Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-03-2018, 05:20 PM   #16
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 963
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
There's absolutely room for both because they can share (67) glass and they have different stengths. The last film wedding I shot I used a the 67 and 645Nii in conjunction with a 35mm for the late night bit-tipsy party that came later at reception. Without waxing on, yes, very much so. They are quite complimentary.
Having acquired the 105/2.4, I'll need to get an adapter as I've read that lens works wonders on the 645n. I paid my invoice yesterday for Eric's loving on the 6x7 and am (im)patiently waiting for its arrival. Looking to pick up a 55mm/4 and perhaps the 135 macro lens.


Started cruising the regular places looking at the Fuji 645 cameras as that seems like it would be a good option to haul around Germany next year in addition to a 35mm body and maybe three-lens kit.

04-03-2018, 05:29 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by jtkratzer Quote
Having acquired the 105/2.4, I'll need to get an adapter as I've read that lens works wonders on the 645n. I paid my invoice yesterday for Eric's loving on the 6x7 and am (im)patiently waiting for its arrival. Looking to pick up a 55mm/4 and perhaps the 135 macro lens.
Honestly, they all do incredibly well on the 645 bodies, but yes, the 105 is a perfect size for it (physically) and renders beautifully at that size (film).





QuoteQuote:
Started cruising the regular places looking at the Fuji 645 cameras as that seems like it would be a good option to haul around Germany next year in addition to a 35mm body and maybe three-lens kit.
Could look to older, good conditions folders... Zeiss-Ikon Nettar, Franka Solida or Rolfix, among many others. Shutter speed limitations are very real, but with slow films, hardly a bother. If you want "deliberate" shooting, there's little else to compare until large format. But the modern Fujis do have modern niceties and are just as or nearly as packable... for a price (which is all that has kept me away).
04-03-2018, 06:08 PM   #18
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 963
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
Honestly, they all do incredibly well on the 645 bodies, but yes, the 105 is a perfect size for it (physically) and renders beautifully at that size (film).







Could look to older, good conditions folders... Zeiss-Ikon Nettar, Franka Solida or Rolfix, among many others. Shutter speed limitations are very real, but with slow films, hardly a bother. If you want "deliberate" shooting, there's little else to compare until large format. But the modern Fujis do have modern niceties and are just as or nearly as packable... for a price (which is all that has kept me away).
I want simple for traveling with family. Full manual to some level of automation (Av) is nice.
04-03-2018, 06:38 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by jtkratzer Quote
I want simple for traveling with family. Full manual to some level of automation (Av) is nice.
My most common quick travel kit is a 35mm with 1 or 2 lengths, and a compact old folding camera (sometimes 2 - they're small) for the "nice" shots I take more time with. It all fits in a small padded camera packing cube, along with film. Chuck that inside any bag. I love all my other cameras, but I got over trying to take a lot of gear long ago. It leads to me spending more time wondering what I'll take where, rather than getting out there and doing stuff.

(Though I do sometimes take the 67 and a couple lengths, along with a compact 35mm like the T2, or even just my Ricoh GR digital.)

Anyhow, I've helped to really digress the thread. Sorry.

04-03-2018, 06:57 PM - 1 Like   #20
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 963
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
My most common quick travel kit is a 35mm with 1 or 2 lengths, and a compact old folding camera (sometimes 2 - they're small) for the "nice" shots I take more time with. It all fits in a small padded camera packing cube, along with film. Chuck that inside any bag. I love all my other cameras, but I got over trying to take a lot of gear long ago. It leads to me spending more time wondering what I'll take where, rather than getting out there and doing stuff.

(Though I do sometimes take the 67 and a couple lengths, along with a compact 35mm like the T2, or even just my Ricoh GR digital.)

Anyhow, I've helped to really digress the thread. Sorry.
No, this is good. It’s all about actually using the stuff rather than just acquiring it. I’m in the same boat at times, spending more time worrying about which lenses to take rather than just grabbing something and making it work. It’s not like any of these shots are really going to be planned out. There will be some familiar places I’d like to get specific shots that will be better than my ZX-30 and kit 28-80 lens on cheap film. When I go to the DR in about seven weeks, I’m planning on taking the 6x7 or 645n. I just don’t really enjoy digital any more. The experience shooting with it, the post required to get it the way I want, etc. There just isn’t the same level of satisfaction compared to making a beautiful photograph with film.

A point and shoot digital is something I likely won’t ever be without for the low light capability, though. I really need to cull the herd on my manual focus 35mm stable and keep maybe three bodies. I can see myself letting go of even my LX kit. Keep the ME Super (family camera), KX and maybe the KM to give to one of the kids if they have an interest and an AF body would be nice. Otherwise, I could do everything else on medium format or a P&S. I wish decent P&S 35mm camera’s weren’t obnoxiously priced. Happy to see film being used, but it seems like hipsters have something to do with the price jumps with their flannel uniforms and lumbersexual YouTube reviews of all things film photography.
04-03-2018, 07:11 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by jtkratzer Quote
with their flannel uniforms and lumbersexual YouTube reviews of all things film photography.
lmao .... you're not wrong. But at the end of the day, I just hope a small number of them decide to learn to SERVICE film cameras.

Yeah, I've culled through my cameras in the past year, especially my rangefinders because I just didn't shoot with them enough. I was lucky enough to receive a mint T2 from my late grandfather last year, so I sold my Ricoh GR1s which was my go-to compact for film. Also inherited a itny Rollei-35 from him as well which I've fallen in love with. They were his two "go-to" film cameras, the only two he kept aside from an old folder that was his grandfathers, after he moved to digital. And I really see why - doubt I'd ever part with now, sentimentality even aside.
Exploring all the options these days is great, even if prices have been rising. There are still plenty of unsung gems out there that haven't become sought after yet. The P67II sure isn't one of them anymore (not that it was ever unsung, but it was at least more affordable than Hassies and Contax for a long stretch... now it's catching up) but I plunked down for one anyhow (a beater) a month ago before I was priced out by the whippersnappers.
And, many of your sentiments echo my own of 5 or 6 years ago. I just stopped playing the digital upgrade game and simultaneous realized that all my post-processing through the years had been attempting to recreate a film look... so I cut out the middleman and went back to the source. No regrets, other than watching Fuji kill off my favorite film stocks slowly... sigh.

---------- Post added 04-03-18 at 07:18 PM ----------

Oh, and insofar as MF folders are concerned, Jurgen Kreckel of Certo6.com reconditions many good old folding cameras for resale here in the states at reasonable prices (many in the $200-500 range), though his website is being revamped currently. Plenty of old folders out there that may work great, but all are so old nowadays they all need *something* so those that haven't seen a CLA in so many years may not be the most reliable (only one of mine has) making Jurgen a good resource. He's on the lookout for a specific camera for me personally even now. I've just become enamored with folder for their size and simplicity, and yet they produce gorgeous MF results. If it isn't mission critical shooting, I usually have one with me.
04-03-2018, 08:02 PM   #22
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 963
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
lmao .... you're not wrong. But at the end of the day, I just hope a small number of them decide to learn to SERVICE film cameras.

Yeah, I've culled through my cameras in the past year, especially my rangefinders because I just didn't shoot with them enough. I was lucky enough to receive a mint T2 from my late grandfather last year, so I sold my Ricoh GR1s which was my go-to compact for film. Also inherited a itny Rollei-35 from him as well which I've fallen in love with. They were his two "go-to" film cameras, the only two he kept aside from an old folder that was his grandfathers, after he moved to digital. And I really see why - doubt I'd ever part with now, sentimentality even aside.
Exploring all the options these days is great, even if prices have been rising. There are still plenty of unsung gems out there that haven't become sought after yet. The P67II sure isn't one of them anymore (not that it was ever unsung, but it was at least more affordable than Hassies and Contax for a long stretch... now it's catching up) but I plunked down for one anyhow (a beater) a month ago before I was priced out by the whippersnappers.
And, many of your sentiments echo my own of 5 or 6 years ago. I just stopped playing the digital upgrade game and simultaneous realized that all my post-processing through the years had been attempting to recreate a film look... so I cut out the middleman and went back to the source. No regrets, other than watching Fuji kill off my favorite film stocks slowly... sigh.

---------- Post added 04-03-18 at 07:18 PM ----------

Oh, and insofar as MF folders are concerned, Jurgen Kreckel of Certo6.com reconditions many good old folding cameras for resale here in the states at reasonable prices (many in the $200-500 range), though his website is being revamped currently. Plenty of old folders out there that may work great, but all are so old nowadays they all need *something* so those that haven't seen a CLA in so many years may not be the most reliable (only one of mine has) making Jurgen a good resource. He's on the lookout for a specific camera for me personally even now. I've just become enamored with folder for their size and simplicity, and yet they produce gorgeous MF results. If it isn't mission critical shooting, I usually have one with me.
You inherited cameras that are routinely going for several hundred dollars with next to no one to service them. One of the primary reasons I continue to stay in the Pentax ecosystem is Eric. Everything camera I own, that’s worth repairing, expect for the 645n, can be serviced by him. I saw your Bessa go and lusted after it, but I’m glad I didn’t add yet another 35mm body. I’d like to try a rangefinder, but not for $1,200 or so and certainly not for Leica prices. Even the Olympus Trip and 35RC models are climbing in price. It would be awesome if someone would bring these back to market. Rumor is that Bellamy Hunt (Japan Camera Hunter) is working on something. I just can’t imagine it would take much to put the autofocus systems on today’s cameras on a body that simply has to move film. DSLRs are certainly big enough to house a film cassette.

I’ll check out the folders. No experience with them in any film form factor.

04-03-2018, 08:26 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by jtkratzer Quote
You inherited cameras that are routinely going for several hundred dollars with next to no one to service them. One of the primary reasons I continue to stay in the Pentax ecosystem is Eric. Everything camera I own, that’s worth repairing, expect for the 645n, can be serviced by him. I saw your Bessa go and lusted after it, but I’m glad I didn’t add yet another 35mm body. I’d like to try a rangefinder, but not for $1,200 or so and certainly not for Leica prices. Even the Olympus Trip and 35RC models are climbing in price. It would be awesome if someone would bring these back to market. Rumor is that Bellamy Hunt (Japan Camera Hunter) is working on something. I just can’t imagine it would take much to put the autofocus systems on today’s cameras on a body that simply has to move film. DSLRs are certainly big enough to house a film cassette.

I’ll check out the folders. No experience with them in any film form factor.
Indeed. Luckily he had the T2 serviced twice, so it should be good for the foreseeable future. I knew it was becoming popular but was astounded when I priced it. I mean its just a compact 35mm after all, a good one no doubt, but even still. And when I let my Ricoh go, I got a fair amount above what I'd paid for it several years earlier, and I priced it aggressively low to boot. I miss the Bessa occasionally, but not often enough to worry over it.

I also inherited (forgot to mention it because it's just not something I use or think of much) a Minolta C35EF... those are still quite cheap, very auto "user friendly" compacts....and it is SURPRISINGLY wonderful. It's a plastic-fantastic but well built and really it shoots very good photos - the lens is oddly quite great. I loaded it with some Svema Color 125 and my better half shot most of it last summer with great results. They go for at most 50 bucks on Ebay. Worth a look. Here's a shot she took of me holding the Rollei not long after I loaded each for the first time, a straight unedited scan except for a light sharpen on LR import. In fact... I may need to start a little thread on this silly little camera.

04-04-2018, 05:56 AM - 1 Like   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: NoVA
Posts: 635
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
...Oh, and insofar as MF folders are concerned, Jurgen Kreckel of Certo6.com reconditions many good old folding cameras for resale here in the states at reasonable prices (many in the $200-500 range), though his website is being revamped currently. Plenty of old folders out there that may work great, but all are so old nowadays they all need *something* so those that haven't seen a CLA in so many years may not be the most reliable (only one of mine has) making Jurgen a good resource. He's on the lookout for a specific camera for me personally even now. I've just become enamored with folder for their size and simplicity, and yet they produce gorgeous MF results. If it isn't mission critical shooting, I usually have one with me.
I have a Moscow 5 camera that started as a copy of an old Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B. It has dual format--6x6 and 6x9, and a rangefinder that is optically coupled (only) between the viewfinder and the focus ring on the lens. It was made in the Krasnogorsk camera factory in 1958.

Moskva-5 | Camerapedia | FANDOM powered by Wikia

The lens is an Industar tessar-type with cell focusing, like the better old 6x9 folders had. The lens is optimized for about 15 feet. Small aperture recommended, especially at other distances. What makes it usable is the large negative. Nothing forgives lenses like low enlargement magnification. At 4x on an 8x12" print, these can be glorious, especially if you can restore a bit of the contrast lost by the old single-coated lenses. At 16x20, you'll start using phrases like "proper viewing distance". These are mechanically simple with little to go wrong--one had to manually cock the shutter separately from winding the film, and one has to advance the film to release the button on the camera body that fires the shutter. But the film advance is red-window, so no need for complicated frame spacing apparatus. 120 only and 8 pictures per roll, as is typical of 6x9.

For those who are curious about old folders, buy one of those if you just want to play and decide if that approach works for you. But I don't recommend a traditional cell-focus folder for serious work unless you don't print large. You'll get all the rich tonality of the larger film area, but the cell focus lenses (even the ones made by Zeiss) are just not that sharp. I think I paid $100 for mine, and they seem to still go for around that price.

Or, use a digital camera with a lens at wide aperture, and in Photoshop, add a slight gaussian blur and reduce contrast.

Some of the 6x6 folders have unit focusing (which moves the whole lens during focusing, not just the front cell), like the Agfa Super Isolette, and can be quite good. One pictured as one of the three background photos on Jurgen's website (and those are the only things you can see at the moment) has a unit-focused CZJ Tessar in a Synchro-Compur shutter, which is hard not to like on principle. But one in a state of good repair is as expensive as a vintage Rolleiflex, and there's no doubt which I would prefer. The main issue I have with old rangefinders is that the rangefinder window (which is usually separate from the viewfinder) is microscopic, and usually surrounded by an eyeglasses-ruining knurled metal ring. Ask me how I know. Glasses removal required, but sometimes I forget.

Rick "who owns a vintage Rolleiflex that still just works" Denney

Last edited by rdenney; 04-04-2018 at 06:11 AM.
04-04-2018, 06:45 AM - 1 Like   #25
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,378
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
Indeed. Luckily he had the T2 serviced twice, so it should be good for the foreseeable future. I knew it was becoming popular but was astounded when I priced it. I mean its just a compact 35mm after all, a good one no doubt, but even still. And when I let my Ricoh go, I got a fair amount above what I'd paid for it several years earlier, and I priced it aggressively low to boot. I miss the Bessa occasionally, but not often enough to worry over it.

I also inherited (forgot to mention it because it's just not something I use or think of much) a Minolta C35EF... those are still quite cheap, very auto "user friendly" compacts....and it is SURPRISINGLY wonderful. It's a plastic-fantastic but well built and really it shoots very good photos - the lens is oddly quite great. I loaded it with some Svema Color 125 and my better half shot most of it last summer with great results. They go for at most 50 bucks on Ebay. Worth a look. Here's a shot she took of me holding the Rollei not long after I loaded each for the first time, a straight unedited scan except for a light sharpen on LR import. In fact... I may need to start a little thread on this silly little camera.
But the Rollie 35! Now, that camera was awesome. The 35LED was the first camera I bought for myself, in the summer of 1976. It was stolen, and replaced with another, and then a lovely black 35S, I think. Loved those cameras.
04-04-2018, 08:53 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
I have a Moscow 5 camera that started as a copy of an old Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B. It has dual format--6x6 and 6x9, and a rangefinder that is optically coupled (only) between the viewfinder and the focus ring on the lens. It was made in the Krasnogorsk camera factory in 1958.

Moskva-5 | Camerapedia | FANDOM powered by Wikia

The lens is an Industar tessar-type with cell focusing, like the better old 6x9 folders had. The lens is optimized for about 15 feet. Small aperture recommended, especially at other distances. What makes it usable is the large negative. Nothing forgives lenses like low enlargement magnification. At 4x on an 8x12" print, these can be glorious, especially if you can restore a bit of the contrast lost by the old single-coated lenses. At 16x20, you'll start using phrases like "proper viewing distance". These are mechanically simple with little to go wrong--one had to manually cock the shutter separately from winding the film, and one has to advance the film to release the button on the camera body that fires the shutter. But the film advance is red-window, so no need for complicated frame spacing apparatus. 120 only and 8 pictures per roll, as is typical of 6x9.

For those who are curious about old folders, buy one of those if you just want to play and decide if that approach works for you. But I don't recommend a traditional cell-focus folder for serious work unless you don't print large. You'll get all the rich tonality of the larger film area, but the cell focus lenses (even the ones made by Zeiss) are just not that sharp. I think I paid $100 for mine, and they seem to still go for around that price.

Or, use a digital camera with a lens at wide aperture, and in Photoshop, add a slight gaussian blur and reduce contrast.

Some of the 6x6 folders have unit focusing (which moves the whole lens during focusing, not just the front cell), like the Agfa Super Isolette, and can be quite good. One pictured as one of the three background photos on Jurgen's website (and those are the only things you can see at the moment) has a unit-focused CZJ Tessar in a Synchro-Compur shutter, which is hard not to like on principle. But one in a state of good repair is as expensive as a vintage Rolleiflex, and there's no doubt which I would prefer. The main issue I have with old rangefinders is that the rangefinder window (which is usually separate from the viewfinder) is microscopic, and usually surrounded by an eyeglasses-ruining knurled metal ring. Ask me how I know. Glasses removal required, but sometimes I forget.

Rick "who owns a vintage Rolleiflex that still just works" Denney
I agree with much of this, but "serious work" is subjective. I wouldn't recommend folders for professional event work for reasons far beyond the lens, and in general most paid work is a challenge at best these days on film in general. But "not that sharp" is true in the modern sense, but most of the decent lenses are lovely and can be tack sharp, at least in the center, and better when stopped down in their sweet-spots. Character from start to finish and idiosyncratic at best for sure.
This is an album on my flickr with shots from my two old Franka cameras in recent years. I just printed three of these shots at around 36" for showing. One is already spoken for. "Serious work" is subjective.
Franka-Kamerawerk | Flickr

---------- Post added 04-04-18 at 08:57 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
But the Rollie 35! Now, that camera was awesome. The 35LED was the first camera I bought for myself, in the summer of 1976. It was stolen, and replaced with another, and then a lovely black 35S, I think. Loved those cameras.
It's an amazing design through and through. And the sheer DENSITY of it is impressive. Tiny but it has mass and could be used as a weapon.
04-04-2018, 10:33 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
One pictured as one of the three background photos on Jurgen's website (and those are the only things you can see at the moment) has a unit-focused CZJ Tessar in a Synchro-Compur shutter, which is hard not to like on principle.
That's the exact one he's looking out for me. I passed on one two years ago and regret it.
04-04-2018, 06:32 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: NoVA
Posts: 635
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
I agree with much of this, but "serious work" is subjective. I wouldn't recommend folders for professional event work for reasons far beyond the lens, and in general most paid work is a challenge at best these days on film in general. But "not that sharp" is true in the modern sense, but most of the decent lenses are lovely and can be tack sharp, at least in the center, and better when stopped down in their sweet-spots. Character from start to finish and idiosyncratic at best for sure.
This is an album on my flickr with shots from my two old Franka cameras in recent years. I just printed three of these shots at around 36" for showing. One is already spoken for. "Serious work" is subjective.
Franka-Kamerawerk | Flickr
I've made many photos with tessar-type lenses. Some are great, others not so much. A unit-focused tessar-type lens, used at an appropriate aperture for whatever effect you are seeking, can be very nice. But the cell-focus design was a compromise for portability. They are great at 15 feet, so pictures, particularly of people, will show good subject separation even with a small aperture. But even in my short time here so far, I've said frequently that my objective is a sense of endless detail, and most of the folders can't deliver that. As you say, that is not always what we are attempting to achieve. A Super Ikonta-style camera at 6x9 can indeed give a vintage look to an image.

I have and use a 180mm CZJ Sonnar. At f/2.8, it's never as sharp as a modern Oberkochen Sonnar or any modern lens of the same focal length. But it has a rendering that even non-photographers can see clearly. Probably the softness wide open is a bit of residual undercorrected spherical aberration, which probably helps given that background its creamy bokeh even when stopped down enough to render the focus plane tack-sharp. That's the classic Sonnar look. But I've also read reviews of those very lenses from those who don't get it--they are too soft for them. Different set of objectives.

So, I take your correction with no hesitation.

But lots of people think the rangefinder folder is so neat looking that they just have to have one, and they spend a fortune on a Fuji GF670 or many hundreds on a 60-year-old Super Isolette only to be disappointed by how such cameras really work in the field. A camera like the Moscow 5 for a c-note is a much cheaper experiment, and within the context of cell focusing, it does pretty well.

Rick "who needs to run a roll through his" Denney
04-05-2018, 01:45 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
I've made many photos with tessar-type lenses. Some are great, others not so much. A unit-focused tessar-type lens, used at an appropriate aperture for whatever effect you are seeking, can be very nice. But the cell-focus design was a compromise for portability. They are great at 15 feet, so pictures, particularly of people, will show good subject separation even with a small aperture. But even in my short time here so far, I've said frequently that my objective is a sense of endless detail, and most of the folders can't deliver that. As you say, that is not always what we are attempting to achieve. A Super Ikonta-style camera at 6x9 can indeed give a vintage look to an image.

I have and use a 180mm CZJ Sonnar. At f/2.8, it's never as sharp as a modern Oberkochen Sonnar or any modern lens of the same focal length. But it has a rendering that even non-photographers can see clearly. Probably the softness wide open is a bit of residual undercorrected spherical aberration, which probably helps given that background its creamy bokeh even when stopped down enough to render the focus plane tack-sharp. That's the classic Sonnar look. But I've also read reviews of those very lenses from those who don't get it--they are too soft for them. Different set of objectives.

So, I take your correction with no hesitation.

But lots of people think the rangefinder folder is so neat looking that they just have to have one, and they spend a fortune on a Fuji GF670 or many hundreds on a 60-year-old Super Isolette only to be disappointed by how such cameras really work in the field. A camera like the Moscow 5 for a c-note is a much cheaper experiment, and within the context of cell focusing, it does pretty well.

Rick "who needs to run a roll through his" Denney
The Tessar varieties that are unitfocused are definitely more modern and exacting in rendering, but my small point is that (and I realize it's a minority opinion in general, but perhaps not around here) is that I don't really care. Without waxing details about edge-to-edge and the how and why, some of my favorite images have been taken with cell-focused triplets, creating a depth that one might recreate with the aforementioned touch-ups, brushes and Gaussian blurs - but how boring is that?
This, taken last summer turned out, IMO, better for having ridiculous amount of distortion and quite unsharp areas everywhere but center. It's toeing the the line, but I adore the way this little Trinar displays the world.



It's no surprise really... half the population seems to seek out Sony and Fuji's latest tricks, whilst the other half plays with filters on instagram. Neither are wrong. I personally believe "endless detail" is an endless quest, and that same feeling can be found without the literal achieving of it. But then, 'proper viewing distance' is something I am entirely alright with.
04-12-2018, 05:30 AM   #30
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 632
QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
I can help you with this bit only, as I am one.

I think you won today.


PS Great movie and a lovely country.

---------- Post added 04-12-2018 at 08:48 AM ----------

In my stable there is room for both Pentax 645 and 67, plus the Fuji 690 texandrews mentions... oh and the Fuji GX680, the Minolta Autocord is nice too. But like most folks here with many horses in the stable, I can only ride one at a time and if I am feeling ambitious I will rope one or maybe two together and ride with three - but this gets too cumbersome and I feel holds me back from shooting more.

When push comes to shove though, I have my digital Nikon gear along with the Pentax 645N and some glass for it (wait... how did the Widelux sneak in? but it is pretty slender).


You have a very nice line up with the A35, A55, A75 and A150 for your 645. The 67 105mm with an adapter for the 645 make that a really lovely kit! Try and find a Zoerk/Zork (NOT Zorki) PSA Shift adapter for 6x7 glass on your 645 body. A really nice adapter is you want to do some stitching.

Smart move on having the 6x7 shipped right to Eric. I need to send my bodies in to him for some care. There has been a lot of really good, thorough discussions here about glass for the 6x7/67 system. Check out some of the posts by the folks chiming in on your thread as we all as Steve "desertscape" , where he describes the 6x7 glass - these folks really knows their lens design and I have learned a great deal from them.

QuoteOriginally posted by jtkratzer Quote
For those with experience with both camera systems (medium formats), is there room in the stable for both or do you find yourself with 35mm and one of the two? At a time when I’d like to thin the herd of my 35mm stuff (mostly due to getting loads of stuff I don’t want, need or use from sellers who won’t break up a package), I don’t want to just keep adding and as a result, use a number of items even more infrequently. I’m just curious at this point, as I have yet to even put my hands on the 6x7. I asked the seller to send it directly to Eric for some TLC.

Pentax 645n kit includes (all manual A lenses) - 35, 55, 75 and 150.

REALLY, just curious what your progression and experience has been and where you ended. I don’t think I knew MF existed until I joined this forum a number of years ago.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, 645d, 645n, 645z, 6x7, 6x7 vs, adapter, camera, cameras, experience, film, folder, folders, fuji, kit, lens, lenses, medium format, mf, pentax, plenty, prices, shutter, stuff, subjective
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Dilemma: Sonnar or Ultron (There can be only one!!!) Stavri Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-26-2015 09:06 PM
Abstract Become an instant Highlander, "There can be only one" Kerrowdown Post Your Photos! 28 12-13-2013 02:17 PM
First Roll of 6x4.5...post your 6x4.5 and 6x7 shots Mountain Vision Pentax Medium Format 18 06-16-2009 12:26 AM
The Highlander Elephant and some more views from the Scottish Highlands brkl Post Your Photos! 0 04-05-2009 04:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top