choice are.

Thanks again to everyones advice and comments!

Josh.

 

[andershald]

I love Elinchromes. I have two heads that I abused solidly for 12 years, never a failure. Recently shot two setups side by side, Pro Photos on one setup and Elinchromes on the other and the Pros just couldn't keep up, every third frame was under or slightly over exposed. The shots with the Elinchromes were 100% identical every frame. Just bought another three heads and they are great! The Sky Ports are a real surprise. They are cheap compared to Pocket Wizards and work just as good. So that's one up for Elinchrome...

Best regards,
Anders

 

[fotografz]

I love Elinchromes. I have two heads that I abused solidly for 12 years, never a failure. Recently shot two setups side by side, Pro Photos on one setup and Elinchromes on the other and the Pros just couldn't keep up, every third frame was under or slightly over exposed. The shots with the Elinchromes were 100% identical every frame. Just bought another three heads and they are great! The Sky Ports are a real surprise. They are cheap compared to Pocket Wizards and work just as good. So that's one up for Elinchrome...

Best regards,
Anders

There's love ... then there's hate.

My Elinchromes misfired consistantly while shooting sequencial frames for amimatics. Every head did it at one time or another.

Also hated the Elichrome mount ... okay for powderpuff light modifiers but put a big box on it and move it around all day ... and all my assistant was doing was repairing the mount. Zero issues like that since finally giving up and going Profoto.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[andershald]

Ha ha... we can't seem to agree on anything!

I guess once again it comes down to what for and how the lights are used. Same as with cameras.

I guess it's another one of the 'try it out, decide what is right for you' cases.

Anders

 

[fotografz]

Ha ha... we can't seem to agree on anything!

I guess once again it comes down to what for and how the lights are used. Same as with cameras.

I guess it's another one of the 'try it out, decide what is right for you' cases.

Anders

Yes, I do agree on that. All we can do is share our experiences, good or bad, and let others decide for themselves.

 

[andershald]

Actually lights are a bit tricky. You need to work with them for a while to really get a feel for them, before you can really tell how you like them. So it is perhaps relevant to take other peoples experiences into consideration. Lights should be something you buy and then don't think about for the ten years of trouble free shooting you have. I know some people swear by pros or bowens or bron, I have had extremely good experiences with Elinchrom, not a single problem since 1996.

Talking about light modifiers, I can pass along a trick that I have used with great success in the studio. Instead of using big expensive softboxes I have streched ordinary white sheets between two autopoles with glamps (actually the oversized pegs you buy in a hardware store for gluing). This gives a great diffused light, with many options for manipulating the light, moving a head closer or further away or using several heads through one sheet. It sounds primitive but works really well...and it's inexpensive to set up.

Anders

 

[metstudios]

I have decided to stop being quite so narrow minded about my venture into MFD... and am off to London on the 13th November to meet with Hasselblad UK, and The Flash Centre (London Dealers) for Phase One/Mamiya (I know the latest PO body is the AFDIII 'twin').

I was advised by foto-z to look into the Sinar Hy6 system. There's only one dealer in the UK listed, and 48 hours later, I have yet to receive a reply to my e-mail. So am wary about purchasing into a system with only one UK dealer - who doesn't respond at least within the same day to an e-mail. Does anyone know of any other UK dealers for the system? (Sinar website only lists Image 2 Output Ltd) Any please excuse the ignorance here - but is the Leaf AFi-II the same as the Sinar?

Would like to thank everyone again for their input and casual advice. It's refreshing to find a forum where although there's 'healthy debate', people don't take pages and pages on a keyboard war over their preferred brand, and provide personal experiences in a clear and friendly way.

Josh.