|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
07-04-2012, 02:04 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
07-04-2012, 02:02 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
06-25-2012, 08:27 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-15-2011, 09:43 PM
|
| |
I scale focus most of the time. Like I said in my first post, I only focus when I use a large aperture or when the subject is close. Unless one is using a 50f1.4 or a 90f2 wide-open all the time, I think that the Bessa's rangefinder base is adequate enough for most people.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-15-2011, 06:59 PM
|
| |
Frank,
See my first post on this thread. Don't treat the rangefinder like an SLR because its not an SLR. Explore a new way of seeing and take advantage of the rangefinder's attributes including the unlimited DOF of its viewfinder. You must also give it time.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-15-2011, 05:15 PM
|
| |
Actually, the flare problem seems somewhat of a mystery but I don't think it is due to the plastic illumination window, which was introduced with the M2. The M2 and M4 doesn't have this problem and neither does the current MP. There are some good theories here:
Leica FAQ — RF patch flare
The Zeiss Ikon's rangefinder follows the same linear design as that of the Leica M3.
I can tell you that the Ikon does feel very nice in the hands but to me it feels much closer to its Voigtlander cousins than to a Leica M. I don't know if it is worth the extra price over a Bessa. For me personally, I'll always choose a Leica (used or new) if given the choice primarily for three reasons: the ease of service and repair, their astonishing resale value, and their proven reliability. I think that the jury is still out on the Voigtlander/Ikon when it comes to these three things. My Bessa T is now around 10 years old and so far its been pretty reliable - no complaints.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-15-2011, 02:50 PM
|
| |
Séamuis,
I'm a Leica user and have handled both the Zeiss Ikon and various Bessas. To me, the main advantage of the Ikon's finder over the finder of a more modern Leica is less clutter. On the Ikon, only the 28 and 85mm framelines are paired - 35mm and 50mm framelines are by themselves. The modern Leica finders have 28/90, 35/135 and 50/75 pairs. That said, the M3, M2 and M4 have less framelines. One can also change the Leica finder to have only the framelines that you want - either by ordering a camera through the "a la carte" program or by having a technician remove them.
I'm not sure if there would be such an advantage over your R3A as its finder doesn't have much clutter. Only the 40/90 lines are paired if I remember correctly? Also the Ikon's finder has 0.74x magnification and not 1.00x like your R3M. The Ikon's finder is quite close to Leica's 0.72x finder. Leica does have .58x and .85x magnification as options in the 'a la carte' program. There are also various eye-piece magnifiers available for Leicas. I use a 1.25x magnifier on my 0.72x MP when I use my 50mm and 90mm lenses. With the Zeiss, I'm not sure if there is a magnifier option. If it has the same eye-piece as the Bessas, then there are the Nikon and MS-Optical magnifiers.
In terms of brightness, I couldn't really tell a difference. All three seem equally bright to me. The Bessa and Ikon have better eye relief for eye-glass wearers. The Ikon's focusing patch doesn't flare apparently. The focussing patch in the M4-2, M4-P, M6 and M7 does flare occasionally. I can tell you that the focusing patches in my MP and M3 never flares. I can also vouch for the M2 and M4 in this regard.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-12-2011, 09:43 PM
|
| |
Umm... Like I said in my previous post, I have two medium format cameras along with a large format camera. So yes.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-12-2011, 05:23 PM
|
| |
Can you imagine a doing street photography with something like this?
Me and the Monster! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
BTW, that's not me in that photo.
All I was saying is that by going up to a MF rangefinder, one will be giving up an some advantages that come with a 35mm rangefinder - primarily the small size factor.
Go back and read my post, I never disputed that. In fact, I have two medium format cameras and a large format view camera for this reason. I said that the higher resolving RF lenses available from Leica and Zeiss SOMEWHAT make up for the small film-size.
Here is a test shot taken with a Leica 90mm Elmarit-M and Adox CMS20.
Adox CMS 20 Test | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
This was a quick, snap-shot taken hand-held and not on a tripod. The resolution was also limited by the scanner. There is far more detail in the negative.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-11-2011, 05:09 PM
|
| |
When it comes to medium-format RF's, one has to take the size of the body into consideration. Most of them are huge and look almost cartoonish. The lenses are also huge and slow. When it comes to print-size, MF does have a clear advantage but the high resolving lenses from Leica and Zeiss make up for that somewhat. With film like Adox CMS 20 combined with lenses from Leica or Zeiss capable of 300+ lp/mm, huge print-sizes are possible. I've used CMS 20 even for street photography and at 20 ISO, it is still quite manageable. In the sun, f/5.6 at 1/250th. In the shade, f/2.8 at 1/60th or 1/125th. I've made 16x24 prints that are sharp and that show no grain!
When it comes to costs, I don't find the prices of good Leica and Zeiss equipment unreasonable. Compared to digitalia that I've seen on this forum that will likely end up in some landfill before a decade is through, I find film Leicas have good value. Besides my MP, none of my Leica bodies cost me over $1000 and with basic service once every 20 years or so, they'll still be working long after I'm gone. A user M4-2, a 35f2.8 Summaron or 50f2 DR Summicron with good glass, a service to get everything in spec, and you have a fantastic kit that will last you the rest of your life for likely less money than a K7 with a kit-lens. And if you decide to get rid of the Leica gear, you can sell it and likely get ALL your money back.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-21-2011, 07:38 PM
|
| |
rt22306,
Sorry to hear about that your camera isn't working. Hopefully this won't be the end of shooting with an RF.
To add to the discussion about RF, first I only focus at wider apertures or when shooting close up. Most of the time when shooting outdoors, I set to my 35mm lens to f/16 and set the infinity mark to f/16 on the DOF scale. Everything from 1.2 meters on will be in focus. I then just use the camera like a point-and-shoot. When I do need to focus, I start turning the focusing ring before bringing the camera up to my eye and when it gets there, just a little adjustment is needed. Besides the smaller size, the quietness, etc. the other advantage of an RF has for street photography is one doesn't need to have their eyes glued to the camera for a very long time. Just bring it to your eye briefly to take the shot and then put the camera down again.
The main advantage of using an RF for me is that I'm not looking through the lens. I'm looking through a window with framelines and unlimited DOF. In other words, the view through the window is the same as the scene before my naked eye - no blurry foreground or background and almost as bright. I have the 35mm and 50mm framelines memorized and know how they'll sit when I'm looking at a scene. (This will only come with practice.). When I want to take a photo, I get into position, bring the camera to my eye, press the shutter and then bring the camera down again. That is the key for me. Photography here is a subtractive exercise. I see an image within the flux and chaos and I extract the image by placing a frame around it.
When I use an SLR (or my TLR or view camera), it is a completely different process because I'm looking through the lens. Looking through the lens for me is like looking through a telescope. I focus back and forth going from different stages of blurriness and sharpness. I am also moving left, right, up and down with my eye glued to the viewfinder seeking out an image or perhaps making an image in the viewfinder. Once I'm satisfied with the image I see in the viewfinder and then snap. This is more of a constructivist method of creating and image as opposed to a subtractive exercise. In turn, the type of photograph I take with my Pentaxes, TLR and view camera tend to have a similar look. However, they are different from the photographs that I take with my Leicas.
The RF (or a direct view camera like a Rollei 35) real advantage is that it promote a different way of seeing. Extracting (or taking) an image instead of creating an image.
I think that many SLR users often cannot adapt well to RF's because they treat them like SLR's. That's why there are complaints about inaccurate framelines, for example. As an RF user primarily, accuracy comes from knowing the lens on the camera and where to position yourself to take the shot. The framelines on my Leicas are accurate enough to serve as confirmation that I positioned myself correctly. With enough practice, one can become extremely precise. As an example, take a look a the following photograph taken by Henri Cartier- Bresson using a Leica. Taken from close up but he still managed to compose the scene to the golden triangles and golden sections with tremendous precision, with perfect focus and it is likely that HC-B just brought his camera to his eye for a second or two. Honestly, take a look at any of his photographs - only painters are more precise when it comes to adhering to classical geometry and composition.
The same is true for RF users going the other way - one can't use an SLR like an RF. I had tremendous difficulties dealing with the blur when looking looking through the lens. In particular, if the background is blurred how do I begin to compose a scene? I didn't like to use the DOF preview lever because the VF got too dark. In the beginning, I dealt with this problem by focussing on infinity first (quickly), then I focussed on my subject - I then tried to compute the two images in my head. Isn't that insane? Composing through an SLR's VF took too much time for me - I think I got myself down to about 3-4 seconds to compose and focus. Then I decided to regulate myself to only using wides like my 28mm Takumar, which I could set hyperfocal distance and everything in the VF would be sharp and I could use the camera like a point-and-shoot. But what's the point of that when I already do this with my RF's? In addition, because RF's lack the mirror-box, the wide-angles lenses are much smaller and offer better image quality. I drove myself nuts! I also used to get preoccupied with not knowing what his happening outside of the frame. Not so much with SLR's but very preoccupied when I was looking down (and not toward the scene) with my Rolleiflex or when I was under a dark cloth. I had to change the way I was seeing. I had to begin constructing an image with the camera when viewing through a lens instead of just taking an image that was already there. Does that make sense? Once I got past this, I started to enjoy through-the-lens cameras. I now have more through-the-lens cameras then RF's even though I still use RF's for the majority of my photographs.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Keep on truckin'!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-13-2011, 07:08 PM
|
| |
The Olympus Trip 35 is not a rangefinder. The Contax G and Rollei 35 mentioned earlier in this thread also aren't rangefinders.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-11-2011, 08:20 PM
|
| |
I've dealt with Kevin Li a number of times. He's an excellent seller and gives great service. One has to take into consideration that he is willing to haggle unless something is rare and sought after. Also with Kevin, you know exactly what you are getting and there's no waiting. I looked for a 85f1.8 S-M-C Takumar on e-Bay for almost two years but I was always outbid or beaten to the punch. Finally, I gave in and bought a mint example from Kevin and had the lens in my hands in two days. (And I didn't pay the listed price.)
Some other good sellers:
Sandy Ritz:
Collectible Cameras
Manfred Schmidt:
Manfred Schmidt Collectible Cameras and Accessories |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-11-2011, 03:03 PM
|
| |
I have only one Cosina-Voigtlander body, a Bessa-T and it has been a good camera. However, I've found that there are sample variations in Cosina-Voigtlander products. I've purchased four Cosina-Voigtlander lenses new and two of them were not satisfactory for me. One had a stiff focussing ring, which I lived with. One lens had to be sent back for a replacement under warranty because it back-focussed. I have a 75mm Heliar that gives sharp results wide-open. A friend of mine has the exact same lens and his gives slightly but noticeably softer images.
When it comes to Leica repairs, I've used Sherry Krauter, Youxin Ye, and Kindermann. Turn-around time have never been more than three weeks. The long turn-around time by DAG is not the norm. That said, DAG is booked solid for months on end for a reason - he has a stellar reputation.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-09-2011, 07:36 PM
|
| |
The image on the Asahiflex is reversed horizontally - like a mirror. Prism finders on later SLR's corrected this.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-09-2011, 02:27 PM
|
| |
The lenses did not have automatic apertures. It was there, perhaps, as an alternative to viewing through a dim waist-level finder when the aperture is set very small.
A direct viewfinder does have some benefits over a TTL prism-finder when it comes to composition. For me, the primary advantage is a view with unlimited DOF. Like looking through a window vs. looking through a telescope. Viewfinders with bright-lines also allow the photographer to see what is happening outside the frame.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-07-2011, 08:55 PM
|
| |
The Contax G system is great. The lenses are spectacular. Unfortunately the camera doesn't have a traditional viewfinder. It has a zoom-finder that zooms in and out to match the lens mounted on the camera. The viewfinder, for me, it the most important aspect of the rangefinder and I simply would not be able to settle for the G's zoom-finder. In addition, it is primarily an autofocus camera. Manual focusing, in my experience, isn't as nice as on a traditional RF. I prefer the Hexar RF, which remains a wonderful bargain. It has similar guts but retains the traditional RF viewfinder and takes M-mount lenses. The Hexar RF is now more expensive than the Contax G and G2.
You can only use the dedicated Zeiss G lenses on the Contax G cameras. With a M-mount camera, you can use hundreds of lenses going back to the 1920's from many different companies; M-mount lenses and earlier screw-mount lenses via an adapter. Pentax made their 43mm Limited available in screw-mount. This is the only RF lens Pentax ever made.
Another problem with the Contax G and Hexar RF is that if something goes wrong with them, there are little options for repair. The best option is to send the camera for repair in Japan.
Of the fixed-lens RF's, I like the Olympus cameras. They're prices are increasing however.
The Rollei 35 is a very fine camera. It is not a rangefinder however. It is a scale-focus camera.
Depending on how much is affordable to you, Leicas shouldn't be ruled out. If you have enough in your budget for a new Voigtlander Bessa, then you can probably afford a used M3, M2 or CL. One of the nice things about Leicas is that usually hold their value well. So if you buy one and then decide that you don't like it, you usually sell it and recover your costs. There is a good chance that you may even make money.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-29-2011, 10:38 PM
|
| |
My first serious camera was a DSLR. I never got anywhere with it. The camera was stolen on a trip and with the insurance money, I purchased a manual film camera. I got along with it very well as it simplified everything for me - I just needed to worry about three things: shutter-speed, aperture and focus. I feel that a manual film camera helped my photography immensely. In fact, if I had continued with a digital camera, I'm certain that I wouldn't have been photographing any longer. At this point, I have no desire to go back to digital.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-20-2011, 09:37 PM
|
| |
I develop my own b&w films and now I develop my C-41 films too. There are no reliable or economical options for me where I live. It would cost me about $20 per roll for C-41 processing locally or through mail-order. Fortunately, I find developing C-41 quite easy and I can ensure beautiful and clean negatives. I use the K2 Unicolor kit. It costs me approximately $2 per roll of 35mm or 120. About $1 per sheet of 4x5 film.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-14-2011, 05:57 PM
|
| |
You are the one that has sour grapes! I do not appreciate the rudeness nor being ridiculed when I was trying to be helpful.
Ziggy and Gary, I think that I've answered your questions so I've deleted my posts. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask over private messaging. I'm not going to waste any more of my time in this thread.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-29-2009, 11:26 PM
|
| |
I wouldn't underexpose BW400CN. It is a C41 film and not a traditional B&W film. In my experience, underexposing resulted in some really dreadfullly muddy negatives. However, I've gotten very nice results shooting it at 200-320 ISO. It is extremely fine-grained for its speed.
If you want to push/pull, I would recommend Tri-X, as it is good for 100-3200 ISO, and that you process the film yourself for full control.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-11-2009, 10:41 PM
|
| |
I haven't used Epson's Exhibition Fiber paper yet. I do most of my printing on Epson Premium Lustre. I normally do 8x12 prints on A3 for 35mm and 15x15 on A2 for 120. I can easily go larger with 35mm negatives but I like 8x12 prints on a 16x20 frame - it gives a nice mat with a 4 inch border all around. A friend of mine who also has a 3800 turned me onto Harman Baryta FB. Its very nice.
|
